Mr STEPHEN SMITH (9:01 PM) —My understanding was, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you had previously put, and the House had carried, the government amendments. My understanding is—

Mr McGauran —And the bill.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH —No, I jumped before you put the bill. But, as I understand it, the Deputy Speaker is in any event allowing me to pursue this matter. With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, and with respect to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, who is at the table, it is not a matter which the minister can put off and seek advice on. This was precisely the issue that I raised with the minister at the table in the No. 1 bill. The minister on that occasion was the Minister for Trade, the member for Lyne, Mr Vaile. I can entirely understand that he would have no appreciation of communication matters, given that his portfolio is trade—and he has precious little appreciation of those matters. But we are now faced in this bill with a situation where the minister at the table has had, firstly, the notice of my contribution in the second reading debate and, secondly, the notice that came from the same point I made in the No. 1 bill, which is a debate which we had in this House some four months ago now.

So it is hardly appropriate for the minister at the table to say he will go off and seek advice. I know that he scurried to the advisers box but, frankly, I would have thought that, for a National Party minister in a marginal seat where he has a history and a track record of paying more attention to walking down the streets of Melbourne than to how the call centres might be going in his electorate, it is incumbent upon him to answer that question. There is a qualitative difference in approach. On the one hand, the government is saying that the winner of the $150 million tender for the extension of local call zones to the extended zones—or the remote areas, as they are generally known—which may well be a company or a corporation other than Telstra or Telstra Countrywide, automatically becomes the universal service obligation provider for that area, which is 80 per cent of the landmass.

We know from the leaked secret Telstra document to Dr Switkowski, the chief executive officer, that Telstra would make a commercial judgment as to whether it would remain operating within that area. Part of that area would be the area covered by the seat of the member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Haase, who is sitting in the chamber, and part of that area would be yours. What is the government's explanation as to why there is a qualitative difference between Telstra not being required to remain in 80 per cent of the Australian landmass but being required to remain in the two pilot projects which cover, in comparison, a small proportion of the Australian landmass? We know that, under the government's regime and the government's approach, it is open to Telstra to make a commercial decision to remove itself from those areas, and we certainly know that, if Telstra were fully privatised, which is the government's policy, there is absolutely no question that it would remain within those areas. There is a qualitative and fundamental difference of approach here which the government has failed or refused to answer at every opportunity. The minister now has another opportunity, having been given four months notice. I know from his perspective that is relatively short notice, but nonetheless it is appropriate notice and he should be in a position to provide an answer.