Mr WINDSOR (5:20 PM) —I rise to oppose the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2003, and I do so with what I believe to be the support of 90-odd per cent of country people. There have been a number of surveys done across a range of states and electorates, and I understand there are currently surveys being done in a number of key rural seats in both New South Wales and Queensland—some being carried out by private organisations, others being carried out, I believe, by the Democrats—to ascertain the views of people in relation to the full sale of Telstra. There is no doubt in my mind that the National Party, in particular, and the Country Liberals have deserted country voters on this issue.

If there were ever an issue that was going to negate distance as being a disadvantage for people living in the country, this is it. If we do not get this communication technology right; if we do not make it equitable to country people; if we do not provide country people with an equal footing in relation to future technology, we will leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of not only the distance factor but also the cost factor that we have become accustomed to in country areas. This is the one piece of legislation that should be rejected by the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents in the Senate if they want to do an enormous service to country people. It is the one piece of legislation for which the National Party and Country Liberals should have been the anchor for country people. It is the one piece of legislation since I have been in this parliament that could make an enormous difference—in a negative sense if passed and in a positive sense if rejected—to the livelihood of country people in the future.

I see it as not only the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill; it is more like the Telstra transition to the end of the National Party as we know it. That may well be one of the positives that come out of it. This debate has been going for four hours and one National Party member has spoken. You look at the list of speakers and, despite the importance of this vote, three National Party members are going to speak.

Mr Murphy —Appalling!

Mr WINDSOR —It is appalling, as the member for Lowe said. There are certain things that I will raise later in terms of the promises that the government has given, which may interest the member for Lowe. There are three members of the National Party to speak on this issue, with the leader and deputy leader absent—not interested. They could not care; they are just leaving it to drift through, with most other members doing the same thing. I compliment, though, the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, for at least having the guts and tenacity to listen to his constituents and ask them about the issue, whereas many other people have changed their view, including the member for Riverina and the member for Dawson, whom I complimented in a speech about a year ago for the way they were relating to this bill within the party room and within the public arena. At least Alby Schultz has the guts to maintain his view, whereas many others have gone to water and have not even bothered to come into this chamber to speak to their constituents and argue why this piece of legislation should go through the parliament.

Mr Murphy —Shame!

Mr WINDSOR —It is a shame, as the member for Lowe said. I think it is a disgrace and they should be condemned. As I said earlier, many surveys have been done on the full privatisation of Telstra. The member for Calare has done a survey that indicated something like 96 per cent of his constituents are against it. The member for Kennedy conducted a similar survey with roughly the same numbers. I did a survey last year and, I think, 98 per cent of my constituents were against the sale with about 6,000 households responding. The member for Hume is doing a survey and I think about 92 per cent of his electorate is saying a similar thing. I am currently conducting another survey within my electorate and have asked for the survey forms to be returned by 24 August. As of 19 August 2003, the running sheet for the survey indicates that 7,408 households have responded and, of those, 7,143 say that they do not want the full privatisation of Telstra. That is 7,143 households out of 7,408, which is well up into 97 or 98 per cent opposition to the sale.

Of those in support of the sale, 111 households have indicated that they would support the full sale of Telstra, 58 are undecided or do not care—they were given a number of options: want it sold, do not want it sold, do not care or undecided—and 96 have filled out the form incompletely and had their replies considered as informal. There were 154 households that were either undecided or could not fill out their form correctly, against 111 that wanted the full privatisation to go ahead. So not only is my electorate of New England opposed to the full sale but other surveys done in other electorates are showing similar results.

I do not think it is just country people saying this. I think if a survey were done of city people it would probably come up with 60 per cent in favour of retaining Telstra. I think the Labor Party is on the right track in relation to this issue. I noticed the other day that the shadow minister for communications, Lindsay Tanner, was saying that the Labor Party is the only party that has been opposed to the full sale of Telstra from the inception. That is not quite true. In fact, in their policies the Greens have always maintained full opposition to the sale of Telstra. I compliment those two parties for the way in which they have maintained their views. I hope that other senators will vote against this bill in the Senate. I think they will. All indications are that the Democrats are opposed to the full privatisation.

I have been told in recent days that the One Nation senator, Len Harris, is opposed to the full sale of Telstra. I hope Len maintains that view. A lot of people threw a lot of mud at One Nation during its infancy. Len is the product of their vote in the current parliament, and I think he and the people who supported him have absolutely no doubt that those who voted for One Nation, to get Len into the Senate, would be fully opposed to the full privatisation of Telstra. I hope that Len would represent that view, which is not only the view of the people who have voted for him but also one he has expressed on a number of occasions. I hope also that the Independents in the Senate—Senators Harradine, Murphy and Lees—will also oppose the legislation. This piece of proposed legislation is a real test of what the Senate is all about.

A significant minority group—30 per cent of the vote—in our nation has been essentially ignored by those who represent it: the National Party and the Country Liberals. That is a strategic position that has been taken by the government. That decision has been taken within a cabinet that has assumed, with the Labor Party in some degree of political disarray, that they can make a very hard decision—a decision that their country members do not agree with—and get away with it. I can assure you that they will not get away with this, because I do not think it will get through the Senate. If it were unfortunate enough to get through the Senate, I think you would see a reaction in country Australia in relation to the Senate ticket. That will allow people to carry out another survey, a survey of their own about whether the people they put into the Senate really care about their views on this issue. That is a survey where people will, if it comes to that, be able to make some decisions in terms of their so-called representatives in this parliament and in the Senate.

The strategy that the government is using—believing that the Labor Party, being in some disarray, will not be able to gather momentum before the election, so the government can make a difficult decision and impose it on country people—is, in my view, a high-risk strategy. I think you will see a number of the National Party people who support this legislation challenged at the next election in the House of Representatives. As I said, if the Independents and minor parties in the Senate were in some way swayed through bribery and some degree of coercion to support this, I think you would see country people who may well have voted for those people in the past expressing their views quite strongly in a pro-Telstra, pro-country Senate ticket.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, has been casting a lot of aspersions and words about a number of people. Everybody who says anything against the sale of Telstra is, in his view, fair game. He has criticised my survey, which nearly 7,500 households have responded to. He says that my survey is biased and he disagrees with some of the facts elaborated in the survey. I would like to refute those criticisms for the public record. The front page of my survey says, `The full sale of Telstra is not inevitable. You can do something about it.' Quite obviously it is not inevitable. If you want it sold, it is not inevitable. It has to get through the Senate. If you do not want it sold, it is not inevitable, because it has to get through the Senate. I am pleased to see that one of the National Party members, who is not on the speaker's list, has just entered the chamber. Maybe he will be able to identify the reasons why he is supporting this legislation. I speak of Larry Anthony, a man whose father would never have allowed this sort of circumstance to occur—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The member will refer to other members by their correct title or by their seats.

Mr WINDSOR —I cannot think of his correct title, but I do remember that his father was a man of great regard and would never have allowed the Liberals to do this to what used to be the Country Party, in those far-off days. He never would have allowed it. The minister for communications takes me to task over the facts that are in the survey. I will read the facts out. Fact 1 says, `The government cannot bind future governments to any guarantee of future services.' Those are the Prime Minister's words, not mine. Fact 2 says, `The government received a $1.4 billion share of Telstra's profits for the year 2002.' Those are the Treasurer's words, not mine. If they are biased, they are biased on the part of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Fact 3 is about problems with `Internet access and speed and no absolute guarantee of future technology for country people.' The Prime Minister said that as well. Constitutionally, one government cannot bind a future government.

Fact 4 says, `The government cannot bind a private company to provide the latest technology at affordable prices to country people, so what is up to scratch now may not be up to scratch in 10 years time.' Obviously you cannot, through contractual arrangement, bind a private company to provide technology that has not even been invented yet. I would like to see someone with some knowledge explain to me how that is going to be done. I am not suggesting that it is not possible to do in terms of some sort of legislative phase, but if you expect a private company to enter into an arrangement that is open-ended in 10, 20 or 30 years time, you have got to be kidding yourself. Fact 5 says, `Even John Anderson says we won't know the full impact of a sale for 10 to 15 years.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for New England!

Mr WINDSOR —The Deputy Prime Minister, rather—and he is not even going to be bothered speaking in this debate. He was sitting next to Senator Alston when he made that comment. What a pathetic way to make policy: to actually say to the public, when you are releasing the draft of the bill, that we will not know the result of this for 10 or 15 years.

Mr Murphy —Shame!

Mr WINDSOR —Isn't that an absolute disgrace? Someone who is actually sitting beside the minister who had carriage of the bill says to the press—and is quite proud of it—that we will not know the result of this for 10 or 15 years. No wonder the Doug Anthonys of this world are ashamed of what is happening in this parliament. Senator Alston says that community service obligations will be bound in legislation. He says, `Trust us, it will be okay; don't you worry about it.' I would like to refer the parliament to Senator Alston's press release, where he has a go at my survey. He says:

Isn't that something?

That is about the security we have got on this. He is talking about future governments. You do not even need to be in a future government, which you cannot bind, to have the rules changed. I would refer the parliament—and particularly the senators who might take some interest in what I am about to say—to a similar privatisation that took place a while back: that of Sydney airport.

Mr Murphy —I know all about it.

Mr WINDSOR —The member for Lowe would know all about that. Prior to the privatisation I was quite involved because I had concerns about regional issues. I know the member for Lowe and others had concerns about noise issues. There were certain guarantees given by the government and the ministers in charge—Anderson, Minchin and others. With those guarantees they were saying, `Look, trust us. This will be guaranteed by legislation. We will legislate that noise control, access and all these sorts of things will be set in concrete. They will happen.'

Mr Organ —What happened?

Mr WINDSOR —Two days after the sale—and I refer the House to Thursday, 27 June 2002—minister for finance Nick Minchin also conceded that a future government—this is a future government after a privatisation; the similarities between this and Telstra are enormously close—would be open to try to change existing regulations. He conceded that. On the Seven Network Senator Minchin said that those caps and curfews were in legislation and they would not change: `The company cannot change them; only the parliament can change those limits'. Obviously, we cannot bind future governments but I cannot imagine any government in the future changing those rules. Isn't that similar to what Senator Alston has recently said?

The Prime Minister in this chamber said, in answer to a question that I raised about our Constitution, that we cannot bind future governments to decisions that are made now. Look at what the government is doing in relation to the Kingsford Smith privatisation. We are not in future government mode at the moment—yet, after that 747 plane had brake problems in relation to the curfew, the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, is reconsidering the rules. He has asked that the rules be reconsidered to see whether something can be done to vary them so that the problems with brakes will not occur into the future. I use that by way of example. You do not have to wait for the next government to have the rules changed. It can happen within a term of government.

Essentially, people do not trust the government. People want Telstra to be maintained in some degree of public ownership so that the political imperative can be relayed through their members of parliament to make sure that services are delivered. There is a whole range of issues. I think it is an absolute insult that the government is saying that $45 million a year will make everything okay. I think $45 million a year comes out at about $9 a taxpayer. The government is prepared to spend $7,000 of taxpayers' money on the new home owners and $9 for a country vote—$9 to sell off Telstra. That is absolutely pathetic. I cannot understand why country members of parliament would endorse that.

If you look at the financials of the business, as the shadow minister has done, Telstra has a 20.8 per cent return on assets and 32.1 per cent return on equity, and it pays $3 billion in dividends—half that going to government. What are we talking about when the dividend gained is greater than the interest that would be lost through the sale? Why are we even talking about the sale of an asset like this? If the government says there are protections, just remember HIH. (Time expired)