Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

You cannot possibly maintain the claim that this government has been transparent and open about the NBN when it has refused to provide even the most basic details to this parliament. Yet, of course, we find out from matters reported to the stock exchange that there are questions that this parliament rightfully should have had answers to.

The government emphasised in December 2014 that revisions to the TUSMA agreement do not include any:

… weakening of the obligations imposed on Telstra to continue to deliver the STS USO, Payphones USO or emergency call services.

But what we see is that, under the revised TUSMA agreement negotiated by the government, the period of time within which Telstra may be required to take action in the event of a breach has been extended from 14 days to six months. I note that the purpose of the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency is:

We support the delivery of universal service and other public-interest telecommunications services for all Australians through the implementation and effective administration of contracts and grants.

Our aim is to promote high quality and efficient contract and grant management to maximise the benefit for consumers and manage risks appropriately, within a transparent and accountable legislative framework.

Contrary to the government's assertion, this new provision is in fact a weakening—I repeat, a weakening—of the obligations imposed on Telstra to continue to deliver on its STS universal service obligation, its payphones universal service obligation or emergency call services. It has not been included in the TUSMA agreement for the purposes of maximising the benefit to consumers. This provision in the TUSMA agreement, of course, is not in these bills.

So we will not be opposing these bills but, if the Commonwealth had been less secretive in relation to the Commonwealth agreements and their nexus with the TUSMA arrangements in the deregulation bills, the referral back to the committee would not ever have been necessary. These bills could have been passed months ago.