Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (5) together:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 13 (after line 21), after subsection 577A(20), insert:

   (20A)    The Minister must not make a legislative instrument under subsection (20) unless the Minister has obtained advice from the ACCC that confirms that the proposed exemption regarding the fixed-line carriage service would promote the long-term interests of end users.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 30, page 13 (after line 27), after subsection 577A(21), insert:

   (21A)    The Minister must not make a legislative instrument under subsection (21) unless the Minister has obtained advice from the ACCC that confirms that the proposed exemption regarding the telecommunications network would promote the long-term interests of end users.

Greens amendments (4) and (5) insert two safety-net provisions in schedule 1 of the bill. This is intended to guide the minister’s discretion in exempting a specific fixed line carriage service offered by Telstra to retail customers. The whole purpose of this legislation is to separate out Telstra’s wholesale and retail arms. Section 577A sets up the framework for Telstra to offer its structural separation undertaking for the ACCC to assess. Subsections (20) and (21) set out two exemptions to this fundamental process by way of a legislative instrument. That is why we have sought to hold the process up here: because these two subsections set out two very important carve-outs to the overall purpose of what this legislation is for.

We understand that there are instances in which there could be a legitimate reason for the minister to create such exemptions or carve-outs, so we are not proposing to remove them from the bill. But we are concerned that at the moment the process is entirely opaque. There is no process there at all for transparency, for reasons or for anything of this sort.

Australian Greens amendments (4) and (5) provide that, if the minister is going to allow such an exemption, he must seek the advice of the ACCC, which, to quote briefly from the amendment itself:

… confirms that the proposed exemption regarding the telecommunications network—

or the fixed line carriage service, as the case may be—

would promote the long-term interests of end users.

So there is your operative phrase right there. If there is going to be a carve-out from the fundamental provisions of the bill, and if Telstra is going to be exempted and is going to be able to continue to offer these services, then the ACCC must provide advice that that carve-out is in the long-term interests of end users. It may seem like a subtle point, but we are introducing a fairly simple requirement that a minimal public interest test be a consideration in the minister granting any such exemption. I commend these amendments to the Senate.