Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (18) together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)

Schedule 1, item 10A, page 4 (lines 16 to 18), omit the item.

(2)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 1), omit “An eligible carrier”, substitute “A carrier”.

(3)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 20 to 28), omit all the words beginning with “If a carrier enters” and ending with “direction issued by the Minister.”.

(4)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 10 and 11), omit the definition of eligible carrier in section 531B.

(5)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (before line 18), before paragraph (a) of the definition of protected carrier information in section 531B, insert:

(aa)

any information that was given by a carrier to an authorised information officer during the period:

(i)

beginning on 27 February 2008; and

(ii)

ending 12 months after the commencement of this Part;       where, after the information was given, an authorised information officer gave the carrier a written undertaking, on behalf of the Commonwealth, that:

(iii)

after the commencement of this Part, the information would be treated as protected carrier information for the purposes of this Part; and

(iv)

the information would not be disclosed by an authorised information officer before the commencement of this Part; or

(6)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 26) to page 9 (line 20), omit “eligible carrier” (wherever occurring), substitute “carrier”.

(7)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (line 1), omit “Eligible carriers”, substitute “Carrier”.

(8)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (line 3), omit “Eligible carriers”, substitute “Carriers”.

(9)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (lines 6 to 16), omit “eligible carrier” (wherever occurring), substitute “carrier”.

(10)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (line 27), to page 12 (line 33), omit section 531FA.

(11)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (lines 8 to 12), omit subsection 531G(1A).

(12)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (after line 26), after subsection 531G(4), insert:       (4A)                An entrusted public official is not required to give a carrier an opportunity to be heard in relation to a decision to use information under subsection (3A).

(4A)

An entrusted public official is not required to give a carrier an opportunity to be heard in relation to a decision to use information under subsection (3A).

(13)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 20 (lines 29 to 33), omit subsection 531K(1A).

(14)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 22 (lines 26 to 33), omit “subsections (1) and (1A)” (wherever occurring), substitute “subsection (1)”.

(15)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 23 (lines 10 to 16), omit paragraph 531L(1)(ca).

(16)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 23 (lines 22 to 25), omit subsection 531L(2).

(17)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 25 (lines 9 to 12), omit subsection 531P(1), substitute:

(1)

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules relating to the storage, handling or destruction of protected carrier information.

(18)

Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (line 3), to page 31 (line 13), omit Division 4.

The opposition amendments are opposed as they are technically flawed and are unnecessary because they are already covered by a number of the government amendments. The opposition, we know, have an appalling track-record when it comes to delivering a modern broadband system for the 21st century. They had 18 failed broadband plans in 11½ years. The opposition are indeed responsible for the digital divide. They were happy to sit back and let the industry deliver some broadband services to the capital cities while they left rural and regional Australia behind. This government has committed to bringing broadband for Australia into the 21st century as a part of its commitment to nation building through modern infrastructure.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an outrageous circumstance that we are faced with today. This is one of the most important bills in this parliament—I am sure I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House—for all Australians, especially those from country areas. Is it not bad enough that we have had the communication funds cancelled? We had a $4.7 billion scheme which could, at least in part if not in totality, be delivered by the private sector and which is now going to be provided by the government in the very areas where it could look after itself. And worse than that, out in regional Australia we are told that this new fibre-to-the-node system will probably not get to us until 2012-13. That is simply not good enough.

Let me mention the circumstances in my own electorate, which are very similar to those in Wide Bay and Greenway. Nearly all our electorates were covered by the OPEL signal. One small corner of my electorate was not covered. In addition, we had three very extensive areas of ADSL2+. Now we are cancelling that and I find that in my electorate at places like Kalkie, Avoca, Branyan, Urangan and Bagara there are no ports available. Telstra has admitted these things: ‘There are not enough ADSL ports in these suburbs. There will not be any upgrades in the foreseeable future. Their best option is to take up wireless.’ Hey! Have Telstra missed something? Has Senator Conroy missed something? The very thing that the government’s scheme was supposed to obviate is now being offered by Telstra. Telstra is offering wireless, the very same wireless that the minister in the Senate and the minister at the table, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, are saying had to be cancelled.

In the short time available, I cannot canvass all these issues, but to me it seems suspiciously as though the government has, either wittingly or deliberately, re-monopolised Telstra. This is the re-monpolisation by Telstra of communications. So I suspect the very thing that the government cancelled will, if we want to get coverage before 2013, have to be delivered by wireless. That is exactly what the OPEL project offered. I am not saying that the OPEL project was faultless. It could have gone a lot further west. My friend the member for Maranoa was particularly concerned that, if you drew a line from about Charters Towers through Emerald, Dalby and Gunnedah to about Shepparton, anything west of that was problematic, and I certainly did not approve of that.

For the people of my electorate, this was a great solution—also for the people of Greenway and Wide Bay. Now we will have those same people waiting up to five years to get broadband. In the areas I am talking about—Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Noosa, Bundaberg, Western Sydney—we have universities and important industries which want high-speed ADSL. As part of our inquiry, we discovered that Telstra have quarantined some of these ports. I suspect the reason is so that they will not have to share them with their competitors. I say to the minister at the table that this ‘clear and transparent’ thing is anything but. I would also say that in the city of Hervey Bay—a rapidly expanding city—80 per cent of people will not be able to get high-speed ADSL because they will be reliant on pair gains and RIMs. This is a shambles. To reduce this important debate down to one speaker to the second reading and one during consideration in detail is outrageous.

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

I rise to voice my concerns about the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008. Federal Labor promised to connect 98 per cent of Australians to high-speed broadband internet services with the rollout of a new fibre-to-the-node network but has provided a very short time frame of 25 July for tenderers to develop and cost their bids. This needs to be a truly competitive process to ensure proposals are accurate and efficient in order to facilitate such a rollout using taxpayer funding.

But an important element in efficiently deploying a fibre-to-the-node network for the national broadband network is likely to be the efficient use of existing infrastructure, particularly elements of Telstra’s fixed-line customer access network and elements of certain carriers’ optical fibre core networks. All proponents need to have access to this information. But it still may not be sufficiently detailed or technical for a proponent to develop with confidence a fibre-to-the-node network design and costing. If this information is not available early in the process, some proponents will be at a competitive disadvantage in terms of their development proposals for accurate commercial submissions to the national broadband network process.

This legislation was designed to facilitate the exchange of crucial information relating to existing fibre broadband infrastructure and provide confidentiality protections in relation to its use. This information is required by telecommunications carriers wanting to lodge a proposal for the construction of a national broadband network. More than a month ago Senator Conroy put out a formal request for proposals with a tight 25 July deadline knowing that potential bidders did not have access to necessary information in order to cost and shape credible bids. Despite the lack of detail surrounding the government’s proposal, the only certainty is that the government is willing to spend $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on a broadband plan, without a tender process that reflects the magnitude of this critical infrastructure project.

National broadband network tenderers require technical information about certain aspects of the existing fixed network in order to develop and cost their bids. The amendment would insert a new part 27A into the act. Part 27A would set out a scheme for the provision of information as specified by the minister in a disallowable instrument and for protection of the information provided by carriers.

The bill itself says very little. Neither does the bill provide any detail or clarity as to how confidential information will be protected from misuse. The minister made an earlier threat that, if telcos did not provide information about existing network infrastructure, he would legislate to make them. Despite a willingness by companies to provide information on a voluntary basis, with appropriate safeguards in place, which could have been negotiated, the minister quickly pressed forward to deliver on his legislative threat.

The demand for telecommunications carriers to detail all of their existing infrastructure and private investment highlights how competition and market forces are driving significant fibre deployment and the rollout of higher speed broadband networks. Telstra, which holds the vast majority of existing fixed-line broadband infrastructure information, has already handed over to the department details about existing exchanges, pillars, distances through ducts et cetera—material which would assist proponents in costing and developing their bids. Confidentiality of protected carrier information is vital.

The opposition are committed to assisting the government to get its muddled national broadband network process on some type of credible track. While we do not intend to oppose this bill, we are seeking to make some important amendments. This bill as it stands raises more questions than it answers. The opposition are committed to doing all we can to ensure this bill is a clear and detailed piece of legislation that assists with the exchange of existing broadband infrastructure information while providing adequate safeguards for how this information is used. This is particularly important in my electorate of Forrest.

The government argues that considerations will be addressed in the yet to be disclosed instruments. However, safeguards are already available through the ACCC, the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia. The government should not sideline these agencies but include them in the process.

The tender deadline needs to be extended to allow for a more realistic and fair process for all potential proponents. The government should have put more detail into its national broadband network policy to bed down crucial regulatory detail before going to tender. It should also understand the commercial reality of seeking tenders. For parties to enter into an agreement, full disclosure by both parties is required—all parties being fully aware of all conditions and knowing present and future considerations. (Time expired)

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate that the government has got this wrong. We are being asked to consider in detail, without considering in detail, amendments that displace coalition amendments, opposition amendments, in the Senate that are superior in everybody’s view except the minister’s. Industry believes so and the drafters believe so, but we do not have the time to go into those specifically.

Given the ridiculously tight time frame, the amendments included by the Senate addressing the voluntary disclosure arrangements and putting in place some encouragement for people to behave that way—issues about disclosure of that information; the duties of officials, whether they be of the company or in the Public Service; the safe harbour provisions for encouragement of voluntary disclosure; compensation arrangements where there are damages incurred; how the storage and handling and destruction of protected carrier information is handled; and our improved ministerial advisory process—are all being knocked off by this process.

I undertook to be positive and constructive with our input and our approach. We have done so, and the government has ignored all of this input that the industry believes has been very worthwhile. We will not be dividing on each individual measure in this consideration in detail stage. To avoid Senator Conroy misrepresenting our behaviour, the opposition have again facilitated this process. We have made our argument. We are not impeding the passage of the bill. In fact, without the opposition’s assistance, Senator Conroy would not have a bill going through this parliament and back to the Senate. Just for the record, we oppose these amendments and believe that the government is very short-sighted in not embracing the very constructive, wise and considered input that the Senate provided.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.