Mr HARDGRAVE (10:07 PM) —The member for Denison (Mr Kerr) just wasted 20 minutes of time in this House talking about everything else other than the bill before us. It was interesting because it was another one of those `if only we had a 14th year' kind of speeches that we have heard a lot over the last couple of years. We have the Labor Party in here tonight, in the form of the member for Denison, complaining about what the Natural Heritage Trust Fund has done and lamenting what it also could be doing, yet he is saying he is not going to support the further sale of Telstra.

One would submit that another $2 billion thrown into a Natural Heritage Trust scheme means that some of the matters that he has tried to raise here in connection with the first tranche of the sale of Telstra might in fact be addressed. I have to say that I do not know of one project that was successfully achieved in my electorate. So, as far as green-barrelling the electorates are concerned, it is absolute rubbish to say that. It is most certainly the case that those that were awarded funds out of the Natural Heritage Trust Fund were awarded them on the basis of merit and the competency of their application.

I would invite—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the member for Denison to encourage those groups in his electorate that perhaps missed out, like some in mine, to apply again based on merit. It is absolutely important that we get to the heart of matter here and that is the completion of the sale of Telstra. I support this bill before this House.

Mr Kerr —What about the ones that did apply in the Labor areas? What about Blaxland that applied? What was wrong with Mr Hatton's one?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The member for Denison! You have had your turn.

Mr Kerr —I am being provoked.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, you are not being provoked. Resume your seat. The honourable member for Moreton has the call. You should not be easily provoked.

Mr HARDGRAVE —It is very important to note that Telstra is a fine national asset that has etched a solid place in history and it is something that should not be sold on the basis of squandering the proceeds. To hear those opposite suggest that it is a sale of the family silver and that the money will not be used effectively makes me think that they are protesting their innocence a touch too much because after all that really did typify the privatisation processes of the previous Labor governments. Over 13 years they sold off various assets, and what did they do? They used that money for current expenditure, literally bailing themselves out come election time, propping up social welfare schemes—all worthwhile causes, but not when you are clocking up a big national debt.

I believe that the government's proposal to put the proceeds from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra into something like retiring national public debt is in fact a fine result; a very good sacrifice of the asset. It provides a lasting legacy and testament to those who have built up what Telstra now is over so many years, because I think we all agree that Telstra has in the main done a fine job. It has provided services. It has provided advances in technology that in a lot of cases have been world beating and first-class. It really has reached the stage, though, just as the Postmaster-General's Department split during the Whitlam years into Telecom Australia and Australia Post, where who owns the phone company is no longer the issue.

That thousands of people joined in and bought into the sale of the first third of Telstra offered for sale is a testimony to Telstra itself and also confidence in this government's agenda. That 92 per cent of Telstra staff bought those shares and that 5.5 million people across Australia own shares of some type is in itself a sign of growing confidence. As a nation we are willing to invest in ourselves, and we do so quite deliberately.

Our plan under this particular bill is to take the proceeds of the sale and retire debt. That is one big, lasting legacy that will benefit all Australians. Some opposite, and I have heard some in my electorate, suggest to me that, after all, we used to own 100 per cent of Telstra; it was owned by all Australians. But, after all, few of us ever had a say in the running of the phone company. It is true to say that Telstra has generated a return to government over the years, but let us also look at the fact that there is a debt that the government owes. In fact the $40 billion projected minimum proceeds out of this sale would equal well over $2,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. You could certainly put the analogy—I am going to—that every man, woman and child in Australia would benefit by the completed sale of Telstra, because this particular burden of public debt will be lifted from them. So too will the current impact on general revenue—outlays which leave the budget every year to service public debt. There is a very good benefit to come from this bill before us tonight.

As we know, debt is not a bad thing, unless you borrow and do nothing productive with it. That really did typify the 13 years of Labor between 1983 and 1996 because, after all, every time the Labor Party sold an asset—generally an asset they said they were not going to sell before an election, but did after an election, like Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the Federal Airports Corporation properties, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory—they turned their back on accumulating public debt in this country and spent the proceeds on day to day things; anything to buy votes at an election. They offered no social bonus out of any of the sale of that silver in those years gone by. They offered no up-front commitment. They certainly did say one thing before an election and did not do it afterwards, so there were plenty of broken promises, and that brought everybody in this place into disrepute.

There is a growing contrast between what they did and what we are doing and have done to date. We have already done what we promised before the election to do, that is, we sold one-third of Telstra—one-third only—and there will be no further sale until we put it to the people to get the okay. That is what this bill is about here tonight. It is interesting to note that even members of the Labor Party opposite bought shares in Telstra. They voted one way but they did something else with their wallets. We have kept our promise, which is certainly quite a contrast with the 13 years of Labor.

I quickly want to deal with some of the concerns of well-meaning people in my electorate of Moreton who have heard the Labor Party's lines about this. It is important to note that universal service obligations—which have been placed in a separate telecommunications act where they belong, because they affect the whole telecommunications industry, not just Telstra—will be upgraded and maintained. It really does not matter who owns the phone company or how many people are involved in the telecommunications regime in this country; everybody works on the same basis. There is a set of rules to be followed to be licensed as a telecommunications carrier. If a carrier does not meet the obligations, they do not have a licence and they are out of business. Ownership of a telephone company is not a substitute for any sort of framework as far as legislation is concerned.

There is no doubt about the rights and obligations that have been clearly established by this government as a result of some of the amendments we have brought through in various changes to telecommunications legislation. The government's pursuit of competition and also consumer benefits could, in fact, be hindered by government ownership responsibilities and obligations. We could ask the question: why is that? In a lot of ways, the government could easily be accused of playing favourites toward a government instrumentality and a competitive regime. By removing government ownership from this particular growth area of telecommunications we are unleashing possibilities for Telstra as well as for the industry as a whole.

The government is committed to comprehensive community and regulatory safeguards; they are already enacted in legislation. I have spoken on virtually all those telecommunications bills because I welcome the government's attempts to tie down some of these strong community service obligations, particularly for rural and regional Australia and people in my electorate. They include a clear universal service obligation to ensure that standard telephone services and pay phones are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia. It is not a matter of Sydney and Melbourne getting the gravy and the rest of Australia having to please themselves—no way. It is on an equitable basis. That is enshrined in part 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

There is also a commitment to continued access to untimed local calls. I will say that again: continued access to untimed local calls. That is required by part 8 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The consumer service guarantee is imposed by part 9 of that particular act. Special benefits for rural and regional customers of carriage service providers are provided for under section 226 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The price cap regime is contained in part 6 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991. In parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and in the Telecommunications Act 1997 there is provision for a flexible regulatory structure designed to stimulate competition in telecommunications and thus deliver cheaper prices and new and improved services to Australian residential and business telecommunications users. That is guaranteed in legislation. These are key community and regulatory safeguards which place legal obligations on service providers and also legally protect the rights of consumers. The bottom line: they are law.

To claim that these particular obligations and/or rights could somehow be changed all because Telstra is completely sold is really just a fabrication. But it is quite typical of the Labor Party's `whatever it takes' approach. To scare older Australians in particular with the notion that some of the services they are so used to may be jeopardised as a result of the continued sale of Telstra is, I think, a downright outrage.

There is only one way that the obligations on service providers and the rights of consumers can be changed, and that is here in the parliament. This government will certainly not permit that. Moreover, we will enforce these particular obligations. Minister Alston will be introducing an enhanced set of obligations with fines of up to $10 million. Within the obligations there will be easy mechanisms for ordinary Australians to take their particular claims and concerns forward so that they are heard and their concerns can be met. It will not be a case of David versus Goliath; it is a matter of trying to even out that particular scenario as well. This government is committed to the maintenance, enforcement and, where necessary, enhancement of particular obligations and rights—the obligations of carriers and the rights of consumers.

The government has included a number of specific measures to ensure those living in rural and remote areas also share in the benefits of improved and cheaper communications. The door is wide open so far as the future is concerned. The fact that Minister Alston will shortly approve Telstra's universal service plan is well known. This will provide for reduced maximum connection times and greater transparency and accountability all round.

I think it is important to realise that, because these community service obligations have been changed over the course of this government, deaf and blind Australians and other disabled people who need special services have also been guaranteed access and continuation, no matter which carrier it is, to those particular services. It does not matter whether the carrier is Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, AAPT or One-Tel; they all operate under the same laws that are set down by the federal parliament.

I turn to the matter of Australian ownership, which is another issue that has been raised with me by people in Moreton. Telstra obviously has a vital and strategic role in our national economy. No matter who owns it, Telstra will be the biggest private company in Australia as a result of this particular privatisation. Our long-term national interests are therefore very much linked to the importance of telecommunications and, in particular, to Telstra. Telstra should not simply be sold off to the highest bidder. It is important that it remains Australian owned and Australian controlled. Accordingly, the bill before us, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , amends the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 to continue a pre-existing policy which restricts aggregated foreign ownership to a 35 per cent stake in Telstra and also restricts individual foreign ownership to just five per cent. These matters are set in concrete; they are before us in this legislation.

This legislation should be compared with the model that the government had to repair through legislation that has been presented in this particular parliament, that is, the Beazley model of 1991. We were left a legacy of duplication of telephone cables—including a $4 billion to $5 billion waste of money because a separate telecommunications cabling network was sent out to reproduce infrastructure that was already established—and mobile phone towers scattered all over the countryside in various places. That is the legacy left to us as a result of the time spent by the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) as communications minister.

As secretary of the government's communications and arts policy committee I can certainly vouch for the fact that the 1996 Telecommunications Act repaired a lot of those failures of the Beazley model. We now have, by law, co-location of facilities. We now have greater cooperation between the various telecommunications carriers in this country to try to minimise the visual blight and to try to ensure that we are not wasting money as a nation.

It is vital therefore that this good work does not stop and that the bill before us tonight is passed by this House and also by the other place. It is important that we do not allow those opposite to amend or alter the thread of the bill because, after all, their previous efforts had no balance, they had no eye on the future. Every person in my electorate who has an extra cable strung across their front lawn can blame the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, for that. He is the man who presided over that infrastructure roll-out. This government will not allow a repeat of that sort of mess in a very vital sector—the telecommunications sector.

To sum up, we have before us a bill which puts rules in place. We have before us a bill which does something about our national debt—something that Labor never did for 13 years, other than to grow it bigger. We have before us tonight a bill which has the future of a vital sector in mind and the future of this nation in mind. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.