Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications and the Arts)(6.01 p.m.) —I am not sure that I understand what Senator Margetts is saying. The amendment proposed by Senator Harradine, as I read it, would mean that the act could not commence until 1 May. Therefore, no action could be taken until that time. I do not think there is any suggestion of the Telstra board doing anything prior to that date in any event. The Commonwealth would also not be doing anything.

Senator Margetts —How do we know that?

Senator ALSTON —There is no authorisation to proceed until the bill commences. The date for that would be 1 May. I will answer Senator Murphy's question. The Internet schools package will not be funded from the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, or the $250 million fund, if you want to call it that. It is a separate commitment provided by Telstra.

Senator Murphy —But in what context? Additional to the commitments made?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator West) —Order! If you have further questions, Senator Murphy, wait until the minister has finished and then proceed.

Senator ALSTON —As you will see from that press release, Telstra have indicated, as part of their broad national planning parameters, that they intend to speed up network modernisation and ISDN availability. GSM coverage will be expanded, and local call access to the Internet will be provided to all Tasmanians. Tasmania will benefit from the Internet for Schools package to be offered nationally early next year. They are all commitments that Telstra gives in the context of its current corporate plan. They have nothing whatsoever to do with any additional funds that might be available in relation to the fund itself.

Let me say in relation to Senator Harradine's comments that the government takes the view that, by having this matter examined by a Senate committee, there will be an opportunity to test the various proposals in a way, as Senator Harradine quite rightly says, that has not been available until now. In other words, the process that has been gone through has essentially been a private one, where people have responded in writing to the various ideas and proposals contained in Senator Harradine's proposal.

By allowing the matter to be tested before a Senate committee, there will be public scrutiny of the issue for the first time. As Senator Harradine says, there will be public accountability by Treasury officials, who will be required to subject themselves to cross-examination and explain the logic and thinking behind their assumptions. They will have the ability to test the assumptions themselves. There will then be available just over five weeks between the date of that committee report becoming available and the date on which this bill would come into effect. There will be a five-week period during which the government will be able to take into account not only the report itself but also the public reaction to the report. It can also assess the matters that may for the first time have been explored in much greater depth than is understandably available when you are simply asking a government department to provide raw material upon which a minister would finally sign off.

I think you should not jump the gun. You should wait until you see what is contained in that report. It is rather breathtaking that neither the Australian Democrats nor the Labor Party has shown the slightest interest in this issue, yet they get up today and argue that this is the only way to go and that we should scrap any thoughts of privatisation and simply endorse a proposal for redeemable preference shares. If they have had such a massive conversion to the cause that they now think it is a very commendable initiative, the least they could do is participate in the committee hearings and test the proposition to its ultimate conclusion. If they are not, it is quite clear that the only reason they have moved that amendment is to attempt yet again to delay the process.