Selling Telstra

[Bluey]

I know this has probably been discussed already, but what is it with this blind desire that some pollies have to sell off Telstra?

Many current Telstra shareholders are agitating for the full sale so the company can act in a manner to maximise returns for shareholders.

I though we were assured that the sale would not affect the obligations of Telstra to subsidise loss making rural developments and services for the good of the country as a whole.

Communications is an important national issue in a country as large and sparsely populated as Australia. Maximising profits from this area should never be a priority. Maximise efficiency, but efficiency gains should be put into quality services for remote areas.

Is Telstra still laying fibre cable in regional areas? No? Why not? Wouldn't have anything to do with profits would it?

It is quite blatant (and even legally required) that Telstra is already out to secure maximum value for the shareholders and no one else. If the government drops out and dumps the remaining stake on an already depressed share market they have no power over one of our biggest national assets.

One only has to look at the shambles in the UK with trains and buses to realise that as soon as you privatise something profits become the first priority, behind safety and customer service.

Telstra already has crap service, do you think full privatisation will help?

[Pessimistic]

Why don't we all agree to them selling off telstra providing they give us an undertaking to reduce the number of MPs and hangers on by 50% across the commonwealth and states in this country.

Then we will know they are seriously concerned about efficiency and not just trying to fund the next pork barrell.

[Porthos]

I like the idea of government shareholders.

[Briedis]

It's a good question Bluey.

I believe that the Libs (and the ALP before them) are just keen to sell of the rest of Telstra so that they can balance the books nicely and get back into office because Aussies are so easily fooled, mainly due to apethy.

I've always thought that it would have been far better that the government (and therefore the people) builds, maintains and controls the infrustructure of the country and then allow corporations to use it to make profits.

How much better off would we have been if the government had setup the infrustructure for mobile phones and cable TV instead of the mis-mash of cables and mobile receivers that currently dot our urban landscape.

If I have a cable for TV and I want Optus, I ring them up and get it. If I want FOXtel I ring them, perhaps I could even get certain channels from both .... far better solution for the people of Australia. Same with mobiles....

The government is now also relinquishing it's reponsibility to build roads with most major contructions in Sydney now being privately built.

It begs the question - Apart from the important tasks of travel rorts and sex scandals, what other major functions/services does the governement provide the Australian people any more?

Defence? Ha ha!

Education? Even Funnier!!

Health? To borrow from Fatty Vautin, Turn it up.

Foreign Affairs? You mean promising to send regiments of soldiers that we don't have to the US so we can kiss their butss every time they require it?

Well, they did build themselves a new Parliament House is guess...

[Steve Bracks]

Ah yes well my Goverment here in Victoria has been looking into that, but our biggest concern is the affect it would have to those Victorians living in remote and country areas. It does appear that we as a society are heading down this path to privitisation, but we need to remember that quality service is still very important to people.

[Slax]

The potential sale of Telstra provides the National Party with it's chance for one last stance to prove that it still stands for rural Australia.

If the Nats cave in to the government then the future for them as a party is bleak if not terminal. I really can not see country Australia being willing to stand by them if they do agree to the sale and it will hand the ALP the next federal election on a plate.

If the Nats do stand up to Howard and Costello it gives them back some credibility it hasn't had in years. They can stand up for their constituants properly and do what they want which is not to sell off Telstra.

What every misunderstands about this slae is that the rural communities that will be most affected by the sale of Telstra believe that if they have to pay slightly more in taxes to maintain service levels then they are happy to do so. i just want to know why a company that records before tax profits in the billions can not fix the problems it has with rural customers quickly. With all that money and the fact that the government can if it wants influence the board as major shareholder, it still doesn't happen.

Telstra should not be sold off as independent regulation does not work properly just look at the banks since deregulation.

I believe that the state should run essential services in a monopoly market so as to provide a quality product with guarantees of service. These area are:
Electricity, water, mail, telecommunications, gas, public transport and the road network.

[Briedis]

Good post Slax.

Interesting point about the Nationals. They certainly do have a responsibility to their constituents to block the sale of Telstra, or at the very least raise their concerns with Howard. Interestingly, I haven't heard of anything they have said in this matter. Anyone heard anything.

I agree about basic infrastructures should remain the property of the people, after all that is one of the major reasons we pay our taxes.

[Bomber Spirit]

Originally posted by Briedis
Good post Slax.

Interesting point about the Nationals. They certainly do have a responsibility to their constituents to block the sale of Telstra, or at the very least raise their concerns with Howard. Interestingly, I haven't heard of anything they have said in this matter. Anyone heard anything.They've set up some blatantly loaded investigation to show how services have improved in the bush, at least for a selected hand-picked group of National Party members in marginal National seats who just happen to be a representative random sample of the population.
And once that committee has reported, with the support of Senators Lees and Murray (the ones who signed pledges both to not sell Telstra and to resign from the Parliament if they left the Democrats), the sale is a fait accompli.

[Joe Mama]

At least i'm prepared for the worst case senario (the full sale of Telstra), I'm going to try to learn morse code, smoke signalls and train carrier pidgoens, beause I think that's the only way I could ever communicate with the outside world, if Little Johnnie gets his way(which Meg Lees,that spiteful fat ****, and her gimp, Andrew Murray will surely grant, just to spite Stott-Despoja).

Privatization, what a wonder it is, just look at Enron.

:(

[schalke81]

you cant have an organisation that is half privately owned and half publically owned- there is a major conflict of interest there. Whether you agree with public ownership, or private is now irrelelvant as it is already 50-50. The easiest solution is to complete the full sale of telstra, so it can become fully one of the two options, which is better for all parties concerned

[Bluey]

Of course, the easiest way is always the best.

Why doesn't the government just buy it back?

We are letting the government flog off a major asset to buy themselves back into power. I cannot understand why more people are not outraged about this!

Look at privatisation in the UK - rail, water, energy and soon post.

Massive disasters by anyone's standards. The UK postal service is losing a million a day following restructuring in anticipation of privatisation. Taxpayer's money.

This is all as ridiculous as the government funding allocated to the recent spandex fashion parade at Colonial.

[Jim Boy]

Originally posted by Bluey
Look at privatisation in the UK - rail, water, energy and soon [i]post[/]. What a disaster was that post! Two or three years ago it was highly profitable and ran an efficient inclusive service. Bit of private ethos later and it's making huge lossess, services have decreased dramatically and it's got a new tosspot name to boot (Cogsignia).

[TheMase]

I have never understood this. Maybe it is my age, I am not entirely sure.

Why did the government want to sell of Telstra in the first place, let along the other 50% now.

Didnt the government recently say that in 40 years (or was it hte year 2040), the country could no longer fund itself to run (therefore taxes would go up etc).

Well why do they persist on selling government owned companies, that make a heap of dosh?

Telstra makes around $4 Billion profit every year does it not? Then by selling Telstra they are making short term gain, for long term loss yes?

If they sell the rest of Telstra, the government will have less power over Telstra, and will not be able to regulate it as much. Which means they will give even less service to Rural communities, and the service will be even more appauling than it already is.

Business is Business, and a fully privatised Telstra will do what is best for business.....

[Dave]

Mase, simple. One word. I-D-E-O-L-O-G-Y. It's the conservative belief that business can do things better than government, despite the many glaring examples to the contrary. And like typical politicians they cannot admit when one of their core beliefs is flawed and abandon it. They have to continue to try to sell Telstra else they are admitting that privatisation of services is wrong, and they'll never do that.

[fabulousphil]

Look i actually dont agree with privatisation of government services but being realistic it looks like Telstra will be sold.

My point is if you cant beat them join them, Telsta shares are at a low $4.80 or around that mark, the share price will absolutely rocket in the near future when its announced that the remainder will be sold, its all very well having dim views about government greed but unfortunately that doesnt put cans of VB in the fridge.

[Bomber Spirit]

Originally posted by Steve Bracks
Ah yes well my Goverment here in Victoria has been looking into that, but our biggest concern is the affect it would have to those Victorians living in remote and country areas. It does appear that we as a society are heading down this path to privitisation, but we need to remember that quality service is still very important to people. Of course the people in the country will be better off with a fully privatised Telstra. Just like they are with a fully privatised Commonwealth bank - branch closures, long queues at the branches which still exist and spiralling fees are evidence of that.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[TheFoxhat]

Don't really care if it is sold , they 're not getting any of my bussiness anyway:) :D

[Goldenblue]

Originally posted by fabulousphil
Look i actually dont agree with privatisation of government services but being realistic it looks like Telstra will be sold.

My point is if you cant beat them join them, Telsta shares are at a low $4.80 or around that mark, the share price will absolutely rocket in the near future when its announced that the remainder will be sold, its all very well having dim views about government greed but unfortunately that doesnt put cans of VB in the fridge.

I fully beleive that once Telstra is sold, The government, regardless of who is in government wont have the power to stop the sure driven greed of Telstra when they introduce timed calls.

Privatisation is getting out of hand.

[Frodo]

Why does Telstra give a crap service?

IMO because it has been protected as a nationalised industry and hasn't reformed.

Can elected governments run a business?

Not in a month of Sundays, they have no experience to do so.

So IMO put businesses in the hands of business people if we want a good efficient industry.

Having said the above it is the responsibility of the governmernt to enact legislation to protect the country and ensure adequate communications (including open competition which isn't happenning currently). Licensing arrangements covering country areas and untimed local calls are easily passed into law. This is IMO a true governmental control area.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Frodo
So IMO put businesses in the hands of business people if we want a good efficient industry.

Like the electricity industry eh?

The provision of communications is not a busines, it's a service.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dave


Like the electricity industry eh?

The provision of communications is not a busines, it's a service.

Every business is a service

[Dave]

Not every business provides a service the community sees as essential. The purpose of a business is to make money. The focus of organisations providing essential services should be on the provision of the service, not the generation of profit.

For example, prior to the split of the SEC there were three emergency response teams that operated 24x7 so if your power went out, no matter when, there'd be someone on the job fixing it.

Now that it's been privatised and there are four companies carrying out the distribution of electricity there are none. Why? Becuase they all say it's too expensive for them to maintain one crew each. Profit over service. End result? If your power goes out after hours you're out of luck.

Thanks a bunch.

[carneagles]

Telstra gives crap service because there is no onus on them not to. They're huge, they're ugly, and if you want to do business in telecoms in this country, you go to them - or buy a hell of a lot of copper wire. That's not going to change if the government flogs off the balance, is it?

Private ownership won't make Telstra any more efficient. It'll just mean that they can finally tell the farmers to get stuffed - our first priority is our shareholders, after all - and the government can stand back with a stool-eating grin.

PS: Don't expect the government to legislate any real controls - for example, the foreign ownership cap on Qantas is as good as gone as soon as nobody is looking.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Dave
Not every business provides a service the community sees as essential. The purpose of a business is to make money. The focus of organisations providing essential services should be on the provision of the service, not the generation of profit.


Mmmmmmmmmm

How about food producers and shops........food is essential
Clothing
Healthcare
Dentistry
Education
buses
gas
banking
air travel
lawyers
etc,
So perhaps both major parties have got it wrong and we should have public ownership of all essential services. Oh, but then I guess the public is in the hands of the trade unions who can take them services away a lot more swiftly than the privatised SEC.
Maybe we have public ownership of the unions too.

Come back Mao and Stalin

ps The SEC was in a pathetic state before privatisation. Underfunded and inefficient. In WA Western Power is in exactly the same position. Revenue providers for the labour government with the network at crisis point. Roll on privatisation.

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Dave


Like the electricity industry eh?

The provision of communications is not a busines, it's a service.

and won't all those apathetic domestic voters love it when/if full de-regulation of the electricity markets occurs in the domestic market.

So far 2 states have ruled it out and 2 states are pussy footing around as all it means is dearer rates for the average user while the big business end of town enjoy even cheaper rates.

Up here in the NT we started de-regulating the electricity market 2 years ago and it has been a big winner for the 150 odd big consumers but with the next 3 tiers of contestability the rates are only going one way.......UP.......

The domestic market is due to be opened up in 2005 up here but will more than likely be put on hold as no govt is going to want to be responsible for rates going up between 60-150% or more..............