Mr EDWARDS (10:04 PM) —I oppose the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . I oppose it because if it is passed it will lead to the total sale of Telstra and the ultimate loss of Australian ownership of our own telecommunications infrastructure systems and technology. The government has failed, and successive speakers on the government side have failed tonight, to explain to the people of Australia and to explain to this parliament what real long-term benefits this nation will derive from the proposed sale of Telstra. Indeed, anyone who has listened to this debate tonight would have to say that they are disappointed—disappointed because this government has not been able to give us one single compelling reason why we should sell Telstra.

You would think that if the sale of Telstra were so good for Australia there would be a dozen reasons the government would be able to give. I have listened to this debate tonight and I have not heard one reason. I certainly would not be and could not be convinced to change my mind about the sale of Telstra from the arguments that I have heard. I am sure that anyone outside of the chamber listening to the debate would feel equally as disappointed as I am.

The government has not explained nor justified why it is rushing headlong into the sale of this asset, which once sold will be forever beyond the capacity of the people of Australia to buy back. Indeed, the full monty privatisation philosophy of this Howard government to rush in and divest itself and this country of our national assets has long-term ramifications for our country—ramifications which I am sure some members opposite have not fully considered. If they had, I doubt they would be so keen to support this further demonstration of the Howard government's blind lemming like commitment to economic rationalisation.

There is no doubt that Telstra, under this government, has rationalised its operations at the expense of Australian workers and further rationalised its operations at the expense of services to Australians in order to meet this policy of selling an asset that is already Australian owned. It would appear to me that the long-term interests of Australia would be better served with the retained public ownership of Telstra. Surely we are better off to reinvest the existing dividend in subscribers, particularly those in the bush and those who are already the majority shareholders of this national carrier—that is, the Australian taxpayers. I wonder how much Australian ownership of Telstra will remain in this nation in 20 years time or so if this sale goes ahead. Indeed, I wonder just how much of those shares already in the marketplace are owned by major investors, institutions and overseas investors.

Of major concern to me is that if this legislation goes through it will result in the loss of general ministerial power to direct Telstra in matters of public interest. I want to give the House an example of how the loss of that power will impact on a number of people who live in my electorate of Cowan in the locality of Landsdale, adjacent to the Perth International Telecommunications Centre at a site known as Gnangara. I might say that this Gnangara site is described by Telstra people as one of the most important international communication sites in Australia.

The people I want to talk about live within one kilometre of this Telstra facility. Coincidently, Telstra requires a one kilometre buffer zone around this facility in order to protect the quality of its transmission. Some of the residents to whom I refer have owned this land for many years and now want to sell or subdivide their blocks. However, because they are within the Telstra buffer zone, they will be unable to realise the full value of their land simply because Telstra is using its influence with planning authorities to keep its buffer zone rural while most of the surrounding land has been rezoned urban in tune with the development of housing in Perth's northern suburbs.

In short, Telstra is bludging on my constituents. I believe the minister should be able to use his powers of direction to resolve this issue. I am not saying he should be able to go out there and tell Telstra to buy the land, but he should be able to use powers under the existing act to have this matter resolved. He should be directing Telstra to resolve it. Once this legislation passes, if it is passed, that power to direct will be lost forever.

To further my argument, I want to refer to an article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 21 September 1997. The quotes I will refer to were comments made by the current President of the Legislative Council in the WA parliament, the Hon. George Cash. The article states:

As Telstra prepares to release its $12 billion share float, it is being accused of robbing some Landsdale residents of their retirement income.

More than 60 land-owners, most of whom bought rural blocks of between two and four hectares, bought the land believing it would be zoned urban. They claim Telstra has stopped their land appreciating in value.

The problem surfaced in 1987 when Telstra upgraded its 20-year-old Overseas Telecommunications base at Gnangara to a satellite earth station, claiming it needed a buffer zone.

Senior Liberal MLC for the North Metropolitan Region, George Cash, said Telstra was using standover tactics and causing residents, who are either retired or near retirement, financial hardship.

Mr Cash said the failure by Telstra to formally acknowledge the need for a buffer zone and provide full information was sheer arrogance.

"I am dismayed at the lack of planning which saw Telstra siting such a facility in what was clearly the path of urban growth," he said.

It is also interesting to note a letter I have which was written to some solicitors acting for some of my constituents. The letter is signed by the `Regional and General Manager, Western Region' of Telstra. I briefly want to quote that. The letter states:

You have stated that your clients' land is "adversely affected" by a one kilometre buffer zone "created" around Telstra's installations. This is not correct. Your clients' land is contained within a rural zoning, and it is that zoning which prevents its subdivision for residential purposes, not the installations Telstra has made on the adjoining land. It is also not correct to say that a buffer zone has been created, the fact is that the zoning that has affected your client's land has simply remained the same. I also find it difficult to see how you can assert that your clients' land is "adversely affected" when it has the same zoning that it had when it was purchased by your clients.

What this regional manager is saying is that it is not the buffer zone that is the problem; it is the rural zoning.

Having sorted that out, I want to refer now briefly to a Telstra document entitled Perth International Telecommunications Centre: radio frequency interference protection requirements and assessment of impact of man-made noise sources. It is a report prepared by R.O. Abbasi at Telstra International Engineering. The reason I am referring to these matters is that I want to refer back to this power that the minister has to direct, a power which he will lose should this legislation go through. The first part of the report I want to refer to is found on page 6, and it states:

It will be shown below that achievement of the cumulative interference objectives for the PITC facilities appears to be closely linked to the retention of a rural zoning within the region defined by the separation contour. Given the existing level of residential development within this region, Telstra now believes that it is essential to retain a rural only zoning within the present buffer zone as any further development within this zone is likely to result in an irreversible degradation in the performance of the facilities.

Page 9 of that same report states:

To date, Telstra has reviewed several proposals for sub-division of properties with the buffer zone. In some instances where the lots have been well shielded from the radio line of sight of the existing PITC facilities such as to increase the available relative transmission loss to a value equivalent to a separation distance outside the buffer zone, it has been possible to make some concessions. No such flexibility exists for lots within radio line of sight of the PITC as this would quickly compromise the viability of the site. In all cases of development within the present buffer zone, Telstra has requested specific measures such as underground power distribution and avoidance of gas discharge lighting to minimise the cumulative interference impact on the site. Given the findings of this report, Telstra is of the opinion that the opportunity for any further subdivision within the revised buffer zone is extremely limited.

I read a couple of minutes ago a letter from Telstra which said that the problem is not the buffer zone or the facility; it is the rural zoning. The last letter I want to quote from Telstra was signed by the same gentleman that I mentioned before and it is written to the Ministry of Planning. It is a rather long letter and I do not intend to go through all of it, but from the section under the heading `The planning status of Gnangara' there are five or six points that I want to convey to the House. The letter reads:

1. As stated above Gnangara and the surrounding land have been within a rural zoning for as long as the land has been owned by OTC and Telstra.

2. Telstra has previously had an arrangement with the City of Wanneroo so that it was notified of all proposals that had the potential to affect the operations of Gnangara. As proposals were notified to Telstra it would assess their impact upon the operations at Gnangara and comment accordingly. Telstra was entitled to receive this notification and make comments on the proposals as an adjoining land owner—

I might say that the adjoining landowners have no such opportunity to make comments about developments within the Telstra facility. The letter continues:

3. When assessing proposals for development of land in the area, Telstra has always made every effort to facilitate that development wherever possible, and hence has sometimes not objected to proposals even where they had potential to affect Telstra's operations. It would therefore be unfair to say that Telstra has opposed all development in the area.

4. The local residents who have requested the Council to make this Planning Scheme Amendment have alleged that their land is somehow "blighted" by a one kilometre "buffer zone" around the site. This is not in fact the case. There is no buffer zone, the land owned by these residents is simply in a rural zoning, which is an appropriate zoning for that land, and is the zoning that was in place when each of those residents purchased their land.

The last point I want to read is No. 6 and it states:

6. These residents have no right to expect that their land should be rezoned as a matter of course. Any rezoning that did occur would result in a windfall for these land owners, who purchased their land in its present condition, which would have been reflected in the price they paid.

In conclusion he says:

It is my hope that once you have considered these factors that you will not see the need to take the rezoning any further.

Subsequent to that letter, I have a copy of a letter that was written by the state Secretary to the Western Australian Planning Commission to the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Wanneroo, the local authority where this facility exists. It states:

It is advised that the Hon Minister for Planning has withheld consent for the Amendment to be advertised for public inspection for the following reasons:

. . . . . . . . .

The land is in close proximity to the Telstra Communications Facility and the proposed rezoning would interfere with telecommunication operations from the site which would be contrary to the public interest . . . .

I brought this matter forward tonight during this debate because it seems to me that the only way we are going to resolve this issue—and it is an issue that has been going on for many years now—is to convince the minister that he should use his powers to direct Telstra to do just that and get them to resolve the issue. But, for some reason or other, the minister has not done that.

I want to see this issue resolved. I want to see it resolved in the interests of both Telstra and my constituents, but particularly my constituents. I am concerned that, if this legislation goes through, that power to direct will be gone forever and how are these sorts of issues ever going to be resolved in the future. We are not just talking about selling a facility that is going to bring in a few bob that people can use in the lead-up to an election for all sorts of pork-barrelling; we are talking about the sale of a facility which is already owned by Australians which, once sold, we cannot buy back and which, once sold, we will have no power, no influence, on how the business or how the operations of that carrier are carried out in the future.

I have just given one example tonight of how some ordinary Australian families are being impacted on by Telstra at the moment even though it is in public ownership. How will those people be treated once this facility is sold and once the ownership of this facility goes overseas? Under this government, that is ultimately where the ownership of Telstra is heading if these bills get through the parliament. I simply hope that they do not. I will be doing everything I can to oppose them.