Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will do a bit of both. I will not proceed with amendment (4) on the basis of advice that there is scope for an independent telecommunications adjudicator within the framework of the act. From my point of view, it would be preferable to have it in there. I am being pragmatic. Discussions I have had with the opposition on this indicate that a robust structure can still exist without it, so I will not be moving that amendment.

by leave—I move amendments (5) to (8) on sheet 7005 revised:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (before line 26), before paragraph 577A(6)(b), insert:

           (aa)    the national interest in structural reform of the telecommunications industry; and

           (ab)    the impact of that structural reform on:

                   (i)    consumers; and

                  (ii)    competition in telecommunications markets; and

(6)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (after line 28), after subsection 577A(7), insert:

     (7A)    Before making or varying an instrument under subsection (7), the Minister must:

             (a)    cause to be published on the Department’s website a notice:

                   (i)    setting out the draft instrument or variation; and

                  (ii)    inviting persons to make submissions to the Minister about the draft instrument or variation within 14 days after the notice is published; and

             (b)    consider any submissions received within the 14-day period mentioned in paragraph (a).

(7)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 14 (after line 10), after the definition of fixed-line carriage service, insert:

telecommunications market has the same meaning as in Part XIB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 18 (after line 10), after subsection 577B(5), insert:

     (5A)    Before making or varying an instrument under subsection (5), the Minister must:

             (a)    cause to be published on the Department’s website a notice:

                   (i)    setting out the draft instrument or variation; and

                  (ii)    inviting persons to make submissions to the Minister about the draft instrument or variation within 14 days after the notice is published; and

             (b)    consider any submissions received within the 14-day period mentioned in paragraph (a).

Amendment (5) relates to an undertaking on structural separation. Further to the discussion between Senator Joyce and the minister, which the minister alluded to, this amendment requires that, in deciding whether to accept a structural separation undertaking, the ACCC must also have regard to the national interest in structural reform in the telecommunications industry and the impact of that structural reform on consumers and on competition in the telecommunications market. This effectively ensures that the ACCC, in deciding whether to accept the undertaking, considers the broader consumer and competition impacts of the structural reform. I think that is an important consumer protection. It is something that I have discussed at length with the government. Senator Conroy and I will not disagree about the ‘at length’ discussions with his office. I am grateful to his officers. My office and his office have been tormenting each other for the last few days in relation to these amendments. I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the coalition—in particular with the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull—on this series of amendments.

I will speak briefly to amendment (7). This amendment inserts into the bill the definition of ‘telecommunications market’ as it currently exists in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It ties it together so that there is no ambiguity.

Amendments (6) and (8) go to undertakings on structural separation. These amendments provide that, before making or varying an instrument on matters of structural reform, the minister must publish the draft instrument or variation. The minister must also invite submissions to be made within 14 days to which the minister must have regard. In a sense, this provides accountability to the provisional transparency provision. It allows for feedback. It is not intended to unduly delay the process but provides for a period of 14 days for interested parties to have an opportunity to participate. It gives an extra layer of transparency and scrutiny, and I think that would strengthen the ACCC’s role in the entire process. It also includes an important transparency mechanism for the minister in a way that does not unduly delay determinations but provides for necessary input from interested stakeholders.

I commend these amendments to my colleagues.