The years from 1987 to 1991 brought dramatic changes to telecommunications: the introduction of competition at all levels, the establishment of a regulator, the merger of Telecom and OTC, the creation of a second carrier through the purchase of AUSSAT and the entrance of many new service providers. Yet further substantial change is inevitable.
The same government policy statement that heralded the 1991 changes included a `sunset clause' promising the end of the duopoly by June 30, 1997.[302] Reviews of the 1990 policy were also promised at the time.
The MAC committee strongly argued for a review of the changes three to four years after their implementation and well before the `sunset clause' would end the duopoly in 1997. The changes to the Telecom's administrative accountabilities was also to be reviewed.
Subsequently, other reviews have been announced, including a `Communications Futures' project being undertaken by the BTCE and a Broadband Services Expert Group on a fibre optic `superhighway', both of which will have telecommunications issues at their core.
There are other strong pressures for continuing change. Advances in technology mean that the nature of a telephone service will continue changing, becoming a delivery system for a range of communications, information and entertainment services.
The Government's continuing micro-economic reform policies also herald change. The Report on National Competition Policy (the Hilmer Report), recently accepted by both Commonwealth and State governments, strongly questions the need for industry specific regulation, arguing instead for more uniform, country wide economic regulation.[303] In a recent speech, the Minister put AUSTEL's continued role and functions very much in question, saying:
The future role of AUSTEL as the specialist industry regulator is of particular concern to me. It is quite clear that in the post Hilmer era, the role of specialist industry regulators like AUSTEL will have to be scrutinised.[304]
The convergence of technologies and services may also challenge the continuing need for separate regulatory bodies for telecommunications, spectrum management and broadcasting. It may, in future, be more appropriate to merge or combine those agencies' functions, as the delivery systems and content they regulate merge.
The challenge for government, therefore, is not to manage the changes to telecommunications already made; it is to manage what is becoming a continuing process of change in communications.
There are some lessons from the two major policy changes in telecommunications. They concern the need for clear government policy objectives and an open, accessible process for reform.
The process leading up to policy change was similar for both the 1987/8 policy review and the ROSA review of 1989/90. Both reviews sought input from consumer groups and both did involve consultation with consumer organisations as well as unions and industry.
What neither review achieved, however, was broad public input to or understanding of the implications of the reforms being considered. While consultation was held, it was largely with organisations known to have some expertise in or understanding of the implications of proposed reforms. More general public input and understanding was neither sought or achieved.
Both reviews also resulted in significant changes to government policy on telecommunications. Yet the statements announcing those changes are markedly different in their analysis and explanation of government objectives for reform.
The 1988 government policy statement provides a good example of a clear and detailed statement of government policy. It explained the choices open to government in introducing reforms and why specific choices were made. Further, it provided detailed guidance on the sort of legislative change which would be needed for planned reforms and could also serve as a benchmark in testing whether policy objectives were met.
In contrast, the very short policy statement of 1990 gave little explanation of the reasoning behind the very significant reforms proposed or the policy goals behind the changes. The most comprehensive publicly available discussion of the policy debates which lay behind the 1990 statement was in government documents leaked to the press. As a result, there are few benchmarks against which the success of the 1990 policy reforms can be tested.
One of the few policy commitments to consumers in the 1990 Statement was that they would not be disadvantaged by the reforms. It is not clear what sort of goals for service price, quality and choice does that implied.
The major goal of the reforms was largely the introduction of more competition. What is missing from that goal is tests on what more competition was to achieve. Are the goals achieved by having more carriers and/or more service providers. Are the goals measured against the number of services on offer, their quality and or price.
Without a clear idea of what the 1990 policy changes were to achieve, it will be difficult to say with certainty that the policy reforms have been achieved. Both the need for public involvement and the need for clear and detailed policy objectives need to be addressed in the forthcoming telecommunications policy review.
Because both the corporate and community sectors are affected by further policy change, both should have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into a reform process. The Telecommunications Act provides a process for public consultation which ensures not only that the public has a real opportunity to make submissions, but can obtain background information on the relevant issues and attend public meetings as they are convened.[305] Regardless of where responsibility for carriage of the review lies, a more open, informed and public process should be followed.
Whatever the review process, it should also result in a detailed statement of government policy objectives, with a full explanation of why policy choices are made. That statement can then both guide any necessary legislative drafting and provide the benchmarks against which the achievement of policy goals can be measured.
In the medium to longer term, continuing change in telecommunications policy and structure seems inevitable. If government is to manage the change effectively, policy reforms will need to be developed which continue to balance the often competing interests of industry, business, unions and the public.
The first step is clear and detailed policy objectives. If the aim is for more competition in the industry, how will that be measured: by more carriers, by more service providers, or by the availability to corporate and community Australia of more and better services at better prices.
Those policy objectives will need to include benchmarks. If service quality is to improve, what services are to improve, measured against what standard, and reaching what level. If prices are to drop, does that mean all prices, prices to corporate Australia, prices to some or all residential consumers. Essentially, how will the government know whether its policy goals are being met. And who will be responsible for ensuring that particular goals are met.
Information, particularly publicly available information, will be another important issue in the changing environment. As more competition is introduced, the natural inclination of carriers and service providers will be to make as little information public as possible. For example, Telecom now provides quality of service data to AUSTEL on a quarterly and disaggregated basis. Yet, because Telecom's view is that the disaggregated service quality data is confidential, the only publicly available information on their service quality comes from AUSTEL's annual carrier performance report, which reports only nationally aggregated information.
Without publicly available data on carrier and service provider services and performance, it will be difficult to accept that government policy goals have been met. It will also be increasingly difficult for the public to make informed choices about the services on offer.
Finally, there will be a continuing role for input into the success or otherwise of the government's policy goals. It may be through AUSTEL's advisory committees. It might be through a departmental review, held annually, to assess aspects of government policy. Whatever the process, there will be a continuing need to evaluate government policy objectives in an ever changing telecommunications environment.
[302] 1990 Policy Statement, Decision 82, p. 14.
[303] Report by the Independent Committee of Inquiry, (Chairman Prof. F. Hilmer) National Competition Policy, AGPS, Canberra, August 1993. pp 325-8.
[304] Minister for Communications and the Arts,1994, p. 14.
[305] Part 14, Telecommunications Act 1991.