Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications and the Arts)(11.06 a.m.) —The government, in its just over 12 months in office, has had a number of inquiries and has established a number of expert groups. On each of those we have been very keen to appoint consumer representatives. On the information policy advisory committee, for example, we have a representative of the ACA. On the experts group, which I established in relation to this whole package almost 12 months ago, again we had a representative from the ACA. On the standard telephone service review we had representatives of both the ACA and—

Senator Margetts —Which ACA are you talking about?

Senator ALSTON —The Australian Consumers Association.

Senator Margetts —Because the Australian Communications Authority has the same initials.

Senator ALSTON —Firstly, it does not exist; secondly, it is not a consumer body; and, thirdly, I am talking in the context of consumer associations. In that context, there is only one ACA.

For the standard telephone service report we appointed representatives from both the ACA and CTN. That, I think, establishes our bona fides and our determination to ensure that consumer views are taken fully into account. I certainly was not attempting to suggest that consumer groups had not been following the debate closely or have not put views forward. I am simply trying to indicate to you that, apart from you raising the issues here, very little concern has been expressed over a period of years about the whole notion of network boundary other than in general terms. That is the sort of stock-in-trade that you have thrived on for years. That is how Senator Allison earns a living: by basically getting up and raising concerns, doing a bit of hand wringing and sitting down again. You do not actually address a specific amendment or look at how the situation might be improved.

The problem with this particular amendment is that we would never know where to stop. If there is an obligation to consult bodies and associations that represent the interests of consumers—

Senator Margetts —I'm sure you would.

Senator ALSTON —Well, you could set one up tomorrow. If they consulted a body and you did not get the right answer, you could set up another one, and that would have to be consulted. You would simply never know whether you had fully complied with that obligation. I suppose it would even be possible to get an injunction to restrain the ACA or the government from proceeding with legislation because it had not properly complied with the requirement to consult every conceivable body and association that might represent the interests of consumers.

The effect of this amendment will be to enable carriers and service providers to escape their obligations under industry codes in the standards regime. It would certainly make the codes and standards scheme unworkable. As I say, there is every intention to ensure that consumers' views are taken into account—for the obvious reason that, unless that is done, justifiable criticism is invited. At the end of the day, it is the consumers whose benefits ought to be paramount in all of these reforms.

I know there are those who would like to suggest that this is being done for some conspiratorial reason to benefit carriers or other parties. It all flows through to consumer benefits and, if you do not justify it on that basis, then you do not embark on changes. But consumer interests are what we have absolutely in mind as our paramount consideration. We very much want all of the regulatory bodies to ensure that they are fully aware of consumer views. An amendment as open-ended and as wide ranging as that could simply never be satisfied if it were treated strictly on its wording.