Wednesday, 28 June 2000 SENATE P 14759

BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION AND DATACASTING) BILL 2000

DATACASTING CHARGE (IMPOSITION) AMENDMENT BILL 2000 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 27 June.

The CHAIRMAN-The committee is considering the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000.

The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (9.31 a.m.)-I have a question at the outset to the minister.

Minister, last night in parts of the discussion you made some reference to inadvertent material in the context of walled gardens on the Internet.

Would the government be amenable to an amendment on that issue to try to resolve it?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.32 a.m.)-Our position is that we think the regime we have devised is the best that can be put forward under the circumstances.

I am conscious that there are those in industry who would argue that even with what seems to be a transparent set of categories you could find that there would be a minor overlap or that in some respects web sites might be caught which, although they might strictly run foul of the genre regime, would not be recognisably televisionlike.

That is really all that I was adverting to.

We would not want a situation where web sites that were not televisionlike were ruled out so, to the extent that some limited discretion might be available, that might be of assistance.

Certainly our primary position is that what is there is adequate, but I can understand what you are putting forward, because it does reflect what other people have put to me about the concerns that they have.

The CHAIRMAN-Minister, are you seeking to move your next group of amendments?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.33 a.m.)-by leave-I move government amendments Nos 14, 15, 17 and 18: (14) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 12 to 14), omit "and any category B digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (15))".

(15) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (after line 14), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) ignore a particular item of category B digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (15)), so long as the licensee does not transmit simultaneously any other item of category B digital programenhancement content; and (17) Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (lines 9 to 11), omit "and any category B digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (15))".

(18) Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (after line 11), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) ignore a particular item of category B digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (15)), so long as the national broadcaster does not transmit simultaneously any other item of category B digital program enhancement content; and The purpose of these amendments is to restrict the additional category B digital program enhancement content simultaneous live coverage of overlapping sporting events in the same sport at the same venue which can be transmitted on a freetoair broadcaster's digital television service to a single program only.

The original bill does contain provisions that would enable the carriage of the same sport at the same venue, which is a very limited form of enhancement but does go beyond the position we announced back in December.

Nonetheless, in our view it would have very limited effect, because it would probably only cover tennis.

That is about the only sport that would readily spring to mind, where you could potentially have-at least, say, in the early stages of Wimbledon, like right now; I was not up last night but I saw that Rafter won in straight sets-a number of games being played on outside courts as well as the main game on the centre court.

In those circumstances-being played at the same venue at Wimbledon; a number of different matches all arising out of that same event-we take the view that that form of enhancement is acceptable and certainly in the consumers' interest.

Given that we do also recognise that the secondary matches may well be matters that could be of interest to pay TV operators, this amendment is designed to limit the enhancement to a single program only.

In other words, you would only be able to show one additional match.

The amendments clarify and constrain the scope of the provisions in the bill which allow freetoair broadcasters to show as an enhancement another match in a particular sport, such as tennis, provided both matches are live and in the same sport and played at the same venue.

The enhancement provisions operate by allowing certain content to be ignored in determining whether a broadcaster is simulcasting the same program in both digital and analog modes.

Amendments Nos 14, 15, 17 and 18 will amend items 91 and 112 of the bill which amended clause 6 of schedule 4 of the BSA.

These amendments will restrict the category B digital program enhancement content that is ignored at any particular time to a single television program only.

The effect of this is that only one additional match can be shown as an enhancement, rather than a number of separate matches all occurring simultaneously.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.37 a.m.)-I will not take up the Senate's time talking about this except to say that the Democrats will be voting against the amendments.

We have considered this very closely, and we believe that the original provisions which did not allow this are probably fairer to pay TV.

We have heard the arguments and some of them are quite good, but we have to keep in mind that the pay TV industry would normally get that second tier of the tennis, and it is something that they do rely on.

This would make it very likely that they would not get it.

Also, people in regional areas would have a more difficult time with this, because they are less likely to get the digital regime as early as people in metropolitan areas.

On those grounds, we will be voting against this and we have a couple of amendments later on.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (9.38 a.m.)-For Senator Bourne's information, the items we are dealing with, amendment Nos 14, 15, 17 and 18 on sheet EK215, are essentially technical amendments as opposed to amendments of substance.

The amendments of substance on this issue of program enhancement will come later.

On the basis that we are dealing with technical amendments that have been circulated by the government, the opposition will be supporting those amendments.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.39 a.m.)-That is not what Senator Alston said.

There is a restriction in programming that goes beyond the technical in these amendments, and maybe we should have that cleared up.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask, through you, Madam Chairman, whether either Labor or the Democrats have a view to recommitting amendments from last night, when Labor and the Democrats voted against each other's amendments, knocking them out and allowing the government position on datacasting to prevail.

I hoped there would have been some communication overnight so that the opposition could improve the situation as far as those datacasting parameters are concerned.

I would be interested to know if there will be any effort to recover ground lost by the knockout situation that occurred last night between the Labor and Democrat positions.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.40 a.m.)-Ignoring Senator Brown's repetitious grandstanding, I will make it clear that what we contemplate by these provisions is to allow an additional channel to broadcast the same event at the same venue, but it is limited to one program.

In other words, if you had a series of matches on the outer courts at Wimbledon right now-which you would have-you would only be able to show one of those in addition to the match on the main court, which would be on the primary channel.

For example, if Channel 7 were showing the centre court game, they would be able to show one outside match but not an unlimited number of them.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.41 a.m.)-Why not an unlimited number?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.41 a.m.)-These things are all compromises.

As I said earlier, it is a matter of recognising that the pay TV industry has previously had an interest in secondary games.

To the extent that this might then allow the freetoair networks to run the second game, at least it is allowing the pay TV operators to run the third and fourth game rather than requiring them to vacate the field entirely so that all matches at the same venue would effectively be within the control of the networks.

It recognises that pay TV has a legitimate interest in showing some second order games but also acknowledges that consumers watching the primary event might like to also see, by way of enhancement, one other game on an outer court that is being played at the same time.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (9.42 a.m.)-I would like to clarify the position of the opposition.

We support enhancement generally and, in the context of the amendments currently before the chair, we will support the one channel.

Later, if an additional amendment comes for the same sport at the same venue, we will oppose that.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.42 a.m.)-I am sorry to be obtuse about this, but I suspect that the government and the opposition think that this amendment goes to different areas.

I thought that the amendment went to the same sport venue that the minister is talking about.

I think, though, that the opposition believes the amendment to be something altogether different.

If that is the case, it might be sensible if we put this off and discussed whether we were talking about the same thing and dealt with it a bit later.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.43 a.m.)-I think the situation is that the Labor Party are essentially taking the view that an additional one channel is less restrictive than an unlimited number of additional channels.

To that extent, they are supporting what they see as a restriction on what is contained in the bill provision.

When we come to voting on the bill provision, we will be asked to decide whether there ought to be an enhancement that allows one additional channel.

You may still want to vote against that, but you will only be given a choice between one additional and no additional rather than unlimited and no additional.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.44 a.m.)-I thank the minister for that explanation.

I take it then that this is what the ALP are telling me they think it is, and that it does not actually involve the samevenue sport; it is just the additional multichannel.

If that is the case, the Democrats would be in favour as well.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.44 a.m.)-Again, to be clear, it is do with same sport, same venue, but with the way the bill is drafted you would be able to show a number of outside court games at the same time.

Your main channel might have the centre court, and you might be able to have two or three other digital standard definition channels.

This is in the bill.

What I am proposing is a restriction or limitation on that, and Labor is supporting that but without prejudice to the decision that might be taken down the track as to whether there should be any enhancement at all.

If you are implacably opposed to the whole regime, you will in due course be voting against any enhancement, and Labor will then have to decide whether it supports any enhancement or a single additional channel enhancement.

But we will have removed the current bill provision, which has an option of unlimited additional channels.

In other words, we are restricting our original provision.

Labor is saying, 'At least for present purposes, the choice will be between none and one rather than none and many.' Then you can have your substantive debate and vote down the track.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.46 a.m.)-by leave-I move Democrat amendments Nos 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 on sheet 1827: (5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 11 to 14), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) ignore any digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (14)); and (7) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 14), omit "Category A digital", substitute "Digital".

(8) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 15), omit "category A".

(11) Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 7), omit "category A".

(12) Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 13) to page 27 (line 15), omit subclauses (15) to (19).

I should explain all the amendments.

We have four sets of amendments to the program enhancement.

One of them relates to a 10minute limit on what can be shown.

I do not have any support at all for that one, as far as I know.

One of them relates to accidental overlaps of time.

I do not know whether I have support on that one.

One of them relates to the category A primary program.

Many of the five I am moving at the moment relate to same sport, same venue.

As I said before, the Democrats are not inclined to support the tennis amendment, which would allow you to see two games from the same venue at the same time.

This is because, as Senator Alston himself said, pay TV usually shows the second most interesting game on any tennis tournament, and that is where they get a substantial amount of their reve nue from.

There is also the problem that regional areas will change over to digital much later than we will in the metropolitan areas.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.48 a.m.)-Although we have narrowed it, we still take the view that this is in no shape or form multichannelling, which is what the original commitment was, and we adhere to that.

We did that quite explicitly to limit the capacity of the freetoair networks to expand their business cases quite dramatically and have what one would expect to be a significant impact on a growing industry.

Given that this is not multichannelling, we believe it is a tightly confined enhancement with the same sport at the same venue at the same time.

Very few sports are likely to be affected.

We do not think it would significantly impact on the existing business of pay TV operators.

We oppose the amendments.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (9.49 a.m.)-For the information of the chamber, whilst there is some common ground between the opposition and the Democrats, there is not sufficient common ground.

We tend to agree with one sport, one venue, but if these Democrat amendments are defeated we will be next on the list moving opposition amendments Nos 3 to 16, which we think go much further.

At this stage, we oppose the Democrat amendments.

Amendments not agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.50 a.m.)-I move Democrat amendment No. 6: (6) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (line 21), after "capacity", insert "is a program of no more than 30 minutes in length that".

This amendment is on accidental overlaps of time.

Under this amendment, if there is, for instance, a sporting event-and I think that is the only place it would occur-which goes over time, the commercial and national broadcasters would like to be able to put it on the other channel and broadcast at the same time.

We hope that this will not apply to the nationals.

So far it does.

So, if there is an accidental over time limit on, say, a football game or a long game like cricket, golf or perhaps tennis, that game could continue to be shown until it finishes-that is the case in the minister's amendments at the moment- and on the other channel you would have the regularly scheduled program, which would start on time.

We see that as a problem because it could lead to programming decisions.

I am not saying it would, but it could.

As the minister has pointed out, you have to be careful of these sorts of things in the current climate.

That would give us one program that was, say, three hours long and with that one program you could have an accidental overlap-although perhaps it might not be quite as accidental as it appears-of a sport that could go as long as that program went, even if it were three hours long.

That could lead to-and I am not saying that it would-programming decisions that virtually enable multichannelling on the commercial channels.

They would enable it only while the sporting events are on, but it could be a problem.

We have heard that nothing will go much over 15 minutes, but I noticed two Sundays ago when I was waiting for the Sunday program to come on at 9 o'clock that there was an accidental overrun of the golf of two hours and 43 minutes.

Because they have only one channel to broadcast on, the golf was shown for an extra two hours and 43 minutes, and then we saw the Sunday show.

I cannot see why that should not continue to happen.

For short overruns-and we have seen evidence from the commercial freetoairs that, in general, overruns are quite short; they are generally about 15 minutes-that should be allowable.

Heaven knows that it is very annoying when something that is really exciting is about to finish and they suddenly change over to another scheduled program.

We think a 30minute overrun time is a more reasonable one than the duration of any program, which I believe is the minister's preferred position.

Or perhaps it was the minister's preferred position but I have just argued so brilliantly that he has changed over to my 30 minutes.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.53 a.m.)-With the greatest respect for Senator Bourne, you have to be a sports fan to appreciate how potentially absurd and highly infuriating an arbitrary 30minute cutoff would be.

Bear this in mind: these are going to be very rare occurrences.

This is act of God stuff-unforeseen circumstances, rain delays play and that sort of thing-which is not normally within the power of the otherwise very powerful broadcasters to control.

We have not privatised the weather yet, and it would be very difficult for them to manipulate the start of play simply so they could achieve an overrun.

We will certainly be expecting the ABA to monitor any possible abuses very closely.

I remember when Doug Walters was on 94, we went to the Channel 9 news and he hit a six off the last ball of the day in Perth at the WACA.

That was not a halfhour, but if an AFL grand final were coming to a climax and rain had delayed play by 35 minutes, Senator Bourne might be quite happy to tune out with five minutes to go, but I would not be very happy.

If it were the 1964 or 1966 grand final, where Collingwood was beaten by less than a goal each time, I would not have been very happy.

Senator Calvert interjecting- Senator ALSTON-We did win by about seven goals in 1990.

I would have been happy to tune out then, because Leigh Matthews has a great theory that, in the modern era, you are home only if you are more goals in front than there are minutes left to play.

So, with five minutes to go, we would have won that game.

The CHAIRMAN-Minister, you can leave your comments on Collingwood.

Senator ALSTON-This is very relevant.

I am demonstrating to Senator Bourne why an arbitrary 30minute cutoff could be very aggravating indeed and would not achieve any useful purpose.

You are only trying to accommodate a situation where something has been delayed by forces beyond your control to enable it to be completed.

We do not want that to be manipulated in any shape or form.

It will be very rare to have these situations.

But, if people are wanting to watch those sporting events, they ought to be allowed to watch them until completion.

That is our point.

I do not think it makes sense to draw the line.

If we were talking about people being able to artificially schedule so that you could have overlaps on a regular basis, that is an entirely different proposition.

But this is only in unforeseen circumstances, it will occur only very rarely and the last thing I would want is for the program to be prematurely closed down if I had taken the option of staying with the sporting event.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (9.57 a.m.)-I would like to make two points about that.

Currently, the regime we have is that you do not have to turn the sport off.

If it looks hugely exciting and it has only 10 minutes, half an hour or even an hour to run, you can leave it on.

You just have to put off your regularly scheduled program.

The minister said that he did not want to see a cutoff to one program.

He has his own cutoff written in.

I understand the minister's suggestion on this is that it be allowed to run as a multichannel to the end of one program.

Programs may be movies, and they may be quite long, but in general they are only half an hour or an hour.

So he has his own cutoff built into his scheme, and his cutoff is half an hour or an hour-in general, unless we are looking at a movie or something which is deliberately scheduled to be very long when it is thought that something else might go very long, such as the golf or the tennis.

But there is the possibility of doing that.

So, firstly, there is no necessity to cut off the sport as there is no necessity now to cut off the sport.

It is always a programming decision whether that happens or not.

Secondly, the minister already has his own cutoff built into his own piece of this legislation.

His cutoff, though, is half an hour or an hour to any program; mine is 30 minutes to any program.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (9.58 a.m.)-I do not quite know why Senator Bourne thinks I have a cutoff built into my arrangement.

I do not.

I thought the example you gave at the outset was based on your concern that you should not have had to put up with the golf for another couple of hours when you wanted to watch the Sunday program.

If that is right, by allowing the golf event to be completed on the second channel, you would be able to watch the Sunday program on time.

All it is doing is providing flexibility and not putting the programmers in that very difficult situation.

You or someone else might want to see the Sunday program start right on time, and others might say, 'I don't care how long the golf goes for, I want to see it to the end.' Both of them are legitimate points of view, and we are trying to accommodate both.

If you simply say that, to finish the golf, you ought to defer the start of the Sunday program-or whatever else it might be-you are coming down on the side of the sporting fan whereas I thought your starting point was that the sporting fan should not be accommodated for any more than 30 minutes.

You end up punishing both if you allow a 30minute overlap and nothing more.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.00 a.m.)-Minister, I may have this wrong.

If this amendment does not go through, will there be a limit on accidental overruns?

I had assumed through reading the legislation-though I must say it was a long time ago-that there would be a limit, and the limit would be to the end of the program that was on.

But perhaps I am wrong and perhaps there is not a limit at all, in which case I am even more worried about it and I would be keener to have a 30minute limit.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.00 a.m.)-No, you would only be worried if you thought that unforeseen circumstances such as weather or acts of God-lightning strikes and the like-were going to be regular occurrences.

But they are not.

This is simply catering for the very occasional happening.

Senator Bourne-But there is a limit.

Senator ALSTON-No, there is not a time limit.

It is to enable the completion of the event; that is all.

It may be only five minutes.

Senator Bourne-It may be two, three or four hours.

Senator ALSTON-It may be but, again, you cannot possibly try to strike a moving average of how long unforeseen weather circumstances normally delay the completion of a game for.

It is an utterly unpredictable event; it happens only very rarely.

Our proposition is that those who have started watching that event ought to be allowed to watch it to completion it, however long or short that is.

So the notion of imposing an arbitrary cutoff point runs entirely contrary to that fundamental consumer preference to be allowed to see the completion of the event, and that is not time dependent.

That depends on factors beyond your control.

If we thought for a moment that the broadcasters could manipulate that, we would be very worried indeed.

We will monitor it to ensure that there is not any artificial manipulation.

But it is very hard to see at first glance how there could be.

The starting and finishing point ought to be to try to accommodate as many viewers as possible.

Those wanting to watch a sporting event do not want to just see another 30 minutes; they want to see the completion.

It might be only five minutes; it might be more than 30 minutes-who knows.

The cricket can be washed out for a whole day.

There are matches that have been washed out without a ball being played.

On the other hand, they can go off the field for five minutes.

It should not occur very often but, when it does, the overriding concern ought to be to accommodate those who want to see the game through to completion.

Those people will not say, 'Well, another 30 minutes is better than nothing.' They will say, 'So what-all you have done is heighten my interest and then you have chopped me down with five minutes to go.' Therefore, we think the notion of time limiting is fundamentally opposed to the interests of consumers.

Where I think you should take comfort is from the fact that this will occur very infrequently and in entirely unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the broadcaster.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.03 a.m.)-I just want to clear this up.

Paragraphs (d)(i) and (ii) of clause 91 is where I got the impression that we were going to the end of one program.

Paragraph (d)(ii) reads: ...

the other television program broadcast using that multichannelling transmission capacity was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event ...

I assumed that meant one television program being broadcast.

I assumed that the minister's intent was that the overrun could go to the end of the other television program that was being broadcast.

I assumed that was one scheduled program and not an entire schedule of a freetoair television station.

Can the minister explain whether or not that was his intent in that clause?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.04 a.m.)-I am rather puzzled at the suggestion that the combination of (d)(i) and (ii) amounts to saying that you could only delay one program but not the succeeding program.

Paragraph (d) reads: ...

ignore a particular television program transmitted ...

where: (i) the program is a scheduled program that provides live coverage of a designated event ...

That all seems to be fairly neutral.

It goes on: ...

and (ii) the other television program broadcast using that multichannelling transmission capacity was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event.

I understand that to mean that you could not suddenly put the golf on at short notice.

It would have to be an event that had been scheduled at least a week ahead of, say, the Sunday program on Channel 9.

Senator Bourne-Okay, I understand.

Senator ALSTON-So you cannot just bring something in at the last minute.

These have to be events that are set out well ahead.

I suppose you could say they should be sufficiently far ahead that you could not take advantage of the likelihood of bad weather-in the UK, maybe even a week would be too short because in the middle of winter you might be reasonably confident that it will be washed out.

It is a very long bow to draw.

It is simply designed to ensure there is no lastminute fiddling or positioning of programming in such a way that you might be able to claim that a sporting event has been washed out and should therefore be allowed to run in conjunction with another scheduled event.

It just gives that extra degree of comfort that the exceptions only apply where they are in relation to events that have been already scheduled well in advance.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.07 a.m.)-I thank the minister for that.

I do see what he means now.

I assumed that part (ii) referred to the scheduled program.

As I understand it, he says part (ii) actually refers to the overrunning program, in which case that does make sense.

But I think it is even more important now that people agree to my 30 minute rule.

Amendment not agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.07 a.m.)-I move Democrat amendment No. 10: (10) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (after line 32), after paragraph (j), insert: (ja) except where the content is the depiction of the primary program from a different camera angle-the content does not contain matter in the form of video footage of more than 10 minutes in length; and I will not spend much time on amendment No. 10 because I do not think it has much of a hope.

This amendment would apply a 10minute limit.

The only reason I am putting a 10minute limit on it-it is a bit cheeky really-is that there is a 10minute limit on video in datacasting.

I thought it was quite appropriate to put it in here.

But, as I understand it, I do not think anybody else thinks it is appropriate at all.

Amendment not agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.08 a.m.)-I move Democrat amendment No. 9: (9) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (lines 27 to 30), omit paragraphs (h) and (i), substitute: (h) having regard to the subject matter of the content, it would be concluded that: (i) the sole purpose of the transmission of the content is to enhance a television program (the primary program); and (ii) the content is ancillary or incidental to the primary program; and This amendment places limits on category A program enhancements to ensure that the bill is consistent with the original stated intention that enhancements be directly linked to the primary program.

That is what we came up with, I think, two years ago.

The concern has been expressed that the proposed form of words links programs on the basis of shared subject matter rather than linking them to the primary program.

This could permit forms of de facto multichannelling.

Obviously, subject matter is much broader than linking to the primary program.

We would like to keep it narrow to ensure that multichannelling does not accidentally happen because of that.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.10 a.m.)-Our concern has always been that the enhancement ought to relate to the subject matter of the primary program.

That is why we talk in terms of being closely and directly linked.

I think the term 'ancillary or incidental' did have some currency a year or so back.

But the general view was that these words did not quite make sense in this context.

If you ask yourself how something can be ancillary or incidental to the main program, it does not seem to necessarily mean that it relates to the same subject matter.

What is it?

It could cover almost anything.

It could be very narrow.

We think the primary requirement is that the matter should be directly and closely linked.

In that way you know exactly what you are allowed to do.

It has to be, if you like, an extension of the main program.

If you say it is 'ancillary or incidental', 'incidental' could mean irrelevant.

If that is the case, there is no justification at all; that is classic multichannelling.

If it is 'ancillary to', does that mean it is just not as important as or that it has some sort of tangential relevance?

Again, I think both of those terms are moving further away from enhancements and more into the category of multichannelling.

I can remember- it must be at least 12 months ago-looking at those terms and perhaps even using them at some stage and then realising that they did not achieve the purpose that we wanted to achieve.

I think Senator Bourne is quite rightly concerned to keep these enhancements away from the multichannelling arena.

But the way you do that is to say that they should be directly and closely linked.

I think you just open it up to much more uncertainty if you use words as vague and ambiguous as 'ancillary or incidental'.

Amendment not agreed to.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (10.12 a.m.)-by leave-I move: (3) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 11 to 14), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) ignore any digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (14)); and (4) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 21 to 23), omit "was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event", substitute "is a regularly scheduled news program".

(5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 24 (lines 32 and 33), omit "the other television program", substitute "the regularly scheduled news program".

(6) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 14), omit "Category A digital", substitute "Digital".

(7) Schedule 1, item 94, page 25 (line 15), omit "category A".

(8) Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 7), omit "category A".

(9) Schedule 1, item 94, page 26 (line 13) to page 27 (line 15), omit subclauses (15) to (19).

(10) Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) ignore any digital programenhancement content (as defined by subclause (14)); and (11) Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (lines 18 to 20), omit "was scheduled at least one week before the start of the designated event", substitute "is a regularly scheduled news program".

(12) Schedule 1, item 112, page 32 (line 30), omit "the other television program", substitute "the regularly scheduled news program".

(13) Schedule 1, item 115, page 33 (line 11), omit "Category A digital", substitute "Digital".

(14) Schedule 1, item 115, page 33 (line 12), omit "category A".

(15) Schedule 1, item 115, page 34 (line 2), omit "category A".

(16) Schedule 1, item 115, page 34 (line 8) to page 35 (line 10), omit subclauses (15) to (19).

The minister for communications, Senator Alston, released a media statement on 21 December 1999 indicating the government's policy approach to the scope of the enhanced services freetoair commercial television broadcasters would be able to provide within the digital environment.

The 1998 framework legislation provided for additional 'incidental and directly linked programming by commercial freetoair television broadcasters'.

The term 'incidental and directly linked' was not defined in that legislation.

The minister's announcement on 21 December stated that the government would allow freetoair broadcasters to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs provided that they are directly linked to and contemporaneous with the main program.

This could take the form of additional camera angles on a sports match, statistics about a player or additional information about a segment in a lifestyle or magazine program.

Multichannelling when dealing with overlaps-for example, to allow the end of a sporting match to be shown even if it runs over time and clashes with a news bulletin which commences on its scheduled time-was the parameter the minister laid down at that time.

The opposition's policy approach to this debate is that we propose to amend the government's enhanced services framework to reflect more accurately the framework announced back in December of last year.

This will be done by: firstly, maintaining enhanced service provisions for freetoair broadcasters at the level described by the government's December 1999 announcements; secondly, allowing simultaneous transmission of content additional to the primary broadcast content, provided that the additional content has a direct and obvious link with the primary broadcast; and, thirdly, allowing overlap of broadcasts where an unexpected delay or extension in the time of one broadcast coincides with the scheduled broadcast of a news bulletin.

These amendments achieve clarification of the relevant provisions in the bill so that the scope of enhanced services in the bill is consistent with the minister's policy announcement.

In summary, we seek to remove the category B enhancements from clause 94 of the bill.

The reason for our proposed amendment is that it removes category B enhancements from the bill, as these clearly go beyond the scope of enhanced services proposed by the minister last December.

Removal of the category B enhanced services makes the bill's provisions consistent with the minister's previous policy indications of what would comprise enhanced programming.

In terms of category A amendments, in summary, we amend category A enhancements to reflect a new single category model and refer to all enhanced services content by the generic term 'digital program enhancement content'.

The apparent breadth of category A program enhancements in the bill includes video programming with a subject matter that is closely and directly linked to the subject matter of the primary program; our amendments restrict that so that de facto multichannelling is not allowed.

The specific amendment requires a direct and obvious link with the primary broadcasts and refers to all enhanced service content using the generic term 'digital program enhancement content'.

The amendments ensure that broadcasters cannot simultaneously broadcast standalone separate programs-such as a rerun or a different program of the same series of a sequential drama program, sitcom or miniseries-at the same time as the primary program or a secondary program which has an indirect link to the primary program; for example, a secondary program in which an actor stars where that actor was a special guest on another program.

Finally, the amendments achieve this by clarifying the examples in item 94 of the bill, subclause 614, schedule 4, that video highlights from past matches and each player's ranking and career highlights are considered a program enhancement pursuant to category A so that they do not amount to multichannelling.

In terms of the overlap amendment, briefly in summary, the amendment conditions for freetoair enhanced service transmissions will specify that overlap multichannel transmissions may only occur where the overlap involves a scheduled news program.

Our reasons for that amendment: the bill makes specific provision for overlap multichannelling in the amendments to clause 6(8), schedule 4, of the Broadcasting Services Act.

The circumstances where this kind of multichannelling is permitted are considerably more extensive than originally contemplated.

The minister's announcement of 21 December 1999 clearly indicated that multichannelling would be permitted where events ran into a news bulletin.

The new clause allows multichannelling where the overlap is into any scheduled program.

The provisions are substantially different from those previously proposed.

An overlap of broadcasts where there is an unexpected delay or extension in the time of one of the broadcasts will be allowed when the overlap coincides with the broadcast of a scheduled news program.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.19 a.m.)-There are two separate matters that are being dealt with here, and I would really like to separate them.

The first one is in relation to same sport/same venue.

I think we have already had that discussion.

We have narrowed it down to the proposition that you should be allowed to have one additional event or one additional game broadcast at the same time as the game on, say, the main court.

That is a very separate issue from the question of whether or not you ought to confine overlaps to news.

In some respects, I think it might be easier if these were dealt with and voted on separately.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.20 a.m.)- The example that was given was Wimbledon and matches on other courts.

The virtue of this is that it has got realtime and, if you have a high definition TV set, it is very clear, et cetera.

Minister, if a high definition television set will cost about $20,000, how many times could a tennis enthusiast go to Wimbledon and back for that particular cost?

We really do have to put these things into perspective.

I do not want to repeat what I said last night, but I think that  just indicative of the fact that we seem to be talking of things in an unreal world.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.22 a.m.)-Senator Harradine, if we were talking about only the availability of true HD television and only accessing that through a new HD set, then indeed one could expect a fairly limited audience, but we are not.

Given that parliament has mandated that all freetoair networks should simulcast in both HD and SD-sometimes described as 'triplecasting'- you will be able to access multiple channels through a standard definition settop box, which one would expect to cost a few hundred dollars-we would hope $500 or less.

Senator Harradine-It is more like $7,000, isn't it?

Senator ALSTON-These prices move around, but a lot of people buy video cassette recorders and digital video disks and the like and pay what might to some people seem to be significant sums of money, but it does not seem to deter quite a lot of people from actually accessing new technology opportunities.

If you are able to buy a standard definition settop box for under $1,000-as I think many people would be able to afford to do-then you would have the opportunity of accessing more than one channel at the same time.

Given that seven megahertz gives you 20 megabits and a standard definition channel takes up about three to four-sport maybe a bit more-you certainly have the capability of transmitting more than one standard definition channel at the same time.

Given that we are proposing only one additional match, you would be able to get both of those channels by getting the cheap option-the standard definition settop box.

I think it is reasonably affordable for the masses.

Reverting to this batch of amendments put forward by the opposition, I think they should be dealt with separately.

I understand the argument that you are not comfortable even with one additional channel on the enhancements, and we ought to vote on that.

If Senator Bishop is really trying to hold me to a statement that we made back last December on the basis that somehow we said that overlaps should only apply in relation to news, I would, firstly, argue that that is not right-that we were simply using that as an example.

More importantly, it is the issue of principle: that is, if there are very occasional circumstances in which weather or other acts of God make it desirable to allow an overlap, that should not then be artificially constrained by whether or not it runs up against the news.

As a matter of principle, once you accept that you can have the occasional overlap, then it should not be determined by whether or not the news is coming up.

We said in the press release of 21 December: The Government will allow the broadcasters to multichannel when dealing with "overlaps" -for example, to allow the end of a sporting match to be shown even if it runs over time and clashes with a news bulletin which commences at its scheduled time.

We were really just picking out the news as the best example, because probably Senator Bourne, if she is not a sports fan, would be most upset if the news was delayed, rather than if Home and Away was delayed.

She might not be in the majority of the Australian population, but probably most people in this chamber would regard the news as the single most important event.

All we are saying is that it should not be confined to that; the news is the best example that most of us could relate to.

But if the principle is that on those odd occasions you ought to allow overlaps, then there should not be those sorts of limitations placed on them.

I simply appeal to the opposition, in the first instance, to reconsider the basis on which they have put forward these amendments because I think they have proceeded on a false premise: that is, they are holding us to what they think our previous position was-that overlaps should be only allowed if they run up against news.

That is not so, and I think I have demonstrated that.

I am happy to table that press release if it assists Senator Bourne or Senator Bishop.

Insofar as you are endeavouring to hold us to what you say is an earlier and different position, I say that this press release demonstrates that that is not so, but even more fundamentally, I think, the principle ought to be that on the rare occasions when overlaps occur, their fate should not be determined by whether or not it is the news that they run up against.

It should be any program because we are trying to accommodate the interests of those who want to see the sporting event.

That seems to me to be something that should be accommodated, irrespective of whether or not it is the news that is running in parallel.

I am happy to provide that press release of 21 December to Senator Bishop so that he can at least ensure that we are both discussing the same position adopted by the government.

Senator Mark Bishop-I've read it.

Senator ALSTON-Therefore, you accept, I trust, that all you are doing is putting forward the most readily identifiable example rather than saying that, in any shape or form, you wanted it to apply only to news.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (10.28 a.m.)-I have listened to what the minister has said.

If he wishes to table the press release, the opposition does not have any objection to that, but the minister can be assured that, in our deliberations leading up to this debate, we have had considerable reference to, firstly, the act of 1998 and, secondly, a series of policy announcements including, most importantly, the December 1990 press statement put out by the government.

The opposition does not accept the argument by the minister that the reference to a news program or news bulletin was by way of example.

We have always understood that that was the primary and dominant objective of the government.

The sentence referred to in the press release might be categorised as an example but, more accurately-this was our understanding and is our understanding-it was the primary intent of the government at that time.

If it has changed subsequent to that, we have not been party to those discussions and negotiations and are not aware of it.

Indeed, we are confirmed in our position by the approaches and lobbying we have received on this issue by the freetoair broadcasters, who have, almost without exception, in their discussions with the opposition referred to news programs and news bulletins in the context of overlap and nothing else.

The reason we hold to the importance of news programs and news bulletins is that they are on at a scheduled time every day of the week and there is a clear public interest component in accessibility to the news.

It is common knowledge that a lot of families either have their evening meal around the TV set watching the news or have their meal prior to the news so that they can be informed of the day's events.

If other programs that may or may not be scheduled before or after the evening news are to be altered or changed because of extraneous events, that, in our view, is a commercial decision of a commercial nature made by the broadcasters.

But in terms of the news there is a clear public interest in that issue at that time of night.

So the opposition is not receptive to the government's suggestion that this series of amendments be divided, and we wish to vote on them en bloc.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.31 a.m.)-Seeing that Senator Bishop is a lost cause, can I appeal to Senator Bourne to simply look at what is in that press release and to take Senator Bishop at face value insofar as he believes he is trying to hold us to our December position.

I am happy to be held to my December position.

My December position was one of principle that overlaps should be allowed and that they should not be determined by what other event they might run up against.

We simply gave what is the classic example and what no doubt for shorthand purposes would be given as the classic example by the freetoairs.

But that does not mean they were saying they only want it for news.

I do not think it is a matter of what they want.

It ought to be a matter of what is the principle.

If you allow overlaps, then you are trying to accommodate the interests of those wanting to see the overlapping programs through to completion.

The sporting event, again, is the principal example.

Therefore, whatever it runs up against, it ought to be allowed to be completed.

It should not be determined only by whether or not the news happens to be around the corner.

We might all regard news as the best example and be most put out if news were delayed, but that should not derogate from the general principle that overlaps are there to enable the completion of the event which has been delayed through circumstances beyond the control of the broadcaster and, therefore, in order to accommodate the interests of consumers.

Once you accept the principle-even if Senator Bourne did to a 30minute extent-if we are now talking about overlaps per se, then by all means hold me to that December press release because that was the whole basis of what Senator Bishop argued.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.33 a.m.)-The fact that my amendment was defeated does not mean I do not still think it is the best idea.

I therefore think that the second best idea is Senator Bishop's amendment, although I do accept from the minister's press release that he was not only talking about news bulletins when he was talking about overlaps.

Despite that, I think scheduled programs can be changed if there is a particularly exciting news event.

I cannot imagine that anybody is not going to show the last five minutes of a really exciting football match because another program is scheduled.

Nothing in this forces people to cut off exciting moments of sport.

What it does is say that the opposition believes that the news is probably the most significant event that people tune into every day at the same time and watch-I certainly do and probably everybody I know does-but that, if there is going to be an overlap and if we are going to allow the freetoairs to multichannel, then they should be able to do it only on that really important point of news.

But apart from that they can keep showing the sports program.

They will just be making another program late.

Based on my own amendment, I think that is probably a second best amendment to support.

The other ALP amendments look remarkably familiar to me.

I think we just voted them down when they were mine.

Seeing they are the same as mine, I am going to be voting for them.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.36 a.m.)-My next amendments are on sheet 1827: Nos 15 to 17, 19 to 21 and 51.

These amendments relate to spectrum clearance.

The minister has given an undertaking, I believe, earlier in this debate to have a review to direct the ABA to work out what they can do and then to expeditiously-I hope the minister will correct me if I have got this wrong-direct the ABA to clear spectrum and to work out what is going on with the potential sale, or however we do it, of the datacasting spectrum.

If that is the case and if he will give me another undertaking now to do that expeditiously and thoroughly, and seeing as I do not think I have an awful lot of support otherwise for my amendments, I would be prepared to withdraw those amendments.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.37 a.m.)-I think what Senator Bourne said is consistent with the discussion we had last night.

I did say that we wanted the statutory review by 31 October, and that is pretty expeditious.

I could not undertake in advance that we would implement every outcome, but we certainly proceed on the basis that it is a very important issue.

We want provisions to enable spectrum clearance to occur as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

We want the review to occur as quickly as possible to tell us what the options are; and some of those options, as you are probably well aware, could be controversial in terms of moving some of the broadcasters from part of the spectrum to elsewhere.

You will have heard of the term 'polluter pays'.

All these things do deserve proper consideration.

It would be wrong for us to simply try to them now, irrespective of the consequences.

Yes, we certainly support what Senator Bourne has been saying.

I hope we will be able to have further discussions within a matter of a few months.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.38 a.m.)-In that case, I will withdraw those amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)-We will take it that you are not moving them.

We will move on to the next amendments, Senator Bourne.

Senator BOURNE-I believe these are the amendments that relate to multichannelling for the national broadcasters, both the ABC and the SBS.

I have had discussions with the ABC, the SBS, the ALP, the government and various other people on this.

The ALP put up exactly the same amendment as I did on this.

I think it has been agreed that it would be better if that amendment were changed.

If the ALP would like to move an amendment to this amendment to change the words 'is in accordance with the charter of the national broadcaster' to 'is a national broadcasting service in accordance with section 13', I would be more than happy to agree to that amendment.

Because I view this as so important, and I believe the ALP also views it as so important, I would be happy to move that amended amendment in conjunction with the ALP.

So it would be a joint amendment.

But I would be interested to hear what Senator Bishop has to say about that.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (10.39 a.m.)-My understanding, Senator Bourne, is that the particular concerns you have raised have been accommodated in the ALP amendment and that we are going to move it together.

With respect, I suggest that if you withdrew your amendment we could then move the opposition amendment together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN-I take it you are not moving your amendment then, Senator Bourne?

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.40 a.m.)-That is correct.

I will take Senator Bishop up on his offer and we can move the ALP amendment together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN-We now move to opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1823.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (10.40 a.m.)-Also on behalf of Senator Bourne, I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 123, page 38 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute: 123 Clause 35 of Schedule 4 Repeal the clause, substitute: 35 Multichannelling in and after simulcast period If there is a simulcast period for a coverage area, nothing in this Act prevents a national broadcaster, either during or after the end of the simulcast period for a coverage area, from using multichannel transmission capacity to broadcast television programs in SDTV digital mode in that area, where: (a) the programs are in addition to programs that are broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in both analog and SDTV digital mode in that area; and (b) the broadcast of the programs is a national broadcasting service in accordance with section 13.

I thank Senator Bourne for that cooperation.

In this discussion on multichannelling concerning the national broadcasters, the government has imposed a prohibition on multichannelling by the national broadcasters in the bill.

The rationale for the government's decision to prohibit multichannelling by the national broadcasters is not easily ascertained, as we understand from later discussions related to the embryonic or emerging pay TV industry.

It has been made patently clear by the national broadcasters that they regard multichannelling as critical to their future.

The capacity to multichannel pursuant to their charters is important because it will enable them to better fulfil their charters, giving viewers real additional choice by allowing more programming to be showcased and at times that suit their audiences.

It will allow the ABC and the SBS to program content with a regional focus and for the SBS to program additional Australian and multicultural content within that focus and be more cost effective and encourage a takeup of digital technology to the benefit of the industry as a whole.

Even the commercial freetoair TV stations indicated at the Senate inquiry that they did not and do not oppose multichannelling by the ABC and the SBS provided that multichannelling is within the charters of the two national broadcasters.

The government's decision to prohibit multichannelling is shortsighted and, to the opposition, has no valid justification.

Without amendment, the prohibition will have a detrimental impact on the national broadcasters into the future.

Labor's policy position is clear: we believe that it is appropriate to allow the national broadcasters to multichannel consistent with the operation of their respective charters.

The reasons for our amendment are brief.

Significant sections of the industry have come out in support of permitting multichannelling by the ABC and the SBS.

We do not understand there to be any valid justification for denying the national broadcasters the ability for multichannelling, particularly when those arguments are balanced against the resultant benefits.

So the amendment, in detail, allows the ABC and the SBS to multichannel.

This amendment provides for removal of the prohibition on multichannelling by the ABC and the SBS to permit them to multichannel within the constraints of their representative charters, and the charter based restrictions on multichannel services offered by the national broadcasters are to be defined in clause 115 of the bill.

In summary, from the outset of this discussion the government have had a clear policy position that the national broadcasters should not be able to multichannel.

The ALP has sought to get a firm understanding of the rationale behind that decision of the government.

In our discussions with the government, we have not been persuaded of the merit of their view.

That is really the negative side of the debate.

The positive side of the debate, as far as the opposition are concerned, is that we believe there is a pivotal, necessary and vitally ongoing important role for the national broadcasters in public debate in this country.

We believe they should be adequately funded by government to carry out the tasks set out in their charters as determined by their boards.

We believe they make an important contribution to public life in this country.

As they make an important contribution to public life in this country, we believe that there is a reverse onus on government-and it does not matter if the current government or the opposition should be in government-to adequately fund and hence protect that important public contribution that the national broadcasters make to public life.

Part and parcel of that important contribution to public life and public discussion is the ability for those broadcasters to change, reflecting altered consumer desires, patterns or wants.

But, more importantly in terms of capital investment and investment in new technologies, it is no good leaving our national broadcasters back using technology that is now out of date and that will be increasingly irrelevant.

The switch to digital is on.

The switch to multichannelling is on.

The switch to enhanced services may not be going down the road as quickly as the government desires, but I am sure that issue is going to be revisited over the next four or five years.

In that debate, we believe there is an obligation upon government-either a conservative government or a Labor government-to adequately fund our national broadcasters to carry out the role that has been allocated to them by the parliament of this country.

Critical to that is continuing capital investment in terms of equipment and necessary changes in terms of broadcast technology.

Multichannelling is important because it enables the national broadcasters to provide information, delivery of services and topical material not just to the big cities, where most of us live and receive quite valuable services from both the commercials and the national broadcasters, but also to the outlying parts of our country outside the major capital cities, where the level of service-as we know from a whole range of debates-is not what it should be.

The ABC and the SBS can make a major contribution to improving the standard of service and the range of information and the comment that persons living in rural and regional Australia can enjoy.

One of the critical matters in our deliberations in the multichannelling debate has been that rural and regional Australia should not be denied the benefits of technology.

They should enjoy the progress that we are all enjoying as technology penetrates our society and the provision of technology becomes cheaper and hence the provision of services becomes cheaper.

We are alarmed that the government does not wish to adequately fund the necessary changes in terms of the way the national broadcasters operate.

We believe that multichannelling is critical to their future.

They have repeatedly said it to us privately and they have certainly, in a number of inquiries, been on the public record as saying that multichannelling is important to their future.

The opposition is of the view that that is a legitimate desire and want, and this amendment is moved accordingly.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (10.48 a.m.)-I am very pleased to move this amendment with the opposition.

I think that their wording is probably a technical improvement on our own, to start with.

I am sure that the entire chamber is only too aware that I could go on in long and tedious detail about the importance of the ABC and about the underfunding of the ABC.

I absolutely agree with what Senator Bishop said.

I am sure that the minister, when this goes through-as I am sure it will-will go back and reconsider his oversight in the last budget in not having given the ABC enough money, so that they will find it very difficult to create digital content, seeing that they have not been funded to do it.

I am sure that that was just a dreadful oversight and that the money will be forthcoming in the next budget-if not before, as I certainly hope.

The ABC and SBS should certainly be able to multichannel.

There is just no question about it.

You have probably heard this speech a few times before, but the innovations that we see on our screens most often come from that area.

Enabling the ABC and SBS to multichannel is a huge step forward in this debate.

I note, too, that I did not think the minister was all that averse to multichannelling for the ABC and SBS when he set up the first bill.

It is a pity that he has come down against it now.

It certainly was the overwhelming agreement of the committee on which Senator Bishop and I sat that multichannelling for ABC and SBS would be a good thing.

There was little disagreement with that, and people would be interested to see what the ABC and SBS could do with multichannelling, particularly with so few funds.

It will certainly be a very interesting thing to see.

I am very pleased to join Senator Bishop in moving this amendment and I look forward to it going through and to the minister therefore seeing the error of his ways in his funding of the ABC, so that in the next budget it should be hugely increased.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (10.50 a.m.)-I look forward to the Democrats being in government.

I can see we are going to have a very serious budget deficit problem if that were ever to eventuate.

I presume that it is not really a Trojan horse for you to say that the ABC would want dramatically increased funding to enable it to multichannel.

I do not think that is the opposition's view.

The debate ought to proceed more in terms of what is a fair regime and what is generally in the national interest.

The starting point is that we do have very good quality commercial freetoair television in this country.

I think that is generally accepted on all sides.

Most of us have been overseas and have seen what is on offer elsewhere.

You come back and, much and all as you do not immediately rush out and turn on the commercial networks, when you do that you are constantly grateful.

I say in passing that I remember being in the United States during the Atlanta Olympics, which I did not attend, and being appalled at the poor quality of the network coverage in the US.

I was told that it was deliberate, because the sports aficionados would watch it anyway and that the only way you would get in the masses was to dumb it down and to have a whole series of soft, human interest interviews with the nextdoor neighbour of the cousin of the high jumper who won in 1948 and that sort of nonsense.

You did not get any highlights packages, you did not get a gold medal tally and you did not even get the main events.

To me, that was a classic example of the differences between the quality of freetoair in this country and elsewhere.

I can understand an argument that says, 'Look, the ABC is quite different from the commercials.' Indeed, when we reviewed this whole area we said we would look at whether it was appropriate to allow the ABS and SBS to multichannel, but it was on two conditions.

One was that they would have to do it in accordance with their charter.

The opposition might have changed the wording, because the charter is not technically referred to in the act, I do not think, but our objection, in a sense, to the charter has always been that it is all things to all people.

Brian Johns used to be out there on a regular basis saying, 'No need to change the charter because it enables us to do whatever we want to do,' which is exactly our criticism of it.

It ought to be more focused.

It ought to make it clear that priorities ought to be given to regional coverage-news and current affairs, children's programs and the like.

If that is the case, then it seems to me that you move right away from those activities of the ABC directly into the commercial realm if you allow full and unrestricted multichannelling.

I note with interest that the new managing director says that ratings are not a sin.

I personally have never advocated that the ABC should simply be in the ratings game.

What I have always said is that they should benchmark, and they should know in advance before they schedule a program what outcomes they expect.

If it is a science program on Radio National, noone expects it to be a runaway winner.

But you ought to have some sense of how many people you expect to listen to it and, if you do not achieve that objective, then you rethink your position.

The best way of judging success may be to say, 'If we expect a four per cent audience and we get a one per cent, then we ought to think twice-or probably three times- before continuing it.

We ought to look at whether we shouldn't have a better allocation of resources and put on a different program schedule.' I do not argue in favour of ratings per se, but I do accept the managing director's point that the ABC has to be as relevant as possible to the majority of Australians; that it has to ensure that it is catering for an audience.

It is no use saying, 'Well, I'm a programmer.

I believe in quality.

I'm disappointed if the public don't like it, but I can tell you I haven't compromised my standards.

' I think that is an unjustified indulgence.

But if the ABC is going to become more commercial and is going to buy in more programming from the US instead of, or in addition to, the UK, and we are to find a whole new bunch of sitcoms and what might loosely be called 'mainstream programming', it does not strike me that that is the sort of thing that Senator Bourne would say is morally and spiritually uplifting to see on a second channel.

Indeed, multichannelling presumably means you could run a number of channels at the same time.

To what purpose?

All you are really doing is becoming a de facto commercial broadcaster, and that was the second concern we had: that the ABC ought to be a quality alternative to the commercials.

If you ask what the purpose was of the parliament originally supporting an ABC, it was not to be a pale imitation or a simulacrum of the commercials; it was to be a quality alternative to provide information, education, science and religious programming to regional areas.

These are the sorts of things that distinguish the ABC from the commercials.

Full and unbridled multichannelling could just as easily result in more and more programs such as The Bill and other British sitcoms.

It could indeed result in bringing in a whole lot of those types of entertainment programs from around the world.

I do not see that you have achieved very much if you allow that, because the commercials themselves can do it, and that is not why we are providing very significant funds to the ABC to move into the digital era.

We ought to be doing it on the basis that they do not compete with the commercials and that they adhere to a tighter charter than they have now.

Our decision in 1998-this was, of course, a decision of the parliament, so it was supported by all the major political parties-was a decision not to allow freetoair broadcasters to multichannel, because we took the view that that would encroach on the business of the developing pay TV sector.

If you allow the national broadcasters to have full and unrestricted multichannelling, then you are running up against that principle in relation to pay TV, but you are also infringing it in relation to the ordinary, commercial freetoair networks.

It seems to me that you are moving a long way away from where I am sure Senator Bourne would want the ABC to be; you are moving it more into the realm of being a secondclass commercial network rather than a firstclass quality alternative.

We think that this issue of multichannelling is best addressed in the statutory review that is scheduled to be conducted in 2005.

That will allow us to reflect on the introduction of digital technology and digital television in general, and to look at further developments in the pay TV industry, which may well be in an even better position then than it is now: able to withstand full multichannelling from all parties.

If that is the case, then you have an environment which is, I think, a lot fairer than one in which you say, 'Some freetoair networks can't multichannel because they are commercial.

Others, because they are taxpayer funded, can, and they can do it on the basis that they can compete directly with the commercials.' I just do not see the logic of that argument.

I would have thought that, rather than Senator Bourne asking for a blank cheque to buy in more sitcoms from offshore, she ought to be a bit more interested in how Wednesday, 28 June 2000 SENATE P 14771 she can encourage the ABC to produce programming that is much more in line with what its charter ought to be.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)-Just before we proceed, I understand that this amendment has been jointly moved by the Democrats and the opposition.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.59 a.m.)-I agree with the opposition and Democrats here.

This is again part of the anally retentive view that the government has towards broadcasting in general, towards modern technology and towards the ability of the community to be able to choose what it is going to select from, hopefully, a much wider range that is being offered in the age of digital technology.

The ABC and the SBS ought to be given the option of extending more, not less, to the Australian public.

This view that they should be restricted to religion and science-as important as those components of what the ABC puts forward are-is not what the Australian people are about.

I read into what the minister has just said this censorious view that the ABC and the SBS ought to be restricted and taken out, effectively- sidelined-and not be able to be part of mainstream communications with the Australian people, and I totally disagree with it.

I will be supporting this amendment, because I think SBS and ABC do provide a great service and that should be able to expand with the new technology.

We should not be waiting five years to review something to see whether perhaps we could change an option which should be available now.

I remind the committee that I did not go along with the 1998 decision, and I am certainly not bound by it now.

I also think there is a flawed contradiction in the minister saying that ABC and SBS on the one hand ought to be chasing ratings but on the other hand ought to be constrained from putting forward the full range of options to viewers, including quality entertainment.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.02 a.m.)-I do not want to prolong this, but I feel I really must respond to a few of the things the minister has said.

In his comments the minister seemed to take the ABC from a quality national broadcaster to a rather tacky copy of the commercials.

I do not think that is likely to happen.

If the huge funding cuts and the appalling way in which this government has treated the ABC since it came in have not turned the ABC into a tacky copy of the commercials, nothing is going to do that.

I certainly do not think this amendment will.

I do not think that there is any way on earth that the ABC has the intention-let alone the money-to buy in a huge number of American sitcoms.

I cannot see that being on their multichannel.

The minister knows as well as I do-as well as everybody in this chamber does-what the ABC has said they want to do with their multichannelling.

They have shown us all the example of what their regional programming would be.

It is very good.

It is very interesting.

They have shown us all examples of education.

We know that they are probably the best in Australia on children's programming, and we would expect to see a lot of that on it.

The minister also made the comment that significant funds have been made available to the ABC by this government to move into the digital era.

That is a bit of a furphy too, isn't it?

Significant funds?

Please.

They have not even been given enough money to properly change over their technology to transmit digital, and that is something that has been under the original act since 1998.

The government thought 25 times before they even decided to fund them to do what they had forced them to do under the last act, under this act when it come through in 1998.

There is no funding-there is zero funding-for producing digital material.

Please.

Generous funds?

Significant funds?

Where?

I have not seen them.

There is no funding for producing digital material.

There is no funding for archiving, going from analog to digital.

There is very little funding for the ABC overall.

What an outrageous statement for the minister to make.

The minister said that the decision not to allow freetoairs to multichannel-and that included the ABC-was taken in 1998.

The minister knows very well that there was a debate about that in1998.

The minister knows very well that the only reason that we, and probably the opposition as well, agreed with that as a starting point was because there was a review and we had expected, because we insisted on this review, that after the review-it is obvious that the ABC and the SBS are best placed to be able to multichannel, to be able to provide programs that others do not provide; not American sitcoms, which are going to be just impossible for them to put on anyway, as they have not got the money-it would be available at this point in the debate.

There should be a third point, of course, in this debate, but that is going to be eliminated under one of the minister's amendments.

The fact is that we always expected the ABC to be able to multichannel.

We always expected that.

Perhaps the ALP are in agreement, but they may not be, and they would want to tell us if they were not.

But we had always expected that.

We had also always hoped that the ABC would be funded to multichannel.

However, funding the ABC is not something that this government are good at, and I think they need a lot more practice at it.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11.05 a.m.)-I just want to make a couple of points in response to the minister's comments and pick up on the last point made by Senator Bourne.

In regard to the 1998 legislation, the opposition has had a longstanding commitment to multichannelling for the ABC, and you were correct in your supposition.

Turning to the minister's contribution: the hole in his argument, or the mistake he makes, appears to us that he assumes that the ABC, if it is given the ability to multichannel and the appropriate funding, will emerge or evolve into a de facto freetoair or, as Senator Bourne says, a tacky commercial operation.

That is the mistake in the government's approach.

The opposition's approach, in contradistinction, is that the national broadcasters have to stand, and survive, within their charters on their own feet and they are worthwhile standalone entities.

They need to receive adequate budget funding from the government and that they need to be permitted to emerge, change and evolve over time; firstly, in respect of the changing dictates of the market in terms of consumer preferences and, secondly, in their ability to cater for those consumer preferences by being able to provide new equipment.

We do not want the ABC or the SBS to evolve into some sort of alternative freetoair commercial broadcaster.

We are of the view that their charter lays down their obligations and their audience and they should be confined to that.

If the charter needs to be broadened, extended, changed or adapted, it would be appropriate to bring it before the parliament to consider those changes.

As far as we are concerned, we do not want the ABC to emerge as an alternative, freetoair broadcaster; we do not see it as appropriate for that to be its position in the marketplace.

I am reminded of a line in an old Bruce Springsteen song: 57 Channels (And Nothin' On).

That would happen if the minister's desires or fears came to pass.

We do not want that to occur.

We want the ABC and the SBS to evolve to cater to changing needs in the marketplace.

In this debate, that is best achieved by their ability to multichannel.

Question put: That the amendment (Senator Mark Bishop's and Senator Bourne's) be agreed to.

The Committee divided.

[11.13 a.m.] (The Deputy President-Senator S.M. West) Ayes............ 34 Noes............ 31 Majority......... 3

AYES Allison, L.F.

Bartlett, A.J.J.

Bishop, T.M.

Bolkus, N.

Bourne, V.W.

Brown, B.J.

Campbell, G.

Carr, K.J.

Collins, J.M.A.

Conroy, S.M.

Cook, P.F.S.

Cooney, B.C.

Crossin, P.M.

Crowley, R.A.

Denman, K.J * Forshaw, M.G.

Greig, B.

Hogg, J.J.

Hutchins, S.P.

Lees, M.H.

Ludwig, J.W.

Lundy, K.A.

Mackay, S.M.

McKiernan, J.P.

McLucas, J.E.

Murphy, S.M.

O'Brien, K.W.K.

Quirke, J.A.

Ray, R.F.

Ridgeway, A.D.

Sherry, N.J.

Stott Despoja, N.

West, S.M.

Woodley, J.

NOES Abetz, E.

Alston, R.K.R.

Boswell, R.L.D.

Brandis, G.H.

Calvert, P.H * Campbell, I.G.

Chapman, H.G.P.

Coonan, H.L.

Crane, A.W.

Eggleston, A.

Ellison, C.M.

Ferris, J.M.

Gibson, B.F.

Harradine, B.

Heffernan, W.

Herron, J.J.

Kemp, C.R.

Knowles, S.C.

Lightfoot, P.R.

Macdonald, I.

Mason, B.J.

McGauran, J.J.J.

Minchin, N.H.

Newman, J.M.

Patterson, K.C.

Tambling, G.E.

Tchen, T.

Tierney, J.W.

Troeth, J.M.

Vanstone, A.E.

Watson, J.O.W.

PAIRS Evans, C.V.

Ferguson, A.B.

Faulkner, J.P.

Hill, R.M.

Gibbs, B.

Macdonald, J.A.L.

Murray, A.J.M.

Reid, M.E.

Schacht, C.C.

Payne, M.A.

* denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11.15 a.m.)-The opposition withdraws amendment No. 45 on sheet 1823.

We will be supporting the government amendment on interoperability standards, which is much more detailed and covers more ground than we had covered.

Accordingly, I withdraw that amendment.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.16 a.m.)-I move Democrat amendment No. 23 on sheet 1827: (23) Schedule 1, item 126, page 42 (line 15), at the end of subclause 37E(2), add: ;(c) the objective that, after the 5year period beginning when each commercial television broadcaster is required to commence transmitting in SDTV mode in an area, the levels of Australian content that each commercial television broadcaster transmits in HDTV digital mode (expressed as a percentage of hours of content transmitted) will be required to correspond with the Australian content standards determined by the ABA in accordance with subsection 122(2)(b).

This is the amendment on Australian content standards.

I am afraid it was drafted rather hastily.

It would require the commercial freetoair broadcasters to have a high level of Australian content in their HDTV content.

I am particularly keen to see a large acknowledgment of Australian content in this process.

I will just preempt now the arguments that there is not a lot of equipment here and that it is going to be difficult to make it up.

I have made it a fiveyear period.

I have not put in the hours, which are already there.

I have made it a percentage.

As far as I can see, there does not seem to be any review looking at what level of Australian content should be required under the HDTV quota.

If that is included in any of the reviews or any of the ALP's proposed reviews, I would be interested to hear that.

I think we have forgotten Australian content to some extent.

We should be starting to focus on it, so I am moving this amendment.

If anybody has a better idea, please let me know.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.18 a.m.)-To the extent that it is helpful, given that the government oppose the amendment, there is a review scheduled to be conducted by 1 January 2004 into HD quotas.

I would certainly be prepared to undertake to include the issue of local content in that review.

It is also a matter that has been canvassed more generally by the Productivity Commission, and we are scheduled to provide a response to that by September.

I have a fair degree of sympathy for what Senator Bourne is proposing, but again it is such a complex area that one cannot predict how the market will play out and whether it will end up being an HD world, an SD world or a combination of the two.

In view of those uncertainties, an arbitrary starting point for local content requirements could impose significant difficulties.

I do think it is something that ought to be examined.

We are prepared to look at it in both of those contexts.

I think that is probably the best outcome at this stage.

It will give us the opportunity to fully consider all the implications and to hear all the arguments formally.

When Senator Bourne says that this has been largely overlooked, in a sense she is really underlining the fact that sufficient attention has not been given to it and that it would therefore be perhaps a bit premature for us to start imposing arbitrary startup deadlines in advance of proper examination.

I am happy with the spirit of the amendment, but I think there is a better way of achieving the same outcome.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11.20 a.m.)-Senator Bourne was correct to say that, in the inquiry we had, there was little attention paid to the issue of local content.

From memory, there was only one submission, from the Screen Producers Association, which drew attention to the issue.

As the debate went on during the inquiry, the issue of local content probably did not receive the degree of attention that it inherently warrants.

The opposition have considerable sympathy for the Democrats on this position, and we do not seek at all to retract from the past public policy positions that we have put out on the issue of local content.

We do note that, in the first five years of the HD regime, quotas are optional.

In that sense, quotas should not apply.

After five years, the quotas become mandatory and, in our view, that is the appropriate time to incorporate the content quotas.

As the minister said, we presume that the HD review is the appropriate time to perhaps pay a serious amount of attention to the issue of quotas for local production.

Having made those comments, I state that the opposition support the Democrat amendment.

Senator Alston-Senator Bourne was generally accepting the proposition we were putting forward.

Senator MARK BISHOP-Yes, sorry.

Amendment not agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.22 a.m.)-by leave-I thank the minister for the undertaking to put Australian content into the HD quota review.

I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 24 and 25 together: (24) Schedule 1, item 126, page 43 (line 37) to page 44 (line 15), omit paragraphs (2)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) the objective that, after the end of that 2year period each national broadcaster is required to transmit a least 20 hours per week of highdefinition television programs in HDTV digital mode in a coverage area on the HDTV version of the national television broadcasting service concerned.

(25) Schedule 1, item 126, page 48 (line 1) to page 49 (line 10), omit clause 37L, substitute: 37L Highdefinition television programs (1) For the purposes of the application of this Division to a commercial television broadcasting licensee, a highdefinition television program is: (a) a television program that was originally produced in a highdefinition digital video format; or (b) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a nonvideo format (for example, 16 mm or 35 mm film) that was of equivalent picture quality to a highdefinition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a highdefinition digital video format; where the conversion has not resulted in a significant reduction in picture quality.

(2) For the purposes of the application of this Division to a national broadcaster, a highdefinition television program is: (a) a television program that was originally produced in a highdefinition digital video format; or (b) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a nonvideo format (for example, 16 mm or 35 mm film) that was of equivalent picture quality to a highdefinition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a highdefinition digital video format; where the conversion has not resulted in a significant reduction in picturequality; or (c) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in a standard definition digital video format; and (ii) has been converted to a highdefinition digital video format; or (d) a television program that: (i) was originally produced in an analog video format; and (ii) has been converted to a standard definition digital video format; where the converted program was subsequently converted to a highdefinition digital video format.

The above amendments relate to the originating-I am finding so many words that I have never heard of in this debate-of HDTV original content for the national broadcasters-that is, the ABC and SBS.

They are treated differently under the suggested amendments to the act, and it would probably be sensible to treat them the same.

Under the bill, the ABC is required to transmit HDTV originated material for four out of its 20 hours of HDTV broadcasting.

That is all in prime time, until 1 January 2006, when all of its HDTV content must be HDTV originated.

In comparison, the SBS is permitted to use upconverted SDTV material for the same period.

The rationale for this is that the SBS mostly sources its material from Europe, which has adopted SDTV rather than HDTV.

But, as the ABC sources much of its material from Europe as well, there seems to be no sensible reason P 14774 SENATE Wednesday, 28 June 2000 why it should be forced to move to HDTV originated material.

We know overseas material for the commercial freetoairs will probably come from the US-and a bit from Europe-whereas, with the national broadcasters, it will mostly come from the European SDTV standard.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.24 a.m.)-The government's position is that we have already given the ABC additional, and considerable, latitude.

Within two years, the commercials are expected to achieve 20 hours per week of full HD.

By that time, the ABC will be allowed to have 80 per cent of that quota upconverted-in other words, they will have a very significantly lower standard to comply with by that time, and they will have until 2006 to bring themselves fully into line with the commercial networks.

It seems to us that that is a pretty generous regime.

To say that the ABC should not be required to produce any originated HD material seems to us to be treating the ABC as though they are completely outside the HD regime, and that is not a sensible approach.

The jury may be out in the longer term on the future of HDTV, but I do not see why-if you assume that it could just as easily come to pass in all its glory-the ABC should be deliberately encouraged to be behind the eight ball through that period.

What we have already proposed is a very generous and relaxed attitude that singles out the ABC for special treatment in the direction they would prefer.

To go beyond that is to simply give the game away altogether, and we do not think that is in anyone's interests, including the ABC's.

They should be encouraged to meet the standards, even if they are allowed a bit more time to do so.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.28 a.m.)-by leave-I move government amendments Nos 6, 7, 9 and 10 on sheet ER232: (6) Schedule 1, item 130, page 50 (after line 14), after subclause (2), insert: (2AA) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with application program interfaces, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those interfaces should be open to all providers of eligible datacasting services.

(7) Schedule 1, page 50 (after line 28), after item 131, insert: 131A Subclause 39(5) of Schedule 4 Insert: application program interface has the meaning generally accepted within the broadcasting industry.

(9) Schedule 1, item 140, page 94 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Standards under subclause (1), to the extent that they deal with application program interfaces, must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the policy objective that, as far as is practicable, those interfaces should be open to all providers of eligible datacasting services.

(10) Schedule 1, item 140, page 95 (before line 1), before the definition of conditional access system, insert: application program interface has the meaning generally accepted within the broadcasting industry.

The purpose of these amendments is to require the technical standards relating to transmission which deal with application program interfaces-which are the platforms on the settop boxes-for datacasting should do so on the basis that they are open to all datacasting service providers.

The amendments add an additional requirement to the provisions in schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act, relating to regulations which may determine transmission standards.

They require that, to the extent that those regulations deal with application program interfaces, they must be directed towards the policy objective that as far as practicable those interfaces should be open to all providers of eligible datacasting services.

These amendments are important in ensuring open standards so that different players are able to develop applications which are used in settop boxes.

It is increasingly becoming a world of open standards, and I will be moving at a later point some additional amendments to provide for the same open access regime for reception equipment.

This is stage one of that process.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.30 a.m.)-by leave-I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet ER234: (1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 69, insert: 69A After paragraph 7(1)(o) of Schedule 2 Insert: (oa) the licensee will comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4 (which deals with the accessibility of domestic reception equipment); (2) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 14), after item 125, insert: 125A After Part 3 of Schedule 4 Insert: Part 3A-Accessibility of domestic reception equipment 36B Accessibility of domestic reception equipment (1) The regulations may provide that a designated person must not: (a) provide domestic reception equipment; or (b) enter into an agreement, arrangement or understanding in relation to the provision of domestic reception equipment; unless the equipment is accessible by: (c) each commercial television broadcasting service; and (d) each national television broadcasting service; and (e) each datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence.

(2) In this clause: designated person means: (a) the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence; or (b) a national broadcaster; or (c) the holder of a datacasting licence; or (d) the holder of a datacasting transmitter licence.

reception equipment means equipment that is capable of receiving either or both of the following: (a) a television broadcasting service transmitted in digital mode; (b) a datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence.

36C Compliance by national broadcasters A national broadcaster must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B.

Note 1:For compliance by holders of commercial television broadcasting licences, see clause 7 of Schedule 2.

Note 2:For compliance by holders of datacasting licences, see clause 24 of Schedule 6.

Note 3:For compliance by holders of datacasting transmitter licences, see section 109A of the Radiocommunications Act 1992.

(3) Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (after line 21), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the licensee will comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4; (4) Schedule 2, item 25, page 108 (after line 21), after paragraph (f), insert: (fa) a condition that the licensee, and any person so authorised, must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of clause 36B of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; The purpose of these amendments is to introduce provisions that allow regulations to require that datacasters and broadcasters who provide viewers with reception equipment must make equipment accessible to other service providers.

These amendments will help to ensure that if datacasters or broadcasters provide their customers with reception equipment-for example, as part of a subscription package, as has occurred in the UK-regulations can be made to ensure that the equipment is accessible by competing service providers.

In other words, we do not want proprietary systems because that will obviously add dramatically to the cost for consumers if they have to buy competing settop boxes.

This is crucial if viewers are not to be faced with the prospect of having multiple settop boxes to receive different datacasting and broadcasting services.

Specifically, the amendment provides that regulations can be made to prevent broadcasters and datacasters from providing domestic reception equipment, or entering into an agreement with another person to provide domestic reception equipment, unless the equipment is accessible by other television broadcasters or datacasters.

These provisions are enforced by making it a licence condition that commercial broadcasters and datacasters comply with any regulations set and by requiring national broadcasters to comply with the regulations.

I say in passing that we went down this track a few years ago in relation to satellites and we are now doing the same in the digital television environment.

The principle is the same: that as much as possible at all levels of the process consumers ought to have that interoperability, which will enable them to access the maximum range of programs at the least possible price.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.32 a.m.)-I wish to oppose schedule 1, item 134.

I am sure honourable senators will remember that when we started the debate two years ago-it was longer than that-we made quite a point in that debate of saying that we needed a lot of time to consider this and that we needed to have many points within the debate where we could reconsider what was happening and make sure that it seemed to us to be in the best interests of the community.

The end result was the original act in 1998, then there was this amendment which is before us now, and then there was a further third and final mechanism for the scrutiny of this whole regime.

So the government expected first of all to conduct inquiries, then to create legislation and finally to create standards.

All of those were supposed to have a provision for parliamentary scrutiny over them.

The results of the inquiries were released after the shape of the legislation was known, which I think is a bit unfortunate.

This legislation, as we all know, has been unreasonably quickly put on.

If we agree to item 134 in schedule 1 of this bill then that last plank will disappear.

This would mean that on proclamation of this bill everything becomes law without that extra step of waiting until we see what the regulations and standards are.

I am aware that the regulations are disallowable instruments.

But I would like to see the whole of this carried out, as was promised two years ago-I know we are in a hurry now; I do not think we need to be-and I would like to see that last step maintained.

Obviously, the government would like to take that plank out because that is what is in their bill.

I would rather have it in there to give us one more go at seeing whether or not this is the best way to go forward.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.35 a.m.)-Can I just explain why I do not think we should have this additional and, in many respects, onerous obligation imposed.

The original 1998 provisions were designed to ensure that the government could not simply run off and prescribe standards and make regulations ahead of the eight reviews, I there were, that emanated from that legislation-or were there more than eight?

Senator Bourne-No, there were eight.

Senator ALSTON-In any event, quite clearly we wanted to see the outcome of those relevant reviews on captioning, transmission and HD standards before this legislation came to the parliament, and we have done that.

It has been two years-I would not say that is rushing it-but certainly we have had the benefit of those reviews.

They have been tabled in the parliament.

There has been plenty of opportunity to debate them.

But to now say that we cannot give effect to any intentions in relation to standards in these critical areas without a proclamation would have the effect of ensuring that you could not go ahead and do anything.

You would delay the introduction of any regulations unnecessarily, and it would mean that no standards would apply to broadcasters in the absence of the proclamation.

I do not think that is what we have in mind.

This legislation will provide regulation making powers to proceed to give effect to the outcome of those reviews and to completely honour the original requirement which was there for a limited period of time-not indefinitely or until such time as the parliament, in its wisdom, might choose to allow or disallow a whole set of different standards.

It could mean, for example, that it is many months before you finally have HD, captioning and transmission standards in place.

This digital television era is meant to start in just over six months.

We want people to have maximum certainty.

We want them to get on with it.

We have all had the benefit of the reviews.

It has been a very transparent process.

I do not think that you aid the cause at all by introducing a potentially very destabilising and uncertain environment in which each of those standards is going to be deferred until such time as the parliament has passed further judgment on them.

In those circumstances, I would hope that the Senate would accept that we have fully honoured the 1998 legislation and all we are doing now is enabling the broadcasters and all other stakeholders to get on with the business as quickly as possible ahead of 1 January.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)-The question is that item 134 stand as printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.40 a.m.)-by leave-I move government amendments Nos 12, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25 on sheet EK215 and Nos 1 and 2 on sheet ER235: (12) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 8), after item 73, insert: 73A Clause 2 of Schedule 4 (definition of broadcasting transmission tower) Omit all the words after "used", substitute: to supply: (e) a broadcasting service by means of radiocommunications using the broadcasting services bands; or (f) a datacasting service provided under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a datacasting licence.

(19) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 5), after item 134, insert: 134A Clause 42 of Schedule 4 After "a broadcasting transmission tower" (wherever occurring), insert "or a designated associated facility".

134B Clause 42 of Schedule 4 Omit "tower, and the site of the tower, for the purpose of installing or maintaining a transmitter for use in transmitting television broadcasting services in digital mode", substitute "tower or facility".

134C Clause 42 of Schedule 4 Omit "tower, and the site of the tower, for the purpose of installing or maintaining a transmitter for use in transmitting datacasting services in digital mode", substitute "tower or facility".

134D At the end of clause 42 of Schedule 4 Add: (20) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 13), after item 136, insert: 136A Clause 43 of Schedule 4 Insert: designated associated facility has the meaning given by clause 43A.

136B Clause 43 of Schedule 4 (definition of facility) Omit "or a line", substitute ", a line or an electricity cable or wire".

(22) Schedule 1, page 51 (before line 14), before item 137, insert: 136D After clause 43 of Schedule 4 Insert: 43A Designated associated facilities For the purposes of this Part, a designated associated facility means any of the following facilities: (a) an antenna; (b) a combiner; (c) a feeder system; • The owner or operator of a broadcasting transmission tower must provide: (a) the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence; or (b) a national broadcaster; with access to the site of the tower.

• The owner or operator of a broadcasting transmission tower must provide a datacaster with access to the site of the tower.

Wednesday, 28 June 2000 SENATE P 14777 (d) a facility of a kind specified in the regulations; where: (e) the facility is, or is to be, associated with a transmitter; and (f) the facility is used, or capable of being used, in connection with: (i) the transmission of a television broadcasting service in digital mode; or (ii) the provision of datacasting services in digital mode.

136E At the end of clause 44 of Schedule 4 Add: (3) For the purposes of this Part, giving access to a designated associated facility includes: (a) replacing the facility with another facility located on the same site and giving access to the replacement facility; or (b) giving access to a service provided by means of the designated associated facility.

136F After clause 45 of Schedule 4 Insert: 45A Access to designated associated facilities (1) This clause applies to a designated associated facility if the facility is situated on, at, in or under: (a) a broadcasting transmission tower; or (b) the site on which a broadcasting transmission tower is situated.

Television broadcasting services in digital mode (2) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility must, if requested to do so by the holder of a commercial television broadcasting licence (the access seeker), or a national broadcaster (also called the access seeker), give the access seeker access to the facility.

(3) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (2) unless: (a) the access is provided for the sole purpose of enabling the access seeker to use the facility, or a service provided by means of the facility, wholly or principally in connection with the transmission of the access seeker's television broadcasting service in digital mode; and (b) the access seeker gives the owner or operator reasonable notice that the access seeker requires the access.

Datacasting services in digital mode (4) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility must, if requested to do so by a datacaster (the access seeker), give the access seeker access to the facility.

(5) The owner or operator of the designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (4) unless: (a) the access is provided for the sole purpose of enabling the access seeker to use the facility, or a service provided by means of the facility, wholly or principally in connection with the provision of datacasting services in digital mode; and (b) the access seeker gives the owner or operator reasonable notice that the access seeker requires the access.

Compliance not technically feasible (6) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility is not required to comply with subclause (2) or (4) if there is in force a written certificate issued by the ABA stating that, in the ABA's opinion, compliance with subclause (2) or (4), as the case may be, in relation to that facility is not technically feasible.

(7) In determining whether compliance with subclause (2) or (4) in relation to a facility is technically feasible, the ABA must have regard to: (a) whether compliance is likely to result in significant difficulties of a technical or engineering nature; and (b) whether compliance is likely to result in a significant threat to the health or safety of persons who operate, or work on, a facility situated on the site; and (c) if compliance is likely to have a result referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)-whether there are practicable means of avoiding such a result, including (but not limited to): (i) changing the configuration or operating parameters of a facility situated on the site; and (ii) making alterations to a facility situated on the site; and (d) such other matters (if any) as the ABA considers relevant.

Issue of certificate (8) If the ABA receives a request to make a decision about the issue of a certificate under subclause (6), the ABA must use its best endeavours to make that decision within 10 business days after the request was made.

Exemptions (9) The regulations may provide for exemptions from subclauses (2) and (4).

(10) Regulations made for the purposes of subclause (9) may make provision with respect to a matter by conferring on the ACCC a power to make a decision of an administrative character.

136G After subclause 47(1) of Schedule 4 Insert: Access to designated associated facilities (1A) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility must comply with subclause 45A(2) or (4) on such terms and conditions as are: (a) agreed between the following parties: (i) the owner or operator; (ii) the access seeker (within the meaning of that subclause); or (b) failing agreement, determined by an arbitrator appointed by the parties.

If the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator, the ACCC is to be the arbitrator.

136H At the end of subclause 48(4) of Schedule 4 Add ", to the extent to which the Code relates to the provision of access under clause 45 or 46".

136J After subclause 48(4) of Schedule 4 Insert: (4A) The owner or operator of a designated associated facility must comply with the Code, to the extent to which the Code relates to the provision of access under clause 45A.

(23) Schedule 1, page 53 (after line 8), after item 139, insert: 139A Paragraph 61(1)(c) of Schedule 4 Insert ", 45A(6)" before "or 46(5)".

(25) Schedule 1, page 53 (before line 9), before item 140, insert: 139D Subclause 62(5) of Schedule 4 Insert ", 45A(6)" before "or 46(5)".

139E At the end of clause 62 of Schedule 4 Add: (9) An application may be made to the AAT for a review of a decision of the ABA to refuse to issue a certificate under subclause 45A(6).

(10) An application under subclause (9) may only be made by the owner or operator of the designated associated facility concerned.

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Subject to subsection (1B), items 134A to 134D (inclusive), 136A, 136B, 136D to 136J (inclusive), 139A, 139D and 139E of Schedule 1 commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation.

(1B) If items 134A to 134D (inclusive), 136A, 136B, 136D to 136J (inclusive), 139A, 139D and 139E of Schedule 1 do not commence under subsection (1A) within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the first day after the end of that period.

(2) Schedule 1, item 142, page 96 (line 31), omit "items 75 and 137" substitute "an item that commences under subsection 2(1) or (1A)".

The purpose of the first batch of amendments is to clarify the access rights under the transmitter access regime to ensure that a freetoair television broadcaster or datacaster can gain access not just to broadcasting transmission towers and sites but also to designated associated facilities on those sites and towers for the purpose of installing or maintaining a digital television or datacasting service.

The access regime applies to towers, sites and associated facilities that are used to supply a datacasting service as well as those used to supply a television broadcasting service.

These amendments clarify the access rights under the transmitter access regime to facilitate the successful rollout of the digital television and datacasting infrastructure.

In order to transmit their services in digital mode, freetoair television broadcasters and datacasters may in practice require access not only to towers and sites but also to commonly used combiners, antennas and feeder systems situated on the site.

However, a literal reading of the existing provisions in part (5) of schedule 4 would mean that access seekers could be denied access to necessary associated facilities on reasonable terms and conditions and would not have access to arbitration-a la the telecommunications model.

The proposed amendment will ensure that there is a right of access to these essential common facilities and to any associated facilities that are prescribed by regulations.

The regulation making power will provide flexibility to designate other facilities if, following industry consultation, it can be demonstrated that it is not practicable to expect access seekers to install those facilities at the transmission site.

The amendment will also extend the obligation to provide access to designated associated facilities to the owner or operator of those facilities to cover situations where the owner or operator is not the same person as the owner or operator of the transmission tower.

These provisions will ensure that the access regime for associated facilities covers all possible ownership and control arrangements at the transmission site.

The existing right to refuse access to sites and towers where compliance with the access obligation is not technically feasible will also apply to the right of access to designated associated facilities.

To the extent that access to an associated facility involves access to a service provided by means of a facility, there may also be circumstances where the owner or operator of a facility may have legitimate economic grounds to refuse access.

The proposed amendment therefore also includes the flexibility for regulations to set out further exemption criteria.

The nature and extent of any regulations of this kind would be determined following consultation with broadcasters, transmission tower operators and other stakeholders having regard to exemptions provided under part 11C of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Consistent with the existing access provisions in part (5), reasonable notice needs to be given by a broadcaster or datacaster seeking access to a designated associated facility.

Provision is made for arbitration of disputes about access to associated facilities and the conditions that are to be complied with in relation to access to those facilities to be determined in an ACCC access code.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.45 a.m.)-I move government amendment No. 21: (21) Schedule 1, page 51, after item 136B, insert: 136C Clause 43 of Schedule 4 (definition of television broadcasting service) Repeal the definition.

This amendment makes a technical change to delete the definition of 'television broadcasting service' from clause 43 of schedule 4, as the term is defined now in clause 2 of schedule 4.

The amendment will have the effect of deleting the definition of 'television broadcasting service' from clause 43 of schedule 4.

This will ensure that there is no duplication or confusion as the definition of 'television broadcasting services' is now in clause 2 of schedule 4.

It is just a tidying up.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.46 a.m.)-The next four Democrat amendments now, for various reasons, I think I will move separately rather than together.

Democrat amendment No. 31 is consequent upon the ABC and SBS being able to multichannel, which has been passed previously.

On my new running sheet, I think it is almost the same as the ALP's amendment along the same lines.

So I am happy to move my amendment in conjunction with them, if the opposition are happy to do that.

Senator Mark Bishop-That is amendment 32?

Senator BOURNE-Yes, 32.

So, if Senator Bishop is happy with that, I am happy to put my name on his or, if he wants to put his name on mine, that is fine.

That is the one in relation to the national broadcasters as a consequential amendment.

The second one is about community television broadcasting services and an inquiry into whether access to spectrum should be free of charge.

I think it would be better if this, Democrat amendment No. 32, came after we had looked at Senator Brown's amendment on community television.

If his amendment passes, then this one would need to be changed, and he has another amendment which would be better.

So it would probably be better if we did all of those together a bit later, if that is all right.

Democrat amendment No. 33 looks into the viability of creating an indigenous television broadcasting service and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of such a service using spectrum in the broadcast services band.

This is as a consequence of information that came from the Senate inquiry that Senator Bishop and I were on and also from the Productivity Commission report into broadcasting, which had what I thought were very strong and sensible recommendations on the future of indigenous television and radio broadcasting in Australia.

So that would be an inquiry looking into whether that was feasible at that period.

Finally, Democrat amendment No. 34 concerns the inquiry which looks into whether the HDTV quotas should be amended or repealed.

I believe that, if they are repealed, we are very likely to see HDTV disappear pretty quickly in Australia.

I think that that should not be an option at this stage-or even at that stage when that amendment comes up.

I would rather that the words 'or repealed' were taken out.

So, if it is acceptable to the committee, I would be happy to move Democrat amendment No. 31 in conjunction with Senator Bishop's, if that is acceptable to Senator Bishop.

I would rather leave Democrat amendment No. 32 until later, but I would be happy to move Nos 33 and 34 now as well.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11.49 a.m.)-Democrat amendment No. 31 is the same as the opposition's amendment.

We accept the invitation of Senator Bourne and comove the opposition Democrat amendment: (31) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20), after item 137, insert: 137A Paragraph 60(1)(a) of Schedule 4 Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) whether paragraph 7(1)(m) of Schedule 2 (which deals with simulcast requirements for commercial television broadcasting licensees) should be amended or repealed; So we support this amendment.

We do not have a problem with deferral of amendment No. 32.

We support amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 34 is the issue of repeal on the HD?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11.50 a.m.)-I am happy to have amendment No. 32 deferred and considered later.

In relation to 33, I would simply say that the government would oppose that, but I hear that both the other parties are in favour.

We will be considering the Productivity Commission report by September this year, and it did make some recommendations in that area.

But in relation to amendment No. 34, the purpose of the review is to decide whether the quotas for HDTV should change.

It is not intended to examine the basic requirement to provide HDTV and, if necessary, that can be made very clear or clearer.

In addition, the word 'repealed' is needed to allow the review to consider whether any existing clauses need to be repealed-for example, to be replaced with another clause-rather than just being amended.

So that is a process point.

But if your concern is that this might be a backdoor way of dismantling the whole HD regime, that is certainly not our intention.

I do not think there is any basis on which anyone would support that.

Certainly I can clarify that in the context of the review, if necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.51 a.m.)-I now move Democrat amendment No. 33: (33) Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 24), at the end of subclause 60(1), add: ; (k) the viability of creating an indigenous television broadcasting service and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of such a service using spectrum in the broadcasting services bands.

This amendment relates to a review into indigenous television broadcasting.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (11.52 a.m.)-I now move Democrat amendment No. 34: (34) Schedule 1, item 139, page 52 (line 31), omit " or repealed".

This amendment would omit the words 'or repealed' from the end.

Amendment not agreed to.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (11.52 a.m.)-by leave-I move opposition amendments Nos 39, 40, and 46 to 49 on sheet 1823: P 14780 SENATE Wednesday, 28 June 2000 (39) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 25), after item 57, insert: 57A After section 216C Insert: 216D Review of Schedules 4 and 6 (1) As soon as practicable after 1 January 2003 and before 1 January 2004, the Minister may cause to be conducted a review of the operation of Schedules 4 and 6.

(2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).

(3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.

(40) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 25), after item 57A, insert: 57B After section 216D Insert: 216E Review of streamed Internet, audio and video content (1) Before 1 January 2002, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of whether, in the context of converging media technologies, streamed audio and video content obtainable on the Internet should be regarded as a broadcasting service.

(2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).

(3) The Minister must cause copies of a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.

(46) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 20) after item 137, insert: 137A Subclause 60(1) of Schedule 4 Omit "31 December 2005", substitute "1 January 2005".

Note:The heading to clause 60 of Schedule 4 is altered by omitting "31 December 2005" and substituting "1 January 2005".

(47) Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 5), omit "the regulatory", substitute "the competitive and regulatory".

(48) Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (lines 14 and 15), omit "(if any)".

(49) Schedule 1, item 138, page 52 (line 24), at the end of the item, add: ; (j) the conditions that should apply to commercial television broadcasting licences on or after 1 January 2007 for the provision of commercial television broadcasting services.

This series of amendments goes to a series of reviews that the opposition proposes to bring into the act.

Amendment (40) goes to the issue of audio and video streaming.

This amendment proposes that the ABA review referred to in Minister McGauran's second reading speech in the other house, to determine whether services such as streamed audio and video obtained via the Internet constitute broadcasting services, will be a statutory review to report to the parliament prior to 1 January 2002.

So the issue there is to bring it forward.

The amendment requires that the review should consider the matter in the context of convergence of media technologies, which is a critical issue at the heart of these deliberations and crucial to the efficacy of policy in the area.

The industry is keen for the review to be completed without delay to provide certainty as to the regulatory scheme applicable to video and audio streaming.

The transparency of this review is critical to its eventual outcome.

Transparency, we believe, is best achieved by making the review statutory and required by this legislation, and hence open and accountable to the parliament.

Yesterday evening, Senator Harradine alluded to this issue of audio and video streaming in another context.

We are of the view that there is considerable speed in which a range of technologies are converging.

The minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum made it quite clear that the issue of audio and video streaming may well not be covered by the current definition in the Broadcasting Services Act, and hence regulation free.

That is a matter, I presume, of concern to the government.

It is a matter that the opposition wishes to have a good, long, hard and serious think about in the future.

We know from the range of correspondence and approaches that we have received from a range of current industry players and prospective industry players that the issue of regulation of this new method of receiving information is quite critical.

Amendment (40) goes to that and, essentially, sooner rather than later, reporting to the parliament by the beginning of the year after next.

Amendment (39) is a general review of schedules 4 and 6 of the Broadcasting Services Act-the two most important schedules.

This amendment allows the minister to conduct a general review of the operation of schedule 4 concerning digital TV and schedule 6 concerning datacasting services, commencing after 1 January 2003 and again reporting to the parliament no later than 1 January 2004.

The importance of this legislation in achieving the policy outcomes of the government in respect of digital conversion necessitates this overarching interim review of the progress of the legislation in fulfilling these policy objectives.

The legislation is transitional.

The opposition is of the view that the government needs to be flexible for the market to adapt to new technologies and circumstances previously unforeseen or unanticipated.

This review, we believe, will assist the government in its decision making on these issues.

Amendment (49) is in relation to commercial broadcasting licensing conditions at the expiry of the moratorium.

The conditions which will apply to broadcasting commercial broadcasting licences at the end of the moratorium on the issue of new licences need to be determined by a review, the opposition believes, prior to that time to again provide certainty to existing and aspirant commercial broadcasters and to ensure that conditions are consistent with policy objectives at that time.

This amendment incorporates a review of the conditions to apply to commercial broadcasting licences at the end of the moratorium on the issue of new licences to report no later than 1 January 2005.

Amendment (46) is in relation to schedule 4 of the BSA.

Amendments proposed in the government's bill require various reviews to occur during the transition to digital broadcasting.

The opposition's policy position is to amend the report dates for existing reviews- group A and group B-and to propose additional reviews.

So we break them up into group A and group B reviews, with different report dates, and propose additional reviews.

Group A reviews are those reviews currently due to be completed by 1 January 2006 or 31 December 2005.

In recognition of the transitional nature of the legislation, it is highly desirable that its consequences and efficacy are measured over the coming years to ensure the parliament's policy objectives are being properly and effectively implemented.

This is particularly so in view of the considerable doubts that have been raised during the process of the Senate committee's inquiry into the bill.

It has become apparent that any reviews undertaken in analysis of the legislative scheme should be conducted as early as practicable.

I think there was almost unanimous support for that position.

The group A reviews, as I said, are those reviews required to be completed by 1 January 2006 or 31 December 2005, and the amendment proposes that these reviews be completed by 1 January 2005.

So our proposition is that the reviews be brought forward by that 12month period for the reasons that I outlined.

The group A review includes spectrum use, identification and efficient use of available broadcasting spectrum, the simulcast period duration and any further requirements, subscription TV services, and the regulatory and revenue arrangements for datacasting transmission licences; and the implications of the expiry of the moratorium on commercial TV broadcasting licences need to be ascertained prior to its expiry to provide the datacasting industry with certainty.

It is clear that there is a considerable degree of confusion on this matter with the ABA disagreeing with the minister's statement on 16 June-a speech on the status of datacasting licences at the expiry of the moratorium.

The final group A review will also include commercial television licences in underserved areas.

Turning to the datacasting transmission licence review and its expanded breadth, in summary the amendment seeks to insert the words 'competitive and regulatory arrangements' and further add 'revenue to Commonwealth provisions'.

So the bill provides for a review of regulatory arrangements that should apply to, and the revenues to be raised by the Commonwealth in connection with, the operation of a datacasting transmitter under a datacasting transmitter licence to transmit licensed broadcasting services on or after 1 July 2007.

This amendment provides that the review will include the words 'com petitive and regulatory arrangements' and 'revenue to the Commonwealth'.

The opposition believes that both of these amendments, of some few words, are important to take account of competitive arrangements which are critical to the ongoing conduct of broadcasting policy.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.01 p.m.)-Our general attitude is that it is not necessary to bring forward any of these reviews because they are all 'out dates', in other words, the latest date by which something might be reviewed.

The government is as conscious as anyone else in the industry that this is a fast moving game, that technology can throw up some pleasant and unpleasant surprises for various people and that in those circumstances you need to be flexible and to monitor progress.

So we would certainly want to ensure that, if there was a demonstrated need to conduct an earlier review, we did it.

The vice of this approach is to simply say that, because you guarantee there will be reviews in all these areas by a certain date with the flexibility to bring them forward if necessary, you are bringing them forward irrespective of need.

It is an industry that is going to be regulated to death anyway, and for it to be reviewed on such a frequent basis seems to us to be perhaps very premature.

The first review into the operations of digital television and datacasting is proposed to be brought forward by 12 months, I think.

As digital television may not even start in some areas until 2004, a review may exclude findings from those areas.

Again, you can have a partial review, and you can tailor it in some respects, but it is likely that bringing forward a wholesale review of the digital television provisions would overlap with most of the reviews that are already proposed.

Insofar as there is a proposal for a statutory review of streamed audio and video content, we have already made it public that the government will be asking the ABA to undertake a review of video and audio streaming services provided over the Internet and their relationship with broadcasting services.

This is a generic issue relating to the convergence of broadcasting with other services and it is therefore proposed to refer the matter to the ABA for its detailed consideration.

As the matter does not specifically relate to digital television it was not proposed to make it a statutory review, but parliament will be aware that this whole exercise will be conducted in the public arena and any regulatory changes proposed would require public scrutiny and decision making.

We also see the nature of that review as narrow and prescriptive because we need to allow a wide range of possibilities to be examined in relation to the regulation of these industries, not just the issue of whether they should be regarded as a broadcasting service.

The review would also have to be conducted in a very short time frame and that is not desirable in an area of such complexity.

In relation to the next review, which I think is in amendment No. 46-'bring forward all the reviews currently scheduled for 2005 to 2004 into simulcast P 14782 SENATE Wednesday, 28 June 2000 ing and spectrum efficiency'-a review of simulcasting provisions and spectrum availability does need to be conducted closer to the prescribed end of the simulcast period.

In other words, we are not seeking to amend the simulcast time frame.

Therefore, it is desirable to wait until you are getting reasonably close to the expiration of that period to make a proper judgment about the level of takeup and what arrangements might apply for the simulcast period and beyond.

Digital television in regional areas, as I said earlier, may not have commenced until 2004.

In a number of areas, and certainly in remote areas, there is no prescribed startup date.

We need time for all these new initiatives to settle down.

The review of whether commercial television broadcasters can offer other forms of broadcasting services, including pay TV services, is also more appropriately timed so that the effect of the introduction of digital commercial television on pay television can be properly gauged, including in regional areas where startup may not be until 2004.

In other words, you ought to give yourself the maximum opportunity to allow this regime to prove itself, to make judgments in the leadup to a legislative requirement for change at a later point, but not perhaps conduct a review that may itself be out of date by the time the expiration period arrives.

You want it to be as close as reasonably possible, without running out of time, to enable to you make judgments beyond the expiration dates that are still contemporary.

So that would be a particular concern in relation to that matter.

In relation to the proposed review of regulatory and revenue arrangements, I do not think we would quarrel to any significant extent with that.

The opposition is proposing to include a review of competition arrangements, and I think probably that will be part and parcel of that review in any event.

In other words, it is a necessary implication.

The last amendment is (49) and that is to require a new statutory review of the conditions applying to commercial television broadcasting licences on or about 2007.

Given the range of reviews already provided for in the legislation, it would seem to the government that it is unnecessary to conduct yet another review into all of those matters-datacasting, simulcast period, multichannelling, other broadcasting services, terms applying to datacasting conversion arrangements and, of course, HD.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.08 p.m.)-I have to admit to a bit of confusion about this.

I see no problem with moving most of these reviews forward, but I do see a problem with moving forward the review which relates to when and if the analog service should be turned off.

I have been trying to work out a way to amend Senator Bishop's amendments in order to achieve not moving that one forward but moving the others forward.

I think it would be an amendment to opposition amendment (46).

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if I have this wrong, but I think the way to do it would be to insert: 60B Reviews before 1 January 2006 (1) Before 1 January 2006, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the content of any regulations made for the purpose of paragraph 6(3)(c) of this schedule, which deals with the duration of the simulcast period.

I think also I would need to omit 60(1)(d).

If somebody could tell me whether that would give me my proposed outcome, I would be more than grateful.

I imagine that the minister might have a view on that.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.10 p.m.)-In order to ensure that we are not caught on the run, it might be better if you could stand that one down to enable us to separately consider it.

We can vote on all the others now and we will come back to it a bit later.

Senator Bourne-Fair enough.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.10 p.m.)-I think that is a sensible path to pursue, if it is acceptable to Senator Bourne.

I will defer amendment (46) to a later time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)-The question is that opposition amendments Nos 39, 40, 47, 48 and 49 on sheet 1823 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.11 p.m.)-I wish to move Australian Greens amendment No. 2, which is to ensure that the review arrangements provide for a look at the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the digital transmission of community television broadcasting services using spectrum in the broadcasting service bands provided free of charge by broadcasting licensees.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.11 p.m.)-Could I get some clarification?

I believe Senator Brown has two amendments related to community broadcasting.

I think the one relating to the review would probably better come second because his amendment No. 2 is only correct if his amendment No. 3 is actually passed.

I think that is the way that it would work.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.12 p.m.)-I am happy to do that.

That would mean that, if the committee is agreeable, my amendment No. 2 is put after amendment No. 3, which is at the top of page 8 on the running sheet.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.12 p.m.)-Just to advise Senator Brown, you can do it either way but the opposition will not be supporting your amendment No. 3.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.12 p.m.)-That is news to me.

I thought we were going to have a discussion over lunch to see whether that outcome would be the case.

Senator Mark Bishop-We cannot have the discussion if we move it now.

Senator BROWN-I put to the committee that we postpone amendment No. 2 till after amendment No. 3, which puts it at the top of page 8 on the running sheet.

Is that okay?

Senator Mark Bishop-Yes, that is okay.

Senator BROWN-Chair, we have come to an arrangement, if the government is happy for Australian Greens amendment No. 2 to come after amendment No. 3 a little later in the day.

I move: That consideration of Australian Greens amendment No. 2 be postponed to a later hour this day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN-Senator Bourne, your amendment No. 32 is in a similar category.

Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: That consideration of Australian Democrats amendment No. 32 be postponed to a later hour this day.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.14 p.m.)-I move government amendment No.1 on sheet DW212: (1) Schedule 1, page 52 (after line 24), after item 138, insert: 138A After subclause 60(1) of Schedule 4 Insert: (1A) A review under subclause (1) of a matter referred to in paragraph (1)(h) or (i) is to be conducted on the basis that, if the licence referred to in subparagraph (1)(h)(i) or (i)(i) is a commercial television broadcasting licence, the licensee should, on and after 1 January 2007, be treated in the same way as persons who held commercial television broadcasting licences immediately before that date, in relation to: (a) the duration of related transmitter licences; and (b) fees under the Television Licence Fees Act 1964.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the proposed review of the regulatory and revenue arrangements that should apply to datacasting transmitter licences on or after 1 January 2007 should be conducted on the basis that, if the transmitter licence is to be used to provide a commercial television broadcasting service, the licensee should be treated equitably with incumbent commercial broadcasters.

The statutory moratorium on the issue of new commercial television broadcasting licences is scheduled to end in 2006.

From 1 January 2007, therefore, under provisions proposed in the bill, spectrum licensed to datacasters will be able to be used for any other service licensed under the Broadcasting Services Act in addition to licensed datacasting.

The bill provides that the regulatory arrangements applying to the use of this spectrum from 1 January 2007 will be the subject of a statutory review in 2005.

The review will also examine what charges and other financial arrangements, if any, should apply to this spectrum.

This amendment requires that review to be conducted on the basis that, if the service that the datacasting transmitter licensee transmits on or after 1 January 2007 is a commercial television broadcasting service, the licensee should, from 1 January 2007, be treated in the same way as incumbent commercial broadcasters in relation to the duration of related transmitter licences and fees under the Television Licence Fees Act 1964.

It is the government's intention that, if the licensee obtains a commercial television broadcasting licence for the area where the datacasting transmitter transmits on or after 1 January 2007, there should be a level playing field between that licensee and existing commercial television broadcasters in relation to tenure of spectrum and the licence fees applying to the use of that spectrum.

So the 2005 review would be conducted on the basis of competitive neutrality at that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.16 p.m.)-I move opposition amendments 50 and 51 on sheet 1823: (50)Schedule 1, item 139, page 52 (line 27), omit "2004", substitute "2003".

(51)Schedule 1, item 139, page 52 (line 28), omit "2004", substitute "2003".

This goes to what we have characterised as the group B reviews to be completed by 1 January 2004, going to the issue of HDTV quota review.

We say that, for the same reasons that the group A reviews require timely completion, the HDTV quota review requires the same treatment; that is, the legislation is transitional in nature and it is highly desirable that its consequences are measured over the coming years to ensure that the parliament's policy objectives are being properly and effectively implemented.

Doubts raised during the process of the Senate committee's inquiry into the bill indicate that any reviews undertaken in analysis of the legislative scheme should be conducted as early as practicable.

The review of the HDTV quotas is required to be completed by 1 January 2004.

Amendments 50 and 51 propose that these reviews be completed by 1 January 2003.

This review involves a review of HDTV quotas, both generally and in remote or single service areas by commercial and national broadcasters.

Once again, the issue as far as the opposition are concerned is the progress of implementation of the legislation and the issue of the HDTV quota review.

We are of the view that, for the reasons that were put forward in the Senate inquiry-reasons which I will not bother to repeat now-are better done sooner rather than later, and so we amend to bring that forward to 1 January 2003.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.18 p.m.)-The Democrats cannot agree with Senator Bishop on this one.

We do not believe that within two years of HDTV starting up there will be enough takeup of the hardware-especially if you do not really need it, because the other is not about to be turned off-for us to have a reasonable and fair view of whether HDTV is going to be successful.

We would rather that that was put off for another year, and so we would rather stick with the government's timetable on that one.

Amendments not agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.19 p.m.)-I move government amendment 24 on sheet EK215: (24) Schedule 1, page 53, after item 139A, insert: 139B At the end of paragraph 62(1)(c) of Schedule 4 Add "or (10A)".

139C At the end of paragraph 62(3)(b) of Schedule 4 Add "or (10A)".

This is a technical amendment and involves the insertion of references in clause 62(1)(c) to new schedule 4 clause 8(10A) and in clause 62(3)(b) to new clause 23(10A).

I am sure you are now fully informed of what it really does! Just in case, it is designed to ensure that an application can be made to the AAT for a review of decisions relating to the issue of a replacement transmitter licence, as mentioned in subclause 8(10A) and 23(10A), as well as in subclause 8(8) and 23(8).

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.20 p.m.)-I advise the minister that we have given this particular amendment a lot of consideration and are going to give you informed consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.20 p.m.)-I move government amendment No. 26 on sheet EK215: (26) Schedule 1, item 140, page 53 (line 22), after "a range of", insert "innovative".

This is a minor amendment to the simplified outline of the proposed new schedule 6, which adds the word 'innovative' into the existing third dot point.

With this change, the dot point would read : Datacasting content will be subject to restrictions.

Those restrictions are designed to encourage datacasting licensees to provide a range of innovative services that are different to traditional broadcasting services.

It does not substantively change the provisions in the schedule; it simply puts the emphasis on what we all think will be the fruits of the technology revolution, and that is the widespread availability of new and innovative services.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.21 p.m.)-Democrat amendment No. 35 on sheet 1827 goes to the definition of news bulletins.

I must say that, having looked at the opposition amendment on this-I believe it is their No. 22 on sheet 1823-it is probably better than mine, and so I would be happy to withdraw mine in favour of the opposition's on this subject.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.22 p.m.)-I seek leave to move opposition amendments Nos 19 to 23 and 26 to 34, on sheet 1823, together.

Leave not granted.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.22 p.m.)-I want to comment on that.

There are a couple there that I oppose or would amend, so could we move them separately.

From Nos 22 to 34 at least, I will agree with you, Senator Bishop, and also No. 19.

But Nos 20 and 21 I have got other views on.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.23 p.m.)-Leave having been denied, I now seek to move opposition amendments Nos 19, 22 and 23 and 26 to 34 on sheet 1823, excluding opposition amendments Nos 20 and 21.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.23 p.m.)-These amendments essentially cover areas that are provided for in government amendments Nos 35 and 41.

In our view, ours are more effective in addressing the idea behind the amendments- which we agree with-which is to ensure that news can include related analysis and commentary without breaching the prohibition on current affairs, which is currently in prohibited category A genre.

We would prefer the government amendments because they respond to these concerns without affecting the distinction between category A and category B programs.

I do not know whether both the opposition and the Democrats might like to consider the government amendments in this context.

It may well be that we are in agreement on what we are seeking to achieve.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)-Would you care to recite those government amendments, Minister?

Senator ALSTON-Yes, they are Nos 35 and 41.

I will indicate what ours do.

Amendment 35 would add a new provision that allows news, weather or combined bulletins to also include discussion, commentary or analysis in relation to the items included in such bulletins.

Financial market and business information bulletins ,which are also in category B, do not need to be amended as they are already defined as including discussion, commentary and analysis.

Consistent with amendment No. 35, amendment No. 41 adds a new provision that allows news, weather and combination bulletins, which are selected by end users from an onscreen menu, to also include discussion, commentary or analysis in relation to the items included in such bulletins.

These amendments recognise that such bulletins are likely to include some commentary or similar embellishment designed to explain or amplify the factual information provided.

This amendment will mean that the provision of such commentary will not result in the bulletins being prohibited as current affairs programs under category A.

I think we are all conscious of what, in many respects, can be an artificial distinction between news and current affairs.

We think that our approach most effectively addresses it, because it maintains the category A, category B distinction, but it ensures that news, weather and combined bulletins can have that same degree of commentary, discussion or analysis that is allowed in the other category B areas.

I think that really should deal with what both the Democrats and the Labor Party are seeking to achieve.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)-Senator Bishop, what scheduled item do you wish to proceed with now?

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.27 p.m.)-I will make a suggestion to the minister.

It is now 12.30 p.m.

It might be better if we stood down both the opposition amendments and the government's suggested approach, had a discussion at 12.45 p.m.

and brought it back on thereafter, if that is acceptable to both the government and the Democrats.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.28 p.m.)-I think there were a few other words that were volunteered, yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)-Senator Bishop, because leave was not sought, there is nothing before the chair.

So we proceed to the next item.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.29 p.m.)-I suggest it might be appropriate to go to government amendment No. 32.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.29 p.m.)-Government amendment No. 32 is a clarifying proposal.

The amendment modifies the definition of a foreign language news bulletin in clause 5 of proposed schedule 6 to ensure that a foreign language news bulletin provided by a datacasting service can include English language captioning or subtitles.

The amendment adds a provision in the definition which makes it clear that any English language captioning or subtitles may be disregarded when considering whether a news bulletin is wholly in a language other than English.

The amendment also provides that the bulletin can also include discussion, commentary and analysis of items included in the bulletin.

This is in keeping with amendments which make similar provisions for other news bulletins.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.30 p.m.)-I am a little confused.

I would have thought that that amendment was contingent on the ALP's amendment No. 26 not getting up.

Is that correct?

We have put off all of those of the opposition, so I think that should probably be put off at the same time, if that is correct.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.30 p.m.)-We could stand it down and have it considered in the same context.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.30 p.m.)-Both amendments have the same material effect, so we are happy to proceed with it.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.30 p.m.)-No, proceed.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.31 p.m.)-I move government amendment No. 32: (32) Schedule 1, item 140, page 60 (after line 2), at the end of clause 5, add: (3) For the purposes of subclause (1), disregard any English language subtitles or captioning.

(4) A bulletin referred to in subclause (1) may include discussion, commentary or analysis in relation to the items included in such a bulletin.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.31 p.m.)-I move government amendment No. 28: (28) Schedule 1, item 140, page 57 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add "or to educate children".

The Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee's report into the bill recommended that the bill be amended to delete the requirement that only those educational programs that are linked to a course of study or instruction be acceptable for datacasting purposes.

These amendments respond to that recommendation by amending the definition of educational programs in the bill so that educational programs provided by a datacasting service are no longer limited solely by the requirement to be linked to a course of study or instruction.

They may also have the purpose of educating children.

So it amends the definition of 'educational programs' to add 'or to educate children'.

Amendment No. 28 modifies the test for an educational program by enabling the sole or dominant purpose of the matter to be: 'to teach, instruct or train, to assist a course of study or instruction, or to educate children.' This amendment will increase the scope of education programs for datacasters but without significantly encroaching on prohibited genres, such as documentaries.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.32 p.m.)-I do apologise to the committee for being such a pain, but I think that this one was contingent on the ALP's amendment No. 28 not getting up.

I must say I preferred the ALP's amendment No. 28, but we have put that off.

Can I ask if I have got that correct?

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.32 p.m.)-Senator Bourne, you do have that correct.

I wonder if we should not be treating government amendment No. 28 in the same way as we did the others, and defer it for discussion over lunch.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.33 p.m.)-Okay.

I move: That government amendment No. 28 be postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.33 p.m.)-My next Democrats amendments go to information only programs.

Having now seen the government's version of those-which I believe is coming up also as government amendments Nos 29 to 31, I think theirs are probably better than mine, so I would withdraw mine in favour of those.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)-So you are not proceeding with Democrats amendments Nos 36 and 37 on sheet 1827?

Senator BOURNE-Yes.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.34 p.m.)-I move: That opposition amendments Nos 24 and 25 on sheet 1823 be deferred until a later time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.34 p.m.)-I seek to defer government amendments Nos 29 to 31 on sheet EK215.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN-There is no motion required.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.35 p.m.)-I move: (52) Schedule 1, item 140, page 60 (after line 25), at the end of clause 7, add: (3) A determination under paragraph (2)(b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Opposition amendment No. 52 on sheet 1823 goes to the issue of a datacasting fee for commercial television licence holders to be subject to parliamentary disallowance.

This amendment subjects the fees determined to be payable by commercial television licence holders for datacasting to parliamentary disallowance.

The amendment will ensure that the fees determined to be paid are reasonable and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

This whole issue of fees has become quite topical lately.

It is a matter that is under constant scrutiny in the press.

There is constant discussion in industry circles about the level of fees.

The fees are of a significant amount.

We do have a new industry emerging in the datacasting area, and the fees that are going to be paid in the future could involve quite significant sums of money and have a significant effect on the future of individual companies and industries, let alone the government of the day.

The opposition are of the view that it is appropriate that those fees are, as I said, reasonable and, more importantly, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Accordingly, we move that they be subject to parliamentary disallowance.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.36 p.m.)-There may be some misunderstanding here.

I would very much hope that the future of these companies does not depend upon the level of these fees, because these are only intended to cover administrative costs.

It would be the ultimate example of micromanagement if we are going to be calling in the ABA to look at its cost structures.

I just say for the benefit of others that if the real concern is the datacasting charge to be applied to broadcasters- which, of course, could be quite significant-then that is already disallowable under section 7 of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12.37 p.m.)-The point the minister raises is correct.

It is not the level of fees for the datacasting licences.

I seek leave to withdraw opposition amendment No. 52.

Leave granted.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.37 p.m.)-I move: (33) Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (line 7), omit paragraph (b).

Government amendment No 33 on sheet EK215 will remove the requirement that an extract from a category A television program not be fully selfcontained.

Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) (12.37 p.m.)-I think this is another one that goes back to opposition amendment No. 29, which we have put off.

If that is the case, perhaps it should be put off as well.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.38 p.m.)-Perhaps I should explain a bit further, but I do not think there is any disagreement about this one.

The amendment will remove the requirement that extracts of category A programs must not be fully selfcontained.

This has the result that datacasters may provide extracts of category A programs as long as an extract is not longer than 10 minutes, is not combined with other extracts to form a whole or majority of a category A program and it could be concluded from the facts that the licensee did not intend that it be so combined.

The amendment responds to industry concerns that extracts that are not selfcontained may be unintelligible.

I think we have all had those representations put to us.

Where do you start and finish?

Whatever you put on starts at a point: if it is not selfcontained, what is it?

Presumably, it does not catch someone in midflight or halfway through a sentence.

It seemed to us, on reflection, that we do not need that provision.

The requirement that the matter provided be an extract, the 10 minute limitation and the provisions preventing extracts from being combined are considered sufficient in themselves to ensure that extracts are not used as a means of circumventing the general prohibition on category A programs.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.39 p.m.)-by leave-I move: (34) Schedule 1, item 140, page 64 (after line 25), at the end of clause 14, add: (5) If, because of subclause (2) of this clause, a datacasting licensee can transmit matter without breaching the condition set out in subclause (1) of this clause, the condition set out in subclause 16(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting that matter.

(43) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 24), at the end of clause 16, add: (5) If, because of subclause (2) or (3) of this clause, a datacasting licensee can transmit matter without breaching the condition set out in subclause (1) of this clause, the condition set out in subclause 14(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting that matter.

The effect of amendments Nos 34 and 43 on sheet E215 is to ensure no double jeopardy.

The proposed amendments give further certainty by ensuring programs or extracts permitted by the exceptions to the condition in clauses 14 or 16 are taken to be permitted for the purpose of the other clause.

The amendments are intended to limit the risk of double jeopardy in relation to category A extracts and category B news, business, financial information and weather bulletins.

This is the crucial point: they ensure that, if something is allowed as an extract, it cannot then be prohibited by the provisions relating to news, business and weather bulletins, and vice versa.

The amendments amend item 140 of the bill, inserting new provisions in proposed clauses 14 and 16 of schedule 6.

Amendment No. 34 inserts a new subclause which makes it clear that, where an extract of a television program is permitted under clause 14(2), the condition in clause 16(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting the program.

Amendment No 43 inserts a new subclause, 16(5), to clarify that, where a news, business, financial information or weather television program is permitted under subclause (2) or(3) of clause 16, the condition in clause 14(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting the program.

They are two sides of the same coin.

It is simply saying that, if you are okay on one score, you cannot be held to be in breach on the other.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.39 p.m.)-by leave-I move: (36) Schedule 1, item 140, page 65 (line 30), omit "presenter based bulletin", substitute "bulletin (whether presenterbased or not)".

(37) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 1), omit "presenter based".

The purpose of the above amendments is to remove the requirement for a 10minute news, financial market, business or weather bulletin to be presenter based.

Subclause 16(2) of schedule 6 allows datacasters to transmit a presenter bulletin of not more than 10 minutes.

The intention was to allow datacasters to provide short, traditional, overview news bulletins of the kind typically provided by freetoair television.

The key requirements for such bulletins are that they should not be more than 10 minutes in length and they should not be updated more than once every halfhour.

Provided these requirements are met, there seems little reason to require that such bulletins have a formal presenter.

The amendments, therefore, make it clear that these bulletins can be provided, whether or not they are presenter based.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.42 p.m.)-by leave-I move: (38) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 7), omit "minutes.", substitute "minutes; and".

(39) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 7), at the end of subclause (2), add: (c) the bulletin is not combined with one or more other bulletins in such a way that the bulletins together constitute a bulletin longer than 10 minutes; and (d) having regard to: (i) the nature of the bulletin; and (ii) the circumstances in which the bulletin is provided; The purpose of these amendments is to include an antiavoidance provision to deal with the possibility of a licensee entering into a contrived arrangement through multiple licences to avoid the operation of the 10minute bulletin rule.

These amendments insert antiavoidance provisions in clause 16(2) of schedule 6 to deal with the possibility that a licensee may enter into a contrived arrangement to avoid the operation of the 10minute bulletin rule under which a different licensee broadcasts a subsequent bulletin, which the viewer can combine to view as a longer bulletin.

This responds to concerns that the same person may use two or more datacasting licences to avoid category B provisions.

A similar provision already exists in paragraph 14(2)(d) in relation to extracts of category A programs.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.44 p.m.)-I move: (40) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 15), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iia) the bulletin is a compilation of items, the subject of which is the same or directly related, and is not longer than 10 minutes; This amendment allows compilation news, bulletin, business information and weather bulletins of related or link stories as clickon bulletins under the provisions relating to category B programs in schedule 6.

The amendment relates to item 140 of the bill to amend proposed clause 16(3) of schedule 6.

Under subclause 16(3), the following category B bulletins are allowed to be provided by datacasters, provided they can only be accessed by a user making a selection from an onscreen menu and they are not presenter based bulletins; single items of news, financial market or a business information bulletin that deals with a single topic or a weather bulletin.

The amendment adds a fourth category of bulletin to this list, a bulletin which is a compilation of items, the subject of which is the same or directly related and is not longer than 10 minutes.

There seems little reason to disallow compilation bulletins as clickon items if they are allowed more generally under clause 16(2), provided the clickon compilation bulletins comply with the same rules as other allowed bulletins.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.

Rural and Regional Australia: Development Senator PATTERSON (Victoria-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) (12.45 p.m.)-Today I want to talk about country Australia and rural Victo Wednesday, 28 June 2000 SENATE P 14787 programs or extracts permitted by the exceptions to the condition in clauses 14 or 16 are taken to be permitted for the purpose of the other clause.

The amendments are intended to limit the risk of double jeopardy in relation to category A extracts and category B news, business, financial information and weather bulletins.

This is the crucial point: they ensure that, if something is allowed as an extract, it cannot then be prohibited by the provisions relating to news, business and weather bulletins, and vice versa.

The amendments amend item 140 of the bill, inserting new provisions in proposed clauses 14 and 16 of schedule 6.

Amendment No. 34 inserts a new subclause which makes it clear that, where an extract of a television program is permitted under clause 14(2), the condition in clause 16(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting the program.

Amendment No 43 inserts a new subclause, 16(5), to clarify that, where a news, business, financial information or weather television program is permitted under subclause (2) or(3) of clause 16, the condition in clause 14(1) does not prevent the licensee from transmitting the program.

They are two sides of the same coin.

It is simply saying that, if you are okay on one score, you cannot be held to be in breach on the other.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.39 p.m.)-by leave-I move: (36) Schedule 1, item 140, page 65 (line 30), omit "presenter based bulletin", substitute "bulletin (whether presenterbased or not)".

(37) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 1), omit "presenter based".

The purpose of the above amendments is to remove the requirement for a 10minute news, financial market, business or weather bulletin to be presenter based.

Subclause 16(2) of schedule 6 allows datacasters to transmit a presenter bulletin of not more than 10 minutes.

The intention was to allow datacasters to provide short, traditional, overview news bulletins of the kind typically provided by freetoair television.

The key requirements for such bulletins are that they should not be more than 10 minutes in length and they should not be updated more than once every halfhour.

Provided these requirements are met, there seems little reason to require that such bulletins have a formal presenter.

The amendments, therefore, make it clear that these bulletins can be provided, whether or not they are presenter based.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.42 p.m.)-by leave-I move: (38) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (line 7), omit "minutes.", substitute "minutes; and".

(39) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 7), at the end of subclause (2), add: (c) the bulletin is not combined with one or more other bulletins in such a way that the bulletins together constitute a bulletin longer than 10 minutes; and (d) having regard to: (i) the nature of the bulletin; and (ii) the circumstances in which the bulletin is provided; The purpose of these amendments is to include an antiavoidance provision to deal with the possibility of a licensee entering into a contrived arrangement through multiple licences to avoid the operation of the 10minute bulletin rule.

These amendments insert antiavoidance provisions in clause 16(2) of schedule 6 to deal with the possibility that a licensee may enter into a contrived arrangement to avoid the operation of the 10minute bulletin rule under which a different licensee broadcasts a subsequent bulletin, which the viewer can combine to view as a longer bulletin.

This responds to concerns that the same person may use two or more datacasting licences to avoid category B provisions.

A similar provision already exists in paragraph 14(2)(d) in relation to extracts of category A programs.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria-Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.44 p.m.)-I move: (40) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (after line 15), after subparagraph (ii), insert: (iia) the bulletin is a compilation of items, the subject of which is the same or directly related, and is not longer than 10 minutes; This amendment allows compilation news, bulletin, business information and weather bulletins of related or link stories as clickon bulletins under the provisions relating to category B programs in schedule 6.

The amendment relates to item 140 of the bill to amend proposed clause 16(3) of schedule 6.

Under subclause 16(3), the following category B bulletins are allowed to be provided by datacasters, provided they can only be accessed by a user making a selection from an onscreen menu and they are not presenter based bulletins; single items of news, financial market or a business information bulletin that deals with a single topic or a weather bulletin.

The amendment adds a fourth category of bulletin to this list, a bulletin which is a compilation of items, the subject of which is the same or directly related and is not longer than 10 minutes.

There seems little reason to disallow compilation bulletins as clickon items if they are allowed more generally under clause 16(2), provided the clickon compilation bulletins comply with the same rules as other allowed bulletins.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.