Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was concerned to read a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June 2007 which stated that Western Australian MPs have been advised by email from Telstra that constituents should be advised to complain directly to Telstra. The story further stated that this practice would be extended nationally to all MPs. If this report is accurate, I am appalled. In the past, parliamentarians have had a direct contact at Telstra if we needed to clarify a question or if we needed to refer an issue.

I have several objections to this abysmal decision by Telstra. Firstly, it is inappropriate for an organisation, publicly or privately owned, to determine what course of action parliamentarians should take on behalf of a constituent. Secondly, several of the complaints my office has received relate to the actual complaints procedure itself. Many people, especially the elderly, find it frustrating and, to be honest, confusing to be advised by a disembodied voice to push button 1 for one issue; button 2 for another; button 3 for a third; and so on—and, frankly, so do I. Thirdly, one constituent has advised my office that Telstra usually will not put information or problem resolutions in writing. The constituent has no comeback when Telstra say, for example, ‘We didn’t promise to reissue your bill,’ or, ‘We didn’t promise to restore your phone within seven days.’ Members of the public are, on most occasions, required to put their complaints in writing, yet Telstra is not required to do so.

I am a lifetime supporter of Telstra and its predecessors and I find this latest decision intolerable. In 2004 I spoke against the proposed privatisation of Telstra in the debate on the Telstra privatisation bill. This newspaper report provides a classic example of why I did so. At the time I stated that a privatised Telstra would be too powerful for any government to regulate efficiently. We now have evidence that a privatised Telstra is becoming too powerful for any government to control. The privatised Telstra has no accountability to the public beyond its shareholders. Telstra is not simply another private company; it is the provider of an essential service to the Australian community. The situation is not satisfactory. It is simply not acceptable. Telstra should back off from this proposal and continue to allow constituents to approach their members of parliament to act on their behalf.

I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and I was a lawyer by profession before I came into parliament. I do not propose to give a definitive opinion on this, but I must say that Telstra is sailing very close to the wind in attempting to limit what members of parliament can do, and it may well constitute a breach of privilege. I seriously think that Telstra should consider its action, reverse it and allow the status quo to continue.