Mr FITZGIBBON (6:14 PM) —I am very pleased to see the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) in the House because I know that, unlike the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) and the member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), he shares the concern we on this side have about the privatisation of Telstra. Indeed, he is opposed to the privatisation of Telstra. I am very pleased that—unlike the members for Richmond, Parkes and Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin), and all those National Party and Liberal MPs who represent rural and regional seats—he has been prepared to speak out and defend his constituents. I congratulate him on doing so.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Parkes. He is retiring at the next election, and I wish him the very best in what he does in the future. I bet he is pleased that he will not be around to deal with the problems that will emanate from the total sale of Telstra. I am sure he will be pleased. He quoted so many of the problems being experienced by his constituents in terms of Telstra service, but he did not explain that that service has deteriorated since the partial sale of Telstra. He obviously has not read Diane Stott's contribution in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April, where she reports:

The Telecommunications Ombudsman, Mr John Pinnock, has launched an attack on Telstra for its worsening customer service and called on the industry watchdog to introduce higher standards in the bush.

Figures yet to be released by the Ombudsman show Telstra's performance has continued to deteriorate this year after a dismal performance in 1997, despite new laws requiring it to meet customer service standards.

Further on in the article Mr Pinnock states:

"I still think the poor old rural user is losing out and Telstra should be required to meet a better standard."

He further continues:

. . . recent figures from the Ombudsman showed the guarantee—

that is, the guarantee given by the government that the member for Parkes referred to—

which began on January 1, had failed to turn around Telstra's performance . . .

The member for Parkes talked about the Natural Heritage Trust and the benefits stemming from it. I want to challenge him on his suggestion that the only reason the lion's share of the money is going to government-held seats is that they hold the majority of them.

I point out that the average grant to non-government rural seats is around $300,000 and the average grant to government-held rural seats is around $700,000. I suggest that he can do his best to fiddle the figures, but he cannot walk away from the fact that that is a very true and accurate picture of what is happening. He talks about government debt and what they have been able to do via the sale of one-third of Telstra and what they will be able to do in terms of government debt with the balance of the sale. As the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) quite rightly pointed out in his contribution to the second reading debate on this bill, the growth in the dividend over the next four or five years—on average around 15 per cent—will mean that the loss of dividend will far outweigh any savings in debt reduction. So there is no benefit to the taxpayer.

I must admit that one of the things I found disappointing about the last federal election campaign is that the government's proposal to sell one-third of Telstra did not really bite in the electorate. We were running hard against it, and I have to admit that there did not appear to be a great deal of concern in the electorate about the now government's proposition to sell one-third. I think any post-election analysis will show that the electorate found comfort in the fact that two-thirds would remain in government hands. The government would still be in control, they felt, and they understood very well the role government can play in ensuring that community service obligations continue in rural and regional Australia and in ensuring that the people living in those areas continue to enjoy the same benefits and the same services as those living in the cities. They understand the way that democracy works. They know that government can be held accountable, and they took a great deal of comfort in the belief that two-thirds of Telstra would remain in government hands.

But they were very soon to learn, as we now know, that it was only a non-core promise to keep two-thirds of Telstra in government hands. It was simply another confidence trick by the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), a man desperate to get himself into the Prime Minister's seat. Who really believed that the member for Bennelong at the time did not have in his mind an intention to eventually sell the balance of Telstra? When the Prime Minister recently announced amid great fanfare the good news that he was prepared to sell the balance of Telstra, he got a bit of a shock. He discovered that Australians do understand the important role that government plays in providing those services; that they do understand the democratic process and the avenues they have available to them in terms of governments that renege on promises.

What did the Prime Minister do last week? He, in hand with his communications minister and John Fahey, were in damage control telling the world that they were going to bring in very tough regulations with big fines to ensure that Telstra did not do the wrong thing by the Australian community, particularly the rural community. Big deal! As the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) and others have already pointed out, there is no effect. The quote I just read out from the Sydney Morning Herald proves that the guarantee already in place is doing nothing, and the same can be said of the threats of big fines because you cannot put in place those fines for telecommunications technology that does not yet exist.

I can assure the House that those people living in the regions, those people living in my electorate in Cessnock, in the Upper Hunter, in Beresfield and in other areas are not buying the line either. They have seen so many broken promises from this government that they take the Prime Minister's word at face value. They assume all of those promises to be nothing more than non-core. They also know that you cannot legislate to guarantee technologies that do not yet exist. Why would they not be sceptical following the finance minister's radio interview with the ABC's Fran Kelly on 31 March, an interview in which he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what defines and what constitutes a standard telephone service and how the government would go about ensuring that those living in rural and regional Australia would continue to enjoy the same service as their city cousins. He ducked and weaved on every question. I recommend that radio interview to those who are really interested in how the government has failed to guarantee that the bush will be protected.

Let us take a look at the last attempt to make such guarantees. Does anyone remember the standard telephone review group? That was the panel with 10 experts drawn from Vodafone, Telstra and the National Farmers Federation. They were going to constantly review what constitutes a standard telephone service in this rapidly changing industry. It also enjoyed the contribution of Mr Jock Given, who is the well-known expert from the Communications Law Centre at the University of New South Wales.

Remember what that review group recommended? It recommended a standard of standard telephone service, which Professor Henry Ergas estimated would cost the industry about $2.5 billion. But, of course, Professor Ergas did not like the idea. He felt that the burden on Telstra would affect the price the government would gain for Telstra. Members might recall that Henry Ergas was also a member of the review panel. Reflecting his concern about the recommendations put forward by the other nine members of the review panel, Professor Ergas issued his own dissenting report offering a much lower standard of standard telephone service.

Well, surprise, surprise! Who do you think Minister Alston listened to? Who do you think Minister Alston thought had come up with the correct recommendation? Not the nine in majority, not the nine members of the committee, but the lone dissenting voice of Professor Henry Ergas. We now know the longstanding relationship which exists between Professor Ergas and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), and we now know why Professor Ergas was placed on that review panel. If the way they handled the first tranche of the sale is indicative, let us pray for rural and regional Australia in terms of how they intend to deal with ensuring that the bush is protected after the balance of the sale.

I said in my second reading speech on the bill to put in place the sale of the first third that, if Menzies had privatised the Postmaster-General and put in place at that time a standard telephone service of the day, we would all still be turning that black handle on those old telephones. That is the point: you cannot legislate today for technologies of tomorrow. Professor Ergas's participation in the review group just demonstrates, in any case, how far the government will go to thwart any opportunity to increase those standards.

This bill simply fails to ensure that rural and regional Australia will be protected. It also does not guarantee against nasties such as timed telephone calls. The Courier-Mail cartoonist I thought illustrated the whole issue very well. I hope it has not already been used in this second reading debate. I know I have not seen anyone use it. It is a very good cartoon that simply says it all. It depicts a farmer waiting on the telephone. In the bubble you see the voice coming out of the phone saying:

`Welcome! to the fully privatised Telstra . . .

. . . If you're a shareholder press one and you will be attended to instantly . . .

. . . If you're a big business user in any capital city press two and you will be answered shortly . . .

. . . If you're a small business press three and you will be answered eventually by the next available operator . . .

. . . If you're just any old domestic user press four and you will be put on hold as this is a timed call.

. . . And lastly if you're a remote area rural user . . . you are a drain on profits . . . press five and you will be disconnected immediately.

I think that pretty well summarises this debate on the bill to put in place the sale of the final two-thirds of Telstra.

With other opposition members before me, I have committed myself to keeping my contribution brief on this bill. As you know, the government has put the gag on and is only allowing us eight hours debate on this very important issue. I will leave it at that and give my colleagues the opportunity to speak on this important bill. I just want to reinforce, as one of only a few members on this side who represent rural and regional seats, that this will be a disaster for those living in rural and regional Australia. We oppose it most forcefully.