Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

We know that the National Broadband Network is one of Labor's and this century's great policy initiatives. Given its importance, we must have a serious conversation about the path going forward.

Labor took a policy to the 2016 election which would have seen fibre to the home rolled out to homes in the fixed-line footprint that were not in the current fibre-to-the-node construction pipeline. This would have expanded fibre to 40 per cent of households. This was less than the original 93 per cent target in our 2009 policy, but it recognised where things stood. The policy was thoroughly costed, and would have delivered fibre access across Australia at a rollout cost of between $49 to $57 billion. Our policy objective has remained consistent: to connect fibre to as many homes and premises as possible.

In contrast, what has transpired since the 2013 strategic review has been technological confusion, increasing complexity, increased costs and rollout delays. This has translated into a poor user experience and a lack of confidence by the majority of Australians in the ability of the NBN to meet our future needs. We have also clearly seen a detrimental impact on retail service providers.

The cost of the copper-dominated NBN is currently projected to be between $46 and $54 billion. If only this government had the conviction to stay the course, Australians would have had access to a better network for largely the same cost! As I have outlined previously, the root cause is that this government lacks a coherent policy vision. This confusion has led the government to take its hands off the wheel. There is clearly a lack of comprehension and interest from the current communications minister in the project, and his vision could be described as pedestrian, to say the least.

We on this side recognise the transformational power provided by high-speed broadband. I recognise the reality of where the network is up to; we are aware of the operational and systems complexity that are now baked into this multi-technology patchwork. Fragmentation, whether that be in the access network or in the IT systems, does have material impacts on organisation cohesion, customer experience and retailer viability. So, come the next election—whenever that is held—regrettably, an incoming government will not be dealing with a blank slate. Engineering decisions will have been made, contracts will have been entered into and the network footprint will have taken shape. So what we will have is a patchwork of some form. It is a question of how that patchwork can best be shaped by what we do in the present.

With this in mind, I want to pose the question: if this government refuses to contemplate fibre infrastructure, then what is the next-best alternative to their current course? What does a fibre-enhanced middle path looked like? The cost of deploying FTTN is now estimated to be around $2,300 per premises. In comparison, the cost of fibre to the distribution point is estimated to be around $2,700 per premises. For consumers, the prospect of more fibre and less copper means better speeds to support the applications of the future. It is also good news for retailers, because they will earn more revenue over the faster network and can deliver a better experience for their customers over newer infrastructure.

The underlying technology network designed for fibre to the distribution point also offers better prospects relative to FTTN by preserving a viable upgrade path to take the fibre to the premises into the future. The Vertigan panel did not model the incremental costs or benefits of fibre to the distribution point versus FTTN in 2014. And, in fairness, fibre to the distribution point was not as developed then as it is now, and so perhaps the costs were not sufficiently known to enable this type of analysis to take place. But if this government insists on locking in copper as the primary infrastructure delivery mechanism, they should do so in a responsible way that preserves a viable upgrade path to fibre in the future.

Within the parameters of their copper-driven world view, they should be seeking to deliver Australians the best and most reliable service. The comparative merits of fibre to the distribution point and fibre to the node should be analysed in an objective way to evaluate the best path forward. These decisions cannot be outsourced to NBN Co. We cannot expect NBN Co itself to be guided by public interest, as this is not its mandate. This does require policy leadership and it is the government's job to lead.

My questions to the minister are as follows: will the government be examining the merits of using fibre to the distribution point as the preferred access network in areas where fibre to the node and HFC build has not commenced? And will the government undertake to ensure that any fibre-to-the-distribution-point design and deployment preserves the option of a fibre upgrade path for end users?

See this speech in context