By Jeremy Mitchell
nowwearetalking Chief Editor

My out-pouring of rage comes from my morning reading of the Australian Finical Review’s coverage of SingTel results last week. The opening sentence said it all:

“Optus is understood to have given a recommendation to the board of parent company Singapore Telecommunications on whether it should proceed with legal action against the [Australian] government.”

It then goes on to say that:

“Singapore Telecommunications Chief Executive Chua Sock Koong confirmed yesterday that the board was looking at the issue.”

This, on top of the SingTel results announcement, gloating about the billions of dollars it was investing in India etc, while the Australian branch of Singapore Telecommunications, Optus, was happy to accept the breadcrumbs from the table of its parent.

Time after time we hear in the media that Telstra is playing a Singapore scare campaign when it comes to Optus. The implication is that by raising foreign ownership we are somehow lowering the debate. Rubbish! What's wrong with raising the flag? Important issues are worthy of a debate. It is worthy of comment, and it shouldn’t be swept under the carpet because it is not politically correct, or putting Australia first is uncomfortable for some.

If critical Australian infrastructure assets, like the proposed FTTN network, are to be owned by foreign governments or sovereign wealth funds, it is worth talking about. Remember the uproar over Australia’s favourite biscuit, the Iced Vo Vo, falling into foreign hands in the early 90’s with the sale of Arnott’s? Now we are talking (no pun intended) about an asset that will touch every Australian, every aspect of their lives, from their communications at home and work, the traffic lights they rely on to travel safely, the free-to-air or pay TV they watch, the medical services they receive, the schools that educate their children and the defence systems that protect our country. It will be the foundation stone of Australia's 21st century economy. Australia’s telecoms network is a fundamental asset that affects everyone. So, foreign ownership of that critical infrastructure does matter to me. That’s why I don't apologise for asking the simple question: isn’t it better to have critical infrastructure that is Australian owned?

Where do the likes of Michael Sainsbury from The Australian, who are critical of Telstra for mentioning the overseas factor, stand on Dick Smith’s buy Australia campaign? Why do we want Australian content on TV and Australian music being played on radio? The answer is that it enriches us as a nation and it is beneficial to our future. I take a very simple philosophy, which many would argue is because I am a very simple man, but that is completely different debate, when I go shopping, I am one of these painful people, much to the frustration of my wife, who looks at where a product is made, how much it costs and the quality of the product ,and then I like to compare it with what else is around. My point is I don't automatically buy products just because they are Australian, but they are always my first point of call. They are the basis upon which I judge everything else. Why? Because I unashamedly favour Australian made. I would rather our profits stay in Australia.

I want Australia to be a growing economic might and profit from all the benefits that go with that: more jobs; high paying jobs; and better services and a higher standard of living for all. We don't achieve that by selling the silver; we don't achieve that by giving foreign companies a leg up when we have local people and companies that can provide the same service. And once again, I don't apologise for wanting that.

I feel uncomfortable with a vital part of Australia’s critical infrastructure and future prosperity being in the hands of a foreign board. I feel uncomfortable that we might find ourselves in a position where we need to make submissions to a foreign board for a decision to be made about such an important part of our nation. Many will disagree, and I hope they voice their opinion, but we should not be silenced by those who dismiss these concerns, especially when the motivation for that dismissal is not based on the merits of an argument, but rather out of anti-Telstra sentiment or some kind of sentimental internationalism, especially when it is not shared by many of our trading partners who resist Australian control of any assets, much less critical infrastructure, in their country.

Now is not the time to be silent on such a vital matter – as to whether a nation should give over control of critical infrastructure to a foreign government or a sovereign wealth fund controlled by a foreign government. Now is the time to debate. Now is the time to argue. We are, hopefully, only months away from a momentous decision. Let’s argue before it is too late.