The Inmates are Running the Asylum

Can anyone imagine News Corp or Fairfax or indeed any serious company going six months without a managing director?

The ABC has and the organisation itself was happy about it.  Some of the ABC Board were also unperturbed.

The ABC Board itself is lacking any media experience.  The same is true of the newly appointed Managing Director, Russell Balding;  he is a bean counter from the NSW main roads department.  Balding clearly does not have the media experience or tough personality required to run the wide confederation of personalities that makes up the ABC -- and for that reason his appointment will prove popular in many quarters.

Balding's appointment means business-as-usual.  The fumbling attempt of Jonathan Shier to bring reform and relevance to the organisation is now at a dead halt.  And those who in the past have derided the importance of ratings will no doubt point to the respite in the ABC's steady fall in popularity among consumers as validating the absence of direction!  With its new Managing Director, the public broadcaster remains in the hands of the collective that presently controls it, leaving MacDonald, who has emerged as the collective's St George, as the perceived chief spokesman.

The ABC Board were put there for with one key objective -- to appoint and then support a Managing Director to reform the ABC.  This does not mean making it a Liberal-friendly organisation.  Rather, the task was to ensure that the ABC's coverage relates to and respects the broad range of values and interests in the Australian community.  This means wresting power from the workers' collective that controls the ABC.  Canberra has clearly made some ineffectual Board appointments but the Commonwealth must now live with its decisions.

The Board failed with Shier.  It should have learned in the process that the workers' collective is a formidable opponent and moved to quickly appoint a new Managing Director.  Instead Mr McDonald and his merry friends dithered to the applause of collective.

They sent head-hunters scouring the world for talent but inexplicably could find nobody.  They searched the local talent shops, again reportedly without success.

As it turned out the head hunters either did not have an eye for talent or were operating with a secret blacklist.  Somehow they were told that Nine's massively experienced David Leckie was off the agenda.  Similarly, the process failed to call in the equally experienced (and clearly available) former Packer executive Trevor Kennedy.  When Mr Kennedy actually advertised his availability, the Chairman rejected him without even discussing it with the rest of the Board.

Mr McDonald has become to resemble Sargent Schultz in the American sit-com Hogan's Heroes with regular utterance of "I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing".

Now this is not the local stamp club, it's the public broadcaster.  It not only consumes $700 million of taxpayers' money, but plays a vital role is informing us about ourselves and the world around us and it is giving a distorted, negative view.

But, it appears that the ABC Board after seven months remains at square one and the collective is firmly in control.

Media Watch is back trashing its competitors in the private media with bile and junk journalism.  Four Corners pilgers-on.  Lateline is into its 1000th segment of the children overboard storey.  Radio National is fighting harder then ever for the public sector to reclaim the command heights and to bring back Joan Kirner.  JJJ has become the official voice of M1 alias S11.  John Howard's effigy remains the centre piece of every dart board in the organisation.

There were worse options than the Balding appointment.  In March Mr McDonald reputedly tried to parachute into the job the ABC's Forrest Gump, Max Uechtritz, to the loud cheers of the collective.  He was only stopped by strenuous rumblings from the board.

Clearly the Chairman of the ABC Mr McDonald is not up to the job and should go.  He has failed completely in his main task of finding a suitable Managing Director.  The organisation has been on auto pilot for more than six months.  It is malfunctioning and he apparently has no plans to change things soon.

Mr McDonald is protected from the ire and influence of ABC shareholders -- all of us who pay our 8 cents per day -- and from accountability with a no-sack clause in his contract.  And his contract is not up for a few years.

Perhaps it's time his other Board members did their job, tapped him on the shoulder and told him Paris beckons.  And then start all over, rebuilding our ABC.

The Taxman Cometh

While the 2002/03 Federal Budget was in the main a bland affair, it is likely to give many businesses real grief.

The budget funds for a new army of tax collectors, arms them with new tools of extraction and orders them to go earn their keep.

The Budget gives the Australian Tax Office (ATO) an addition $1.5 billion over four years.  The money is to be used to hire around 2,200 extra staff (on top of the ATO's existing 18,000 employees) and to arm them with new computers and other support facilities.

For this "investment" the Government assumes that it will receive at least $1.5 billion in higher tax receipts.  That is the ATO has been told that it has to at least match each additional dollar received with an additional dollar of tax raised.  The target for big business is higher with $11 in higher taxes for each $1 of new resources.

While the bulk of the new resources will be used for to improve the overall tax collection effort, income and fringe benefit taxes have been specifically targeted.  GST collections (which is not consider as tax in the Budget papers) is also forecast to rise by $140 from better compliance and collection efforts with $45 million to be extracted from small businesses.

To assist in their efforts, the ATO is shifting from "education" to "enforcement" mode.  Their rationale is that the new tax system is up and running, and therefor the ATO can shift its resources away from being Mr. Nice to collecting the money.  The truth is that the new tax system is riddle with uncertainty, ad hoc rulings and other compliance problems.  And many businesses, particularly smaller one, are still struggling to recover from the hit the GST did to their cash flows.  But the election is over and revenue is now king and the ATO knows it.  They have assisted their cause by giving the government a new "independent" report which argues that there are untold riches to be gained by letting the ATO loose on business.

The budget includes a couple of other innovations designed to raise more revenue.  First the government plans to advance some aspects of the business tax agenda.  These "reforms" are expected to raise an additional $560 million over the next four years.  Obviously the revenue neutral principles upon which tax reform was supposedly based has been jettisoned in the post election environment.  On the positive side, the government appears to have assigned Treasury's beloved "tax value method tax system" to the too hard basket and for a good reason, it is a compliancy nightmare.

The other innovation is the decision to combine the BAS and the ASIC registration numbers.  This make sense.  It will eliminate duplication and make compliance easier.  However, it will also make the tax collectors efforts more efficient and effective and assist greatly in meeting revenue raising targets.

We all recognise that governments needs money and that their demands will grow with the ageing of the population.  However, there has to be a better way than fleecing businesses with complex tax laws administered by an army of bounty hunters.

ADVERTISEMENT

Foreign Aid Bodies Need Closer Scrutiny

It's probably just as well the proposed anti-terrorism laws have been scuttled by the Senate.  Otherwise, most of Australia's foreign-aid non-government organisations would probably be out of business.

Of particular concern would be the provisions that give the power to proscribe organisations where, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, that organisation affects the integrity of another country.

Some would view this as proof that there is something wrong with the anti-terrorism bill.  But this tends to prove my suspicion that there is something wrong with many of our foreign-aid NGOs.  It seems that Australia's foreign-aid NGOs are increasingly being drawn into the politics of the countries in which they operate.  The notion of non-politicised humanitarian aid seems to be unfashionable in foreign-aid circles.

A recent edition of Australian Story contained the revelations that the wife of East Timor's President used her paid position in an Australian foreign-aid NGO to support her activism against the Indonesian government, which included spying.  While I have sympathy for that cause, I was stunned by the lack of reaction to these revelations.  Australia's foreign-aid peak body, the Australian Council of Foreign and Overseas Aid, has no reference to this incident on its website or announcement of an investigation.  One would have to think that there is a point where this politicisation degrades the capacity of aid agencies to discharge their core function of delivering aid.

This has serious implications for the foreign policy of countries such as Australia.  Because, increasingly, foreign aid budgets are not being administered directly by governments, but through foreign-aid NGOs.  So these NGOs may be viewed as agents of the governments funding them.  During his last trip to Indonesia, John Howard received a frosty reception from several senior Indonesian political leaders.  Indonesia's powerful parliamentary Speaker, Amien Rais, snubbed Howard, citing in part Australia's alleged support for the independence of West Papua.

The Howard Government has never challenged Indonesia's sovereignty on West Papua.  Deputy Speaker Soetardjo Soerjogoeritno claimed that Australia was helping fund NGOs that backed independence for Papua and Aceh.

Just as it has been hard for Australians to accept President George W. Bush's free trade rhetoric, when confronted by the reality of massive subsidies in the latest Farm Bill, it is probably hard for the Indonesians to reconcile the words of reassurance from Howard over Indonesian sovereignty over its troubled provinces while at the same time being faced with activities of Australian government-funded NGOs actively supporting independence.

Addressing the problems caused by the activities of our foreign-aid NGOs is a problem that the Howard Government doesn't want to confront.  But it is one that it must not shirk if it wants to improve its relations with countries such as Indonesia.  Labor is in no position to enjoy the Government's discomfort.

This is a bipartisan problem.  Its situation is even worse.  Only last year, the ACTU passed a resolution supporting independence for West Papua.  Engagement with Asia has to be problematic for Labor when 60 per cent of your delegates support the separatist movements in your neighbours' backyards.

Clearly, the anti-terrorism bill was in need of revision and needs to be drafted with greater clarity and precision.  As it stands now, the bill would endanger many activities that could easily be argued as quite lawful and legitimate.  Governments have no business in interfering with such activities.  But any anti-terrorism bill has to deal with what Bush described as the terrorist tendency to "oftentimes use nice-sounding, non-governmental organisations as fronts for their activities".

Bush's remarks occurred after Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil's investigation into the September 11 attack found that Osama bin Laden used a number of NGOs to feed his terrorist network.  NGOs were chosen because they are often "above" suspicion, but more importantly have minimal standards of reporting and unlike government or business have no one scrutinising them.

While Canberra revisits its anti-terrorism bill, it should re-examine the activities of Australian foreign-aid NGOs before other countries do it for us.

ADVERTISEMENT

Submission to the Western Australian Electricity Reform Task Force

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Electricity is commonly divided into four businesses:  generation, transmission, distribution and retailing, with a fifth function:  scheduling, being retained under some neutral ownership.

Of the four main functions, distribution is best regarded as a natural monopoly.  Its price, therefore, has to be controlled.  Ideally this should be against an external reference point with the average price set using a CPI-X formulation so that the distributor is incentivised to operate efficiently.  Transmission is also commonly thought of as a natural monopoly, although more recent developments hold the prospect that new transmission could become a deregulated, market-provided service.

The Task Force has proposed a vertical disaggregation of Western Power into single businesses covering:

• retail,
• transmission/distribution, and
• generation.

It also envisages an independent System Management, perhaps with its own board, undertaking system operation, market operation and system planning functions.

We consider the Task Force's proposals to be excessively conservative, especially in the treatment of generation and retailing, sectors where competitive provision is widely recognised to be readily achieved.

The major impact of adopting an ultra-conservative approach to the break-up of Western Power will be seen in terms of higher generation costs.  To a considerable degree, these higher costs will stem equally from retailing, as retailing and generation are interdependent.  Retailing is the major driver in bringing about the sort of generator structure that best meets the market's needs.  But this cannot take place unless there are alternative suppliers of generation, because a monopoly will frustrate the structural change in production which competitive provision ensures.

Although it may be appropriate to have the SouthWestern integrated system (SWIS) operated by a single distribution business, we also believe that it is poor policy to combine the local poles-and-wires functions with those of transmission.  We take this view because transmission is showing signs of becoming a contestable service and therefore requires a different corporate philosophy than distribution.  Hence, we would prefer to see the more conventional disaggregation of the poles-and-wires business into transmission and distribution.  That way, there is also greater assurance (additional to that stemming from an independent planning facility), that no favouritism would be shown to the particular solutions of an affiliate over others offered by a rival.

Those opposed to this view might argue that separate businesses give rise to higher overhead costs.  This need not be so and was, in any case, no barrier to such a disaggregation in other relatively small systems such as Tasmania and South Australia.

Finally, Western Australia has long experienced much higher electricity prices than those in other States.  The most recent ESAA data show WA residential customers paying 25 per cent and business customers 40 per cent more than the Australian averages.  Cheaper electricity prices are important both for households in WA and for industry competitiveness in processing where the State sees its competitive advantage.

Although it might be contended that WA prices are higher as a result of underlying costs, competitive provision is likely to prove this not to be the case.  Jurisdictions that have privatised their electricity have experienced massive efficiency improvements.  Over the 1990s, privatised Victorian generators scaled down their manning levels to achieve the fastest growth in productivity among Australian generators and at the same time vastly improved their availabilities.  SPI Powernet, the privatised Victorian transmission business, halved its staff levels post-privatisation and, by greater use of contractors, reduced operating costs by 35 per cent.  SPI achieved this and the lowest average controllable operating expenditure per MWh in Australia, in spite of the average age of its plant moving from 21 to 29 years over the period.

Arguably, improvements like this are achievable under public ownership.  But in practice this rarely occurs, especially over an extended period.  Accordingly, we would urge the Task Force to promote the benefits of a more rapid pace of privatisation than will emerge from simply inviting the private sector to participate in incremental and replacement developments.

THE ROLE OF THE ELECTRICITY RETAILER

As retail margins are only about 5 per cent of prices, many consider that the role of the retailer is not material to the promotion of efficient electricity supply.  Such judgements about the role of the retailer in bringing efficiency and consumer benefits in liberalised markets are incorrect.  This is because, under competitive circumstances, the retailer is the de facto agent of the consumer and therefore the driving force of a market that responds to the needs of the consumer.

That role of the retailer as the consumer's agent is assumed of necessity -- if abandoned, or neglected, a rival will step in.  The retailer is the link between the different elements of production and the customer.  Its functions are sometimes thought largely to comprise breaking down bulk supplies into packages useful to the consumer, reading meters correctly and cheaply, and showcasing producer's goods and making them available at convenient locations.  But even this important list of functions offers an inadequate portrayal.  The retailer's activities must extend to discovering what the consumer wants and seeking out the cheapest sources of supply at optimal quality levels.

The homogenous nature of electricity does not negate this.  Electricity may be undifferentiable but its supply is from highly variable sources.  In terms of assembling inputs, the retailer must decide, based on its customers' and target customers' requirements:

• how much power to contract rather than buy at the day-ahead wholesale pool market
• how much of different sorts of power (baseload, regular peak, needle peak) to buy;
• how much price risk to take for the needle peak;
• how to respond to the customer's relative preference for some less tangible values (such as those associated with "green" power).

In many cases, the retailer will need to assist the consumer in defining her own needs.

This process will also include discovering prices at which interruptability might be rewarded, seeking out the customers who might find compensation for this of value and alerting them to the opportunities, and the mechanism for implementing such interruptability.

Important in achieving this are the vast differences in the value of electricity at known times of the day and the year and on ad hoc occasions.  The consumer, and her agent the retailer, have incentives to discover what cost savings they can make by shifting their demand out of those periods.  The corollary to the value to the parties of tailoring their needs to costs is the benefit of the system having a flatter load.  As electricity can vary in value on the National Electricity Market from $0-$10,000 per MWh, a flatter supply load means a clear social benefit. ⁽¹⁾  The retailer is under great pressure to seek out inputs from all sources.

Generally, retail competition in Eastern Australia has meant that retailers have been better focussed on needs, including time-of-day needs, and have been prepared to pay more for peak power or fast start, thereby encouraging the development of such plant.  This has greatly facilitated the ongoing tailoring of supply to market demand.

The retailer's role may also extend to offering energy-saving services or to offering certain services on condition that the customer undertakes particular actions, for example, installing power-saving globes.  The retailer will also seek out ways of saving money for itself and its clients and needs to be alert to potential economies of scope (or synergies) in bundling its goods together with other similar products, sharing services of specialists such as meter readers, back-office functions etc.  With the onset of Full Retail Competition, at least one Victorian retailer, is seeking to attract customers by offering a steep discount if the customer agrees to direct billing.

The retailer is compelled to be the agent of the consumer, as long as the consumer can move to an alternative agent.  The retailer is an agent in a far more comprehensive sense than any representative body because it has to weigh up the needs against the available product inputs -- and to do so correctly or face replacement.

A retailer, especially one under private ownership, has a very strong focus on profitability.  This means that they will raise prices either to discourage customers who impose too high a cost on the services they can offer, or better to align the costs those customers entail with the prices they charge.  Such activity also performs a valuable social function by better aligning costs and prices.

Of course, this process is stunted where full retail competition is not permitted. ⁽²⁾  It is also greatly facilitated by having more than one retailer.  Simply leaving existing retail functions in the hands of a single retailer is inadequate, even if the market is fully opened to additional suppliers.  A new retailer has to achieve critical mass and, if from interstate, embark upon a learning process, establish credentials and relationships with others in the supply chain and so on.  While all this is achievable, it raises the threshold, and means that the benefits of competition are likely to be muted or at least delayed.

Doubtless, a concern of the Task Force in opting for a single State Retailer is that WA may have too small a customer base economically to carry more than one retailer for the smaller customers.  This may be correct, but at the present time the optimal size of retailers in the energy business is still being determined and the initial decision of the government should not predetermine this.

In any event, it might be expected that out-of-State retailers will eventually seek to establish themselves in WA, either in association with an incumbent or as independents.  This should not be discouraged -- even by a government concerned to avoid privatisation of the electricity supply industry.  Indeed, as retailing under all Australian approaches is to be fully opened to competition, irrespective of the choices made by government owners, it is by no means certain that a State-owned system will prevail over private competitors.

These considerations aside, retail itself should present fewer ideological difficulties for an anti-privatisation administration than is the case with the "essential facility" functions of the poles and wires, or with the capital-intensive generators.

Our recommendation would therefore be for the State to allocate existing customers to one of two retailers.  We would favour both of these being privatised but in any event would not wish to discourage them forming alliances with other suppliers interstate, overseas and with the retail arm of Alinta Gas.

GENERATION

It is not possible to have retail competition operating effectively if there is no generation competition.  A retailer faced by a local monopoly has no incentive to search out the needs of the customer and package energy in ways that meet those needs most cheaply, since the generator's incentive to respond is stifled.

It is true that over time supply dominance will be eroded to the degree that it fails to fully respond to customer needs.  But this can take a very long time.  In the UK, the duopoly of the two major portfolio businesses which inherited the coal-based assets of the CEGB took over ten years to break down, even though this was assisted by the somewhat unexpected emergence of a more competitive fuel (gas) and resolute action on the part of the regulator.

During that period, it is reasonable to expect that the UK consumer lost in terms of the price of the energy available.  Although market forces may eventually extinguish such losses, their impacts are real.  This is all the more serious for Western Australia, because in contrast to the UK, Western Australia's energy and raw materials constitute one of the State's more important competitive advantages.

The potential for competitive provision given Western Australian structure

The Task Force considered it is feasible to separate the generation business into four independent units.  The arguments which it found persuasive against this approach could equally have been put (indeed were put) by every other integrated generation business that has sought to prevent disaggregation as a means of introducing competitive provision.

Chief among these arguments was the Task Force's view about the complementarity of Western Power's units.  In fact, this does not distinguish the WA business from that in any other jurisdiction;  it would be a strange business in any industry that did not develop its different component parts so that they were complementary.

Indeed, whether or not production is horizontally integrated, new capacity will frequently be designed to avoid head-on competition with incumbent capacity.  This is all the more so when the incumbent capacity has high sunk costs and is therefore unlikely to be forced out of production.  Hence, any new player would probably invest so that it was taking advantage of niche opportunities -- in other words, was complementary to the existing providers.

The Task Force's analysis proceeds to examine experiences in other States and concludes that WA is similar to South Australia, which a NEM Task Force in June of last year suggested did not have sufficient competition.

There are, in fact, alternative views about the competitiveness of South Australia.  A report by ABARE ⁽³⁾ observed no incidences of market power in South Australia for the period of its analysis.  South Australia experienced higher prices, but these were simply a function of the State's higher energy costs.  The ABARE report went on to argue, albeit controversially, that the South Australian outcome was in contrast to that of Victoria, where it claimed to have found market power.

Since mid-2001, the price in South Australia has closely tracked that of Victoria, and the tight supply situation has been changed as a result of the commissioning of Pelican Point, changed to such a degree that the Northern Power Station of Flinders Power is presently under-contracted.

South Australian capacity last year comprised:

Genco	Capacity (MW)	Fuel
Optima	1280	gas
Flinders	700	coal
Pelican	478	gas
Synergen	400	Gas/distillate
CUBE	180	gas
Origin	180	gas

There were three businesses that might be regarded as baseload plus the 500 MW interconnect with Victoria (for which firm contracts cannot be bought).

In SWIS Western Australia, Western Power could be divided into:

Genco	Capacity (MW)	Fuel
Muja	1040	coal
Kwinana	901	gas
Pinjar	586	gas
Collie	330	coal
Mungarra	112	gas

Western Australia also has other sources, which account for 20 per cent of the capacity in the SWIS.  It would be no less rivalrous than South Australia in terms of the number of independent players, and does in fact have more competitors than the three in NSW (four if Snowy is included) which by and large have brought vigorous competition.

In this respect, the size of Southwest interconnected market is about six per cent greater than that of South Australia, while generation is some 15 per cent greater.  Although examination of this matter would repay further analysis, prima facie it would appear that Western Australia can expect to see greater competition amongst generators than in South Australia.  The number of suppliers, four or five businesses split from Western Power plus the existing independent suppliers, is far from ideal.  This is, however, sufficient for workable competition.

THE TASK FORCE'S PROPOSALS TO BRING ABOUT INCREASED COMPETITION

Although the Task Force is disposed towards leaving Western Power as a single generation business, it examines certain synthetic structures to ensure that the integrated monopoly operates more as though it was in a competitive market.  Most of these "virtual arrangements", designed to provide some operational independence for particular portfolios of generation assets, are difficult to see as anything but poor alternatives to more genuine independence.

The corporatisation model under a single State ownership is most certainly deficient.  The shareholder Minister cannot realistically divide his own mind into different shareholder Ministers who must avoid divulging commercial in-confidence information from one firm to another for which he is responsible.  Corporatisation is, therefore, a poor substitute for privatisation of a disaggregated Western Power.  But both NSW and Queensland would plausibly contend that their State generators under independent Boards are capable of matching the efficiencies of their privately-owned counterparts.  It is unquestionably true, as a range of indicators demonstrate, that the present NSW generators are more efficient than when they were under a single "not-for-profit" ownership.  The mere implementation of a corporatisation framework would not have provided as potent conditions for promoting efficiency if the single generation business had been left intact.

The Task Force examines some means by which a greater commercial rivalry can be injected into the operations of a Western Power that remained under a single ownership entity.  Among the options considered is leasing the assets -- a course followed in France and in Ottawa, partly to reduce the risk to the government of having an asset that may face volatile market prices.

Leasing could offer the potential of providing equal incentives to full private ownership under certain circumstances.  These would certainly be the case under the South Australian model of very long leases.  Some success is also likely even from shorter-term leases, such as those pioneered in France by the water companies.  To apply these to electricity would need considerable thought, especially where the lessor saw value in putting in new capital.

All this said, if the Task Force take the view that there is inherently inadequate competition given the structure of the generation assets, no amount of tinkering with governance will provide an improvement.

Our own view on this matter is very different.  Our examination of other markets shows that Western Australia can have a workable market based on commercial rivalry.  And commercial rivalry is far superior to other means of trying to bring efficiency.

Reform in other jurisdictions offers blueprints for Western Australia.  Initial vesting contracts to the different generator entities is an important transition tool.  In the fundamentally contractual market that is invariably found in electricity, (except where not allowed, as in the failed Californian model) generators will be keen to ensure that they are contracted.  They will be equally keen to ensure that they are operating at least to the capacity of their contracted load, to avoid having to find replacement energy at potentially very high prices.

The alternative of continued monopoly provision does not provide the stimulus to improved efficiency and lower prices.  Western Australian electricity prices have been 25-40 per cent in excess of those of other major States.  Views differ on whether or not this is as a result of the efficiency of supply rather than intrinsically higher costs.  If monopolistic behaviour elsewhere is a guide, at least some of the costs would be reduced by competition.  The extent of these gains and their realization will be difficult to test unless there is a market with rivalrous suppliers operating beyond the current low market shares.

---

ENDNOTES

1.  In Texas according to a McKinsey article, around 30% reduction took place where metering allowed differential prices to be charged (prices were not specified);  see Power by the Minute, February 2002.  Similarly, Faruqui et al report that Georgia Power saw similar load reductions for their "most responsive' group with interval meters at prices of about 30 cents per kWh;  see Regulation Fall 2001 Getting out of the dark.

3.  See p.30f, of our Submission to COAG's Energy Market Review

3.  C. Short and A. Swan, "Competition in the Australian National Electricity Market," ABARE Current Issues (January, 2002).

Stop Strangling Telstra

Telstra has too many bosses.  It has the Commonwealth government and through them the electorate, it has its shareholders, a group which includes nearly every Telstra employee.  It has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications Authority, and it has its customers.  Then there is the industry self-regulation, the Telecommunications Ombudsman, the Australian Communications Industry Forum and the Telecommunications Access Forum.  The net result is that Telstra shares will continue in the doldrums.  Investors know that Telstra is being pulled in too many directions, serving too many interests.  It is time that Telstra was set free to perform.

The nearer Telstra comes to full privatisation the higher the price demanded by the hold-outs, in particular the rural voters.  Like the proverbial widow sitting in the last house needed by the property developer there comes a time when the premium price is withdrawn, the developer gives up, or goes ahead without it.  There is a shopping centre at Caloundra in Queensland's Sunshine Coast where a little old house sits right in the middle of a shopping centre car park.  Presumably, the owner held out for more money, or just the fear of leaving home, and when the developer could wait no longer, the shopping centre went ahead anyway, complete with a house marooned in a sea of cars and shopping trolleys.

When the time comes you can be sure the beneficiaries of the estate will not reap a premium on the house.  Who would buy it, what rent would it command?  Are the hold-outs of the Telstra sale running the same risk as the shopping centre widow?  Will the desire to regulate and press further obligations on Telstra make it less worth selling and, more important, a less valuable corporation?

The failure to sell Telstra will create the worst possible economic and social outcome.  An inefficient Telstra burdened by increasing Community Service Obligations, a poor return with millions of dissatisfied shareholder-voters, a declining return to government and a weak international competitor with no capacity to raise capital from its principal shareholder.

Some of the old arguments for both keeping and for selling Telstra are looking shop-soiled.  The favourite of the "sellers" is that the government could retire debt.  The government no longer has a debt problem.  Previous asset sales like the first two tranches of Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas and CSL and so on, took care of that.  The favourite of the "retainers" is that Telstra is a monopoly and could not be sold as a monopoly.  It now seems clear that is no longer so.  Competition in the sector is fierce, there are over 40 carriers in the market and some have been unable to survive the competition.  The real debate about the sale of Telstra is what is best for Telstra as a telecommunications company.  Not Telstra as a government entity, or a milch cow for the revenues, or as an asset to be realised, or as the saviour of rural Australia, or as the third favourite demon of the regulators after big oil and big banks.  No, just Telstra, Australia's biggest company.  The company being frigged about by every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants a bit of payback against anything big and bountiful.  Governments have to stop mimicking current affairs programs, playing the role of "protecting the little Aussie bleeder".  Australians are extraordinarily well protected in the telecommunications market.  But its time to let Telstra perform without the hobbles.

The regulation of the telecommunications sector is extraordinarily far-reaching.  There is a clear universal service obligation to ensure that standard telephone services and payphones are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business.  There is continued access to untimed local calls.  There is the customer service guarantee.  There are special benefits for rural and regional customers of carriage service providers.  There is a price-cap regime.  There is a regulatory structure designed to stimulate competition.

The latest report of the ACA on the performance of the major telecommunications carriers demonstrates the very detailed scrutiny under which carriers perform.  There are measurements of how well Telstra performs in making new connections, in fault clearance, and for all mobile networks, call congestion and call drop-out rates.  Call centre performance and mobile number portability is measured for all carriers.

For those worried about foreign ownership there are restrictions on aggregate foreign ownership to a 35% ownership stake in Telstra;  and restrictions on individual foreign ownership to a 5% ownership stake.  Telstra's head office, base of operations and incorporation by law, must remain in Australia and its Chairman and the majority of its directors are Australian citizens.

And there's more!  Telstra and all other licensed telecommunications carriers are required under the Telecommunications Act 1997 to produce industry development plans for the development in Australia of industries involved in the manufacture, development and supply of facilities relating to carrier business;  and research and development activities relating to such industries.

The policy aim in telecommunications is clear, it was set out five years ago when the APEC Telecommunications Ministers endorsed a Fully Liberalised Telecommunications Services Sector.  Users should have a choice of suppliers.  Suppliers should be able to extend their business activity without restrictions on entering the market.  Suppliers and users should be able to benefit from a full range of competitive safeguards that would ensure non-discriminatory treatment of service providers and users.  Investors should have confidence to invest in the telecommunications industry and in companies reliant on telecommunications services.  Governments should have clearly defined responsibility to provide for transparent and non-discriminatory policy arrangements to meet the needs of their economies and provide for a full range of consumer protection measures.

Each of the elements of a liberalised telecommunications system in Australia is in place, including all the regulation required to ensure competition and fairness.  The debate over Telstra is no longer about the shape of the regulatory system, it is about Telstra the company.  It should be left alone to perform to its best.