Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 14 June 2008, Telstra Corporation embarked upon a very specific smear campaign against me and my husband, David Forman, an employee of the industry association called the Competitive Carriers Coalition. This attack was dressed up in a thin veneer through the misrepresentation of the federal Labor government’s lobbyists’ register and code of conduct.

The piece is entirely without substance simply because the statements made by Rod Bruem and supported by Jeremy Mitchell, editor of the Telstra blog, are factually wrong. The two premises on which the piece are built are that our marriage is somehow secret and that the questions I asked most recently in Senate estimates were inspired by my desire to advance the interests of my husband’s employer. Both are wrong. Mr Bruem’s effort is so completely devoid of fact that it is beneath contempt. If they were not so offensive, these claims would be laughable.

Telstra’s continued attempts to shop this fantasy around the media in the hope that someone, anyone, will report it require me, however, to itemise the errors. If the flacks at Telstra are old enough, they would be aware of the fact that I have been a member of the environment, communications, IT and the arts Senate committee in its various forms since 1996, participating in every budget estimates of the federal parliament in the last 11½ years. I have participated in the majority of Senate committee inquiries into information technology and communications matters since my election in 1996.

The first error of fact made by Mr Bruem is the completely false implication that the questions I asked at the last round of estimates, relating to the effectiveness of the current Telstra operational separation regime, were given to me by my husband, David Forman, of the Competitive Carriers Coalition. This accusation is both false and malicious. They were not supplied by David Forman. It is an entirely legitimate part of estimates for government senators to ask officials for a critique on the performance of the previous government’s failing policy. To Mr Bruem, who claimed he has been watching Senate committees closely, this ought to have been obvious, as it is a common approach.

For many years in opposition, I prepared my own brief or worked to a brief prepared by shadow ministers. It is also not unusual for a brief to be supplied by a minister’s office to a government senator. In this case, a discussion occurred between the office of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and me around the issue of the effectiveness of the current operational separation regime, which led to some of the questions, noting of course that Labor opposed this policy when it was debated in 2005. But perhaps watching and understanding what is going on are two different things in Mr Bruem’s case.

The second error of fact by Mr Bruem is the suggestion that because he has never seen me declare my relationship it must not have happened and there was some attempt to keep our marriage secret. I note with great interest that, in subsequent correspondence to my lawyer, Telstra backed away from this claim. They subsequently were forced to note this error and cited just one example in April 2005. There are no less than three such declarations formally recorded in Hansard of Senate committees: April 2005, as Telstra were forced to concede, February 2005 and again in September 2005. I would like to go through them. On Monday, 11 April 2005 at 2.50 pm:

Senator LUNDY—Could I once again place on the record that Mr Forman, who is appearing on behalf of the CCC, is my husband.

CHAIR—It has certainly been noted by the committee in the past. Thank you, Senator Lundy.

That was from the committee inquiry into the performance of the Australian telecommunications regulatory regime. On Thursday, 10 February 2005 at 11.19am:

CHAIR—Welcome. Thank you for your time this morning. I invite you to make an opening statement, before we move to questions. For the record, Senator Lundy has informed me that she is married to Mr Forman. That interest has been noted by the committee.

That was from the Senate inquiry into the powers of Australia’s communications regulators. Again, on Friday, 9 September 2005 at 9.56am:

SENATOR Lundy—Mr Chair, before we start, I would like to place on record, as I normally do at the start of these inquiries, the fact that I am married to Mr Forman.

CHAIR—It has certainly been noted by the committee in the past. Thank you, Senator Lundy.

That was from the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and related bills inquiry. Note that on each of these Hansard transcripts, David’s name is clearly listed: Forman, Mr David, Executive Director, Competitive Carriers Coalition.

Telstra participated in the inquiries and, up until the coalition government sold the third tranche of Telstra, in every Senate budget estimates. I asked many questions about many things, especially Telstra’s extensive use of pair gain systems, bandwidth speeds, line dropouts, complaint registers, exchange upgrades, operational and structural separation, and the access regime.

It is important to note that these declarations by me have been over and above the requirements of the Senate. Our marriage is widely known and formally declared in accordance with the requirements of parliament. I have always declared my husband’s employment and the potential for conflict of interest on my spouse statement of registrable interests. As a senator with a spouse, I am required to fill out a completely separate form registering the interests of my husband. This is in addition to my own statement of interests. These forms are updated regularly. It has been declared continuously in the statement of interests and most recently recorded again in an updated declaration of interests in February this year. These declarations clearly state my husband’s employer. In addition, in the section titled, ‘Any other interests where a conflict of interest with a senator’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise,’ I have said this: Competitive Carriers Coalition has a lobbying role in federal parliament on behalf of members.

Our respective enthusiasm for and interest in IT, broadband and communications precede our marriage and have obviously continued since our marriage in 2001. Up until now, there has never been any public accusation, query or challenge that this was not enough of a declaration—never a peep from Telstra; nary a complaint. Telstra has never made a complaint to me, the Senate committee, the parliament or, to my knowledge, the media. There has been, however, an undercurrent of snide rumour and innuendo. But no-one has been prepared to put their name to the sleaze before now.

The third error is Mr Bruem’s fantasy about our family breakfast table conversations ‘planning pincer attacks’. This is not true. The fact is that David Forman did not know anything about these questions until after they had been asked and answered. But wait, there is more! The fourth error, the claim that the PM and press gallery turned a blind eye to my relationship, is absurd because it has been repeatedly and publicly disclosed by me and openly discussed by my husband in this building, including in the press gallery since our relationship began.

The fifth factual error is the claim Mr Bruem made about the lobbyists code of conduct. He should know that David Forman does not qualify as a lobbyist under the definition used in the code. To dismiss the code as sheer window-dressing based on a misrepresentation is a gratuitous political attack on the government.

In closing, I was obviously shocked and devastated not just by the obvious inaccuracy of the piece but by the sheer malice with which it has been written. Telstra have refused to correct the record despite being advised they were wrong, so it is left to me to state the truth: there is not and never has been any attempt to hide our relationship.

I note that, despite stating in correspondence that Telstra would post a statement from me on their blog, they had not when I last checked earlier this evening. This reinforces the malicious intention given that they received it last Friday. This is evidence that they have no interest in the facts. That Mr Bruem’s conduct reflects the corporate culture of Telstra can be in no doubt given the company’s role in refusing to remove Mr Bruem’s dishonest writings from its corporately funded website.

I assert my right as an elected member of parliament to ask any question at all that I believe is relevant to my role representing my constituency or related to policy matters I have an interest in. I have a duty and responsibility to the federal parliament of Australia and it is outrageous and untenable that Telstra are trying to silence my participation in such debates by making such malicious and unjustifiable complaints. I refuse to be intimidated in the discharge of my duties. I will continue to pursue Telstra and its officers in the public interest, as I have done for more than a decade.

I will do what I think I need to do, including asking for an apology and a retraction from Telstra, to protect my reputation and capacity to perform my duties. In October 2006 Bruem was interviewed about the then new Telstra ‘nowwearetalking’ blog. When asked by Trevor Cook ‘Who can blog at Telstra?’ he replied:

Everyone in Telstra was given the chance to join the team. We advertised and then selected people based on their ideas and how we liked their writing. Most people write about their work or something communications related. To be successful most blogs also need to be a bit personal, so we encourage our bloggers to let their personality shine through.

Mr Bruem has certainly done that.