Mr ENTSCH (5:14 PM) —I stand here today to give my conditional support to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . In accordance with the federal government's policy, this bill will make possible the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra by amending the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 to repeal the provisions which require the government to retain two-thirds of the equity in the company. Importantly, the bill will also amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce penalties of up to $10 million if phone companies fail to comply with directions from the Australian Communications Authority to rectify poor performance in meeting customer service guarantees.

I stand before you representing the federal seat of Leichhardt—an area of Australia that, if the opposition's rhetoric were true, would likely be one of the most affected electorates in Australia. It is on this point of regional Australia and its response to the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra that I have a great interest in rising to speak today.

Since the government announced the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the opposition, because of its policy void, has targeted the bush with misinformation about the consequences of the Telstra sale. The problem with the opposition speaking on behalf of regional Australia is that it does not represent regional Australia—not at all. People in the bush know this and there was no clearer indication of this than the last election, when the bush totally rejected Labor. The national electoral division profiles suggest that Labor holds three seats nationally with a demographic rating of rural. How can Labor know the concerns of the bush when it lacks the basic understanding of rural people and the issues that confront them? That is why this debate over the sale of Telstra should be above politics. It should be about the facts.

People's fundamental right in the 21st century is to be able to communicate, and their ability to succeed in small business depends on their ability to communicate. That is why I said at the outset that this is a bill that I give my conditional support to. I agree with observations that the provision and extension of services to rural Australia still leave a lot to be desired for all those people living in the far north. There is certainly much to be improved.

I will give a couple of examples. Recently a property just out of the Cape York town of Laura had to wait 10 weeks for a technician to come up and fix a simple fault. When he did eventually arrive, it took all of about 15 minutes to repair the fault. But for 10 weeks they were without a phone. I know of instances in Cairns where people are still waiting. They applied for a telephone connection in January. We are now into April, and they are still waiting for the provision of that service. In relation to mobile services in Far North Queensland—I made this comment in my maiden speech—within three kilometres of the Cairns CBD you cannot access some mobile services.

But these problems have not just surfaced. I can remember in another life some years ago waiting for months and months for Telstra to come out and connect a phone on a property that I was involved in about 200 kilometres north-west of Cairns. There have been numerous other examples of where Telstra certainly showed a tremendous amount of complacency in and lack of commitment to rectifying the problem.

The member for Chifley (Mr Price) made the comment that the legislation in force prior to the privatisation gave government the power to enforce the compliance of these services. Clearly there was certainly no will on the part of our predecessors to enforce that, because the situation has been very poor for a long time. If you want a further example of that, you only have to look at the number of CoT cases—casualties of Telstra—that have arisen in this country over a very long period of time, some of them very sad cases. All of those cases arose at a time when Telstra was totally controlled by the bureaucracy. As the member for Chifley mentioned, it was within the control of government to fix that problem; but clearly they did not do that. To suggest that going down another track could in some way be a disadvantage is a nonsense. Provided the proper checks and balances are in place, we will certainly be able to enforce those provisions.

The other thing we have now that was not in place before is choice. That is going to make a big difference. Clearly it has already, when you look at the drop in rates and the competition it has created. I believe that will continue to be a very significant encouragement for Telstra to maintain its game. If it does not, quite frankly, it will lose out to its competitors.

As I said, my support firstly lies in the government fulfilling its commitment to making sure that the services in the bush are improved and that the communication companies which perform poorly are prosecuted. That is why I strongly support the government's initiative to strengthen the penalties for non-compliance under the Telecommunications Act—separate legislation that binds Telstra and other companies to conditions set by parliament on their commitment to the bush. Under the proposed amendments, the fines for a company with a history of delay and/or non-performance will be up to $10 million. There will of course be a facility to allow people that feel aggrieved to be dealt with fairly. It does not mean that the individuals will have to take on the might of Telstra. They will be able to use a mechanism that will represent them and their grievances. Provided it is set up appropriately, I am sure it will be in a position to address those problems.

It will certainly ensure the right of people in Cooktown, Weipa and even Thursday Island to receive a service equal to the people in Sydney—something that the phone com panies must be made to adhere to. These service obligations include a customer service guarantee about the length of time the phone company will take to make a connection or rectify a fault and, if this does not happen, an entitlement to individual compensation; a guarantee to turn up to appointments on time and again, if this does not happen, a guarantee of compensation; access to a standard telephone service and access to payphones within a legally specified time, regardless of where in Australia you live or work, with the cost subsidised by phone users in the city as part of the universal service obligation; local call prices in regional areas may not exceed the revenue weighted average local call price in major capital cities; untimed voice and data calls, with the most remote 17,000 Telstra customers continuing to receive a rebate on their pastoral call spending; maintenance of the price cap regime, which means the total cost of Telstra's average price across a basket of services must keep falling every year; and a commitment to keep the universal service obligations in line with changing technology.

My second condition is that the proceeds of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra be used to retire a very significant amount of our public debt. The government has repeatedly highlighted the economic benefits that this bill will provide to all Australians by reducing our national debt from the historically high levels created by the opposition. This is the difference between a government with policy and one that is void of policy. Labor is willing to create the debt but not willing to implement a positive initiative to reduce that debt. The economic benefits are very clear. When Labor came to power in 1983, Commonwealth debt was $9.7 billion, or 5.6 per cent of GDP. After 13 years, the debt had risen to some $95 billion, or 20 per cent of GDP. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has the honour of being the worst finance minister on record, in two years presiding over an increase of some $26 billion of debt.

This is a classic example of the difference between us and the economic Einsteins on the other side. No prizes for guessing who in this House has had business experience. The mob on the other side highlight their limited vision through their focus on their union backgrounds. If they had any experience in business, they would not have allowed the country's debt to reach such a point. Instead of rejecting the bill, the opposition should be embracing it to turn around the mess that was left for the coalition to fix.

The sale of Telstra will enable the government to increase its reform process of the national finances which could reduce Commonwealth debt by 40 per cent, allowing the country to return to debt levels of the prosperous times of the 1960s, with a GDP ratio of four per cent. Imagine the benefits to all Australians.

A lot has been said about the loss of revenue from Telstra. Nothing, however, has been said from the opposition benches about the fact that Australia could have been $1.5 billion better off last financial year through savings on interest payments. Unlike Labor, with its windfalls from privatisation of both Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank which were squandered in feeding interest groups and unsustainable social agendas, this government will not burden our children and grandchildren with debts accumulated through excess and self-indulgence.

It is my personal belief that the full privatisation of Telstra will create true public ownership of Telstra. Telstra will be fully accountable to its shareholders and its customers in a very competitive marketplace. What could be more public than giving ordinary Australians a chance to gain a further stake in Telstra? You would think that Labor would agree that this is a positive step. This puts the opposition at odds with 92 per cent of Telstra employees who became shareholders at its first offering and some 600,000 average Australians becoming shareholders for the first time. I see this as true public ownership.

Those on the other side suggest that the only effective way to operate Telstra is through a government controlled bureaucracy. I suggest that this is an absolute joke. This is certainly at odds with the world's best practices overseas. Countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Canada and New Zea land have all embraced private ownership with community safeguards as a way to deliver the most efficient and responsive communications network.

Recently there was some suggestions of likening the Telstra sale to the problems associated with the New Zealand power authority as a privatised company. It should be put on the record that the New Zealand power company is in fact a government bureaucracy and certainly could not be compared with a private company.

There is no fear that Australians will lose control of Telstra either. The ownership structure of Telstra will continue in Australian hands with the government setting Telstra ownership at no more than 35 per cent foreign owned and no single interest group allowed to own more than five per cent. I think it is also important that the chairman and directors of Telstra are required by law to be Australian citizens.

The sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra is a logical development, in my view. The government, unlike the opposition, is giving the people of Australia a choice—the choice at the next election to vote for the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra to proceed. Labor's record on this issue shows that it is in favour of privatisation by stealth.

As I said earlier, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank are two good examples of Labor's true stance on the issue. They came in here and gave an absolute total commitment that under no circumstance would either of those two bureaucracies be sold. Of course, we know history suggests something very different. I do not disagree with the route that they took on that. Nevertheless, their position is quite hypocritical as the sale of Telstra should be no different from what they did with the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. The only difference between us is that we are prepared to put our cards on the table and be judged accordingly by the Australian people, who will make the final decision as to which way we are likely to go.

I look forward to the prospect of the people of regional Australia seeing a very big increase in the current levels of service delivered by Telstra and other communications companies. I think it is fair to say that, while those opposite stand here and make noises about concerns in the bush, communications have been in this country for a good many years—telephones have been invented for a long time and Australia has certainly had the benefit of the use of that equipment—but I can tell you that huge areas in my electorate have absolutely basic access to these services in 1998.

That shows that over the years a government-owned instrumentality has certainly not delivered services into these areas and I believe that, with the privatisation of it, with the embracing of all the new technology and with the regulations in force, we might—at long last—start to see an opportunity of getting some equal service into our more remote areas. I certainly look forward to it. I think this is an opportunity for rural Australia to stake its case for improved services and for the coalition to deliver a strengthened universal service obligation through tough new penalties for non-compliance.

One of the other things that has been raised has been the suggestion of massive job losses. Again, I suggest that it is an absolute nonsense to think that privatisation is the cause of job losses. There has been a downloading of jobs in Telstra for many years. The real culprit, of course, is called `technology'. As we have major technological advances, the reality is that there is a need for greater skill but fewer hands. As a consequence, if the public—whether it be metropolitan or rural Australia—is going to demand improved services and improved technology, that is going to cost jobs. But the reality is that for those people who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs in one area opportunities are opening up in other areas where they are able to be trained to take on other skills.

To suggest that privatisation is going to cause this problem of job losses is an absolute nonsense. The only way that we are going to guarantee that we can continue to create larger amounts of jobs in a communications organisation such as Telstra is by going back to the days of Alexander Graham Bell and, as one of the members said here earlier today, starting to roll out copper wire where you have a need for that type of volume of work force.

So, as we go into technology, I can assure you that the skills are going to be greater but, unfortunately, the jobs are going to be fewer. That is what we pay for progress and, as I say, job opportunities are opening up in other areas which I am sure that the people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to continue with Telstra will be able to access. Of course, all the training programs that we have initiated—that actually work—are going to give those people the greatest opportunity to access those jobs. They will not be on the merry-go-round that they have been on in the past.

I feel that the sale of Telstra will not mean its demise but—quite the opposite—its rebirth, with it delivering greater levels of efficiency and customer service. I commend the bill to the House.