Senator WOODLEY (10:47 PM) —I rise to speak on this Telstra (Transi tion to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 because I believe that telecommunications are very critical to this country and no more critical than in rural areas. It is worth pointing out to the Senate—and I intend taking some time to develop this—just how important communications are in rural areas. I do have some experience of that. I remember some years ago driving in the outback down a road towards Urandangi. As many of you know, the summer heat in Queensland is quite extreme. As I was driving down the road I had a problem deciding whether I would put the window up and stop any breeze at all coming through the car or put the window down. If I put the window up I would stop the dust from coming in and choking me to death, but I would cook. Those are the kinds of conditions that one experiences in western Queensland, which do affect the communications that people have.

At that particular time, out near Urandangi in Western Queensland near the Northern Territory border, which many of you have visited I am sure, the only communication was through the Royal Flying Doctor Service network. And that still obtains today. At the time I was part of the Royal Flying Doctor network and used one of their transceivers to communicate.

So it was of great interest to me to hear that, through the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and the package that is going to be delivered, no doubt in the next day or two, we are going to be able to deliver communications in the bush at a much higher level of technical excellence—that is, if you can believe the announcements that this government makes. That is my problem. For example, just recently I had the very distressing experience of debating in this place the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 . In one's experience, one must compare what governments say at one point on some particular piece of legislation with what they deliver on that legislation to judge whether you can trust them to deliver on other legislation. I am talking about the Telstra bill. One finds it hard to know whether or not one can trust a government when their behaviour is really one of extreme provocation.

I am glad Senator Newman is here because I want to talk about the farmers retirement bill, which is one that your office was involved in. I did not appreciate the blackmail that your office was involved in with respect to this bill.

Senator Newman —On a point of order, can I draw attention to the fact that Senator Woodley is not only speaking quite dishonestly about previous negotiations but also he is discussing a previous piece of legislation and he is not adhering to the requirement to be relevant to the bill before the Senate.

Senator Carr —On the point of order: I understood the senator's speech. I heard him to be discussing the government's integrity. That ought to be a very short debate; nonetheless, it is entirely relevant to the issues, given the assurances that have been given on this bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —On the point of order, Senator Newman, it is not appropriate for you to accuse Senator Woodley of dishonesty. Equally, it is not appropriate for him to accuse your office of blackmail. I ask you both to withdraw those comments.

Senator Newman —I withdraw, and I trust the priest present will do the same.

Senator WOODLEY —I will try to find another word to replace `blackmail'.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Withdraw unqualifiedly, please, Senator Woodley.

Senator WOODLEY —I will try to find another word.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do not want you to try to find another word. I have asked you to withdraw unqualifiedly.

Senator WOODLEY —I will try to find another word.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Woodley, I did ask you to withdraw the word that you used.

Senator WOODLEY —I withdraw the word `blackmail'. Now I have to try and find another word which will replace that because what I am describing—

Senator Abetz —You cannot give a speech which is parliamentary, can you?

Senator WOODLEY —I am not sure what Senator Abetz said, but I think it is important that he stay and hear what I am saying on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998. We are apparently projecting some legislation which the government will proclaim after the next election. The problem is, even if we deal with this legislation and make some determination on it, how are people to know whether or not it is going to be proclaimed after the election? I am talking about the problem that people in the bush and in every community in Australia have in understanding whether or not this government will actually deliver what it says it will. There is a problem with this very bill. In a sense, if it is not going to be proclaimed, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is a hypothetical piece of legislation.

I have to use what happened to an actual bill to illustrate what will happen with a hypothetical bill if the government does not proclaim it. That is the problem I have. It is particularly relevant to the bush. This is the problem. I have travelled thousands of kilometres in western Queensland in the last 30-odd years and I will continue to do so. If I go and talk to them about the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership Bill) 1998, I will have to say, `We have this hypothetical legislation which, after the next election, may be proclaimed by the government. If it is proclaimed and is sold, there may be a dividend which will deliver some benefits to people in the bush. However, you have to take into account what this government actually does with real legislation.'

Last year, I think it was around September-October, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) announced his triple A package. At the time, he said that the retirement benefit should help about 10,000 farmers. The Democrats, and I think all of us, agreed with the policy. It was a very good policy. There was absolutely no problem whatsoever with that. It was an excellent policy and we agreed with it. It was an nounced that about 10,000 farmers would be helped. We then came to a hearing of the rural affairs committee and we discovered that the 2,000 farmers had become 2,100 farmers over three years.

Senator Newman —You are dishonest.

Senator O'Brien —Mr Acting Deputy President, that was an unparliamentary remark by the minister and I ask her to withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Minister, that is an unparliamentary remark.

Senator Newman —I withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Woodley, as I said earlier, second reading debates do tend to be fairly wide ranging, but I think you are going beyond the bounds of relevance for a speech on the second reading debate. I ask you to make your remarks more directly relevant to the bill.

Senator Abetz —Why can't you speak about the benefits of this legislation?

Senator WOODLEY —I do appreciate the interjection of Senator Abetz.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator WOODLEY —I can only deal with one interjection at a time, Senator Macdonald. If you will wait, I will deal with Senator Abetz and then I will—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Woodley, perhaps you should ignore the interjections. That might be more appropriate.

Senator WOODLEY —I thought they were adding something to the debate.

Senator Ian Macdonald —You are a disgrace to your profession.

Senator WOODLEY —I beg your pardon, Senator Macdonald. I do take objection to that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macdonald, that is an unparliamentary comment.

Senator Sandy Macdonald —I withdraw it.

Senator WOODLEY —Thank you. In seeking to promote the benefits of this hypothetical Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill—I think there may be hypo thetical benefits as well—in western Queensland, one of the problems will be the credibility of government promises. The government has promised—Senator Abetz, this is why I am dealing with your interjection—to deliver a number of benefits, called a `social bonus'. It is very important that people should be able to really trust that this government, if they are still in place after the election, will proclaim the bill and deliver that social bonus. But can people really trust that that will happen?

Senator Abetz —We all know about Cheryl Kernot.

Senator WOODLEY —We know about Cheryl Kernot! Perhaps I should not cast aspersions on former Senator Kernot; she is not here to answer. The problem with the farmers retirement bill is that eventually we discovered that there were 500 farmers who would be helped.

When the Democrats—in response to the National Farmers Federation, Lifeline in Toowoomba, a number of rural counsellors and a whole lot of submissions which were both made through the inquiry which we held and later to me—tried to amend that bill so that it would be something like what the government was promising, I had a most amazing experience. In my office we began to get phone calls from farmers. I then received a letter from Senator Newman which explained what was going on, that is, if we moved any amendments to make that bill fit what the government had promised, the government would take the bill off the Notice Paper and tell the farmers that the Democrats were to blame for the fact that they were not able to get their benefit and that they would miss out. I had a number of calls from these farmers. They phoned me regularly, in tears, to say that—

Senator Ian Macdonald —Name them.

Senator WOODLEY —I do not have the names here, but I would be happy, Senator Macdonald, because I have the letters in my office, to get them tomorrow and table them.

I said to them, `Where did you get the information that the Democrats are going to stop you from getting your retirement?' They said, `We have been talking to Senator Newman's office.' I thought that was very curious. It was very curious that, when the Democrats tried to make the government fulfil its promise, the government used farmers who are in very dire circumstances to try to force the Democrats not to move any amendments. I talked to the various farmer organisations, and they said, `We don't think there are very many farmers at all who will qualify.'

I had a phone call this morning—I am sure he will not mind my using his name—from Lex Buchanan, who is President of the Queensland Farmers Federation. He told me that he is outraged by the bill which finally passed. The Democrats certainly wanted to help those few farmers to whom the bill could apply. He was outraged that the government—

Senator Newman —There were 2,100, as always intended.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Order! Senator Newman.

Senator WOODLEY —I do not mind how many times you interject.

Senator Newman —You might learn eventually.

Senator WOODLEY —You might learn, Senator Newman. In any case, Lex Buchanan from the Queensland Farmers Federation said that he was outraged by the fact that the government had not been prepared to consider or even debate the Democrats' amendments. We had some comments before about democracy. I do not think they even know how to spell it, let alone practise it. In any case, Mr Buchanan said that he was certainly going to make sure that farmers throughout Queensland, rural counsellors and the rest know that the government would not debate the amendments which the Democrats tried to move. They will put pressure on this government to fulfil its promise.

Senator Abetz —Have you got something to say about Telstra?

Senator WOODLEY —Yes, I am getting to that, Senator Abetz. The problem is that I have to go to the farmers this time and say to them, having taken the government at face value, `There is a hypothetical piece of legislation called the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 —

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am glad you are returning to the bill, Senator Woodley.

Senator WOODLEY —Yes. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You have been a real help in this whole debate in pulling me back. I know that I do tend to be a bit expansive and you are helping. I appreciate that—it ought to be acknowledged. You and I have at times had a few altercations, but you have been very helpful.

If I go to people and say to them, `Look, there is a social bonus like the bonus which was promised under the farmers retirement bill. It is the same kind of bonus. It will be hundreds of millions of dollars. It is going to be a great thing,' we might find that, after the election, if we use the same scale I used before, that becomes less and less. They can only go on previous experience. They are not able to operate on a hypothetical promise. I think farmers in Queensland are becoming pretty cynical. That is why they voted the way they did in the Queensland election.

Senator Abetz —They didn't vote Democrat, did they?

Senator WOODLEY —No, they voted One Nation, Senator Abetz. I thought you had heard that or read the paper, but I guess Tasmania is a long way from Queensland. They sure voted for One Nation rather than the National and Liberal parties in Queensland.

Senator Ian Macdonald —How did the Democrats go?

Senator WOODLEY —We did not do very well, Senator Macdonald. I do not mind admitting that. I have to tell you that we did not lose as badly as the—

Senator Abetz —You did not lose any seats?

Senator WOODLEY —No, we did not actually. But, anyway, let me get back to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 because I know that the Acting Deputy President may have to draw my attention to the bill we are discussing.

The problem is: how am I going to go to farmers in Queensland and say to them, `There is a social bonus that will accrue to you from the sale of Telstra because this government has promised it. It has put up this hypothetical legislation and, after the election, it is going to be proclaimed and you are going to get all these millions of dollars worth of benefits'? They will say to me, `Oh, yeah. Are we going to divide those millions of dollars by the same proportion—10,000 being reduced to 500?' As Lex Buchanan said to me this morning, we could not find anyone in Queensland who would benefit. I am sure there must be some farmers in Queensland who will benefit. I hope there are because that is about the only experience that they will be able to convey which says this government actually delivers. I do not think farmers in Queensland because of their experience will be able to really believe that there will be a social benefit or a social bonus from the Telstra bill.

It is hypothetical legislation because it is not going to be proclaimed until after the election. It is hypothetical legislation which is based on a promise but which the farmers in Queensland say from experience does not have any substance. That is the problem.

I am sorry Senator Harradine has gone because I had a proposition to put to him that would have helped us all. The proposition I had to put to him was that we could all go home by dinnertime tomorrow. I am sure you want to hear that. All we really need to know is that Senator Harradine is going to vote against this bill, as he promised in 1996. If he tells us that, then that would enable us to know how the vote is going to go and—

Senator Abetz —Have the Democrats ever changed their mind on an issue?

Senator WOODLEY —No, we never have on this one.

Senator Brown —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I think that is a very important opportunity that the senator has offered Senator Harradine. I draw your attention to the state of the house so that he will have time to come and listen to what else there is to say. (Quorum formed)

Senator WOODLEY —That is the offer I make to Senator Harradine. We could by lunchtime tomorrow finish the second reading debate and then debate the rest of the bill at a more appropriate and proper time. I do not know if Senator Harradine feels that that is an appropriate offer to make, but it seems to me that that would break the whole problem that we have got here in seeking to deal with this legislation. (Time expired)