Remember that old sexist line trotted out in dozens of Hollywood movies in the post-war era that changing one's mind was a woman's prerogative?
The truth is finally out. There is no statistical correlation between inconsistency and gender. And if any proof is needed, just take a look at Telstra.
In late 2009, the entire corporate world was whipped into a state of outrage over the federal government's plans to bust up the monopoly that had a stranglehold over the nation's telecommunications industry.
Commentators fumed at what they dubbed "corporate terrorism" as hundreds of thousands of Telstra shareholders, many of whom bought stock in the ill-fated and overpriced T2 float, fretted over what was left of their investment.
Churlish as it may be to boast "I told you so", your columnist nevertheless must confess to feeling a little isolated in September 2009 after suggesting that separating Telstra's infrastructure from its retail business and replacing it with a new national broadband network may prove to be the best thing that ever happened to the company.
My, how attitudes have shifted during that time. Telstra shares edged past $3.50 this week, capping a solid 18-month climb from their $2.61 nadir at a time when the Australian stockmarket has gone nowhere, making it one of our best performing blue-chip stocks.
Courtesy of the $11-billion deal it struck with the federal government in June 2010 to hand over its wires, ducts, conduit and customers to the NBN company, Telstra shareholders suddenly have found themselves owning stock in a corporation with a future.
Prior to the NBN deal, Telstra largely relied on cutting costs quicker than its revenue declined on the old copper-wire network as it scrambled to keep pace with mobile technology. No longer burdened by an antiquated fixed-line system and with oodles of cash in the bank either to invest, pay off debt or distribute to shareholders, an air of optimism has engulfed the nation's biggest telecommunications group.
But with the federal government now desperately clinging to power, courtesy of the predicament in which Speaker Peter Slipper has found himself, and an opposition intent on undoing pretty much everything introduced during the Labor years, it is worth examining what a change of government would mean for long-suffering Telstra shareholders.
The short answer is, not very much. For Telstra's management has struck a very clever deal, one that largely insulates the company from any change of plan on the NBN rollout.
Given the triple-barrel shotgun pointed at their heads by the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy - the forced sale of its Foxtel stake, the sale of its existing fibre network and being prohibited from bidding for new mobile spectrum - if they refused a deal, it is testimony to the skills within Telstra's hierarchy that it has achieved such a result.
To be fair, Conroy's "too good to refuse" offer was aimed squarely at Sol Trujillo and his American imports, a belligerent but handsomely paid band of rough riders who first scuppered the Howard government's broadband policy and then set about undermining the newly elected Rudd government's ambitions.
Soon after the NBN proposal, they packed their saddlebags and headed east into a golden sunrise, leaving new chief executive David Thodey and chairman Catherine Livingstone to pick up the pieces.
The $11-billion deal comprises three main payments. The first is $5 billion for a 30-year lease over all of Telstra's fixed-line infrastructure. Thanks to some clever negotiations by Telstra's Tony Warren, the company receives that money even if the broadband network is not built.
The second component is $4 billion, which it only receives as it switches customers over to the NBN.
But again, there is a clever clause that protects the company. Those customers who refuse to switch over, who simply want to maintain their old service, will continue to pay Telstra for the privilege.
The final component is a $2 billion payment for providing what's known as the universal service obligation, to provide a telephone at a fair price for all Australians. Prior to this deal, Telstra was forced to fund that as part of its monopoly obligations.
If you look at those three components, Telstra receives the first and third in full, and what it doesn't pick up on the second is buffered by retaining existing revenue.
So what does that mean under an Abbott-led Coalition government?
Like the Howard government, the Coalition has a broadband plan, but one that is significantly more modestly priced than that of the federal government.
The main cost saving under the Coalition would come from running a fibre-optic cable to those little grey Telstra boxes or nodes dotting street corners rather than running it into virtually every residence, the devilishly complex and hugely expensive part of the operation.
Clearly, that would mean the last bit of the copper wire network, the bit running down many streets and into residences, would remain. And Telstra would retain ownership of that copper-wire remnant.
This potentially could give it a bargaining chip with a newly elected Abbott government, to charge it for access to its residential and business connection.
The signals emanating from Telstra in recent weeks suggest that under Thodey, it is unlikely the company would resort to the hijack tactics of the previous management.
It would also be safe to assume that discussions already have been held with the federal opposition about access and pricing.
That's not to say it couldn't happen in the future. But either way, Telstra is protected.
The national broadband rollout will continue regardless of which party is in power, and the company will receive the bulk of the cash it has negotiated under the deal with the ALP.
From a policy viewpoint, the opposition claims its simpler rollout will be quicker - five years as opposed to 20 years - and vastly cheaper than the plan in place, resulting in more affordable access.
But the trade-off will be the failure to completely separate Telstra from the fixed line. Clearly there is a potential cost to that for taxpayers in the future, particularly if Telstra management ever becomes as irascible as during its Three Amigos phase.
Both sides of politics made a hash of the privatisation of Telstra.
The Hawke and Keating governments cemented Telstra's monopoly powers by merging Telecom with OTC and the Howard government, in its rush to grab the cash, failed to address the problem of transferring a monopoly utility into private hands.
Those decisions will continue to haunt taxpayers regardless of which party forms government. But the jury is in on Telstra. The death sentence has been quashed. Anyone can change their mind.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What was the $11 billion NBN deal Telstra struck with the federal government and why does it matter to Telstra shareholders?
The $11 billion deal (announced June 2010) transferred Telstra's wires, ducts, conduit and customers to the NBN company in return for cash. For shareholders it matters because the agreement removed the burden of the old copper fixed‑line network, provided Telstra with large cash payments to invest, pay down debt or return to shareholders, and helped lift investor confidence as the company gained a clearer future.
How is the $11 billion payment to Telstra structured and what protections did Telstra win?
The payment is in three parts: $5 billion for a 30‑year lease over fixed‑line infrastructure, $4 billion paid as customers are switched over to the NBN, and $2 billion for the universal service obligation. Telstra negotiated protections so it receives the $5 billion even if the broadband network is not built, and it retains revenue from customers who refuse to switch—buffering the $4 billion component.
How did the NBN deal affect Telstra's share price and investor sentiment?
After years of investor concern about the old copper network, Telstra shares climbed strongly — edging past $3.50 after an 18‑month rise from a $2.61 low — as the NBN deal reassured the market that Telstra would be freed from an antiquated fixed‑line burden and would have cash to invest, reduce debt or return to shareholders.
Would a change of government (for example an Abbott‑led Coalition) significantly hurt Telstra shareholders?
According to the article, not materially. Telstra negotiated a deal that largely insulates it from political change: it receives the bulk of the cash under the agreement and retains protections around the payments. While a Coalition plan might alter how the NBN is rolled out, the company would still collect most of the negotiated cash and keep existing revenue streams in many cases.
What would the Coalition's 'fibre‑to‑the‑node' approach mean for Telstra and everyday investors?
The Coalition's plan would run fibre to Telstra street nodes rather than into every home, leaving the final copper connection in place. That remnant copper network would remain Telstra's asset and could give it bargaining power to charge for access — a potential commercial upside for investors, but also a policy trade‑off compared with a full fibre rollout.
How did management changes at Telstra influence the company's strategy after the NBN announcement?
The article notes that the Sol Trujillo era ended and new CEO David Thodey with chair Catherine Livingstone took over. Under Thodey Telstra signalled it was less likely to use the confrontational 'hijack' tactics of the past and appeared to have engaged constructively with the opposition over access and pricing — a shift that helped calm investor concerns.
Why did Telstra negotiate clauses that pay it even if the NBN rollout is delayed or altered?
Telstra used clever negotiation (credited to negotiators like Tony Warren) to secure terms that reduce execution risk: the $5 billion 30‑year lease is payable even if the NBN is not built, and customers who stay on the old service continue to pay Telstra, protecting the company from shortfalls in the customer‑transfer component.
What remaining risks should everyday investors in Telstra be aware of after the deal?
The article highlights a few ongoing risks: political changes could alter the shape or speed of the broadband rollout (even if Telstra is largely protected financially), future disputes over access and pricing for the remaining copper could arise, and company behaviour under different management could affect negotiations with government. Overall, though, the deal significantly reduced the immediate structural risk from the old fixed‑line network.