Mr WINDSOR (4:35 PM) —I recognise my old state colleague on my left, Mr Baird. By his definition I am one of the three per cent of Australians who do not receive CDMA coverage where they reside. I do not find that acceptable and I doubt the mathematics in terms of the three per cent. Those of us who live in country electorates are very well aware that there are many black spots in terms of mobile phone coverage and Internet reception. One of the very basic provisions, that of cabling underground for normal telephone reception, is in a shocking state in many parts of regional Australia, not only west of the range but also towards coastal areas. The infrastructure that is underground is an absolute disgrace. Anybody that has anything to do with the people who have been working to fix underground cables after lightning strikes, outages and those sorts of things would understand that the infrastructure in regional Australia is in an appalling state. It is no wonder that the government wants to divest itself of that asset, because there are enormous costs involved in restoring that infrastructure to some sort of workable order in the future.

I do not think this matter of public importance should be debated today, because I do not think there is a problem with the sale. In fact, in recent documentation many members within the government, particularly National Party members, have indicated that Telstra is not up to scratch and it will not be up to scratch in a matter of months. The member for Hume said that it would take many years. The member for Wide Bay suggested that there were a lot of people in his constituency that were very concerned, and that it would take quite some time. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, who has recently had a new cable attached to his abode, has said that he does not believe that a move to sell the rest of Telstra would be happening, because it is too early as yet. Even today, under pressure from his Liberal colleagues who have been making announcements in his absence, he indicated that he would be looking at some sort of benchmarking. So I would believe the National Party, as I always have because of their honesty and integrity in relation to country issues, when they say that they will not be a part of any sale, even though they have been guided in the past by the Liberal Party. I think this is one of those issues on which the National Party leadership will stand up for its constituency and demand that it not be sold.

I do have some concerns in relation to a few other issues involving Telstra. I would hope that the members of the Senate, in particular—even though many of them do not have direct experience with country areas—would look at the other issues involved in any sale of Telstra. I hope that they would not be bought off on some short-term lolly shop agenda. I hope that they would look to the long term for country constituents. I think that what we are looking at is very important. There are countless examples where infrastructure has been sold off in the last decade and country people have suffered as a result, after the sale.

There have been many people saying here today—and, quite rightly—that there has been an improvement in Telstra's service. The question has to be asked: why has that happened? Has competition meant all that to them? I doubt very much whether that has driven that agenda in country areas; it may well have had some impact in the metropolitan areas. Why has it happened? My colleague the member for Calare has been one of the very vocal people in this place over the years, arguing that infrastructure service levels were not up to scratch, and Telstra Country Wide was eventually put in place. If there was ever an argument in favour of having an Independent member in the parliament, this is it. The member for Calare does need congratulating on that particular issue, because he has driven that issue. Telstra Country Wide would not been established had it not been for the vocal opposition of the member for Calare articulating the concerns of his constituents in regional Australia about the possible sale of Telstra.

Why else has it improved? It has improved—and I think everybody in this place would know this—because there has been a political imperative to make it look better. Through the Besley report and other reports—whether they be dummied reports or purely political documents—there has been a political imperative to make Telstra look better in regional Australia. That is because there is a degree of guilt concerning any possible sale that some people could be classified as second-class citizens in relation to having access to technology into the future. So there has been this political imperative that has been driving it.

There is money to burn in regional Australia at the moment. If there are any problems, there is a Telstra problem register—and I have established them in my own electorate. A lot of the problems are getting fixed very quickly now, not because there are more people working there but because of the political imperative that some government ownership has over the performance of Telstra. If we remove that political imperative and we sell and we have our day in the lolly shop with the funds, will that mean that for the large corporation that buys Telstra—it may be partly overseas owned and driven by shareholder imper-atives—that the same pressure will be applied in relation to regional, remote and

minor services? Will new technology be guaranteed into the future? The answer is, obviously, no.

Anybody who has taken the time to seek some legal advice about what the parliament can actually do through legislative and regulatory controls in relation to a sale document of Telstra would know that you cannot guarantee future services—some of which have not even been invented yet. You cannot guarantee those sorts of things into the future. There is no guarantee. We cannot legislate in this parliament to make sure that a company in 10, 30, 40 or 50 years time will deliver services that have not yet been invented. For instance, an overseas company might buy a part of Telstra. Over time it might make a large investment in some sort of Singaporean or Indian arrangement—as has been in the news recently—and that investment might not be seen to be profitable and it might incur large losses. How would you guarantee, in terms of legislation in this place on the sale of Telstra in 2002 or 2003, that that particular company would have to go into debt to provide certain facilities and services to the people of Lightning Ridge? It is an absolutely joke to think that that sort of thing could happen.

If you need any more indications, particularly of the current government's bona fides in relation to that particular theory, look at what has happened with Kingsford Smith airport. Yesterday there were ironclad guarantees about service levels and pricing levels for regional people. Today or five years out, there could be quite significant changes. The company that is buying Sydney airport can make significant changes in five years time. They are the sort of controls that we have seen in the past. Once something of government ownership is sold—something as essential as basic communications that all Australians should have equality of access to—there are no guarantees of service delivery into the future.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.