Mr LINDSAY (10:29 AM) —I appreciate the opposition's support for the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002. There has to be certainty, as has been pointed out, but I think there were some inaccuracies in the comments that were made by the previous speaker, the member for Melbourne. First of all, I want to make it clear that the government is not backing away from its commitment to high-definition television. It was right that the government mandated the introduction of HDTV. In the years ahead that will be seen to be a very wise decision of the government and, as it leads the world in so many other areas, Australia will lead the world in digital broadcasting technology.

Picking up on some of the technical matters in the bill, the measures proposed will not change the commencement of the HDTV obligations in areas outside mainland state capitals. Of course, as the member for a regional area—for Townsville and Thuringowa—that is of great importance to me. Actually, I obtained a set-top box about four weeks ago and I turned it on, but unfortunately there is no digital broadcast in my area, and it is not expected for another year. I am looking forward to seeing it arrive in October next year. This legislation will delay the commencement of the 20-hour per week HDTV quota obligations, but it will only be for six months. I think the industry appreciates that the government is moving carefully and wants to make sure that the introduction of the new digital age proceeds as smoothly as possible.

I would like to comment on the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. I note that paragraph (2) of the amendment condemns the government for `refusing to acknowledge that its digital television regime is failing, particularly with respect to the very poor consumer take up of digital receivers'. That flies in the face of something that I saw only four weeks ago. The member for Lindsay and I went to Panasonic's TV factory in Penrith, which is in the electorate of the member for Lindsay. I want to acquaint the House and my colleagues of the fact that Panasonic is the only company that makes television sets in Australia. Many people think that Panasonic large-screen sets are made in Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia or Japan, but they are made in Australia and they always have been. While we were there the two-millionth `Made in Australia' television set came off the production line. What a marvellous achievement by Panasonic; and, what is more, to the eternal credit of Australians, the profitability per set made is higher than any other Panasonic factory in the world. Right here in Australia we can compete and we can make television sets at a higher unit profitability than at any other factory in the world in the Panasonic organisation.

How is that related to digital? We saw the digital sets being made. The demand for digital sets is such that every digital set made by the Panasonic factory is basically sold before it comes off the production line. That is the extent of the demand. To have a second reading amendment which refers to `the very poor consumer take up of digital receivers' is clearly not right. It is the same with other manufacturers who offer digital sets in Australia—people like Philips, Sony, LG and Samsung. They are in the marketplace as well and they are selling digital television receivers. What is driving these sales? This is a key point.

Before I make that key point, let me say that I had long held the view that, for the average consumer out there—for Mr and Mrs Suburbia—as long as their television picture moved and talked, they were satisfied; that was all they were interested in. I have seen shocking picture quality on people's television receivers—people not noticing that the picture was full of ghosts or that there was sound distortion because of the ghosting. As long as it moved and as long as it talked, they were happy. But that is wrong in relation to this current digital age. I have come to that realisation, and the parliament should come to that realisation. What is driving the sales of HDTV is DVD technology.

DVD will probably be the biggest selling technology this Christmas in the shops. Once consumers see the brilliance and the quality of DVD—both in picture and sound—they want more. They realise that the pictures they are getting off air are substandard, and that will drive the move to digital television. As the previous speaker said, one of the advantages of digital television is that the reception is much better: the ghosts, effectively, do not appear; they are removed. You get a first-class picture even though you are receiving ghost signals. So I am very upbeat and positive. Because of the government's proactive move in mandating the introduction of HDTV and the digital system, I think Australia will see a very big take-up of this technology as we proceed. I am not at all pessimistic, as the opposition seems to be, because of the evidence I am seeing in the marketplace.

However, there is one concern that I have at the moment, and it is a technical concern. Perhaps officers of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts who are in the parliament should take note of this. While there is a mandated standard for the broadcast of digital television pictures, broadcasters can interpret that standard in different ways. It is possible with the set-top box system of receiving digital television that if you tune to Channel 9 you might get picture and no sound, and if you tune to Channel 7 you might get sound and no picture. That happens right now.

We cannot allow that to continue. There is a solution. The set-top box makers need to put software patches into their set-top boxes to make sure that all of the different broadcast formats are received properly and seamlessly. We need to legislate for a small data stream to be available on perhaps ABC or SBS television so that the set-top box makers can send to the receivers across the country—no matter where they are—any software patches that are needed to correct the operations of the set-top box so that all set-top boxes in the country can receive all channels without any problems.

Some people listening to this might not think that what I have just said is the case. I can guarantee that it is exactly the case. I do not think that the manufacturers want free spectrum to transmit the software patches. I think they are prepared to pay the broadcasters to have that channel. But it will need legislation, I believe, to allow that to happen. That is why I say the department should take note of what I am saying.

I think the government is amenable to making sure that that occurs because the only alternative is for the set-top box manufacturers to go and visit every set-top box and upload the software patch that is needed. Clearly that comes at a cost, and I do not think viewers would be terribly happy to realise that they cannot get proper digital reception from every channel every hour of the day without having to pay somebody to come to their home to make an adjustment to their set-top box. I ask the department to have a look at that and see if we can get that sorted out as soon as possible.

The previous speaker also indicated that he was disappointed that the government was not going for multichannelling. He said that we are really going to have the same system as we have now but in digital. I do not think that is right, either. I would make two points about that. The first is on the question of more channels. As a long time participant in this industry, I can tell you that more channels are not necessarily better for the consumers. It is a mantra that you hear everywhere that more choice is always better. But there are some very significant downsides in more choice in public broadcasting.

The very significant downsides come from the fact that we are a small marketplace—that we have a small number of viewers—when you look at the costs of providing many channels of information and entertainment. I think that many of those listening to what I am saying will understand that when aggregation came along and we got three channels we did not get three times the quality of the programming. There are many people now who do not even have a television set because there are not a lot of worthwhile shows. I think that is a narrow-minded view. But you know what I am saying. A lot of the programming is repeat programming or low-quality, low-budget programming. Just adding a whole lot more channels does not necessarily improve what is available to viewers. In my own case, while I have access to pay television channels, I never watch them because there is just too much information being thrown and you do not have time. You cannot sit in front of a television set all day. The point that I am making is that more choice, more channels, is not necessarily the best outcome for viewers.

It is also not necessarily the best outcome because it could prejudice the financial viability of the free-to-air broadcasters. The last thing we want in this country is free-to-air broadcasters being in a position where they may not be able to continue to provide a quality service to those who wish to receive it. I am a fierce advocate for maintaining the financial viability of the free-to-air broadcast system in this country, and I do not want to see that prejudiced by a whole lot more channels adding a whole lot more cost and perhaps putting the financial viability of some broadcasters, particularly regional broadcasters, in doubt.

The other point I want to make is in relation to the idea that we will just get the same system. I think the previous speaker ignored the fact that once we go fully digital all of the existing analog channels will become available. They will be there vacant. There will be plenty of spectrum available. If the government down the track, the government of the day, chooses to look at multichannelling or some other variations, then that spectrum will be available. We have not in any way ruled out or ruled off our options for the future. I think it is wise and prudent that the government takes one step at a time and introduces the new technology in the HDTV format. Then, if in the future there are further demands for spectrum, the spectrum is simply there.

Paragraph (5) of the amendment that was introduced indicates some concern that the government will not be entrenching guarantees that existing services, such as regional news services, will be maintained. Both the member for Hinkler, who is with me in the parliament today, and I are certainly strong advocates for making sure that there will be guarantees that news services will be provided in the regional areas. There is no doubt that broadcasters who are the holders of a licence to use scarce public spectrum should provide that and should keep that obligation to their local community. I know that the viewers in Townsville and Thuringowa want to see the provision of local and appropriate news services.

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has made draft recommendations to the government and the industry. The government sees that the ABA will allow the industry to respond to those draft recommendations. They will ultimately come back to the government as final recommendations from the ABA. I will, in no uncertain terms, be fighting to have those recommendations implemented in legislation. I am determined to see that broadcasters meet their obligations to their local communities. I refuse to have broadcasters who do nothing more than run a control room out of Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra with no regard to the interests of the regional areas of Australia. It is very important that local television stations be part of the local community and give something back to the local community in terms of their obligation to broadcast information of community interest. There is no doubt that that should be an obligation on the broadcasters.

So I reject paragraph (5) of the amendment that has been moved. If I have my way—and I know that a lot of my colleagues feel the same way I do—existing news services will be retained, and news services that have been cancelled will be returned to the airwaves and our local communities will have the opportunity to get that programming back. I again thank the opposition for their support for the technical matters in this bill. I think that through this we will see a further orderly move towards the introduction of the best television system in the world right here in Australia.