Senator FERRIS (5:15 PM) —It is budget week, and all the talk around this building has been on big picture issues like health, education, welfare, older Australians and what the government is doing for them, young people and the number of people now in jobs. There have been dozens of men in suits on mobile phones swarming all over the building, having cappuccinos at Aussies and having meetings in our offices. And the topic on their lips has been the size of the debt repayment—the way in which this government has reduced the ALP debt of $80 billion in 1996, with savings of $4 billion a year in interest payments. They have also been talking about the size of the surplus, which has been turned around from a $17 billion deficit when Mr Beazley became the finance minister in 1994 to the $1½ billion surplus from this financially responsible government.

But nowhere—not in my office meetings, nor the office meetings of the colleagues I have spoken to this afternoon; not in the corridor chat, nor over the cappuccinos at Aussies—have I heard the word `datacasting'. Nowhere: not even at the ALP tables at Aussies, filled with cappuccino drinkers. But why would they be down there talking about datacasting? It is one of their serially policy free zones. I am puzzled as to why datacasting is on our Senate agenda today. I was very confident, when I saw that Senator Bishop was the first speaker, that he would satisfy my curiosity and tell me why datacasting had come to the top of the serious policy agenda in budget week. But I was out of luck.

So it begs the question: why are we spending two hours this afternoon on a debate initiated by Senator Bishop on datacasting? Could there be a policy announcement in the wings? Could Senator Bishop know something that Senator Lundy does not? Is datacasting now at the top of the ALP policy agenda? Are we just hours away from a significant policy launch on datacasting? Are we at last going to know what the Labor Party's policy agenda is on datacasting? I was consumed with excitement at the thought of it. At last—a policy agenda coming into the Senate! But once again my hopes have been dashed. We have not heard a single word about policy on datacasting. We heard plenty of talk about everything that everybody else has done wrong—everything that Senator Alston and Senator Bourne have done wrong—but nothing about what the ALP will do to put things right. It is a bit rich for Senator Bishop and Senator Lundy—the policy free zone once again— to come in here and start talking about what we have done and what we have not done on the cancellation of datacasting licence auctions.

The decision to cancel the auction was made for a number of very important reasons, and they were explained very eloquently this afternoon by my colleague Senator Eggleston. We had a situation where there were at least five markets in which only one new service provider would emerge. Unlike those opposite, we are not comfortable with monopolies. We like to introduce competition and transparency into markets. We know that Labor may well have allowed this monopolistic situation to occur, but once again we can only actually guess it because we have not got the policy to refer to. But on this side of the chamber we are committed to introducing competition because we know the benefits that this has brought to this community.

Interestingly enough, some on the other side do know those benefits and that is why they have done a bit of privatising themselves in a dark room with the door shut and the curtains pulled. Hopefully, nobody knows too much about it! But of course the community now knows that there is some policy flexibility in some sections of the Labor Party.

The ALP may well have chosen a situation where in each of these five markets we would have had a sole provider had the auction gone ahead but we realised that the outcome for the community in terms of the provision of news services could well have been, to put a good face on it, quite poor. Not only would there have been a lack of competition in five of the markets but in a further three markets the competition would have been weak, as there were only two bidders. Had we pursued this outcome, the financial returns we could have expected would have been less than optimal. Everybody knows that while Labor readily accepts substandard financial returns, we aim much higher. Of course, this week's budget has proved that: it is testimony to it. Had we taken this option, there is no doubt that Senator Bishop and Senator Lundy would have been standing up this afternoon criticising us for selling the use of the spectrum so cheaply. Surely Senator Bishop and Senator Lundy would not have supported us selling these datacasting transmission licences at prices way below their long-term value. But then again, who knows? We do not have a policy index to refer to to find the answer.

One of the key points in this debate is that the cancellation of the auction is highly unlikely to slow down the development of interactive television services in this country. As Senator Bishop knows, the broadcasters themselves have established a digital TV strategy group, which is an industry wide body committed to examining the technical and marketing issues involved with the introduction of interactive television. The strategy group is working with manufacturers and retailers to establish a fully coordinated framework for the introduction of the latest receiving equipment when it arrives. Not only is the industry continuing the work towards the introduction of interactive television, but the free-to-air broadcasters will be able, a year after the digital TV services start up in their area, to provide datacasting services themselves—surely an acceptable outcome.

I am not sure how aware Senator Bishop is of the legislation, but it clearly provides for a review of the datacasting regime to be conducted before 1 January 2003. It will be from this review that the government will be able to consider whether changes are needed to be made to the regime.

Senator Schacht —You won't be in government then, so don't worry about it.

Senator FERRIS —Senator Schacht, make yourself comfortable over there; you will be there for quite some time. It will be this review we should adhere to, not the political rhetoric of Senator Bishop and poor old Senator Schacht, who is facing the home straight even as we speak.

The government examined the definition of datacasting very thoroughly during the reviews that it conducted in 1998 and 1999. Detailed consideration was particularly given to the ways of distinguishing between datacasting and broadcasting. Further consideration was made by a Senate committee and while datacasting legislation was being prepared for introduction into parliament. As a result of that detailed consideration, some amendments were made to modify the operation of the regime which was then being proposed by the government.

By the time the datacasting regime legislation was passed by the parliament in June last year, there had been 140 amendments made to it. Indeed, the parliament not only considered this issue last year and again in debates on other legislation earlier this year but also agreed on the model. It did not come up with anything better. The clear conclusion from this process was that a genre based approach to defining datacasting was the most effective and practical means of providing certainty to both broadcasters and datacasters. It will ensure that datacasting is different from and yet complements traditional broadcasting. It is consistent with the moratorium on the provision of new commercial television services prior to the end of 2006.

The regime that we introduced allowed a very wide range of datacasting services to be provided. This included interactive computer games, education programs, email, Internet content and even parliamentary broadcasts. If we are able to get some subjects that are of relevance in budget week, we might be able to get some people to have a look at the broadcasts.

Curiously, in his notice of motion, Senator Bishop states that the government's datacasting regime `is preventing Australians from reaping the economic and technological benefits of datacasting'. When I read that I thought: is this the preamble to a policy; are we now going to find out in Senator Bishop's addressing of that particular section of the motion, what his alternative policy would be? But, no. The senator totally ignored the fact that one of the main reasons we cancelled the auction was that we did not want to sell an undervalued product, thereby short-changing the community. So Senator Bishop recognises the argument that was at the base of our decision, and he does not, interestingly enough, raise an alternative option.

More importantly, before Senator Bishop accuses this side of the chamber of preventing Australians from reaping the benefits of datacasting, he must realise that the entire broadcasting industry around the world is still in its infancy. It is a little bit like policy development in the Labor Party—it still has not quite got its legs. In fact, we were one of the first nations in the world to introduce digital television. In the United Kingdom and the United States the development of digital television has been particularly slow. In the USA, in particular, progress has been hampered by the problem of deciding what should be the appropriate standard. In any case, the services in these countries have not differed much from the traditional format that we are all familiar with.

I think many in the industry would acknowledge that the more advanced types of services have been slower to develop than was first expected. I wish Senator Bishop was still in the chamber so that I could see whether he would agree with me. He is probably in the press gallery. Because this issue is of such great moment on the night when we have the speech in reply on the budget, if he does not get up there early to sell the story, I doubt that he is going to get much of a run with it.

However, there are other factors that have conspired to slow the growth in datacasting, not the least of which is that the development of set-top boxes capable of providing interactive services is still under way. So before those opposite start blaming the government for not providing the benefits of datacasting, they must realise that this is still a growing industry. Those opposite need to be reminded that earlier this year alternative proposals for a datacasting regime were introduced into the parliament and yet again these proposals were rejected.

I conclude my contribution this afternoon by calling on Senator Bishop, Senator Lundy and their colleagues opposite to focus their attention just a little higher on some of the hot topics that are being debated in this building today—those issues that were covered in the budget that affect the lives of Australians and Australian families in this country today. The issues of health, welfare, education, security and older Australians are the issues that are actually part of the public debate. I remain puzzled as to why two hours of the Senate's time this afternoon have been taken up by a debate on datacasting.