Mr KERR (7:16 PM) —`On and on I could go,' said the member for Macquarie, and on and on he went, displaying all the yapping and barking that a small dog does. Perhaps he is the testosterone chihuahua of the Australian political spectrum. The member for Macquarie continued the debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2003 with no regard for the substance of the case he was put to make—that it is a good thing to sell Telstra and that it should move to full private ownership. Instead, he was reduced to saying that the Labor Party had that as its agenda. In other words, there is no merit in this proposal other than the defence that the opposition would do it too. As my friend and colleague at the table sought to do on a number of occasions, I say that it is a preposterous suggestion and one which the community will be able to judge.

But there is an oddness about this debate. Although many speakers rise and use language of passion, I think there is an odd quietude or placidity about this debate. That is because we all know that this debate will take us nowhere during this parliament. There is no prospect of this legislation passing through the Senate—none whatsoever. So we are going through the motions that our various sides of this debate require us to do, and I will do the same to put the case that I strongly believe—that this institution should remain in public ownership. However, because there is this realisation that the parliament is not going to pass this legislation, we know that the real test will only emerge if the Prime Minister chooses to take this measure at a later date to the Australian people as a double dissolution measure. We will then see whether the member for Macquarie and many on the other side—especially the Nationals—will still have the same courage and flair in the advocacy of this proposal when it comes to a circumstance where their electoral fate will depend on being returned to this House as part of a government committed to a double dissolution sitting in which that bill would be introduced as a measure. I think that we might see some slight lack of courage, shall we say, on behalf of a number of members who have been quite happy to come here and speak, and to continue to speak, as if they would be quite comfortable doing so even as the wet cement were poured in.

This legislation purports to enable the government to sell the remaining majority shareholding of Telstra. Of course, as I have indicated, it does no such thing in practice. We know that this legislation is doomed to be defeated and that the government will in future have an opportunity to place it in a queue. It will take some time before it is ready, but the government will be able to place it in a queue of other legislation that has been twice rejected by the parliament and to decide whether it wishes to make this an issue which will determine its fate at the next election.

Labor opposed the partial privatisation of Telstra and is absolutely and completely opposed to the further privatisation of Telstra. There is no doubt that the realisation that this legislation is not going to pass this parliament has led to what I think is the most extraordinary and surprising outcome—that is, the National Party caving into pressure from the Prime Minister and the minister for communications, Howard and Alston respectively, and selling out their constituency. There is no doubt that the full privatisation of Telstra—were it to occur—would mean further diminution of Telstra services to rural and regional Australia. Again, why is there such an acceptance of that consequence? I suspect it is because they know that this legislation will not pass this House, and they have been prepared to roll over on this issue in the hope that it will not be a double dissolution election issue. If it is, then the point made by the member for Corio—that this will be an electoral test which will find many on the other side defeated—is likely to come true.

Telecommunications is an essential service for this country. The full privatisation of Telstra would in effect make it a huge private monopoly. There would be no effective means for a federal government to regulate its services. There would be no scrutiny of a fully privatised Telstra by any parliamentary inquiry or through the budget estimates processes that currently apply. We know that Telstra has been prepared for privatisation, and part of that has been the insistence on so-called greater efficiencies—that is, staff reductions and a reduction in capital investment. Capital investment in Telstra has dropped by $1.3 billion over the past four years. With Telstra's partial privatisation, we have seen more than a doubling of the cost of our phone line rental, and that is expected to rise to over $30 per month in the next 12 to 24 months.

Staffing levels have reduced dramatically. In 2002 Telstra employed 45,000 full-time equivalent persons. In 2003 this is predicted to fall to 42,000. That is a cut of 3,000 jobs. My own state of Tasmania can expect to lose in the order of 30 to 40 highly skilled jobs. Whilst that number might seem small to some from other states, losing 30 to 40 highly skilled jobs is something Tasmania can ill afford. And what would these job cuts mean? They would mean further blow-outs in maintenance lists and fault reduction times. Even at the present time, only the highest priority maintenance work is being undertaken.

The job cuts and the greater efficiencies that have been insisted upon have really been done for short-term reasons—to effect the highest possible share price. Of course, the collapse of the high-tech sector has caused Telstra shares to fall. They are presently trading at a level that I think makes it implausible for this government to seriously proceed with the sale, even if it were to get this legislation through, at least in the short term. But if they did they would be basically selling off a hugely valuable asset for a bargain basement price—that is, selling public goods for private gain. There is no doubt that a fully privatised Telstra would continue to put private gain at the forefront of its mind. A fully privatised Telstra would have to target the more profitable centres in Australia: the bigger cities.

The government are offering a $181 million package to fix up the list of improvements suggested by the Estens inquiry. That $181 million is really an insult, and it should be seen as such by the National Party. Anyone living in rural or regional Australia knows $181 million will go very little way towards fixing the problems they have experienced and, indeed, the problems identified by Estens. That is $45 million each year. Equate that with Telstra's annual capital expenditure of about $3 billion and you get to see how small the package really is. How can the five Tasmanian Liberal senators vote for this legislation and say they are representing the interests of their constituents? In one area alone of my state you can travel from New Norfolk, just north of Hobart, to Queenstown—some three hours drive in a car—and have no mobile reception. That is simply one example of the thousands available Australia wide.

What has been happening is very straightforward. Telstra has been reducing its work force, reducing its services and reducing in the long run the quality of the network, because it is not being properly serviced and maintained, particularly in the non-profitable areas—that is, regional Australia. Although there will be a short-term investment which will not be sufficient and which will certainly not be maintained, it may hold this together until the phone company has been sold. But the end result will be that it will be flogged off for private gain, and hang the Australian taxpayer. This is what a privatised Telstra would look like. And make no mistake—things will not get better. As I have said, there is an odd lack of passion in this debate because we all know that the starter's gun is not going to go off unless the Prime Minister calls a double dissolution election. So this is a very strange circumstance, with everyone lining up and making predictable speeches that they will circulate to their constituencies—and good on them.

But I will be very interested to see whether the government has the courage of its convictions, come the day this actually becomes a trigger, and whether or not, if that circumstance arises and the government does decide to pursue the double dissolution option, this piece of legislation is presented to the Governor-General as one of the bills scheduled for the double dissolution, because I actually would welcome that opportunity in my seat of Denison. And I am certain my glee would be shared and magnified by my colleague the member for Lyons, who is regrettably not with us today but who has the largest part of the state of Tasmania, the member for Bass, the member for Braddon and the member for Franklin, all of whom have large rural constituencies. I have the small area of Collinsvale. It has very bad reception, by the way. I think my farming community represents about 200 people, but the rest of my colleagues have substantial rural constituencies and I think they would be rather pleased to make the case for the retention of Telstra in public ownership.

I suspect it might be rather difficult for some members of the coalition in rural constituencies in Queensland, in the outback in rural New South Wales and in far parts of Western Australia to make the case that this is a good thing. So I think some of the bravado and yapping that we have heard from the angry chihuahuas on the other side who have been making their case may be tested if this is put to the people of Australia by their Prime Minister. And I have the suspicion that, behind the scenes, many of those who have been speaking so passionately in favour of the full sale of Telstra might be saying to the Prime Minister in private that he might be well advised not to put it on the agenda for a double dissolution election. I suspect courage will be found somewhat wanting when push comes to shove. If the Prime Minister does go `crazy brave' and put it on the agenda, expect no little concern from many on the coalition side and no small glee from those of us in the Labor opposition who will have the opportunity to have a Telstra election.