nowwearetalking is about telecommunications and you. It's where you can become involved, have your say, and Telstra listens - on issues affecting all Australians and the telecommunications industry. nowwearetalking is managed by Telstra. Find out more about this site.

Customise Page

Customise topic view

Please select items below for your custom page.

Re-organising your page

Log in here

Forgotten your password?Use ssl security

Register now

Use ssl security

Customise topic view

Customising your topic view will tailor your user experience by only displaying content which is relevant to the topic/s you have selected.

This setting will apply site-wide and will remain applied until you wish to change it.

Customise your modules

Customise your modules allows you to add or remove panels of content which appear on the homepage.

These can be added to or removed from the homepage at any time.

Re-organising your page

Surely Mr Rudd can't be serious?


A move by the Federal Government to introduce a 'code of conduct' (www.smh.com.au) for political lobbyists in Canberra sounds like a great reform, but one that is easily dismissed as sheer window dressing.

Mr Rudd is proposing to put more restrictions on exactly how and when lobbyists influence our elected members of parliament - but what makes it hard to take seriously is that the Prime Minister and the Canberra press gallery appears to have turned a blind eye to one of the closest lobbying relationships happening right before our eyes.

The case in question involves ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy who for years has engaged in Senate debates on telecommunications policy without adequately disclosing the potential conflict of interest created by the business interests of her husband - David Forman - who just happens to be on the payroll of the anti-Telstra cartel.

Over the past decade I've been watching Senate committees closely and I've never seen Senator Lundy declare her relationship, or even abstain from any debate in which there is a risk that she could be seen to be pushing the interests of her lobbyist husband.

At times you get the impression that Lundy and Mr Forman plan their pincer attacks on Telstra over the family breakfast table before taking themselves up the hill and staging a public re-enactment before the cameras in Parliament House.

Take an example from a fortnight ago.

On the same day the SingTel CEO was out attacking Telstra and Mr Forman was releasing a bogus report claiming Telstra would be overcharging customers on the planned high speed fibre network, Senator Lundy diverted Senate estimates to ask a series of Dorothy dixer questions in pursuit of her husband’s latest cause.

If you read the exchange on Hansard (P44 - www.aph.gov.au), you'll see Senator Lundy sought the Senate's 'indulgence' to steer the debate away from the more pressing issue of petrol prices, so she could waste time engaging the ACCC's Graeme Samuel on her husband's pet cause.

A week later, Mr Forman used the exchange to conduct another anti-Telstra PR attack , which some in the media (www.computerworld.com.au) swallowed hook, line and sinker.

None of the journalists who took the Forman bait seemed at all bothered to question or even mention his relationship with Senator Lundy.

Similarly, none of the bureaucrats who are meant to uphold the standards of the Senate ever publicly raise objections when Senator Lundy so blatantly goes off on one of her anti-Telstra tangents.

As for the Liberal and National Party Senators – they’re equally silent. Not surprising really when you consider former Liberal Senator John Tierney used the Senate committees to stage an extraordinary attack on Telstra a few years ago, failing to declare that his wife worked for a charity Telstra was proposing to cease a sponsorship arrangement with at the time. Once again, all the 'insiders' including the Prime Minister knew about the Senator's relationship, but no questions were asked and no disclosures were made or sought.

I find it disgusting and it certainly makes me wonder about the real health of our democracy and the real prospect of passing meaningful reforms to control insidious lobbyists.

Comments

Sydney Lawrence
225 comments

17 June 2008
5:48PM

Comment Permalink

Thanks a lot Rod I often wondered about Senator Lundy and her vicious attacks on Telstra. God what hope Australia with people like this making the rules? I intend to call Senator Lundy's office tomorrow and ask for an explanation.


Jeff Sadlowski
1 comment

18 June 2008
1:55PM

Comment Permalink

My question is "Where in this world do you find a truly honest politician? "


Steve Toole
49 comments

18 June 2008
3:53PM

Comment Permalink

Jeff that's too easy - in Singapore of course, just ask the ATC (anti-Telstra Circus) - lol! Yes, yes, Steve'e a racist - whatever!


Vasso Massonic
757 comments

18 June 2008
4:31PM

Comment Permalink

-I am Rod, This matter should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister by the Telstra board ASAP. The discussion was clearly out of context, it was conducted in the absence of the Telecommunication Minister and clearly in breach of the 'national broadband network probity process' Notice from the answers provided by Mr. Samuel and Mr Cosgrove that Senator LUNDY was cautioned on more than one occasion.

For easy of reference the Q&As: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s10864.pdf


Henryk Kay
1 comment

19 June 2008
8:47AM

Comment Permalink

What you do not relaise is that political lobbyist can sometimes do the wrong thing just look at what brian bourke did in WA this is the reason for the code of conduct and I fully support the Prime Minister in what has been done so look at the past for this action


Jeffrey Kane
1 comment

19 June 2008
12:57PM

Comment Permalink

what a joke this Rudd Government has become. Here is a govt that pledged to lower interest rates (this hasnt happened , in fact banks now raise interest rates without the sanction of the RBA, didnt happen under JWH and Costello), lower fuel (has increased significantly), lower taxes (tax's have increased ie tax on premix drinks) and lower the cost of housing (housing has steadily increased). They keep blaming the former government, however they take a huge credit for a budget surplus they had absolutely no hand in creating, and have done nothing about bleat about inflation instead of actually trying to solve the "World Wide Problem" of it. \

However it seems nuclear disarmanemnt is high on krudds list, and now we have more dishonesty amony the fools he has put into parliament as ministers, (...Ed: posting edited to meet Discussion Guidelines)

Who voted for this disgrace of a government? Next election i will have more Australian Citizenship and from the sidelines of the fallout from the last election, i have to ask myself, was the Australian public fooled into voting for this socialist and anti business government by lies and innuendo? as im astounded to see what you had and now what you have got. Amazing and the rest of the world thinks so as well.


Greg Sharah
5 comments

20 June 2008
12:43PM

Comment Permalink

People concerned about Senator Lundy's undisclosed conflict of interest can contact her directly via email at : http://www.katelundy.info/main/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3 Alternatively registering a protest directly with the Prime Minister Rudd can be done via: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm


George Taymar
17 comments

21 June 2008
12:39AM

Comment Permalink

Hey Rod, a great blog. I can just imagine the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee and putting a deposit on the new holiday house. But while legal action may or may not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future, could I just make a couple of comments? And I won't enter into discussion regarding the appropriateness of the Governments 'Code of Conduct' re lobbyists, as that is plainly not the intent of your blog. 1. Senator Lundy did NOT seek the committees indulgence. She thanked the committee for it. "Senator LUNDY—I thank the committee for its indulgence." http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S10864.pdf p44 Further, she did not steer the debate away, leave was given to Senator Lundy to raise the issues. And why? Because she had "....obligations in another committee, so I appreciate this opportunity." There is nothing in the Hansard transcript that supports your suggestion of manipulation of the Committee's course of discussion by Senator Lundy. As can be seen you have been deceitful in your presentation of the facts. 2. Exactly what did some in the media swallow hook line and sinker? The supposed lobbying of Senator Lundy, the warning by the CCC, or the comments made by Mr Samuel? In answering my own questions, it would appear to be not the first, as you claim they did not bother ".... to question or even mention his relationship with Senator Lundy." So it wasn't that. Was it the warning by the CCC? Well, they obviously considered the implications of it. Was it the responses made by Mr Samuel? Obviously since they were quoted and as Mr Samuel was before a Senate Committee (and as you being an long term follower of such proceedings would know) he is required to give honest and truthful answers. In fact, any lobbying that may or may not have occurred would not impact on the answers given by Mr Samuel. So here we have the crux of the issue. This blog is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the responses to questions made to Mr Samuel. Whether or not those questions were generated by lobbying or not is immaterial. Telstra didn't like the answers, and took steps via this site and press releases (presumably) to divert attention from the fact and to mitigate the impact of the facts. And those facts are that the ACCC does not have enough power or regulations enforce the intent of the TPA and the Telecoms Act. Still, there is a certain symmetry in all this - using a form of lobby site to attack someone who has supposedly been influenced by a lobbyist, while using the issue of lobbying to to divert attention from another issue entirely. (I wonder if the lawyers will be able to afford new beach towels?)


James Sinnamon
1 comment

23 June 2008
1:29PM

Comment Permalink

I attended the Senate hearing into the planned full privatisation of Telstra on 2 October 2003 as a representative of the group Citizens Against Selling Telstra (http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com). Contrary to the impression that could be gained from Rod Bruem's blog entry I distinctly recall that Senator Kate Lundy did tell the hearing of her husband's business interests in a private telecommunications company. In any case, I would have thought that this was on the public record. A news report can be found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/02/1064988317334.html?from=storyrhs


Js Smith
1 comment

24 June 2008
2:36PM

Comment Permalink

I see that you have done a fantastic job at unveiling the truth there Rod. I advise you not to give up your day job at Telstra and become a Private Investigator.


Add a comment

 

You need to log in to post a comment