Senator McGAURAN (5:14 PM) —It is a great honour to have you in the chair for this debate, Mr President. However, I have to inform you that this general business notice of motion has nothing to do with policy, and the previous speaker proved that; it has everything to do with slur by association to the National Party. There is evidence today that the Labor Party are taking up Mr Latham's call in regard to hate politics. It seems that it is finding its way right through the Labor Party. They are now riddled with hate politics. In question time today, Senator O'Brien led the charge on the ethanol issue when he personally attacked and named a miller on the most spurious, unknown and unsubstantiated charge. But so long as it was an attack that could be associated with the government, Senator O'Brien was happy to put it down. Now we have this general business notice of motion which again names a private citizen, Mr Estens, on a spurious charge in respect of his association with the National Party. The opposition have to realise—

Senator Carr —Are you denying it?

Senator McGAURAN —What, his membership of the National Party?

Senator Carr —Yes.

Senator McGAURAN —Apparently it is true. I did not know it, but apparently it is true.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator McGauran, ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair.

Senator McGAURAN —Mr President, you probably missed an honourable arrangement before I rose to speak that was made by Senator Vanstone that this side of the chamber would not interject in Senator Stephens's speech. And we kept to that agreement, Senator Carr. How unfortunate, but it was too much to expect that you would enter the same agreement—

Senator Carr —What agreement was that?

Senator McGAURAN —For one fleeting moment we had silence in this chamber and I thought perhaps I would get that too.

Senator Carr —You've got to be joking!

Senator McGAURAN —Senator Carr says, `You've got to be joking.' To Senator Vanstone's credit, probably for the first time in my experience she achieved such an agreement in the chamber for the new senator. And did new Senator Stephens take advantage! I could barely resist interjecting. She took advantage of that agreement and put forward the most ridiculous claims.

Senator Carr —You would have to be quick to interject!

Senator McGAURAN —I did resist, Senator Carr. I stuck to the agreement.

Senator Carr —There was no agreement.

Senator McGAURAN —Normally I would have interjected on the new senator because of her front in bringing forward evidence of what was said at the Country Labor conference about Telstra and mobile phones as if that were some sort of credible source— that failed organisation. Does it still exist? Has it updated its web site?

We all know Senator Carr's power base, but that is another story in Victoria and we wait for him to flex his muscles. He must be holding back for the November election. Should you be fortunate enough to win, you will be straight into Spring Street just like the old days, Senator Carr. We know all about how you wrecked the previous state Labor government and you are going to do exactly the same in Victoria and there will be a book, should you be fortunate enough to win.

Senator Carr —Will you be voting Labor at the next election?

Senator McGAURAN —There is no question the coalition is an underdog, but—

The PRESIDENT —Order!

Senator McGAURAN —He just totally distracts me!

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator McGauran, will you return to the matter at hand and ignore the interjections, please.

Senator McGAURAN —I referred to Senator Carr earlier; I meant Premier Carr, whose power base is in Sydney, strong as it may be. However, Country Labor has long been a joke and we in this chamber will not take as evidence of a problem with Telstra the fact that Country Labor—

Senator Carr —You live in East Melbourne! You don't know where the country is!

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr, I have been very tolerant. I ask you to keep order.

Senator McGAURAN —Through you, Mr President, the thing about Senator Carr's interjections, besides the fact that we should just simply ignore them, is that they are always wrong. I have the best retorts for them and that is why he gets me in every time. Through you, Mr President, I will answer his last one. I have an office in Benalla. The family have been in Gippsland for over 150 years and I belong to the National Party. What a spurious claim! It is another personal attack, but I have been taking it for a very long time. Getting back to the motion—

Senator Carr —Wally Curran almost bought that hotel off you, didn't he?

Senator McGAURAN —Mad Wally? I notice you are paying rent to that particular union, Senator Carr, government rent. What a rort that is! I would like to know whether it is market rent or not!

I want to address the motion before us point by point. The first point states:

That former National Party MP is Mr Ray Braithwaite, who was on the previous inquiry, the Besley inquiry. He carried out his responsibilities then impartially and with credibility. This is an old tactic by Labor. When we first announced that Mr Besley and Mr Braithwaite were going to be part of that inquiry, what did Labor do then? They smeared the characters in that inquiry. Mr Besley was attacked. However, when the inquiry came out, it had credibility and Labor have hung on to it ever since. The inquiry suddenly had credibility because it was a credible inquiry. It did not deserve the initial smear that Labor gave it. Mr Ray Braithwaite has not come under attack for his association with the Besley inquiry, has he? Has Senator Carr left the chamber? I barely noticed, except it was a little bit quieter.

The PRESIDENT —I have to say that I noticed.

Senator McGAURAN —He has been replaced by Senator George Campbell.

The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask you to return to the motion, Senator McGauran.

Senator McGAURAN —There is no let-up.

Senator George Campbell —This is the worst exhibition you have put on for two years!

Senator McGAURAN —If that is what you think, I will get back to the facts. Mr Braithwaite, who was a member of the Besley inquiry, has not been criticised since that inquiry was handed down. He is a man I can vouch for, of enormous credibility.

Senator George Campbell —You know him well, do you?

Senator McGAURAN —I do know him well. Through you, Mr President, I should add that the Labor Party should not judge everything by their own standards. Not always, if at all, will ex-members of parliament who are appointed to inquiries and who belong to a political party come down on the side of the party they belong to. Funny things happen when MPs leave this place; they become human again. Only in today's Australian, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is reported to have been appointed to an inquiry by Mr Beattie in Queensland. He came down with a judgment that was not favourable to the union he was inquiring into in respect of a Queensland Public Service industrial relations issue. I will not go into the complexities of it, but he came down with a recommendation which Mr Abbott has praised in today's Australian. And that was a former Labor Party Prime Minister who was appointed to an inquiry. So stop judging everyone by your own standards.

With regard to Mr Estens, it should first of all be noted that he was not the first choice of this government; it was Mr Besley who was the first, but he was unable to give the government time on this occasion. What the Labor Party today and in the past has directed towards Mr Besley is utterly unjustified. As I said, Mr Estens was not the government's first choice; it was Mr Besley. Mr Estens comes to this inquiry with full credibility and honesty. I would like to read to the Senate his credentials. He is a cotton farmer from Moree, with a long history of involvement in community issues at local and national levels. While running his cotton business, he has been involved with the Moree Plains and Barwon Heads health services, so he is a man of community service. He chaired the Gwydir Valley Cotton Growers Association and has been involved in local Indigenous employment issues. I wonder whether the other side would be critical of that involvement by Mr Estens. He is a director of Reconciliation Australia and in 2000 received an Outstanding Rural Leader of the Year award for work with Aboriginal employment. I wonder if the opposition are critical of the curriculum vitae of Mr Dick Estens. In fact, we are very proud to have him on such an inquiry. I do not think he is a man, judged by your standards, who can be got at to produce a report; nor was Mr Besley when he was attacked and criticised. He produced a report which, in the end, you have reported yourself.

What Labor have failed to grasp is that the government's approach has always been open and transparent; we have been quite honest. I believe that in the 1996 and 1998 elections we said that we would sell up to 49 per cent of Telstra, and that is what we have done. We never hid anything from the public. We put ourselves to independent inquiries, like that leading to the Besley report and now the Estens inquiry, and we will accept the findings. We have always been open and transparent in our dealings with regard to Telstra. The public know where we stand, but they sure do not know where the opposition stand. I am not sure that Labor know where they stand.

When you were in government, you privatised everything that moved. You came in with a philosophy of non-privatisation but, by the time you had to face the realities of your own spending and deficit budgets, you thought, `Well, we'd better start flogging things.' So out went the so-called false ideology and, of course, you sold everything that moved—no less than Qantas and, worst of all, the Commonwealth Bank, because you went to an election committing yourself to the non-sale of the Commonwealth Bank. So how can you possibly be believed? Even during your time in government, your cabinet frequently discussed the sale of Telstra— and I think you would have sold it except that time ran out on you—and it was supported by no less than your former leader, Mr Beazley. Equally, now that you are in opposition, you still have a non-creditable policy on Telstra. In fact, no-one knows what it is.

Your own shadow minister, the member for Melbourne, wants to sell off parts of it—the best parts of it—which would be a disaster for the share price and the two million Australians who have shares in Telstra. He wants to keep the infrastructure and sell off the most profitable parts, such as the phone network and the Internet area of Telstra. That is his particular policy; that is what he has been pushing within the shadow cabinet and in part of the options paper he has released; whereas someone like former senator Mr McMullan is quoted on Meet the Press—he is a frequent visitor to Meet the Press—as saying:

what is that code for?

Premier Bob Carr, another credible Labor character, is even more forthright and says:

That is the government's stated policy on Telstra, supported by the National Party, of course. The government have undertaken not to proceed with any further sale of Telstra until we are fully satisfied that arrangements are in place to deliver adequate telecommunications services to all Australians. That is what the second inquiry is all about. The government have acted on the first inquiry's recommendations. Because we have acted with transparency, with genuineness and with money on the recommendations of the Besley inquiry, of course we expect a favourable result from the second inquiry, but no doubt there will still be standards to be met. This I believe.

There will certainly be an improvement in standards from the Besley inquiry to the Estens inquiry, because we have put in $163 million over four years to address the service's inadequacies, $50 million to bolster the mobile phone services in rural and regional areas, $20 million with regard to a rollout along 34 regional highways, a $2.1 million subsidy so that rural and regional areas are able to access satellite phones under certain criteria, and guaranteed connection times have now been reduced from 12 months to six months and so on. So we have reacted to and achieved 13 of the 15 recommendations of Besley, and we believe the Estens inquiry will find that we have responded satisfactorily, but there will probably still be areas for improvement. That is our aim: to get the services up to a proper and acceptable standard before any decision is even considered on the sale of Telstra. It is not a foregone conclusion at all. Yet you would consider it is.

Point (b) of the motion asks that the Senate:

I thought the previous government speaker dealt with that quite well. This inquiry will be undertaken on similar lines to, if not the exact lines of, the Besley inquiry. There will be public hearings, and it will get around the appropriate places that it needs to but, remember, its main aim is not to create another Besley inquiry but to see if the Besley recommendations have been fulfilled. One thing this government is not going to do is hold public meetings so that the likes of the opposition can stack them and create furore. This is a serious inquiry that will go out and meet the public but it is not going to hold rowdy public meetings that serve no purpose at all. In regard to the two months—I think everyone wants a quick inquiry. Telstra has had more inquiries than I think there were GST questions in the Senate. Two months is quite adequate, as Senator Eggleston properly outlined in his speech. The third point reads:

We reject point (c) out of hand. In regard to Telstra's performance I ask the opposition, if they have the capability and the studiousness to do so, to go to the annual reports of the Australian Communications Authority and read what they say about the improving service conditions of Telstra. The 2000-01 report refers to:

There is a continued improvement in Telstra's service levels and that is borne out by the Australian Communications Authority's report.

Time does not permit me to go into the prices area in depth but what is clearly missing from the argument of the other side is the fact that the whole parcel of prices within the telecommunications area have fallen. Local calls, mobile services, long-distance calls, international calls and fixed to mobile calls have fallen. They have fallen in the time of this government. In fact, they started to fall once the industry was deregulated and that is the benefit of competition. The government has introduced, and quite rightly so, a price cap system. The pricing system will allow Telstra to gradually recover costs on line rentals over an estimated four-year period while at the same time reducing call costs and requiring Telstra to protect low-income users. The government has introduced this somewhat complex system: the line rentals may increase by a CPI figure of up to four per cent and at the same time the calls—that is fixed to mobile, STD and IDD—must equivalently fall by 4.5 per cent, or the CPI. There is good reason for that flexibility, because the fixed line rate is costing Telstra. Telstra is uncompetitive with a line rate of over $30 a month whereas it is only bringing in about $20 a month. The point to be made with regard to prices is that, since deregulation, prices throughout the industry and across the board—as a parcel, as a basket—have fallen. That is why this government rejects out of hand the general business notice of motion.