Mr WILLIAMS (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (11:47 AM) —in reply—I take this opportunity to acknowledge all the contributions to the debate concerning the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2003 [No. 2]. As I stated upon reintroducing this bill into parliament, it has been longstanding government policy that Telstra should be transferred to full private ownership, subject to an effective regulatory framework that protects consumers and promotes competition. It is disappointing to see that the opposition and others are still vehemently opposed to the passing of this important legislation. It is also disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, to find that the opposition continues to try to scare Australians into believing the telecommunications services in Australia are inextricably linked to the government owning Telstra. This is patently not the case. The opposition has consistently failed to articulate any plausible reason why Telstra should not be sold. The opposition has also failed to explain how it would deal with the extraordinary conflict of interest the government has as both the government shareholder and the regulator. In fact, based on what the member for Melbourne has said, under a Labor government the effect of this conflict would be plain for all to see.

The member for Melbourne wants to tell Telstra what to invest in, how many people it can employ and what prices it can charge. All the indications are that the member for Melbourne wants to act like a shadow or de facto director of Telstra. I note that one commentator in this press this morning suggested that `the ALP might so weaken Telstra that it cannot help rural areas'. The member for Melbourne has suggested that a Labor government would not be strong enough to regulate a fully privatised Telstra. I am continually surprised at the lack of faith an aspiring politician has in the power of the parliament to regulate. If the member for Melbourne wants to run a telecommunications company, he should leave politics and do so. Over the last 24 hours, the member for Melbourne has made some cheap personal attacks on Telstra's chief executive officer, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, and its chairman, Mr Bob Mansfield. Such comments are unbecoming of someone who, if Labor managed to win government, could be responsible for Australia's overall telecommunications policy as well as the Commonwealth shareholding in Telstra.

In 1991, Labor established Telstra as a corporation under the Corporations Law. The Minister for Transport and Communications at the time said in his second reading speech:

The opposition needs to come to terms with the appropriate role for a responsible government acting in the interests of all Australians. Government's role is to establish a robust policy framework for the ongoing development of competition. It is to put in place an array of consumer safeguards that apply to all telecommunications companies, irrespective of who owns the company. It is to make sure that the competitive and consumer safeguard regulatory frameworks are effectively enforced by independent regulatory agencies. It is not the role of government to run Telstra. It is inappropriate, given the government's responsibility to the whole industry. It ignores the rights of the 1.8 million minority shareholders in Telstra. Finally, running a telecommunications company in the modern communications market is not something governments are qualified to do.

Let me turn briefly now to the latest attempt by the opposition to find a reason not to sell Telstra—a leaked document. This document is being used by the opposition to attempt to discredit the quality of Telstra's network, its services and its level of capital expenditure. Telstra has over 10 million fixed phone lines. It is unfortunate but inevitable that there will be faults in a network as large as this. However, the government is concerned to make sure consumers continue to get reliable phone services. There are two aspects to this: first, to make sure that, if a fault does occur, it is fixed quickly; and, second, to make sure that the overall reliability of the network is maintained to minimise the chances of recurring faults. To address the first, the government introduced the customer service guarantee. In response to the second, the government introduced the network reliability framework.

The government's overall approach is to focus on outcomes. We are concerned about the service and the experiences of the customer. The opposition is only focused on the inputs—the number of people employed and the number of dollars spent. As the Australian Communications Authority's latest Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin shows, Telstra's performance outcomes against key measures under the CSG and the NRF are impressive. Telstra's most recent public report under the NRF showed the national average availability of phone services in December 2003 at 99.92 per cent and the national percentage of services with no faults for the same period at 99.07 per cent. Service availability remained at 99.9 per cent for the first 12 months of reporting under the NRF. Telstra's fault repair performance was also of a high standard, with 91 per cent of faults in urban areas being cleared within CSG time frames. Ninety-five per cent compliance with CSG time frames was achieved by Telstra in rural areas and 94 per cent compliance was recorded in remote areas.

The improvements in the quality of telecommunications services in Australia have been achieved by this government through regulation and investment. They have been achieved despite the conflict of interest inherent in the continuing government ownership of Telstra. It is regulation, not ownership, that matters. Telstra cannot walk away from regulatory obligations like the universal service obligation, the customer service guarantee and the network reliability framework. These obligations are enshrined in legislation and, as anyone who looks at the legislation before the House will realise, these obligations are not affected by any proposal to sell Telstra.

There is a stark contrast between Labor, which closed down a mobile phone network, and the government, which has been improving and expanding regional telecommunications networks and services. The government's record on regional telecommunications is enviable and we have committed to continuing this record into the future. Trying to predict telecommunications needs and developments into the future is impossible, but we will put in place a number of mechanisms to make sure that regional telecommunications services do not go backwards. This legislation includes a mechanism that will require all future governments to conduct independent, regular reviews of regional telecommunications needs, and we will prepare for the first time a strategic plan for regional communications.

As previously mentioned, the existing consumer safeguards are not threatened by this legislation. In addition to the USO, the CSG and the NRF, the right to untimed local phone calls, price controls and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman will all be maintained into the future. The only threat to Australia's telecommunications services is the threat of an interventionist Labor government. Under Labor, Telstra would be turned into a hamstrung utility, unable to invest and unable to grow. Telstra would be unable to offer customers the variety of products and services they are demanding, it would be unable to invest in the development of new and innovative services and it would be unable to fulfil its obligations to its shareholders. Under Labor, Telstra would not continue to provide strong dividends to the government or minority shareholders. I note an observation in the press this morning that Labor's policies would be:

Telecommunications users in regional Australia have never had better services—they have never had greater choice of provider and they have never had more rights and safeguards—and they can continue to rely on the Howard government to address their telecommunications needs into the future.

I take this opportunity to point out that, globally, the privatisation of government owned telecommunications companies continues. For example, the major telecommunications companies of 12 OECD countries are in full private ownership—specifically in Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. A further 12 OECD countries have an objective to further privatise their telecommunications companies or have enacted laws that will enable them to do so and these countries include Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. The French parliament has recently adopted a measure that further opens up the privatisation of France Telecom. A number of non-OECD member countries also have fully privatised their telecommunications companies. These countries include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru and the Philippines.

The government's reforms of the telecommunications sector have led to greater competition and have given Australians access to a wide range of high-quality, innovative and low-cost telecommunications services. The other point that the House must remember is that Labor's record on privatising government entities is impressive, but its record of honesty to the Australian community is less so. Labor said it would not sell the Commonwealth Bank and then did so, and Labor sold Qantas. The difference between Labor and the government is not a philosophical difference to privatising government entities; it is that the government is prepared to be up-front with its intentions.

Selling Telstra is the obvious final step in the journey towards a true competitive telecommunications market in Australia. However, the government will make sure that a privatised Telstra remains an Australian Telstra. The government's policy on foreign ownership of Telstra is unchanged. Telstra will continue to remain an Australian owned and controlled corporation and the existing limits on foreign ownership of shares will be retained. The government rejects the notion put forward by the opposition that the government must own Telstra to control it. I commend the bill to House.

Question put: