Mr President, at the outset may I say that for the record one of my brothers is an executive in Telstra—though, as I have learned in the last few weeks, that doesn’t mean that I am not as much in the dark as everybody else when it comes to knowing what goes on in Telstra.

Family First is disappointed that the Government, which claims to be a champion of the family, is refusing to tell families how selling the rest of Telstra will affect them.

When the Prime Minister announced during the election campaign that he would take up Family First’s proposal to prepare Family Impact Statements, the public thought the idea was to benefit them.

So did Family First.

Had Mr Howard explained to Australian families that Family Impact Statements were solely for the benefit of the Cabinet, people might have thought they were not worth much at all.

Family First feels the same.

It is all very well for the Government to say ‘trust us, we are looking after families’. But Australian families would prefer to get the information and judge for themselves.

There is no point waiting around 30 years for a Cabinet document to find out whether a Government really was looking after families.

If ever there was an issue where families needed to know how they would be affected, it is the sale of the rest of Telstra.

There are certain essential things that all Australians ought to be confident they can access regardless of where they live—including quality and affordable telecommunications.

This is especially so, given the Government’s record on this issue.

I note that, last week, in defending the Government’s decision to rush legislation through the Senate, even though there is no apparent reason to do so, a number of Senators said the full sale of Telstra had been government policy for nine years.

Since then the Communications Minister has echoed this interpretation of history.

She may be right, but if she is, Australian families might think they have been misled.

Back in 1996, when the then Communications Minister Senator Alston said the full privatisation of Telstra was ‘inevitable and desirable’, the Prime Minister was quick to deny the Cabinet had any plans for a full sale.

He told the ABC’s AM program:

“We have a commitment to sell a third…Self-evidently if some people support the sale of a third of Telstra, they can vote for legislation to sell a third of it and vote against any legislation that might be submitted in 10 years time to sell any more.”

Back then, owning two-thirds of Telstra did not present a conflict of interest between being both owner and regulator, but less than 10 years later, we are told that owning 51 per cent of Telstra presents huge conflict of interest problems.

The question is whether the Government is misleading us now or was misleading us then.

A couple of years after the Prime Minister assured Australians that supporting the sale of a third of Telstra was not giving a green light to selling it all, he said his goal was to “make Australia the greatest share-owning democracy in the world.’

A year later many Australians heeded Mr. Howard’s call and bought shares in Telstra, at $7.40 each.

Many were keen to be part of this ‘greatest share-owning democracy’ and kept their shares in Telstra. And they are now paying the price.

Two billion dollars of their money ended up in a black-hole in Hong-Kong—money which would not have been lost had Telstra stuck to its knitting instead of bowing to market pressure to diversify into growing businesses and other sectors.

This sorry tale highlights a fundamental issue— whether the role of government is to run businesses or provide essential services.

Australians expect the government to provide essential services, including telecommunications, efficiently.

They do not expect them to provide those services as though they were businesses driven by the bottom line.

In the last couple of weeks we have become aware of the price we shall pay because of this.

In order to appease ‘the market’, Telstra borrowed $500 million this year, and will borrow $2 billion next year, to pay inflated dividends, presumably to prop up the share price.

Meanwhile there has been under-investment in infrastructure;

* More than 14 per cent of all lines are faulty;

* Obsolete equipment has not been replaced;

* New workers have not been properly trained;

* IT systems are not capable of handling the volumes and new services offered; and

* an additional $2 to $3 billion should have been spent over the last few years.

Telstra management predicts a growing technological divide between rural and urban Australia and even less investment in new networks and technologies.

All this while the Government has been assuring us that services are up to scratch!

If this reflects how far Telstra has deteriorated while the Government has control and people can pressure politicians to maintain standards, it does not require much imagination to work out what will happen if Telstra is completely sold off.

The Government’s response is that ownership is irrelevant and regulation provides the necessary level of protection.

The Government points to the Universal Service Obligation, as an example, but the USO does not even deal with broadband, let alone future technology.

As for regulation, who is going to trust a government, which nine years ago said a decision to sell a third of Telstra did not mean it would all be sold, to maintain its proposed level of regulation more than five minutes after it has sold its shares?

We know what Telstra wants. Its management has spelt it out in detail.

And we know the general view of the Finance Minister is that the Government should be “light-handed in their regulation”.

We know also the power of the market.

The chief executive of another former national icon, Qantas, recently made clear that, despite a record profit, more sackings were necessary, adding that he made no apologies for looking after shareholders.

Telstra management has told us who will be the biggest losers from a completely privatised company driven by market forces

It will not be people living in inner metropolitan suburbs where Telstra’s market share in some cases is less than 20 per cent.

Rather it will be people in regional, rural and remote Australia where there is little, if any, competition and where Telstra’s market share is more than 90 per cent.

Mr President, like Sir Robert Menzies I support free enterprise, not the free market. This sorry tale is a stark example of the difference between the two.

In my first speech I said that “the major parties struggle to reconcile their professed ‘family values’ with their ‘free market’ mantra.”

This incurred the wrath of some in this place, and some outside, as reflected by editorial in The Australian on August 12.

However, the views of a member in the other place proves this point.

He has said he does not think the Telstra legislation is “really a family-related bill”.

He thinks the legislation is “an economic bill”.

I disagree, and I am sure most Australian families disagree as well.

That is why in May I asked the Communications Minister for a Family Impact Statement.

I said: “I need to be shown how (selling the rest of Telstra) will benefit Australian families.’

I added that I did not want “to see this only about how it will benefit us economically. I want to be convinced that it’s a good idea.”

Mr President, nothing has changed. And I believe most Australians think the same as I do.

Australians believe the Government should use some of Telstra’s dividends to fix up its problems, keep directing some of that money into defence, pensions, health and education and still retain ownership of Telstra.

After all, it seems that what the Government’s $3.1 billion package translates to is just $275 million per year, for four years, assuming the proceeds of Connect Australia are spent over that period and $100 million a year thereafter —which is not very much when you look at all of the problems Telstra’s management has exposed.

Senators opposed might be interested to know that the Coalition did promote selling the rest of Telstra during the 1998 election.

That was the election where the Coalition lost 16 seats —hardly a ringing endorsement of its Telstra sell off.

Despite the Government’s best efforts since then, the fact is today 70 per cent of Australians have not been convinced selling the rest of Telstra is in our best interests.

The Government has failed to convince me.

Consequently I oppose the bills.