Senator BIRMINGHAM (9:38 PM) —The opposition we will be opposing these amendments. Senator Ludlam has made some reference to the overall tone of the debate tonight and the nature of discussion around previous amendments and some of the opposition’s other amendments. They have been well canvassed. He understands as well as any of us that we would have rather seen a full and rigorous ACCC assessment, as I have said on many occasions already.

With regard to these particular amendments, we believe that, in a similar vein to the previous amendments, to some extent they seek to engage the public more. They seek to provide a longer process and they are very much process driven, but they do not fundamentally change the capacity of the ACCC to make independent decisions free of the government’s interference. In particular, I note in amendment (8) that there is further capacity, even in a Greens amendment, for the minister to set out purposes and intervene to some extent. This is, I think, a case where the Greens, in signing up to a deal with the government, have in many ways given up on many of the things that they so often talk about in this place and given up on ensuring that ministers are held to account and independent statutory bodies are genuinely independent and able to operate of their own accord. This is not a case where the Greens are holding true to the types of things that they espouse so often. So often we hear, particularly from their leader, sanctimonious comments about the need in this place for us to be—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marshall)—Order!

Senator BIRMINGHAM —Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I am more than happy to be the purest party in this debate, if that is what you want, because you are the ones that seem to have a great capacity nowadays for caving in to the government first. Senator Xenophon at least held out for something; all you did was hold out to ensure that you would ultimately make privatisation harder. That just shows, of course, that the Greens are living in some type of North Korean empire still, where you want to mandate—

Senator Hanson-Young —We’ve sold it off and now we have to buy it back!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order!

Senator BIRMINGHAM —There it is, isn’t it—we sold it off and now we have to buy it back. That says it all. Senator Conroy is even cringing at that comment. These are your partners in this little adventure, Senator Conroy, you know.

Whilst you may want to see the NBN ultimately privatised and you may believe that is the goal you will eventually reach, we would question whether it is ever going to be worth anywhere near what you are going to spend on it so that when privatised it can provide the taxpayer with any reasonable level of value for money.

All along for the Australian Greens this has been about renationalising telecommunications in this country. That is what Senator Hanson-Young has indicated—it has all been about renationalising telecommunications. They have sold out to the government lock, stock and barrel in the hope of renationalising telecommunications in this country. They have given up on their usual belief that ministers should be accountable to this place.

Senator Hanson-Young —It would be wonderful!

Senator McGauran —You signed a seven-year confidentiality agreement!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask senators to cease injecting and encourage senators to come back to the question before the chair.

Senator BIRMINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator Conroy and I were both commenting before that we would not mind moving on from here. I assume that Senator Hanson-Young’s intervention in the debate means that the gatherings that I saw in the courtyard before have come to a close and there is potentially nothing for us to move on to now, Senator Conroy.

With these amendments, what we have is the Greens once again trying to cover their trail in this legislation. They just want to be able to say, ‘We pursued a few things to make the government somewhat more accountable or transparent.’ That is not at all what these amendments do. They certainly do not make the government any more accountable, because accountability means that there are some consequences if the government does not act. There is no accountability in these amendments, just as there was none in the other amendments. In the end, the government can seek all the advice it wants. It can go out and allow public submissions if it wants—it can do all of those sorts of things—but, ultimately, as we see littered throughout this legislation, the minister still has the capacity at the end of the day to basically do what he wants. For all the Greens’ carry-on, that is the point. The minister has the capacity to do what he wants. What we fear we will see is that, in curtailing the powers of the ACCC and the arrangements, along with what is happening with the National Broadband Network, we will get a less competitive outcome in Australia.

That is not what we want. It is not what anyone in this chamber says they want; yet by excluding the nation’s competition watchdog from exercising their full powers in the way that the Greens have assisted the government to do will only hurt us. It will risk our getting it wrong rather than ensuring that we get it right. The Greens had the chance in previous amendments and divisions to get it right. They chose not to take the chance. This amendment will not make a difference and will not provide an opportunity to fix or cover their failure to actually hold the government to account and seek a real deal on structural separation.