Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was consulted during the drafting of the T3 prospectus? Can the minister indicate whether the disclosures in the prospectus about the risks facing Telstra arising from the Cousins appointment resulted from these consultations with ASIC over disclosure requirements under the Corporations Law? Further, can the minister confirm that disclosures about the risks presented to the business by the proposed Cousins appointment would not have been made but for ASIC’s advice? Can the minister confirm that the government’s preference was for lesser disclosure than the Telstra board considered was required under the Corporations Act on the risks faced by the company in relation to the proposed Cousins appointment?

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

I thank Senator Wong for the question. As Senator Wong would be well aware, it is required by law that the prospectus must identify risks in respect of all aspects of the company’s business. It must identify risks and comply with the regimes of other jurisdictions, as I mentioned earlier, including the United States and its regulatory processes. There is a section in the prospectus that deals with all the potential risks to the company. Advice has been taken from all relevant agencies in order to ensure that the prospectus properly discloses the regulatory risks to the company.

They do include regulatory risks. In relation to the transformation strategy risks, you heard Mr Trujillo last Friday outline a five-year transformation strategy. It obviously outlines marketing and operating risks and investment and other risks. All these matters, and those agencies that have some role in providing input, do provide input into getting the disclosure correct. Investors, in making investment decisions, do need, however, to make their own assessment of the likelihood of any of these risks occurring.

The views that, for instance, Telstra has incorporated into the prospectus on possible regulatory and other risks are consistent with the company’s statements to date on these issues, and that should hardly be surprising to anyone who has been following this matter for about the past year. It is stated clearly in the prospectus, in the relevant places, that those are Telstra’s views. It remains the government’s view that, overall, the telecommunications regulatory regime and risks in relation to that regime are settled. This prospectus makes it clear that the government has in place a telecommunications regulatory regime that is going to promote telecommunications competition, promote a market that is able to provide a level playing field and encourage other operators, as well as Telstra, in respect of some of these new technologies that are being dealt with in Telstra’s transformation. Obviously these matters are disclosed also in terms of the transformation risk as Telstra upgrades its technologies.

The telecommunications regime that the government has in place does and will continue to provide appropriate safeguards for consumers. Telecommunication prices have fallen by more than 26 per cent under the government’s competitive framework. There is nothing anomalous about the regulatory regime and the matters that the government considers are appropriate to disclose in relation to the regulatory risk. The prospectus, as a result of ongoing discussions, very clearly delineates what Telstra’s views are and, indeed, what the government’s views are in relation to regulatory risk. As a result of negotiations and advice, I am advised that the prospectus complies with proper disclosure of all regulatory risks.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister in her answer indicated that advice was taken from all relevant agencies. So I again ask her to confirm that advice was taken from ASIC in relation to the disclosure of the risks associated with the proposed Cousin’s appointment. Can the minister further confirm that ASIC was forced to become involved in the preparation of the T3 prospectus to ensure that the government was not successful in forcing the Telstra board to breach its obligations under the Corporations Law in relation to disclosure?

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

I thank Senator Wong for the question but, my goodness me, Senator Wong is drawing a pretty long bow. ASIC has signed off on the prospectus. Clearly the prospectus complies with ASIC’s view as to what are appropriate regulatory conclusions. The important thing about this, from what we have seen today with this disgraceful attack on Mr Cousins by the Labor Party, is that they seriously do not have much to say about T3, the prospectus and, indeed, this government’s move to get T3 away. We know that the Labor Party have always opposed the privatisation of Telstra. They have opposed it on every occasion—T1, T2 and T3. This government has got the ticker to get on with it. We know that Mr Beazley was prepared to privatise everything that moved; anything not nailed down to the floor—(Time expired)