Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:50): It is almost impossible to rise to this notion without recognising the abject foolishness of what it seeks to achieve. Let's go through the different sections of the motion. Part 1 notes: … the rapid increase in the use of electronic communication technology in recent decades, including in commerce … I give that a tick. Clause 1(b) says: … that access to electronic communication technology differs between Australians, and is often related to income, age, education level and remoteness … That is true. That is also a tick. Then it says: … that not all Australians have the skills and infrastructure to communicate effectively by electronic channels … That is a sensible, logical, reasonable observation. Clause 1(d) says: … That many businesses, including banks, telecommunications companies and utilities, charge consumers an extra fee to receive communications via post … That is a tick. That is a logical statement of reason and rationality and observation of the world. Then you go on to matter 1(e): … Often the fee charged by companies to receive communications by post are intended as a disincentive, and do not represent the actual costs incurred by the company … I have to say that there is a very big question mark there. The reality is that it is definitely true that some institutional service providers like to send things electronically. Why? It is actually pretty bloody obvious. They like to send things electronically— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I think you made a simple mistake. We will have to refer to the Hansard. Mr TIM WILSON: Whatever it is I said, I am happy to withdraw it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you should withdraw. Mr TIM WILSON: I withdraw unreservedly, for the sake of clarity. It is pretty obvious— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Public ramblings are not acceptable within the parliamentary process of speaking. Mr TIM WILSON: I think I understand what you are saying, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. I have withdrawn. Is that satisfactory to you? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Mr TIM WILSON: It is pretty obvious why that is the case. It is because it is cheap, with very little cost, quick—meaning responsive—efficient. As a consequence they do prefer that. But if you require things by traditional means, by post, there is a cost. There is a thing called Australia Post. If you go to the post office—I am not sure if any of the members opposite have done that recently—there is a cost of sending a piece of mail. You also have things like the paper that you print on. There is printer ink and time, energy and resources in folding and processing. All of that costs money. In fact, with the price of a standard letter being about $1 and the previous speaker talking about the cost of sending something being about $1.30 once you factor in all the other costs, which is roughly what agencies use—yes, there is a cost. Ms Keay interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON: To those opposite who are interrupting—I have not finished. Then you go on to clause 2 of the motion: … calls on the Government to bring forward legislation that will give consumers the right to receive communications from companies by post for no extra fee. What you are saying is that they should not be charged. I understand why you might make that argument, though it does not actually reflect the cost, but it just means the cost has to be reflected elsewhere. Because there is a cost. I just went through the very logical process by which a cost is calculated. That is not to say that I prefer that or disagree with that; it is just a statement of fact. It is a statement of reality about the world that we live in. Online is effectively free, minus the cost of staff time, which is sometimes required for the automation of the systems. But once you fractionalise that across thousands, if not millions, of transactions, the cost per distribution is minimal. Something in the post is not cost free or anywhere near the equivalent. Yes, you can negotiate for a reduction of price in bulk-purchased mailing rates, but there will be a cost, which will be fractionalised across various bits of mail to include staff and labour time and everything else. So we need to recognise that there is a reality that does not accord with the motion that has been put before us—and that is (1)(e) and (2) of the motion. The reality is that we know there is already a method of regulation on bank fees and charges and the costs in telecommunications companies. Members opposite may not like to acknowledge that, but it exists. It is called the marketplace. People choose to go between different banks. To put my own perspective, I have multiple accounts with different banks. Before anybody gets hysterical about it, they are all disclosed on the register. As a consequence, you make decisions based on messaging and signals. Only a few moments ago, I got this annoying phone call from an energy company that wants me to shift over. One of their key messagings is that there are reductions in the penalty and rates associated with switching over. The market regulates. This motion is a waste of time.