Yeah well, I agree with both sides of the argument.

What has happened to the Telstra shareholders borders on fraud. Personally, I would like to see them sue the government for the money they have lost.

Fraud or not, it is absolutely necessary. The mess the libs created by selling Telstra with its monopoly intact was an complete shamozzle. Do you guys know there had had to be a single Federal court set aside for handling disputes between Telstra and the government. Out of the 100's(?) of cases that have been through there, Telstra has won 1. It behaved exactly like - well a private monopoly without restraints. It had to be fixed.

Graham,

“...You agree that it is theft, but argue it is OK because it enhances competition”

I don’t think the overall arrangement is the best it can be – far from it – but I’m seeing a positive aspect to it: ie, more competition will take the pressure off ordinary people paying their bills. When I said one man’s meat is another’s poison, I was implicitly acknowledging that there are inherent defects in the justice in the situation.

“Well, if that competition is such a good thing, wouldn't you be prepared to pay for it, rather than expect the person who owns the right you want to pre-empt to pay for it for you?”

If I could pay for it at the time, yes. But even with the obvious aberrations in the system, I believe that in the long run everyone will pay a fair price for everything they receive. All debts will be recovered. The problem is the very lumpy way in which things occur which has its basis in the diversity of viewpoints in society. There’s no way of flattening out the lumps without causing lots of other problems I suspect. The yin-yang principle rules supreme.

The best answer is, as you say, for a fair price to be paid for the asset at the outset. But there are a lot of commercial factors that can militate against such an outcome at sale time.

Yabby,

“But at the end of the day, its still billions coming out of workers nesteggs, most are just not aware of it.”

I’m sure that’s right. But, it’s not just Government decisions robbing people of their nesteggs – eg, it’s apparent that industry super funds are doing much better than non-industry funds. The difference would appear to be that retail funds are creaming management fees off their clients’ savings to the point where their clients may be $100k worse off by the time they retire compared with their industry fund counterparts. So, the erosion of superannuation is happening in more ways than one – let’s at least be clear and honest about that.

Some people feel threatened by change,
and that's understandable. It's better to
be safe then sorry - isn't it? And the old
ethos of, "We've always done it this way,"
and "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" still
seems to apply in many mindsets.
However, we have an elected Government that
seems to have the determination to carry this
country kicking and screaming into the 21st
Century and beyond - despite the old protestations
of some conservative thinkers.

We're told that"

"Legislation is going to be introduced that paves
the way for Australia's largest telco to
voluntarily separate its retail and wholesale areas."

Not everyone agrees that this is a bad thing.

"Everyday Australians are set to reap the benefits
from the potential cut-up of Telstra,"
Consumer Group Choice has declared.

"Introducing a fairer marketplace was a win for
everybody who used the telephone, watched cable TV,
or accessed the internet," Choice Policy Director
Gordon Renouf said.

"Consumers will only gain benefits from improved
productivity where there is fair competition among
telco retailers," he added.

We're told that:

" We all know that consumers have long suffered from a
lack of competition in this market.
And this will help the roll-out of the Government's
National Broadband Network."

As Australian Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam sums up:
"We see this as an opportunity to get it right
and perhaps learn from the mistakes of the past.
This sector has been held back for far too long."

So much has been done to and about Telstra that is so wrong - beginning with the first sell-off - the promise that a percentage would go towards environment, second sell-off failed to deliver to investors and failed to deliver to environment - guess I'm just repeating most of what others have pointed out.

But what I'd like an opinion on, since Telstra illustrates my conundrum so perfectly, is who is more important?

The shareholder?

or

The consumer?

And why?

Sad to see all these good people complaining but the fact is they were conned by johnny coward and ripped off by that mexican idiot. When will you people learn? Aside from the fact that they already owned Telstra the people that bought into the sell off forgot/ignored the realities of capitalism and its crashes and booms and the fact that governments change and reverse previous government policies. Telstra was never "just a normal company" and howards sell off was designed to rip off the investors so he could laud himself for paying of government debt. Caveat emptor I say.

*It is also my understanding that what was handed over to the Future Fund was a substantial part of the PROCEEDS of the sale of Telstra, not a share of Telstra itself*

Forrest, your understanding there could be wrong, for the FF was
handed a large chunk of Telstra shares, but limits were placed on
when they could flog them off. This landed up making the FF the
largest Telstra shareholder, with the board needing to consider
what David Murray thinks.

Taxpayers guarantee the pensions of Commonweealth public servants,
so if the FF is short, taxpayers will need to cough up the difference.

*Fraud or not, it is absolutely necessary.*

Ahem, rstuart, now we know what "morality" means to you :)

RobP, if the Govt sold you your house, then decided they needed
the land for Govt purposes after all, would you expect compensation
for your house, or just accept that its in Australia's interest
that voters benefit, if the Govt decides not to compensate you?

Yes, some super funds charge fees for their services, they play
by the rules. Anyone is free to move their super fund money elsewhere.
In this case, the Govt takes peoples money, then makes
up new rules as it goes along, to suit its political agenda. You
are comparing apples and oranges here.

Fact is that when Telstra was Govt owned, they screwed customers
blind. It used to cost me 9$ an hour to be on the internet,
when Mr Blount ran Telstra for the Govt. Nobody cared.

So who is going to compete with the NBN, when its a fat and lazy
Govt monopoly?