By Lisa Macdonald
The government's leader in the Senate and minister for the environment, Robert Hill, announced on May 26 that the government is receiving legal advice from the Attorney General's Department about how it can bypass the Senate to sell part of Telstra.
The plan involves the sale of Telstra to a joint company owned by Telstra and the government, and the further sale to a wholly government-owned company that would not be bound by the present federal legislation prohibiting privatisation.
Whether or not the government pursues this manoeuvre will depend less on the legal difficulties involved than on its assessment of the political price it would pay for flouting the democratic process. The majority of the population still oppose the sale of Telstra.
In mid-May, the ALP, WA Greens and Senator Brian Harradine referred the government's Telstra privatisation bill to a Senate committee which will not report until August 22 — to the new Senate. This gives the Keep Telstra Public campaign, which has begun in a number of cities, more time to mobilise public opposition.
In the meantime, however, this opposition is wavering among some in the environment movement who seem to be succumbing to the government's blackmailing tactic of holding the funding of environment programs hostage to the sale of Telstra.
ACF
Before the federal election, the Australian Conservation Foundation passed a resolution rejecting any link between the privatisation of Telstra and environment programs, saying these should be covered by core budget funding. ACF's executive director Jim Downey argued that the conservation movement "has to consider issues in society other than just the environment" and could not dismiss those that might be associated with the sale of Telstra.
The resolution did not reflect the range of opinion in ACF, however. Some, such as Gold Coast branch president Peter Farrell, called on the Democrats to reconsider their opposition to the sale. This call was supported by the Wildlife Preservation Society and the World Wild Fund for Nature. The Wilderness Society refused to adopt a clear policy position for or against the sale.
By mid-May, Downey was saying that it was possible that some Telstra services could be privatised and the proceeds, along with some of Telstra's profits, directed to environmental programs. This could be done, he said, in such a way as to guarantee the continued provision of socially fair services.
ACF proposed a summit of all parties involved (except the public) to find a "compromise solution", justifying this on the grounds that if a resolution is not found, "the main thing to suffer is the environment".
In contrast, Australian Greens Senator-elect Bob Brown is maintaining his position of uncompromising opposition to the sale of Telstra. He argues that he and the Australian Greens contested the election on this position, and "trading one part of our heritage off against another part" is not acceptable.
WA Greens Senator Dee Margetts is also maintaining her opposition to the sale. While she has not ruled out the possibility that some compromise might be reached, she says it is extremely unlikely that the government could meet her concerns about the impact on telecommunications users of privatisation.
Both Green senators have made it clear that their support for the bill cannot be bought by extra funding or programs in the environment package.
On the differences between the environment peak bodies and the Greens, Brown says: "I will listen to the environment lobby, but I am representing the Australian Greens ... we have a commitment to social justice which isn't in the constitution of most of the environment groups."
Alternative funding
The Democrats too are holding the line so far. In a proposal that was almost completely ignored by the establishment media, Senator Cheryl Kernot gave notice on May 9 of a bill to amend the government's Natural Heritage Trust Fund bill so that it requires Telstra to direct 7% of its pre-tax profit into the fund for the next five years.
In the last financial year, Telstra paid over $2.7 billion to the federal government. Its estimated rate of growth over the next five years is 18%. On this basis, the Democrats maintain that after five years, and after funding all the Coalition's environment programs, the fund would still have more than $1 billion invested in it, enough to fund three times as many environment projects as the Coalition's model.
The Democrats' proposal is the right way to go. It would ensure that Telstra remains in public ownership with all the benefits that entails, and that much-needed funds are allocated to environment projects.
It is also a basis upon which to take the much bigger steps needed. According to the CSIRO, for example, $1 billion would be swallowed up addressing the salinity problems in the Murray Darling River system alone. Large amounts of money are going to be required on a recurrent basis for over a decade to begin to rejuvenate the system as a whole.
Warning
That the federal government cannot be trusted is not news. But environmentalists' warning bells should be ringing even louder following Hill's announcement on May 20 that the Senate is unlikely even to debate the Natural Heritage Trust bill until after it has approved the sale of Telstra. Hill asserts that he does not want the Senate "clogged up" with bills that aren't essential in this sitting. In fact, there is no guarantee that even if Telstra is partly privatised, the promised share of the proceeds will end up in environment programs.
At the same time, Hill is applying more pressure to the environment lobby by refusing to guarantee a renewal of funding for 10 existing conservation programs which run out of funds on June 30. The programs, amounting to only $15.3 million in expenditure, include national measures to prevent industrial pollution, monitor river health, manage World Heritage areas, combat feral pests, protect nature reserves and establish a national environment information database.
Unless the environment peak bodies resist these pressures and join with the trade unions, Democrats, Greens, the left and community activists to build a strong Keep Telstra Public campaign as rapidly as possible, the environment will be the loser, in both the short and the long term.