Debate resumed from 7 May, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:

That the bill be now read a second time.

upon which Mr Latham moved by way of amendment:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House is of the opinion that the bill should not be proceeded with, for the following reasons:

(1)   it represents the start of a process leading to the full privatisation of Telstra;

(2)   it will lead to a loss of jobs, investment and exports, and the bill also fails to establish an Australia-first purchasing policy for Telstra;

(3)   the remittance of profits overseas which will follow enactment will damage Australia's balance of payments;

(4)   it provides inadequate protection of universal service obligations and preservation of services in regional, rural and remote Australia;

(5)   the government's failure to bring outer metropolitan telephone zones into the capital city local call zones;

(6)   the government's failure to fulfil its commitment to establish an ISDN service throughout Australia plus establish A and B share categories to monitor foreign ownership;

(7)   the failure to preserve ministerial directions and accountability to the parliament for the delivery of Telstra's universal service obligations;

(8)   there are much better ways of funding environmental programs than selling Australia's major public asset;

(9)   it represents an ideological obsession with ownership issues instead of focussing on the competitive features of the telecommunications market;

(10)   at a time of rapid technological change in telecommunications, the public sector should continue to hold a major strategic asset like Telstra to avoid inequity of access and affordability on the so-termed `information superhighway';

(11)   with the government's recent decision to review the 1997 telecommunications regulations it is inappropriate for the parliament to be considering the sale of Telstra".