Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Hansard source

And I am only some 12 minutes into it too! Any other surprises? Have I got four or five goes at this on the way through?

I think when I last spoke about this, on Thursday, I was referring to the letter that Telstra had sent out to its shareholders dated 2 March 2010 in relation to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. The letter says:

Telstra’s position on this Bill has not changed: while we support the Government’s National Broadband Network (NBN) vision and sensible reforms for our industry, we have always said this legislation is likely to destroy shareholder value and makes an agreement with NBN Co and the Government harder to achieve. In particular:

• denying Telstra access to spectrum will harm not only shareholders, but also consumers—especially those in rural and regional Australia who rely on Telstra for their mobile services;
• the unprecedented and largely unconstrained powers the legislation gives the ACCC and the Minister send a negative signal to investors in our industry and this country; and
• functional separation could cost Telstra $1 billion and take five years to implement, damaging customer service and providing no real benefits to consumers.

The letter then went on to refer to the NBN Co. exposure draft legislation, which honourable senators would no doubt be aware of. It said:

On 24 February, the Government also released draft legislation that would govern how NBN Co is operated and regulated. Although this is only draft legislation, it raises for the first time the prospect of NBN Co becoming a Government-funded retailer, not just a wholesale network provider. Such an outcome would run counter to the core purpose of the NBN and the Government’s primary policy objective of restructuring the industry to have separate providers for retail and wholesale fixed network services. We are very concerned about this potential change in the Government’s position. If enacted, we would need to factor this into the financial consideration required to achieve an agreement that is in the company’s and your best interests—

that is, the interests of the Telstra shareholders to whom this letter is directed. It goes on:

In closing, let us reassure you that the interests of our investors, customers and staff will remain paramount throughout the negotiations. We are strongly representing your interests to all parties. Our concerns about the potential shift in NBN Co’s scope will be strongly and clearly stated in our submission on the draft legislation due on 15 March. …

Yours sincerely

Catherine Livingstone AO, Chairman

David Thodey, Chief Executive Officer

There has been considerable discussion about this matter in the public domain over the last week, as you would be acutely aware, Madam Deputy President Troeth, and what we have made quite clear is that we are extremely concerned about Telstra’s 1.4 million shareholders and 30,000 employees and we believe this legislation is a direct assault on them.

I want to talk about some of the arguments that have apparently underpinned this legislation, the rationale for it. I look at the competition that has developed over the last two decades to see where this industry has been going, and I can just take one company in particular, Macquarie Telecom—and this is a company that started, I think, in 1992—to show how successful various changes have been over those last two decades. This notion that the government is moving to increase competition within the industry is fascinating when you look at the new entrants, the Macquarie Telecoms of this world, who are very good companies providing a very good service and who are competitive and making money. It is not just Macquarie Telecom; there are many others. This is a competitive industry.

We are not prepared to sit back and watch the government hold a sword or a knife to Telstra’s throat in relation to this legislation. They are, as has been said in this chamber before, blackmailing Telstra in order to prop up their NBN program. Everyone in this chamber knows this will not be commercially viable. This is $43 billion of taxpayers’ funds without so much as a business plan. If you read of a company doing this, you would do one of two things: firstly, if you were an investor you would bail out quick smart or, secondly, if you were not an investor you would not touch it with a barge pole. What we are seeing is a minister who has completely and utterly lost the plot. How could you not have a business plan, and no cost-benefit analysis? It absolutely beggars belief. This is $43,000 million of someone else’s money. I will repeat that: $43,000 million of someone else’s money. This is not the government’s money. This is taxpayers’ money. This is Australians’ money: forty-three thousand million for which there is no cost-benefit analysis or business plan.

Senator Minchin on behalf of the coalition clearly articulated our position in this chamber more than a week ago when he spoke on this legislation. I will just repeat for the public record exactly what we have said. We are more than prepared to debate and engage on the competition and consumer reforms when all the information is available. But these issues should be considered comprehensively, following both the release and detailed consideration of the NBN implementation study—where is this implementation study?—and of the final legislation for the NBN Co., the National Broadband Network Companies Bill 2010 and the Telecommunications Legislation (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Bill 2010, which is currently in its draft form. We are more than happy to sit down and talk about this, but we are not going to see bits and pieces cherry-picked out of a debate as important as this. We are not prepared to sit back and watch cherry-picking of something as important to regional and rural Australians as the outcome of this legislation.

There is this manic desire to put something on the table, anything on the table, to show that something is being done. Our view is this is far too important a decision to be cherry-picked. It is far too important a matter to be done in a piecemeal approach. Let us put all the information on the table, including the implementation study. Let us see a cost-benefit analysis. Let us see a business plan. Let us make an informed and intelligent decision about where telecommunications in this country will go over the next 10, 15, 20 years. At the moment, we are not in a position to do so. At the moment, as legislators we cannot make an informed decision about the way forward. We cannot do that because we have a minister and a Prime Minister who are trying to get some rubber on the road in relation to telecommunications reform.

It is a bit like rubber on the road in relation to the environment, rubber on the road in relation to the pink batt fiasco: being seen to be doing something, anything, to get some rubber on the road so you look as if you are doing something. Invariably, when you do it without proper planning, when you do it without business plans, when you do it without coordination, you see what happens. You get 110 house fires. You see an industry that is actually torn apart. You see people who have lost their jobs, as there are in Colac, where a company that runs insulation as part of its business—a longstanding family small business—has put off 10 people. Why? Because there is complete and utter lack of planning. Why? Because the government has not done the hard work to substantiate these policy decisions. If we can see a government that will start finally doing some matters and doing the hard yards, then we will have a look at it. But don’t come to us after you have put some rubber on the road when all you are doing is wasting good rubber. If we are going to see some rubber on the road, let us at least have it coming from a vehicle that is delivering some long-term outcomes. There is no vehicle delivering any long-term outcome in relation to this matter.

I will finish my contribution, which, as I said, has been going for over a week, on this note. One of the damning outcomes in a policy sense in the last 10 days has been the quite remarkable admission from the government that this NBN Co. will now potentially become a retailer. It just completely and utterly destroys every iota of their rationale for this NBN Co. put up over the last 12 months. It has in one fell swoop removed from this debate any sense of legitimacy at all. It is a cheap assault on Telstra. It is a cheap assault on 1.4 million taxpayers. It is a cheap assault on mum-and-dad investors who invested in Telstra with the legitimate expectation that their government would not do something that was going to destroy that shareholder value, and certainly not after they had purchased their shares. This bill is a disgrace. The government’s approach to telecommunications reform is an absolute disgrace. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to address this matter.