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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7006 together:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (before table item 1), insert:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 2), before Part 1, insert:

Part 1A—Objects

Telecommunications Act 1997

1A  At the end of subsection 3(1)

Add:

   ; and (c)    the availability of accessible and affordable carriage services that enhance the welfare of Australians.

These amendments are probably among the less controversial amendments that various people will be moving this afternoon. It is good, after 13 months of delay and waiting around, to finally be at the committee stage of the debate. These amendments effectively insert an object in the Telecommunications Act to remind law makers and the public what this act is for. The objects of the Telecommunications Act at the moment lack an explicit reference to the purpose of telecommunications markets, and over time competition has emerged as a proxy for the public good. With due regard to the benefits of properly regulated competition, the Greens believe that the act should incorporate explicit principles of the rights of end users and not just assume that competition is always an effective proxy or an effective stand-in for end-user benefit.

The Telecommunications Act does not define the long-term interests of end users but, instead, refers to the definition in section 152AB of the Trade Practices Act, where promotion of the long-term interests of end users is achieved through meeting three objectives. The first is:

(c)

the objective of promoting competition in markets for listed services;

The second is:

(d)

the objective of achieving any-to-any connectivity in relation to carriage services that involve communication between end-users;

And the third is:

(e)

the objective of encouraging the economically efficient use of, and the economically efficient investment in:

(i)

the infrastructure by which listed services are supplied ...

Surprisingly, the Telecommunications Act 1997 defines neither the long-term interests of end users nor any-to-any connectivity, despite the former being the main object of the act. Their leaving these definitions to the Trade Practices Act shows that the policymakers at the time clearly saw both overwhelmingly in terms of competition. The Greens do not think competition principles alone go anywhere near far enough in defining the public good, so we are seeking an explicit provision in the Telecommunications Act to spell it out. With those brief comments, I commend Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet to 7006 to the chamber.