House debates

Monday, 4 July 2011

Statements by Members

Dakin, Ms Monica

6:02 pm

Photo of Steven CioboSteven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes—between policy and technology. The reality is that there are benefits that flow from fibre to the node and, indeed, from fibre to the premises. There are benefits that flow. The coalition's problem is not with the technology per se but with the fact that the Australian Labor Party has effectively taken all of our eggs, when it comes to the technology, and put them in one basket. It has delivered a great big monopoly to NBN Co. At a time when the rest of the world has walked away from government publicly owned monopolies, we are embra­cing it lock, stock and barrel through the Australian Labor Party. You have really got to wonder why it would do it, because in all these highly saturated areas where there is a degree of population density—so every capital city, including centres like mine in the Gold Coast and other major regional towns like Cairns and Townsville—we have the ability for there to be a commercial rollout of this technology, for private providers to be in the space and for this technology to be made available.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with respect to greenfield sites, which this bill turns to. Nowhere is there a greater example of direct, private investment in greenfield sites than there is through the fact that there is a very large percentage, often in excess of 50 per cent of greenfield sites, that historically has seen the deployment of so-called pits and other fibre technologies through the development of the greenfield site by private operators. This bill actually goes some way towards making sure that that basically does not happen. The reason is that, because of the designation of NBN Co. as a provider of last resort, because NBN Co. will pick up the cost associated with greenfield sites and because NBN Co. will often wear the cost associated with pits, we now have an incentive for developers to simply walk away from these things—although it is legislated—knowing that NBN Co. will be undertaking those activities and doing it at taxpayers' expense.

I have no doubt that NBN Co. will be extraordinarily successful, for lack of a better term, with respect to greenfield sites. This is because any developer with half a brain will know there is no point in their hiring a private operator to undertake these activities or in their undertaking these activities themselves because taxpayers will subsidise the entire deployment of fibre at their greenfield site, thanks to this bill going through the parliament tonight. That is what the Labor Party is going to deliver them. There is little wonder that I and many Australians are deeply cynical about Labor's policy with respect to NBN Co. There is little wonder that we recognise that this is an investment in ego and not an investment in good policy. Good policy would dictate that there should be a level platform that enables the private sector to compete for those markets where it is commercially feasible to do so. Good policy would dictate that where there is not a commercial case to undertake this investment, that is when the government should step in. But that is not what we have from the Labor Party—that is coalition policy, it is not Labor's policy. Labor's policy is to say, 'It doesn't matter whether it's commercial or not. Taxpayers will under­score the entire project.'

For cities like the Gold Coast, where Telstra is already in the process of rolling out wireless technology providing 100 megabits per second, with no cost to taxpayers, and where the Australian Labor Party does not even have a schedule for NBN for six years, the Australian Labor Party says, 'No, you've got it all wrong, Steve. The taxpayers have got it all wrong. The NBN is the way to go because taxpayers will pay for it. It will be in excess of six years but, hey, it will have been worth it.'

I am unashamedly opposed to the complete waste of taxpayers' money that is NBN Co. Where it is not commercial for private providers to undertake that activity, fine—the Labor Party would carry me. But the reality is that in the vast majority of instances, it is commercially feasible, it is already happening, and the highest concentration of private providers in this space—who are about to have their throats slit by the Labor Party because of the passage of this bill—is with respect to the deployment of fibre-ready technologies in greenfield sites.

Labor members opposite, who are now sentencing to an economic death a number of employees with those private providers who used to undertake these activities, should know that that has happened because of the passage of this bill. They should know that that is what they are doing. They are making sure that private providers, who have demonstrated usually at least 50 per cent of the time with greenfields sites that they can undertake the job, will now no longer be in a position where it is economic for developers to engage those private providers and instead to have NBN Co. step in. That is the consequence of Labor Party policy and it is yet another example of how Labor has its policy priorities completely screwed up.

Furthermore, when you listen to the paltry excuses put forward as to why this needs to happen, when you hear the member for Fraser—one of the golden boys of the Labor Party—giving an example, which has been used by the minister today, which has already taken place, and not something that requires NBN Co., when you see the deploy­ment of technology by 100 per cent private money through Telstra on 4G wireless technology, it is little wonder that I and so many others are so deeply cynical about this government's spendathon when it comes to the absolutely reckless manner in which they are about to expend yet another $30 billion to $50 billion of taxpayers funds building a massive new government monopoly. This is not good policy and the Australian people will certainly not be grateful for the Labor Party undertaking this activity.

Comments

No comments