Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009, which seeks to require telecommunications carriers and utilities to provide information about their existing networks to the Commonwealth, to assist with the planning of the government’s National Broadband Network for both the duration of the implementation study and for a 10-year period should any rollout actually occur.

This bill, as we know from the Senate inquiry, raises serious concerns for the industry—the telcos and utilities—who were not consulted by the government about the content of this bill prior to its introduction. The utilities may be compelled to provide information for at least 10 years. The minister, through this bill, wants coercive powers to be able to take information from potential competitors of the government’s NBN Co. I note from the coalition senators’ additional remarks in the Senate report on the legislation that, even after meeting with some stakeholders, the department is opposed to any improvements to the bill to address the stakeholders’ concerns—and clearly the government has had time to do so during the process of drafting the bill.

Carriers and utilities are concerned about the restrictive time lines for the provision of information. That is information provided at their own cost. The government has stated:

The cost of making this information available is not considered onerous.

I think the utilities might have a different view on that. Coalition senators noted that there is no evidence to support these assumptions regarding the cost to utilities.

Another key concern for the coalition senators is the protection of sensitive information about assets and infrastructure. This will be handing over information to a prospective market competitor. In real terms, that is what this is. The coalition senators also agreed with the Business Council of Australia in its serious concerns about the apparent lack of certainty regarding competitive neutrality in the context of this bill and NBN Co. They also did not agree with giving the minister complete powers for 10 years.

The issues of competition and competition policy are major concerns with this bill and its provisions. The coalition senators concurred with the Business Council of Australia that:

The proposal raises a number of issues in relation to competitive neutrality principles agreed by all governments at COAG and therefore warrants a net benefit assessment.

The assessment should take into account the likely impacts on competition resulting from the provision and use of information under Part 27A, in particular the possible consequences resulting from the broad definition of information that can be required and the time period of up to 10 years.

The senators also noted concerns about civil liabilities in the provision of information and made a very strong recommendation that the government further consider the concerns of stakeholders and refine the bill to accommodate these concerns, including through the reconsideration of the 10-year sunset clause.

The coalition strongly supports improved broadband services but, as I have stated, we have very serious concerns about this bill and the government’s entire approach to the proposed NBN. One of the greatest concerns for all Australians, including those in my electorate of Forrest, is and should be the very serious concern regarding the costings of the NBN and the amount of funding needed to be borrowed and repaid by taxpayers. Already we have seen waste and mismanagement of the NBN process. Labor’s election commitment was a $4.7 billion promise that the network would be operating by the end of 2008. Following over 18 months of wasted time and, according to shadow minister Nick Minchin, $20 million of totally wasted taxpayers’ money on the flawed original broadband tender process, we now have the NBN mark 2. This time it is a proposal to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ funds without, as we have heard in question time, any detailed cost-benefit analysis—a $43 billion commitment without any semblance of economic modelling.

We now have a further cost to taxpayers, a $50 million nine-month implementation study and a rollout period of eight years. My constituents are very rightly asking me: ‘When will the NBN actually be delivered in the electorate of Forrest?’ Leading analysts and those in the telecommunications industry are not all convinced that the government’s NBN program can or will be delivered at the proposed cost of $43 billion. It is now a matter of public record that the government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution budget has blown out by at least $1.5 billion. I ask what the potential blow-out for taxpayers to pay will be on this $43 billion project. Given that there has been no thorough cost-benefit or economic analysis done or provided, and given that this is at least an eight-year project, with challenging topography in my electorate and around much of Australia as well as in our major cities, I can certainly understand their reservations.

Ovum research director David Kennedy said that the rollout of such a network ‘would take up to 20 years’, not the eight claimed by Labor. Commentator Terry McCrann said of the plan: ‘It’s not crazy; it’s insane.’ And former Optus executive Paul Fletcher said:

They may wonder where the traffic will come from to fill up the new network and generate the revenue streams necessary to earn a return on the $43 billion.

Paul also said:

… the incumbent Telstra, which dominates voice telephony and broadband, will be allowed to continue to operate its own network. So when the new network operator starts looking for traffic to carry on the network, it may well not have Telstra as its ‘anchor’ customer.

I recently met with a telco company in my electorate of Forrest and they informed me that in their view the proposed $43 billion will only cover approximately one-quarter of the cost of the NBN. As an example, again in my electorate, it was recently estimated that it would cost $1 million to run eight kilometres of fibre from a town site to a major industrial site—that is, $1 million for just eight kilometres.

I understand that projections have been done in the continuing absence of economic analysis, which is that 99 per cent of internet customers must take up the national broadband network just to service the interest repayments. As one simple example, I asked the government, ‘How is this going to be achieved with the latest statistics showing growth in the uptake of wireless broadband?’ In the June quarter, around 640,000 new wireless broadband subscriptions were taken up compared with about 80,000 fixed line subscriptions. Constituents in my electorate who have taken up this option have told me they are choosing wireless services over fixed line because of the mobility of the wireless service. I will be interested in seeing where the alternatives to the government’s NBN are factored into the economic analysis.

The coalition would like to see all Australians have access to an affordable, fast and reliable service but with the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ funds. According to the government’s NBN proposal and announcements, the fibre-to-the-premises proposal is extended to towns with a population of around 1,000 people or more. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that there are over 1,000 locations in Australia with less than 1,000 people and more than 550,000 Australians live in these towns. In Western Australia, there are 113 towns that fit this category.

People in 15 towns in my electorate of Forrest will miss out on the broadband proposal because their population is less than 1,000. The combined population of these 15 towns is 7,491 people, which means that 7,491 people in my regional and rural electorate, who currently may have fibre running to the nearest exchange, will be excluded from the government’s NBN. They are part of the 10 per cent of the population who will be excluded.

I also expect the government to use up-to-date statistical data when identifying the population of towns. The 2006 population census data for my electorate is, of course, outdated—for example, the town of Nannup had at that time a recorded population of under 1,000 but the Shire of Nannup informs me that the population is currently 1,200 people. So, in the economic analysis of the $43 billion cost, will this include or exclude the projected population growth of regional towns which, over the eight years of the roll-out, will exceed the 1,000-person cut-off for the NBN? How many towns in my electorate that currently have populations under 1,000 will have in excess of this number when the rollout is actually delivered? Will they be included or excluded? Should the government use the 2006 census data for towns such as Nannup, which misses out on the NBN? That will be an issue in my electorate. These same constituents will have to bear the costs of the borrowings and interest for the NBN, like all Australian taxpayers, but will not have access to the service.

The coalition believes that government funding for broadband should be targeted at under-served areas, such as those 15 small towns in my electorate. The South Australian Farmers Federation recently said in the Adelaide Advertiser:

Some of these small towns could be considered major service centres for their regions.

And they are. Constituents in my electorate have serious doubts over the government’s ability to deliver the NBN and at the proposed cost. The Labor government promised at the last election that they would have their $4.8 billion broadband network operating by the end of 2008 but my constituents have seen nothing but a further waste of taxpayers’ funds on NBN mark 1, and now NBN mark 2. Even further delays and costs in the actual delivery of the NBN are forecast, as we know. The government has not provided any details about the likely customer uptake rates or prices that consumers will have to pay to use the network. The coalition has concerns about the affordability of the NBN for the average working household. Analysts’ predictions that consumers could be forced to pay double the amount the average broadband user pays today would clearly come as a major expense and burden on the average household. And how many customers will the NBN actually have in a competitive environment? I note that AAPT CEO, Paul Broad, said on the Lateline Business program:

If you project yourself 10 years ahead and you have a $43 billion investment, on any sort of reasonable return—say of 10 per cent—you have got to generate $4.3 billion just to make a return on the investment. And if you add up all the bits to run a wholesale and retail business, you will see that the average punter will be paying something like $200 a month for this service.

Mr Broad also said:

We could not see the economics stacking up for fibre-to-the-node so we obviously can’t see the economics stacking up for fibre-to-the-home.

Because of the government’s election promise my constituents expected, needed and have been waiting for the roll-out of the NBN—the students, the farmers, the small businesses, the contractors, the seniors—people of all ages right across the spectrum. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are unable to access fixed line internet as all the ports in the D-slams are fully occupied.

One example is the town in my electorate of Dalyellup, where a constituent moved just two houses away, on the same street, and can no longer access ADSL internet. This particular constituent runs his business from home, and the internet is a necessity. He was counting on the roll-out of the NBN proposal from the Labor government for 2008. I am told that it will cost approximately $7,500 including installation to put in another D-slam in the exchange, which would allow around 100 more homes to have access to the ADSL internet. My constituent is now not only waiting for the government to implement their long-awaited NBN promise but also for Telstra to install another D-slam. I have written to Minister Conroy for advice and a solution for my constituent, given the delays in delivering the NBN. If the government had delivered on its election promise he could have already had access to high speed broadband—as could the students, the farmers, the seniors and the individuals.

I have also been contacted by constituents in my electorate who query the use of existing infrastructure for the NBN. Will the government duplicate existing telecommunications infrastructure? When will the government release the actual details? My constituents need the NBN now. The coalition, along with those in my electorate, are urging the government to act on their election promise and deliver the NBN network to the people of Australia.

As I said, the coalition strongly supports improved broadband services, as demonstrated by our fully costed and targeted plan to deliver new, fast and affordable broadband services across the country. If this plan had not been rejected by the Labor government, Australia would have had a service that would now have been delivering services and been completed by the end of this year, 2009. Under the coalition’s national rural and regional broadband plan of OPEL, 32 new base stations would have been constructed and six telephone exchanges upgraded to ADSL2+ in my electorate of Forrest, which would have delivered new services to approximately 25,000 underserviced premises—again, the students, the farmers, the families, the small businesses, the individuals and the seniors.

I am seriously concerned about the potential cost of the NBN project for Australian taxpayers and the fact that the government has not conducted or released any cost-benefit analyses. It needs to be very clearly understood by Australian taxpayers that they will be carrying the bulk of the risk and cost of this project whether or not they are able to access the service and whether or not the price for accessing the service is affordable to them.

The coalition remains committed to the Australian Broadband Guarantee program, which the coalition established, seeing subsidised satellite services provided to people living in areas that do not have access to metro-equivalent services. I support the amendments by the coalition.

See this speech in context