Mr STEPHEN SMITH (4:12 PM) —When Telstra advised the government of its $2.1 billion half-yearly profit and 10,000 job losses, the government cheered. They cheered when Telstra told them, and they are still cheering today. Not only did they not do anything about it, they actually cheered. They popped the champagne corks, and they cheered over 10,000 job losses. Out came the champagne corks. They are cheering and sipping champagne to the news of 10,000 job losses. The majority shareholder actually cheered at the thought of a $2.1 billion half-yearly profit and 10,000 job losses.

What became crystal clear today in question time, and from the comments of the CEO of Telstra, Dr Switkowski, was that the government was told and did nothing. We have heard in advance, and subsequently, from the Minister for Communications, Senator Alston—leaning back in the chair, bragging about the profit and cheering at the thought of $2.1 billion and 10,000 jobs down the gurgler. Today we saw the Prime Minister tear up his Nyngan declaration. He toured the bush a day after he made his Federation speech, and he handcuffed himself to the full privatisation of Telstra. He made his Nyngan declaration, saying that a red light will flash if any Commonwealth service is at risk of being denuded. Commonsense tells you that if 10,000 jobs go from Telstra, the majority or the bulk of those will go from rural and regional Australia. That will mean a diminution in the services to rural and regional Australia, and the Prime Minister is sitting there, the red light flashing, but doing nothing. His Nyngan declaration has been torn up.

What do we see from John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the so-called Leader of the National Party? He is not a Leader of the National Party like leaders of old of the National Party, not like Hunt, not like Nixon, not like Sinclair or Anthony snr—not like people who would stand up to the Liberal lawyers from Melbourne and Sydney who currently run the government's telecommunications policy. We know what they call him in `cocky's corner'. You know, `Ken from Red Hill', the Leader of the National Party who will not stand up for rural and regional Australia.

Mr Hockey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take offence at that slur on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—In this instance, unfortunately, I was momentarily distracted. I did not actually hear what was said, but if there was any offence it should be withdrawn. Importantly, I would remind the member for Perth to refer to honourable members by their titles.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I may well be able to help the House. I am simply repeating what they say in cocky's corner. If that is offensive to the minister at the table, I am quite happy to withdraw it and just leave it to cocky's corner to say, which they do. What did the Deputy Prime Minister have to say today? This morning on the Today program he was asked a question which was: won't this inevitably lead to job losses from the bush? He said:

So what do we know about the Deputy Prime Minister? The government was advised by Telstra of the 10,000 job loss figure. He neither asked for detail nor could he tell where those job losses would fall, and as a consequence he refused to give the guarantee today that rural and regional Australia would not bear the greater burden of the majority of those job losses.

At the heart of this is: what is this public policy debate about? This is a public policy debate about whether Telstra ought to be privatised or not. There has been a clear and stark contrast between the two main political parties on this issue for some considerable period of time. I was elected to this parliament in the 1993, 1996 and 1998 elections. At each of those elections, together with my party, I campaigned opposing the privatisation of Telstra or the further privatisation of Telstra. And at the next election, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can rest assured that we will again campaign opposing the further privatisation of Telstra. But what did we say would be the consequences of privatising Telstra? We firstly made a point about the one-off return you might get from flogging it off as against a dividend receipt. Secondly, we made the point that service levels would invariably fall and rural and regional Australia would suffer.

Let us have a look at the dividend question. This is a half yearly profit announcement. This is $2.1 billion, which follows on a $1.8 billion half-yearly return for the previous six months. That is $4 billion in the course of one year. When the government flogged off one-third of Telstra, it got $14 billion. So a one-off flog-off for a third of Telstra gives you $14 billion, and Telstra gets a $4 billion profit for one year's operation. When the returns come in for T2, for the 49.9 per cent privatisation of Telstra, that will probably come in at $16 billion. So we are looking at about $30 billion. You get a $4 billion profit in one year and $30 billion for flogging off the asset to 49.9 per cent.

Put, then, the proceeds of the privatisation that are said will be spent in the bush, the bribes for the bush, into context. The $4 billion one-yearly profit that we saw announced yesterday and six months ago is more than double the proceeds of the 49.9 per cent privatisation that is proposed to be spent in the bush. That is more than double. So Telstra's one-year profit is more than double the proceeds that will go to the bush to improve the bush in one go. You flog off 49.9 per cent and you spend less than half of the money that you get from Telstra's profit in one year. What do we know about those proceeds? We know today from the National Party. The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party will not stand up for rural and regional Australia so the National Party administration has to. We see that today the National Party Federal President, Helen Dickie, released a statement saying that they have not seen the benefits of the first privatisation yet. They have not seen any improvement in Telstra's service so far as service levels are concerned.' She said:

It would be nice to hear that from a National Party member of parliament other than the member for Kennedy, on whose behalf the Leader of the National Party refused to disassociate himself from the remarks of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, who said that the member for Kennedy is a `national disgrace' for simply uttering the unremarkable: that he does not believe it will assist rural and regional Australia and his constituents in North Queensland if Telstra is further or fully privatised.

The minister for the arts, representing the minister for communications, when talking about service levels, referred to a press release that I issued on 20 December 1999. This has been used disingenuously, both by him and by Senator Alston, to somehow suggest that, on one occasion, I have said that the service problem of Telstra is solved. That press release is headed `Report shows first sign of progress on Telstra service levels, but there is still a long way to go'. This was a release which came out on the day that the ACA returned its findings from its formal investigation into Telstra's breach of its USO and customer service guarantee matters. The ACA report said that Telstra had been in breach of those obligations and that there were long-term, systemic problems that had to be addressed over a long period of time. I made the point that one swallow does not make a summer. Neither the minister here nor the minister for communications in the Senate should seek to disingenuously use that press release to do anything other than to draw attention to the ACA report into the failure of Telstra to adequately meet its service levels.

Let us see what some people in the National Party, other than the member for Kennedy, have been saying. The member for Kennedy, of course, said that those who believed that the plan to cut 10,000 jobs would not adversely affect rural and regional Australia `would believe the abominable snowman lives near Mt Isa'. Senator Boswell said today that the announcement was `an unmitigated disaster'. He said:

The problem for the National Party is that they will not stand up. We find the member for Kennedy here and Bozzie up in the Senate saying things, but when are we going to find the National Party minister for the arts, when are we going to find the minister for agriculture and when are we going to find the National Party leader standing up to the Liberal Party lawyers from Melbourne and Sydney, who run the communications policies for the coalition, standing up for rural and regional Australia and drawing a line in the sand, saying, `Telstra cannot be further privatised. The partial privatisation of Telstra has been a disaster for rural and regional Australia'? There is a key point here: at the next election, the Australian Labor Party will campaign on keeping Telstra in majority ownership and ensuring that service levels, jobs and services in rural and regional Australia are properly, adequately and equitably met. (Time expired)