Turnabout deserves fairplay... the blog pointed out a very disconcerting conflict of interest and the wider Australian public, not just people with a vested interest in Telstra, deserves to know the truth about such matters. There needs to be more accountability and transparency within our government to prevent occurences like this, I think... more watchdog measures set up... but a rant on that would take me all day and would take us well away from the land of telecommunication so nevermind.

Lol, I would have thought it prudent for the good Sen & hubby, to have simply slipped quietly out the back door, without any fuss or ado, and to just let's Rod's blog come and go, as blogs inevitably do. But by doing this, they will simply bring further media scrutiny to their most intruiging partnership (better be careful with what I say - lol). One which I as an Australian citizen/taxpayer, would certainly like to hear more details of and have fully clarified! However, in light of this, maybe it's also time for Telstra's legal eagles to do likewise and peruse the T4 and CCC websites, which imho are 100 times more offensive and questionable than NWAT could ever be!

Excellent Jeremy, this is unbelievable. Then again parliamentarians are not held in high esteem. This is insufferable and Kevin Rudd must make sure that Senator Lundy fully reveals her financial interest (via her husbands employment) to inform the Australian people of her possible bias when she discusses Telstra or the NBN Tender.

Thanks Rod, As an Australian and a voter I was so enraged by Senator Lundy's actions I wrote to her at her official website to voice my concern. I also decided to write to the Prime Minister to drive the point home that politicians hold a 'so called' value of trust in the electorate and this an extremely bad example for those who voted for Ms Lundy.

Bring it on!! I think it will be brilliant to splash this on the front pages of the newspaper!!! The new Telstra does not shy away from a fight that we believe are in the right. It is in the public interest to know the relationship between Sen Kate Lundy and her husband. Let's put up a good fight and get as much publicity out of this issue as possible!

Hardly raises a "serious and legitimate question". True "it is not too much to expect full disclosure from our elected representatives" but anyone who has even a passing knowledge of federal politics let alone someone who has "watching Senate committees closely" would know that a register of interest is kept by the Committee of Senators’ Interests. The matters revealed about partner's interests are kept confidential , the Senator's own are available for public scrutiny. You wouldn't expect to see "Senator Lundy declare her relationship" in committee. If Senator Lundy has followed these senate proceedures, the accusation that she "engaged in Senate debates on telecommunications policy without adequately disclosing the potential conflict of interest created by the business interests of her husband" is an accusation Mr Bruem should apologise for making. In any event, silly stuff like they "plan their pincer attacks on Telstra over the family breakfast table" is puerile. I would hope that whilst pointing to the relationship to alloow people to give appropriate weight to her comments, we would debate the issue, not the person. This sort of vitriol only makes it hard to take the organisations arguments seriously.

Let us hope that sauce for the goose is also the sauce for the gander.

Legal Action! Heh! On what grounds? Has it become illegal or defamatory to point out the whiff of a conflict of interest? As far as Rod facts check out (and no one is disputing those) it seems his well considered opinion should be allowed to stand which is why I am pleased with Telstra's stance. Maybe the "honourable" Senator should stop cringing under the solid umbrella of "Parliamentary Privillege" when she makes her statements. Then we might see some real legal action.

Telstra has adopted an intriguing, and interesting style, in government and public relations and strategies. Whilst the matter of Senator Lundy's question in the Senate may be of great import to the fevered mind of Telstra's senior management and the conspiracy theorists that populate the web this hardly of import in the greater scenario of Telstra's interaction with government generally and its future.

Senator kate Lundy is a very experienced and knowledgeable Senator and I have had personal experience of her work in government and that of both Senate and House Standing Committees just as I have a reasonable and somewhat intricate knowledge of Telstra's physical network archiecture across the nation.

The reasoning behind the Senator question coild probably be solicited directly from the Senator without necessarily ranting on a blog of spurious intent and creation. Telstra's approach can only have negative effects as its position in the marketplace, and its modus operandi, borders on arrogance and irrationality coupled with a misconception of how governments and parliaments work. One may note that all of Australia's governments are labor.

This can have great portent. This state of commonality provides a unique (public interest) opportunity for legislators. To effect public interest, real competition and to avoid entrenching Telstra's monopolistic endeavours the telco should be forced to divest its transmission assets (copper cable and other carrier instruments) to a third party - non associated entity. This may well be a commercial or a public enterprise. This power lies wiothin the Commonwealth and is even more of a threat to Telstra , than am ere question in the Seante. It is a significant and abnormal circumstance when supported by co legislation at state levels.

The Constitution grants the power to acquire property in the public interest and the Competition legislation in each state and in the Commonwealth can force divestiture. The shareholder interest is secondary to the public interest. The model that supports, and justifies, such a proposition on both economic ,and socal interest grounds, is the Victorian power industry model of 1990 - 1994. Senator Lundy is, as the blog content points out, somewhat supported by a wide range of members of the parliaments. But of greater import to Telstra should be the questions: Who beyond the horizon of your board, managers and government relations experts and strategists also supports the Senator, or if not, supports breaking up the corporation? Given that there are a number of people whihc such inclination what is their individual, and combined abilities, to bring this about? As a clarification of the above, these people are not necessarily, and probably are not, members of the perceived anti Telstra cartel to which you refer in previous posts. Telstra is inviting a number of people to the game of telecommunications and this is not very well thought out on Telstra's part. Kevin R Beck http://kevinrbeck.bravehost.com/RuddandAustralia.html http://kevinrbeck.bravehost.com/consumingaus.html http://kevinrbeck.bravehost.com/dance.htm

Mr Beck thank you for that most interesting comment! It is obvious from the links supplied that you are experienced in your profession and as such, deserve respect accordingly. However and with all due respect sir, I see you have mentioned Sen. Lundy as being experienced and knowledgeable, but strangely avoided the actual topic of Sen. Lundy being the wife of the CCC’s Mr. David Forman?

Correct me if I’m wrong, no one was questioning Sen. Lundy’s experience or knowledge, the question simply was asked, as she is the wife of Mr. Forman, could there be a possibility of conflict of interest?

Because you know her, you defend her, which is fair enough. But in relation to you, perhaps it is this association which does not allow you an “at arms length” appraisal of the situation. Perhaps you are just a little too close, to recognise any possible issue?

So regardless of your rebuttal, imho, the hmmm factor, still well and truly remains! You also refer to those who highlight the union of Sen Lundy and Mr. Forman, as “conspiracy theorists”. But you may recall prior to the last election Mr. Rudd was thrown into turmoil and his candidacy for PM possibly up in the air, because his wife’s interests were perceived as “a possible conflict of interest”! So, were these more conspiracy theories and theorists?

You also say “the reasoning behind the Senators questions could probably be solicited directly from the Senator without necessarily ranting on a blog of spurious intent and creation”… Or could it just maybe be, and this is why we are here discussing, the flip side behind the Senators questions, even inadvertently is, because she is the wife of the CCC honcho?

Mr. Beck, believe me, there is in fact an anti-Telstra cartel as you refer to them, as I can attest to it personally. A group of people who mindlessly attack anyone or anything pro-Telstra, via various blogs, forums etc! FYI – when corresponding rationally but fervently, with someone who had a different opinion to my own (pro-Telstra opinion), another entered they debate and said to me “die Hel$tra scum”! Now perhaps you believe this is acceptable or even funny, but I do not. These are the sorts of disgraceful, fringe element, imbecilic comments, made regularly by these people.

Lastly you say, “The Constitution grants the power to acquire property in the public interest and the Competition legislation in each state and in the Commonwealth can force divestiture”… [ Ed: posting edited to meet Discussion Guidelines]    Do you personally support governmental seizing of privately owned assets? If so, then it appears to me that you may in fact be most partial to Mr. Forman, the CCC and T4 ideals, yourself! Imho, heaven help any government that tries to pull this stunt!