Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. The one advancement that has done more to bring the people of the world closer, to lift people out of poverty, to enable scientific advancements to surge ahead and to modernise the world would have to be the information technology revolution of the latter half of the 20th century. It is a revolution which continues today; however, it is also a revolution that is fundamentally dependent on a high-speed national broadband network. It is in this context that the failure of the coalition members when in government to roll out a high-speed national broadband network highlights just how out of touch they are and how much they are still stuck in the past, because they are now saying that all we need to do is invest in another study. They still do not understand the importance and the urgency of having a national broadband network. The consistent message—and there is a consistent message—that I hear from all speakers from the coalition on this matter is that the provision of a national broadband network left under their government is a national disgrace. At least on that I do agree with them, and it is time that we did something about it.

This bill is fundamentally the same as the bill introduced into the Senate on 25 June 2009. That bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009, amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which was enacted in 2008. The bill does three things: it removes the sunset clause which made part 27A inoperative after 26 May 2009; it expands the class of firms from which information can be compulsorily sought to include utilities; and it changes the purpose to which that information can be put. Without labouring this point, I notice that the member for O’Connor made reference to and raised concerns about who could access this information. I just point out to the member for O’Connor that the carrier or utility must give information to an authorised information officer only and that protected network information must not be disclosed or used except as permitted by this part of the bill. In other words, the information will be released carefully and in a measured way. These measures are necessary to establish a new fibre-to-the-home national broadband network. They are necessary because a voluntary request to carriers to provide the required information did not result in all the information that was required being made available.

Following the unsatisfactory nature of proposals submitted to the government for the rollout of a national broadband service, the government announced on 7 April 2009 that it would establish a company to build, own and operate a fibre-to-the-home network. Ninety per cent of homes, schools and workplaces will be connected to the network with the fibre optic cable. The remaining 10 per cent will be connected by satellite and wireless services. The use of existing facilities is an important option in the provision of a new network, and those options will, I expect, be canvassed by the new company. The federal government will have a majority shareholding in the new national broadband networking company. Although, the intent is for the federal interest to be sold down within five years after the network is built and operational. The failure of the Howard government during a period of unprecedented prosperity to roll out a national high-speed broadband service is a shameful legacy of that government. Australia today lags behind most comparable countries with respect to the provision of a modern broadband system that meets the needs of a 21st century society.

This is not simply a matter of national pride—or, more accurately, national embarrassment—but a matter which directly impacts on the nation’s productivity. The use of computer technology has become essential to our way of life, and the infrastructure required for the service is as important as other infrastructure such as roads, rail, ports and aviation infrastructure. But, as for the provision of other infrastructure, the Howard government failed to make the necessary investments. Not surprisingly, the poor state of Australian infrastructure and in particular the failure of the Howard government to roll out a national broadband network became key issues in the 2007 election campaign. Having gone through several processes, the government is keen to get on with the rollout of a national broadband network. The last thing electors in my electorate want to see is the rollout frustrated or delayed by opposition members in this place or in the Senate. I note and welcome the decision by the government to expedite negotiations with the Tasmanian government so that that system can be rolled out in that state. Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I know that you are from Tasmania and I am well aware of the lobbying that you have been carrying out on behalf of your constituents in Tasmania.

I also welcome the statement by the minister that broadband black spot areas will be targeted and given priority in the rollout of the service. In my electorate of Makin there are a number of black spot areas, and residents within those areas are disadvantaged and frustrated by the poor service available. Suburbs such as Walkley Heights, Greenwith and parts of Hope Valley, Golden Grove and Pooraka all have black spot areas. I understand that around 10 per cent of residential, commercial and industrial properties across metropolitan Adelaide are unable to use ADSL—the most common form of broadband access—and that there are more than 350 black spot locations across Adelaide.

I therefore welcome the 14 August announcement made jointly by Senator the Hon. Steven Conroy and the Hon. Michael O’Brien MP, Minister for Science and Information Economy in the South Australia government that Adam Internet, a South Australian based company, had won the contract to construct a state-of-the-art wireless broadband network to address black spot locations across the Adelaide metropolitan area. I also note that that contract, which will deliver the high-speed wireless broadband service in advance of the national network, will create an extra 110 jobs during the network construction and customer connection phase and 75 permanent jobs will be required in the longer term. The 15-month rollout is expected to see the first service area come online next month.

I also welcome the announcement by Senator Conroy that the government is fast-tracking a $250 million investment in broadband services to black spot regions of Australia. The initial priority locations to receive investment are Emerald and Longreach in Queensland; Geraldton, in Western Australia; Darwin, in the Northern Territory; Broken Hill, in New South Wales; south-west Gippsland, in Victoria; and Victor Harbour in South Australia. I particularly note that those areas are predominantly regional and rural Australian locations, and I also note the number of coalition speakers who have come into this place and claimed that this government is ignoring the needs of regional and rural people. When you look at the priorities in terms of where this broadband network will be rolled out first, it is clear that this government is supporting rural and regional people; in fact, it is doing so when coalition members when they were in government ignored them—the regional areas of Australia they claimed to represent but failed to deliver for.

For every sector of our community, access to an effective broadband service is essential. It is no longer just an option or a luxury. The Rudd government went to the 2007 election with a promise to build a national broadband network. International studies at the time showed Australia had internet speeds 35 times slower than most other Western countries, ranking Australia 26th behind other advanced economies. The number of homes with internet access has increased significantly in recent years, from 35 per cent of homes in 2001 to 63 per cent of homes in 2006—highlighting again how much of a necessity having the internet has become. Of course many other Australians who do not have internet access at home are able to access the internet at school, work, university or through their local library or community centre.

An effective broadband network is particularly essential for small business and self-employed professionals—many of whom work from home. If we had a better broadband service throughout Australia, I expect more people could and would work from home. In fact, it is becoming a growing trend. As of November 2008, it was estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 765,000 Australians work from home. That is nearly eight per cent of the total workforce. Furthermore, the number of Australians working primarily from home has increased by 10 per cent since the year 2000—highlighting the growing trend of people working from home, primarily made possible by computer technology.

I would like to give a specific example of the kinds of limitations placed on someone working from home who does not have access to high-speed internet. Last year I met with a constituent who lives in Hope Valley, one of the suburbs I named earlier as having broadband black spots. This person ran her own business from home, working as a tutor for primary school children. Her clients were various schools and families around the area whose children required one-on-one support. In registering as a tutor for the federal government’s An Even Start program, this person was significantly disadvantaged by the speed of her internet connection. The length of time it took for her to access and download the application and support materials for the program had a negative impact on her business operations. This was a 21st century education support program that engaged with schools and tutors using 21st century methods—yet this person was potentially losing business just because of the lost hours from the time it took to download the materials. This is exactly the kind of work-from-home business that stands to benefit from the government’s National Broadband Network.

But it is not just small businesses working from home that will benefit from faster internet speeds. Students will also benefit. The Rudd government has acknowledged that and that is why it committed $1.2 billion for the Digital Education Revolution. I am pleased to say that some $2 million of that went into the electorate of Makin, where almost 2,000 computers were delivered to the high schools in my electorate. I have spoken with most of the principals in those high schools, and I can say without any shadow of a doubt that they all welcomed the funding which enabled them to provide more computers in their school for their students.

Larger companies and organisations will also benefit from faster internet speeds. Companies with clients or subsidiaries interstate and overseas will benefit. Universities that have research and education partnerships with institutions and students around the world will also benefit. The need from this particular sector led to a special broadband project known as SABRENet being established in Adelaide. SABRENet, which stands for the South Australian Broadband Research and Education Network, is a fibre optic broadband network linking major research and education sites in metropolitan Adelaide. Its membership is comprised of Adelaide’s three major universities—Flinders University, Adelaide University and the University of South Australia—in partnership with the state government and research organisations such as the CSIRO and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

The work of these organisations was severely constrained because of the poor broadband services available prior to the SABRENet project. I must acknowledge that that project was supported with federal government funds at the time, but it was initiated by these organisations and the state government of South Australia because they identified a real need that was constraining the ability of all these organisations to get on with the work that they were doing. There are many ways that these institutions now benefit from being able to interact in real time and transfer huge amounts of data at high speed. Collaboration on research is now made much easier, ultimately leading to better and faster outcomes.

The other project I wish to raise is Cinenet, a high-speed broadband network created specifically for screen media industries. The project was created by a partnership through Internode, an Adelaide based internet service provider, and Rising Sun Pictures, a special effects company based in Adelaide. Cinenet allows film and media companies to work in real time with their clients and partners around the world. It allows a filmmaker and an editor to be looking at the same piece of footage as if they were sitting in the same room looking at the same screen together. This technology has allowed local Adelaide companies to play significant roles on international films such as The Lord of the Rings, X-Men and the Harry Potter series. It has also created opportunities for people in Adelaide through the use of the internet.

There is a third example I want to bring to the attention of the House—and, if I recall correctly, I brought it to the House’s attention on another occasion. Within the city of Salisbury and particularly the western parts of the Makin electorate, there are about 7,000 small and medium business operators. Those businesses have had their operations severely constrained because of a lack of a high-speed broadband service to the region. Those businesses, in conjunction with the city of Salisbury and a private company called Amcom and with the support of the state government, invested a million dollars so that they could have access to a high-speed broadband network service. It was a terrific example of the community working together. More importantly, it was an example of the need for a high-speed broadband service to be available to those businesses so that they could remain competitive with their counterparts interstate and overseas. As a result of that cooperation, the million dollars was invested and the service was made available—no thanks to the previous government, who had been approached, and no thanks to Telstra, who had also been approached. I heard the member for O’Connor say earlier that Telstra could have provided the services that were required. Telstra was approached at the time, and I know that for a fact because I was involved in the negotiations. Telstra did not come to the party to provide the service that was needed nor did the federal government. The local community got its act together by working with the support of the state government and the private company Amcom and was able to deliver that service. It just highlights how behind the times this country is in terms of delivering a high-speed national broadband network.

A high-speed national broadband network is absolutely essential to Australia’s future, and Australian society stands to benefit from it in so many ways. A national broadband network will: improve the way our children learn; make it easier for our universities to partner in research with other organisations around the world; change the way our small businesses do business; and allow Australia’s businesses, large and small, opportunities to export to anywhere in the world. And a child studying or a small business owner working from home will no longer be disadvantaged because they happen to live in a suburb without high-speed broadband.

If I could briefly refer to the amendment moved by the opposition members, particularly the fact that they are simply saying we should be only investing in another study. That is just another cause for delay and, quite frankly, this technology is moving so fast that every month of delay causes businesses and communities around the country to be further and further disadvantaged. Every month of delay that we do not roll out a system affects the productivity of this country. Every month of delay makes this country far less competitive with our neighbours around the world. It is not in the national interest to delay this any further than is absolutely necessary. It is regrettable that we have not been able to implement a broadband system even faster. We would have liked to and the government has taken every step it possibly can to implement the system as quickly as possible. But the proposal that we have before us, I believe, is the right proposal. It is a sensible proposal and I am pleased to see that at least part of it will be given priority in terms of addressing some of the black spot areas throughout the country. After years of inaction by the previous Howard government, the Rudd government wants to ensure that all Australians have access to such a high-speed broadband network. It is a vital piece of nation-building infrastructure required for Australia to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I commend the bill to the House.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am amazed that the member for Makin can claim that the Howard government failed to roll out a national broadband network when it was the Howard government that signed the OPEL contract to deliver fast broadband to 99 per cent of Australians by June of this year. It would have already been in place if we were in government. We would already have a fast broadband network. Instead, the Rudd government cancelled the OPEL contract, which was going to deliver incredibly fast services all around Australia, to 99 per cent of Australians. Instead, the Rudd and Conroy pipedream will spend $43 billion without a business plan and without a cost-benefit analysis. Talk about amateurs! They went to the last election with a plan that they said would cover 98 per cent of Australians for $4.7 billion, and we have ended up with a $43 billion plan to cover only 90 per cent of Australians. Guess which 10 per cent of Australians will miss out? It will be those people in rural areas in electorates like mine of Barker. The member for Makin also just spruiked a so-called solution for a black spot in his metropolitan seat. Can I inform the member for Makin: fixing black spots in metropolitan areas is relatively simple.

Let me inform the member for Makin that the OPEL contract would have delivered 38 high-speed WiMAX base stations in my electorate, with a further seven exchanges upgraded to ADSL II-plus, and they would have already been in place, serving 21,904 underserved positions. Those positions are still in place. They are still underserved by this government—and it has been in government now for nearly two years. Let me also inform the member for Makin and those on the opposite side that I can use the example of Murray Bridge, where I actually live. Murray Bridge is a reasonably large city of about 18,000 people. It is only about 70 kilometres out of Adelaide. It is the second or third largest city outside of Adelaide in South Australia. In my subdivision, which is called Pathways, because I was the second person to move into that subdivision some 2½ years ago I got the last ADSL II-plus spot left available in that subdivision. Since then we have probably had about 100 houses built in that subdivision, and they are going up at a rate of about one a week. And guess what. Even two years later, after the election of the Rudd government, there is still no ADSL II-plus in a subdivision that has been going for about three years—and, of course, two years served by this government. So things have not improved one iota under this government. All we are left with is a plan to spend $43 billion, a plan which will not work and is not feasible. Nobody is going to be paying $200 a month for that extra service when they can get quite capable WiMAX service in many places around Australia.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to provide for network information to be provided by telecommunications carriers and other utilities to the Commonwealth for the planned rollout of the National Broadband Network. Just over two years ago I was pleased to support the Howard government’s Australia Connected broadband initiative. It would have been in place now serving my constituents and constituents all around Australia. The centrepiece was the immediate rollout of a new competitive state-of-the-art broadband network that would have extended high-speed services to 99 per cent of the population and provided speeds of 12 megabits per second by 2009. I have no doubt that technological advances would have increased that speed quite quickly, because that is the way of the broadband networks around the world. It would have enabled high-speed broadband carriage across the entire electorate of Barker, an electorate that is bigger than Tasmania. It is 64,000 square kilometres and all of it would have been covered—and it would have been covered now.

But, as a result of this government, there is no extra coverage that we can actually boast of. That two years would have been up by now and my constituents, who have long dealt with unreliable dial-up or impossibly expensive and often fairly slow satellite broadband, would have been able to effectively communicate in business, medical, education and family matters. The Howard government would have spent just $958 million, less than $1 billion, on this new network, and funding would have been complemented by $907 million from the network builder OPEL, a joint venture between Optus and Elders. It would have been in place for about $2 billion. But here we have this government boasting about a $43 billion plan that will not work because it is not cost effective. Everyone in my electorate of Barker would have benefited from the Australia Connected initiative. Those working in our hospitals and schools, families who use the internet to keep in touch with loved ones and our businesspeople who use it to contact their customers and suppliers and to find new markets for their products would have, could have and should have but have not, thanks to the Rudd government. Instead, the Rudd Labor government has welched on its core election promise to provide fast broadband to regional Australia, leaving more than two million people outside its latest broadband announcement. Those two million people are from rural and regional Australia. More than 22,000 are from my electorate. More than 22,000 will not get serviced by this pipedream of a plan. Despite the expenditure of $43 billion of taxpayers’ money, one million regional Australian households will end up with less than they would have got under the cancelled OPEL contract and will get it many years later. Regional Australia will miss out or have to wait years longer than anyone else and, at best, receive broadband one-eighth as fast as in the cities. There are 22,000 people in my electorate who will never receive high-speed fibre-to-the-premise broadband services, all because they live in towns with fewer than 1,000 people. Towns in my electorate which will miss out include Beachport, Blanchetown, Cadell, Callington, Cobdogla, Coonalpyn, Kalangadoo, Karoonda, Lameroo, Lucindale, Meningie, Morgan, Mount Burr, Nangwarry, Paringa, Pinnaroo, Port MacDonnell, Swan Reach, Tantanoola, Tarpeena, Tintinara, Truro and others.

We are not talking about outback towns. Some of these are just over an hour from Adelaide. This is another broken election promise: to deliver fibre to the node to 98 per cent of all Australians. We knew it would not work and I suspect they knew it would not work. The Rudd Labor government is cementing in place a two-speed economy—fast for cities and slow for the bush. The Howard government, in contrast, signed off on $958 million for the OPEL contract to provide fast broadband to regional Australia. We also put another $2.4 billion into the Communications Fund to future-proof those services and provide further upgrades. In metropolitan areas where there is strong competition, existing commercial providers were willing to build the fast broadband network. Instead, under Labor, the money put aside for regional Australia has been taken away and replaced with $250 million to extend fibre-optic cable to a small number of regional centres. The end result is that regional and rural small business, households and students—who are already hit by this government under the youth allowance changes—will not gain the broadband access they were promised at the last election and will continue to struggle for years with unreliable and slow internet.

Rural and regional Australians have clearly been excluded from Labor’s communications revolution. They have been dudded by the Rudd government. Two-thirds of the way through this government’s term, Labor has done nothing to improve broadband services in rural and regional Australia. If anything, it has made the situation worse, cancelling OPEL and dissolving the $2.4 billion Communications Fund, which was an in-perpetuity fund to provide improved services to regional and rural Australia. Rural and regional Australians no longer have this, thanks to the Rudd government.

Earlier this week I spoke in this place about the lack of response from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on digital television services to areas of my electorate. I said that the failure of the Labor government to fund the upgrade of retransmission towers from analog to digital transmission was just another example of a city-centric federal government. Many rural and regional Australians will miss out on television altogether—in areas less than 100 kilometres from Adelaide. That is a communications failure if ever there was one.

I also recall the situation with analog telephones when we first came into government in 1996. Many of the rural areas in my electorate were left without any sort of mobile phone service because the previous Keating Labor government made no attempt to help those people in rural areas, who often used analog phones because they had a greater service capability than digital phones. We had to come in and fix the problem that Labor had left us, which we did by introducing CDMA telephone services.

The National Broadband Network is yet another example showing that Labor governments do not care about regional Australia, and that goes for state and federal governments. Rural and regional Australia, and certainly my electorate, not only provides us with some of the best food in the world and, of course, the best wine in the world but also supports thousands of food manufacturing and processing jobs as well as generating billions of dollars of export revenue. When rural and regional Australia needed our help as the drought went on, it got a slap in the face through cancellation of exceptional circumstances funding in parts of my electorate.

When the Labor Party needs to make cuts it is the usual victims who get hit—the self-funded retirees, people with private health care, businesses, exporters and, of course, those who live outside the capital cities. They copped a $1 billion hit in last year’s budget—and that was in good times—and they copped it again in this year’s budget.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. As much as I hate to cut the member off while he is promoting his electorate, it has nothing to do with the bill before us.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Barker to return to the bill.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact I was coming directly back to it. I was going to say next that many of the same rural and regional Australians now miss out on the broadband revolution, and that is where the connection was.

I note with some interest that this bill imposes an obligation on carriers and utilities to provide specified information to authorised information officers for a period of 10 years. As if the projected rollout over an eight-year period were not delay enough, we now have a provision for a further two years delay. After 10 years there will be many parts of my electorate not covered with the broadband revolution. In terms of revolutions, that has got to be about the slowest on record! Napoleon Bonaparte once said, ‘A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.’ Labor has certainly found its bayonets and they are firmly fixed on rural and regional Australians whose dream of fast and reliable broadband has just been garrotted.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to see that the member for Barker had so much to say in the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 that, with four minutes left on the clock for him and only two minutes left before question time, he decides he has had enough. The core of this issue is the fact that there is only one party in this country that has had the guts and the decency to actually take on this very difficult issue of a National Broadband Network in this country.

It is pretty rich coming from the opposition, because after almost 12 years in government, when they had real opportunity, when the rivers of revenue gold used to flow into Canberra at the peak of the economy and when there was actually funding that could have paid the full $44 billion that we are putting forward with this, what did the Howard government do? They did absolutely nothing at all. All they talk about now is that they had signed off. They had signed off on nothing and delivered nothing, and after almost 12 years in government today all they can find the energy to do is whinge, whine and carp and go on about a government that has actually committed the funding and is committed to the delivery of a National Broadband Network both in the city and in the bush.

While he wasted enough time in promoting his own electorate, the member for Barker forgot to remind them that he was the guy who did not actually do anything for them when he was in power. When he had the opportunity to go in and deliver some telecommunications—

Government Member:

Why didn’t you say this in your speech?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly—why didn’t you say this in your speech? You still had time left. You have had your opportunity.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will direct his remarks through the chair.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the opportunity to continue my remarks after question time. The cities and the towns of this country will for the first time actually get a decent National Broadband Network, which is wonderful for this economy.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Oxley will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.