David Norris (Independent)

To be a little bit more serious, I say this because I show respect for this House. I originally tabled an amendment, which did not get on to the yellow list of amendments but appeared on the white list that came out during the holidays, simply because I spotted that provision was not made for sound broadcasting. I accept absolutely that I am not technically proficient and I received briefings. Subsequent to my tabling of these amendments, I was contacted by Mr. O'Kane and he gave me a great deal of technical information. The Government then tabled its amendments, which was a good move. I agree with what the Minister of State said in the sense that he is offering a series of options and that this proposal would narrow and restrict them. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable, logical and non-exclusive answer.

In response to the attitude I got from the opposite side of the House, I tabled only one amendment. If I wanted to be difficult, I would have tabled 258,000, but I knew that would be aggravating, stupid and a total waste of time. I wanted to table this amendment because although I had an idea about what the Minister of State said because I glanced through the documents, I had received a second briefing, having sent the Official Report of the proceedings to Mr. O'Kane. Out of deference and courtesy to a man to whom Senator Mooney, who is involved in the radio business or profession or whatever he wants to call it——