[LINK] Coonan vs Conroy

[Eleanor Lister]

David Lochrin wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 20:10, Danny Yee wrote:
>   
>> Roger Clarke wrote:
>>     
>>> How are you going to force Telstra to pass the national
>>> infrastructure into a separate company without paying mega-billions
>>> in compensation to them?
>>>       
>> This is no problem.  Existing shareholders in Telstra will be given
>> shares in both "Australian Internet Infrastructure" and the "new"
>> Telstra.  So they won't have lost anything -- they will still own the
>> local loop infrastructure -- and no compensation will need to be paid.
>>     
>
>    It's both simpler and more complicated than that.
>
>    The Government would need to pass legislation which applies to all providers of "communications infrastructure" (to be defined) without particular reference to Telstra.
>   

rubbish, they do it all the time, as an enabling act, and it can name
particular entities and be as prescriptive as the gov't wants it to be.

here's an example of a statutory authority set up with one :
http://www.abcc.gov.au/

if you examine it carefully, it affects the CFMEU disproportionately and
is real secret police stuff with 6 months jail for talking about being
questioned or refusing to talk; with no warrant needed.

without a constitution or bill of rights, they can do just about
anything when they have both houses and control the money tap.


>    The effect of this legislation would be to regulate the pricing and (let's hope) interworking of communications infrastructure, and separation of that from businesses offering "retail communications services" (to be defined).  Doing this in a way which avoids legal-technical arguments and evolving obsolescence would be a challenge.
>
>   

trying to play better monopoly is ridiculous; this society should learn
some grown up's games, like civilisation - notice that the SMH economist
Ross Gittins *gets*it* ... it's nice to be rich, but it's nicer to have
a culture as well, otherwise, what is it all for?


>    How each organisation deals with the shareholder issues would be up to them.  However I can't see how it would necessarily involve any loss of financial or management control, with responsibility for consequential loss falling on the government. 
>
>   

don't allow corporations to be legally people, so there is no limited
liability, and then people are held responsible for their actions by
both shareholders and stakeholders, such as staff and customers.

Microsoft is potentially immortal, and you are not, yet M$ has at least
the same rights ... doesn't that piss you off?

regards,
    EL

------------
Eleanor Ashley Lister