Senator ALLISON --Mr Jones, my question is about SBS. I note that the budget allocates $11.1 million to the extension of SBS to some 700,000 additional people. I gather that is into southern Queensland and New South Wales, but does it include in the upper Murray any of northern Victoria? This is a parochial question.

Mr Jones --Yes, that service does cover a significant part of north-eastern Victoria. I must--

Senator ALLISON --It will be extended into north-eastern Victoria?

Mr Jones --Yes.

Senator ALLISON --Have you any idea how far?

Mr Jones --Yes. It is difficult to explain, but I can show you on a map. It is the same coverage as the existing service that covers Albury down to Wangaratta, that part of north-eastern Victoria. The coverage will be much the same as the existing ABC service. It would be identical to the coverage of the commercial service that is transmitted from the same site on the UHF channel.

Senator ALLISON --Fine. Thank you. Just getting back to the question of the cost, $11.1 million for this extension--

Mr Jones --I am sorry. I must interrupt you there, Senator. It is not $11.1 million.

Senator ALLISON --Well, page--

Mr Jones --It is about $10 million in total over three years.

Senator ALLISON --I added it up to $11.1 million. I did it a little earlier.

Mr Jones --That would include the running costs for the stations. There are capital costs for building them and then there are running costs after you have built them. The total cost of running them is about $720,000 a year. That would be the amount at the end of the program when they are all built.

Senator ALLISON --Fine. My question really is: how can the NTA's budget accommodate such an additional cost when it too has been cut by $28 million, as I understand it? Can you detail how that extension will be achieved within NTA's current budget?

Mr Jones --The NTA has several budgets. In the capital area we have an allocation which goes on from year to year, called the general program. It is about $15 million in this year and within the general program we build facilities to extend or improve the coverage of the national services. Each year the minister approves the projects that go into that and are built under that budget. He has decided that one of the things that we will do under that budget is this SBS expansion.

Senator ALLISON --I see. This is $15 million that is not otherwise spent. This is not really an additional sum at all.

Mr Jones --No, it is an ongoing budget that we have each year.

Senator ALLISON --In the previous year, what did that $15 million cover in terms of the extension of--

Mr Jones --Last financial year we built 50 new transmitters to extend ABC and SBS services of various sorts to various places all over the country.

Senator ALLISON --Would that be an extension of this order--700,000-odd people?

Mr Jones --Yes.

Senator ALLISON --I understand. Perhaps you could make some comments about how NTA will in fact achieve that budget cut of $28 million?

Mr Jones --It is easiest if we talk about the overall budget. If you add up the various bits in the yellow book the budget for the NTA has been reduced by $30 million a year in round figures. But $26 million of that does not represent any cut in services to the public. That is $26 million which we said to the government that we could save because of the way we have changed the management of the network--$20 million comes out of operations and maintenance because we have changed fundamentally the way we manage the network; $6 million is capital money which previously we used to replace obsolescent equipment. That was previously running at a rate of $18 million a year and we said to the government that we believe we can achieve the same level of service with only $12 million. There was $26 million of direct savings with no reduction in service--just more efficient management.

Senator ALLISON --Can I bring you back to the $20 million? How many jobs were lost as part of that?

Mr Jones --Absolutely none from the NTA. We are largely outsourced. We are only a management agency. The work in the field is carried out by contractors. It was previously carried out by a sole contractor, and the challenge that we were set when we were established was to change that arrangement so that we could introduce competition. I guess the $20 million savings is a result of us changing the way we run the network.

Senator ALLISON --Is that a projected saving or an estimated saving? How sure are you that this can be achieved?

Mr Jones --We have to live with it but I am confident we will do it.

Senator ALLISON --This is to some degree guess work, is it?

Mr Jones --No. I can assure you it has taken four years to organise and it has in fact cost millions of dollars of investment to achieve it.

Senator EGGLESTON --I have a question about SBS in Western Australia. As you know, Western Australia is serviced by a satellite system and a decision has been made not to proceed to distribute SBS via the satellite, which is a reversal of the previous government's decision. Is it possible to distribute SBS using other technology, older technology like coaxial cable or fibre optics to the major regional centres of WA where, as you probably know, there is a high ethnic population?

Mr Jones --It would be possible. It is technically possible but it would be extraordinarily expensive. Satellite is the more economical way. That is distribution of the program signals. We do the terrestrial retransmission. We do not have anything to do with the distribution of the program signal via satellite. That is handled by the ABC or the SBS themselves. They make the signal available at transmitting stations and we transmit it for reception by the public.

Senator EGGLESTON --In the days prior to satellite technology, though, I think the ABC's signal was carried into regional Western Australia on coaxial cable, was it not?

Mr Jones --That is true. It was very expensive and many small communities did not have ABC TV not because we could not have provided the retransmission equipment but because it cost too much to get the program there and the satellite revolutionised that.

Senator EGGLESTON --What is the relativity? What is the kind of percentage factor of increased cost if you can do that?

Mr Jones --I cannot answer that because we do not look after that. The ABC or the SBS would be able to give you that answer because they handle that side of it.

Senator EGGLESTON --They thought you could have the answer when we asked them the other night.

CHAIR --They did, too.

Mr Jones --I am quite happy to take it on notice and find out for you. It is not hard to find out.

Senator EGGLESTON --I would be interested if you could do that.

Senator SCHACHT --Mr Jones, page 23 of the PBS notes that $28 million has been cut from the budget of the NTA. This is said to represent savings resulting from the reduction of $8 million in capital works funding and the introduction of a revised network management arrangement generating savings of $20 million. Can you tell us what is the total budget therefore for the NTA for capital works?

Mr Jones --This year it is $30 million.

Senator SCHACHT --So $8 million is a cut of about 20 per cent in the capital works budget?

Mr Jones --In round figures, yes. But the $30 million remains after the $8 million has gone.

Senator SCHACHT --Make it a bit less than 20 per cent.

Mr Jones --No, it is more than 20 per cent.

Senator SCHACHT --Yeah, 25 per cent.

Mr Stevens --No, 27.6 per cent.

Senator SCHACHT --Anyway, it is bloody huge.

Mr Jones --I emphasise again, Senator, that the majority of it was savings that we generated and offered to the government. It was not a cut. I personally think the terms in the book are misleading because they say cut when they are genuine savings. The NTA has said to the government that we can deliver $26 million of savings with no cut in services to the public. In fact we stuck our neck out and said that we would make the network work better under the new arrangements.

Senator SCHACHT --This is the cut of $8 million in the capital works program.

Mr Jones --Well, $6 million of that is savings that we offered.

Senator SCHACHT --How much of the $8 million cut in the capital works is just savings with no reduction of capital works?

Mr Jones --The $6 million of the $8 million is savings. It obviously involves a reduction in capital works but it was for reinvestment, replacing obsolete equipment. We have said to the government that we can maintain the performance of the network without that. There is still another $12 million in that area.

Senator SCHACHT --If the government had not put the pressure on and the word had not come down that they are looking for savings across all departments, which governments do from time to time, you would have used the $8 million to put new equipment in to replace obsolete equipment.

Mr Jones --No. In fact, we had identified these sorts of numbers before the government changed.

Senator SCHACHT --How long do you think you can go before the replacement of obsolete equipment does become urgent? When do you think you will have to say, `We need $8 million for the renewal?'

Mr Jones --The advice I have provided to the minister was that we will maintain the present performance of the network, or improve it, basically indefinitely. Before there is any need for an increase in that we think digital conversion will arise and we will be converting to a different form of equipment.

Senator SCHACHT --The other figure is the interaction revised network management arrangement generating savings of $20 million. Can you provide some more information about what that description means?

Mr Jones --The $20 million in savings arises from two areas. One is that within the NTA we took on some of the functions that were previously performed by the contractor. So there are some savings in that area. The rest is savings from competition.

Senator SCHACHT --So you are cheaper than a contractor?

Mr Jones --In some areas, yes. We took over essential management functions: the monitoring of the network and specifying the standards that it was monitored to, managing drawings--functions that were central to the management of the network.

Senator SCHACHT --Most economists have been writing in the newspapers for a decade or more now that contracting out is the way to be more efficient and you have actually discovered a way of making it more efficient.

Mr Jones --Yes. I enjoy proving the economists wrong in that area, but they were right because what they really said was competition would drive the price down. That is where most of the $20 million came from. We had a complex, competitive tendering process before we allocated the new contracts. Now we have two major organisations providing the maintenance of the network. Previously it all went to one contractor and we were totally in the contractor's hands.

Senator Alston --Don't you want to know who the contractor was?

Senator SCHACHT --I accept that there are two contractors out there competing with each other and the NTA is getting the advantage--fantastic.

Senator Alston --You ought to be interested to know that Telstra was the sole contractor and with competition prices have fallen dramatically.

Senator SCHACHT --Who introduced competition?

Senator Alston --I just thought it was a morality tale that you might find interesting.

Senator SCHACHT --No, no. You will find in all the evidence over the last six months, Minister, I have consistently emphasised that it is competition that has driven price down, not ownership. That has been the basic point of difference we have, I suspect. Competition is the argument and you have just proved it again. Give competition to Telstra and they perform.

Senator Alston --Necessary, but not sufficient.

Senator SCHACHT --It is the major area; all the evidence in the other inquiry was the case. Mr Jones, in the document we have before us, the PBS, the National Transmission Agency is one line. You have explained the cut from $135 million to $113 million and so on. Could you provide for us a breakdown figure or table giving more details of costs of staffing, costs of other programs, et cetera, and the staffing levels per the various programs within the National Transmission Agency?

Mr Jones --Senator, can you tell me which page you are looking at?

Senator SCHACHT --I am looking at page 9. Up the top it has Department of Communications and the Arts, subprogram 1.3--National Transmission Agency.

Mr Jones --The $113.951 million is made up of $82 million in operations and maintenance money; $30 million in capital; $11 million in our running costs, which includes the property operating expenses and so forth; minus $10 million in income.

Senator SCHACHT --The capital works program would be across two of those figures you probably would have read out.

Mr Jones --The capital works has a component called the replacement program where we replace obsolete equipment. That is $12 million out of the $30 million.

Senator SCHACHT --Can I just suggest, rather than me try to scribble all that down, you actually take that breakdown on notice and get it back to us over the next couple of weeks?

Mr Jones --I can give you a copy of it tonight if you would like it in writing.

Senator SCHACHT --If I have any further questions from that table, we will see you in the supplementaries. On page 12 of the document, it has reduced funding to NTA. The $28 million cut in 1996-97 keeps going through?

Mr Jones --Yes, that is permanent.

Senator SCHACHT --It is a permanent cut. On page 11, the second and third items--and this may cover something that Senator Allison already covered--it says the extension of SBS TV is $1.9 million and the savings to offset the cost of SBS TV extension is minus $1.9 million. This looks like it is in one hand and out the other. Can you explain that a bit further to us?

Mr Jones --Yes, there was a new policy proposal looking to meet the government's commitment to expand SBS TV which went through Finance and was then taken out again when the minister realised that he could do the expansion from within our existing budget. So it has just been netted out.

Senator SCHACHT --So that is being done irrespective of the savings you have offered up of $28 million?

Mr Jones --Yes, that is being done out of the $30 million that is remaining.

Senator SCHACHT --The coalition promised an additional $10.5 million over three years to facilitate the fast-tracking of the SBS television to all Australians. You are saying that it can all be achieved over the next three years from not having to provide an additional $10.5 million?

Mr Jones --Yes, it is being done out of the base funding.

Senator SCHACHT --That is being done because of the savings you made from proved efficiency elsewhere in the NTA? You are not robbing Peter to pay Paul within the NTA?

Mr Jones --No, we are not.

Senator SCHACHT --You may have said this to Senator Allison, but what percentage of the Australian population will have SBS coverage by the end of 1996-97 and 1998?

Mr Jones --I cannot give you the percentage off the top of my head, but we could easily calculate it.

Senator SCHACHT --Would you take that on notice? The fourth item on page 11 is extension of Triple J coverage, $0.88 million. The fifth item is the cessation of extension of Triple J coverage, minus $0.88 million. I presume that is the same reason that you were able to show the minister that this extension could be funded within the savings, and that is why it has gone in and out?

Mr Jones --No, that is not the case. The government has made it fairly plain that they do not intend to go ahead with a new extension of Triple J. We have got the funds to finish the present extension in eight more stations being built before the end of this year, but after that there is no more approved extension of Triple J.

Senator SCHACHT --So that extension is what the previous government put in place?

Mr Jones --No, it is the present government. Again, Finance had put money in the forward estimates and then they took it out again when the government decided that they did not want to do it.

Senator SCHACHT --Minister, in your election promise, you said, `to encourage and support the ongoing expansion for ABC radio, including the extension of the highly successful Triple J network into regional Australia'. Clearly, the government has changed its mind.

Senator Alston --No, we are supporting what you had done.

Senator SCHACHT --Can I just get this right from Mr Jones. You put $88 million in and you took it out, so that expansion is what the previous government had committed itself to and is what the new government is saying it is going to continue. But, at the end of that, that is stumps.

Senator Alston --As I am reminded, although I still only have a vague recollection of it, you apparently made a last-minute commitment to further extend the Triple J roll out, and we did not match that. So our commitment was to maintain what was already under way in terms of the Triple J rollover.

Senator SCHACHT --You have refined the promise. To not match what we had promised in the election is how you are now saying it; is that right?

Senator Alston --Yes. It was well drafted, was it not?

Senator SCHACHT --If you are a cynical politician, like most Liberals, that would be a smart operation on how to break a promise. The impression during the campaign would have been that you were matching, including the further extension that we had promised in the election campaign.

Minister, you might bag some Liberal backbenchers for saying this--you have been bagging most Liberal backbenchers during the evening. As you know, Mr Bradford has demanded that Triple J be banned, sold off, abolished, or whatever you want to call it. I think Mr Eoin Cameron, the member from Western Australia, has said that Triple J should be privatised. Do either of those Liberal members' views have any influence on you?

Senator Alston --We take account of all the views of our backbenchers.

Senator SCHACHT --So that means there is a chance that Triple J will be closed down by the government?

Senator Alston --I can certainly assure you that a single backbencher does not drive or dictate policy. I am simply saying to you that everyone is entitled to have their say, and at the end of the day we make collective judgments.

Senator SCHACHT --So it is still open in the collective judgment of the government to close down Triple J?

Senator Alston --We do not have any plans to close down Triple J.

Senator SCHACHT --You have no plans. Do you have any further plans to expand Triple J, say, next year?

Senator Alston --Again, I think it is one of those issues which is clearly determined by budgetary considerations.

Senator SCHACHT --Mr Jones, you could tell me, for $880,000 how many extra transmitters did that put into the field to give Triple J coverage to how many extra people?

Mr Jones --It would fund eight or nine stations at least, but it depends how big they are. It is the same with the coverage--that is, it would depend where you put them as to how many people you picked up.

Senator SCHACHT --On that extension which the government has agreed to, how many extra people will get coverage when those transmitters are completed and broadcasting?

Mr Jones --The ones that are going ahead?

Senator SCHACHT --Yes.

Mr Jones --There are eight regional communities. I am sorry, I do not have the population. But, in round figures, it would be 20,000 for each of the eight.

Senator SCHACHT --So about 160,000 people, give or take the odd one.

Mr Jones --In round figures, yes.

Senator SCHACHT --What is the average range of those FM transmitters?

Mr Jones --Again it depends on the power, but it would be a radius of about 20 to 30 kilometres.

Senator SCHACHT --With what the previous government promised in the election campaign, or close to it--which the government has now said it will not support--how many transmitters would have been in that expansion if it had taken place?

Mr Jones --It would depend on how many years it went on for. There were quite of lot of communities in the list because it was taking it down to communities of 3,000. The present expansion is going down to 20,000.

Senator SCHACHT --If it went down to 3,000, how many transmitters would that have required?

Mr Jones --Thirty or 40.

Senator SCHACHT --How much would that have cost: about $3 million if they are about $100,000 each?

Mr Jones --Yes, in that region.

Senator SCHACHT --How many extra people would have had coverage of Triple J if it had gone down to 3,000?

Mr Jones --I guess, an average of 10,000 per area.

Senator SCHACHT --So that is another 300,000. Is my arithmetic right?

Mr Jones --Yes, in round figures.

Senator SCHACHT --If that had been completed, what would have been the coverage of Triple J as a percentage of the population?

Mr Jones --It would be very high; 90-odd per cent, I would think.

Senator SCHACHT --It would be over 90 per cent.

Mr Jones --Just before I let you get away with the costs, we are only talking about capital costs here. For every station we ever build, there is an ongoing cost forever of running it. That builds up rapidly.

Senator SCHACHT --What is the running cost?

Mr Jones --In the order of $500 a year, perhaps $7,000 or $8,000 per station. It depends. The bigger stations are much dearer: $30,000 or $40,000.

Senator SCHACHT --So the recurrent cost of running those extra 30 transmitters would be $220,000.

Mr Jones --At least that.

Senator SCHACHT --With the Triple J percentage up around the high 80s into the 90s, that would make it equal with most of the other AM networks?

Mr Jones --Not equal, but in the same order. It gets desperately hard to get the last few per cent. It takes hundreds of transmitters.

Senator SCHACHT --What percentage of coverage does the ABC FM fine music network have in Australia?

Mr Jones --I think it has about 80 per cent, perhaps a bit over 80, remembering that Sydney and Melbourne alone give you 65 per cent of the population.

Senator SCHACHT --Going into the regional areas with ABC FM fine music, are they down to towns of 20,000?

Mr Jones --Yes, they are past that. There are a couple of exceptions because of programs.

Senator SCHACHT --So, give or take a bit, Triple J and ABC FM are equivalents?

Mr Jones --Similar.

Senator SCHACHT --As a result of the government not proceeding with the expansion that the previous government had promised, can you provide a list--and I think you can--of these towns that will miss out on receiving a Triple J transmitter?

Mr Jones --I could provide a list of the towns that were included in the previous program, yes.

Senator SCHACHT --Will you do that?

Mr Jones --Yes.

Senator SCHACHT --Minister, it says on page 26 that the department will `undertake a joint scoping study with the Department of Finance on issues relating to the proposed sale of the national transmission network'. What are the terms of reference for the scoping study and are they available yet?

Mr Stevens --I understand that they are still being determined.

Senator SCHACHT --Minister, does this mean that it is now a real possibility that the national transmission network could be made available to be privatised for sale?

Senator Alston --Yes, it does.

Senator SCHACHT --Before the taking of that decision, I understand from elsewhere that there would be moves to transfer the transmitters that the ABC and SBS have which are run by the National Transmission Agency. Would they be transferred to the ABC and SBS before any privatisation?

Mr Stevens --You might be referring to the transfer of transmission costs of funding for the transmission rather than the transmitters themselves. The government policy is to transfer funding for the transmission of the ABC and SBS from 1 July 1997.

Senator SCHACHT --Of the recurrent costs?

Mr Stevens --Yes, exactly.

Senator SCHACHT --The operating costs?

Mr Stevens --The operating costs, the operating transmission facilities are currently met by the NTA. The government policy is that the ABC and the SBS should have control over those transmission costs, funding for those transmission facilities.

Senator SCHACHT --But the NTA would still own them?

Mr Stevens --There is certainly no proposal that the facilities be transferred, as such.

Senator SCHACHT --Have the ABC or the SBS expressed any view--and it may be too early for them to do so--about having their transmitters owned by a private organisation that could charge them whatever it wanted to for access to them if the NTA were to be privatised?

Mr Stevens --They are issues that have to be looked at in both the scoping study and the study which is currently under way which we talked about last week in regard to the transfer of transmission costs.

Senator SCHACHT --Has there been any proposal or suggestion that the actual ownership of the transmitters be transferred to the ABC or SBS?

Mr Stevens --Not at this stage, no. What we are looking at is a transfer of the funding arrangements, not the actual physical--

Senator SCHACHT --So the budget for maintenance is given to the ABC on a figure that is now determined as a realistic figure per transmitter; and it is said that, if it is Mr Jones's $7,000 per transmitter, they go and put that out on the market to get people to bid to get it down, presumably, and make a profit.

Mr Stevens --These are some of the issues that are currently being looked at by the working party.

Senator SCHACHT --Minister, would it require legislation to privatise the National Transmission Agency?

Senator Alston --I do not believe so.

Senator SCHACHT --When do you expect that scoping study to be completed?

Mr Stevens --It has to report back before the next budget.

Senator SCHACHT --Are the staff of the National Transmission Agency aware of these proposals with the scoping study of a possible privatisation?

Mr Jones --Yes, they certainly are.

Senator SCHACHT --Have they expressed any view about it through their normal forums of work meetings, unions, and so on--not over a cup of tea, but a formal view?

Mr Jones --I have met with them on a couple of occasions to talk about it. There is understandably a level of concern. But people have settled down and are working towards what is going to happen. You have to remember that, since the NTA was set up, we have been encouraged by our charter to behave in a much more commercial manner than most parts of the Public Service do. This is a further step in that process.

It is worrying, like any change, for me and everybody under me. But it certainly has not caused any panic. We are currently working to prepare our input to the scoping study. We will be a supplier of information to it rather than a direct participant. But a lot of information will be required and our people are working on that now, without anyone objecting or writing, or anything.

Senator SCHACHT --Has money been set aside in the department's budget for the cost of the scoping study?

Mr Stevens --No.

Senator SCHACHT --Will it come out of the running costs?

Mr Stevens --I think the finance portfolio might be meeting some of these costs.

Senator SCHACHT --That is all I have.

Senator ALLISON --Just a follow-up question: what is the value of the NTA in terms of potential privatisation?

Mr Jones --Priceless. The replacement cost of the assets we own is about $690 million; the written down cost is about $470 million.

Senator ALLISON --I am sorry, I do not understand that.

Senator SCHACHT --No-one has any idea of the rent that some of them would charge.

Mr Jones --That is the actual value of the network itself. That is not any intellectual property value or the value of our expertise, or anything. That is just for the physical assets: the 1,140-odd transmitters, the 533 sites and all the things on them.

Senator ALLISON --Could you hazard a guess at what this would fetch on the market?

Mr Jones --No, it is not my business to make such guesses.

Mr Stevens --That is one of the issues the scoping study would be looking at. It is not an easy issue on which to give you a quick answer.

Senator SCHACHT --Minister, will the scoping study look at the issue that there is only one National Transmission Agency in Australia and that someone who buys it basically will have a monopoly of transmitters that cannot be easily duplicated or replaced? Whatever bagging people give to a public monopoly, at least this is a public monopoly which is responsible through the parliament, the ministers, et cetera--even through the estimates committee. But one thing that is certainly worse is a private monopoly. Will that issue be addressed specifically in the scoping study?

Mr Stevens --Yes, it will be.

Senator SCHACHT --Will you seek the views of the ACCC about how having a private monopoly could in any way be ameliorated?

Mr Stevens --I am sure that we would be seeking the views of many organisations. It is an odd situation, on the one hand having transmitters and on the other having a sole customer.

Senator SCHACHT --The biggest advantage in its defence is that it is publicly owned. With the decision, whoever happens to be the minister at the table has to stand up and be counted.

Mr Stevens --But I am saying that there is no other buyer other than the ABC and SBS for most of its transmission services.

Senator SCHACHT --That makes my point even further: there is not a competitive market.

Mr Stevens --Mr Jones will now contradict me.

Mr Jones --I have been given permission to contradict my secretary, which is a very unusual situation. The ABC and the SBS are the major users of the network, but we have more commercial television transmitters on our sites than we have ABC television transmitters.

Senator SCHACHT --But do you own the commercial transmitters?

Mr Jones --No, but we own the facilities. There is a significant number of other services--

Senator SCHACHT --Define for me the difference between `a facility' and `a transmitter'.

Mr Jones --The transmitter is a box of electronics that generates energy which is sent out to the public.

Senator SCHACHT --The commercial service owns that?

Mr Jones --Yes. We own the building, the mast, the antennas, the power supply--

Senator SCHACHT --Which you share with the ABC and the SBS because they are at the top of the same hill, I presume.

Mr Jones --The commercials share with us, yes. On the other hand, in some cases, we also share with them. A number of the sites we use are owned by commercial operators. Where it is more economical to do that, we do it.

Senator SCHACHT --I appreciate, Minister, that you have said all of these are broad issues that have to be dealt with. But there are some major issues here. For example, if one of the commercial networks, one of the existing media companies decided to buy the National Transmission Agency, say Channel 9, and they owned half the transmitters or the facilities and the other half were owned by Channel 7, I do not think there would be much equilibrium and trust in view of the way that industry has conducted itself over a period of time. Good luck.

Senator Alston --How would you like to put in a well thought out submission?

Senator SCHACHT --No, I do not want to put in a well thought out submission. I will let you get mangled on that first.

CHAIR --Have you any more questions, Senator Schacht?

Senator SCHACHT --No.

CHAIR --Minister?

Senator Alston --No, that is it.

CHAIR --Mr Jones, thank you very much for your attendance.

[10.00 p.m.]