Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is necessary to make a few brief comments on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008, particularly given that it is going to have a profound impact on those consumers in rural and regional Australia who look to government to guarantee an appropriate level of service. As the previous government, we did that by establishing the perpetual Communications Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would recall the exact circumstances of that decision being taken, given the critical role that a particular conference in Queensland played in putting together a set of guidelines that the government of the day ultimately adopted not only for the sale of the third tranche of Telstra but also to address the remaining issues as far as communications across regional Australia were concerned.

In the minister’s second reading speech he indicated that this bill will enable money in the Communications Fund to be used for purposes relating to the creation or development of a broadband telecommunication network, if required. The final decision on the use of the fund will be made in the context of the government’s overall fiscal strategy. That gives a blank cheque to the department of finance and to the minister for finance as he frames the budget this year to pick up the $2 billion that has been set aside and invested as a capital based fund to generate revenue streams to be used for the betterment of consumers in rural and regional Australia. I understand the government saying that it may be used. It is at the discretion of the overall fiscal strategy. But the Australian Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election made no bones about the fact that they were going to attack this fund, to steal $2 billion from the bush and spend it elsewhere on their flawed broadband plan—a plan that is purported to cost about $4.7 billion and a plan that should be funded by the marketplace. It should be funded by the companies that are going to benefit from the network.

The reason this $2 billion fund exists is to ensure that there is a flow of revenue in perpetuity to provide services and new technology in remote parts of Australia that the market might not provide—because we know that the market is not strong enough in those areas. The whole rationale at the time was based on our move to privatise the balance of Telstra—T3, as it became known—and our concern for the future. We were able to secure confidence in what was to be done and we ultimately set in place arrangements with the OPEL group to spend $1.8 billion, I think the figure was, to establish a wireless broadband network across those parts of Australia that were not covered by the mainstream carriers with their own networks. That is being rolled out now.

We needed to be able to give certainty about the future to consumers in rural and regional Australia. We needed to be able to future-proof the bush. That was what this fund was all about. When new technology becomes available and the market provides it to consumers in metropolitan areas and major provincial cities, the market might not provide it to consumers in rural and remote Australia. So this perpetual Communications Fund was set up as an investment body to accrue interest on an annual basis, with an independent review to be undertaken every three years—and there is one underway now, chaired by Dr Bill Glasson, former president of the AMA—to find the gaps in the system in rural and remote Australia so the revenue stream from this fund can be deployed. That is why it was called a ‘perpetual’ Communications Fund, because the capital base, the $2 billion, was never to be touched. It was to be invested, because we could afford to invest it. It was to be invested, because the nation had become very prosperous.

We put a significant amount of money in the Future Fund. We put $2 billion in the perpetual Communications Fund to future-proof the bush. We put a significant amount of money in the higher education fund. These were all investments for the future, so that the community did not have to come to each annual expenditure review committee—or the razor gang, as the current government calls it—with their begging bowl out seeking fundamental services that everybody else in the country often takes for granted. That is the reason that we put this fund in place. It is the reason that the National Party argued so vigorously at the time that it should be part of the response as far as telecommunications in Australia is concerned.

We know that the Australian Labor Party have form as far as their attitude toward communications in rural and regional Australia is concerned. We should never forget, and the people of regional Australia should not forget—and I do not think they ever will—what happened in the latter years of the Hawke-Keating government when they were going to unilaterally turn off the analog phone system and they had no replacement. You will recall the dilemma that that caused in rural and remote Australia. They were going to turn it off and they had no replacement. Fortunately, at the time, the communities of regional Australia were able to voice their concerns loudly enough so that a CDMA system was introduced, and that has been in existence for 12 or so years since then.

Last year, Telstra announced that they were going to switch off the CDMA system and replace it with the Next G network. That is fine, but we said, ‘Telstra, you do that but you have to reassure your customers and the government of the day that the service provided by the Next G network is equal to or better than the CDMA system to be turned off.’ Of course, the designated date for the switch-off of CDMA was reached and the community was not satisfied with the replacement technology, and a lot of work had to be done. I have nothing against the Next G network. It actually enabled many people in rural and remote Australia who could not get access to a broadband connection to be able to access broadband. I just happen to be one of them. I live in a coastal seat in New South Wales where the Next G network enabled me to connect to the broadband network at home.

In government, we see the Australian Labor Party being very careless with their decision making and neglectful towards the people of rural and regional Australia as far as communications are concerned. There is no guarantee that the people who were going to benefit from the perpetual Communications Fund and the revenue stream that flowed from it are going to be looked after in the new regime of the Labor government. I raise in this parliament today my concerns about the government moving so quickly on this legislation and giving themselves the ability, through the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, who is now in the chamber, to quickly grab hold of another $2 billion and load it back into the budget surplus and say: ‘What a great government we are. We are going to produce a $17 billion or $18 billion budget surplus this year’—but it will be done to the detriment of consumers and communications services in regional Australia.

This fund was put in place to give certainty about the provision of new technology in remote Australia well into the future. It was put in place to future-proof the bush as far as telecommunications into the future—not today, not tomorrow but for years and decades into the future. The government aims to take that ability away. Therefore, we will be back to the bad old days when consumers had to band together in lobby groups and lobby the minister for communications and the government of the day to get much-needed funding spent in their area to ensure they had access to telecommunications systems that every other Australian takes very much for granted today. Obviously, I oppose this move by the government. I supported and continue to support the establishment and maintenance of this perpetual Communications Fund because we believe it is the only way to future-proof telecommunications services to consumers in rural and remote Australia.

See this speech in context