Mr O'CONNOR (9:15 PM) —The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , which we are debating here today, represents a monumental act of betrayal of the national interest by the Liberal and National parties in this country. It is a betrayal of Australians who live in rural and regional areas, particularly in northern Australia, who over time will bear the economic and social burdens flowing from the sale of this great national asset.

Let me put on the public record my disgust at the government's threat to guillotine this important debate which has restricted the time for me and other members of this side of the House to speak on the bill. This bill proposes the full sale of one of Australia's largest enterprises, yet the government seeks to curtail debate in this House on this matter. One wonders what the government is attempting to hide by this course of action. The government might attempt to muzzle debate in this House, but it will not be able to contain the anger of the Australian people, who know in their hearts that this weak Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who cannot even bring himself to conceding that Australia should have an Australian head of state, is proposing to sell Australia's most important public asset, all for a narrow political purpose.

The full privatisation of Telstra is one of the biggest con jobs and deceitful acts yet pulled by this weak Prime Minister and his arrogant Treasurer (Mr Costello). It is a con job for a very simple reason. The citizens of Geelong and the rest of Australia already own Telstra. They are its shareholders—every one of them. What the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are proposing to do is to take those shares owned by the citizens of Geelong and the rest of Australia, sell them back to a chosen few investors who are lucky enough to have the cash to buy them, sell them to a few big institutional investors who have the accumulated funds to purchase them and sell them to foreigners, whom the government will allow to buy up to 35 per cent of this great Australian company. The crowning disgrace of this Prime Minister is that he will take from ordinary Australians the share they already own in Telstra and sell that share to foreign interests.

But it is not just the shares they already own that he wants to sell. He wants to flog off to foreigners and to a limited number of Australian shareholders the $25 billion in future profits over the next 10 years that will go to general revenue to build schools and hospitals for Australians and to construct roads and bridges for people in rural and regional Australia. The sale of Telstra is an act of betrayal by a government that has no standards and which, with the resignation of seven ministers and its Speaker, and with multiple backbench defections, is literally falling apart at the seams.

There are very powerful reasons why Telstra should be retained in public hands. It is one of Australia's largest enterprises and it occupies a strategic place in the economic and social affairs of this vast country. The company provides around 90 per cent of the nation's telecommunication services. In the new information age in the new millennium, Telstra will be a central agent in providing equitable access for all Australians to a range of social and economic opportunities that will underpin their standard of living and quality of life for decades to come. Access to information and the communications network will be a significant economic and social justice issue in coming years. It is my view that we can best guard against the emergence of an information rich and an information poor society by the retention of the national network in public hands, not hand it over to profit seekers to whom the social imperatives are not paramount in their operating commercial philosophy.

Historically, Telstra has played a pivotal role in the industrial development of Australia's telecommunications industry. Over 70 per cent of Telstra's equipment, materials and service purchases are from Australian companies, and that buy Australian purchasing policy has been critical to the development of an export orientated electronics and communications industry. Indeed, Telstra has been one of the largest exporters of telecommunications equipment in this country. It is that electronics industry that has grown its exports from $50 million a year to over $1 billion a year at the present time.

It has to be clearly understood that under a fully privatised Telstra there would be no such pressure to maintain such a purchasing policy. The communications industry is a rapidly growing segment of global industry, and Australian companies must participate in that growth. But it is a competitive business and they need the demand generated by an Australian owned Telstra with a buy Australian purchasing policy to maintain the economies of scale production to enable efficiencies to be achieved and to enable those companies to stay competitive in the international marketplace. That factor will not be present if Telstra is fully privatised.

It is rural and regional Australia that will pay the biggest penalty for the full privatisation of Telstra and this government's betrayal. Already rural and regional dwellers have had their level of service diminished by the sale of a third of Telstra. The part-privatisation has led to significant job losses in regional Australia—jobs that are almost impossible to replace. With those job losses has been a reduction in services to residents. Under a totally privatised Telstra it would be well nigh impossible for the federal government to enforce or to uphold the community service obligations. The threat of a $10 million fine for failure to discharge those CSOs is a sick joke, given that it is estimated now that those community service obligations would cost the company in the region of a billion dollars.

People of regional areas of Australia, particularly northern Australia, are certainly not stupid. They have a real concern for their economic futures and they know that, if they do not have appropriate access to the sorts of on-line services their metropolitan counterparts do, they will labour under a massive competitive disadvantage for decades to come.

Effective communications is central to the economic development of our great regions, particularly in northern Australia. It is those communities that will be most disadvantaged by what this government is proposing to do. It is another act of betrayal in a long list of betrayals of the promises the Howard government made to rural and regional Australia. Those people know that untimed local calls, which they now enjoy, will become a thing of the past under full privatisation. They also know from experience of privatisation of other public utilities such as electricity that full privatisation will mean declining levels of service to rural and regional customers.

Only last Thursday, on 31 March 1998, the Australian Communications Authority, in its third Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin reporting on service performance of the major carriers, including Telstra, had this to say about Telstra's customer performance at the moment:

Telstra again reported mixed service performance results for the quarter. Results for provision of new services on or before the agreed commitment date declined for all customer categories, in particular, performance for country customers declined by nine percentage points. Performance for restoration of service and fault reporting indicators once again declined during the December 1997 quarter, with country customers suffering the most.

Of course we know why the Prime Minister has announced the full privatisation of Telstra at this time: he and his ramshackle government are under siege over Senator Parer's breaches of the ministerial code of conduct and the Prime Minister's failure to sack him. But this is not an announcement that has been greeted enthusiastically by the people of Australia.

Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Corio made an allegation that Senator Parer breached the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister and the government have pointed out that has not occurred. That is a reflection on the minister. I would ask that he desist and that he withdraw that reflection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield) —There is no point of order. I will ask the member to continue but to be careful with his comments.

Mr O'CONNOR —The members of the government are very sensitive tonight on the Parer affair, aren't they. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister should have sacked him. The Prime Minister established the code of conduct, and Senator Parer violated it time and again. If you do not like it—

Mrs Sullivan —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. The member has already complained about a lack of time to talk. I suggest that he should use his time as arranged by his side to talk and not to bring up irrelevant issues.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I once again draw the member's attention to the fact that he is debating the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998. I ask him to direct his remarks at that legislation.

Mr O'CONNOR —I was explaining to the House and the listeners why the government made this announcement to fully privatise Telstra at this time. I think it is a fairly obvious reason to all: the Prime Minister was under pressure because of the violations of the ministerial code of conduct by one of his senior ministers and because of calls from the opposition for the Prime Minister to sack him.

Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I mentioned before that the member opposite accused the Minister for Resources and Energy of breaching the ministerial code of conduct. He has said that. That clearly is a reflection on the minister. He has not breached the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister has said that. I would ask you to direct the honourable member for Corio not to make reflections such as he has just made on the Minister for Resources and Energy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I will direct the honourable member to direct his remarks at the legislation before the House.

Mr O'CONNOR —The announcement to fully privatise Telstra has certainly not been greeted enthusiastically by the people of Australia, if the polls are any indication of voter sentiment. Since the government made its announcement three polls have indicated majority opposition to this measure that is being proposed by the government. A recently published Morgan poll indicated 62 per cent of people were against the full privatisation of Telstra. The West Australian poll on 24 March indicated 60 per cent are opposed. The Herald Sun , in its Melbourne poll on 19 March, indicated 58 per cent of Australians are against the full sale. I can understand, in the face of these polls, the sensitivity of members of the government on this particular piece of legislation. Those polls are hardly a ringing endorsement of a policy announcement that was intended to turn around the fortunes of this beleaguered and ramshackle government.

The arguments the government has mounted justifying the sale on the basis of improvements to the budget bottom line are similarly flawed. The government provides a static analysis which indicates that, after retiring public debt and taking into account the loss of Telstra dividends, the budget would be better off by $1.2 billion. Given that Telstra dividends have grown on average since 1992 by 15.6 per cent per annum, the crossover point where dividends would be greater than the savings on public debt is 2002-03. The nation gains for five years in budget returns, then loses forever. That will be Prime Minister John Howard's great legacy to the nation in the wake of the Telstra sale: a short-term five-year budgetary gain and a loss for the rest of the 21st century.

In summary, there are very compelling reasons why this great public enterprise should stay in public hands. From the point of view of access and equity to the information age, it is most important that Telstra remain in government hands. Telstra have spawned an electronics and telecommunications industry in this country that is now making great gains in the international marketplace. It is very important that the demand that is generated by Telstra's `buy Australian' policy, which would be removed if foreign interests got control of this great company, stay to the benefit of Australian companies.

From a customer service point of view, we have already seen, with the one-third privatisation of Telstra, a significant decline in customer service. Of course, the gravest impact of all in an adverse way will be felt by residents in rural and regional Australia. It is those Australians, particularly in the north of Australia, who know very well that the full privatisation of Telstra will disadvantage them quite considerably. That is why the National Party backbench is nervous and that is why several rural Liberals are nervous as well. Telstra should stay in public hands.