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

I want to talk on the adjournment about a number of things, but I feel compelled to start by refuting most of the allegations made by Senator Conroy in his contribution earlier. Regrettably, Senator Conroy was not at the meeting about which he spoke for 10 minutes, so anything he has said to the chamber is hearsay and very much second-hand evidence.

Perhaps it is important to go to the bottom line first but, before I do, could I just say what a significant chairman, senator and, indeed, person is Senator Eggleston, whom we are fortunate enough to have as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I do agree with the part of Senator Conroy’s address where he said what a wonderful person Senator Eggleston is. Senator Eggleston chaired the very difficult committee hearing on the recent package of media bills and he did an exceptional job—one that I think few others in this chamber could have emulated.

A meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was called today to discuss a number of issues. Four government senators and two Labor senators were present, and Senator Bartlett came a little late. I myself was a little late and so I did not hear what happened in the beginning. But I am told—and I accept—that Senator Lundy indicated that, if the meeting did not go the way intended, she would leave and then there would be no quorum—and, as you know, Mr Deputy President Hogg, to have a quorum it is essential to have present members of the Labor Party and the government. On the basis of that threat, a number of issues were dealt with. We then got to the issue of what the timetable was to be for the estimates committee in a couple of weeks time.

For very good reasons, which time will not permit me to go into, there is a real concern that the sale of Telstra could be inextricably interfered with if certain things were said by any range of people at the estimates committee hearings. This is a very significant sale for Australians and members of the committee thought it was not appropriate to put it in jeopardy. I have a different view, I have to say, in that I do not think Telstra should be present anyhow. The sooner the government can get rid of its shareholding in what is a multinational, very significant company and business enterprise, the better. I have long said that governments have no purpose in being involved in a significant multinational communications company. Governments certainly have a role in the provision of communications around Australia, but they do that by regulation, by subsidy or by some other means and certainly not by using shareholder influence in what is a significant multinational company.

Anyhow, for all the right reasons, which we do not have the opportunity to go into just at the moment, it was obviously thought by government members that Telstra’s presence at those hearings was inappropriate. As we were about to vote on that, the bells started to ring. After being threatened with and with the real fear of the meeting being made inquorate, the vote—