Mr QUICK(8.02 p.m.) —I will continue the remarks I was making about 11 days ago. I was talking about the dissenting report by Professor Ergas, a telecommunications economist. One wonders why the Minister for Communications and the Arts (Senator Alston) has taken to heart the concerns of one telecommunications economist over the nine people with a more, I think, genuine understanding of the industry and the needs of the Australian consumer. As an interested bystander, I looked for a possible reason.

I happened to come across an article entitled `Telecommunications law: Australian perspectives' published by Media Arm Pty Ltd in 1990. In this document one Richard Alston has an article published entitled `Time for some real competition: is Telecom's universal service obligation still relevant?' I believe that this very large article was part of the minister's thesis when he was at university and, believe it or not, the lecturer at the time was one Henry Ergas. The gentleman even features twice in the minister's thesis.

It is interesting to see what the minister had to say in his dissertation on whether Telecom's universal service obligation is still relevant. On page 373 he states:

Whilst this might once have been a laudable and indeed necessary objective when the household penetration rate was 53 per cent in 1970, now that 94 per cent of Australian households have telephones its continued justification must be questioned; especially when households account for over 70 per cent of main lines although providing only 45 per cent of revenue.

On page 380 he states:

By the 1970s, `universal service' had been practically achieved and new priorities for the telephone system began to emerge.

On page 381 he states:

A basic `lifeline' or no frills type of service should guarantee the end user the ability to access emergency numbers and to receive incoming calls. Communications with police, fire and medical personnel are essential in this modern world. Perhaps the answer is a low fixed monthly charge with a high per minute message rate on local calls.

On page 399 of his dissertation, he states:

To many of those who use the term, `universal service' simply means `the more, the better'. But with household penetration rates around 94 per cent there is good reason to conclude that universal service has now been achieved. Whilst there may be some households which are not connected to the service for economic reasons it does not follow that financial assistance is necessarily appropriate. Some individuals may be nearly as accessible through a close neighbour's phone, a pay phone down the hall, a phone at work or even the postal service.

As I stated earlier in my speech, I am deeply concerned that this government through this legislation is failing to take into account the rapid convergence of technologies which is currently taking place and the increasing demand for services such as rapid fax transmissions, e-mail, the Internet, electronic commerce, telemedicine and educational applications.

This error, if allowed to go uncorrected, has potentially disastrous consequences for regional Australia in particular because the provision of advanced telecommunications services to much of rural and remote Australia and Tasmania is uneconomic. Unless such services are specified as part of the universal service obligation, no carrier will provide them in the foreseeable future.

It remains to be seen just how this government responds to each of the recommendations in the majority report of the Standard Telephone Service Review Group. So far, rural and regional Australians have good reason to believe that the Howard Liberal government will not deliver access to the telecommunications services they need unless those services are specifically prescribed in the legislation.

Accordingly, we on this side of the House will seek to amend this bill in the Senate to upgrade the standard telephone service. The proposed amendments will be broadly in line with the key recommendations of the majority report. Until the bill is amended to ensure an airtight guarantee of equity of access for rural and regional Australia, it should be opposed.