Senator BOURNE (11:04 AM) —As we have heard, the purpose of the legislation that is now before us is to provide for the sale of the national transmission network. The Democrats do not support the sale of essential government infrastructure unless it is proved to be in the public interest. We are not convinced that this is the case with the national transmission network, especially as it stands at the moment.

I am sure government members will remember—certainly I remember and I know Senator Schacht will remember—what was announced in the Better Communications policy document, which came out just before the last election. It stated that the coalition would increase the national broadcaster's responsibility for the transmission of their programs. On page 7 of the document, the government states:

. . . the Coalition sees no valid reason why the national broadcasters should not have control over their transmission facilities. After all it is the national broadcasters who are criticised whenever their sub-standard transmission quality or breakdowns occur. . . Accordingly, and in line with an increasing trend around the world, the Coalition will fund the ABC directly for its transmission costs on the strict condition that national coverage and existing service commitments to rural and remote areas are continued.

How on earth the ABC is able to keep up proper transmission to rural and remote areas with no money to do it, I do not know. Of course, that is what is happening at the moment. Senator Boswell will tell you—Senator Boswell has—that there is a real problem with the ABC's transmission in the bush. That is an absolute, direct result of a lack of funding to the ABC. I hope everybody listening in rural and remote areas realises that. I am sure they do. The coalition's policy also commits to the same outcome for SBS. That is on page 9 of their policy. Unfortunately, though, that is where the good policy stops.

The national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, have sought control over their transmission facilities for a very long time. But the Democrats do not believe that the way to achieve that outcome is for the government to sell off the transmission facility, the national transmission network. We would much rather see the national broadcasters properly funded for the costs of their transmission facilities, not as a separate line item in the budget but directly and as part of their total funding appropriation. That way, the ABC and SBS would be able to enter into direct commercial relationships with a number of transmission service providers, including the NTN, commercial providers and others. That may even have the effect of challenging the way the National Transmission Agency, which operates that network, operates.

The national broadcasters and the National Transmission Agency have not always had a very convivial relationship. That is not the fault of either of those organisations but the effect has been that, over a considerable period of time, neither the ABC nor SBS has developed a particularly sound working relationship with the NTA, and that has negatively affected all of them.

But that problem should not be resolved by selling off one arm of the government's business to the private sector. Time and time again, successive governments have laid claim to the fact that transferring the operational capacity of a government agency to the private sector will produce the scope for greater client focus and responsiveness which flows from commercial practice, and of course that is just not the case. The Democrats reject the notion—and this is something that we hear all the time from this government—that everything in the public sector is inherently bad and inefficient and everything in the private sector is inherently efficient and cost effective. It is Animal Farm: four legs are good and two legs are bad.

Selling the transmission facilities does not necessarily set the scene, as the government claims, for a greater degree of competition in the transmission services market. The national transmission network currently operates as a sort of monopoly, with the national broadcasters the only guaranteed customers. Competition is only likely to take place between the National Transmission Agency and a commercial provider, and then only on the eastern seaboard or other coastal regions of Australia. That is where the population is.

At the very least the Democrats believe that, if the bill passes the second reading stage in the Senate and the sale proceeds, the government should use the funds to pay for the digitisation of the ABC, SBS and some community broadcasters. And if they cannot find the $1.6 million elsewhere, then they can use some of the funds to immediately reopen the Cox Peninsula shortwave transmission facility.

In the latest budget, the government has costed the proceeds of the national transmission network into forward estimates. That is a courageous move on their part. In its submission to the inquiry into this sale bill, the Department of Communications and the Arts stated that the proceeds would pay for the cost of the ABC and SBS contracts for transmission; the cost of funding providers of Radio for the Print Handicapped services and commercial broadcasting licensees in declared remote areas for increase in transmission costs resulting from commercial charging—

very noble; discretionary funding to the ABC and SBS for minor transmission enhancements; and the costs of planning and administering transmission services by ABC and SBS. Since the government would have had to fund these programs regardless of the sale of the NTN, why is the department apparently double counting those proceeds?

The sale does not result in the government suddenly receiving the money it requires to fund these transmission services. The government simply wants to eliminate, as far as possible, its activities in the direct provision of telecommunications infrastructure, and it is slowly going about doing just that. That is why we recommend that any proceeds be used to fund national broadcasters in their transition to digital technology, and our amendments reflect this. We also make provision for a proportion of the funds to be used by the community broadcasting sector's transition into the digital environment.

As Senator Schacht told us just a moment ago, the ABC is being given $20.8 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is minuscule. If you talk to the commercial broadcasters, they believe they needs hundreds of millions of dollars to change over into digital processes—hundreds of millions. This government is `generously' allowing the ABC $20.8 million to try to change over with. I have spoken to the minister about this and he tells me that it is really only part one and, depending what happens, then maybe they will get part two as well, and goodness knows what part two will be—$½ million, $1 million. It will not be anything like the hundreds of millions of dollars that they need—or that the commercial broadcasters tell us that they need.

The national transmission network's 550 transmission facilities are used to carry television and radio signals for the national broadcasters. Some commercial and community stations access the national transmission network, which also provides the transmission for emergency broadcasters and for Radio for the Print Handicapped. Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone and paging and data services also use the NTN.

In his second reading speech, the minister stated that the government recognised the importance of safeguarding important broadcasting policy objectives, including the maintenance of existing ABC and SBS coverage and service quality. We were pleased to hear this. But we do not think that the community service obligations contained in the bill provide adequate access to certain broadcasters. We have the community sector in mind here particularly.

The emergence of digital broadcasting will pose special and significant broadcasting challenges, some of which cannot yet be determined, and we believe the bill should at least try to take some of these into consideration. Naturally, emergency service operators, Radio for the Print Handicapped and government and non-profit self-help re-transmission broadcasters deserve special attention, and we are pleased that the bill recognises that. Commercial broadcasting licensees in declared remote areas are also defined as nominated customers in the bill, and they should receive guaranteed access to sites and transmission towers. But the bill cannot guarantee that these services will continue to receive special treatment after the initial five-year contract period of transition from the public to the private sector. Too much remains unclear and undetermined, particularly after that five years.

The national broadcasters are of the view that the sale should proceed. That is not because they are of the view that the privatisation of the network is a good idea—they have no view on that—but because the contracts and the compacts have enabled the national broadcasters to negotiate a more suitable arrangement for the transmission of their television and radio services to Australians than is currently the case. The government, in line with their election commitment, should have enabled the national broadcasters to undertake contractual arrangements with service providers regardless of the sale of the network. If the government were truly serious about competition, it would have found other ways to introduce it, not merely by selling a monopoly provider to the private sector. This in itself does not guarantee a competitive outcome.

The compact with the government and the contracts with the future owner or owners, the ABC and SBS believe, will provide adequate protection for both broadcasters and the viewing and listening public. In particular, the contract with the future owner will ensure that coverage and service levels for the current services are maintained. While the national broadcasters should not be doubted—as I am sure they have been really cautious in their approach to this whole situation and, of course, they can be trusted—I sincerely hope their predicted outcome is right.

The contracts and the compacts will be signed by all parties for an initial five-year period and will be subject to renegotiation for a period of up to 14 years in total. Those measures are designed to protect the broadcasters against higher possible costs from the post-sale arrangements. We hope that is the case, but being subject to the funding whims of this government in particular, nothing can be certain.

The Democrats also have concerns about the sale process itself. During the committee process, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing was not able to provide details of the anticipated sale price or details about the intended purchasers. The Democrats are concerned about a possible conflict of interest if the owner of the network is a commercial broadcaster. We believe that the new owners ought to be specialist transmission providers, not broadcasters.

Channels 7, 9 and 10 are all part of the consortiums who have bid for the network. With all the uncertainty underpinning the future of broadcasting as one of the reasons the government wants to back out of transmission service provision, it appears that commercial broadcasters understand the importance of owning national broadcasting transmission infrastructure at this crucial time much more than the government does.

We would certainly hope that, in the event of transmission failure, the commercial interests would not override the public interest and that all broadcasting services would be afforded equal importance. Transmission cannot be left to the market to decide when the national broadcasters are dependent on a concept of the public good. The Democrats note that the access regime for the national transmission network is similar to that put in place for the telecommunications industry but only for certain nominated customers. The access regime is designed to guard against any imbalance in power which might lead to an essential transmission service or facility being available.

In dealing with the latest Telstra bill, the Democrats have become aware that some provisions in the access regime do not benefit all the players in the marketplace. Those provisions are also designed to ensure that not all services are available at monopoly prices. To invoke the cliche, there is no level playing field in the telecommunications industry, particularly with the strength that Telstra has in the marketplace, and it does not look to us as though there will be in the near future. How can we expect the provision of transmission facilities to guarantee equal access to all broadcasters, particularly the smaller ones?

The Democrats have drafted amendments to safeguard access and to provide for a better community service obligation scheme, assuming that the bill gets past the second reading stage. We would prefer that the national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, achieve control of their transmission facilities from means other than the sale of a government asset, especially one which provides an essential service. We also reject the government's notion that everything in the private sector is efficient and the public sector is inherently inefficient and uncompetitive. The government could have made a number of policy decisions which would have given the national broadcasters control of their transmission facilities, it would have given them secured funding for broadcasting and for their digital conversion, but that is not what they have done.

In response, the Democrats have formulated a key amendment to the bill which will see the proceeds of the sale given to the national broadcasters in order that some of the infrastructure development funding they require can be secured. Securing funding for the national broadcasters is far more important than the government's argument about debt retirement or their ideologically position, straight out of Animal Farm, of four legs good, two legs bad.