Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Once again we have seen today the government’s off-handed, arrogant treatment not only of question time and the questions that have been put to it but of Australian shareholders. Senator Nick Minchin has been pinged, well and truly, today. Terry McCrann, no fan of the Labor Party, has published an article today, with the title ‘Nick Minchin’s idiotic grasp of finance’. Mr McCrann writes:

In his own words yesterday, Minchin effectively “announced” he was not competent to be finance minister.

“And of course, if they haven’t sold, they haven’t lost their money,” were his words of astonishing stupidity.

This is Mr Terry McCrann:

In very simple terms, if Minchin does not understand that you have lost real money even if—especially if—you haven’t sold, the nation’s finances should not be entrusted to his care. He should be liberated to take his idiosyncratic views to the investment, corporate, accounting and banking worlds: that they’ve all been “doing it” exactly wrong.

He goes on to say:

Did I describe his “analysis” as idiosyncratic? I used far too many letters. Idiotic would be crisper.

Not simply for the asinine financial interpretation, but the raw politics.

That is what has been written today. That is what we are seeing from this government. We are seeing a government that is out of touch. It is arrogant and it is desperate to avoid facing the music when the T3 share price goes exdividend. That is why we have an instalment process: for those senators and people like Senator Barnaby Joyce’s mum and dad—and for Senator Minchin’s own mum, whom he cut off yesterday. He cut off his mum yesterday. He put the phone down. He hung up on his own mum yesterday. How disgraceful!

Senator Minchin stands condemned for deceiving and misleading this chamber about what has been going on in the financial markets in this country for the last week. What we have seen is article after article talking about a discount being available to existing Telstra shareholders, and I am going to quote from them. Where did all of these journalists get this idea from? We have Jesse Hogan from the Age saying:

Options for the Government include a combination of a price discount, bonus shares or a guaranteed share allotment.

David Humphries, from the Sydney Morning Herald, in the article ‘Minchin plans sweeteners in Telstra sale’ says:

Lobbied by his back bench to give a discount on new stock sold to existing shareholders …

                 …         …         …

Possible sweeteners include a discounted share price …

Where did this come from? Jane Schulze and Michael Sainsbury, in ‘Bonus to stop T3 free-fall’, say:

It is not known when details of the entitlement offer will be announced, but market rumours suggested it could be a one-for-five offer, with existing Telstra shareholders gaining one discounted share for every five Telstra shares they now own.

But the general retail offer is also likely to include a discount of up to 5 per cent to Telstra’s market price at the time of the offer launch.

Michelle Grattan is a journalist famous in this building for her attention to detail. She will phone you at 12 o’clock at night to make sure she has the story right. Michelle says the government:

… is not revealing how they will benefit but options include the right to subscribe for additional shares, a discount on the share price …

Where did Michelle Grattan get that idea from? Where did David Crowe and Tony Boyd from the Australian Financial Review get the idea that there would be ‘generous discounts to existing shareholders to encourage them to take part in the sale’? In fact, they go on to say:

Existing Telstra shareholders will be offered a guaranteed allocation of shares at a discount price in order to shore up demand for Telstra shares.

What is going on in this country at the moment is a scandal. This government is rigging the market in Telstra shares. It is deliberately allowing the opportunity for trading while the market is uninformed in Telstra shares, and two people stand condemned for this: Senator Nick Minchin and Senator Helen Coonan. They should put to bed this rumour that they and their staff have circulated, that their market gurus have circulated, that, as the Financial Review article says:

One executive involved in the sale said the discount was “in the mix” …

That is what is going on. We have a rigged share offer and ASIC is missing in action again. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pretty pathetic when the previous speaker relies for the best part of his address—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On every journo!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on Terry McCrann. If that is where you are getting your advice from, if that is where you are getting your policy substance from, let alone your addresses, Senator—as he leaves the chamber; he is not really interested in this—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know you are not interested. Absolutely you are not interested in this subject, because you are a privatiser yourself. We have you on record for that—as you scuttle out of the chamber. He was relying solely on Terry McCrann as his source of advice—the great grasshopper, Terry McCrann. I think the Labor Party will find that Terry McCrann bites back at them more than they will ever have the opportunity to quote him.

But I will go to the substance of this debate. Probably no issue has dominated this parliament and certainly the minds of the opposition in the past 10 years more than the privatisation of Telstra. This is the essence of the debate today. They are clinging on to some failed policy of objecting to the government’s mandate. When I say mandate, I mean not just from the two houses of parliament, which on three occasions now have mandated the government to sell Telstra—T1, T2 and now T3—but from four occasions at elections.

It is quite obvious the Labor Party are now heading into their fifth election with the same failed policy. You have to wonder: have they learnt anything from the last election at all? There were so many lessons to learn, let alone the failed leader you decided to put up, your economic credentials and four failed Telstra policies. Have you learnt anything? Are you going to get about with new, refreshed policies or are you going to go to the fifth election with the same policy? We enter an election year very soon—it will be this time or late next year. Have you learnt anything about refreshing your policies? Are you so contemptuous of the electorate after four occasions with a policy of having no privatisation of Telstra that you are going to front up to the electorate one more time with those sorts of failed policies? You have learnt nothing. You are across there in opposition and the whole perception you are giving to the electorate is of opposition for opposition’s sake, that you have really learnt nothing at all.

Your questioning all this week has been devoted to the sale of Telstra. I dare say that, with a couple more days to go, it will continue to be so. Your whole week has been based on the fact that the government are engaging in a fire sale.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When’s your brother joining the Libs?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A fire sale, Senator Campbell. Before I answer that outrageous accusation—and Senator Conroy threw it across the chamber yet again—let me say to the opposition: do not come in here and talk about fire sales of government assets, because when you were in government everything was in a fire sale, from the Commonwealth Bank to Qantas. It was just outrageous how cheap and nasty your sale of those assets was.

Let us take the Commonwealth Bank—talk about needing to be locked up! Talk about misleading the market. Talk about a Treasurer who, had he been the director of a company, would have breached the Corporations Law. The then Treasurer went to the election saying that there would be no sale of the Commonwealth Bank, and of course there was. This was a false prospectus from the start. Talking about fire sales, what did you ever do with your asset sales, other than try to plug the hole of budget deficits? There is much to be said about that, and we have reiterated many times the falseness and the hypocrisy of the opposition when it comes to privatisation.

But in the limited time I have I would like to quickly address the part where they are accusing us of having a fire sale of the T3 shares of Telstra. Let us make it quite clear that the taxpayers and the market will make their own financial judgements. They are quite capable of that. Investors make their own judgements as they consult their financial advisers. But the government has consulted financial advisers with regard to putting some $8 billion of the Telstra shares on the market. Firstly, we believe from advice that this is what the market can digest and, secondly, we are told that now is as good a time as any to sell the shares. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again we see, in the answers provided today, an out-of-touch government, a government grappling for answers, a government demonstrating arrogance. On this issue of Telstra, we see the Howard government again putting its own ideology ahead of the national interest. We see a government out of touch with the Australian people, out of touch with the innocent mum and dad shareholders who listened when the Prime Minister told them T2 was a great deal and when he said that it was a marvellous opportunity for more of the mums and dads in Australia to buy shares in this great enterprise. We know many believed him. Senator Joyce’s mum and dad did and so too did Senator Minchin’s.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. I think we are raising an unfortunate precedent in this parliament of bringing people’s families into this matter. There is constant mentioning by the other side of people’s parents, what they own and otherwise. I just caution those from the other side. It is a very poor precedent. It is utterly unnecessary to do so. It is a cheap shot.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator McGauran.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has bungled this misguided fire sale from the very beginning and the mum and dad shareholders and the Australian taxpayers will suffer the consequences. Now the government is trying to shine the torch on Telstra executives, making them the issue in this debate. It is completely unacceptable for the Howard government to now gag the management of this public company. The market should be kept informed of Telstra’s situation. The public will not wear it and the mum and dad shareholders will not wear it. They will simply see it as an attempt to deflect attention from the government’s bungling of the Telstra sale process.

This is a company in which 1.6 million Australians own shares. These are 1.6 million Australians who should be kept properly informed about the company’s prospects. They pick up the newspapers each day, watch the nightly news bulletins searching for information, listen to the radio, only to be disappointed. These are Australians who have invested their nest eggs, their hard earned savings. What do they find out? They read about a document circulated by Senator Minchin’s office to government backbenchers. It is a document referred to in the media as a T3 cheat sheet, one that gives government members answers to tricky questions from voters about the sale. An article in the Australian said:

Some of the suggested answers even have a whiff of the spruik, although the law, of course, forbids this.

I am sure the mum and dad Australian shareholders would like to cast their eyes across this document—but, of course, the document is not for members of the public and, to date, not for publication by the media, and the minister refuses to table it. Today in the minister’s answers, we had the government trying to shift the blame, trying to deflect from their own bungling of the sale. Labor’s view is that Telstra and its operations should be about nation building and we are opposed to the sale. But the Howard government have their own ideology and they disregarded the views of more than 70 per cent of Australians when they voted to go ahead with the privatisation of Telstra. John Howard has said in the past that a fire sale of Telstra would be unfair. I quote from what he said:

... we have never said that we are going to sell the shares just for the sake of getting rid of them. That would be unfair to the body of Australian taxpayers and it would certainly be unfair to existing Telstra shareholders.

Now the government are so exposed on Telstra, they have decided to sell at the bottom of the market. In 1999 John Howard said Telstra was a great deal at $7.40 and in 2002 he said that he was not satisfied that $4.50 a share was a good return to the Australian public. But now he is rushing into a fire sale of shares at $3.60. In November 2002, following the Prime Minister’s comments that he was not satisfied that the $4.50 a share was a good return to the Australian public, the minister’s spokesperson said that no further Telstra shares would be sold until the share price improved. Since then the share price has fallen from $4.50 to $3.60 and it appears now that this government is again walking a familiar path, the path of broken promises. It is the Australian public who will be left by the wayside. Why has the government broken another promise? Why is the decision to sell at $3.60 acceptable now? (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we see it again: carping from the other side about anything to do with telecommunications that this government puts forward. What is extraordinary is that we hear nothing but carping and negativity from the other side when they have absolutely no plan for the future of telecommunications services in this nation. Now, it might have escaped the notice of those on the other side that this government has gone to the last four elections with a policy to sell shares in Telstra. At those elections the people of Australia voted for this government. I know that might be hard to grasp, but we have taken that policy to the people and they have agreed with it. It was a very clear policy that we would be selling further Telstra shares and the Australian people have voted for us on that basis.

This government should not be in the job of running businesses. This government is here to run the country; businesses should be running businesses. We recognise that. Unfortunately, those on the other side are a little slow on the uptake, but we recognise that that is the best thing in the interest of Australia. I would like to quote something for senators here:

... there are broader benefits to be gained from moving the ownership of assets into the private sector, most notably in achieving greater efficiency, stronger performance and improved competitiveness in some of our key national enterprises.

I think that sounds pretty good and probably everybody on this side of the chamber would think that sounds pretty good as well. It is very interesting to see that the quote actually comes from the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. So the opposition are flip-flopping all over the place. On the one hand, they are standing over there carping about our intention to privatise and to sell further shares but, on the other hand, they have a leader who is putting forward comments like that. They are flip-flopping all over the place. They have no idea where they are and no plan to take telecommunications forward.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you have?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do, and we will. We have a very good plan to take telecommunications forward. Not only are we going to sell the remaining shares in Telstra to allow that business to run as a business but also concurrently we have $3.1 billion in place to ensure that telecommunications are of a sufficient standard right across this nation. That has come from this side of the chamber, not the other side.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You welshed on it.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We welshed on nothing. We are taking a plan forward for this nation. We have a plan and they have not.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell, resume your seat.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to note that over the past 10 years, as we have moved forward towards the full privatisation of Telstra, the reliability and availability of telecommunications services have improved. They have not gone backwards; they have improved and the average price of services has fallen by more than a quarter. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there has been less government ownership and better services delivered. It does not take long to figure that out, if you can concentrate for a moment or two.

I would like to return to the privatisation itself. We have taken this decision in the best interests of the people of this nation. I challenge those on the other side of the chamber to come up with some kind of a plan, instead of being negative and carping and doing nothing but denigrating what the government is trying to put in place—which are very good measures. The opposition has no plan whatsoever. It would be great if they could come up with one, don’t you think, Senator McGauran, and then we could judge what they would do. But we have not seen anything. We saw a bit of a half-baked idea from Senator Conroy some months ago which really did not seem to make much sense at all. Apart from that, there really has not been a lot. Do not sit on the other side of the chamber and argue about what we are doing and what we are taking forward when you have no plan of your own. It is very easy to sit and criticise and carp and it is very easy for Senator Conroy to sit on the other side of the chamber and read article after article. I thought he would have put in a few more of his own comments and his own ideas. It is not too hard to sit over there and read and read. The opposition need to come up with a plan, to come up with some of their own ideas. We have one, we are going to take the nation forward and we will continue to take the best decisions in the interests of telecommunications right across this nation.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking this afternoon to take note of the appalling response that we heard today to the questions I asked Senator Ian Campbell about the future of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—the entity which is charged with the management of the most significant environmental icon in this country. The government has allowed its future management intentions for this significant piece of environmental infrastructure to languish. Not only is the Great Barrier Reef an important environmental icon but also it is the most significant economic icon in this country. The Great Barrier Reef is worth more than $5 billion to the Australian and Queensland economies. That is why I took the opportunity today to ask Senator Ian Campbell a very straightforward question: what have the federal Howard government got in store and what are they are planning to do about the future of the authority? There have been rumours in North Queensland since the last election and today was the opportunity for the minister to set us straight.

The other motivation for today’s question was the fact that in today’s Courier Mail there was an article which described Mr Rob Messenger, the coalition shadow minister for the environment in Queensland, calling for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to be abolished and for control to be handed over to the state of Queensland. Senator Ian Campbell spent a lot of time in his response to my question—I cannot call it an answer—talking about stark contrasts. He was actually talking about a completely different matter; he was not answering my question at all. Mr Messenger’s policy is in stark contrast to the coalition candidate for the Queensland state seat of Whitsunday, who yesterday called for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to be abolished and for its powers to be handed to the federal Department of the Environment and Heritage.

We have in the paper today two candidates for the same coalition—in fact, the same party—calling for completely different responses to the management of the Great Barrier Reef, so I thought it was quite timely to ask a sensible question: what do you intend to do about it, Minister? He talked for 3½ minutes and two people had to take a point of order before he got anywhere near talking about the authority. He did that for half a sentence and then still did not take this opportunity. This was an opportunity that we had given the minister to give some certainty and surety to the people of North Queensland, the science community and the tourism industry about what the government intends to do about the management of this incredibly significant environmental icon, and he did not take it. He missed that opportunity.

There is very strong concern in North Queensland about what is going to happen to the Marine Park Authority. Following the adoption of the Representative Areas Program there was consternation, and the Fishing Party did a deal with the National Party in the lead-up to the 2004 election that they would transfer their preferences to the National Party—in the Senate, particularly—if there was a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and its operation and consultation process leading up to the establishment of the Representative Areas Program. That happened; that is a fact and it is out there.

So the deal was done on preferences, and we got the Borthwick review. For all of that time the authority and its future have been in limbo. People do not know what is going to happen in terms of the management of this absolutely significant icon, and they are still waiting. The minister had the opportunity today to clear the air and tell us who is going to manage the authority; whether or not a cabinet submission is going to go to cabinet next week, or in a few weeks time; and what the government intends to do—to leave it as it is or for the powers to be assumed by the Department of the Environment and Heritage, where decisions about management can be politically manipulated. That is not the way it was established. Decisions about the authority should be made at arm’s length from the political process. It is that important, and that is why an authority type structure is the appropriate way to go.

Can I also put on the record for the minister—because he uses all the time he can to attack the Labor Party—that, in its coastal policy, to quote the policy itself, Labor is committed— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.