Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my privilege to deal with these bills on behalf of the coalition and in the absence for personal reasons of Senator Birmingham. This is a very truncated debate today. I notice that because of the guillotine by the Labor Party and the Greens, we have already breached standing orders once this morning, Mr Chairman, because the standing order guillotined through by the Greens and the Labor Party showed that debate on these bills was to start no later than 11 am and would conclude at 11.30 am. It did not start until one minute 30 seconds past the hour of 11. It seems in this chamber that if you are the Greens you have one set of rules and if you are the opposition you have a different set of rules.

Yesterday the Senate gave leave to Senator Faulkner to speak about a very gracious lady in Australian history, Mrs Whitlam. That 30 minutes was given by leave of this Senate, but outside of the rules of the guillotine passed by the Greens political party and the Labor Party. Mr Chairman, I know this Senate does not run to any particular system to assist people in their own personal issues, although I suspect with Senator Faulkner and his very strong connection to the Whitlams that perhaps it was personal.

I had an issue last night where I wanted to make a speech while some 80-year-olds were in the gallery to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the crash of an RAAF aircraft at Duntroon, involving my brother, the pilot of that Dakota aircraft, and other crew members. The surviving members were sitting in the gallery last night. Two of them are well over 80 and unlikely to be able to come back into this chamber at any time in the future.

I thank the members of the Labor Party who agreed this morning to allow me to start this session by special leave to give my speech that I was going to deliver last night on the 55th anniversary of the plane crash that took my brother's life and the lives of the relatives of those people sitting in the gallery last night. Of course, when it comes to these sorts of things, we are inflexible. When it comes to Senator Faulkner speaking about Mrs Whitlam—and she was a very gracious lady and a very important person—the rules seem to be allowed. I thank the Labor Party senators for agreeing to allow me to do that.

I put on record my disgust and detesting of the Greens political party for their refusal to allow me this personal indulgence. I give it out and I take it. I have no regard for the Greens.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: what the honourable senator says is untrue.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is untrue.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, that is not a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Chairman. If what has been reported to me about the Greens' attitude is incorrect, then I will apologise. I can only indicate what was indicated to me: that the Labor Party were agreeable but the Greens had a problem.

As I say, this is a personal issue and personal issues should not involve and interfere with the running of the country. It is typical of the actions of the Greens political party and particularly their leader that this sort of indulgence is given to the Labor Party but not to others. You have the leader again interrupting because he cannot take it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know what ails the senator but it is quite inappropriate for him to be continuing a diatribe on the Greens when he is being indulged to make a personal statement about a matter of historic importance to him. I suggest that he have the decency to stay with that or, Chair, you direct him to do so.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown. It is strictly not a point of order, and Senator Macdonald, I would remind you that you do have the indulgence of the chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I do not. I am actually speaking on the bill before the chamber. Senator Brown, as usual, is completely wrong. He is never in the chamber, so he does not understand what is happening. We are in fact dealing with the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill and related legislation. What I am saying in my contribution to this committee stage is that, although this is a complicated bill, because of the guillotine put in place by Senator Brown and his party we have 30 minutes to discuss these very important bills. I know Senator Fisher wants to say something on this. I want to say something on this but, in 30 minutes, what chance are we going to have to debate anything at all relating to the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill, which I am speaking upon, and which Senator Brown as usual does not understand and has no interest in? It is rare to see him in the chamber. He is here only when, it seems, he is asking questions about issues that certain donors have—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Senator Macdonald is complaining about the shortness of time but he has taken half his speech time now—

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order, Senator Brown.

It is, Mr Chairman. He should address the question before the chair.

The CHAIRMAN: He is addressing the question before the chair. Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is typical of the Greens political party and particularly their leader that they simply cannot take it. Unless it seems to be a question relating to something that is relevant to a substantial donor of $1.6 million to the Greens political party, Senator Brown does not seem to have any interest.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I again ask you to have the senator address the question. You know he is not addressing the question and it is time you got him to address it.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald has been relevant, but he has just started to stray from the relevance of the bill. Senator Macdonald, I remind you of the question before the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about this legislation and that the consultation in relation to the universal service obligation reform is deficient. There are a lot of other problems with this legislation—things that should be addressed in debate in this chamber, but they are not being addressed because the Greens political party and their leader have combined with the government to curtail debate on this and other important legislation. As I mentioned, when it comes to giving leave to vary these rules when it relates to the Labor Party the Greens fall over themselves to agree, but when others seek the approval of the Senate to digress slightly the Greens are not at all interested.

How can we address the issues in this particular legislation in what is now 20 minutes? I repeat: while I always appreciate prayers at the beginning of the day it is contrary to the strict letter of the motion that actually dealt with the time for discussion. We are not even having 30 minutes for this legislation; we are having 29 or fewer minutes.

The coalition questions the need for an entire new bureaucracy to administer the universal service obligation. I would like to question the minister at length about the need for that bureaucracy but are we going to have a chance? We have now 18 minutes left to deal with every aspect of this particular legislation, thanks to the Greens. I know Senator Ludlam makes a contribution to this area of law. Is he happy with the fact that he is going to—

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

Just ask the question.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not tell me to hurry up, Senator Ludlam. You should have thought about this before you agreed with the Labor Party to curtail debate on this legislation to less than 30 minutes. Do not give me the hurry up signal; you should have thought about that before. With the way this chamber is now run in a little coterie of Labor Party and Greens senators we have these sorts of difficulties and these sorts of unfortunate aspects. Senator Conroy, I can well understand why you, as the relevant minister, do not want much scrutiny and do not want much debate on this because this debate—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got me!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know I have got you, Senator Conroy. If we had been debating this particular legislation properly you would have been subject to many penetrating questions from Senator Fisher—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh my goodness!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is the absolute arrogance of the Labor Party and its ministers. Nobody except Senator Conroy, whose total history, whose total qualifications for running Australia's biggest business, a $55 billion telecommunications company—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's $50 billion.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is $55 billion and rising, Senator. His total experience for running the biggest business in Australia is that he was once a clerk in the Transport Workers Union.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A clerk?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What were you?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was an industrial and superannuation officer.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was an industrial and superannuation officer, whose sole purpose in life at the TWU was to get Labor Party people elected to the Senate. He did that very well. He got himself elected to the Senate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And others—be fair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And one or two others. What a qualification for running Australia's biggest business—$55 billion of taxpayers' money, not Senator Conroy's money, not Senator McLucas's money but taxpayers' money.

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Thank you, Senator McEwen. You might recall Senator Conroy started this. So, if you are talking about personal attacks, you should start where they emanated.

The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill is an important bill. We would like to question Senator Conroy at length on why we need an entire new bureaucracy to administer the universal service obligation. Are we going to get an opportunity? We will probably have Senator Conroy talking for the next 10 or 15 minutes and then the debate will be finished. I note Senator Ludlum has wisely left because he is not going to get an opportunity to question the minister about this important piece of legislation. I know that Senator Fisher, who is very, very skilled in this area and who has a real interest in the Telecom­munications Universal Service Management Agency Bill, is barely going to get an opportunity to raise some of the particularly important issues that are relevant to this bill.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has been administering the universal service obligation for some time. We would have thought that it has the expertise to continue doing so, even if the universal service obligation moves to a contractual model from the current regulatory platform. The government has not justified the need for a new entity to administer the public interest telecommunications services, and I want to question Senator Conroy about that particular aspect. He will give an answer, I assume, but it will be, like most answers given by the Labor Party, total spin. I will then want to question him further after he responds to my question.

I understand that the government, with the connivance of the Greens, is going to be moving amendments to its own legislation before the chamber. Have we heard about them yet? Certainly, the amendments have been distributed, but it is very difficult to understand what those amendments are about. These are amendments to the govern­ment's own legislation. We are now going to have some 12 minutes for the minister to answer our questions and the questions of the Greens on this legislation and to deal with government amendments that have been circulated in the chamber but which have not been debated at all. What way is that to run the Parliament of Australia? What way is that to allow legislation to be properly scrutinised, debated and, hopefully, improved? Whilst the coalition generally supports the bills before the chamber there are amendments and improvements that could be made and there are different issues that need to be addressed. But are we going to have time to do that in the next 10 minutes?

What I highlight in my very short contribution to this debate is that the way the Labor Party and the Greens run these chambers means that we are rapidly becoming like the totalitarian regimes of yesteryear Europe. There is no opportunity to debate serious legislation because the Greens and the Labor Party say, 'No, we know what's right; we know what's best for Australia,' and they forget that parliament is about allowing the representatives of the Australian people to question, to propose and to amend legislation of the government.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, am I able to ask questions of the minister?

The CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. That is your right, Senator Fisher.

Thank you. Minister Conroy, as my good colleague Senator Macdonald indicated, the government has circulated some amendments to the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related legislation. As best I can work out in the limited time available it seems that the entirety of them—and they occupy some four pages—have to do with what is called the facilitation of the voice customer migration policy objectives. I presume that is all about facilitating the movement of voice customers during the transition to the NBN.

Given that these amendments have been circulated and that this issue has been raised by the government well after the original bill was introduced in the Senate and well after the Senate committee inquired into the bill, can the minister please explain to the chamber why the government has now seen fit to introduce this raft of amendments on the one topic when, as best I can tell, that topic has not been the subject of previous legislative consideration, nor indeed inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communica­tions Legislation Committee or consultation with industry—to the extent that that was ever facilitated in any way by the government? So, Minister, why now, and how has this come about?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Fisher for her question. None of the amendments that are being put forward are controversial. In fact, the first two groups of amendments were recommended by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in its report on the bills. They were actually recommended. So they were discussed by the Senate committee, which is the proper place for it to happen, and we have taken up some of the recommendations.

The first group of amendments will enable TUSMA, the new statutory authority set up by one of the bills, to disclose information to the Telecommunications Industry Ombuds­man, the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee and the secretary of the department; the second group of amendments provides that the TUSMA board must include a person with knowledge of consumer affairs; and the third group of amendments relates to the role of TUSMA in managing the migration of voice-only customers from the Telstra copper network to the NBN. The migration of these customers will be helped if the service pro­viders of those customers provide customer information to TUSMA. To do so at the moment, however, may breach the statutory privacy and confidentiality obligations. These amendments enable the provision of information and overcome those issues. A related set of amendments permit disclosure by service providers of information to TUSMA where this may assist TUSMA in carrying out any of its functions or exercising any of its powers. These are similar to arrangements that currently allow information to be disclosed to the ACMA, the ACCC and the TIO.

Once again there was a bit of colour and movement on that side of the chamber, with suggestions that it was not discussed or debated, yet two-thirds of these amendments were actually recommended by a Senate committee that examined this at some length—which I am sure you were involved in, Senator Fisher. Possibly you may not have been, so I may be doing you a disservice. I appreciate that you did have some time off, so you may not have participated all the way through that committee. But this was certainly canvassed by a Senate committee.

It is no surprise to see Senator Macdonald once again demonstrating the hypocrisy of the position of those opposite on the National Broadband Network and the legislation that surrounds it. What this legislation does, for the first time, is correct the mistakes of the previous Howard government when it privatised Telstra as a fully vertically integrated monopoly. You said to Telstra, 'It's your job to make sure the phone boxes stay out there in the broader community. It's your job to manage all of the infrastructure of emergency services on your copper network.' This legislation—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Mr Chairman: I asked the minister quite a clear question. I think he responded to it in the beginning, and he is now straying to unrelated matters. We have about six minutes left for this debate. I would ask him to finish his answer and sit down—if he has not already—because I have a follow-up question, and I am sure my colleagues do.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Fisher. Senator Conroy has been relevant to the bill. Senator Conroy, I will remind you of the question that was asked.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As has been noted, I have answered the question, but I am also responding to some comments that were made by Senator Macdonald. I think it is fairly free-ranging if I am responding directly to comments that were made by Senator Macdonald. I think, to be fair to you, Senator Fisher, you were not here, and I do not think Senator Fifield was, but Senator Macdonald is a guilty party. He voted to privatise a vertically integrated monopoly and create the mess that we are cleaning up; this is the final part of the legislation to clean it up. The government, for the first time, are making a contribution towards the costs of the universal service obligation for those in our community that have the worst access to telecommunications services. We are not the party that voted for privatisation that meant that Telstra's mobile phone network did not reach all the places it should. We are not the party—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Mr Chairman: the minister indicated that the government is moving three amendments. He tried to suggest that two-thirds of those amendments were the subject of inquiry by the Senate committee. What he has conveniently misled this chamber about is that the third amendment was not the subject of the committee considerations—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Fisher, that is not a point of order. Senator Conroy is being relevant and speaking within the ambit of the question before the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As I said, they were considered by the Senate committee. I did not suggest that the third was, but what I have been arguing is that this is a mess you made. If Telstra wanted to close a phone box in this country, Telstra put a sticker on it and closed it down. We are now taking away the capacity for Telstra to unilaterally rip phone boxes out of the ground—literally rip them out of the ground, as they have been doing around this country—and get rid of them. We now have a different regime so that they are not able to do those things. We have an agency that will have funding from the government for the first time. You never put a cent in.

How was the universal service obligation fund previously done? Telstra would say it does not pay for all the costs of providing the universal service agency, and there is an existing levy on telcos. How was this figure devised? I think one of the former communications ministers from those opposite used to add his mother's age, divide by his shoe size and just make a number up. I know this because I have inherited it. Every year it comes across the table: 'What amount do we want to charge for the universal service obligation levy?' All we have done so far is roll it over, because trying to fathom the way that Senator Alston calculated the universal service obligation levy was actually comical. Nobody in the parliament, the bureaucracy or the industry has ever to this day been able to tell us what the formula was for creating the levy.

We stepped up and said it is time we had a new agency to make the calculations and to look at this levy arrangement. More importantly, for the first time—it did not come from the National Party or from the rural Liberal Party members that Senator Macdonald so proudly boasts of regularly—we have said the government will make a contribution to protecting the telecom­munications services in dollar terms. We are putting money in: $100 million each year into the future. We are putting that forward to the costs of the universal service levy to make sure Telstra cannot just rip phone boxes that people still use out of the ground. We are proud of that and we will not back away from that. This agency allows us to have a role in protecting telecommunications services for the first time. Those opposite, who privatised a vertically integrated monopoly and who were interested only in fattening up the cow for privatisation in the past, should hang their heads in shame and, as you are going to do in a few minutes, vote for this legislation, because it will be the absolute ultimate shame if you oppose an agency that will guarantee the protection of telecommunications services into the future for regional and rural Australians.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that, of the amendments that the government has circulated, the amendments from (3) onwards—occupying the bottom of page 1, page 2, page 3 and page 4 of the government amendments—each concern facilitation of the voice customer migration policy and do not concern either of the first two-thirds of the amendments, which the minister properly indicated were the subject of consideration by the Senate committee? Can the minister (1) confirm that and (2) confirm that the only ones of the government's amendments that were considered and recommended by the Senate committee were in fact amendments (1) and (2) of the amendments circulated, occupying a third of page 1?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that the first two groups of amendments, as I said, were recommended, which would, by definition, suggest that the third group were not.

The CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has expired. Is it the wish of the committee that the statement of reasons accompanying the requests be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the requests to which it relates? It is so ordered. In respect of Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 the question is that amendments (1) and (4) to (8) and requests for amendment (2) and (3) on sheet BE262 circulated by the government be agreed to:

(1)   Clause 4, page 8 (after line 22), after the definition of telecommunications industry, insert:

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999.

(2)   Clause 4, page 9 (after line 2), after the definition of vacancy, insert:

voice customer migration policy objective means the policy objective set out in paragraph 11(e), in so far as that objective relates to either or both of the following:

  (a)   customer information programs;

  (b)   customer cabling installation programs.

(3)   Page 25 (after line 26), after Division 4, insert:

Division 4A—Facilitation of the voice customer migration policy objective

Subdivision A—Access to information or documents held by a carriage service provider

29A Access to information or documents held by a carriage service provider

Scope

(1)   This section applies to a carriage service provider if TUSMA believes on reasonable grounds that the carriage service provider has information or a document that is relevant to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective.

Requirement

(2)   TUSMA may, by written notice given to the carriage service provider, require the carriage service provider:

  (a)   to give to TUSMA, within the period and in the manner and form specified in the notice, any such information; or

  (b)   to produce to TUSMA, within the period and in the manner specified in the notice, any such documents; or

  (c)   to make copies of any such documents and to produce to TUSMA, within the period and in the manner specified in the notice, those copies.

(3)   A period specified under subsection (2) must not be shorter than 14 days after the notice is given.

Compliance

(4)   A carriage service provider must comply with a requirement under subsection (2) to the extent that the carriage service provider is capable of doing so.

(5)   A carriage service provider commits an offence if:

  (a)   TUSMA has given a notice to the carriage service provider under subsection (2); and

  (b)   the carriage service provider engages in conduct; and

  (c)   the carriage service provider's conduct contravenes a requirement in the notice.

Penalty for contravention of this subsection: 50 penalty units.

29B Copying documents—compensation

     A carriage service provider is entitled to be paid by TUSMA reasonable compensation for complying with a requirement covered by paragraph 29A(2)(c).

29C Copies of documents

(1)   TUSMA may:

  (a)   inspect a document or copy produced under subsection 29A(2); and

  (b)   make and retain copies of, or take and retain extracts from, such a document.

(2)   TUSMA may retain possession of a copy of a document produced in accordance with a requirement covered by paragraph 29A(2)(c).

29D TUSMA may retain documents

(1)   TUSMA may take, and retain for as long as is necessary, possession of a document produced under subsection 29A(2).

(2)   The carriage service provider otherwise entitled to possession of the document is entitled to be supplied, as soon as practicable, with a copy certified by TUSMA to be a true copy.

(3)   The certified copy must be received in all courts and tribunals as evidence as if it were the original.

(4)   Until a certified copy is supplied, TUSMA must, at such times and places as TUSMA thinks appropriate, permit the carriage service provider otherwise entitled to possession of the document, or a person authorised by that carriage service provider, to inspect and make copies of, or take extracts from, the document.

29E Law relating to legal professional privilege not affected

     This Subdivision does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege.

Subdivision B—Disclosure of information

29F Disclosure of information

Scope

(1)   This section applies to information that:

  (a)   was obtained by TUSMA under section 29A; or

  (b)   is contained in a document, or a copy of a document, that was produced to TUSMA under section 29A.

Disclosure

(2)   TUSMA may disclose the information to a carriage service provider if the disclosure is for a purpose relating to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective.

Subdivision C—Consent to customer contact

29G Consent to customer contact

Scope

(1)   This section applies to a carriage service provider if:

  (a)   TUSMA believes on reasonable grounds that, if the carriage service provider were to consent to another person (the third person) contacting:

     (i)   the carriage service provider's customers; or

     (ii)   customers included in a particular class of the carriage service provider's customers;

     for a purpose relating to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective, that consent would be likely to facilitate the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective; and

  (b)   the carriage service provider is not a contractor in relation to a section 13 contract entered into for a purpose relating to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective; and

  (c)   the carriage service provider is not a grant recipient in relation to a section 13 grant made for a purpose relating to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective.

Requirement

(2)   TUSMA may, by written notice given to the carriage service provider, require the carriage service provider:

  (a)   to consent to the third person contacting:

     (i)   if subparagraph (1)(a)(i) applies—the carriage service provider's customers; or

     (ii)   if subparagraph (1)(a)(ii) applies—customers included in a specified class of the carriage service provider's customers;

     for a purpose relating to the achievement of the voice customer migration policy objective; and

  (b)   to do so within the period and in the manner specified in the notice.

(3)   A period specified under subsection (2) must not be shorter than 14 days after the notice is given.

Compliance

(4)   A carriage service provider must comply with a requirement under subsection (2).

(5)   A carriage service provider commits an offence if:

  (a)   TUSMA has given a notice to the carriage service provider under subsection (2); and

  (b)   the carriage service provider engages in conduct; and

  (c)   the carriage service provider's conduct contravenes a requirement in the notice.

Penalty for contravention of this subsection: 50 penalty units.

(4)   Clause 38, page 30 (line 2), omit paragraph (2)(d), substitute:

  (d)   consumer affairs;

(5)   Heading to clause 122, page 73 (line 3), omit "the ACMA and the ACCC", substitute "certain bodies or persons".

(6)   Clause 122, page 73 (line 5), omit "authorities", substitute "bodies or persons".

(7)   Clause 122, page 73 (lines 6 and 7), omit "authority to perform or exercise any of its functions or powers", substitute "body or person to perform or exercise any of the functions or powers of the body or person".

(8)   Clause 122, page 73 (line 9), at the end of subclause (1), add:

  ; (c)   the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman;

  (d)   the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee;

  (e)   the Secretary of the Department.

The statement of reasons read as follows—

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment (3)

The effect of clause 29B of the amendment is to provide for compensation to be paid to carriage service providers for providing copies of documents to TUSMA. It is covered by section 53 because the compensation will be paid out of the Telecommunications Universal Service Special Account established by clause 84 of the Bill, with those payments being made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011

SHEET BE262

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (3)

The stated effect of subclause 29B contained in this amendment is to provide for compensation payments to be made to certain carriage service providers when they are required to provide copies of documents to the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency in relation to the proposed voice customer migration policy. Although the decision to make such a payment would be subject to a decision by the Agency, if such a payment is made, the increased expenditure would be met directly from the standing appropriation contained in clause 84 of the bill.

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would clearly, necessarily and directly result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If, as stated, this amendment would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in clause 84 of the bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that this amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as requests.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.

The CHAIRMAN: In respect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 the question is that amendment (1) on sheet BL246 circulated by the government be agreed to:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 27), after item 28, insert:

28A Section 284 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

284 Assisting the ACMA, the ACCC, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman or TUSMA

28B At the end of section 284

Add:

(4)   Sections 276 and 277 do not prohibit a disclosure by a person of information or a document if:

  (a)   the disclosure is made to, or to a member of the staff of, TUSMA; and

  (b)   the information or document may assist TUSMA to carry out its functions or powers.

28C Section 299 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

299 Assisting the ACMA, the ACCC, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman or TUSMA

28D At the end of section 299 (before the note)

Add:

(4)   If information or a document is disclosed to a person as permitted by subsection 284(4) or this subsection, the person must not disclose or use the information or document except for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of TUSMA's functions and powers.

28E Section 299 (note)

Omit "or the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman", substitute ", the Telecom­munications Industry Ombudsman or TUSMA".

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 be agreed to without requests or amendments.

Bill agreed to.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, as I understand the motions dealing with 'time management', this bill was supposed to start at 11 am. It did not start until about two minutes past. I know Senator Fisher has some other questions she would like to ask. Are we allowed to have the extra two minutes, or what is the ruling where there is a specific time when this bill is to start and it did not? Do we just ignore those two minutes or is this something that the movers of the motion did not contemplate? I am curious as to how we have not started in accordance with the motion agreed to as to time?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, my understanding is that the order passed by resolution of the Senate fixing the hours for today also incorporates the existing standing order of the commencement of the day where prayers take place. I do not believe there was any scope for additional time to be added. You have raised that matter. If anything else needs to be added, the President or I will report back to the chamber.

Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 reported with amendments and requests; Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 reported with an amendment; Telecom­munications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 reported without amendment; report adopted.