Division Description Changes — Bills — Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Second Reading — 29th Nov 2021

Change	Division
representatives vote 2021-11-29#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-03-04 11:10:56	Title Bills — Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Second Reading Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Against privatisation Description ~~<p class="speaker">Ed Husic</p>~~ <p>It's worth remembering that it was about a decade ago or so that the Liberal-National coalition sold off one of the largest public assets in the nation, one of the biggest telecommunications companies in the country, Telstra. This was part of their ideological bent that they always want to sell off public assets that make a difference to the Australian public, particularly to members of the public regardless of where they live. In cities or in regional Australia, telecommunications are very important and something that people rely upon hugely. We've seen that exceedingly so through the course of the pandemic as well. I remember when the Liberals, under John Howard, sold off Telstra. What a huge impact that had. It cut jobs in their tens of thousands. Telstra went from something like 90,000 employees to 35,000. It wasn't that those employees disappeared; it's that their jobs were reshaped. They were called contractors instead of employees. Their working conditions were slashed, because the Telstra management team, at that point in time, when they were loosened from government accountability, were in the vanguard of industrial relations changes that really put pressure on working Australians and were mimicked in other parts of the business. The privatisation of Telstra at that point in time was not only bad for jobs but bad for conditions.</p> The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-11-29.35.2) to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion "That this bill be now read a second time," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This means that the amendment failed. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not declining** to give the bill a second reading, the House:* > > (1) notes: > *>> (a) this bill seeks to preserve the operation of a range of regulatory obligations imposed on Telstra follow*ing its privatisation; >> *>> (b) it was the Liberal-National govern*ment that privatised Telstra; >> *>> (c) the privatisation of Telstra, i*n the view of many communities, had an adverse impact on regional telecommunications services; and >> *>> (d) that Labor's decision to structurally separate Telstra, and establish a wholesale-only National Broadband Net*work, was a response to these failures of privatisation policy; and > *> (2) calls on all members of the House to acknowledge the Liberal-National** privatisation of Telstra, as a vertically integrated monopoly, was not in the national interest"* <p>I say this in all honesty and to be up-front: I was a union official in the union that covered Telstra workers at the time and was deeply concerned about the fate of Telstra workers. We saw this happen. The coalition cheered on this sale and cheered on the agenda that was taken on by the steadily privatised Telstra, until it came back to bite them. The management team, led by Sol Trujillo, refused to consider the heritage of Telstra—previously Telecom and before that Postmaster General's—that had helped to connect the nation and bring in a modern network. It went from the coalition and the conservatives cheering that agenda on to when the management of Telstra stood up to the former Howard government. They knew pressure was on to deliver broadband and they knew what would be coming in the future. That mob in Telstra refused to play ball with the coalition, embarrassed then minister Helen Coonan and refused to acknowledge what was needed for the regions. This is what happens when you sell off a public asset like Telstra that still has huge power the market and cannot be reined in—they just do what they want. It's one of the reasons we had to bring in the NBN: the plans for a broadband network rollout by the then Telstra, prior to the election of the Rudd government, were so woeful. I think about 19 different plans had been put forward or knocked back. So we had to see the NBN created, which, ironically, was then resisted by the coalition in opposition and bagged out. The way that they've gone on about the NBN is shameful.</p> <p>Some conditions were attached to that sale, which this bill reflects in part. I must say, Telstra management has evolved, going from that very aggressive management team that was there to seeing people like David Thodey become the CEO, and then Andy Penn. These are people I hold in high regard. They moderated that position and were a lot more mindful of their responsibility to the nation and, in particular, communities that were reliant on telecommunications. I would like to say that it's very good that someone like Andy Penn makes himself available to members of this chamber to talk through issues. Andy Penn has done great work in thinking of the cyberthreats presenting themselves to the nation and what we can do to prepare for that. I don't agree with everything that they do, but at least you can talk to them. They're not ideologues, like former generations of managers in that company were.</p> <p>As I said, Telstra are now a private entity. They're seeking to restructure their company into different legal entities. That has been reflected on throughout the course of the debate. It is in line with the management and operational strategy that they're putting in place. While Telstra doesn't need legislative change or government approval for the restructure, there are key obligations in there that would become ineffective or not apply to successor entities in the way that they currently apply. As was observed through the course of this debate, there are restrictions on foreign ownership and the way the universal service obligation operates. There are some other consumer safeguards like emergency call services, which we're hugely dependent upon, and there are requirements to provide other carriers with access to transmission towers and parts of the network to ensure we have a competitive telecommunications network.</p> <p>The bill generally takes a suitable approach, in terms of what Labor support. We have spoken up on things that we think don't work in this sector at the hand of the government, in respect of some of the policy and regulations they've sought to introduce. We will maintain our position to call things out as we see them. I make the point again: we introduced the NBN because of market failure as a result of the way Telstra was running—the way it was snubbing its nose at conservative masters, who cheered it on after its sale as a public asset, and then, effectively, bit the hand that fed it. We needed to put in the National Broadband Network. When the Liberal-National government took over, they abandoned fibre and backed a second-rate copper NBN to try to save a few bucks, saying it would cost $29.5 billion. This cost blew out to $41 billion, then to $49 billion, and now it's costing $57 billion. It's the result of things not working that we told them wouldn't work. We now rank 59th in the world for average broadband speed and 32nd out of 37 nations in the OECD. Australians know they deserve better. It's why the federal opposition has said it will keep the NBN in public ownership and expand fibre access for more places—up to 1.5 million homes and small businesses—which is terrific and will create jobs for workers in the sector as well.</p> <p>The COVID pandemic and the lockdowns it has triggered have shown us how important it is to have reliable, high-speed internet. It's not a luxury—unlike what the coalition said when they were in opposition, bagging out the need for higher speed and suggesting it only would be used for gaming and that it wasn't vital. That is a very backward view that has been totally shredded, along with the credibility of the coalition in opposition when they argued against this and tried to downplay the role of a modern communications network. We know how important it is. It's not just important for the online ordering of goods and services, or video streaming—as much as that helped take the edge off these terrible and divisive lockdowns. Affordable internet access is something we just don't talk about enough in public. It's about being able to access enough data for our needs. It's about accessing affordable hardware. It's about a network that meets the needs of people in that area. It's also about skills, and, in reality, about bridging the digital divide.</p> <p>In terms of network quality, I'm still surprised that in this day and age—when we look at the rollout of 5G, a fifth-generation mobile network, with the sixth-generation one due to hit us in about eight years time—we still have people concerned about the quality of mobile networks. In my part of outer suburban Sydney, in the Chifley electorate, people in Colebee, Marsden Park and Schofields still comment to me that the network doesn't work in the way they want. They are still frustrated with it, and it shouldn't be that way. I think we should ensure the network works in outer suburban areas.</p> <p>As a federal parliamentarian I am still concerned, when I look at communities in my electorate, about the affordability of data, the ability to find a good plan among the multitude of plans, the accessibility of hardware, and the know-how to navigate all this. I wish the government would push for better access for average Australians concerned about being left at the bottom of the digital divide. Should we expect better out of this government? I don't think so. They seem to fight more about what Facebook is doing, as opposed to fighting for fairer fuel prices or telecommunications services for average Australians. But we need access to better communications.</p> <p>I'll give an example. During the pandemic, Rooty Hill High School told me that when the lockdowns hit last year they provided year 12 students with laptops and access to mobile networks, and those year 12 students recorded some of the best outcomes in generations of students. When the network is there and the hardware is available, they can do well. But the year 10 students did not do so well, because they didn't have access to that stuff. Modern communications and access to hardware means a lot, particularly to future Australian students. We should be doing better on that.</p> <p>I mentioned earlier, in terms of modern networks, that Telstra is a big giant. The other giants I worry about in this space that lever off the network are companies that use online shopping quite a bit, with a platform that is available for people to use—companies like Amazon. With the whipped-up enthusiasm about Black Friday and all the shopping deals that come along with it, it's worth remembering that there are retail workers—those essential workers during the global pandemic—behind those sales. And it's worth remembering that some of these outfits that people rely upon online are the ones working behind the scenes. In the run-up to last week's Black Friday sales the SDA, the union representing those workers—in particular, warehousing workers in places like Amazon—were highlighting that behind the cheap prices at Amazon hides the reality of a major profit-making company that can do a much better job on delivering a fairer and better bargain for its workers. I have been concerned about some of the treatment of those workers in in a modern company like Amazon that obviously uses technology and modern communications networks to deliver services in a different way. Some of the stories about the way technology is being used by companies like Amazon to undertake workplace surveillance of workers, to prevent them from accessing simple things like toilet breaks, to monitor the way they engage with union officials who are trying to help them in their workplace conditions, is a poor reflection on this company. While operating in Australia through the pandemic might have been one of the better workplaces in Amazon's global network, it's worth remembering that our safety net of strong workplace health and safety laws contributed to that. The Australian push to make sure we do better and that workers in these warehouses can have access to workplace health and safety laws that protect them has made a big difference to the way in which people are protected.</p> <p>I'm surprised to hear that some systems equip supervisors with an augmented reality headset with facial, clothing or gate recognition; and when the supervisor's gaze falls in your direction they are fed real-time data about how you as a worker are going. Another report says there is a potential for a bracelet-like device that can vibrate and alert workers about whether they're processing materials in the right manner. When Amazon uses workplace surveillance as a basis to write to unions to complain that an organiser is standing within two metres of a worker, are they really using it for safety—given that the letter comes 10 days after the alleged incident—or was it the result of carefully reviewing workplace surveillance footage? This is stuff that a lot of people would reckon is beyond the pale and should be changed.</p> <p>A lot of us welcome new firms that are using technology in new ways and delivering to people in the broader public. This is a good thing. They've been enabled to do so by a network that's evolved to allow for a lot more e-commerce in a way that hadn't previously been envisaged. But we cannot use the glitzy sheen of technology to hide old ways of doing things—the Taylorist way of managing employees, of looking at how much they're doing, of putting pressure on their workplace health and safety, using their market power to get away with it. I think Amazon Retail can do a lot better and I don't think it's unreasonable to push for that message to be driven home. I certainly support the SDA in making this push and pushing for better.</p> <p>Coming back to the bill: again, apart from the second reading amendment put forward by the shadow minister for communications, the opposition is not standing in the way of this. We think there is a lot of common sense in this. But we need to remember, too, the history of this. The sale of a public asset, and the way it has impacted on workers and communities, should never be forgotten. Labor should always make the case that we can push for better. It's why we think the NBN can be pushed for better and it's why we've put forward positive policies to make that a reality.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Ed Husic~~
It's worth remembering that it was about a decade ago or so that the Liberal-National coalition sold off one of the largest public assets in the nation, one of the biggest telecommunications companies in the country, Telstra. This was part of their ideological bent that they always want to sell off public assets that make a difference to the Australian public, particularly to members of the public regardless of where they live. In cities or in regional Australia, telecommunications are very important and something that people rely upon hugely. We've seen that exceedingly so through the course of the pandemic as well. I remember when the Liberals, under John Howard, sold off Telstra. What a huge impact that had. It cut jobs in their tens of thousands. Telstra went from something like 90,000 employees to 35,000. It wasn't that those employees disappeared; it's that their jobs were reshaped. They were called contractors instead of employees. Their working conditions were slashed, because the Telstra management team, at that point in time, when they were loosened from government accountability, were in the vanguard of industrial relations changes that really put pressure on working Australians and were mimicked in other parts of the business. The privatisation of Telstra at that point in time was not only bad for jobs but bad for conditions.
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-11-29.35.2) to the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion "*That this bill be now read a second time,*" which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. This means that the amendment failed.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:*
>
> *(1) notes:*
>
>> *(a) this bill seeks to preserve the operation of a range of regulatory obligations imposed on Telstra following its privatisation;*
>>
>> *(b) it was the Liberal-National government that privatised Telstra;*
>>
>> *(c) the privatisation of Telstra, in the view of many communities, had an adverse impact on regional telecommunications services; and*
>>
>> *(d) that Labor's decision to structurally separate Telstra, and establish a wholesale-only National Broadband Network, was a response to these failures of privatisation policy; and*
>
> *(2) calls on all members of the House to acknowledge the Liberal-National privatisation of Telstra, as a vertically integrated monopoly, was not in the national interest"*
I say this in all honesty and to be up-front: I was a union official in the union that covered Telstra workers at the time and was deeply concerned about the fate of Telstra workers. We saw this happen. The coalition cheered on this sale and cheered on the agenda that was taken on by the steadily privatised Telstra, until it came back to bite them. The management team, led by Sol Trujillo, refused to consider the heritage of Telstra—previously Telecom and before that Postmaster General's—that had helped to connect the nation and bring in a modern network. It went from the coalition and the conservatives cheering that agenda on to when the management of Telstra stood up to the former Howard government. They knew pressure was on to deliver broadband and they knew what would be coming in the future. That mob in Telstra refused to play ball with the coalition, embarrassed then minister Helen Coonan and refused to acknowledge what was needed for the regions. This is what happens when you sell off a public asset like Telstra that still has huge power the market and cannot be reined in—they just do what they want. It's one of the reasons we had to bring in the NBN: the plans for a broadband network rollout by the then Telstra, prior to the election of the Rudd government, were so woeful. I think about 19 different plans had been put forward or knocked back. So we had to see the NBN created, which, ironically, was then resisted by the coalition in opposition and bagged out. The way that they've gone on about the NBN is shameful.
Some conditions were attached to that sale, which this bill reflects in part. I must say, Telstra management has evolved, going from that very aggressive management team that was there to seeing people like David Thodey become the CEO, and then Andy Penn. These are people I hold in high regard. They moderated that position and were a lot more mindful of their responsibility to the nation and, in particular, communities that were reliant on telecommunications. I would like to say that it's very good that someone like Andy Penn makes himself available to members of this chamber to talk through issues. Andy Penn has done great work in thinking of the cyberthreats presenting themselves to the nation and what we can do to prepare for that. I don't agree with everything that they do, but at least you can talk to them. They're not ideologues, like former generations of managers in that company were.
As I said, Telstra are now a private entity. They're seeking to restructure their company into different legal entities. That has been reflected on throughout the course of the debate. It is in line with the management and operational strategy that they're putting in place. While Telstra doesn't need legislative change or government approval for the restructure, there are key obligations in there that would become ineffective or not apply to successor entities in the way that they currently apply. As was observed through the course of this debate, there are restrictions on foreign ownership and the way the universal service obligation operates. There are some other consumer safeguards like emergency call services, which we're hugely dependent upon, and there are requirements to provide other carriers with access to transmission towers and parts of the network to ensure we have a competitive telecommunications network.
The bill generally takes a suitable approach, in terms of what Labor support. We have spoken up on things that we think don't work in this sector at the hand of the government, in respect of some of the policy and regulations they've sought to introduce. We will maintain our position to call things out as we see them. I make the point again: we introduced the NBN because of market failure as a result of the way Telstra was running—the way it was snubbing its nose at conservative masters, who cheered it on after its sale as a public asset, and then, effectively, bit the hand that fed it. We needed to put in the National Broadband Network. When the Liberal-National government took over, they abandoned fibre and backed a second-rate copper NBN to try to save a few bucks, saying it would cost $29.5 billion. This cost blew out to $41 billion, then to $49 billion, and now it's costing $57 billion. It's the result of things not working that we told them wouldn't work. We now rank 59th in the world for average broadband speed and 32nd out of 37 nations in the OECD. Australians know they deserve better. It's why the federal opposition has said it will keep the NBN in public ownership and expand fibre access for more places—up to 1.5 million homes and small businesses—which is terrific and will create jobs for workers in the sector as well.
The COVID pandemic and the lockdowns it has triggered have shown us how important it is to have reliable, high-speed internet. It's not a luxury—unlike what the coalition said when they were in opposition, bagging out the need for higher speed and suggesting it only would be used for gaming and that it wasn't vital. That is a very backward view that has been totally shredded, along with the credibility of the coalition in opposition when they argued against this and tried to downplay the role of a modern communications network. We know how important it is. It's not just important for the online ordering of goods and services, or video streaming—as much as that helped take the edge off these terrible and divisive lockdowns. Affordable internet access is something we just don't talk about enough in public. It's about being able to access enough data for our needs. It's about accessing affordable hardware. It's about a network that meets the needs of people in that area. It's also about skills, and, in reality, about bridging the digital divide.
In terms of network quality, I'm still surprised that in this day and age—when we look at the rollout of 5G, a fifth-generation mobile network, with the sixth-generation one due to hit us in about eight years time—we still have people concerned about the quality of mobile networks. In my part of outer suburban Sydney, in the Chifley electorate, people in Colebee, Marsden Park and Schofields still comment to me that the network doesn't work in the way they want. They are still frustrated with it, and it shouldn't be that way. I think we should ensure the network works in outer suburban areas.
As a federal parliamentarian I am still concerned, when I look at communities in my electorate, about the affordability of data, the ability to find a good plan among the multitude of plans, the accessibility of hardware, and the know-how to navigate all this. I wish the government would push for better access for average Australians concerned about being left at the bottom of the digital divide. Should we expect better out of this government? I don't think so. They seem to fight more about what Facebook is doing, as opposed to fighting for fairer fuel prices or telecommunications services for average Australians. But we need access to better communications.
I'll give an example. During the pandemic, Rooty Hill High School told me that when the lockdowns hit last year they provided year 12 students with laptops and access to mobile networks, and those year 12 students recorded some of the best outcomes in generations of students. When the network is there and the hardware is available, they can do well. But the year 10 students did not do so well, because they didn't have access to that stuff. Modern communications and access to hardware means a lot, particularly to future Australian students. We should be doing better on that.
I mentioned earlier, in terms of modern networks, that Telstra is a big giant. The other giants I worry about in this space that lever off the network are companies that use online shopping quite a bit, with a platform that is available for people to use—companies like Amazon. With the whipped-up enthusiasm about Black Friday and all the shopping deals that come along with it, it's worth remembering that there are retail workers—those essential workers during the global pandemic—behind those sales. And it's worth remembering that some of these outfits that people rely upon online are the ones working behind the scenes. In the run-up to last week's Black Friday sales the SDA, the union representing those workers—in particular, warehousing workers in places like Amazon—were highlighting that behind the cheap prices at Amazon hides the reality of a major profit-making company that can do a much better job on delivering a fairer and better bargain for its workers. I have been concerned about some of the treatment of those workers in in a modern company like Amazon that obviously uses technology and modern communications networks to deliver services in a different way. Some of the stories about the way technology is being used by companies like Amazon to undertake workplace surveillance of workers, to prevent them from accessing simple things like toilet breaks, to monitor the way they engage with union officials who are trying to help them in their workplace conditions, is a poor reflection on this company. While operating in Australia through the pandemic might have been one of the better workplaces in Amazon's global network, it's worth remembering that our safety net of strong workplace health and safety laws contributed to that. The Australian push to make sure we do better and that workers in these warehouses can have access to workplace health and safety laws that protect them has made a big difference to the way in which people are protected.
I'm surprised to hear that some systems equip supervisors with an augmented reality headset with facial, clothing or gate recognition; and when the supervisor's gaze falls in your direction they are fed real-time data about how you as a worker are going. Another report says there is a potential for a bracelet-like device that can vibrate and alert workers about whether they're processing materials in the right manner. When Amazon uses workplace surveillance as a basis to write to unions to complain that an organiser is standing within two metres of a worker, are they really using it for safety—given that the letter comes 10 days after the alleged incident—or was it the result of carefully reviewing workplace surveillance footage? This is stuff that a lot of people would reckon is beyond the pale and should be changed.
A lot of us welcome new firms that are using technology in new ways and delivering to people in the broader public. This is a good thing. They've been enabled to do so by a network that's evolved to allow for a lot more e-commerce in a way that hadn't previously been envisaged. But we cannot use the glitzy sheen of technology to hide old ways of doing things—the Taylorist way of managing employees, of looking at how much they're doing, of putting pressure on their workplace health and safety, using their market power to get away with it. I think Amazon Retail can do a lot better and I don't think it's unreasonable to push for that message to be driven home. I certainly support the SDA in making this push and pushing for better.
Coming back to the bill: again, apart from the second reading amendment put forward by the shadow minister for communications, the opposition is not standing in the way of this. We think there is a lot of common sense in this. But we need to remember, too, the history of this. The sale of a public asset, and the way it has impacted on workers and communities, should never be forgotten. Labor should always make the case that we can push for better. It's why we think the NBN can be pushed for better and it's why we've put forward positive policies to make that a reality.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~