Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here on my own, regrettably, and I do not have those chiselled good looks used as the backdrop for the minister’s photo. I speak today to support this bill. The Trade Practices Amendment (Access Declarations) Bill 2008 comes at a time when the telecommunications sector is looking for greater certainty in relation to the regulatory regime. It is a time when, sadly, the competition framework embraces ‘negotiate’, ‘arbitrate’ and ‘litigate’. We seem to go very quickly over the ‘n’ and the ‘a’ to ‘l’ for litigate. It is a sad process because that ready pathway to litigation does of itself have quite an impact on competition in the telecommunications sector. You could say that competition delayed is competition denied.

Honourable Member:

Honourable member interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I am reminded that I have got 29 minutes left, and I am grateful for that wise counsel. You saw recently—and I am picking up the theme of competition delayed is competition denied—a determination in favour of Primus. I remember reading Ravi Bhatia’s comments that that outcome to his favour and to Primus’s favour, as welcome as it was, had been delayed to such a degree. Whilst the question of fees and access charges, those fiscal issues, could be remedied, he was pointing to the disadvantage his company had in actually competing in the marketplace while these issues were to be resolved. So it is an interesting time in terms of regulation. I would say this particular bill is another renovation of the regime. You have seen a number of renovations through the former government—steps in the right direction, I believe, as this one is, but it does raise questions that I will come to later about the broader framework in general.

The Trade Practices Amendment (Access Declarations) Bill 2008 amends the Trade Practices Act to provide clarity and certainty for the telecommunications sector by confirming that access declarations made by the ACCC are not and have never been legislative instruments. The reason for this needing to be made clear—and the bill goes to great lengths not only to make it clear but to reiterate that point over and over again, in fact—is very important. That clarity must be there because, as I mentioned earlier, there is this environment in which litigation seems to be a favoured tool of some as they sort through the commercial argy-bargy of access and pricing. A recent case does give rise to what might even be another avenue of litigation, and this bill seeks to cut off that avenue by making it clear that the works of the ACCC, its access declarations, are not legislative instruments and therefore cannot be challenged on the basis that they have not been lodged and recorded on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments or tabled in parliament. The point here is that if they were legislative instruments and they were not registered or tabled in parliament, then that would be an avenue by which to challenge, to attack, the validity of them and therefore there would be another avenue of litigation to be argued. What this bill is saying is that they have never been, are not now and are not going to be in the future legislative instruments. Therefore to the players that might think there is some commercial advantage in saying the process was wrong because they were not tabled or registered it says: ‘Don’t waste your time. Get on with the business of providing a competitive telecommunications framework and focus on business priorities and commercial avenues by which to push your case, not litigation.’

I am pleased that my parliamentary colleague and friend Mr Dutton has joined us. As the member for Dickson he carries the opposition’s role in the area of competition policy. It is always a pleasure and an honour to work with him. This bill reflects on a Federal Court decision involving Roche Products Pty Ltd and the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. There was some concern that the determinations of the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee actually amounted to a legislative instrument. Even though the determinations were addressed and analysed, and their work was seen as a proper administrative decision in that case, that administrative decision was challenged. It was argued that it was legislative in its character, that it should have been a legislative instrument and that it was therefore open to legal challenge. Whilst that is not directly related to the telco space, the thinking was that if that was a challenge that was tried on in the drugs area it may be something that the lawyers would have salivated over and picked up in the telecommunications space. They could then have argued that the ACCC declarations were of a similar kind—that is, legislative in their character—and therefore the declarations were invalid because they were not registered or tabled before parliament.

This bill makes it clear that this is not the case. Access declarations are administrative determinations and do not need to end up in this parliament or be registered to take effect. This is aiming to cut off some of the litigious activity that seems to dog many of these issues in the telecommunications sector. It is an area that causes great upheaval, disruption and combativeness. It focuses some of the brightest minds and sharpest intellects in the telco sector on litigious avenues and legal argument rather than  on the business case and on consumers, to which we hope they would apply all of that horsepower and capability. So there should be no doubt about the validity of those access declarations, and the bill reinforces that point. It is an appropriate renovation of the competition framework at a time when it is going to come under increasing stress. I would like to touch briefly on that.

The ACCC has a difficult job. Telcos are not shy. They are happy to run their argument, run their case and invest heavily in it, seeing some opportunity for commercial advantage to themselves or disadvantage to their competitors. So the ACCC is caught in an atmosphere of world championship wrestling and has to referee some of these issues. The ACCC’s work at the moment is quite encouraging, in that some of its energy is being focused on understanding where competition itself will provide proper remedy, safeguard and long-term interest for the consumer. I welcome and encourage the participation of all in the telco sector in the current work of the ACCC: a stocktake of the telecommunications infrastructure. That work is crucial in identifying a view that where you have three potential providers of service and access the ACCC need not be involved in issues of access and pricing determinations. Trying to identify where competition will meet the market need is good work. The ACCC need not concern itself overtly with questions of access and pricing to those pieces of infrastructure.

I call it the ‘tribuy’ opportunity, where service providers and the consumers have an opportunity to choose between three potential infrastructure providers, and therefore the competitive pressure looks after the consumer interest. The work that is going on to establish which parts of the network offer the tribuy is very different from the try-ons which you see in the litigation space. I encourage wholeheartedly the work that the ACCC is investing—and the effort and time that the telecommunications providers are also investing—in that audit, in that evaluation. I do not think it should be viewed as a regulatory red tape imposition. I assure the ACCC and the telco committee that I will not argue that it is. It is a very wise investment of energy to see where the competition framework does not need the mentoring and pastoral care of the ACCC and where the consumer interest is being reflected in the competition framework.

Contrast that with some of the debate that is going on around the Rudd government’s confused, foggy, contradictory, ever-moving feast around the fibre-to-the-node network. I suppose with $4.7 billion of taxpayer money being waved out there in a tantalising way in front of telecommunications providers you could imagine how excited they all are. The thing that troubles me is the complete lack of clarity about what the plan is, how this proposition is going to work within a competitive framework that has the consumer interest at heart, and also the extent to which the Rudd government involves itself in a market where we are trying to encourage and foster competition—how it is going to involve itself in what would appear to be a renationalisation of some of our telecommunications infrastructure. It is very unclear, troubling and deeply concerning. I can understand, by the frantic activity that is going on among those involved in the sector, that it is another opportunity for positioning.

Let me run through some of the challenges. In this parliament in the coming days you will see the Rudd government raiding the Communications Fund. In a nutshell, they are pinching the resources set aside to respond to identified disadvantage and inadequate service provision in the telecommunications sector for regional, rural and remote communities. I will not go into the detail of it, other than to say how ironic it is that the Glasson review—the independent review into regional communications, services and infrastructure—is being encouraged. In fact, I saw a press release from Minister Conroy encouraging its work. I notice he did not mention that there is legislation before the House to pinch the very resources needed to implement that work. That work is about making sure that where there is competition and a commercial case for delivery of adequate services those services are available to people in remote and rural areas. That is perfectly relevant and sound. In a public policy sense, it is a very wise application of taxpayer resources—where the market is not able to address those needs and we as a nation have a public policy ambition to address that shortcoming.

Contrast that with the fibre-to-the-node proposal. The commercial sector have said they are happy to do it, as long as they get the outcomes they want under the competition framework—outcomes around an access regime and pricing. It is a very interesting plan. The market are saying they are ready to invest and the government are saying, ‘No, we want to bump out your investment and use taxpayer resources.’ That is novel. It is difficult to imagine what the public policy motivation is, other than juicy headlines for the government—a government that has form chasing juicy headlines. Look at the recent conversation held in the media about Telstra’s decision to turn on ADSL2+. That capability, widely known to have been available for 18 months, was only activated when a competitor came into the area offering faster speed services. Telstra said, ‘We’ll turn it on where there is a competitor, but where there is no competitor, even though it is resident in our exchanges, able to be activated and will improve a service that consumers have access to, we will not turn it on because there is some concern or confusion about access declarations and the application of the competition regime.’ How ironic that precisely nothing had changed in that regime—the regime argued as being the impediment to turning it on. Yet those ADSL2+ services have been turned on. Here the competition regime was being used as some kind of smokescreen which was hiding a telco provider’s commercial decision about when to make a service available that was ready and able to be turned on.

The Rudd government claims some credit for that. In fact, the Prime Minister stood up in parliament and said how great it was that the decision the minister took facilitated that outcome. How ironic that just days earlier on Inside Business on the ABC the minister was asked about that very point. Speaking in the third person, he said there was no decision for Stephen Conroy to make. ‘There was not a decision that I could make.’ So we see the Prime Minister taking great credit for something that could have been done by Telstra 18 months earlier, claiming that some intervention by the government had brought about change. Then we see the minister, to his credit, being quite open, frank and honest in his account—in vivid contrast to the claims being made by the Prime Minister. And then we see services coming on. Again, the competition framework was being used as some kind of Trojan Horse to make other arguments to position commercially when there was no impediment.

Then we read where Telstra say some regulatory forbearance had been brought into play and that that was what promoted their decision. The question the Rudd government has to ask, the question the telecommunications industry wants answered and the issue which must be of great concern to consumers is: just what was this regulatory forbearance? Was this some kind of sweetheart deal about fibre to the node? The Labor proposal is based on a Telstra proposition. Labor’s opposition to wireless has been long established. Yet for a continent as vast as ours, surely wireless needs to be part of the equation.

Then you see the next issue: how is it that Labor is promising to invest $4.7 billion in a broadband network when the commercial sector is saying, ‘We’re happy to do it’? So we are putting taxpayers’ money into something which the private sector is happy to fund. We then have issues about who is going to own the infrastructure the taxpayer is paying for. We have Labor claiming that it would go forward on an equity share model and get a commercial rate of return so as not to distort the market and in more recent times, in that very same interview, Senator Conroy was saying, ‘Well of course, that would be nice, but we’re not hung up on it.’ To Alan Kohler’s credit, he said, ‘You’re just going to give cash away?’ Senator Conroy said, ‘No—maybe, but we’re not hung up on needing an equity share model.’ In the background, we remember Telstra’s comments about kumbaya and how they weren’t in the business of embracing a taxpayer, a man of money, to see the government as a shared owner of some network. They would rather the freedom and liberty to run their own networks the way they should. So was that the regulatory forbearance or was it really policy forbearance—the ALP’s decision to junk its pre-election commitment of an equity share model with a commercial rate of return for $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and the private sector saying, ‘No, we can do much of this ourselves’? Is that really what was being talked about?

These questions are live issues for all Australians who are interested in telecommunications. These questions go to what kind of pressure the Rudd-Conroy, yet-to-be-described model will bring to bear on a competition framework that is being renovated today to take account of new emerging pressures, which is constantly under duress and litigation. Then are we going to throw in a renationalisation of a part of the telecommunications network? It was extraordinary watching estimates the other night as the minister was asked, ‘What’s this $4.7 billion going to buy?’ He could not answer that question. Australian taxpayers must wonder—$4.7 billion is being waved around as some kind of honey pot for a yet-to-be-defined project, with a yet-to-be-clarified basis for people even accessing that money, where the public policy interests do not seem to crack it much for a mention.

How is that $4.7 billion going to be spent? If it is not an equity model, what is it going to be? If it is not renationalising part of the network, what is it going to be? If it is not a direct attack on the ambitions of a communications industry policy of open access, which has been fairly consistent for some time, with encouraging investment in competition being the core basis of public policy making, what is it going to be? It is hard to know. Would you put the $4.7 billion into the inert part of this network and then allow telcos to bolt on their appliances, making use of the fibre—having some dangly end bits around the different places and you could bolt on whatever applies? Who knows? Is it to own the distribution point at the end of the fibre? Is it to say that some companies are going to think all their Christmases have come at once? They will get $4.7 billion for a venture which they say they will finance themselves. Is this like a silent equity or a shareholder not looking for a return? Is it just to get a spot on an annual report of a private sector company, saying, ‘Here’s $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money,’ just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say, ‘Hey, we’re involved in something that was going to happen anyway.’  These are really compelling public policy issues. I invite the Australian public to turn their minds to them, because many in the telco sector have turned their minds to them. They are wondering how they get a piece of this love and what is required of them in return.

How will this concept, yet to be defined, bolt into our competition framework? Will it make our renovations of the competition framework largely redundant and in one project wipe that out to the point where we may as well rebuild from scratch? Who knows? These are important issues that need to be addressed. These go to the heart of the competition framework. These also go to the heart of what the consumer wants and it is extraordinary how little voice the consumer has in this debate. I am told that there are nearly a million customers using the internet via dial-up services today. They have got other options but they have not exercised them. I am told there are other customers who would love to have ADSL2 but while the technology has been in place some commercial decision has been made not to turn it on so they have not been able to access it. I have got others who are talking about this holy vision to just keep chasing more and more speed—but no-one asks: at what price?

You will see a new pressure come into play—the three Rs. People will want to have the right speed for their applications. Not everybody needs to have crisp, pay TV quality moving images on their screen and therefore the bandwidth to support it. People say, ‘No, I want this speed for my particular applications.’ They are told that they can have a much faster speed but they answer, ‘Yes, but it is four times the price that I want to pay.’ So there will be this ‘right speed, right price’ debate. Then there will be the issue of what it costs for you to download material. If you have Boeing 747 speed to suck down material and then you realise you blow your download limits within five minutes and you are up for more cash, you will think about that. Then the issue of reliability will come forward, where people want to make sure that they have got services that are there all the time. Some of my friends tell me that for their businesses they actually need to have two broadband providers because usually neither them is up all the time. These are pressures on the competition framework. These are the new challenges that are emerging. These are a sign of some of the work still ahead of us at a time when we have got this renovation of the competition regime that we have today. It is a welcome renovation to try and at least take a little bit of the ‘l’ out of litigation. We hope that there will be negotiation and arbitration and then that litigation will be the last stop, not just the known destination with other steps on the pathway.

I commend the bill to the House. But I invite the House, the government, the telecommunications industry and the consumers to reflect on the journey—yet to be defined—that we are about to take. All I know is the ticket for that journey is being waved around at $4.7 billion—taxpayers’ dollars—but nobody can tell you quite what the destination is. This is a time for great reflection to see whether renovation, again, will be enough or whether the government through its lack of clarity is creating some extraordinary regulatory and competition policy challenges it is yet to turn its mind to. I think that is where the real work will be in the coming years. I look forward to being a constructive contributor in that process but I also look forward to holding the government to account for what is a poorly defined policy with enormous resourcing implications. But what sits behind that is that it could be a fundamental and potentially terminal strike on the competition framework for telecommunications in this country if the government gets it wrong. At this time, sadly, there is not a lot of confidence in what the government’s plans are because no-one knows what they are. There is therefore even less confidence that our regulatory framework has the consumer interest protected, embraced and nourished or if we are just going to set up another set of extensive renovations to paper over the errors that may be made with this fibre-to-the-node concept. It is ill-defined and some would say ill-conceived. It is certainly something that people are looking for more clarity on.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Trade Practices Amendment (Access Declarations) Bill 2008 seeks to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify that access declarations are not legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. This bill removes uncertainty for the telecommunications sector following a recent Federal Court decision which has made possible legal implications regarding access declarations. By way of background, the telecommunications sector needs clarity in regard to access declarations made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Access declarations provide a right of access to declared telecommunications services. They aim to prevent those owning and controlling networks from taking advantage of their position in the market by only providing access on unreasonable terms or conditions. Their purpose is to encourage competition in the telecommunications sector. As we have heard, the recent Federal Court decision Roche Products Pty Ltd v National Drugs and Poison Schedule Committee may have implications relating to access declarations. This decision has created uncertainty as to whether access declarations made by the ACCC may be open to legal challenge on the basis that they are legislative instruments and are invalid as they have not been tabled. The bill provides certainty to the telecommunications sector by clarifying that access declarations are not, and are taken never to have been, legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, and it is for those reasons that the opposition now supports this bill.

It is important at the moment to place some facts on the table in relation to some of these debates, because what has taken place in the Australian community is a rewrite of recent history by the current government. It is important as part of this debate to note some facts in relation to competition in the telecommunications sector. In 1997 the Howard government decided to open up telecommunications to full competition. Back then there were just three telecommunications carriers; by May 2007 there were 167 carriers. From 1997 to 2007 the overall average price of telecommunications service had fallen by over 30 per cent. The flow-on effect to consumers and businesses of cheaper communications services is estimated to have been responsible for adding billions of dollars to the size of our national economy. In fact, from 1996 the coalition government made available for $4.1 billion for broadband and telecommunications funding. As a result, over a million businesses and households have access to broadband. Broadband is a consistently and constantly evolving technology, and the coalition’s programs have evolved with the technology.

When last in government, it is important to recognise, Labor presided over a cosy Telstra-Optus duopoly, which failed to deliver substantial price reductions and left most of the cost savings from technological improvements in the pockets of the carriers and not Australian consumers. The increased competition and other microeconomic reforms—that is, reforms that drive efficiency in the economy—have delivered significant benefits to Australians. In 2005, the Productivity Commission estimated Australia’s GDP as 2.5 per cent higher and Australian households’ annual incomes are on average around $7,000 higher as a result of competition policy. Notable examples of the coalition’s push for greater competition include the airlines, where the coalition liberalised air travel both to and within our country; a landmark open skies agreement that was concluded with New Zealand in 1996; and the fact that greater competition with Qantas has been permitted by carriers such as Singapore Airlines and Emirates and now many others. We also concluded an open skies agreement with Singapore in 2003, which gives unlimited rights to carriers from both countries to operate services between Australia and Singapore. We reformed domestic aviation policy by removing the restriction preventing foreign owned but locally based airlines from operating domestic services in Australia. As a result, we have now seen airlines like Virgin Blue operating here to the undoubted benefit of the travelling public. In fact, between 1996 and 2006, international airline passenger numbers have increased from 13.3 million to 21.5 million, a staggering increase of 62 per cent. Domestic air passengers increased from 27.8 million to 44.2 million, an increase of 63 per cent.

There is a similar story in the energy sector, where the coalition overhauled the national energy market with an eye to generating greater investment in the generation and transmission of electricity and gas. Following the Parer review, the coalition worked with the states to create the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, national bodies that replaced some 13 state based authorities. And reform continues as more gas and electricity responsibilities are brought under the umbrella of these new national bodies.

In June 2007, the coalition put forward Australia Connected, a nationwide broadband solution that would have revolutionised communications in Australia. The centrepiece of Australia Connected was the immediate rollout of a new competitive state-of-the-art wireless broadband network that would extend high-speed broadband to 99 per cent of the population and provide speeds of 12 megabytes per second by 2009. By 2009, 99 per cent of Australian households and small businesses would have been able to access a high-speed broadband service which would have had the capacity for live video streaming, five-second CD downloads and multichannel television. Importantly, fast speeds would have been delivered to rural and regional customers at prices comparable to what is being charged in metropolitan areas today.

Labor’s plan to spend $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on a network that industry is prepared to fund itself is economically irresponsible, and it is the kind of irresponsible behaviour that we have come to know of Labor governments at a state level over the last decade as well. Most importantly, the point that needs to be made is that it does pose another risk to the Australian economy. By unleashing the skill and expertise of the private sector, the coalition would have, in contrast to Labor, delivered universal high-speed broadband to all Australians, regardless of where they live, within two years and at a fraction of the cost of Labor’s plan. Labor’s broadband network will not be completed until 2013 and is likely, at best, to reach only 75 per cent of the population. The fibre-to-the-node technology proposed by Labor is not practical for rural Australia. It will outdate quickly and will likely be already outdated by the time it is completed in 2013.

When I started my comments I made reference to the rewrite of recent history by the Labor government during this honeymoon period of their first few months in government when few are questioning the propositions put forward by members of the government, and there has been no greater rewrite of history in recent weeks and months by the Labor Party than in relation to the state of the Australian economy. It is important to remember as part of these debates that when the previous government came to power in 1996 we inherited a $96 billion debt from the Labor Party, who were also running a $10 billion deficit at that time. It is important as part of this debate to put on the record the reality now faced by the Australian Labor Party. Over the course of 11½ years of the coalition government we repaid all of that $96 billion of debt, saving over $8 billion a year in interest repayment moneys that were then applied to other sectors, including health and education. In addition to paying down that debt, whilst in government we were able to set aside $60 billion into funds in perpetuity to provide support to the Australian economy over the coming decades. We put money into the Future Fund and into funds like the Communications Fund. Through the $2 billion Communications Fund, the coalition provided future-proofing for the bush and ensured its future telecommunication needs would have been met. This perpetual fund was an investment in the future to provide an ongoing source of funding to continually improve services like mobile phone coverage in regional, rural and remote Australia.

Labor is proposing to raid the fund which was set up for Australia’s future and to waste it today. Last week Labor introduced the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008, which is set for rigorous debate in the parliament. Labor’s proposal aims to make the fund fair game for any broadband related expenditure considered politically expedient. The bill also aims to open the door for Labor to spend not only the interest earned on investment by the fund but also the $2 billion principal. In fact, last September the parliament passed legislation introduced by the former government to ensure the principal of the Communications Fund did not fall below $2 billion and to protect the fund from misuse. The government’s proposed amendments will remove that safeguard.

We have seen, by way of demonstration when Labor were in government up until 1996 and by the way in which they have managed the states and territories over the last 10 or so years, a complete lack of capacity to provide for the future and to future-proof some of these situations to safeguard the Australian economy against downturns. It is a concern—quite alarming, in fact—that we see in the early days of this government a raiding already of some of those funds.

Labor continues to claim that the coalition has made no plans to invest in our future, but, as I say, that is a hollow claim and, again, part of the rewrite of history when you consider that we have set aside, through the Future Fund, all of those unfunded superannuation liabilities and that we have addressed some of those concerns also in relation to public servant superannuation by closing the PSS and creating the Future Fund to meet those liabilities. We have created not just the Future Fund and the Communications Fund but also the Higher Education Endowment Fund and we have made plans to establish the Health and Medical Investment Fund, among others.

I want to make the point that when Labor came to government on 24 November they inherited an incredibly strong economy. They inherited an economy with unemployment at record lows. They inherited an economy not as we did in 1996 with that massive government debt but an economy with no debt. They inherited an economy which this year will easily deliver a surplus of over 1.5 per cent of GDP. They are running around the country at the moment making great claims that they will achieve a 1.5 per cent surplus in the May budget. If the Labor Party, even with their lack of experience and ability in economic management, do not deliver a surplus of 1.5 per cent or approaching two per cent, then really it will be a startling achievement even by their own low standards. But it is important that all Australians understand that, as we go forward with uncertainty in the US, Europe and Asia, we as a coalition government over the last 11½ years have provided an economy that can withstand many of those shocks. One of the shocks, though, that the Australian economy can never withstand is management by the Labor Party in government. That is something that nobody will ever be able to protect the Australian economy against, because Labor love to spend, they love to tax and they love to drive confidence down. That is what the incompetent Treasurer, Mr Swan, has been doing over recent months—a man who already has been identified not just by those in his own party and ours but by commentators in the financial world, both here and internationally, as somebody who is completely and utterly out of his depth.

It is important, I suppose, as part of this debate to recognise that Mr Tanner, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, is waiting anxiously although as patiently as he can in the wings for Mr Rudd to cut the political throat of Mr Swan. Mr Rudd, of course, is driven by polling and he will see the polling on Mr Swan—the uncertainty of Australians in relation to Mr Swan, who is seen as a negative to the Australian people. Mr Swan is somebody who the Australian people know does not have a plan for the future. Mr Swan is a person who people really do recognise as being a great threat to the Australian economy. If we see that confidence going out of business, and small business in particular, we will see unemployment rise and bad outcomes for the Australian economy.

It is important to also note that there has been a lot made of the issue of inflation in recent weeks. The issue of inflation has been with us as a nation for many years.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order regarding relevance. The member is not speaking to the substance of the bill, rather he is waffling on about anything that comes to his mind.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson is relevant and I invite him to continue.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This important point needs to be made about economic management because it relates specifically to the bill and to the issue of competition policy—of creating competition in the economy and creating circumstances in which businesses can compete against each other. The point that I make is that, when the coalition was in government, we dealt with the issue of inflation; we dealt with the United States recession; we dealt with the Asian economic crisis. That was the reality of all of those economic threats posed to us when we were in government.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise the same point of order. This legislation is about telecommunications; it is not about the economy as such.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the member for Dickson to sum up on the economy and to continue on the bill.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, whenever the issue of the economy comes up, those opposite get very touchy because they know that, above all else, the Australian people will judge the Labor Party on their performance as to the economy, particularly in relation to issues like the trade practices and competition policy that will be administered over the next three years. The point I make is that their rewrite of recent history—particularly in relation to issues covered directly and indirectly by this bill—fails to recognise that, when we were in government, we were able to stave off the impact that the US recession had on our economy and to deal with the ongoing issue of inflation in a high-growth, low-employment economy. That reality, for the Labor Party, is lost.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation that we are debating is not about inflation. I ask you to bring the member back to the legislation before the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening very carefully to what the member is saying. Perhaps he can address the bill.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to finish a little early, but now I will take the opportunity to speak for the next three minutes to cover those points that I have not had a chance to cover because of interjections by economically illiterate members opposite. The reality is that, if this government is going to continue to provide a competitive environment in which business can prosper and Australians can be employed, it needs to take note of some of the concerns that economic and financial commentators have at the moment. The point that I make is this: the coalition, when in government, was able to deal with all of these issues that faced the economy.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I am a very, very patient woman, but what the member is putting to the Committee today is in no shape or form related to this bill and he has more than tested my patience. I actually think he is absolutely abusing the forms of the Committee with what he is doing here. He is in no way addressing this legislation. I understand that it may be above his ability to talk on the legislation.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is totally out of order. You have already ruled on this issue. The member opposite is making comments on the ability of the speaker on this side; she is not speaking to the point of order. You have ruled and she is defying your ruling.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not defying your ruling. It is the member before the Committee who is defying your ruling; he is not talking to the substance of the bill. The standing orders of this Committee say that, when speaking to legislation, members must speak to the substance of the legislation. I am afraid that the member is not speaking to the substance of the legislation and I ask you to rule in that way.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Dickson, would you please sum up in your final comments.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To be lectured on competence by the member for Shortland is nothing short of ironic. In closing, I just say that this bill, the Trade Practices Amendment (Access Declarations) Bill 2008, covers issues which are foreign to the member for Shortland. They go indirectly to issues relating to the economy—a concept which passes her by regularly. The reality is that the government, in its rewrite of history, has tried to fool the Australian people. But over the next three years, if the economy suffers, if Labor runs interest rates up close to their 17 per cent highs, as it did when it was last in government, the Australian people will hold it to account in three years time.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their support for the Trade Practices Amendment (Access Declarations) Bill 2008. This bill promotes certainty and stability in the telecommunications sector by preventing disruption to wholesale access arrangements that would result if a court were to hold that access declarations are legislative instruments. Such disruption also would be likely to have an adverse impact on the availability or price of telecommunication services used by consumers. In effect, the bill preserves the status quo under which access providers and access seekers have been operating since the commencement of the current telecommunications access regime, which occurred in 1997. I commend the bill to the Committee.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill reported to the House without amendment.