Mr SAWFORD (4:46 PM) —This motion by the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) is very significant, particularly for the 1.7 million people who identify themselves as having a total or a partial hearing loss. That is the known figure, and it represents just less than 10 per cent of the population. However, as the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) pointed out, the more likely figure is somewhere in the vicinity of up to 3.4 million people, 20 per cent of the population. I would like to congratulate the member for Watson for some time ago convincing the then Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, to have captioned the evening news service on both the ABC and SBS. The former minister tells me quite emphatically that the member for Watson was absolutely merciless in his lobbying for the captioning of these news services.

Making compulsory closed captioning on all prime time programs and all news programs is an area that Australia has taken a back seat in, and Australia now lags behind the rest of the Western world. In August 1997 Robert Scott, chief executive of the Australian Caption Centre, was quoted as saying that only 13 per cent of all Australian broadcasts carry closed captions. This was compared to the United States at 90 per cent and the United Kingdom at 45 per cent. I understand that almost all free to air television in the United States is captioned, and their Telecommunications Act 1996 ensures 100 per cent captioning by the year 2008, regardless of how programs are delivered. In the United Kingdom, the Broadcasting Act ensures 50 per cent of all programs are captioned by this year, and by recent standards they are well on track to achieve this.

We pride ourselves in this country on having the highest consumption of new technologies as soon as they become available. Take, for example, our mass consumption of mobile phones and VCRs. With digital television being introduced in 2001, our appetite for this new innovative technology will be just as great, if not more. So why is Australia different to the United States and the United Kingdom when it comes to captioning? The member for Watson alluded earlier in his speech to his approaching the then Minister for Communications in early 1981, I think he said, to inquire about the developments in this area. But, compared to the United Kingdom and the United States, not a great deal has been achieved in this country.

The necessary technology has existed for a decade and a half but, in addition to that time, generational advances in computer technology and in the communications industry have made it even easier now than it ever has been before. In the United States, regulators regard two per cent of turnover as being the responsible indicator of how much should be spent on captioning. Whilst SBS and the ABC—and congratulations to both of them—are well in front of their commercial counterparts when it comes to program captioning, we are still well behind other leading countries in this area. It is obvious that, unless we put in place some formal obligations by the broadcasters to provide this service within a reasonable timetable, it will not be significantly advanced. In fact, it just will not happen.

Voluntary industry codes and goodwill, often favoured by many in the current government, simply will not work in this industry, which is driven by high profit motive. Unless government provides leadership in this area, Australia will maintain a level of commitment to those 1.7 million to 3.4 million people who have a hearing impairment well short of our international reputation for justice and fairness for all.

With any modern society, it is important we should take and use the appropriate technology to ensure everyone in our nation is able to fully participate and enjoy what others take for granted every day. The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998, currently before the House, requires closed captioning of all prime time programming, in addition to all prime time news and current affairs. That is certainly good news. Inclusivity and fairness are admirable aims, and Australian aims, if I may say so. Therefore, anything which encourages an increase in the level of social debate in Australia, as well as allowing more people access to general entertainment and current affairs on television, is a good thing.

However, we should not be content to leave the issue there. There is no better time than now to follow the lead of the United States and the United Kingdom and to put in place targets to lead us into the 21st century. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)