Mr LEO McLEAY (5:02 PM) —We have just heard another unfortunate sell-out of the people of the bush by the National Party, this time by the previous speaker, the member for Richmond and National Party deputy whip (Mr Anthony). What the member for Richmond and the National Party do not understand is that the people who live in regional Australia will suffer the most from the sale of Telstra and, more particularly, those who live in the far reaches of our country. The people who most need telecommunications services will be the ones who will most likely receive fewer services after this company is sold.

In recent days we have seen the government again step back from an election promise that they made to the people in the country about telecommunications. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said during the last election campaign that they would provide Internet services to the country. We have found that they will provide Internet services to you in the country if you live than less seven kilometres from a telephone exchange. A lot of members on the other side might not realise that there are a lot of people in the bush who live more than seven kilometres from the telephone exchange and they do not want to pay the extra money that Telstra will charge to have this put on in a hurry. The government is certainly not doing anything to ensure that people in the far reaches of Australia have any access to the telecommunications service that would give them parity with people who live in the cities.

It gives me no satisfaction to acknowledge that the opposition's worst fears about the government's real agenda are now being realised. When the government introduced the original Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill in 1996, almost two years ago, we said that it was the start of a process leading to the full privatisation of Telstra. I said in that debate on 9 May 1996:

This is just the first shot across the bows; it will be a salami slice job where one-third goes now, one-third later and one-third after that.

It would seem that the government was even more greedy than we thought then. It has turned out to be far worse than that. The government is now proposing to sell off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra in one lot. The reason it has given for that is that the response to the 1997 one-third share offer indicates that the public approves of the full privatisation of the company.

They have this bizarre mantra that selling a business that all Australians own to a select group of Australians who buy shares is somehow or other making the business more Australian. If you sell something that the people already own—the people of Australia own the shares in Telstra—it makes the business more Australian.

Mr Miles —What did you do with Qantas? Did the Labor Party sell the Commonwealth Bank?

Mr LEO McLEAY —The parliamentary secretary asks: what did we do with Qantas and what did we do with the Commonwealth Bank? If the parliamentary secretary does not understand the difference in the 1990s between a monopoly telephone company and a bank of which there were a number and an airline of which there are even more then he has lost the plot.

The Commonwealth Bank provides banking services to Australians who put their money into that bank. Qantas provides airline services for very few Australians—that is, those who choose to fly internally or overseas. Telstra provides telephone services to 99 per cent of Australians. There is a big difference. Qantas does not land out on your property in the back of Bourke. The Commonwealth Bank are taking all their branches out of small country towns. They were never providing services to all Australians. Telstra put a telephone on for you if you live in the back of Bourke or up at Quilpie or out on one of the islands off the coast. They provide a service. If the government do not understand that then they have lost the plot.

Mr Miles —They will still do it in the future too.

Mr LEO McLEAY —The Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister , who is at the table, says, `They will still do it in the future.' That is the nub of the government's argument: we will sell this off and they will still do it in the future. Of course, he might just go back to the argument he had a few minutes ago when he said that we privatised the Commonwealth Bank, but I see all these National and Liberal members who represent small country towns in here whingeing all the time. They have set up an inquiry about the private banks who are closing down branches in country towns. They have the banking committee looking at that.

So private enterprise is not fulfilling the job that you thought it should, but all of a sudden you are saying, `It doesn't matter that the private banks are closing down branches in the bush, but you can trust a private telephone company to keep looking after the bush.' If country voters believe that, they are sillier than I think they are. That is the truth of it. The people who are going to have their service reduced will be those people who live out of the metropolitan areas of Australia where it costs thousands of dollars to repair a fault compared to $10 or $20 in the city. A serviceman can repair 20 faults in a day in the city, but in the country he can do only one every two days because of the distances and the intricacies involved.

The government needs to have a close look at that, and the voters need to have a close look at what the government is up to in this. Particularly, the voters outside the metropolitan area should have a look at what the government is going to do with this great Australian company. Currently, two-thirds of it are owned by all Australians, not just some Australians.

The government have made some very spurious claims in this. As I said earlier, they use the argument that the take-up rate from so-called ordinary Australians of shares in Telstra indicates broad public approval for full privatisation. But I would say to the government that, just because people—including a large number of Telstra employees—availed themselves of the opportunity to acquire shares, many for the first time, it is drawing a long bow to say that the majority of Australians are in favour of full privatisation.

For example, Telstra employees were offered strong and, at the time, irresistible inducements to invest in the Telstra shares. The situation now is very different, and the government does the Australian people a great disservice when it takes for granted people's views about the provision of telecommunications services. Telstra provides almost all of Australia's telecommunications services. It is the largest company in the country. It is an asset that is owned essentially by all Australians, and it is an essential part of Australia's infrastructure.

Telstra has a universal service obligation to provide those people who live in the furthest reaches and nooks and crannies of our country with the same basic telephone service as people who live in the main capitals. That is a very important part of Telstra's role; but, no matter how the government legislates that, I believe we will see some difficulty with that. That universality of service is one of the most important things that Telstra does.

What profit making organisation is going to be interested in providing potentially unprofitable services in an equitable way throughout Australia? Private companies, like the banks, are about making profits for their shareholders, first and foremost. In fact, the law requires them to do that. The government can claim that there will be safeguards, service guarantees or whatever they like to dress them up as, but we all know how difficult it is once the government has no direct control or responsibility for a function to make that function work in the way that we would like.

The government can try to insist on guarantees, but who is going to insist that they work? How is the average person supposed to know all that they will need to know in order to ensure that they get the appropriate level of service? Most people are not experts in telecommunications, nor do they always fully appreciate their rights or how to seek redress when they have justifiable complaints. The government can say it is up to people themselves to find out these things, but it is often difficult, particularly for those who are disadvantaged in some way or otherwise isolated. Guarantees are worthless if customers do not know what they are.

That, of course, brings me back to the dilemma for those who live outside the cities, those who live in the bush where already the service is different from that available in many densely populated areas where the provision of telephony services is more extensive. What profit making company is going to be interested in investing in potential loss making businesses?

It is bad enough that the government is totally selling off Telstra, but it is also going to allow foreign ownership of up to 35 per cent of the company. One of Australia's success stories—Telstra, an organisation which all Australians are familiar with—will no longer be totally Australian. We saw yesterday how the government allowed Vodafone to remain a non-Australian owned property. A few weeks ago we saw how the government had the Treasurer (Mr Costello) remove the foreign ownership provisions from Optus's articles of association. We are seeing an absolute move away from Australian to foreign ownership of these companies.

The member for Richmond talked about buying back the farm. This legislation and the regulation changes made yesterday allow the farm to be sold off. When the Labor government gave them telecommunications licences, Vodafone and Optus were required to become majority Australian owned by 2003. Under this government, Telstra, which is currently totally Australian owned, will now be allowed to be 35 per cent foreign owned; Optus and Vodafone can be 100 per cent foreign owned. The government is using its position with a majority in this House to implement a mad ideological view on telecommunications in this country. That is all it is—ideology.

I am sure the government would corporatise the Commonwealth of Australia if it thought it could get away with it. It is all about money, but its views are short-sighted and flawed. For a short-term, apparent financial gain to help the government in its election campaign, the government is prepared to destroy an Australian icon. I fear that the Australian people, particularly those in the bush, will suffer the inevitable consequences of this privatisation of the telecommunications industry and will suffer a double loss in the fact that the two private telephone companies will be able to be totally foreign owned and that over one-third of Telstra will be able to be foreign owned. This is not buying back the farm; this is selling it off to foreign hands.