Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2007 and related amendments in the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2007 to the Trade Practices Act 1974. Today we have an opportunity to see the passage of legislation in this House that will enable digital radio services in Australia and enhance the radio experience of millions of Australians. We have this unique opportunity, but we also have an obligation to get it right. Let us be clear: federal Labor cleanly supports the introduction of a sound policy framework that will allow innovative digital radio services to be accessible to all Australians. A sound policy framework includes provisions for efficient and appropriate technology, settings, licensing arrangements and regulation to ensure equitable access and maximum uptake amongst broadcasters and listeners.

These are complex matters, and to ensure that we have the best possible outcome it is essential that the legislation be given due consideration by the parliament and that meaningful consultation be undertaken with key stakeholders. Unfortunately, as has been the case with so much legislation that has passed through both houses of the Australian parliament, the opportunity for careful scrutiny has been lost by the Howard government’s greater imperative to ensure the unhindered passage of its legislation and to undermine yet again the democratic process.

Members on the other side may argue that a Senate inquiry was held to explore issues of concern relating to this broadcasting legislation—and it was indeed. However, the way in which the inquiry was conducted highlights the government’s disinterest in proper scrutiny of its legislation. It highlights the Howard government’s desire for the Senate to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for its proposed legislation.

The Senate referred the digital radio bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for an inquiry on 29 March 2007, with a reporting deadline of 30 April 2007. The committee advertised its call for submissions on 4 April and requested that submissions be received by 12 April. Interested parties had fewer than 10 days to consider some 137 pages of amendments and to submit a meaningful response. Also, the Senate inquiry committee members received submissions and information for deliberation just one day prior to the scheduled meeting of the committee. There is no reason why this legislation or, indeed, any other legislation that stands to impact on millions of Australians should be accelerated through the parliament without proper consideration.

Labor supports the introduction of digital radio. Labor’s involvement in parliamentary deliberation is not to stifle the passage of the bill; rather, it is to iron out any creases, thereby improving the legislation in the interests of the many Australians who will be affected by it. This is Labor’s interest and it is our responsibility. It is imperative that the best possible legislative framework is agreed upon as we go forward into the digital realm. Unfortunately, we again see signs of a government that has been in power for too long and has lost touch with the importance of the democratic process, a government that is ready and willing to place the national interest last on its priority list because it is always the short-term political interest that dominates the objectives of this government. We see blatant disregard for process, time and time again.

As noted, Labor appreciates the importance of introducing digital radio in Australia and will for this reason not deny giving the bill a second reading. However, the bill has significant shortcomings, which Labor has attempted to address through the Senate inquiry process. Labor’s concerns have been disregarded in that forum. Therefore, we will again attempt in this forum to make important improvements to the policy framework by moving a second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes

(a)

that the Senate Committee inquiry into the bill did not allow interested parties sufficient time to consider and draft submissions to the committee, this constraint not allowing meaningful consultation on the bill;

(b)

the lack of information as to how the omission of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) platform from the legislation will affect the roll-out of digital radio to rural and regional Australia and notes that this legislation only specifies the use of Digital Radio Broadcasting (DAB); and

(c)

that trials on DRM and compression standards are still being carried out;

(2)

calls for debate on the bill to be deferred until meaningful consultation has occurred; and

(3)

demands that the Government make every endeavour to ensure that standards are in place to enable the rollout of digital radio to remote, rural and regional Australia”.

I moved that amendment because it is only reasonable that there be proper scrutiny and that we get this right. We know that the pace of technological change has been quite extraordinary in recent times, particularly when it comes to communications, and we need to make sure that all Australians, regardless of where they live, get access to the improvements in that technology.

Labor’s amendment primarily goes to the point of equitable access of digital capacity and services to rural, remote and regional areas of Australia. It is imperative that every effort is made to ensure that standards are put in place to enable the rollout of digital radio to rural, remote and regional areas. One way this can be achieved is by making provision for the future implementation of the Digital Radio Mondiale, DRM, platform, should this prove to be the mechanism that enables digital radio rollout to rural and remote areas. As members would be aware, there are a number of different technologies available for digital radio broadcasting.

The proposed legislative framework requires that commercial broadcasters will be using the digital audio broadcasting platform. In its submission to the Senate inquiry the ABC indicated that DAB will not adequately service regional and remote areas. They maintain that the DRM system would allow better coverage. I think the government needs to respond to that submission by the ABC. This concern was acknowledged by the Senate inquiry committee. In their final report coalition senators stated:

The committee hopes that the government will take an approach that minimises the barriers to the adoption of digital radio in regional and remote areas.

However, in drafting the legislative framework, the DRM platform is omitted and there is a lack of information as to how this omission will affect the rollout of digital radio across Australia. While it is conceivable that DRM trials are still underway, it makes sense that the best digital radio standard be determined before the provisions of the bill come into effect—or, at the very least, that there is scope within the legislation to move to an alternative platform if this proves to be a better option. Explicitly providing such a possibility also provides manufacturers of radio receivers with an incentive to produce multiformat devices that can be adapted to receive both DAB and DRM. Once again, the absence of critical DRM information goes to my initial argument about the need to provide adequate time for deliberation on this bill. There is simply no need to rush the passage of this legislation. Getting it right from the beginning ensures the best possible outcome for service providers and consumers and provides industry with long-term certainty in relation to technology development.

I want to also address access entitlements and the operation of multiplex licences as they will be impacted by this legislation. In Australia, much of the spectrum suitable for digital radio broadcasting is already being used for analog and digital television and for defence communications. As a result unoccupied spectrum appropriate for digital radio services is limited. To maximise access the spectrum is split into ‘multiplexes’, allowing a number of different streams of content to be broadcast within the one spectrum. The DAB technology allows nine channels per multiplex. The bill does not provide guaranteed capacity for community radio broadcasting services on all available multiplexes. For example, the bill provides for commercial and community broadcasters to share category 1 licences and makes access by community broadcasters dependent on the decisions of commercial broadcasters. This provision in the legislation denies community broadcasters equitable access to the digital spectrum because they must first rely on a commercial broadcaster to seek digital capacity. Further inaccessibility issues arise in relation to category 2 licences, where community radio will only have access to licences if there is spare capacity after category 1 licences are filled.

National broadcasters are also disadvantaged. They have raised concerns that the requirement to form a company in order to be eligible to access category 3 licences places additional tax obligations and administrative costs on the broadcasters. That the Australian Communications and Media Authority can only issue multiplex licences to ‘digital representative companies’ is also onerous for community broadcasters.

It is clear that these are all complex issues worthy of adequate discussion and consideration so as to provide a digital radio service that best serves the nation. ‘Use it or lose it’ provisions in the proposed legislation allow ACMA to convert a licensee’s licence back to analog where it is not providing at least one digital commercial radio broadcasting service in its licence area. The legislation lacks any guidelines that ACMA should follow in exercising its discretion to convert licences back to analog. For example, it is unclear what would constitute an exceptional circumstance or reasonable excuse for a broadcaster not providing a commercial radio service in any given area. Also, it is unclear where this leaves community broadcasters in the event that a commercial radio broadcasting licensee, on whom the community broadcaster depends, ceases to hold a digital licence.

Content provisions also allow commercial, community or national broadcasters to take advantage of the new digital technologies which will allow them to deliver content other than traditional audio programming. This includes, and is limited to, content in the form of text or still visual images, or in a form specified in a legislative instrument made by the minister. The explanatory memorandum highlights animation as an example of further content which could be approved by the minister though a legislative instrument. Animation and video clips are already available on mobile phones. There is no evidence to suggest that inclusion of such content on digital radio would threaten the digital TV industry. In fact inclusion of such content is likely to encourage the take-up of digital radio. That the minister should have to approve further content is a retrograde provision that should be removed.

In conclusion, the introduction of digital radio is unquestionably an exciting development in the evolution of radio. It can offer a more robust transmission system and a range of images and text information which will facilitate access to warnings—particularly relating to weather—news, traffic updates, sports updates and stock exchange information, as well as additional functionality such as record and rewind. However, the move to digital is technically complex. We must ensure that rural, remote and regional areas in Australia are adequately serviced. We know that these communities are missing out, now, on much of the communications and information technology revolution that people in the inner west of Sydney, which I represent, can take for granted.

We need to make sure that equity of access is permitted and ensured from the very beginning. That is why my amendment goes to the need for further, proper consultation in ensuring that we get this legislation right. We must ensure access and entitlement issues are well managed, and we must ensure there are no unnecessary restrictions on content. Time invested in this transition today will result in better uptake of the technology and efficiencies tomorrow.

The government’s expeditious behaviour jeopardises the development of the best possible policy framework to take Australia forward. Good policy is made better through appropriate consideration and deliberation. Good policy is made worse through hasty decision making, which, once again, puts at risk the national interest. I urge the House to favourably consider the amendment that I have moved, which is directed towards making sure that this bill is the best possible bill that this House can carry and does justice to the important issues of digital radio as we move forward.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak on this amendment. It is the first time I have spoken on media related subjects for a handful of years or more, because of my responsibilities in the executive of government, but I bring to this subject a passion, which I declare to the House, when it comes to radio, particularly commercial radio. It was my first love. It was my first job when I left MacGregor State High School in 1977.

We had run a school radio station, 4MG, which first started out in 1974. That school radio station ran for over 20 years with other students getting bitten by the bug which is radio, the most exciting of all media. Radio is, without a doubt, the most personal media and the most instantaneous media. It is the media which others, such as television, try to copy. Perhaps Sky News do the best job of that by being instant and live and in running things, because they have great ex-radio journalists like Roy Jamieson as producers. I simply make the point—and my declaration has been made—because it was only the member for Fadden who was there on 24 November 1974, at the opening of 4MG at MacGregor high school, as an ex-commercial radio announcer, ex-commercial radio presenter—the first face on Channel 0, now Channel 10, in Brisbane. The member for Fadden and I are the two people in this chamber who actually know something about commercial radio. So you can imagine how I felt listening and watching as the member for Grayndler rightly said that technology is driving the change, and wanting to participate in this debate.

Let me salute Senator Helen Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, because she has a job that I probably once coveted. I concede publicly, as I have conceded to her, that the legislative and legal framework associated with communications these days means that I will yield to her as a legal eagle. But if the Prime Minister wants to ring me one day I would be happy to take the call!

The key thing about commercial radio is viability. The member for Grayndler had a contorted—I was so sad for him—14 minutes of sheer pain. Three minutes into his contribution he moved his second reading amendment to try and get content. He was, in a discussion about digital radio, a bit like one of those old valve sets. One of his valves definitely needed a bit of a polish, because there was no oomph in it, no interest in it. As he rightly said, technology is driving it, but he demanded that government somehow or other presuppose what technology is going to be like and pick winners. The member for Grayndler, if he had been in this place in the seventies, would have been moving amendments demanding that Beta be the format of choice and that VHS be banished. Even though Beta was technically better, the marketplace went for VHS. The two things that are driving it are the technology and also the market, and viability is at the heart of this.

It is no point at all that—out of some aspiration, as the member for Grayndler suggested—rural and regional Australia are missing out on something. There is no point at all in imposing digital radio on, particularly, commercial and community operators in those parts of Australia when there is uncertainty about exactly what format is going to work. There is no point in destroying the viability of those radio stations by them forking out money to chase the technology rabbit down one hole when it is going to pop up out of another one. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2007 and cognate bill establish a framework by which digital radio can roll out over a period of time that works for the commercial radio industry.

Perhaps my only objection to the legislation is that we restrict the possibilities of what digital radio could deliver. There is a convergence of technology taking place today where you can click on the web and watch moving pictures—albeit at a slower rate than perhaps some would like, but it is getting faster every day. The complete nonsense that Telstra flogs about broadband speeds being too slow in Australia has to be put to rest. I welcome the group of nine telcos’ contribution to that debate today. The point I make is that online convergence of moving pictures and sound at digital quality will damage the radio industry if we are not careful. Australia rightly has a very strong and proud history when it comes to the use of radio as a means of communication, entertainment and information.

One of the great complaints I have is that over too many generations of both sides of politics radio has been the lab rat of media experiments. Radio was subjected to more foreign ownership than any other point in the media dial. We could have people from all parts of the world owning all parts of the radio network around Australia. As they were chasing the viability of their sector, they amalgamated a lot of licences together, and that is why we have hubs in Albury, the Gold Coast and Townsville which are sending news all through the Sunshine Coast and so forth. It is not necessarily live and local radio these days as much as we would like. I think one of the things the government could look at is a licensing regime that makes licence fees cheaper for live and local radio stations and more expensive if you simply want to hub out of one place and beam, whether it is digital or analog signals, out of a transmission tower for which you have purchased a licence. That subject is perhaps for another day.

Equally, we need to make sure that we do not damage the enormous capacity radio has to reinvent itself, to change itself and to provide for itself a home in this convergence of technology. TV stations are under a similar amount of pressure. Newspapers are now sending out film crews with their journalists. I had the Courier-Mail come my office a couple of months ago, and there was a News Ltd crew for streaming video online. My only question is: why can’t radio do that if they want to also provide that sort of service? This legislation restricts them. It specifies certain things that we should at this point in time be doing with digital radio.

Nevertheless, this legislation does not lock into place the best guess of government, which is probably more likely than not to be the least likely to know where technology is going to go. No offence to any of the hardworking public servants in the Department of Communications, IT and the Arts, but in the end they are going to take their advice from people like Des DeCean of Austereo. I declare that Des is somebody I worked with—it seems like 100 years ago, but it must have been about 25 years ago—at 2CA. He would probably be the best walking, talking authority on radio and digital radio in Australia, and he works for Austereo, a major player in Australia’s media empires. Around this country they have major, very popular metropolitan stations—Triple M and B105 in Brisbane, for instance.

I simply make the point that the best knowledge is obviously in the companies themselves, in the organisations that are daily planning how to maintain their viability, how to ensure that something they sell—that is, access to the airwaves, to advertisers—turns a dollar and enables them to make a profit. How do they finance that? By having popular programming and by more people having access to them than to other radio stations. They maintain their viability by having a sufficient number of listeners to ensure that they have the ratings that they need to sell the advertising time that they need to sustain it all, and on it goes.

One of the things that radio has to do is, as all the other media have done, to diversify the range of things they can sell. During the cricket coverage during summer they could be flogging a 0055 number to vote for the best catch or to purchase a cricket bat that Tony Greig has endorsed. That is what television is doing—providing access through the phone lines or the internet to purchase things from the cricket shop. Why is it that radio do not have the capacity, as they would under this legislation, to point people to competition, fine-print details and other things on their website or indeed to broadcast that through a separate channel? While they are broadcasting their main audio program on one channel, the visual content, still pictures, could explain some of the fine print and details of any competitions they run. Why can’t they do that? That is what this digital technology is promising and creating a certain environment for.

The member for Grayndler put great store in the importance of community radio in rural and regional Australia. I do not disagree with the importance of that, but this legislation is marking out the six major metropolitan markets and saying: ‘Let’s see what the radio industry decides for itself within the framework of this legislation using the technology that is available and driving people towards this technology through their market influence. Let’s see what technology and the market together can deliver. Let’s trust the industry to create an environment in which it will turn people onto this digital radio technology.’ You obviously have to have a framework in which that can operate and that is what this legislation is providing.

We are introducing a six-year moratorium on the issue of new area planned commercial radio licences from the commencement of services in the respective markets so that we can allow those radio stations to bed down this far higher cost to their overall operation to maintain their viability while they prove the technology. This proof of technology is important because, for regional and rural areas, and indeed community radio, to have the opportunity to look at the example of the success or otherwise that has been generated by the more highly profitable stations in major metro markets and then make decisions, is an obvious, common-sense approach. But if you listened to Labor, the lab rat concept would continue. Their idea is, ‘Radio is not all that important; we will just poke and prod and see where it bleeds and, moreover, we will plan where the blood happens to run.’ That is a dreadful analogy and I wish they had not used it. They have done this before. Paul Keating’s famous ‘princes of print or queens of the screen’ declaration of the mid-eighties destroyed the radio and television industries and even damaged the newspaper industry in this country for many years. The job losses in the Brisbane market alone were astronomical in the late eighties. The full effect of the consumption of radio and television licences by those with lots of money to spend continues, so it is absolutely important that we create a framework wherein the technology can grow, drive forward and be bedded down.

If you listened to the member for Grayndler, you would not even start the process until you had had a full-on second guess by mere politicians and slowed the whole process down and then told this sector what they should do. I do not for a moment believe the knowledge would ever reside in a Senate committee, with the greatest respect to our brothers and sisters in the other place. I do not believe the knowledge would reside in a Senate committee ahead of the knowledge which resides in people like Des DeCean and others who have the technology background, who have experience in the industry, who understand where the industry gets its money from, how it maintains itself and how it plans to reinvent itself yet again.

In that regard, this legislation has got the balance right. This legislation does not declare but leaves open the way in which the system itself can develop the way ahead. This legislation simply talks about the Eureka 147 platform and the fact that we know that there is a need to ensure that digital radio can provide a real improvement on the analog services in regional Australia. It says that we do not think there can be a replication of the extensive broadcast coverage of services in many regional markets under that Eureka 147 platform, particularly AM services, and that we will be looking at other technologies, including the one the member for Grayndler mentioned—the digital radio mondiale system. But we are not locking people into them. The last time I bought a new computer for myself was 11 years ago. I spent a couple of grand on it to upgrade the hard drive and then Bill Gates brought out something else and I could not fit it on the computer. We laypeople cannot possibly guess where technology is going to take us next, and I do not think the cumbersome wheels of government should be restraining the way in which technology in the market is driving things forward.

This whole thing will be decided essentially at the consumer level by people of about the age of 12 to 15 because they will be the ones consuming things such as the examples that were given by the member for Grayndler, the additional things that radio stations will be able to broadcast on other parts of the spectrum—still pictures and so forth. Just as mobile phone companies are offering ring tones and screensavers, radio stations will be able to offer the same thing. Equally, they will be able to do as they have done in parts of England for some years using digital technology and give you a digital readout of where traffic jams are and not just simply the audio report from some eye in the sky. You will be able to get your weather report through a different frequency. Getting this system right and working in all parts of Australia is going to be a far greater challenge than it is around Greater London, where it has been bedded down for most of the past decade. The government has to act within a framework which allows all of these possibilities to be discovered. That is what this legislation today is dealing with. It is certainly not specifying the outcome, but it is specifying a framework within which many of the flowers in the garden can flourish.

Consistent with the government’s commitment, given most recently at the last election, the government is maintaining that community broadcasters will be included in the initial planning process. The great diversity of radio in Australia today is being delivered by the community radio broadcasting sector, such as on Logan 101, where I know the member for Fadden is heard on a Sunday night playing the great show tunes, Julie London and people like that. They were around before I was born but, nevertheless, these sorts of community radio stations are very much living up to the mantra of ‘radio is where you live’. The importance of radio is that it is the ultimate one-to-one communication vehicle. For those of us who have been broadcasters, when we talk to one person at a time we might just happen to have hundreds of thousands or, if our ratings are good, maybe millions of people listening, but it is a very personal media. It is something we do not want to lose as the technology which is constantly driving this debate continues to pervade what has been a marvellous friend for so many people over the years.

The commercial radio industry have generally welcomed the government’s announcement of preparation for enabling legislation—and that is what this is: enabling legislation to build the framework on which other things can happen for the implementation of digital radio. They know that the start date of 1 January 2009 is feasible. It is in line with industry expectations and business planning. It allows the viability question to be exercised, and it allows businesses to make forward plans, report to shareholders and create an environment by which they can carefully and methodically plan their next step. But again the Labor Party and their politburo, central-planning concept of the way you should run government say very plainly: ‘The Senate committee will decide on the logic. Forget all of the technicians and the people who understand the radio industry, forget all of the viability questions, forget the way the market wants to operate and forget the technology; this is what you will do.’ It is no way to run a railroad or a radio station.

I congratulate Senator Helen Coonan for the close work and I congratulate the departmental officers who no doubt have worked with her. In closing, I make the point that it is very plain to me that this will continue to be an ever-receding finish line—that technology will continue to provoke further changes. We want to see radio stations that have access to spectrum that is being preserved for this make good use of it and—if they are able to because the market demands it, the technology is settled and the industry has its absolute act together—introduce this well before 1 January 2009. But it is absolutely critical that the government’s way of doing this is understood as a way of building the critical mass by which others outside of major metro areas will be able to respond in time—that others in the community sector will be able to respond in the period of time.

The reason the member for Grayndler was the lead speaker in this and wimped out at 14 minutes will be a matter of enormous speculation in the commercial radio sector. Perhaps it could be because the Labor Party have no digital radio policy. In fact, when Senator Conroy put out a press release at the announcement of the digital radio framework in October 2005, he simply criticised the framework for not delivering radio services to rural and regional areas. Nothing has changed. The member for Grayndler was mouthing Senator Conroy’s press release of October 2005 here again. All this time down the track, and they pretend they want to be the government at the end of the year. They have no digital radio policy and no vision for Australia. Labor stand condemned.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the member for Moreton stays in the House to understand why the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2007 does not get the balance right. Labor does support us going digital in radio but it believes going digital means going digital for the whole of the country, not just for the capital cities. That is the fundamental problem with this bill. It has been conceived in haste. It is in the right direction, but it is a direction that only benefits the capital cities. Why shouldn’t we get right the framework that ensures the technology delivers it? I see the member for Moreton is now leaving the chamber. He poses the question of why Labor is concerned about the direction of this bill but will not stay. However, I am pleased to see he is now staying for the answer.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish the member for Hotham to misrepresent me. I have answered the question he has posed to me, so I reject his point that I am now leaving.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice that he has no point of order and now he is not even staying in the chamber to listen to the answer to the question that he has posed. Why is that? Because he does not have any concern for regional and rural Australia, and nor does this bill. This bill does not get the balance right, and that is why we have moved the amendment that says we should defer the implementation of this bill until we do understand where this technology takes us.

It is not just the Labor Party that says that; it is also the national broadcaster, the ABC. The ABC has indicated that it believes that the only technology being referred to in the legislation is the digital radio broadcasting which is referred to as DAB or the Eureka 147 platform, but the ABC says that this will not adequately service remote areas. The commercial radio stations that the member for Moreton refers to may think it is great because they may be interested only in serving the capital cities, but the ABC is a broadcaster of international repute covering something like 100 per cent of the country, and it has problems with the direction of the framework that is being proposed in this bill. The ABC goes on to say:

… a wide-area digital radio standard should be determined before the provisions of the ... Bill come into effect.

The bill omits the very technology that will provide that regional platform. Again, do not just take the Labor Party’s word for it; look at what the explanatory memorandum to the bill has to say. On page 21, where it talks about the technology choice, the explanatory memorandum says:

Digital Audio Broadcasting—

that is, the Eureka 147—

will be the primary technology platform for ... digital radio.

It then goes on to say:

DAB is unlikely to be a suitable platform to address the extended coverage requirements of some regional and remote services.

Why should we be proceeding now in haste to do something that will jeopardise the ability for this system, this technology, with all of its benefits, to be extended to the whole of Australia? Why should we be doing it in such haste that denies us getting right the framework that makes sure that that coverage is extended to the whole of Australia?

As I said before, Labor does support going digital but we support going digital by getting it right. We believe that we should defer implementation until the regions are assured of the benefits that the government claims this system will bring. We do not deny the benefits; we say that the regions should not be denied them, and we believe that as this bill stands we run thereal risk of denying regional and rural Australia access to the very best of technologies. If you look at the places in which this has been successfully implemented, such as in Britain and parts of Europe, it has led to a better standard of service, but it has led to the introduction of new content and stations and it has been done by embracing the technology that this bill says it will wait till later to assess. We will run out of time.

At this stage, I think I have run out of time because of the provision for this House to adjourn early this evening. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.