Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. This bill introduces measures that were in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009, which was introduced in the parliament in September 2009. This new bill contains amendments to the original bill. The 2010 bill will make significant amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, plus other consequential amendments. We have before us a substantive regulatory reform package that will deliver a more efficient and effective telecommunications market with appropriate consumer safeguards.

The primary aims of the bill are: to address Telstra’s vertical and horizontal integration by providing stronger separation arrangements for Telstra, including a legislative framework to voluntarily structurally separate by migrating its consumers to the National Broadband Network, as agreed in the financial heads of agreement between Telstra and the NBN Co.; to strengthen the telecommunications-specific access regime to provide more certain and quicker outcomes for telecommunications companies; to streamline the anticompetitive conduct regime by removing procedural impediments that in the past have restricted the effective operation of the telecommunications-specific competition regime; and to strengthen consumer safeguard measures.

The case for telecommunications reform is clear. These amendments provide the opportunity to overcome the vertically integrated, privately owned monopoly that Telstra enjoys in the Australian telecommunications industry. These amendments make fundamental reforms to existing telecommunications regulations in an attempt to rectify the anticompetitive nature of the industry. We need to address the mistakes of the past and establish an effective and efficient regulatory framework for telecommunications. The way forward is a mix of strong measures to open up the sector, alongside appropriate safeguards and incentives for consumers. This bill will reshape regulations for the telecommunications sector and will allow us to deliver better and fairer outcomes for Australian consumers, businesses and the broader economy. These reforms will allow the sector to smoothly transition to the NBN. They will increase competition and they will improve consumer safeguards. I certainly hope that those opposite will vote to give consumers a fair go.

Telstra is one of the most integrated telecommunications companies in the world. It is extremely vertically integrated. Telstra currently owns the only fixed copper-wire network in Australia that connects to almost every premise in Australia, as well as the largest hybrid fibre-coaxial cable and mobile networks, and it has a 50 per cent stake in Australia’s largest television subscription provider, Foxtel. The proposed legislation will help promote greater competition in the industry by requiring Telstra to split its functions through a voluntary separation. The vertical separation will reduce incentives for discrimination against wholesale competitors and will result in increased competition. The legislation will also address Telstra’s horizontal integration across the copper, cable and mobile platforms. Separation allows for the open-access market structure, which we are delivering through the National Broadband Network.

The bill will provide more legislative and regulatory certainty for Telstra and its shareholders as it transitions into a retail company. Through these reforms, it is possible to create a win-win situation for Telstra, its shareholders and Australian consumers and businesses. These legislative changes will deliver much needed benefits for consumers while simultaneously protecting consumer interests. I know Senator Bushby, who is in the chamber, would be very supportive of any safeguards to support consumer interests, as he took up a case—as many did in my home state of Tasmania—involving Bruny Island, which we unfortunately have not had a good result on yet, under the current regime.