|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:20:22
|
Title
Description
An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed. The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".(Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
) This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.(See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
) Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote (i.e. take the vote again) because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.(See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
)''Background to the bill''This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:* improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated* making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction* removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets* clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable* extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and* enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].)With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions. - An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
- The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".(Read more about the amendment [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2), after 9:58 pm. ) This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.(See the first time this amendment was put to division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate). ) Liberal Senator [Stephen Parry](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate) sought leave to recommit the vote (i.e. take the vote again) because his colleague, Senator [Michael Ronaldson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate), was absent the first time round.(See that leave application [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1). )
- _Background to the bill_
- This [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479) was introduced following the lapse of the [Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212) and relates to the regulation of [consumer protection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection), [competition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law) and licensing in [telecommunications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications) markets. According to the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045), significant changes made by this bill include:
- - improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [Telstra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra) to be structurally or functionally separated
- - making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- - removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- - clarifying the [universal service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation) obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- - extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
- - enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045).)
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
|
|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:40
|
Title
Description
- An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.[2] Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote (i.e. take the vote again) because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.[3]- The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".(Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
) This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.(See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
) Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote (i.e. take the vote again) because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.(See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
)
- ''Background to the bill''
- This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:
- * improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated
- * making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- * removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- * clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- * extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
* enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.[4]- * enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].)
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
''References''* [1] Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.* [2] See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].* [3] See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].* [4] More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-22 11:32:15
|
Title
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — Definition of 'equivalence'- Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — Definition of 'equivalence' (recommittal)
Description
- An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.[2] Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.[3]- The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.[2] Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote (i.e. take the vote again) because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.[3]
- ''Background to the bill''
- This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:
- * improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated
- * making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- * removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- * clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- * extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
- * enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.[4]
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
- * [2] See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
- * [3] See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
- * [4] More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-22 11:31:23
|
Title
Description
An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed. - An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
- The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.[2] Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.[3]
- ''Background to the bill''
- This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:
- * improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated
- * making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- * removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- * clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- * extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
- * enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.[4]
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
- * [2] See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
- * [3] See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
- * [4] More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-22 11:31:02
|
Title
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Definition of 'equivalence'- Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee — Definition of 'equivalence'
Description
- An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
The amendment was a technical amendment that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time this amendment has been voted on.[2] The first time, Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson] was absent and so Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote.[3]- The amendment was a technical one that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time the amendment has been voted on.[2] Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote because his colleague, Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson], was absent the first time round.[3]
- ''Background to the bill''
- This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:
- * improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated
- * making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- * removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- * clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- * extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
- * enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.[4]
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
- * [2] See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
- * [3] See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
- * [4] More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2010-11-26#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-22 11:25:37
|
Title
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee- Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Definition of 'equivalence'
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I move amendment (16) on sheet 7005 revised:</p><p class="italic">(16)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 59 (after line 7), at the end of clause 74, add:                            </p>- An equal number of senators voted in favour and against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-25.231.1 amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was unsuccessful because no majority was formed.
- The amendment was a technical amendment that related to the meaning of the term "equivalence".[1] This division is the second time this amendment has been voted on.[2] The first time, Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Michael_Ronaldson&mpc=Senate&house=senate Michael Ronaldson] was absent and so Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Parry&mpc=Senate&house=senate Stephen Parry] sought leave to recommit the vote.[3]
- ''Background to the bill''
- This [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4479 bill] was introduced following the lapse of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4212 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009] and relates to the regulation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection consumer protection], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law competition] and licensing in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications telecommunications] markets. According to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest], significant changes made by this bill include:
- * improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstra Telstra] to be structurally or functionally separated
- * making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
- * removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
- * clarifying the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_obligation universal service] obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
- * extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
- * enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.[4]
- With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.
- Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.
- ''References''
- * [1] Read more about the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2010-11-25.118.2 here], after 9:58 pm.
- * [2] See the first time this amendment was put to division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-26&number=1&house=senate here].
- * [3] See that leave application [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-11-26.40.1 here].
- * [4] More information about the bill is available in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/11bd045 bills digest].
<p class="italic">           (ca)    the principle that Telstra’s wholesale/network business unit should have discrete branding and identity to that of its retail business units;</p><p class="italic">           (cb)    the principle that Telstra’s management and personnel should be strictly separated between:</p><p class="italic">                   (i)    its wholesale/network business unit; and</p><p class="italic">                  (ii)    its retail business units;</p><p class="italic">                      and that remuneration should be tied to business unit performance, not group performance;</p><p class="italic">           (cc)    the principle that Telstra should maintain strict information barriers between:</p><p class="italic">                   (i)    its wholesale/network business unit; and</p><p class="italic">                  (ii)    its retail business units;</p><p class="italic">                      and that Telstra’s retail business units and its wholesale customers should interact with Telstra’s wholesale/network business units using the same information systems;</p><p class="italic">           (ce)    the principle that Telstra should maintain separate financial accounting between:</p><p class="italic">                   (i)    its wholesale/network business unit; and</p><p class="italic">                  (ii)    its retail business units;</p><p class="italic">        (2)    In determining the principle of equivalence covered by paragraph (1)(a), regard must be had to whether:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    the terms and conditions relating to price or a method of ascertaining price; and</p><p class="italic">             (b)    other terms and conditions;</p><p>on which Telstra supplies regulated services to its wholesale customers are no less favourable than the terms and conditions on which Telstra supplies those services to its retail business units.</p><p class="italic">        (3)    Subclause (2) does not limit the matters to which regard may be had.</p><p class="italic">        (4)    Disregard subclause (2) for the purposes of subsections 577A(2) and (3).</p><p>This amendment relates to the functional separation principles. It requires that there be separate branding and identity between Telstra’s wholesale network business and its retail business unit. This amendment further specifies that there be strict separation between their information sharing, financial accounting and personnel. This is to ensure that there is a distinct and identifiable difference between the two entities. This amendment also provides that, in determining the principles of equivalence, which we discussed earlier today and last night, regard must be had to the terms and conditions and methods of ascertaining prices to ensure that what Telstra wholesale supplies to its wholesale customers is no less favourable than the terms and conditions applied to the Telstra retail unit. I emphasise that this amendment relates to the issue of functional separation. I said previously that functional separation would be a poor second cousin to structural separation, but it enhances those principles in terms of equivalence, pricing, accountability and ensuring that the separation is as strict as possible if it is a functional separation. I know that the government is likely to support some but not all of this amendment. I will wait to hear the government’s position in relation to this amendment—and, of course, the positions of my colleagues in the opposition and on the crossbench.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>The government is broadly supportive of this amendment but we do not support paragraphs (ca) to (ce). If functional separation is required by Telstra then these are the types of matters that will be addressed in the minister’s functional separation requirements determined under clause 75 in the bill. Such an instrument will be able to be drafted in a way which avoids technical problems which we believe Senator Xenophon’s amendment brings about. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) to Senator Xenophon’s amendment (16) on sheet 7005 revised.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move:</p><dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>Omit paragraphs (ca) to (ce).</dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>Omit clause (4), substitute the following:</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>To avoid doubt, this clause does not affect the meaning of anything in Part 33.</dd></dl> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The opposition will not be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendments. We do not believe they add to the bill’s workability or to how it will function. There is also the fact that the government is seeking to excise a large swathe from the amendment and simply again leave behind parts, similar to those we have discussed previously, that may add to the process undertaken but do not add to the strength of conditions upon the minister or the government. Therefore we do not see that it is worthwhile supporting this amendment; it will not give a meaningful enhancement to the bill. And, as mentioned, the government itself is choosing to excise a large part of what Senator Xenophon is proposing.</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p> The question is that the government amendments (1) and (2) to Senator Xenophon’s amendment (16) on revised sheet 7005 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">The Temporary Chairman</p><p>The question is that Senator Xenophon’s amendment (16) on revised sheet 7005, as amended, be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I move amendment (18) on revised sheet 7005 standing in my name:</p><p class="italic">(18)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 59 (after line 21), after subclause 75(4), insert:</p><p class="italic">     (4A)    Before making or varying a functional separation requirements determination, the Minister must:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    cause to be published on the Department’s website a notice:</p><p class="italic">                   (i)    setting out the determination or variation; and</p><p class="italic">                  (ii)    inviting persons to make submissions to the Minister about the determination or variation within 14 days after the notice is published; and</p><p class="italic">             (b)    give the ACCC a copy of the notice; and</p><p class="italic">             (c)    consider any submissions received within the 14-day period mentioned in paragraph (a); and</p><p class="italic">             (d)    ask the ACCC to give advice to the Minister, within 28 days after the publication of the notice, about the determination or variation; and</p><p class="italic">             (e)    have regard to any advice given by the ACCC.</p><p class="italic">      (4B)    Subclause (4A) does not, by implication, prevent the Minister from asking the ACCC to give the Minister additional advice about a matter arising under this clause.</p><p>I have withdrawn amendment (17), but I am persisting with amendment (18). This amendment requires that, before the minister makes the functional separation requirements determination, the minister must publish the draft determination on the department’s website and call for submissions to be made within 14 days. Again, it is similar to other amendments—it is about greater transparency; it is about the process of allowing for input to the determination.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>The Australian Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment (18). It is quite consistent with a number of the amendments that we have moved and carried, providing these windows for transparency part of the way through the process that I think will provide other participants in the market, and indeed the general public, with an important idea of how the process is rolling out. So we will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment (18).</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>The government is supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment (18). This amendment requires the minister, before making or varying a functional separation requirements determination, to publish the determination or variation and to undertake a public consultation process about the determination or variation for a period of 14 days. The minister is also required to ask the ACCC to give advice within 28 days after the publication of the determination or variation. This amendment addresses concerns raised by the Competitive Carriers’ Coalition and Macquarie Telecom in their submissions to the inquiry into the bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The opposition will not oppose Senator Xenophon’s amendment. We accept the arguments that Senator Xenophon has put and look forward to seeing the information that his amendment will ensure is tabled and to some level of consultation or discussion arising from it.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I thank members for their indications of support. I just want to make it clear that, following this process of consultation, the minister must consider any submissions received and request the ACCC to give advice. These amendments also allow for the minister to ask the ACCC for additional guidance as needed and they are designed to ensure full transparency in the process. I think the process will be a useful one and, like Senator Birmingham, I look forward to this adding a layer of scrutiny to the process.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>I move amendment (19) on sheet 7005 standing in my name:</p><p class="italic">(19)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 70 (after line 17), at the end of Part 9, add:</p><p class="italic">        (1)    If:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    a final functional separation undertaking is in force; and</p><p class="italic">             (b)    the ACCC considers that Telstra has breached the undertaking;</p><p>the ACCC must apply to the Federal Court for an order under subsection (2).</p><p class="italic">        (2)    If the Federal Court is satisfied that Telstra has breached the undertaking, the court may make any or all of the following orders:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    an order directing Telstra to comply with the undertaking;</p><p class="italic">             (b)    an order directing the disposal of network units, shares or other assets;</p><p class="italic">             (c)    an order restraining the exercise of any rights attached to shares;</p><p class="italic">             (d)    an order prohibiting or deferring the payment of any sums due to a person in respect of shares held by Telstra;</p><p class="italic">             (e)    an order that any exercise of rights attached to shares be disregarded;</p><p class="italic">              (f)    an order directing Telstra to pay to the Commonwealth an amount up to the amount of any financial benefit that Telstra has obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the breach;</p><p class="italic">             (g)    any order that the Court considers appropriate directing Telstra to compensate any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach;</p><p class="italic">             (h)    any other order that the Court considers appropriate.</p><p class="italic">        (3)    In addition to the Federal Court’s powers under subsection (2), the court:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    has power, for the purpose of securing compliance with any other order made under this section, to make an order directing any person to do or refrain from doing a specified act; and</p><p class="italic">             (b)    has power to make an order containing such ancillary or consequential provisions as the court thinks just.</p><p class="italic">        (4)    The Federal Court may, before making an order under this section, direct that notice of the application be given to such persons as it thinks fit or be published in such manner as it thinks fit, or both.</p><p class="italic">        (5)    The Federal Court may, by order, rescind, vary or discharge an order made by it under this section or suspend the operation of such an order.</p><p>This relates to the enforcement of functional separation undertakings. This amendment inserts an enforcement of undertakings provision into the functional separation undertakings. If the ACCC determines not to take any breaches of the undertaking to court, it must publish its reasons. That is the basis of it. I think it is important that, if there will not be an enforcement for an apparent breach, we need to know why.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p><p>I will just indicate briefly that the Australian Greens, after careful consideration, will not be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment (19). It appears as drafted to introduce an obligation upon the ACCC to take action in the Federal Court if Telstra breaches functional separation undertakings or principles. It goes a step further than the way the system would function with regard to structural separation, where the ACCC may take action. My reading—unless Senator Xenophon wants to correct me—is that this amendment would actually compel the ACCC to go after Telstra in court, even in the event of a fairly minor or accidental breach of the undertaking. We would prefer that that power remain discretionary. We hope—as I think everybody said in here last night and has said over the last couple of days—that we do not wind up going down the functional separation path, but we think it is probably a bit tough and perhaps a bit heavy-handed to compel the ACCC to give Telstra a belting even in the event of a fairly minor or accidental breach.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|