"We've been aggressive because there is a move under way to confiscate something that is owned by 1.6million mum-and-dad investors and give it to a Singapore company," Dr Burgess told The Australian.
"We're talking about turning over Australia's only nationwide telecommunications network to a consortia run by the Singapore Government. That's a government that executes people, number one, and doesn't allow competition in its own country. It's unbelievable.
"We've had a national broadband plan since August 2005. It's been vetoed twice by the (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission). When people say we're threatening not to do broadband, it just isn't true. We need to have our costs accepted by the ACCC. We are not going to build it if we can't get a commercial return on our investment."
If you scrutinise this statement carefully, what Phil Burgess is saying is the following:
a. Telecommunications business in Australia should be given to Telstra because Telstra's shareholders are mum-and-pop shareholders.
b. Telecommunications business in Australia should be given to Telstra because it is an Australian company and Australia does not execute its people.
c. If Telstra cannot competitively operate a national broadband infrastructure, no other company should be allowed to do so.
Well, how's that for a competitive company?
The last time I checked, business should be conducted based on the ability of a company to offer its customers the best services and the best value, not some call to political arguments or human rights issues.
In my view, these statements are just shameful and show that Telstra does not compete on the basis of economic competitiveness but on the basis of slimy political maneuvering. And it just goes to show that business simply cannot be separated from its political environment.