Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is essential that this legislation is passed through the House, because the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 has had to be introduced in response to the Labor Party’s policy to abolish the $2 billion Communications Fund, thereby abandoning rural and regional Australia. This bill will ensure that rural and regional premises are not left stranded without reliable and up-to-date services in the future.

We have significant issues right across Australia and we need to resolve many of those issues. That is what our Future Fund was put in place to do. Our $2 billion investment in the Communications Fund was to be preserved to provide an income stream for future telecommunications improvements in regional, rural and remote areas, yet we see a proposal from the Labor Party, the opposition, that completely disregards our needs in rural and regional Australia. It is a proposal that is aimed primarily at the major cities and, obviously, the major voting areas for the opposition and disregards, as per usual, the issues of country people.

In these circumstances and under these conditions, this promise that the opposition is making is partly funded by hard-fought-for money that has been set aside by The Nationals and rural members to ensure that we have a stream of income to adequately update rural and regional services from the very low base that they have operated from in the past. We are starting to move forward a little at present, but we need to improve telecommunications services in rural and regional areas for the future. The promise is a fibre-to-the node network and it is simply not possible. It is impractical and it is not possible to provide a fibre-to-the node broadband network to the vast majority of rural and regional Australia for the costs that Labor is proposing—and there are plenty of statistics to back up my assertions here today in the House.

Under the Labor Party’s proposal, I can imagine that we will have, at best, up to 70 per cent of people connected at a competitive price, leaving around 30 per cent who will not get any benefit. And you know where those people will be? Those people will be in rural and regional Australia. They will be in places like the Riverina, which I represent. I simply cannot stand by, having fought on behalf of my constituents for so long, and let this happen. At The Nationals Federal Council on the weekend, we passed a resolution to extend the cut-off date of CDMA. I congratulate Minister Coonan for exercising the licence condition over Telstra to ensure that this happens. I moved that motion at The Nationals Federal Council on the weekend because I feel very strongly about it. My office is very often in touch with people who are having significant problems. Fibre to the node, which is Labor’s proposal, is simply not going to happen, because the infrastructure out there will not enable it to happen.

In April this year, one of my constituents applied to be connected to BigPond broadband in his new home. He was told that the connection would be made in 10 working days. In May he phoned and was told that no connection was available and that an upgrade to the exchange was required. In June he phoned again and was told that there was no estimated time for a connection and that his case would be investigated. Then he was told that ADSL would be available in July. He then received a phone call from the provider on 13 June and was told that they could not meet the request for an ADSL broadband line and would be withdrawing my constituent’s order. There has been no time frame given to him for availability, and it could be anything up to two years before this upgrade is completed.

The constituent then phoned Telstra Country Wide, regarding his broadband options, and was informed that they were unable to connect him to broadband and that the telephone line was on a split connection. This is the point that I am making: most people in my electorate are on hubs, rims or split connections. This particular Bourkelands hub has no ports available and an upgrade is required. However, they could not give my constituent any information as to when that will happen. His options are to wait for an upgrade—and who knows when that would be—or connect to BigPond wireless at $100 a month.

I am not talking about somebody sitting out in the bush 100 kilometres from any major community wanting to plug in at every gum tree; I am talking about somebody who is in one of the largest and most rapidly expanding subdivisions in Wagga Wagga. They are about three kilometres from the old post office. I am not talking about somebody who is isolated out in some corner of the world; I am talking about the largest inland city in New South Wales having this kind of service offered to its residents. This is not an isolated case. I have plucked this one out because it is the most recent one with no possible options or responses available—except for wireless at $100 a month. My constituents are entitled to better. That is second-rate service delivery at a first-rate price. They are being penalised because they live in the largest inland city in New South Wales. I wonder what happens to you if you live in a more remote area or a smaller area.

We have had numerous complaints from businesses that are losing money. There is a particular coach company in my electorate that has been losing significant amounts of money. It used to be contactable through CDMA, but it is now not contactable through the current service that it has been provided with under Next G. I know that Telstra have done a fabulous job in rolling out Next G in the time frame that they put upon themselves. But it is not equivalent to CDMA signal strength and coverage. I have copious proof of that in my office. These people cannot all be in conspiracy against the carrier. This is actually happening out there. The coach company is losing thousands and thousands of dollars because once it could get these calls and now it simply cannot get them. There is a major winery near Griffith that employs approximately 450 people. They have an account that covers around 150 mobile phones. They had to go through a lot of drama in order to finally get some resolution to their problems, with the winery offering free land to put a tower on so that they could service their business. The largest exporter of wine in Australia runs this business, and the problems caused a significant downturn for them. We have been having problem after problem.

There is an advertisement that tells us that we can speak to anyone from Coffs Harbour to Mt Isa or wherever. That simply is not happening in my electorate. I thank the minister for exercising this licence condition to do with CDMA, because my electorate is being severely penalised. While Telstra has been willing to attempt to resolve these issues, it is not happening at this present time. My people are not getting an equivalent signal strength and service to what they had with CDMA. We have been told that some of these problems are in the hardware. But that is not what my constituents are told when they walk into an outlet. They are encouraged to go to a new phone and are told that they will get equivalent or better coverage or better outcomes, but they do not. They may get data that they were not getting on CDMA, but they want to make calls and receive calls, because that is what their businesses and lives exist around. They do not want to be walking around getting a signal at every gum tree in the Riverina—that is not what they are asking. They are saying, ‘Let me have the same coverage with Next G that I had with a hand-held phone on CDMA.’ That is what they are asking.

If you require a car kit and significantly powerful aerials and a hard-wire kit for CDMA, you will most definitely have to invest in exactly the same type of equipment for Next G. That is not what Telstra promised. They did not tell you, ‘We are going to provide you with Next G and you are no longer going to have a car kit or a hard-wire attached to a high-signal aerial.’ That is not what they said. They said that you would get the equivalent—that is all we are asking for. We want further access to better handsets, hardware and car kits. We want more variety and a bigger range of equipment to cope with what we require in rural areas.

I have personal experience of this issue. I took the option of a PDA because I am on the road all the time. I have done 9,700 kilometres in six weeks in a new car doing my normal July tour around my electorate and I want to have a mobile to help me do my business whilst I am out meeting with constituents and doing interviews in the smaller communities, but I can no longer have a PDA because it is not suited to rural and regional conditions. I had to go back to a normal Next G phone and, to Telstra’s credit, I have fabulous reception with the Next G phone that I currently have, but it does not have data. I as a rural member believe that I am being discriminated against. Under the future Labor proposal and also under what currently exists, my city counterparts can walk around and access their communications and data from their offices, wherever they are. But I cannot do that. I am out on the road covering far greater distances than city members. That is the way not just my constituents but I as their member get treated when I am trying to do business. As I said, Telstra has worked very hard to try to resolve the complaints that we have, but we cannot leave anything to chance—everything has to be working properly.

In the short time that I have had available, I have taken the opportunity to come into this House to raise the concerns of my constituents. I congratulate the minister for exercising her licence over CDMA. I call on the House to pass this bill and to recognise its intent and to recognise that Labor’s proposal will be at the expense of rural and regional people. My constituents have had enough expense. I do not accept there should be any further downward pressure on their services, including the fact that they are unable to carry out any substantial business. A system is being rolled out at the moment on the instructions of the minister. I trust her to deliver to the people I represent. But I need this Future Fund in place. It cannot be raided by anybody. It has to be in place so that the people whom I represent, and others, can get adequate services in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context