Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

They must be cracking open the champagne in Telstra at the moment because they cannot believe their luck in that the Australian Labor Party actually wants to remove operational separation. Senator Allison and Senator Conroy either do not understand or do not care what the outcome of this disallowance motion would be were it to be supported. I do not think it will be supported. I cannot believe that Senator Conroy, who preaches competition, who at Senate estimates talks about competition, could actually move a disallowance motion of which the only outcome would be to destroy competition in the telecommunications industry in this country. It is quite remarkable.

What is interesting is the question of who is actually running this portfolio. Is it the shadow minister or the shadow shadow minister? Is it the member for Melbourne in the other place, Mr Tanner, or is it Senator Conroy? Because when Senator Coonan—the fantastic communications minister that she is—announced operational separation guess who came out and said that we had stolen their policy? It was the shadow shadow minister, Mr Tanner. He said, ‘The government’s stolen our operational separation policy.’ And now we have the shadow minister—I think he is the shadow minister; I am not too sure whether he is the shadow shadow or the shadow, but he is certainly a shadow—saying that the Australian Labor Party does not support this.

As I said before, the only outcome of this motion being successful is that there will be no operational separation in Telstra, and that is a position that is grossly, grossly irresponsible. Effectively what Senator Conroy wants to do is to water down a critical regulation imposed on Telstra to ensure transparency and equivalence in the supply of services to Telstra’s wholesale customers and to further reinforce the development of vibrant competition in the Australian telecommunications market. If the Australian Labor Party support no regulation of Telstra at the expense of competition then so be it. But I can assure you that the government will be making it very, very clear to the Australian community, and particularly to Telstra’s competitors, that that is what the Australian Labor Party now stand for. It is so ludicrous that it is probably not unfair to suggest that the Labor Party now want to disallow the universal service obligation, which entitles everyone to a phone service, or the customer service guarantee. How far do they want to go with this outrageous policy position, one which they initially supported and now have turned against?

Let us have a look at what this motion will do. If this motion passes, Telstra will no longer have to establish and maintain within the company separate wholesale, retail and key network services business units. If it passes, Telstra will escape its obligations to implement strategies for service quality, information equivalence, information security and customer responsiveness which relate to Telstra’s wholesale services generally. If the motion passes Telstra will no longer have to produce internal contracts, key performance indicators or a price equivalence framework. If it is passed Telstra will no longer be required to have separate staff and separate premises for the wholesale and retail business units, or a requirement that anyone who works for a retail unit cannot work for the wholesale unit.

The government are committed to the operational separation which is being implemented as we speak. We believe it is the only and most effective way to increase the transparency of Telstra’s operations and to improve the equivalence of supply of eligible services to Telstra’s wholesale customers. The operational separation framework goes well beyond an accounting separation. Senator Allison, the Leader of the Democrats, should apologise for her implication that this was an accounting separation. It is not; it goes well beyond that. It provides for organisational separation strategies for the delivery of high-quality wholesale services, internal contracts for the delivery of designated services and a robust compliance framework. The operational separation arrangements were developed in consultation with the ACCC—not contrary to it, as the Leader of the Democrats alleged. They take into account feedback from industry stakeholders on the preliminary draft plan released by Telstra in February this year.

Operational separation guarantees the independence of Telstra’s wholesale business unit from its retail units. The wholesale business unit will now have control within Telstra for providing services to wholesale customers, and the retail business units must no longer have any influence, control or responsibility for providing services to wholesale customers. These measures complement the robust, industry specific and anticompetitive conduct and access regulations in parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act. The government will be monitoring the effectiveness of operational separation closely, and stands ready to enforce its provisions should it be deemed necessary.

There are people within the industry who, as we speak, are absolutely scratching their heads as to what has possessed Senator Conroy to go down this path. Every one of those competitors, at every Senate estimates hearing I have been at, has been calling for this type of regulation to reinforce the sort of competitiveness that we have seen in the telecommunications industry under this government. It beggars belief that the Australian Labor Party now no longer supports operational separation. It beggars belief that the Australian Labor Party no longer supports competition in the telecommunications industry, because that is exactly what this disallowance motion means today.

Finally, I invite Senator Allison to go back to the details I gave this chamber over the last week and a half about what the OECD said in relation to broadband penetration. She has absolutely misrepresented the position of the OECD and I invite her to go and read that speech which sets out the true situation.

Debate (on motion by Senator Colbeck) adjourned.