Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Digital radio offers the promise of a range of new, diverse and innovative services that will further enrich the experience for radio listeners. It will operate alongside the existing analogue radio services so valued by Australians.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the legislation providing a framework for the introduction of Australia’s first digital radio services next year. The first two of these measures amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and relate to the legislated deadline for the commencement of digital radio services in the six state capitals.

Commercial radio broadcasters in these markets are currently required to have commenced their digital radio services by 1 January 2009. Failure to do so could expose them to sanctions, including the cancellation of their right to broadcast in digital. It has become apparent that, due to a range of reasons, broadcasters will be unable to comply with this deadline. In this regard, I note that the commercial radio sector recently announced that the national switch-on for digital radio will take place on 1 May 2009.

To facilitate this, the bill will extend by six months the deadline for the start-up. The new deadline of 1 July 2009 will give commercial broadcasters additional flexibility to resolve any further infrastructure issues relating to the rollout of transmission equipment as they prepare for the launch of the new digital services.

The bill will also remove Hobart from the list of markets where broadcasters are required to commence digital radio services from the new deadline of 1 July 2009. Hobart’s commercial radio broadcasters have expressed strong concerns that they would not be in a position to commence digital radio services at the same time as services in the larger mainland state capital cities. The bill will allow digital radio services to start in Hobart at the same time as other similarly sized markets such as Newcastle, Geelong and Wollongong.

The final measure in this bill amends the Radiocommunications Act 1992 and gives the community broadcasting sector an opportunity to participate in the ownership of the transmission infrastructure that will be used to broadcast their digital radio services.

The government is supportive of the community broadcasters’ participation in digital radio and considers that community broadcasters play a vital role in promoting diversity, local content and grassroots participation in the media sector. However, in a tight fiscal environment, the government decided to take a more cautious approach to the introduction of digital radio by reprofiling the community sector’s funding to commence in the 2009-10 financial year.

As a consequence, the community sector was unable to claim a share in the joint venture companies, formed in 2008, that own digital radio transmission infrastructure. This amendment will restore to the community broadcasting sector an opportunity to participate in the joint venture companies in line with the original intent of the legislation introduced in May 2007.

The benefits of digital radio to both broadcasters and listeners are enormous, and the government looks forward to a successful launch of Australia’s first digital radio services on 1 May 2009.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Holt for introducing the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. I have some empathy for him because I had the honour of introducing the May 2007 version of the legislation into the House of Representatives and, some months earlier, road testing a demonstration of the digital technology. A lot of people were wondering what I was doing. The concept of digital radio, and the functionality that it offers, was not well grounded in the broader audience at the time we were working out what technical standard to operate, but it is pleasing that we will start to see it materialise in the near term.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Holt, said, the bill before the House will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radio Communications Act 1992. The amendments will extend the deadline for commercial broadcasters to commence digital radio services in the mainland state capital cities by six months, to 1 July. They will remove the requirement for digital radio services to commence in Hobart at the same time as in mainland capital cities by reclassifying the Hobart market as regional. The amendments will also retain an option for community radio stations to take up shares in joint-venture companies managing the transmission of digital radio services.

The transition to digital is arguably the most important strategic issue facing Australian radio since the introduction of FM services in the 1970s and early eighties. The coalition government introduced the legislation that facilitated this transition, the 2007 bill that was touched on earlier. It has emerged, though, that some of the time frames in that legislation are now proving to be rather challenging and problematic. The six-month delay for the capital city switch-over is very welcome and very important. Its importance is probably best understood by the licence holders, in that a failure to meet the switch-over by that deadline leaves open the possibility of sanctions against those licence holders and even the loss of their licences. So it is wise to add the extra six months to the rollout, taking it to 1 July 2009 rather than 1 January.

The reason for that, as was explained to me as the former shadow minister in this area, is that the availability of the technology—the opportunity to physically put in place the multiplexes—has proved to be more of a challenge than some anticipated. There is no lack of desire among the capital city radio broadcasters to invest in that transition, but there are some obstacles to securing the required equipment and having it in place, operational and tested so that the switch-over can be as painless as possible. The six-month extension is something the opposition certainly supports. We acknowledge the need for it and welcome the government’s measure to provide it.

This leads me to another area that relates to Hobart. During my visit to Tasmania and my consultation with the broadcasting sector as the shadow minister, it was evident to me that the size of the market and the investment required to make the transition were a real challenge for Hobart. I understand—and I stand corrected if my recollection is wrong—that there are only two commercial broadcasters in Hobart. That of itself is not quite the critical mass you are looking for to bring about the change. The reclassification of the Hobart market as a regional market such as those of Wollongong, Geelong, Newcastle and the Gold Coast is a smart move. It enables the government to address the fact that in some of these regional markets there is a serious case for assistance with the investment required to bring about the change. I hope this reclassification of Hobart is an acknowledgement that it will need some help. I note the commercial radio industry expects that the switch-over will take place on 1 May 2009. Hopefully in the lead-up to that time, certainly after Christmas, awareness of that change will be promoted. I extend my best wishes for a successful transition to all those in the commercial radio industry who are involved with it.

The final measure in the bill, which the parliamentary secretary touched on, is an interesting one. Those outside parliament will probably wonder what it means. ‘Reprofiling’ is a concept that says you push the money out a bit further. As a result of the reprofiling, or deferral, of funding for community radio, in many cases community radio was not in a position to become a shareholder in the joint-venture companies established to set up the multiplex digital transmission systems needed to broadcast into their markets. That lack of clarity about the available resourcing meant no person could make financial undertakings, because they could not be certain they could meet them.

Most community broadcasters run on the smell of an oily rag—with an enormous amount of volunteer commitment, passion and enthusiasm and usually not a lot of cash. I think, on average, they have a total turnover of about $200,000 a year. That makes it hard for them to enter into a commercial relationship, such as a joint venture, and say not only, ‘Yes, we want to participate as a shareholder,’ but also, ‘We undertake to fulfil calls for capital to invest in the multiplex technologies that are required.’ So they were kind of stuck. Their hands were tied behind their backs. The reprofiling basically meant they were dealt out of that opportunity. I am not certain the case for reprofiling was particularly strong but it happened and it is history now. Events of recent weeks have shown that resources with many more digits on them than are required to facilitate the participation of the community broadcasting sector in a timely way can be made available.

The third element of this bill seeks to reopen those joint venture arrangements. We needed to have those in place around May, if my memory serves me correctly. But the opportunity has passed. Those joint venture arrangements should have been finalised by now. The opportunity to apply for licensing and the right to operate these multiplex transmission systems is now behind us. This bill says, ‘Because the funding wasn’t there, we need to make sure the community sector has an opportunity to participate in these joint ventures.’ Those community broadcasters have no duty to participate; this simply re-establishes the opportunity for them to do so. Whether or not they choose to participate, the two-ninths entitlement of multiplex transmission infrastructure is still available to them. The joint venture would allow them to purchase a share of the transmission capability. If they choose not to, they will still be entitled to access the two-ninths but they will need to come to some other arrangement to finance that participation.

A community broadcaster with an average turnover of $200,000 would be in quite a fragile and vulnerable financial position from which to enter into, say, a leasing arrangement with that broadcasting capability. Without funding committed to enable them to purchase a share—that is, to buy in and therefore invest in the call-up for capital to put the infrastructure in place—community broadcasters need the certainty of recurrent funding to purchase access to that broadcasting infrastructure.

Either way, it is all about money. Either way, it is all about the community broadcasting sector I think rightfully wanting to know—screaming out for and demanding information from the government—just what kind of financial support they can count on to get through that transitional period. It will vary from region to region. Different community broadcasters have different capabilities to make those contributions. I again emphasise that they are overwhelmingly run on a very resourceful but not well-resourced basis—that is, with a lot of volunteer commitment and passion amongst the community and not a whole lot of cash. That is why I am hopeful and optimistic the government will be suitably accommodating of their financial requirements and assist with that transition. I hope so. In concluding the second reading debate the minister said:

The government is supportive of the community broadcasters participation in digital radio, recognising the vital role the community sector plays in providing diversity, localism and grassroots participation in the Australian media.

I say: hear, hear. That is absolutely right. I hope that we can count on the government carrying through on that sentiment. It is a valuable sentiment but one that needs to be backed up with cash.

In politics, the term ‘leadership’ is often synonymous with the term ‘cash’. When someone is saying, ‘Show me some leadership,’ they are usually saying, ‘Show me some cash.’ In the spirit of a movie with a lead actor who is not much taller than me, I say, ‘Show me the money.’ That is what the community broadcasters are saying, and I hope that they get some joy in the coming period so they can plan with certainty. I emphasise that they need to know what the upfront cash is so that they can in good faith enter into a joint venture and therefore deliver when that joint venture company calls for cash. They need to know that those resources will be available. Alternatively, if they do not buy into multiplexing joint venture arrangements, they need to be certain that they will have the recurrent funding to buy broadcast capability on a commercial basis—hopefully with a recognition that they add considerably to the listening audience offering. And I say ‘add’ to it, because the evidence is fairly compelling.

Last week the minister launched the results of the 2008 McNair community radio listener survey. The interesting thing is that a little over 4½ million people turn on and listen to a community radio station in any average week—

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was that?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Four and a half million—or should I say 4,519,000, Mr Parliamentary Secretary? That is an increase. It is about 27 per cent of the listening radio audience, up from 25 per cent. That is a lot of people.

I know from my own experience on the Mornington Peninsula that 3RPP do a great job. I am sure my friend and colleague the member for Holt has been on their station; they run an outstanding show. But I remember from my work supporting 3RPP that my Rotary club had to run some business fundraising lunches to generate some money to go towards the replacement of the broadcast tower on Arthurs Seat. That sounds like a pretty reasonable proposition—the tower was, I think, also shared by the local fire authority. It is an example of how the community needed to get behind the community radio station. I have not quite yet had the phone call asking, ‘Can you help us raise some money so we can convert to digital?’ I am hopeful and optimistic there will be love and understanding and ‘leadership’ by the government and that they will help provide the resources to make that transition to digital, particularly with the physical infrastructure that is required.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member—They need cash.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They need cash. Because of their spirit and enthusiasm, you get a rich diversity of programming on 3RPP, as you do from other community broadcasters with niche programming and volunteer presenters. In our own community, Work for the Dole participants get involved with the on-air broadcast, with the preproduction and with the research to see whether a role in the media is a career opportunity for them. This is another example of what community broadcasting brings to the table.

The evidence is compelling, the words are reassuring—but the action? Well, we have not peaked early in terms of the cash that is available. I am hopeful that it will come forward. But it is not just the cash. It is not just a sincere and genuine opportunity for the government to give effect to the words that were in the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech. It is also a chance to remove the confusion and uncertainty about what the future holds, a chance for the community radio sector to have their passion, enthusiasm and efforts as volunteers supported by the government and for it to give encouragement, not discouragement, to their efforts.

That leads me to one other area, though. Sometimes it is not just about cash; it is not just about hardware. It is about a valuable resource the nation has that you cannot quite see—that is, the spectrum. The spectrum is very important. If we are going to see a transition in the technology of the broadcast format, that is one thing. But if there is also going to be a redistribution of spectrum, then that is another challenge. I read with great interest the concern of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. The article says they were:

… furious about the proposal to move several community radio stations to lower powered frequencies.

ACMA has a difficult job in planning for the use and availability of spectrum across our continent. I have spoken before about digital television and how it is going to be a big challenge to get the spectrum right where outer metropolitan areas are butting into regional broadcast zones and getting muddy overlap on spectrum—but that is for television; that is for another day.

In radio, similar challenges are being addressed. In area planning exercises for spectrum there is a sense that maybe ACMA is not taking community radio seriously enough, that they are a soft touch and easily manoeuvrable in those spectrum hierarchies—and they are not happy about it. The Community Broadcasting Association are ‘furious’, to quote that recent media report. They point to that fury and justify it by looking at some examples involving the licence areas of Geelong, Bendigo and Colac, in the great state of Victoria, and Townsville, in Queensland, licence areas where, as I understand it, with the virtuous motive of trying to provide some continuity for the frequency that ABC services and others may have, where they have a broader national reach, the more localised community broadcasters are getting moved around.

I have touched on the audience and take-up of community radio. I have touched on the challenges they face. But imagine the surprise of a listener on hearing that a community radio station has assembled the resources to make the digital conversion and then they are not actually where they thought they were on the dial. That is a challenge that community radio is facing, and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia are very unhappy. They are very unhappy about the haste with which the consultation has been carried out. Bear in mind that these community broadcasters are not cashed up with people who can immediately swing into engaging with the regulator on important technical issues. These are people whose volunteer time is what shapes the governance of those stations and is from where they need to draw the resources to respond to proposals to revise licence area plans that have a very profound impact on their spot on the dial.

The Community Broadcasting Association have outlined a few key issues, and I think there is some justification in their concern. Time is important for a not-for-profit community organisation to respond to the significant work of this kind. Again, I recognise that ACMA is inspired by the best possible motives, but the little guys are feeling like they are being pushed around, not getting a chance to respond in short time periods and also wondering what happens next. If they are forced to surrender higher powered frequency for what they believe is markedly lower powered frequency, what does that do to their listening audience? What does that do to the growing audience that is listening to community radio? If they are forced to surrender their spot and the power of their licence reach and the like, what do they do to compensate for that? Is there some assurance—and I think there should be—that when these changes take place there will be a like-for-like outcome? If there is a listening audience and a transmission power that gives you a certain reach, if you are going to be shifted around as part of a licence area planning exercise you should at least come out of it about where you were when you started. I do not think that is an unreasonable request and I hope ACMA, in recognising, and the minister, in promoting, the virtue of community radio take a similar approach to that problem.

The other thing too is that if you are going to move people around, how about helping with that adjustment, that transition. The community broadcasters association have recognised that there is a cost for technical and other resources to facilitate the frequency change—a cost not instigated by them but instigated by the review—that should be covered. There is a rebranding exercise that is needed to make sure that that 27 per cent of the listening audience, the more than 4½ million listeners, can actually find the community radio station that they have grown quite close to and that they have affection for. For that task of rebranding and then communicating that to their audience, you would have thought some partnership advertising within that audience market through other media channels is something that would be part of the transition. If in the national interest there is some change to their broadcast arrangements, the national interest should facilitate a continuity of their work and an opportunity not to lose the audience that they have worked hard to secure.

There is also of course a human resource cost in making sure that the station continues to operate. This is an upheaval. Again, I am not in any way doubting the merit of the need to get the licence area planning exercise done properly, and I do not have a problem with the virtue of broader national broadcasters having some seamless continuity on the frequencies that they are operating on. But I do not think that bouncing a community radio station on to a lower power frequency without fully exploring the other options, without recognising that they are genuine partners and that the relationship should be adult-to-adult and not parent-to-child—coming in decreeing to the little guy that they have to rack off and go somewhere else on a different power frequency—is the way we should be doing business with 25 per cent of the listening audience in a community broadcasting platform that is inspired by the diversity and the local interests of their community, giving them a chance to put something different out there that is clearly responding to the listeners’ interests.

With those comments, I note that the opposition is supportive of these measures. The funding certainty is something that the community broadcasting sector is crying out for. We are looking for some tangible action on the seriousness with which community broadcasting is embraced by the government. In terms of these worrying examples where for the national interest a licence area process may see some unwelcome adjustments for community broadcasters, they should at least end up with a like-for-like outcome and not be pushed around recklessly. Some support to bring about that change would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to give to the committed, very dedicated, selfless volunteers who run community radio stations around our country.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the sentiments of the previous member and certainly enjoyed the passion with which he expounded. I too have a passion for community radio, having served on Mackay’s 4CRM community radio for 10 years. The volunteers that man these stations give kids a go at being in the media. I have seen people go from school to radio and then go on to radio school and professional radio and really develop. It has really been something special to see the true benefit of a community organisation producing professional broadcasters. I am proud to have seen that in my time at 4CRM community radio in Mackay. Mackay’s 4CRM happens to broadcast on FM 107.5. Just for the amusement of members, you may be interested to know that my speciality was in punk rock from 1976 to 1980, with a particular passion for the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Damned, the Clash and other ‘quiet symphonies’ such as those.

There is a spirit of learning, freedom and experimentation in community radio. It brings opportunity—opportunity that normally would pass by ordinary, everyday people. It gives people an opportunity to flex their muscles or spread their wings, whichever illustration you wish to use. Radio is a great form of communication, and I truly am passionate about it.

I am glad to see that the government is taking the lead here. I wish that the previous speaker was still here because I would like to put on record that the Labor Party does have a long and proud history of leadership in radio broadcasting in this country. I put on the record that Paul Keating’s government was responsible for getting the broadcasting of triple j to the regions—regions such as Mackay, the Whitsundays, Bowen and Ayr—in the 1990s. It was under his leadership that that happened. So the people of Dawson do appreciate the history of the Labor Party in promoting community radio and state run radio such as the ABC. That in itself has been a great experience.

Some of you from the big metropolitan capital cities may be surprised to know that even a thriving city such as Mackay and regions such as the Whitsundays, Bowen and Ayr only received ABC NewsRadio in the last year. That is quite something. But I tell you what: that has empowered people to listen to democracy at work in the House of Representatives. It has been very good that people can actually hear live what is happening in the House of Representatives, particularly at question time. I have had a lot of feedback on that just recently, particularly from elderly people who are house bound.

I had one call today. A man said, ‘Wow! It was so good to hear the Prime Minister deliver that $10.4 billion economic security package.’ He was particularly pleased to hear that he will receive $1,400 on 8 December. He said he just could not believe his ears when he heard it. He said he had tears in his eyes. That is direct democracy in action. A word spoken here can be heard in the regional and rural communities, particularly in Mackay and the seat of Dawson. Really, when you think about it, we should have had that radio available years ago. But I will not harp on about who was in power for the last 12 years. That might look a little bit out of order. I will not go on about that. Radio and new technology, particularly digital technology over the internet, have been great. People in London, Paris, New York and Amsterdam can hear democracy at work in Australia if they have the internet. New technologies bring new opportunities and facilitate new forms of democracy and representation. I find this exceedingly exciting.

In the seat of Dawson there are many good radio services, particularly the ABC. They do a fantastic public radio service with the news every morning. It is localised and it is fantastic. They do a great job. The commercial radio stations are equally as good. Sea FM do a fantastic music show with very short, sharp news clips and grabs of what is happening nationally and internationally as well as locally. I particularly like going to meet Ange and Jay on the breakfast show. We often have a good time live on air. Then there is Hot FM. They do a great job too. Again, they appeal to a different age group. Meech and Teegs are on there. Meech has plenty of personality. There is no doubt about it. He keeps everybody bright and breezy early in the morning. Also, as I have said, we have community radio. We also have easy listening radio in Mackay on the AM band, and they do a great job as well. Radio is giving people access to knowledge, information and the democratic process. I think that is exciting. The recommendations I see before me on joint ventures and enabling better ways of doing business are very good indeed. I commend the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I greatly welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. Let me say at the outset that the move to digital is something I wholeheartedly support. The coalition, after all, provided the initiative for the policy and the legislation required to support it. I will, however, generally confine my comments to the effect that the government’s decisions have had on the community radio stations that broadcast in Cowan. The stations I will refer to are 98.5 Sonshine FM and 89.7 Twin Cities FM. Sonshine is the Christian station and Twin Cities broadcasts across the outer north of Perth, with the twin cities being the local governments of Joondalup and Wanneroo.

A place for community radio stations was enshrined in the original coalition legislation. The plan was for the community radio industry to participate in owning the transmission infrastructure. The plan was for the community sector to participate in the joint venture companies responsible for managing transmissions. Unfortunately the community radio stations and the industry were unable to buy into these joint ventures using the money forecast in the last coalition budget. I remind the House that $10.1 million was forecast over four years by the then minister, Senator Coonan. The reason why they could not use the money is that the Rudd government in the 2008 budget took it away—or at least deferred it. I acknowledge that resources from the 2009-10 financial year have been set aside, and I hope that changes to the economic outlook will not result in community radio being left outside the digital tent for another year or more. There is very clearly a need for the Rudd government to assist the community radio sector into digital transmissions in the way the former coalition government provided for. It is my belief that community radio will only be able to enter the digital arena with federal support and will not be able to raise the money required to join in.

The third measure of this bill provides for the community broadcasting sector to still participate in the ownership of the transmission infrastructure. But, as I have already said, the government needs to show up with the entry fee or community radio will not be allowed into the digital club. That brings me to two of the local community radio stations covering the suburbs of Cowan. Firstly, I will mention Twin Cities FM. I recently met with the station manager, Sandra Lubke; Michael Henderson, the chair; Allison Gentry, from the board; and Colin Radalj, board member and sponsorship manager. Twin Cities FM is a submetropolitan station serving the general geographical area of Wanneroo, or 240,000-plus people. That population will grow considerably over the next 20 years.

Twin Cities FM just do not know how digital broadcasting will impact on their licence, because their understanding is that digital radio sends a signal to cover the whole metropolitan region, rather than just a portion in the north, south or east, as FM transmitters do. Their fear is that, if all current Perth commercial, community and public radio services are squeezed into one or two multiplexes, a severe shortage of funding from sponsors or advertisers will result, as technically everyone covers the same area, just with a different rate card. An increase of higher quality programs may result, competing for the listener ratings and the dollar; but that would then decrease localised services, as smaller players without all the business contacts upfront will end up falling behind.

However, if selected commercial, public and metro-wide community stations gain access to the digital spectrum, and there is no clear plan or desire to facilitate the submetro stations, their role and future in their respective communities are severely under threat. At the end of the day, it does not matter what band they can broadcast in; if their broadcasting licence changes to something they cannot provide or becomes defunct, they will cease to exist. In fact, Twin Cities believes that it would take as much as five years for a community radio station to raise the funds to enter the digital spectrum. This bears out my previous points about the need for government to support community radio.

It is very clear that, down at the front line of community radio stations, there is great concern about the future—concern about financial support, access to the spectrum, availability of digital radio receivers et cetera. Overall, it says something about the need for additional information out there in the community radio industry. I can say that Twin Cities FM will welcome the opportunity to enter the digital spectrum, but they must have the opportunity to do so. I congratulate Sandra Lubke and her team at Twin Cities for all the good work they do.

I now will also briefly mention 98.5 Sonshine FM. Sonshine FM broadcasts across Perth and is run by general manager Barry Grosser. The motto of Sonshine FM is ‘No greed, no ridicule, no hurt’, and I congratulate them on the positive values they promote. I would also mention that their music is contemporary and appealing, yet, as their motto implies, none of the songs are nasty or negative. Sonshine FM have existed as a Christian radio station for 20 years, and on 3 November they will be moving to new premises in Como, on land provided by the South Perth Church of Christ. The building that has been built on the site was only achieved after a significant and protracted fundraising effort. I thank the people of Perth for their donations and the South Perth Church of Christ for partnering the station with the land.

But returning to the bill: 98.5 Sonshine FM just want to have clarity as to where they stand. Does the government guarantee that the money will be available to support entry? If the government is not prepared to put the money in, then they will wait for 2013 and the second round that is talked about. I would again just like to note my appreciation of the great and positive work 98.5 Sonshine FM do, including leading the way in Perth on Operation Christmas Child, where shoeboxes of toys are donated by families and sent overseas to needy children in the Third World. To those team members of Sonshine FM that I have met—general manager Barry Grosser and announcers Rodney Olson and John Donoghue: well done, and keep up the good work.

I want to conclude by reiterating that I look forward, as do the community radio stations, to their being able to fully participate in the digital radio future. Unfortunately, the government’s lack of commitment to guaranteeing community radio’s digital future is creating doubt and confusion. What the government has not done is ensure any level of confidence that the government truly understands the community radio sector. It is pretty simple. I ask the minister to categorically commit to community radio’s digital future and provide the necessary resources to ensure community radio can participate in that future. Create certainty, create confidence—that is what we want.

Debate (on motion by Mr Raguse) adjourned.