Mr TANNER (4:34 PM) —The Productivity Commission report on digital TV very appropriately exposes the antiquated nature of the government's policy approach to this very important transformation that is soon to occur in our society. We are seeing an approach that is based on the concept that high definition television will be the leading feature of digital TV, when I think most commentators realise that the chances of high definition TV flourishing are not high. In fact, there is a very high chance that it will end up being the latter-day equivalent of quadraphonic sound or the Beta video. So the government's policy approach to try to force high definition TV onto the Australian people at considerable cost and to hand over an enormous amount of spectrum to the free-to-air TV stations in order to facilitate that clearly is fundamentally and conceptually flawed. It is producing a situation where we will see a complete absence of competition, the retardation of technological change and a reduction in consumer choice—all of the things that are inappropriate in the world of new technology and rapid change that we are entering.

We are also seeing these things applying to the emergence of the new category of datacasting, which really has no inherent meaning other than that it is not broadcasting because the government say it is not broadcasting. The regulations that they are proposing to impose in that instance are basically unduly restrictive. They retard the potential for a new industry based on interactivity and creative content to emerge, and they will undoubtedly retard the growth of new content activities in which Australia has considerable potential. Consumers, as a result, face less choice, higher costs and a missed opportunity that really is unfortunate. In that respect, Labor is endeavouring to amend the legislation in order to improve the position, in order to remove or reduce some of the restrictions that are being imposed on datacasting.

From the perspective of the shadow minister for finance, I say there is also a serious problem with the opportunity cost involved in handing over spectrum which otherwise perhaps could have been sold or auctioned. There has been no process of evaluation, no process of tendering, no process of being able to measure precisely what value is being transferred here. Therefore, we are seeing a non-market approach to a situation where in other instances where spectrum is dealt with we see, appropriately, a market based approach where the spectrum is auctioned and enormous proceeds are reaped. It is sad that it appears that Australia will repeat its history in this instance. We were late into television. We were late into colour TV. We were late into pay TV. We were late into FM radio. In each case, we have encumbered these new technologies, these new industries, with regulation that is designed to protect income that is in existing industries, in existing activities, and, as a result, have retarded prospective growth in the sector overall.

This sector is of fundamental importance to our society. Our society is in the process of transforming as we move into an information dominated age, and it is of paramount importance that we alleviate the prospective digital divide that is emerging in our society where half the community are online, where half the community have opportunities arising from the new information economy and the other half do not. It is extremely important that we deliver government services online, thereby producing enormous savings to government which can be redirected into things such as more teachers, more hospitals, more police on the beat and the like. It is extremely important that we create a stronger, larger market for our information economy which will give Australia a disproportionate strength in the world market relative to our population. In some respects that is already happening, but the opportunities to do so are enormous and we should not be retarding those opportunities by imposing antiquated regulatory structures that really have no inherent logic on an emerging new industry. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the new creative talent that is being attracted to these new technologies, these new industries, can flourish, and that in existing industries like health and education the opportunities that are offered by these technologies can be fully taken up. We are, for example, world leaders in distance education. Therefore we should be looking to take the best possible opportunities we can arising from these new technologies, and we should be looking to foster the transformation of our society and our economy into a high-tech, information based economy, both for services and for manufacturing, all of which are associated with these new technologies.

This is a rare occasion when social justice—with a strategy designed to ensure that everybody is online, that everybody can access the information economy—actually is directly beneficial to the economy. In no way is it a drag on the economy. In no way will it retard economic growth and economic development; it will actually facilitate and enhance it. So we have a tremendous opportunity here, and it is disappointing that the government have chosen to opt for very much a second-best strategy which I believe ultimately will not survive the test of time and will have to be revisited very soon when we see high definition TV not produce the results that were expected and when we see an unduly restricted regulatory framework preventing new industries from emerging, thus preventing the opportunities that will arise from digital technology being taken up to their full, thereby retarding Australia's economic growth and retarding our ability to develop new skills and new content.