Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the front-page article in today’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, entitled ‘Telstra: the school bully’. Is it true that Telstra plans to double the line rental charges to NSW schools who choose to take advantage of lower call rates with other telecommunications providers? Is the minister also aware that the line rental increases will hit some of the most vulnerable schools in New South Wales, in areas like Raby and Minto? Hasn’t the minister’s failure to rein in the soon-to-be-privatised Telstra resulted in money that schools could have been spending on new books and facilities, going into Telstra’s back pocket? What action will the minister take to prevent Telstra from exploiting its position at the expense of New South Wales schools and their students?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Hutchins for the question. I understand that Telstra is revising the way it prices services to the not-for-profit sector and in particular to schools. To date, Telstra has offered a special low not-for-profit line rental rate of $19 per month to many schools, regardless of which provider they use for the actual calls. I now understand that Telstra’s new position on provision of this special low rate is that it will only be available to schools that also use Telstra for their telephone calls on that service. Schools, particularly poorer schools, are a particularly sensitive and important sector of the community, and Telstra—as well as the wider industry—should tread carefully when adjusting telephone prices that have been available to schools for many years.

Obviously Telstra has a responsibility to its shareholders, but it should not forget its broader corporate social responsibilities as well, and I urge Telstra not to rush any amendments to the telephone pricing arrangements for schools. It is important that schools are given an appropriate lead time to consider their options before any change, particularly those schools that are on contracts with other providers. As we can all appreciate, it can often take considerable time to move from one provider to another, due to contractual arrangements, and I do encourage Telstra not to rush the implementation of this decision but to give schools time to consider the best package that will meet their needs.

Having said that, I would like to make some additional comments to put some context around Telstra’s decision. Firstly, I am advised that Telstra will still be offering the same large discounts on line rental to all schools, as long as they use Telstra for the school’s telephone service. Secondly, I believe there is some merit in the argument put forward by Telstra that they should not necessarily be required to provide 50 per cent discounts on line rental to their competitors’ customers while their competitors get all the revenue from those phone calls. So, whilst Telstra plans to continue discounts for its customers, I do strongly encourage Telstra’s competitors, particularly the larger companies, to also offer cheaper line rentals to schools.

Australia does have a competitive communications market and all consumers have a choice of provider, service and price. The competition regime established by the government has resulted in substantial price reductions across the board, as well as a much greater choice of services, and each school has the option to compare the services and prices being offered by the large number of service providers that can offer high-quality telecommunications services. Mr President, isn’t it a very good thing that competition means there can be a choice for schools in relation to the prices they are offered and that they are not entirely beholden to Telstra? In those circumstances, I think that the competition regime speaks for itself. Apart from urging Telstra to treat this matter with some caution and to not pull the rug out from under people quickly, I say that it is very important that people have choice.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Doesn’t the minister’s failure to protect schools from the detrimental effects of the government’s extreme privatisation agenda show that all not-for-profit groups are at risk? Isn’t it true that other groups like charities and religious groups could also feel the sting of massive line rental increases if they choose to use other telecommunications providers? Will the minister now intervene—rather than ‘urge’ Telstra—to protect schools and other not-for-profit organisations from Telstra’s abuse of its market position?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The level of lack of comprehension that underlines Senator Hutchins’s understanding of this matter is just extraordinary. The Australian government has ensured that, if Telstra supplies a school with a standard telephone service, the government’s price control arrangements require Telstra to offer that school the standard line rental charge. That does not seem to be a point that has got through to the Labor Party, but I am very glad to have had the opportunity to disabuse them of the assumption that they have made in asking this question. It is very clear that the universal service obligation does work and certainly does provide Australians with the services they need.