Thursday, 25 November 2010
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010
I move Australian Greens amendment (R18) on sheet 7019:
(R18) Schedule 1, item 31, page 55 (line 24), at the end of paragraph (b) of the definition of equivalence, add:
, including (but not limited to) terms and conditions in relation to:
(i) ordering and provisioning; and
(ii) fault detection, handling and rectification; and
(iii) technical and operational quality of services.
This is a fairly simple amendment. It goes some way towards specifying what we mean by ‘equivalence’ in the event of Telstra choosing to go down the pathway of functional separation. I suppose everybody in here, as well as Telstra, would hope that we never go down that track. We have added three subclauses to more tightly define what ‘equivalence’ means in this context. Senator Xenophon has an amendment that probably tightens up the definition in the case of structural separation. Australian Greens amendment (R18) deals with the same terminology in the event that Telstra chooses to go down the functional separation path. I commend Greens amendment (R18) to the chamber.