Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House does not insist on its amendments Nos 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 disagreed to by the Senate and agrees to the consequential amendment made by the Senate.

Digital television is not just about the introduction of new channels, interactive applications and a clearer picture for viewers. The transition will also free up valuable spectrum. This freed-up spectrum will allow for new communications services to be introduced in Australia. The previous government’s 12 years of inaction on digital television left Australia lagging behind the majority of the developed world and has delayed the realisation of these significant benefits. It is important, therefore, that there are no further delays. While we consider that the opposition amendment on black spot reporting is poorly drafted, the government is determined to keep digital switch-over on track. The government is committed to ensuring that all Australians who receive analog television are able to receive digital television, no matter where they live. For this reason, the government will support the bill as amended by the Senate and we will get on with the job of switching to digital and modernising our communications infrastructure. I commend the bill to the House.

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

We welcome the government recognising the merit of some of the opposition’s amendments. What is worth drawing to the attention of the House is that what is actually being rejected by the government is the establishment of switch-off readiness criteria. These are objective criteria that would have let all the viewing public know at what point the government thought it was appropriate to switch off analog television. We believe that is a sensible, reasonable, thoughtful amendment. Most people thought that, except the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, and the government. We were actually seeking to save Senator Conroy from himself and make it clear what was needed, what policy requirements needed to be met, before analog television is switched off and before possibly tens of thousands of viewers are left with no television whatsoever.

Strangely, the government has rejected that proposition. It has rejected a process where, having established those minimum analog switch-off standards, there would be a reporting arrangement six months before there is no more analog television to account for progress with the conversion, to take account of areas where there was not a level of readiness that would support such a switch-over and to put a positive onus on the government to take action to address that. How on earth the opposition could just stand here and listen to the government arguing that that somehow impeded the process is just beyond me. It is absolute nonsense. I do not think anybody who has any familiarity with this could possibly endorse what the government is saying about our amendments somehow impeding or compromising the switch-off process. It is just ridiculous. We were not adjusting the dates in any way. We were not at all changing the spirit or intent of the legislation but in fact carrying forward a vision for digital television established by the then coalition government.

What we were aiming to do was make sure that the public was informed and that the minister was accountable. As we have seen, over and over again, whenever there is some effort to scrutinise the actions of the government and hold the minister accountable, the argument from the government is: ‘You are holding up the whole show.’ That is just ridiculous but it is a mantra we are used to now, and it has come out again in the case of this digital television legislation.

We want to hold the government to account to try and make sure viewers are factored into the government’s decision making so that when there is no more analog television it is done on the basis of clear, objective criteria. That is all—no imposition, no holding up, no blackballing, no nothing; just some accountability—and we have seen how the government has responded to that. That balanced and reasonable proposal has been rejected by the government. So be it. The opposition are not going to die in a ditch over that because we actually thought that would help the government. We believed that openness would be helpful for the process. Instead, we have seen the government trying to shirk any responsibility about establishing a degree of readiness before a switch-over, and it is just appalling.

Why might they do that? Why might they oppose an amendment that had at its heart the interest of viewers? All we can imagine is that this will be a shut-down whatever happens, and when questions are asked about why now is the time we will simply get the WIJI: ‘Well, it just is.’ ‘Well, it just is’ will be the answer and there will be no basis to engage in a discussion about whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not. Or—and I fear this is the real reason—the spectrum is valuable. The coalition set the nation on the course for digital television and, as part of that process, loaned spectrum to the broadcasters so they could broadcast digital and analog television through this simulcast period. Once analog is shut off, that spectrum becomes available—and that spectrum is invisible gold. It is incredibly valuable and, no doubt, with the parlous state of the budget and the abandonment of some of the economic responsibilities of the coalition government, the Labor government will be busting to get their hands on that spectrum. They will be hungrily trying to get hold of the value of that spectrum to hand over to the states or to prop up a deteriorating budget. That may be what this is about. That may be why they would junk a proposal from the Senate, developed by the opposition, to make it clear whether a community was ready to have its analog television sets shut off and blacked out—no more transmission. Why would they do that? Because they want to get their hands on the spectrum. This could well be another phase of Khemlani—or ‘Kevlani’, in this case. Rather than running off to get some petrodollars, they have thought, ‘That is not publicly saleable; let’s run off and grab hold of the revenue that comes from the spectrum.’ (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the House, I am going to repeat the question. The question is:

That the House does not insist on its amendments Nos 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 disagreed to by the Senate and agrees to the consequential amendment made by the Senate.

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

I appreciate your wise counsel there, Mr Speaker. We are talking about the amendments that are not being insisted upon and why, which brings me to the one that the government is accepting—the one relating to the black spots. I made it clear in this place last night that—with 1,100 transmission and retransmission devices providing analog services right across the continent and given that television black spots were an enormous problem inherited by the Howard government in 1996 and a comprehensive program to address them saw television coverage delivered to communities that never imagined it being there—all of that work on the basis of analog television now needs to be backed up by the same commitment and conviction for digital. Thankfully, the government has realised that this is a compelling issue that needs attention, and that is why we are delighted that the government has at least embraced that amendment of the opposition, which was insisted upon by the Senate. It just shows you that a bit of consultation can make a difference.

We will be supporting this amended bill, with those enormous caveats—recognising that, having left the black spot transmission amendments in the bill, all Australians, and certainly the opposition, will now be looking for the resources that are required to back up that provision. We need to see in the next federal budget funding to support communities to make their conversions from analog to digital and to make sure all the gains made in television coverage during the coalition government are not lost overnight. That is why we are very pleased to support that amendment staying in this bill. But we put the government on notice: we are very much looking for the resources needed to give effect to the machinery that has been left in the bill.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to support the shadow minister on this matter. To some extent we cannot hold this up much longer, but I get the impression that the thing has not been thought through. I spoke about this last night, and I apologise if I got a bit overexcited—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn’t; you were on the money.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Sullivan interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Longman will withdraw.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Dunkley said, it is what happens consequent to this that is important. We went to a lot of trouble. I have to disagree with the statement by the Leader of the House that for 12 years we did nothing—quite the contrary. We expanded television right throughout Australia. We introduced the black spots program, which filled all those little pockets—all those towns—that could not get better than 60 per cent reception. That was done by having a program of $25,000 per channel not received plus an additional $25,000 for base infrastructure—a piece of land to put a tower on and an air-conditioned donga in which to put the transmission facilities. We are not aware of what the government is going to do with all those black-spots towers. It may not be a big task. We are not sure in those marginal areas whether analog will cover the full digital footprint. It will mean that there may even have to be new towers in some areas, and it may be that there will have to be transponders on existing towers. If we are going to get out into the whole of Australia then that is going to be one of the things that has to happen.

In addition to that, we have a situation where community television is caught between a rock and a hard place because, again, as the shadow minister said, until that spectrum is freed up we are not sure whether you will be able to give these community television stations a block of spectrum. If they continue to broadcast in analog while the rest of Australia is transferring over to digital then their sponsorship market will be greatly reduced, and that will have an impact on them. That could have been attended to. My view is that there could have been spectrum found—initially if the right negotiations had been done with SBS and the ABC, but that is my personal view not the opposition’s view.

In addition to that, we have to make sure that we cover the whole of Australia. When the original bill came out regional areas were to be given another four years beyond the capital cities. What has happened in this Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008 is that we have turned it round the other way: the country areas are going to switch off first—they will be the guinea pigs, if you like—and then, when everything has been well tested, we will change over the capital cities. But we should remember that there are black spots in the capital cities as well.

It is a big expense for country TV stations to have to transmit through both analog and digital. They want us to move forward—and I do not say we have to retain that four-year buffer, but we do have to make provision for people who are in that circumstance to get television. The British government have gone to the trouble of having a system whereby people can get set-top boxes to convert their analog TVs to digital. We need to have a similar program.

So the shadow minister is quite right: we are going into uncharted waters with this bill. It is a pity that some of our amendments have been rejected, but I would appeal to the government to get on to the detailed work now or we are going to be a lot of trouble and there is going to be a lot of heartburn throughout regional Australia and in the black spot areas in capital cities.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak strongly on behalf of the people in my electorate of Forrest and I concur with what the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, and the shadow minister, the member for Dunkley, said, particularly since, with the topography of my electorate, the black spot issue is a significant one. The funds that are going to be applied through this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008, are particularly important from here, so I am very keen to see what happens and how those issues will be eliminated from my electorate. Let me tell you, I will receive a lot of pressure, and therefore so will the government, if this is not done correctly. I am glad our amendments have been embraced, but we must ensure that no-one is excluded by this switch-over.

The one thing that is not well understood is what television means to very remote and regional viewers, whether they are in centres or extremely isolated areas. We take it for granted. There are places in my electorate that cannot get local ABC coverage, including emergency and local information, because their feed comes from the north-west, 2,000 kilometres away. They struggle for information now, and if we do not have decent television coverage with a local source then those same people are going to be completely disadvantaged. I am also told that unless the signal is delivered correctly, whereas with analog the graduation to a loss of signal is when you see the snow, with digital the loss of signal is like falling off a cliff; that is the effect. So this needs to be done particularly well and it needs to be able to service the communities in my area.

The other issue I have is about the assistance that is going to be provided through the budget for community organisations, shires and others who rebroadcast. There will be a number of them throughout Australia that do not necessarily have the funds for this within their capacity. So there is another issue in resourcing those groups that will need assistance to do this—as will some low-income earners and a range of people who may not have the funds for the technology that is needed to make this transition.

I am concerned that ACMA has had a cut to its budget. We have been told that this switch-over is going to be moving ahead—we will see if it moves quickly—but for ACMA to be able to discharge its responsibilities in this area, including black spots and, now, a whole raft of other requirements, it needs increased resources as opposed to cuts to its budget that the government has already agreed to. People within my electorate need to know without any shadow of a doubt, and I need to know, that every current viewer that has access to analog television and all of the safety and day-to-day information in their lives that comes from having good communications and access to television will have access to them once the analog system is switched off, and that those who need the assistance in the process will be given the resources to do so.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with our shadow minister, the member for Dunkley, on this in that we support the intent of this legislation, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008, but we must make this point. We have got an arrogant, out-of-touch Labor government. With one of the most important pieces of communications legislation in this House, they rock it up to us and they say, ‘We’re going to gag you because we want to get this bill through the House; we want to get home.’

The Labor Party continually boast that they hold more seats in rural and regional Australia, where this is going to have a dramatic effect on the people—the working families and those people who live out in rural and remote Australia. They say that they are concerned and that they hold more seats in those areas than this side of the House does. Where are the members for Forde and Blair on this issue? Have they spoken on this? Are they concerned about their constituency in relation to this legislation? What about the member for Leichhardt? He has probably scooted home already. Where are the members for Capricornia, Richmond, Page and Flynn? I see the member for Flynn here. He represents a large constituency that would be concerned about this, but we have not heard a peep out of him. I hope he has been to the Leader of the House and said, ‘I want to speak on this because I am concerned about this legislation.’

They continually say that they hold more seats in rural and regional Australia than this side of the House but they have no concern for them. They are arrogant and they take those votes for granted. Let me assure those members that we on this side of the House are here on this issue and we will debate this as long as we need to, because we cannot take this government and this minister at their word that they are going to provide funding in next year’s federal budget to deal with some of the critical issues in relation to this bill, particularly in relation to black spots.

We have here the members for Farrer, Gippsland, Forrest—who has just spoken—Mayo, Riverina, Grey, Calare, Kalgoorlie, Herbert, Fairfax, Cowper and Hinkler, and the list goes on. These are members from rural and regional Australia who understand this issue. We are all here to debate this because we are concerned about the mismanagement, the ineptitude and the lack of understanding of the importance of this bill to people right across Australia.

As the member for Hinkler said, this is not about those huge towers outside of our capital cities; this is about the 11,000 transponders across regional, rural and outer metropolitan Australia, where that technology has to be changed to digital technology and where you have a very thin advertising market. Do you think that the commercial television channels are going to have the funds to convert these transponders to digital technology? What about the families that have to convert an analog television in these tough economic times? Do you think they have got the money to go out and convert their television? They are not going to be buying huge plasma TVs; they cannot afford it. And yet that is what this government is going to impose on working families and people in rural and remote Australia with the passage of this bill.

The government are saying: ‘Take us on trust. Listen to our words—not what we will do to you; listen to the words. We’ll find money and we’ll have it in next year’s budget.’ I have to say to you, Minister, I am not prepared to take you at your word on this one because we have seen what you have done with the communications trust fund. You have raided that, you insisted on those amendments in the upper house and you have taken that money that was designed to ensure, where markets fail in the future, there would be earnings from a fund that would deliver upgrades in rural communications into the future. So we are just not prepared to take you at your word; and we will make sure we keep you honest on it, I can assure you, Leader of House.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer his remarks through the chair.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just touch on the issue of those many small rural communities. Where there is a community of 1,000 or fewer people—and the member for Flynn would have a number of these in his electorate—it is actually the council that pays for the rebroadcast of television into those small communities, not the commercial television provider. Who is going to pay those councils to convert those transponders? In those communities of 1,000 or fewer people, they will have to pay. They do not have free-to-air TV; they have pay TV, and the government are going to ask them to pay more with the passage of this legislation. They say: ‘Listen to us. We’ll find some money in next year’s federal budget.’

This is legislation that has been rushed through. The government have lost control of the economy, they have mismanaged the economy and they have mismanaged the legislative program that they put forward. They have had 12 months and more to deal with this—we are into the 13th month. It just demonstrates that we have an arrogant, out-of-touch Labor government in control of the House. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief in order to assist in the functioning of the House. I have a significant issue about TV reception in my electorate. The district council area of Yankalilla is one of the most beautiful parts of Australia, and I urge all members on the other side of the House to come and visit Yankalilla at some point. Yankalilla has a topography which creates real difficulties with TV transmission. The people are very concerned. It is a poor council because it has a small number of ratepayers. A lot of people holiday in the area, so services are expected. But they have an issue with the changeover of equipment, which will cost about $1.4 million. I rise today simply to urge the government to assist these small councils and regional areas with particular topography issues in handling the switch-over.

I am a big supporter of digital TV. I think it is the right technology. It will create a lot of additional spectrum, which will create a lot of additional revenue for the government at some point in time. But we should help these small areas who need this assistance to switch over. I urge the government to quickly announce a package of assistance in the next budget.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to associate myself with the very articulate and learned comments made by the member for Hinkler and the member for Mayo. The point I would like to make is not just in relation to the seat of Calare; all over country Australia, there are many people who are only just getting analog TV now and who are going to be so disadvantaged and so at risk for their reception once it goes digital. Without making all the safeguards mentioned by the member for Hinkler, we are going to be very disadvantaged by this legislation.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be uncharacteristically brief. Our motor vehicle highways have fallen into a terrible state of deterioration over the last 15 to 20 years. Most of those roads that I represent are over 20 years old, and highways are only supposed to last for 25 years. I would say the vast bulk of them are over 40 years old. But the cyber highway is available to us, and it is the cyber highway that we desperately need. If we cannot have the other highways, we would like to at least have the cyber highways. It makes us remarkably part of Australia. We can get 35 television channels in the Gulf Country, the same as a person in Sydney or Melbourne. We see a great opportunity for us to be able to be part of Australia and to restore the opportunities we had some 25 years ago when the great McEwen built the beef road scheme for Australia.

In this legislation, once again we see the work of the economic rationalists and the user-pays principle. The user-pays principle applies this way: we privatise the railways in country New South Wales and in country Queensland but we do not privatise the commuter systems in Sydney and Brisbane. So the commuter systems in Sydney and Brisbane get a $3,000 million golden handshake every year, whilst we have the user-pays principle applied to us.

You want to have export industries. Next year you are going to see the price of not having export industries. You will find out next year the price that a country has to pay when it has got nothing that it can produce for itself and nothing that it can produce to export. Last year was the first year—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not be too smart if I were you. Last year was the first year in Australian history that fruit and vegetable imports exceeded exports. In other words, this country cannot feed itself.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be very quiet if I were in the opposition. They were there for 12½ years. You sowed the wind; you will now reap the whirlwind.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bruce Scott interjecting

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking about the communications issue and we pay tribute to the opposition in securing the changes. They have not gone anywhere near as far and the principle is still out there of user pays, so I do not want to go too far in my gratitude. Christmas spirit only extends so far! Let me say thank you and congratulate them on having achieved a certain amount.

If you apply the huge cost structures which have been applied to rural Australia and you do not give us a fair go, then you will have no export industries. That is the price that you are now paying. Last year, for the first time ever, Australia could not feed itself in fruit and vegetables. Australia cannot feed itself. It is only a matter of time before that extends across agriculture completely. Isn’t that a proud achievement for a nation which is supposed to be the food bowl of Asia, as Mr Fisher used to say? We say thank you for the movement forward from the opposition. We say to the government that you have to give us a fair go because what little you have out there you will not have for much longer. We find it so difficult to get our sons and daughters to come back into our mines and onto our farms. It is so difficult to do that and you make it infinitely more difficult if you create a situation where the city has one set of advantages which are simply not available to people outside of the great cities of Australia.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are back to the Keating decision to turn off analog phones without an alternative for rural and regional Australia. It was an absolute disgrace that the people in rural and regional Australia who had fought so hard and had built their own towers—councils right across Australia had built their receivers and the towers at great expense to themselves—found that their analog service was going to be shut down in 1999.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before a replacement.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no replacement on the cards when Keating decided that would be it—sunset, finished. In December 1999 it was all over. We are back to those days. Then we were able to initiate, through the enormous efforts of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, having a CDMA network installed for rural and regional Australians. He identified that this was a network that could be up and running relatively quickly. But even then, when we had that CDMA network up and running relatively quickly, we had enormous fallout because the CDMA coverage did not extend to where the analog coverage had extended previously. That was supposedly called ‘fortuitous’ coverage by Telstra and others when they were rolling out their CDMA and we were having complaints and people who had been used to having mobile phones no longer had a service. But they had ‘fortuitous’ coverage.

This is exactly the same problem that is going to occur now. This is a safeguard, a protection, for Australian television viewers, primarily in rural and regional areas, when it is determined that the switch-over should occur—unlike the analog CDMA service. In fact, when Telstra were introducing 3G, I was still trying to fill the black spots of the CDMA service. Now 3G is in there and I still have enormous black spots. Do the members of this House and the government not learn from experience? Do they not have these same issues in their electorates? I am sure they do. But are they willing to speak out on them? That is the very great difference.

These are particularly relevant amendments that focus on the transmission black spots and the transparency of the legislation. There is an enormous amount of work needed to rectify the black spots in advance of the switch-over, and you need to know where those black spots are. There need to be studies of where those black spots are. I live in the city of Wagga Wagga of 60,000 people. My house sits right in a black spot. It does not bother me, but the fact of the matter is there are people in regional centres who are in black spots as well. It is not just that you think we on this side of the House expect the coverage to extend to every gum tree, to every kangaroo and to every wombat in Australia. You treat us as though we are gum trees, kangaroos and wombats that do not deserve consideration when it comes to having access to the primary fundamentals that are available to all other people.

This is a sensible proposal to recognise where these black spots are before the shutdown of analog occurs. Without these amendments there is no incentive, there is no pressure, to make any changes. There is no incentive to ensure that people are not going to be left just watching black screens. We have been there before. We have done that—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They won’t even have the test pattern!

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. When TV first came in, rural and regional Australia watched a test pattern for five years. This is about what we are entitled to—the rights and equity of all Australians. Mr Speaker, this is an absolute insult to the people of Australia who have had no consideration from the government. I urge them to let their conscience show through and come on over and support their people. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to add my voice to those of my National Party colleagues in relation to the issue of availability of television reception for people in regional and rural areas. Certainly the area that I represent is hardly remote—it has very large centres—but one of the concerns that many people around Coffs Harbour have is that, despite the size of the city, there are large areas where you cannot get high-quality television reception, and this legislation certainly does nothing to improve that situation.

It is incumbent on the government to provide access for all Australians to quality TV reception. It is a very important medium. People who are conducting commerce need TV reception to be adequate in their area. We certainly do not have that around Coffs Harbour at the moment or in a range of areas in the electorate of Cowper. This legislation, as it is currently drafted, has the potential to disadvantage many people around Australia. Its impact is certainly of grave concern to me and my National Party colleagues.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would particularly like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Riverina, who likened this shutdown to the closure of the analog network of telephones. I am well aware that we do need to make changes; we do need to get on with the business of rolling out a modern digital network. My local television stations are quite keen to see this happen because of the added cost they have of broadcasting in both bands at the moment, but it is very important that we get the safety net right.

Like other members who have spoken from this side of the House who have highlighted various black spots in their electorates, I too have a number of residents who, for one reason or another, did not avail themselves of the previous black spot program. In particular, I draw your attention to the residents of western Yorke Peninsula, where they are largely in a broadcast shadow from metropolitan television stations. They find it very difficult to get reception under current conditions. The people around Wallaroo and Port Pirie already build large television aerials so they can receive the analog signal. They are very concerned that the new digital signal will not be as strong.

I also take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the situation which exists where I live. I live about 180 kilometres from Whyalla, where there is a broadcast service in analog, but my local news service comes from Rockhampton. I am always very interested to see what is going on in the member for Hinkler’s electorate, but as I am sometimes fortunate enough to be on the local news program that is broadcast throughout the rest of my electorate, I do not actually ever get to see myself when I am home. I know that may not be disappointing to you, Mr Speaker, but it is something that I find fairly galling. And one of the things that we do not fully understand is how the shutdown of the analog network is going to affect the digital signals of the satellite system that serves a lot of Australia. There are unanswered questions there at the moment. We need to know that the government is going to make the commitment in the next budget to iron out these problems and that we do not just get this cold-turkey shutdown with the government saying, ‘You’re on your own, boys and girls.’

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’re all walking out.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member for Maranoa! There has been a lot of tolerance shown in this debate. The consideration of Senate amendments is not an opening for revisiting the second reading debate, as the honourable member for Maranoa well knows, so I would think that, given the tolerance that has been given, he might show an example by his behaviour. I remind the House that we are debating a motion moved by the minister that arises from the consideration of a Senate amendment to a bill.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise briefly to endorse some of the earlier comments made by the members for Riverina, Maranoa, Hinkler, Forrest, Mayo, Calare and Grey. I appeal to the minister, in the spirit of Christmas, by saying that we have just had more than 100 years of practical representational experience in this House speak with a great deal of passion, common sense and practical knowledge of what is happening on the ground in rural and regional areas.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take up the minister’s point about a lot of emotion. There is a lot of emotion and passion associated with this issue—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister is not assisting now.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because we are talking about the social and economic importance of the communication services in regional areas. I take up the point from the member for Grey in relation to the news services. Our regional TV services are very important in keeping our social connectivity going, and I say to the minister that he ignores these warnings at his own peril, because the people of regional areas are watching with a great deal of interest and they would like to keep watching in the future.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to endorse the remarks of my colleagues and also in support of my community and my electorate, which is a large regional area that is going to be severely disadvantaged if digital TV is turned on without a replacement. I will say briefly that prior to coming to this place I was the mayor of a shire council, and we had one of these small community transmitters, which was funded by the previous government and managed by the council. From time to time it would break down, and I know what the people of Australia do when they do not have television to watch: they turn to one thing, and that is the telephone. They would telephone me as a mayor in that position. So I have a word of advice to my colleagues on the other side: when the televisions are switched off in my electorate, I am going to furnish my constituents with the phone number of every member of the Labor Party so that they can fill in their idle nights speaking to them.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the one member who actually addressed the motion that is before the House, but I indicate and remind members that this is a debate in which there is agreement across the chamber with the government’s amended motion and that we are about to vote together in support of the amended legislation. For those listening to the debate, that might not have been as clear as it probably should be. I moved the motion that is before the House and that you all spoke on, and you are voting on the motion moved by the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in this House.

It is certainly the case that this bill has the support of the government—which, I note, has a majority of members in this House from regional Australia. More than any other political party, the government ensures that regional Australia is represented. I am pleased to support this in my capacity as regional development minister. It is certainly the case with these amendments that, whilst the government believes that one of the amendments is particularly poorly drafted, the government wants to ensure that the digital switch-over is kept on track. Hence, we are supporting the legislation.

I can understand why the coalition would want a debate about an issue on which there is agreement in the House to perhaps distract from the absolute chaos in the Senate last night over nation building and Labor’s infrastructure agenda. It is no wonder that there was an attempt today to have a distraction. The government has allowed everyone an opportunity to speak on this bill. The fact is that this bill was not gagged last night at all. Therefore, we have been able to receive the legislation back this morning. The chaos in the Senate last night over the infrastructure legislation was such that not only were the National Party and Liberal Party divided but the Liberal Party was then divided within itself, with some members going with the National Party, some leaving and some voting in accordance with what they said.

I am very pleased to commend the motion to the House. I take this opportunity to say that it is important that the last piece of legislation carried by the House for this year is about a forward-looking issue such as digital television.

Question agreed to.