Mr. Alex Chisholm:

My apologises. I did not answer that question but I had intended to. The Deputy asked a straightforward question. Without question, we fully recognise the validity of the High Court. The only reason we have for bringing appeals against decisions of the High Court is when we think it is absolutely merited on questions of law. We brought an appeal in regard to the premium rate services sector earlier this year where a stay had been granted to protect certain operators in that sector from the full effects of a consumer protection code we had put in place. A judicial review was also made against that decision. We had to appeal the decision of the judge in that matter because we thought it merited the appeal. Following that appeal to the Supreme Court, the judicial review was dropped and the code is now fully in effect. We had to take that action in that case. Incidentally, this has been at no cost to the taxpayer as our costs in that matter have been fully recognised by the other party. We take action extremely sparingly and where it is essential.

Section 52(9) of the postal legislation states that a determination of the High Court on the hearing of an appeal under this section, which is what happened in this case in that it was a judicial review and an appeal, is final except that by leave of the High Court an appeal on a specified question of law shall lie to the Supreme Court. Getting heard by the Supreme Court is not automatic and it must be determined whether or not it will take the case. That is the legislative provision we are acting under in bringing an appeal. It does not show a lack of respect for the High Court, which we respect entirely.