Senator LUNDY (10:26 AM) —I would like to take the opportunity to respond. How typical it is of the minister for irrelevance to get up and try to ignore what is a critical question in throwing that sort of rubbish back across the chamber. There are three points I would like to make in this debate, and then I will let it sit.

First of all, the importance of this bill is in what is not contained in the bill as opposed to what is. The second point is that, with respect to high definition television, the lessons of this parliament in providing a degree of technological specificity have been well learnt. They have been learnt by Labor and they have been learnt by Liberal governments for many years. Yet we see this minister and this government prevailing with a degree of specificity that is beyond all common sense at a time when—as you can see with my emphasis on convergence through the whole debate—the industry is completely subsumed with new technologies already.

The point about high definition television is that it is one new technology for the presentation of content into people's homes. There is evidence already from the UK and other places that its popularity is not cracked up to what you have described. The usage of high definition television comes in not the actual picture that is presented but in the scope that digital television provides for multi-channelling and datacasting services. The emphasis on these glorious pictures that you will receive only if you have the funds within your household budgets to purchase the hardware on which it will be delivered becomes quite a ridiculous argument the longer it is perpetuated.

The final point relates to the competitive environment. The degree of specificity in relation to technologies contained in this bill, the way this government has treated the ABC and the way this government is determined to blank out what is happening with new technologies on the one hand and then focus all of their attention on one glorious new technology, being high definition television, all demonstrate the incapability of the minister and the government to get a grip on what is happening with technology now. The minister's earlier comments about the respective capabilities of the providers of content competing, be they commercial or national providers, again demonstrate your ignorance with respect to what opportunities the provision of such content provides to Australia.

We know that this is one of our great strengths. We know that here lies an opportunity to perpetuate and strengthen our capability in the provision of content. Senator Bourne's amendment with respect to the CER case was a classic example of where a small window of opportunity existed for the coalition in government to enhance Australia's capability to provide such quality content.

The last issue I will raise is that of the relationships that exist within this sector. I believe it is incredibly important that people have access to a wide range of content. At the moment, I am concerned about a number of the government's policies, including the full privatisation of Telstra, your funding cuts and your active pursuance of the ABC in what seems to be a campaign to denigrate that organisation. This particular bill and your attitude of ignoring convergence as a technical reality demonstrate that you are happy for some particular providers to have established themselves as the dominant players not just in broadcasting but in new datacasting services.

I think the opportunity for Australians to fully experience these new services will be hindered by this policy of the government. Minister, when we are back here at some point in the future, perhaps on the other side of the chamber, I am sure we will go through lengthy debates about the folly of this particular course of action that you took at this point in time, and we will be forced to revisit it time and time again.