Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What rank hypocrisy from the Labor Party in general and from Senator Conroy in particular. I regret to say about Senator Conroy that his lack of understanding of business management and of running any sort of an entity that has to make a profit is understandable. Senator Conroy comes from a very distinguished background in the unions, and union thuggery, and running an operation that has never had to pay its own way—an organisation that has turned thuggery and bullying into an art form. It is no wonder, Senator Conroy, that Senator Ray referred to you, quite correctly I have to say, as a dalek.

Senator Ray would know you better than we do, Senator Conroy. We all like you over here. In fact, we are delighted you are a shadow minister because for as long as you are a shadow minister we do not have a lot to worry about. But still, we all like you and we are delighted that you hold that position. When it comes to looking after business and having a sensible view on business, I am sorry, Senator Conroy, your years since university as an officer of some union really do not qualify you to compete with people like Mr Cousins for the operations of perhaps one of the major companies in Australia, a multinational company.

In his proposal of a matter of public importance Senator Conroy complains of three things: firstly, that Mr Cousins has been appointed as a director of Telstra; secondly, that the government is going to dump a large holding of Telstra shares from the Future Fund onto the market in future; and, thirdly, that the government has overregulated Telstra. I will address those complaints briefly because I know that my colleagues Senator Brandis and Senator McGauran will be taking up the fight when I resume my seat.

Mr Cousins is a particularly distinguished Australian with a significant record in business. To suggest that Mr Cousins would abrogate his duties as a director of a major public company is an insult and is quite defamatory. Senator Conroy should be very careful about making such allegations. He certainly would not make them outside this chamber. In all fairness, Senator Conroy should apologise personally to Mr Cousins for the suggestion that Mr Cousins might in any way have a conflict or that there would be a dereliction of the quite high standard required of him as a director of a major public company.

It is hard to understand the Labor Party’s approach to this issue. They are blaming the government for appointing a director—I am not quite sure what the real reason is—but in the same breath they are saying: ‘If we were in government we would not be selling any part of Telstra. In fact, we would be buying it back’—I think that is one of the policies Labor had floating around a little while ago—‘so that the government actually owned all of Telstra and would appoint every single one of the directors,’ as they would have to do if they were the sole shareholder of the company. Would it be okay for a Labor government to appoint all of the directors of Telstra but not okay for a Liberal government, which is still, through the agency, the major shareholder in that public company—for a little while at least—to appoint just one of those directors in a new capacity?

It is very difficult for me, and I am sure any other Australian, to understand the basis of the Labor Party’s opposition to this appointment. Is it an objection to Mr Cousins as a person or is it an objection to the fact that the major shareholder is appointing one director when the Labor Party, or so it appears, would want to appoint all of the directors? As I said at the beginning, it is rank hypocrisy for the Labor Party to conduct the sort of campaign they have conducted to try and down-sell and destroy the sale of Telstra. It makes it very difficult to understand their motivation, except to score a couple of fairly cheap political points—and they are not even going to do that.

I am one of those who have for a long time believed that the government should get out of Telstra. It should never have been involved in recent times when Telstra has been a major multinational company competing with the best in the world. I have always held the view—coming from regional Australia, as I do, and living in a small country area—that it should not be a private company that provides facilities for remote parts of Australia. It should be the government that does that, but by way of subsidy, not by ownership of a major multinational company where you are cross-subsidising other shareholders’ prospects with the obligations that all governments have of looking after those Australians who are seen to be disadvantaged, and that includes many living in remote and rural Australia.

The sooner we get rid of Telstra the better it will be for Telstra and for all Australians—and certainly those living in country Australia. It is up to governments to subsidise, not private companies. I believe we should get out of Telstra. We should have done it before now, but at last we are doing it. It is appropriate that we make this third tranche of the privatisation work. We want to get a return for all Australians who are the investors in the 51 per cent. We want to get a reasonable price for the shares. We do not want to get more than the company is worth and we do not want to get less than it is worth. But the Labor Party are out to destroy this sale by lessening the price for the T3 float in the hope that they will get some sort of perverse satisfaction out of seeing the sale fail or, if not fail, getting a very small return. I just cannot understand the anti-Australian approach that the Labor Party have adopted in this instance.

This matter of public importance put forward by the Labor Party goes on to suggest that the government is dumping a large holding of Telstra shares in the Future Fund, to be sold in the future and to depress the Telstra share price. That is not the intention of the Future Fund. The chairman of the Future Fund, Mr David Murray, a very distinguished and very capable businessman, will want to get the best value for those shares when at some time in the future the Future Fund sells them down. If you had to ask me whether you would respect Mr David Murray’s view on when to sell and what price to sell at or whether you would respect Senator Conroy’s view, I do not think there is a debate from any side of this chamber on whose business advice you would take.

The third element of Senator Conroy’s motion seems to be criticising the government for imposing regulation that threatens the company’s earning prospects. If you think about that and take it through to its end, you would say: what would the Labor Party approach be? Would it be to take back all of those regulations so that the company’s earning prospects are better? Does this mean that the Labor Party would get rid of the universal service obligation? Does it mean the Labor Party would get rid of price controls on core costs? Does it mean the Labor Party would get rid of untimed local calls, the customer service guarantee, or access regulation on the ULL? Senator Conroy really needs to explain the Labor Party approach to this. Are they trying to do the bush in? Are they trying to ensure that Australians do not get those enhancements, those benefits, those safeguards which the government has put in place? It seems from this motion that Senator Conroy is saying that the government should get rid of all those regulations so that Telstra can make a bigger profit. That is not needed to be done. As I said before, they can fit together. We need Telstra being well operated as a private company and we need the government to ensure that all Australians have fair access to telecommunications in this country. (Time expired)