Mr BILLSON (8:13 PM) —I would encourage the member for Lowe to acknowledge the work of the Bills Digest for much of the early part of his contribution. The bill we are discussing tonight is the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000. The policy framework that supports this legislation is something that has been widely discussed in the media. As you trawl through the media accounts of that policy debate, it is sometimes difficult to work out whether the analysis relates to an assessment of how the policy impacts on their respective positions, or how the policy actually supports quality product, quality television for consumers and the development of the digital industry in our country.

There has been a lot of discussion about who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged and about whether one media proprietor has opportunities that another has been denied. I am pleased to stand here tonight and say that what guided my contribution to this debate was what was good for our national interest and what was good for consumers. Those opposite have been questioning some of the policy settings included in this legislation—restrictions on datacasting, the role of our national broadcasters, what `enhanced services' means and also the number of reviews—and you could be left with the sense that all this is perfectly clear right now. It simply is not. We are moving into an area of technological development in the media, entertainment and information industry which is evolving on a day-by-day basis. I have had the good fortune to be briefed over a period of time on some of those developments, and it is fair to make the point that the reviews not only are appropriate but also are entirely necessary because of the pace with which the technology is changing.

We have heard some people talk about the triplecast obligations we have placed on the free-to-air broadcasters. Some are arguing it is unreasonable, it is excessive, it is an onus that they should not have to carry, whereas others are saying that the lending of spectrum to enable television viewers to take on board their product in whatever form their household televisions can provide is also an unreasonable requirement. What seems to have been lost in this debate at times is that there are consumers out there. The broadcasting industry policy that this government is overseeing has been designed to support the best quality product using the most advanced technology available, and that cannot be articulated in absolute terms right here and right now. We have heard some discussion about the cost of digital television. We have heard some commentators in the media musing about whether there is a market for digital television. The interesting thing is that when you talk about a market it usually involves a willing vendor offering a product or a service to a willing purchaser. The fact is that we do not have that product out there right now. When you think about the take-up of high definition television and some of the benefits that it represents, we do not quite know what pace that will occur at because the product is not there now and, unlike many other areas of our economy, the providers have a key role in guiding the development of the technology. Consumers do not come into my electorate office and say, `Look, member for Dunkley, we really think the policy should be this because that would enable us to do (a), (b) and (c) once it is introduced.' That does not happen. The reason that does not happen is that most consumers do not know what the technology will offer them. In many cases it will be a supplier driven arrangement where these new technological opportunities, combined with some of the terrific creative minds in the broadcasting and media industry, will offer new product. People will get a sense of what it means, and then you will start seeing consumers deciding whether or not they are in a position to take up that technology.

The triplecasting arrangements are designed to ensure that the analog service currently enjoyed by viewers around this country continues to be available. So, from the consumers' point of view, we are making sure their televisions still are relevant, are functioning and are able to provide a good quality service—a good quality service not just in terms of the picture and sound quality but in terms of the content. It is widely recognised that our country has excellent television content, and anybody who travels around the world will know that our television leaves most of the offerings in similar countries for dead. There is a reason. Successive governments have made decisions about how many free-to-air broadcasting licences are made available. If someone wants to question the decision that is reflected in this legislation about not providing for the new free-to-air broadcast licences, then let us have a debate about whether we should have more free-to-air broadcasting licences. Let us talk about what that means for the revenues that are available to the industry. Let us talk about what impact that may have on the quality of the content. Let us talk about the impact that may have on the Australian content that viewers of television in this country can see. Let us have a discussion about how widely those new services could be made available in regional and rural Australia. That would be a sensible and worthwhile debate to have. But to come in here and argue that the policy settings under this digital television and datacasting legislation are somehow an affront to the idea of more television programs is coming at the argument in rather a slippery way.

We have made a policy decision about the number of free-to-air broadcasting licences that are made available because we want to maintain the quality of the television content. We have placed obligations on the broadcasters to triplecast their service so that if you have a traditional analog television you can still enjoy it. If you want to access at entry level the new world of digital technology, you can do that too through a standard definition television set-top box or the like. But if you want to go the full hog and enjoy all that is available through high definition television, that is your right as well—that is an option that is available to the consumer. That choice and that consumer interest are what underwrite the legislation before the House tonight; not which media mogul has done over the other, whether this is television dominating the print media, and what about radio and the new entrants through pay television and online services. That is juicy stuff and you will find people talking about those things. But let us cut to the car chase: what is it about? It is about looking after the interests of consumers, and that is what underpins the provisions that are in this legislation tonight.

We have also heard some discussion about the issue of enhanced service definitions and about some of the settings in this legislation that seek to ensure that some of the benefits that are made available through free-to-air broadcasting are consistent with free-to-air broadcasting. That is not an unreasonable thing to do, I believe, because at the end of the day that is what the licence is being provided for. Bearing in mind the obligations that are placed on the free-to-air broadcasters through the `must carry' of standard definition television, the 20 hours a week of high definition television and a continuation of the analog signal, there are also some opportunities for those broadcasters to take on board the new technology and offer some improvements to the service they offer. In my previous contribution in this place I talked about some of the differing sporting angles you could enjoy: watching the mighty Richmond Tigers having a terrific year—a team made up with character. But if you are fascinated with knowing how the forward line works, you could have the option of looking at that part of the broadcast. If you are thinking about how Nick Daffy gets his hair cut and you want to go the next step and click on Nick Daffy to make an appointment to get your hair cut just like he does, that is not really a broadcasting service. That is an example of some of the datacasting opportunities that are made available in this legislation.

I am describing it in a way that hopefully the consumers will be able to follow. If you want to know what Nick Daffy's stats are for the year and how many games he has played and how he is going with goal kicking and those sorts of things, fine. That is a rather modest extension of the traditional broadcasting service. If you want to engage in some other commercial activity beyond that broadcasting service, then that is available under this bill, but there is an additional price to be paid because you are entering into a new area of enterprise. That is not an unreasonable thing, in my view. Those opportunities are there, and that is an example of the very direct benefits that can be gained by making use of this technology. That example about the haircut, or even joining the Richmond footy club as a member, or booking tickets for the next home and away match, or something of that kind, are services that are available under this regime for which an additional payment is to be provided.

Those types of services are just a window into what can be done with this technology. What we do not know precisely is where the technology will end. That is why the minister has, quite wisely, introduced a number of review arrangements as part of this package. I particularly have been interested in the streaming of video and audio. Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, you would be aware that Bardot—that television creation, the music outfit that have been doing terrifically well, and who have, I think, launched their album at No. 1 on the popular charts—had their first concert made available through audio and video streaming over the Net. I know Microsoft was one of the organisations involved in that. So people who were interested in that concert could call up the site and actually see the concert.

That is exciting technology. If they were doing that 24 hours a day it would sound a bit like MTV. If they were punctuating that performance with some news and a few other things you would find it very hard to differentiate it from a television channel. These are reasons why the minister is, quite rightly, looking for the advice of the ABA over the next 12 months, to review the role of the streaming of video and audio over the Net, given that that technology is here with us now. And there are some terrific Australian entrepreneurs and some gifted people right around the world looking at how to make best use of it. The question that the ABA will be providing advice to the minister on is that broadcasting. Certainly there is a requirement to lock into the site, but it is not a one-to-one supplier of that material, so under the traditional definitions you would think, `Gee, maybe it leans a bit towards broadcasting,' but that is something the ABA needs to work through.

A point to multipoint service is traditionally what people accept as broadcasting—that is, television programs and radio programs—and that service may be delivered over a range of technologies, whether it be terrestrial, satellite, cable or microwave and the like. Some of those are available now on subscription; some of them are not. But, put simply, commercial broadcasting of services of that kind will be banned until the end of 2006, regardless of how they are delivered. So we are not getting bogged down on this technology specific regime; we are asking is it broadcasting, or is it not? Does that technology represent a new entrant into broadcasting?

You could look at that same issue and think about point-to-point services, where an individual person can click into a video clip or a movie or something like that and download it entirely independently from the actions of any other person. That is a different use of the technology again. That already happens in downloading music files, even news clips from the ABC, and some other things like that. That material is being received separately, and it is being listened to and consumed at a different time by different users, so the sense is that it is not broadcasting. You can see how complicated that gets, as the new technology opens up new opportunities for people. Streamed audio and video services are already a fact of life with Triple J—and you could actually argue that the parliament does this as well—over the Net. The question is: is that broadcasting? That is an issue that the minister will be seeking advice on over the next few months.

The other thing that I would like to briefly touch on tonight is the question of datacasting. The seven megahertz that are being made available for free-to-air broadcasting reflect current digital compression technology. My advice is that it will not be long before you will be able to transmit that same volume of data over a reduced span—not the seven megahertz, something less. Again, the policy needs to take account of that technological development, and it does that by leaving the option open for free-to-air broadcasters to make that spectrum available. If it does make that spectrum available for data services then, as I have mentioned earlier, that activates some costs.

The point is trying to make sure that there are no free kicks in this policy setting. So if people want to make use of those datacasting services, there will be a fee attached to them. The thing that we will need to look at is the way those fees are struck. If you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, wanted to make available a datacasting service espousing the virtues of tourism on the coast of Victoria—from your area in the Western District, around to the Bellarine Peninsula and then over to nature's jewel on the Mornington Peninsula—we may choose to do that, and if we had the commercial relationships with the tourist operators, the visitor industry and those sorts of things we would be generating some revenue through that new use of this technology, and the ABA would be rightly saying there is a fee to be charged for that.

Something we need to keep our eye on is if the free-to-air broadcasters were not making that spectrum available to us but were offering that service themselves, then all of that revenue would be contained within the free-to-air broadcaster. If they simply sublease the spectrum to you and me, then the revenue within the broadcaster is less and under the current regime would trigger a reduction in fees. That is a cuteness that we need to keep an eye on, because we have seen in the past how the media industry itself is very clever at working its way around these sorts of potential loopholes.

Another point I would like to briefly talk on tonight is the concern that has been raised about the restrictions on datacasting. We can stand here and talk as technocrats about what the technology is and what it conceivably could do, in an absolute vacuum. But the fact is, as I have mentioned earlier, we have free-to-air broadcasters and we have made some decisions as a nation, through successive governments, to value quality product, and that is why we do not have as many free-to-air broadcasting licences as some other countries.

The point about this is that, when you are looking at the freedom given to potential datacasters, a puritan look at it may well knock over something we already value quite highly. We could say, as those opposite would say, `You're far too restrictive with your definition of datacasting. Why can't people use the technology that is available? Why aren't some of the video streaming and the sorts of things that are very near broadcasting not able to be done?' and then raise arguments about it stifling the development of the product. We should not forget, though, that we are not operating in a vacuum. We do have free-to-air broadcasters, we do have pay television providers, we do have current service providers over the Net and we do have a number of current and emerging strategic alliances between broadcasting and media companies. The policy needs to take account of what we value about our broadcasting industry now and not junk that simply for a puritan argument about what the technology is capable of doing and how we should simply get out of the road of it. That is a naive and simplistic view that has already been offered by some of those opposite—just let it rip.

There are things that this country has valued for decades that have been built into this policy setting. Some of them are about quality television, and we should not just give that away as if it did not matter anymore. Of course it matters, and that is why this policy setting does not offer any media proprietor or media baron all that they want. The comforting thing about reading the press clippings on this is that just about everybody with a barrow to push thinks we have not got it entirely right. It is about making some compromises between those very vigorous and outspoken vested interests and, at the same time, trying to make sure that our national interests and the concerns of the consumers are properly accommodated. As I mentioned earlier, consumers are just starting to get a taste of what is possible under this technology, and it is very difficult for consumers to rise up and advocate what policy should be when they are pretty much relying on the providers of the technology to let them know what it is capable of doing.

I would like to touch briefly on another issue in the time available. Some concern has been raised about the services available in regional and rural Australia, where there may only be two existing broadcasters at the moment. The policy setting does provide the avenue for additional broadcasting capability for those two or to new entrants to expand the range of product that is available to the more isolated citizens in our very large country. There has also been some discussion about the separation of a content licence from a broadcaster's licence—for someone who actually transmits the signal. There you are looking at responsibilities that are not dissimilar from the current providers of content or the current providers of transmission capability. This is not something that is widely unfamiliar to people. The policy has sought to provide certainty on issues that we can be certain about. I would not stand here and say that we can be certain about all of these things, but it provides certainty for those things about which we can be certain and puts in place a series of mechanisms, mainly through reviews, to keep track of the way technology evolves. It delivers affordability to the consumers so that they can migrate from the current analog technology to standard or high definition television pretty much at a time of their choosing and make sure that their current investment in entertainment equipment in their homes is not junked by some plan to change the arrangements overnight, as has been advocated by some.

I commend the bill to the House. I think we are on the verge of an exciting era. This is something that our nation will take up quickly because we have traditionally done that. I think the policy settings that Minister Alston has provided and that are articulated in this legislation give our country the best possible chance to take what is good out of this new technology without junking things that we value at present. (Time expired)