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

I indicate that the Australian Greens will not be supporting this batch of opposition amendments. I might speak to the next batch as well because I know they are related and the intent is certainly related. Merits review is appealing in the abstract but in the context of these agreements we believe it is actually undesirable. Merits review of ACCC access decisions was removed by the coalition as long ago as 2002 because it was simply a mechanism for Telstra to tie up access seekers in endless and very expensive proceedings, and created disincentive for other access seekers to challenge Telstra’s decisions on questions of access to its network.

As I indicated, I will speak as well on the next batch of opposition amendments, which are related to procedural fairness. In the context of the binding rules of conduct issued by the ACCC, these are actually out of place, as binding rules of conduct are urgent interim measures intended to manage a situation until it can be properly addressed via an access determination. This will be produced or varied through a process of public consultation with all stakeholders and I think it would be a waste of public resources, quite frankly, to review an interim decision to see whether it is a proper response to a situation while the ACCC is essentially busy conducting a process to determine the proper response to that same situation. Senator Birmingham has moved the first batch but I indicate in advance that the Australian Greens will not be supporting either of these batches of amendments for those reasons.