Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I think there are no other colleagues seeking to make a contribution, so I thank those who have. I just want to do three things quickly to briefly cover off the main provisions of the bills and respond to some of the points raised by Senator Carr and Senator Ludlam.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014 will streamline telecommunications regulation while maintaining important consumer safeguards. The amendments will contribute to the government's agenda of cutting red tape by $1 billion every year to reduce the regulatory burden. The bill delivers reform in the portfolio through better tailored regulation to lower the cost burden on industry and consumers, with expected savings of $6.71 million a year. There has been extensive and close consultation between industry, consumer groups, government agencies and the Department of Communications. The government released a discussion paper and telecommunications deregulation road map in early 2014, followed up with a stakeholder forum in May last year. In February, as colleagues would know, the Senate referred the bill to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by May. The committee recommended that the bills be passed; indeed, this was the second time that the committee had examined these bills.

The main measures in the bill as amended and passed in the other place include the abolition of TUSMA, which was announced in the May budget, and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Communications; the repeal of minor regulatory requirements governing certain adult phone services; the removal of the time limit on registration on the Do Not Call Register that Senator Ludlam referred to; the removal of the arrangements for the ACMA to register e-marketing codes under the Telecommunications Act; a reduction in the scope of telephone preselection obligations; minor compliance changes relating to the publication of notices; and a minor change to the consumer notification obligation concerning the customer service guarantee. A lot of these are just common-sense changes which reflect the changing world that we are in and how telecommunications have changed over time.

There were two points that Senator Carr raised that I want to cover off that were also touched on by Labor senators in their additional comments in the Senate committee report. The first is Labor senators' concern that there was limited information provided by government on the amendments to the TUSMA agreement. I indicate that the reality is that comprehensive information has been shared by the government and Telstra. Mr Turnbull's media release at the time, as well as Telstra's ASX announcement at the time of signing, provided comprehensive information in relation to the amendments to the TUSMA agreement. Telstra's ASX announcement was and still is available via a link on the department's website. There is also a summary of the terms of the TUSMA agreement on the TUSMA website, and TUSMA is required to publish that information under section 27 of the TUSMA Act. If the TLA dereg. bills are passed, and it looks like they will be, then the department will make available the same information on the department's website.

Labor senators also were concerned that moving from a 14-day period to up to six months to enforce a contractual breach is a weakening of the TUSMA agreement. Let me just explain it. The rationale for the extension from 14 days to six months is that it provides the Commonwealth with a greater period of time to exercise its rights, providing TUSMA or, as is proposed by the bill, the Department of Communications greater flexibility, given that both TUSMA and the ACMA have enforcement roles in this area. The change does not prevent the Commonwealth from taking action more quickly under the contract if that is warranted, but it does enable greater time to coordinate with the ACMA on whether regulatory or contractual action will occur if there is a breach. I hope that provides some comfort to colleagues.

Senator Ludlam raised the issue of record-keeping changes and the amendment that was moved in the House of Representatives. Following the introduction of the bills in the other place, public concerns were aired in relation to section 5 of the bill, which sought to remove certain record-keeping and disclosure requirements listed in part 13 of the 1997 act. In light of the current focus on data and privacy in the telecommunications industry, the government moved an amendment to remove schedule 5 in its entirety from the bill. The government believe that disclosure reporting should be consistent across sectors before removing an existing reporting obligation. While the record-keeping changes proposed in schedule 5 reflected a particular industry concern that the requirements were duplicated across portfolios, the government have determined that existing arrangements will continue until a more consistent framework can be agreed upon. As colleagues know, the bill, as amended in that way, went through the House at the end of last year, which is why it is before us today in its current form.

I hope that provides some additional context for colleagues in relation to that particular change and I commend the bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.