Aussie Gov't regulatory reform paper branded a sham

Stuart Corner
Saturday, 13 June 2009 06:42

IT Industry - Strategy

While most responses to the Government's discussion paper on regulatory reform have taken it as a bona fide document and attempted to respond to the issues canvassed, telecommunications consultant and commentator, Kevin Morgan, has dismissed it as merely reflecting the views of Telstra's competitors.

"The paper is an obvious product of regulatory capture in which those advising the government on policy and to a lesser extent those regulating the industry have been captured by Telstra's competitors," Morgan contends.

He says the paper "should be withdrawn and redrafted to reflect the broader international debate about regulatory reform and, as the Prime Minister has stressed, it should draw upon international evidence and precedent and present "facts not fads'."

According to Morgan, "In framing the options for reform, and most notably the central issue of structural reform, the paper draws on a body of opinion and on assertions repeated by industry lobby groups within Australia such as the Competitive Carriers and major competitors to Telstra such as Optus."

However while the paper raises structural reform as one option it is not canvassed as a serious option, as iTWire has pointed out. Indeed, the submission from the CEPU, stated: "As the Discussion Paper does not canvass the full structural separation of Telstra, the CEPU will not address that option in this submission."


Morgan, however, maintains that structural separation is at the heart of the paper. 'Although the paper canvasses a range of areas that might be the subject of reform its key focus is structural reform, the issue that has dominated the Australian policy debate since Telstra first outlined its plans for fibre to the node in August 2005."

Morgan says "The paper provides no international context or understandings for its options nor does it provide an evidence base that would warrant significant structural reform in Australia other than that filtered by the self interest of the 'stakeholders' that were consulted in mid 2008 on regulatory options for NBN mark one. Indeed such is the extent of the regulatory capture that opinions expressed in 2008 are the only input to the formation of policy.

CONTINUED