Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) circulated in my name together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 50, page 21 (lines 20 to 32), omit subsection 152AXC (4), substitute:

        (4)    NBN must not discriminate between access seekers on the basis of the volume, number, quantity or amount of goods, services or other things that access seekers acquire or agree to acquire.

(2)    Schedule 1, Part 3, page 47 (line 1) to page 69 (line 4), omit the Part.

Amendment (1) is a very important amendment. It really deals with a critical issue of fairness. Members in this House have complained often and loudly about the dominance of Telstra—or, indeed, other big telcos, such as Optus. What we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the NBN cannot discriminate between access seekers—retail service providers, whether big, small or medium-sized—on the basis of volume, number, quantity or amount of goods, services or other things that access seekers acquire or agree to acquire. It will come as no surprise to the House that Telstra do not support this amendment, because naturally, as they will be the biggest foundation customer of the NBN, they no doubt look forward to discounts based on volume or other services that are being exchanged or transacted between the NBN and themselves. So this is the first amendment. I ask the government: are they serious about a level playing field? Do they seriously believe they are creating a level playing field in the NBN? If they do then we should delete proposed subsection (4) of proposed section 152AXC—which, of course, basically permits types of discrimination—and insert a new provision which provides that there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of volume.

The second amendment deals with what has been called ‘cherry picking’. This is a matter of white-hot concern to many players in the telecommunications sector, large and small. This amendment involves part 3, and we are proposing to delete all of it. What this is designed to do is to ensure that any other broadband service or facility comparable to the NBN that can provide fast broadband services must offer its services on exactly the same terms as the NBN. Let us make no mistake: this is an anti-cherry-picking device. What this is designed to do is to prevent other companies from having infrastructure in cities or more densely settled areas or for particular corporate customers and, if you like, cherry picking the better parts of the Australian fixed-line broadband business. The government justifies this extraordinary restriction on competition on the basis that it needs to protect the economics of the NBN. That has been made quite clear in the explanatory memorandum, in the McKinsey study and in the business case. So, having set up this massive, overcapitalised, government-owned monopoly—which it should not have set up in the first place—the government is now restricting competition from other telcos in order to preserve the economics of that body. It says, ‘If PIPE Networks, Internode or Optus competes and offers services in the cities, it will stream off some of the profitable areas and that will make it harder for us to provide services in the bush.’ We say that if broadband services are going to be provided in the bush—and they should be—and they cannot be provided on a commercial basis then the subsidy should be absolutely explicit, and it should come out of the budget. There is no reason to impose higher telecommunications charges on people in urban and metropolitan Australia to cross-subsidise the bush. (Time expired)

See this speech in context