Senator STOTT DESPOJA (12:46 PM) —I wish to put on record for the Democrats the fact that we do not support the government's motion that is before us. We will not seek to divide, recognising time constraints and also the fact that the opposition has indicated that they will be supporting the motion. We oppose this motion on two grounds: in relation to the exemption of both the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 and the Telecom munications Laws Amendment (Universal Service Cap) Bill 1999 .

We will not go into the merits of the telecommunications bill, because that is not appropriate to do at this stage of the debate. We do not support the substance of that bill nor do we believe that there is any urgency in bringing that bill on for debate. I would like to quote the government's statement of reasons for claiming that this bill is urgent. It says:

Under those arrangements, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is expected to finalise the assessment in June 1999 and issue levy bills to the industry shortly afterwards in accordance with its statutory duty.

We believe that this process should be left to occur—that is, that the ACA should make its decision in relation to the USO cost claim and the government should not be intervening. As I mentioned, we will not divide on that issue. In relation to the online services bill, I think most senators would agree that that matter has been introduced to the chamber, referred to a committee and reported on in undue haste. I have had no statement from government—or certainly statements that have been substantiated—giving any reasons for bringing this bill to the chamber and debating it with such urgency. The only reason I have had from government was a single sentence justification referring only to the need:

. . . to meet growing concerns about the potential exposure to children of classified material on the Internet, particularly given the increasing access to on-line services in the Australian community.

I have to say that before the committee process the government failed to substantiate this so-called high level of community concern. But, beyond that, we have seen undue haste applied to the introduction of this bill, the referral of this bill, the reporting date of the committee on this bill and now the debate of this bill in the chamber. There is no reason for that urgency. It is an important bill; it is not an urgent bill. And for that reason we oppose it being exempt from the cut-off rule as well.