THE soundtrack to Telstra’s long demise as a publicly owned company has been, and now more than ever, dominated by the words ‘mums and dads investors’.

‘Mums and dads investors’ entered our political vocabulary in a big way around the time of the first tranche sale of Telstra and has remained with us ever since, through Tranche 2, the Ralph Review on Business Taxation and the upcoming Tranche 3.

It is most frequently used on the government benches and most frequently there by Peter Costello (correct me if I’m wrong, but is there a speech, c. 1998-2005, in which he doesn’t mention these erstwhile investors? The propensity to ridicule Malcolm Turnbull aside, it seems to be his personal, all-time special topic). Yet these days you can also hear Kim Beazley pay tribute to, rush to the defence of or otherwise invoke these poor old mums and dads.

Clearly our leaders have identified what they perceive as a new constituency. Fair enough. It makes the political life of this country interesting when something else emerges from the body politic to voice its concerns. However, this is where I get confused. Very confused . These mums and dads investors are a difficult group to cross-examine. Who exactly are these people? There are plenty of people leaping to their defence or championing their rights I just can’t find a spokesperson who isn’t a politician. Where are the mums and dads investors’ lobby groups, unions, clubs?

Okay, I accept that not everyone organizes in such traditional ways these days. Perhaps these investors are simply mums and dads who have little in common other than a desire to own bits of Telstra. Nevertheless, politicians identify them as an interest group and the favourite way for politicians to please these mums and dads is to privatize Telstra. This is where I take issue with both the term ‘mums and dads investors’ and government policy pertinent to them.

Sale has taken it out of the hands of mums and dads

The government’s Telstra policy has indeed created mums and dads investors. I know they exist, as I have friends who happen to be parents who own Telstra shares. However, I suggest that this policy destroys far more mums and dads ‘share portfolios’ than it creates.

Far more.

Up until the Coalition’s final Telstra bill passed the Senate last week all mums and dads in Australia owned a bit of Telstra. Just over 50% of this company was in public hands; that is, it was held in trust by the government on our behalf, for all of us. The progressive sale of Telstra has in fact taken Telstra out of the hands of most mums and dads and placed it (or rather bits of it) into the hands of a relatively tiny number of those who can afford it.

There are some winners though, right? Some mums and dads investors have done nicely, eh? Well, it depends how you look at it. Before the Telstra bill passed we all had a slice. The government drew dividends on our behalf each year that Telstra posted a profit. Okay, we only received that dividend indirectly but we got roads, hospitals and schools in return. Now, to be a winner you have to in fact pay for what was already held in trust for you anyway.

I repeat the sentiments: you now have to pay for a share of something you already owned! And those mums and dads who can’t afford to be winners/investors get what? They not only don’t get a dividend but they also don’t get the benefit of services that used to be partially paid out of Telstra profits. Sure, they can aspire to get dividends but along the way they get nothing.

So next time Mr Costello starts preaching at you about the golden age of ‘mums and dads investors’, have a think about who he is actually referring to. You might just have to get used to the idea that it might not be you.

Anthony Miller was “born hobart 1974; uni education unitas 1993-1999 (BA Hons, MA), cambridge 2001-2005 (MPhil, PhD); archaeologist at port arthur 2000-2001; currently working for an NGO in london; living in uk; guaranteed to be irritated by reactionary/bigoted crap passed off as ‘mainstream’.”