Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will pick up where I left off last night and briefly outline that the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 is designed to extend the reach and duration of a power available to the minister to demand network related information of telecommunications companies and utilities with a view to feeding this information into the federal Labor government’s national broadband idea mark 2. That essentially is what this legislation is about. Last night, before the adjournment debate commenced, I was characterising how the first instalment of this show-and-tell legislation was rescued by the coalition and got Senator Conroy out of a difficult hole of his own making. I fear that he has learnt nothing from that exercise and the federal Labor government will make the same mistakes it made last time around.

Stakeholders were not consulted with the first instalment of the show-and-tell bill. Now, on the second instalment, they still have not been consulted. Thankfully, through the Senate inquiry and the good work of the shadow minister for communications, my friend and colleague Senator the Hon. Nick Minchin, and his dedicated staff, there has been some consultation. Thank goodness for that. It is from that consultation that we will be bringing forward some amendments that highlight the concerns that arose. While indicating they will cooperate with the government on the provision of the necessary information, stakeholders have indicated that they have a number of concerns about the potentially broad and onerous requirements that could be imposed on them by the minister under this legislation. As I said at the beginning, this is an expansion of that power and a lengthening of the duration for which it is available. More particularly, the data that can be demanded from telcos and utilities is now being applied for a different purpose. In NBN mark 1 the failed, shambolic request for proposal process, which was actually a search for a policy by this federal Labor government, collapsed. At that time this show-and-tell legislation was designed to ensure that potential bidders for NBN mark 1 had available to them information that enabled them to construct a bid.

With that proposition now discredited, with that idea, that sound bite from the federal Labor government now in the dustbin of history, we are now onto NBN mark 2. Now, though, the purposes of that data will be to assist the government to shape up its sound bite about a new kind of National Broadband Network mark 2 yet to be defined, with the detail, about as much as you would expect, written in crayon on the back of an envelope. But now there is to be an expansion of that show-and-tell power, a greater range of respondents to include utilities and an extension of the duration for which that power will be exercised.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts received nine submissions to its inquiry into this bill and had a public hearing in Canberra. Submissions were received from Telstra, Optus, the Energy Networks Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Australasian Railway Association, the Water Services Association of Australia, Integral Energy, the Privacy Commissioner and Unwired. The evidence presented to the committee highlighted a number of concerns with the measures proposed in the bill. Serious concerns related to protection of the information and in ensuring that no competitive advantage is gained by NBN Co., that is, Rudd Com—the government funded potentially broadband provider. That is its moniker at the moment. We do not know where it will be in the marketplace, armed and equipped with its competitors’ information. So even while the federal Labor government fumbles around with what it intends to do—it is happy to hock the nation through a debt funded proposal that it cannot even describe—it will have in its possession the data of its competitors. There is a serious concern about how that information will be protected and a serious concern about whether competitive advantage will be soaked up by NBN Co. through the proposals in this bill, which potentially give that company access to utility and carrier network information over the next 10 years—the very information that many of those providers, those utility and telco providers, view as intellectual property. The way they have designed and laid out their network will now be available to NBN Co. If it ever gets to a point where it does what the press releases say it may do, it may well be out in the marketplace competing with the very companies it is getting its information from.

However, it is important to note, given the prospect of compulsion under this bill, that there was no evidence presented to the committee inquiry into this current bill that carriers and utilities would not be prepared to cooperate with the government in providing information for the implementation study on a voluntary commercial basis. There are already some commercial disciplines that govern this kind of exchange of information where companies, enterprises and agencies are in discussion and where they have an overlap of interest, particularly at this implementation study stage. Implementation study is a nice term: it sounds a whole lot better than, ‘We have no idea what we are going to do but let’s hope we can work out something.’ That is synonymous with implementation study when it comes to the National Broadband Network. But the bill overlooks commercial disciplines and practice that would be perfectly suitable to the submitters to the Senate committee and that represent normal practice in the commercial world. But, no, there is a compulsion power, a waddy hanging over the head of utility and telco providers and of asset holders, hanging there saying, ‘If you don’t do what we want we can clean you up through a legislative tool.’

It is also worth highlighting some of the other concerns of stakeholders—for instance, consultation time lines. I have touched on the fact that stakeholders, including Integral Energy, the Energy Networks Association and the Water Services Association of Australia, raised concerns with the time lines in the bill, both in relation to the consultation on draft instruments—those instruments that would enable the minister to exercise the power this seeks to give him—and the time line for the provision of required information. Given the age and the complexity of the information of some of these utilities, we are sympathetic to those concerns.

On the issue of immunities, under this bill civil penalties apply for carriers and utilities that do not provide accurate information. Given that some utilities are required to provide information on old and legacy assets, some of which have been transferred through a number of enterprises, trading organisations and companies, they have rightfully and quite understandably expressed concern about their potential exposure to civil penalties, under the potentially onerous requirements, for honest and genuine errors in the information provided. So even doing the right thing—doing the best that they can with the material available to them—there is still this risk of penalty. We do believe that is a valid point and should be considered further by the government.

I turn now to the issue of cost recovery mechanisms. Utilities also raised with the Senate committee the issue of the costs associated with the provision of the information that may be compelled by the government and the actual ongoing costs associated with the potential use of that infrastructure. In the Bills Digest that canvassed these issues I recall a figure of around $100,000 or that order being the cost to the Commonwealth of exercising this instrument. The Commonwealth is the one saying, ‘We have the show and tell power; cough up this material.’ It is the respondents who have the task of compiling that material, bringing it together and presenting it in the format that has been required or in some cases demanded of them. Where are those costs going to sit? The government’s stated intention is to seek information on a cooperative and commercial basis, but there is currently no mechanism that requires consideration of compensation under a mandatory demand for the provision of information.

The consultation and the committee’s work on the bill raised concerns about the sunset period and the provision of information to NBN Co. The bill contains two amendments regarding the person or persons who can have access to the network information. It talks about clearly distinguishing the length of application of the provisions under this bill and a contrast between the implementation study and the NBN Co. So it distinguishes the length of application of the provisions between those two segments.

On the provisions relating to the implementation study sunset on June 2010; it is worth remembering that the implementation study is the ‘gee whiz, what are we actually going to do’ process. This is about hopefully putting sound policy behind the sound bytes—where the headlines actually need some hard work done about what is going to happen. The provisions in the bill relate to that implementation study—that sunset and that actual hard work of turning publicity material into some purposeful and practical plan. But the provisions permit the disclosure of information to NBN Co. to operate for 10 years. So the NBN Co.—in whatever guise it might pop out from the implementation study, on whatever posture the implementation study might recommend, and on whatever competitive basis it seeks to engage and in some cases take customers off its competitors—can require information to be provided by those very competitors for 10 years under this bill.

There are a number of other concerns with the bill—for example, the extent to which information can be compelled and used over the course of the 10-year period, particularly in relation to that issue I touched upon earlier of competitive neutrality. The concerns about competitive neutrality are minimised if this legislation is limited to the implementation study only. Why the government would want show-and-tell punitive powers to demand information from potential competitors well into the future on a plan that has not yet been conceived, has not been canvassed and is not publicly available. We do not know what the government actually wants to do. But in this bill it wants to be able to take information from its competitors for a 10-year horizon with no clarity about what uses those pieces of information and that intelligence from competitors will actually be put to, because we do not know what NBN Co. looks like. No-one knows what it looks like, but here it has coercive powers to demand information from potential competitors. Why would the government not, in a more sober and measured approach, apply this legislation to the implementation study only? For these reasons, serious questions have been asked about the powers given to the minister in this bill.

We believe attempts should be made to restrict the application of this bill to the implementation study only. At least then everybody will know what the government is on about and there will be some flesh on the bones of this—well, they are not even really bones at this stage—and some content behind the press releases, the hype and the big words. The federal Labor government, at this stage, are promising the world when all they are actually doing is looking to borrow someone else’s atlas. We do not know quite what they will end up doing at the end of the day. So for these reasons we think the bill should be applied to the implementation study only. If the implementation study concludes that the rollout will occur and this sensitive information is required then let the government make the case, come back to this parliament with its proposal and we can consider just what additional information is required and can be coercively obtained by the government, given that its NBN Co. is out in the marketplace potentially competing with the very people it is demanding that information from.

The minister should not be given such broad, long-term powers in relation to sensitive network information prior to the completion of the implementation study, particularly given there is such scarce detail about exactly how any services will be rolled out, how any network might be built and what the implementations may be for existing infrastructure. As many have heard me say before, what is going to happen to the dangling DSLAMs—the hardware that is out in the marketplace now providing broadband services? Will it just be left dangling? We do not know. We do not know the prices that consumers will be expected to pay for any NBN Co. service. We have no idea of the commercial viability of NBN Co. We have plenty of friends in that regard; the government has no idea either.

At this point I foreshadow second reading amendments, which we have circulated in the chamber, that call on the government to limit the application of this bill to the implementation study only. We ask the government to consider carefully these amendments that the coalition is putting forward. Just as the coalition was instrumental in saving Senator Conroy from himself the last time this NBN show-and-tell legislation came before the parliament, we again ask Senator Conroy to recognise the virtue of our positive and constructive contribution here and ask that the government embrace these issues. The amendments we will move read:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:‘while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion:

(1)

that given the lack of certainty about whether Labor’s debt-laden NBN proposal will even proceed, the government should amend the legislation to limit the application of this bill to the implementation study only; and

(2)

that the government should be condemned for its irresponsibility in refusing to conduct any cost benefit analysis for its NBN proposal and as such, risking billions of dollars of taxpayer funds on a project that may not even be commercially viable.’

If the government opposes this amendment, then the coalition will seek to improve the bill in the Senate in line with the evidence presented to the Senate committee and the remarks of coalition senators in the committee report—primarily through limiting the measure provided for in this bill to the implementation study only. Our second reading amendment also condemns the government for their blatant irresponsibility in refusing to conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

Of great concern to the coalition is federal Labor’s steadfast refusal to conduct any cost-benefit analysis for their NBN proposal. They are treating taxpayers with contempt and putting billions of dollars at risk with the NBN mark 2 idea. Their proposal to build a national broadband network should be based on firm evidence that substantiates why such a massive taxpayer spend is warranted, justified, and cost effective. The government’s arrogant approach should worry all Australians.

The coalition has had a long-held commitment, and proven outcomes, on enhancing the availability, speed and affordability of broadband to all Australians. That focus has been on underserviced communities, those for whom competitive arrangements and market viability might deny them the performance, affordability and availability of broadband that might be more common in urban areas. That idea of focusing on underservicing was an idea that sat behind the OPEL initiative, an initiative designed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to address where the market had failed and where communities in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia were being denied access to metro comparable broadband. Labor condemned that. It said OPEL was wrong. That did not stop Senator Conroy fronting up at photo opportunities to claim credit for some of the elements of the OPEL plan, in particular the WiMAX wireless technology. He is out there lauding that technology he characterised as a dog when he was in opposition.

It is quite breathtaking how, in the whole area of broadband, we cannot quite see a coherent plan from the Rudd Labor government. What we can see is plenty of politicking but no plan. Since the election of federal Labor, I would have to say the Commonwealth has been a net negative on enhancing the performance, availability and affordability of broadband in Australia. The confusion, the flip-flopping and the fog that has surrounded these politically motivated publicity announcements around broadband have spooked investors. Investors do not know what is going on. There has been no clear articulation about how federal Labor’s big spending plan will impact on their assets and their businesses. It has caused a reluctance to invest that has put a stop on many projects that would otherwise have been not only undertaken but concluded by now. This government has denied those kids in rural and regional Australia who would have been able to participate in their studies with access to more affordable, higher speed broadband—whether it be government funded like OPEL—and nothing has been put in its place. Those improved services that the coalition proposed would have addressed areas of market failure, through targeted taxpayer investment, and would have assisted students in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia and health providers looking at e-health—those who want to consider telecommuting and the opportunities that are there—but they have all missed out.

The small businesses that could have benefited from affordable higher performance, more readily available broadband have missed out under this government. A plan that would have delivered them a better outcome was junked by federal Labor instead of people being able to enjoy those benefits now. Let us pick the student who would have been able to tap in to a high-speed more affordable broadband service now but who will have finished their education before it is in place. If they were in year 7 this year, they would have left secondary school by the time any kind of clarity comes out of what federal Labor is doing, let alone have any access to it. A pre schooler might see something out of what federal Labor is on about by the time they finish their education.

So long term, so vague, so poorly planned is this Labor idea, this Labor sound byte. They have PR, media spin, headlines, stunts, and a political agenda from federal Labor, instead of practical progress on improved services, affordability, better accessibility for broadband here and now, taxpayer funded and targeted to areas of market failure, private businesses prepared to invest their own money—prepared and willing to do so because there is clarity in policy settings. They lost that when the election invited a Labor administration to come to Canberra and, in return, broadband users have got absolutely nothing.

Senator Conroy is proud of going around bagging the coalition for its various plans. What he does not tell you is that he picks out components when he does his little mathematical gymnastics. He talks about plans that over more than a decade evolved as the technology evolved. Why on earth would you stick with policy instruments when the technology has moved forward? The technology requires policy to move forward, as it did with the coalition. But Senator Conroy is critical of the coalition and where policy has evolved as the technology has improved. The great irony is the only program that may be delivering any help at all through government activity at a Commonwealth level with broadband is a program that the coalition put in place.

People are starting to wake up to what federal Labor and Senator Conroy mean for broadband in Australia, and they are waking up with a fright. They have heard the dream but they are realising when they wake up what a frightening nightmare all of this vagueness, lack of clarity and fog is actually producing. There is a critical need for a cost-benefit analysis. Look at and listen to what federal Labor says and then at what they actually do. The Prime Minister, when he spoke to the heads of agencies, said:

Policy innovation and evidence-based policy making is at the heart of being a reformist government. Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all available options and not by ideology …We are interested in facts, not fads … In fostering a culture of policy innovation we should trial new approaches and policy options through small scale pilot studies.

Let’s apply the Prime Minister’s benchmark to broadband. Where is the analysis? Where is the innovation? Where is the meaningful analysis when all we get is mantra? Where are the small-scale pilot studies? We have a $43 billion whopper here without any data to back it up.

The head of Treasury, someone who is often quoted by the Prime Minister when it is convenient, made a contribution last week. He said:

Government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.

Has there been a bigger detraction from Australia’s wellbeing than the distraction of Labor’s NBN nonsense? There is still a lack of clarity. This needs to be addressed and that is why we have these amendments before the chamber. There is a growing and ever-expanding list of people calling for transparency from this government. They are calling for that cost-benefit analysis. They are calling for the Prime Minister to walk the talk, for the Treasury officials to have an influence over this process and for the instruments, whether they be the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia or the pathway outlined by the coalition in the Senate—any of those options would work—to do a transparent cost-benefit analysis.

In formally moving these amendments circulated in my name and seconded by my friend and colleague at the table we again ask the government: please be open, please be fair dinkum about this and please consider our amendments. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion:

(1)

that given the lack of certainty about whether Labor’s debt-laden NBN proposal will even proceed, the Government should amend the legislation to limit the application of this bill to the implementation study only; and

(2)

that the Government should be condemned for its irresponsibility in refusing to conduct any cost benefit analysis for its NBN proposal and as such, risking billions of dollars of taxpayer funds on a project that may not even be commercially viable.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 before this House. In Australia we do many, many things extremely well. We have many achievements that we can be proud of but, unfortunately, access to high-speed broadband has not been one of them. Today, Australia is ranked in the bottom half of OECD countries in our take-up of broadband services—that is to say, we are ranked 16th out of 30 countries. When we do have broadband, we pay more for it. We are ranked 20th out of 29 countries with regard to broadband affordability. Our slower connection services are also not cheap. We pay more for our low-speed internet connection, ranking us fourth most expensive for low-speed services and fifth most expensive for medium-speed connections.

It has been stated that, as recently as July 2008, two-thirds of metro areas and more than half of regional areas in Australia had no access to an internet service capable of delivering 12 megabits per second. These figures tell us all a sad and sobering story. Personally, I would not like to see these figures get any worse. I am sure most of us in this House would not. If that happens, Australia will fall further behind in our access to broadband technology.

Looking at the figures, we clearly have a need as a government to act quickly and, of course, in the national interest. Whilst the so-called old economy of coal and resources may be strong and serving us well and will serve us well into the future, this does not mean that we can afford to turn our backs on the new economy of information and technology. This is particularly true in areas such as my electorate of Flynn in central Queensland, where our resources continue to contribute substantially on a state and national level.

We should remember that these access figures are not just statistics on paper but carry with them a very real human face. In my electorate of Flynn, I have unfortunately witnessed firsthand families that cannot gain access to standard broadband services. Some of these families have children at school and fear their child will fall behind their classmates who do have access to broadband. Some of these families have small businesses or work from home to be with their families and they fear that their work or business will suffer at the hands of a slow internet connection that puts up barriers to obtaining the information that they need to compete and to be productive in today’s world. Some of these cases have occurred in the very heart of my hometown of Gladstone, the proud powerhouse of the Queensland economy, and some in Emerald, the capital of the Central Highlands west of Gladstone. These families have simply been told that the ports and exchanges that operate this vital service are running at full capacity.

There are examples in my electorate of Flynn where people do have access to a broadband service, but this is where I fear a further problem lies. If we do not take action now to improve broadband services right across Australia, especially in the bush, then we are in danger of splitting communities into the digital haves and the digital have-nots. We are in danger of witnessing a great digital divide spreading further into our communities and we are in danger of witnessing hardworking Australian families, through no fault of their own, forced into digital poverty.

This is a very real problem facing ordinary Australians, affecting real people and real families. It requires a real solution and a strong government to take the lead, to pick up the ball and to start improving access to high-speed, high-quality broadband across Australia, which has been lacking for so many, many years. This is exactly what the Rudd government is doing with the National Broadband Network.

In April of this year my government, the Rudd Labor government, proudly announced a new plan to enhance broadband services right across Australia and establish the new company, known as NBN Co., which will build, own and operate a wholesale fibre-to-the-home network. The sheer size and significance of this project cannot be taken for granted. It is the single largest infrastructure investment ever undertaken by an Australian government. It is a $43 billion investment in our future, a future that we may not even be able to imagine today but that we must be ready for and well positioned to seize every advantage and every opportunity from. This network will vastly improve current access rates to broadband services, but unlike previous proposals the National Broadband Network will benefit 100 per cent of Australian premises, as this government believes that, no matter where in this great country of ours you live or work, you deserve access to a reliable broadband network and the many, many benefits that this brings.

The network will connect 90 per cent of our homes, schools and businesses with a fibre-to-the-home infrastructure capable of delivering speeds of 100 megabits per second—that is to say, 100 times faster than the current connection speed used by most Australians today. The remaining 10 per cent of premises will not miss out, and nor should they. They will be connected to the network with next generation wireless and satellite technology able to deliver speeds of at least 12 megabits per second. This is welcome news and a welcomed investment by the Rudd Labor government. It is welcomed particularly by rural and regional areas; as I stated earlier, currently more than half of our regional areas have no access to an internet service capable of delivering 12 megabits per second.

So what is the additional significance of broadband? While we may currently be among the strongest economies in the developed world, research company Access Economics has found that a national high-speed broadband network such as the NBN would further positively impact on Australia’s economic performance. Access Economics predicts that a broadband network would see our economic growth 1.1 per cent higher after 10 years compared to not building such a network. And, as we are all too aware, with economic growth comes employment, prosperity, productivity and opportunities that would not have existed previously. This higher economic growth is an impressive benefit and at a local level, in my community of Flynn, the National Broadband Network has a huge potential.

The network will further overcome an old problem existing for many years and associated with living in the bush—that is, the vastness of distance and the tyranny of same. Before the internet became a valuable educational tool students in city areas had access to far more comprehensive resources than students in rural and regional areas. To take one example, state libraries and museums were at the fingertips only of those receiving an urban education in a capital city. Thankfully, this is now no longer the case, with the further help of the National Broadband Network, which will overcome the challenges that are put up by this vast land of ours.

The National Broadband Network will do what no government ever possibly could—that is, it will further place resources such as state libraries and museums right in the home of every single Australian student, including placing them at the fingertips of rural and regional Australian students. It will help provide a level playing field for those studying in rural and regional areas and it will help to break down barriers to information and opportunities for our kids in the bush. Improved educational outcomes for regional and rural students are only one of the many, many benefits of the National Broadband Network. It will also help regional and rural health services to deliver better care for our rural and regional communities, with better access to diagnostic and other support services. The new network will offer our local small businesses and our farming communities improved productivity to better and more efficiently compete, expand their markets and do business.

In my electorate of Flynn I am lucky enough to have had two areas declared by my government as priority locations for the rollout of the National Broadband Network. I am pleased to see that both Emerald and Longreach will share in the government’s initial investment in a fibre-optic backbone to link these two vitally important communities of Flynn. I have been informed that work on the Longreach and Emerald priority locations is progressing very well, with tenders for the work closing on 5 August and currently being evaluated. Work is set to start on these priority locations in Flynn as early as this year, and I expect the physical construction of the network to be a much-needed boost to our local economy, particularly in these two areas and surrounding areas, and a much-needed boost to local small businesses. I would like to take this opportunity today to thank the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy not only for his hard work and dedication on this matter but also for his understanding of the desperate need of rural and regional Australia and communities like Flynn for the rollout of the National Broadband Network. I look forward to delivering this network and its benefits in company with him, and I ask him to do so as soon as possible.

The technical aspects of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 deal with the information that will be required to plan and coordinate the rollout of the National Broadband Network. In order to efficiently and promptly roll out this network certain information will be required and this bill will essentially outline the information that is to be supplied to the government from other telecommunication and utility providers. Such information could include locations of existing ducts, poles, pits, pipelines or other infrastructure that could be used to roll out the physical network of cables used to deliver broadband services. By using existing infrastructure where possible we are taking the most cost-effective path to delivering high-speed internet into Australian homes. Some of this information may be sensitive in its nature, both on a security and commercial level, but I do note that there are safeguards in place to ensure the appropriate handling of this information. This view is also expressed by the Environment, Communications and Arts Legislation Committee, to which this bill was referred on 25 June this year. The same committee also recommends that this bill be passed.

While I would never want to live anywhere else in the world, I know firsthand that living in a regional community presents its own unique challenges. But I feel that this far-reaching National Broadband Network will help overcome some of these challenges and present our regional communities with improved services and more opportunities. While I can admit to not being the savviest of technology users, I can see the huge potential of the National Broadband Network in many forms, including as a successful former small businessman, as a father of five children and from the many young minds that I am lucky enough to meet as I travel the many schools in my vast electorate of Flynn. I welcome any steps that bring forward the reality of high-speed internet connection to homes and businesses in Flynn and throughout Australia generally. That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill and commend it to the House today.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we know, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 seeks to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997 in order to require telecommunications carriers and utilities to provide information about their existing networks to the Commonwealth, to assist with the Commonwealth’s National Broadband Network, NBN, for both their implementation study and their eventual rollout. It is clearly the government’s intention that carriers and utilities will have the opportunity to provide the information on a cooperative or commercial basis, though the Commonwealth can compel. The minister has scope to define the information request and make rules in storage, handling and destruction of information, which is appropriate.

Before we look at the context of the bill and the reason the government is seeking to request on a commercial basis and then compel information on a carrier’s network, it is important to understand how we got to this place and how we got to a situation where the government is going to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money on a network that requires the request or the compulsion of information from carriers. Let me be very clear that the coalition recognises and supports the importance of universal access to fast, affordable and reliable voice, data and video communications and not just broadband, which has the connotation of moving towards fixed line broadband. We support high-speed, reliable voice, data and video communications across all spectrums—wireless, broadband, two-way satellite and the like. We support the continued enhancement of all services, but where we fundamentally differ from the Labor Party in this issue is how we ensure that all Australians get that access.

Labor promised at the last election that they would have a broadband network operating by the end of 2008. Yet here we are quickly approaching Christmas 2009 and, frankly, we are nowhere on this. Almost two years of wasted opportunity, poor planning and what can only be considered as incompetence by the minister and the surrounding government! So here Labor starts the process again, abandoning their formal commitment—$4.7 billion—to provide broadband communications to the high 90 per cent of the nation and suddenly, in what can only be conceived as a thought bubble from hell, the Prime Minister and the responsible minister rolled out a $43 billion plan to provide broadband to 90 per cent of the nation. What started as $4.7 billion for 95 per cent plus has now morphed into $43 billion for 90 per cent. How can you spend 10 times more money to deliver less service?

With a nine-month implementation study, over $50 million and a rollout period from eight to 10 years, may I suggest this will never happen? I can only assume that this process was cobbled together at the last minute when it was quickly realised that the original $4.7 billion phase 1 was simply not going to happen. Labor has to stop this reckless spending. It has to put a line in the sand and stop this reckless spending. It is looking to commit $43 billion yet there is no study; there is no cost-benefit analysis; there is nothing tangible to put your finger on to look at where they are going. Indeed, the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand and say, ‘This would be a great investment for mums and dads, for families and others to be involved in.’ But there is no product disclosure statement; there is no analysis of return. If you as an individual in this nation put together a plan to borrow money and invest and you told the public that they should invest in this, that it is great, and you did not have the PDS or other documentation required, you may well be in breach of prudential or other securities laws. But that is exactly what the Prime Minister has gone and done.

The Prime Minister is looking at a new telecommunications company with twice the capitalised value of Telstra—twice $43 billion. Based on leading metrics overseas, telecommunications companies will be looking at about a 15 per cent return on their money. So we are looking for a company that will deliver, at a capitalised value of $43 billion, a profit of about $6 billion or $7 billion per annum. Telstra’s profit is something between $3 billion and $4 billion. We are looking at a company twice as big as Telstra. Yet no cost-benefit analysis has been done and there is no understanding of what the take-up will be. A simple ‘back of the beer coaster’ analysis would reveal that, if half of the nation took up Labor’s proposal, the cost would certainly be over $1,000, per individual, per year.

It is no wonder that many leading analysts predict that this project will clearly not be commercially viable, despite the government’s claims to the contrary. Labor’s broadband plan will see taxpayers carry the bulk of the risk, the government being at least a 51 per cent majority shareholder, and perhaps more, if the private sector cannot be encouraged to take up a rights offer. Not only is the government projecting a debt of $315 billion; it is now looking to widely increase that. Few analysts predict prices for retail services under the NBN will be less than $1,000 per month—$1,200 per year. Many consumers will be looking to pay double what the average broadband user pays today. Labor’s original backbone or broadband promise is shattered, strewn across the floor, being kicked into the wastepaper bins, and there is little indication to suggest that what is being proposed will actually achieve anything.

In 2008 a similar bill was considered and passed that required telecommunications carriers to provide specific information on infrastructure to the Commonwealth for the request for tender process under NBN mark I—the failed $4.7 billion charade. On 7 April this year the government announced it had abandoned that commitment and that it was all too hard. Why spend $4.7 billion when you can spend $43 billion—and all but $2.4 billion of that borrowed—on a fibre-to-the-premises broadband network, despite the irony that the take-up of wireless services is currently at a ratio of seven or eight to one? All this was done without any cost-benefit analysis. Let us see what some of the leading writers had to say about Labor’s proposal in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis. On 2 June 2009, Michael Stutchbury, Economics Editor of the Australian, referring to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, said:

But what does Rudd then do with what is touted to be Australia’s single biggest infrastructure project, the $43 billion broadband plan? He and Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy brazenly flout the rigorous cost-benefit analysis that is supposed to be applied to all big infrastructure projects. They announce the plan to directly connect just about all Australian homes to an optic fibre network, whatever the technology risks, along with a price tag plucked out of nowhere. The technocrats and merchant bankers are supposed to reverse engineer the cost-benefit numbers to make them add up. This puts Eddington and his Infrastructure Australia in an impossible position in demanding that the states lift their game.

Let us look at the editorial in the Australian Financial Review on 9 April 2009:

Now the the government wants to build a 43 billion fibre optic broadband network … without being able to offer a shred of economic justification for it, let alone the kind of detailed cost-benefit analysis and business case that is being demanded by Infrastructure Australia—in the interests of “rigour”—of states seeking funding for their pet projects.

And moving on to Paul Kerin, in the Australian, on 15 April 2009:

If election promises are sacred, what happened to Rudd’s far more important ones such as “evidence-based policy, not grand rhetorical flourish”?

The Australian Financial Review editorial on 22 May 2009 states:

The government envisages selling its stake in the company five years after it becomes fully operational. But no one knows if it will be profitable. No one knows how $43 billion was arrived at, or what returns to expect. We do not know how much the government will spend on the NBN. No one has analysed the risks or the size of the potential pay-offs. There is no excuse for this shoddiness and lack of transparency.

The government should be more upfront about what it is trying to do, and why. Taxpayers should expect nothing less than a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the NBN. Everyone is entitled to demand much greater transparency and rigour from the government on this huge undertaking.

A statement of the bleedingly obvious, you would have thought. The sum of $43 billion is being thrown out there and there is not a shred of evidence, no cost-benefit analysis undertaken, no rigour—flat nothing! It is no wonder that the government’s announcement was treated with the contempt it deserved.

Finally, let us see what the government’s own party says in the Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2009, in the immortal words of Michael Costa: ‘The government has decided to gold-plate an economically unviable strategy.’ I think that just about says it all.

Let us now move on to understand the consultation process. The government have plucked a number, $43 billion, out of the air. They have plucked an idea. There was no rigour, no thought process, no cost-benefit analysis, but did they consult? Did they actually talk? The weight of evidence indicates, especially through the Senate committee on this matter, that the government did not consult stakeholders about the content of the bill. Interestingly, in evidence to the Senate committee, Mr Claude Piccinin, Deputy Executive Director, Water Services Association, indicated he was made aware of the bill through the media. Let us have a look at the questioning in the Senate:

Senator MINCHIN—… From the perspective of your industry, I would like to know when and how you learnt of the existence of this bill.

Mr Piccinin—The way I learnt about it is that I was sitting at my desk on a Friday afternoon, minding my own business, winding down and looking forward to the weekend, when a journalist asked, “Would you care to comment on this?” and I said, “What?” It was a total surprise, shall we say.

Senator MINCHIN—You found out from the media—

Mr Piccinin—Indeed.

Senator MINCHIN—presumably after the bill had already been introduced?

Mr Piccinin—Indeed—yes.

That is the government’s consultation—nothing. They did not speak to anybody and they did not seek advice from the industry. They just pulled $43 billion of borrowed money out of the air and threw it on the table.

The bill has consultation time lines in it, yet stakeholders like Integral Energy, Energy Networks Association and Water Services Association—again in the Senate report—have raised concerns about the time lines in the bill in relation to the consultation on the draft instrument and the provision of required information. Likewise there has been concern about the immunities, because under the bill civil penalties apply for carriers and utilities that do not provide accurate information. Given that some utilities are required to provide information on legacy assets that are particularly old—some of the copper has been in the ground for 50, 60 or 70 years—they are concerned about the outcome of genuine, honest errors.

Utilities have raised concerns with the Senate committee about the issues associated with the compulsion by government and the actual ongoing costs associated with a potential use of their infrastructure. The sunset period and provision of information to NBN Co. have also raised concerns, because the bill contains amendments regarding the persons who can have access to the network information. It clearly distinguishes the length of application of the provisions between the implementation study and NBN Co.

Industry has a range of significant concerns that simply are not being addressed. Accordingly, the shadow spokesman has moved an amendment, which I fully support, that seeks to bring this bill back to some degree of coherence as to what would be expected, what would work and what would meet the expectations of key stakeholders—who were not consulted prior to the bill’s implementation. At least we could do them the courtesy of listening now. At least the government could do the stakeholders the courtesy of addressing their concerns now as it moves forward in its borrowing of $43 billion to put in place a network about which no information currently exists, about which no cost-benefit analysis has been produced and about which most commentators have been scathing because of the lack of information. At least the government could start now to provide some information to address the great, yawning vacuum that currently exists.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is talk about consultation on the need for a broadband network in Australia. I tell the honourable member for Fadden: we consulted the people—small business, big business—about the need for it. Previously there were 12 years of doing very little about the need for this country to get its broadband up to speed so it can compete with the rest of the world in a whole range of areas. I notice the honourable member did not say anything about the country not needing to do this work; he just wanted to talk political rhetoric—which the honourable member is getting a reputation for.

I rise to talk about the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. Regulatory reform is a core element of the government’s historic plans for the National Broadband Network. The rollout of the NBN as a wholesale-only open access network will fundamentally transform the competitive dynamics of the Australian telecommunications sector. During the rollout and after, the existing telecommunications regulatory regime will remain important for delivering services in the interests of Australian consumers and businesses.

This bill will amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to establish a regime to provide access to network information held by telecommunications carriers and other utilities where it is important to the planning and rollout of the new National Broadband Network initiative announced by the government on 7 April 2009. Information that is obtained will support the NBN implementation study and, subject to further consideration, the rollout of the network by the NBN Co. and other companies designated by the minister. The amended part 27A will also provide a comprehensive framework to protect the confidentiality and security of any information obtained. The amended part 27A is intended to act as a safety net in the event that, after a reasonable period, cooperative and commercial negotiation to access information proves unsuccessful.

Earlier this year, the government made the historic announcement that it would establish a company that will invest up to $43 billion to roll out a forward-looking superfast fibre-optic based National Broadband Network, the NBN. This will fundamentally change Australia’s communications landscape. It will vastly improve access to broadband services in Australia and will improve the competitive dynamics in the sector. Telecommunications services that are universally available, reliable and affordable are accepted as a critical input to the operation of an equitable society with an efficient economy. Although once it was sufficient to have well-functioning voice and basic data services, high-speed broadband services are now essential to the future efficiency and productivity of the Australian economy.

A recent study has suggested that widespread access to and use of high-speed broadband would expand economic activity by approximately 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product after five years. However, these gains will not be achieved unless the correct regulatory settings are in place. In the transition to the National Broadband Network, the government is committed to creating the market structure that will maximise the benefits to economic efficiency and productivity of high-speed broadband services.

But the government does not want to reinvent the wheel; there is a huge amount of infrastructure already rolled out across the country. So it is important for the planning and rollout of the NBN that there is ready access to information about existing infrastructure that might be utilised in the rollout of the network. This includes, for example, information on the location and availability of facilities such as poles, ducts and pipes. Such information is important so that the options for rollout in an area can be assessed—for example, duct availability—and the network can be rolled out as cost-effectively as possible. The information is held by telecommunications carriers and other utilities such as suppliers of electricity, water and transport services. The preference is to acquire this information on a cooperative or commercial basis.

This legislation is intended to provide a safety net to allow the Commonwealth to seek relevant network information where cooperative or commercial approaches may not be successful. This may be necessary to ensure the project is not delayed, or otherwise frustrated, by firms that have important information but have strategic or other reasons to withhold it. It also includes detailed arrangements to protect the confidentiality and security of the network information concerned, whether it is provided to the Commonwealth voluntarily or under the legislation. This is important, given that such information may relate to sensitive, critical national infrastructure. The collection of information of a personal nature that might raise privacy concerns is not envisaged.

The bill permits the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to make a disallowable instrument, specifying information to be provided by specific carriers and utilities, for the purpose of the implementation study. The information would be subject to strict rules relating to handling, storage and disposal. Pecuniary penalties would apply for breach of these rules.

The proposed legislation is important in ensuring that information needed for the NBN implementation study—and, if appropriate, for the rollout of the network—can be accessed where it is not otherwise reasonably available through cooperative or commercial means. Importantly, the legislation also provides a structured framework to protect the confidentiality and security of such information, given it may relate to sensitive, critical national infrastructure, whether the information is provided voluntarily or under law.

The Treasury has advised that it considers the benefits to consumers and Australia from the rollout, both in terms of services and competitiveness, will far exceed any detriments by seeking access to information. Legal advice that has been obtained by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy indicates the Commonwealth has the legal authority to seek such information, including from utilities other than telecommunications carriers. The risk that the legislation would involve acquisition of property requiring compensation is low. On the cost to parties required to provide information, much of this information is likely to be readily available in their existing databases, therefore minimising any additional costs. Cost was not raised as a significant issue when part 27A was originally introduced last year.

This legislation is very important and shows the government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring markets operate through vigorous competition for the benefit of consumers, businesses and, more broadly, the Australian economy. The National Competition Policy reforms agreed to by the Australian and state and territory governments in 1995 and 2007 affirm the importance of effective competition in maintaining and improving the welfare of Australia. The competitive process encourages firms to produce goods and services at the lowest cost, to use resources to produce the goods that are most valued by the consumer, and to innovate by developing new products and services.

The telecommunications competition reforms introduced in 1997 have delivered benefits to date; however, the regime has operated in the context of a traditional vertical and horizontal framework. Moving to the National Broadband Network environment will fundamentally change the competitive dynamics in the telecommunications sector. In the meantime, the government wants to ensure that the existing regulatory regime works more efficiently, including by removing incentives for discrimination and delays through regulatory gaming to increase opportunities for competitive outcomes.

There is still an ongoing commitment to regional and remote areas as the government recognises that appropriate telecommunications services are essential so families, businesses, schools and others in regional and remote areas can actively participate in Australian society. The government has recently reiterated its commitment to a prosperous and sustainable regional Australia in its response to the Glasson review. Its role was to assess the adequacy of telecommunications in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia and provide a report to the government, including recommendations.

Tasmania is fortunate in having the first part of the rollout, and work has started so that many areas that previously had no access hopefully will soon be able to link into the world. Other areas that have had slow speeds will be able to upgrade to the faster networks and be able to link into the multimedia soon to be available right across Australia.

As they say, ‘from little things, big things grow’ and we are only a small pond in Tasmania but we will be able to help the whole nation move forward with the future of IT. I support the bill.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. Let me say from the outset that the coalition has some very serious concerns about this bill and with the government’s entire approach to its proposed National Broadband Network, an approach which will disadvantage millions of Australians and business whilst, yet again, plunging the national economy further into debt.

This bill seeks to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Part 27A of the act that enables the minister to require telecommunications carriers to give information to the Commonwealth about their telecommunications networks. Whilst we, the coalition, support improved broadband services, we are yet to be convinced that the government’s latest proposal can or will be delivered, and at what cost, given its massive price tag and potential contribution to Australia’s record debt levels, especially given the failure of NBN mark 1.

Earlier this year the government announced that it had abandoned its election commitment for fibre-to-the-node broadband and the associated RFP process and would establish a company to own and operate a fibre-to-the premises broadband network with a potential price tag of $43 billion. Nobody denies that fibre-to-the-premises broadband, as proposed by Labor’s latest plan, is a premium service, but it comes at an enormous cost to Australian taxpayers.

In light of these changed goal posts, this bill seeks to amend the existing provisions of the act to include the provision of information by utilities as well as telco carriers for the purposes of NBN mark 2. The bill proposes that the information of carriers and utilities be utilised not only for the implementation study but also potentially by the NBN company or its potential subsidiaries or partners for any actual rollout of the network over the next 10 years.

This notion is absolutely absurd. It disadvantages telcos and energy providers that are continually trying to stay afloat in a competitive market—the same telcos and energy providers who, for the most part, despite being key stakeholders in relation to this bill were not consulted prior to it being put on the table by the Rudd Labor government. In fact, many of them did not hear that they would have to pass on such delicate information about their businesses to government until contacted by media for their thoughts. This is truly concerning and a testament to the Rudd Labor government’s inability to manage such massive projects.

These stakeholders, whilst agreeing to cooperate with the government on the provision of necessary information, have indicated they have a number of concerns about the potentially broad and onerous requirements that could be imposed on them by the minister under this legislation.

The Senate Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts received nine submissions on the bill and held a public hearing in Canberra. Submissions were received from Telstra, Optus, Energy Networks Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Australasian Railway Association, the Water Services Association of Australia, Integral Energy, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Unwired.

The committee received information which highlighted the various concerns stakeholders hold in relation to proposed amendments in this bill. Many of the stakeholders were concerned that the proposals offered little protection regarding information being passed on to the government. They were also concerned that no competitive advantage should be gained by the NBN Co through the proposals in the bill, which potentially gives the company access to utility and carrier network information over the next ten years.

Along with industry, the coalition thinks that this is an unreasonable request and is calling on the government to limit the application of this bill to the implementation study only. Also of grave concern to the coalition is the government’s steadfast refusal to conduct any cost-benefit analysis for their NBN mark 2 proposal. The coalition and a vast majority of the Australian public are up in arms over the $20 million price tag blow out of NBN mark 1. I suspect many Labor MPs would also be very embarrassed by this figure.

However, there is also every indication that NBN mark 2 will go the same way, only this time we are not talking about a cost blow out of $20 million but rather a now projected $43 billion blow out. That is right: $43,000 million of taxpayers’ hard earned cash wasted, simply because the flailing Labor government will not do a cost-benefit analysis to prove that this is able to be afforded and that they are able to manage such a large-scale project.

Forty three billion dollars is an enormous figure to spend on any project and this Labor government must do the necessary research to warrant such a massive taxpayer spend to ensure the proposed NBN mark 2 project is cost effective and a viable way forward. The Rudd Labor government’s arrogant approach should worry all Australians.

In its submission to the Senate committee, the Business Council of Australia joined the growing list of concerned commentators and organisations, including the Productivity Commission, who believe the NBN needs a thorough cost-benefit analysis. In its submission to the inquiry the Business Council of Australia stated:

Without a proper consideration and estimation of costs and benefits, it is difficult to see that the government has provided sufficient justification for the proposed legislation.

What would constituents get for this $43 billion price tag? Thousands of residents across the Paterson electorate and, indeed, millions of people across Australia, will incur dramatically increased broadband access costs. Industry predictions indicate that consumers may have to pay more than $200 a month to use Labor’s proposed National Broadband Network, a concept supported by analysis conducted by the highly- regarded economist and Concept Economics chairman, Henry Ergas.

To add insult to injury, Labor’s grandiose NBN plan is very scant in detail, and it has been made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister that towns with fewer than 1,000 people will not receive high speed fibre-to-the-premises broadband services despite the project’s record-breaking price tag. This means that, despite the government racking up a huge amount of debt, they are not spending on projects which are aimed at stimulating the economy and inclusive of the entire community.

In the Paterson electorate alone, the townships of Boat Harbour, Brandy Hill, Clarence Town, Coomba Park, Green Point, Gresford, East Gresford, Hinton, Karuah, Nabiac, North Arm Cove, Pacific Palms, Blueys Beach, Paterson, Pindimar, Salt Ash, Seaham, Smiths Lake, Stroud and Wallalong will miss out on upgraded broadband services. Conversely, the coalition has always been committed to ensuring that all Australians have equitable access to fast, reliable and affordable broadband services. Residents in these small communities who are to go on without upgraded broadband services are not faceless names—at least not to the coalition. Take, for example, a constituent of mine at Brandy Hill, Mr Arneson, who is bitterly disappointed that the Rudd Labor government has not done more to enable him to access broadband from home. In relation to this matter, Mr Arneson commented:

I could not obtain an ADSL broadband connection where I live, and had to suffer a very slow service as a result. The promised 3G service was slow coming, and also did not work in many areas around Brandy Hill, forcing me to use a satellite service, which, because it is connected via an Optus satellite, also has some problems. The 3G solution might be the way to go, but it is almost three times as expensive as the satellite service, and thus, as a pensioner, out of my price range.

So I ask the question: at $200 a month for the government’s new plan, how will a pensioner be able to afford that? I should also mention another constituent of mine, Mr McDonald, a Port Stephens resident who was disadvantaged by a lack of broadband services in his area. Mr Mc Donald had this to say:

As a young person with a physical disability who is self-employed, I need ADSL not for leisure but for my business. I would like to be treated fairly and have the same access to ADSL as everyone else has.

I can and will continue to prove to the House how the Rudd Labor government’s mismanagement of the NBN service is disadvantaging constituents in my electorate. Earlier this year I received a letter from a constituent in Thornton who had this to say:

I have been trying for nearly two months to get broadband up and running. At present, I am waiting (not-so-patiently by now) for Bigpond to send me a second, more powerful signal booster, in the hope that most of the powerful boosters they can provide will allow me better dial-up speed, and stop the somewhat-regular signal drop-outs I now suffer.

Labor are apparently only too aware of the problems associated with broadband in the Thornton area. Before Labor came into government, the member for Newcastle had this to say in an address to the House on 15 February 2007:

There are a lot of infrastructure needs in our area and of course broadband remains absolutely critical. One constituent wrote:

Having just moved into a new housing estate [I am concerned about] the lack of availability of broadband access …

Another Thornton resident said:

We applied for ADSL Broadband about 2 years ago and are still waiting.

So whilst these appropriations must of course go through, I join with my Labor colleagues in taking the opportunity in this debate to point to the wasted opportunities of the last 10 years. It is about time this government changed its direction. I know it will not, so we must change the government. The Australian people have the opportunity later this year to say: ‘Let’s have that change. Let’s get rid of this government and vote them out of office.’

So tell me, member for Newcastle, why, when you have been in government for the past 22 months, are constituents from the Thornton area still writing to me complaining about infrastructure in the region?

The other falsity being put forward by the government is that the opposition did nothing in its 12 years in government. Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you were in the House during that period. Dial-up broadband did not really come online until 1997-98 and ADSL was not even introduced to the Australian market until 2001-02. So again they base their argument on false information.

Going back to the comments from the member for Newcastle: if the lack of broadband was the basis on which she sought to dethrone the former Howard government, will she announce that the Rudd Labor government is ready to pass over the reins? This is absolute hypocrisy on the part of a government which cannot provide broadband services in the Thornton area, yet has managed to waste $22 million of taxpayers’ money on disappointing, half-hearted attempts to do so.

I now draw the House’s attention to yet another example of a Great Lakes resident who has been left disillusioned by the Rudd Labor government’s inability to set up broadband services in his area. He wrote:

Recently I lost my broadband connection when I looked to change my server from AAPT to Telstra. During the cooling-off period, I found I was better off with AAPT. When I tried to change back, I found my broadband connection had been cut off and there were no more broadband ports available at the Forster exchange for any server.

I could go on, but, keeping in mind the time limits available for debate, I will press on.

It is important to remember that, whilst the Labor Party have been elected into government to represent the needs of all Australians, it seems they are doing a particularly good job of pandering to the needs of marginal Labor seats and forgetting about those electorates held by Liberal or National party members. Traditionally, townships with fewer than 1,000 people have been represented by coalition members. At present, 60.4 per cent of these towns are in coalition-held seats, so it seems convenient that Labor has excluded them from their NBN mark 2 plan. It would seem that Labor is monopolising which electorates the majority of taxpayer’s funds are being injected into to ensure that they safely manipulate voting outcomes at the polling booths on election day. This is where the coalition differs from Labor. It has always been our mission to ensure that all Australians have access to fast, affordable and reliable services with the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ funds.

Labor promised it would select the network builder for its broadband network within six months of coming into office. Yet, 22 months into their term, neither construction into these services nor connection is still available for many disadvantaged residents in the Paterson electorate. This is in stark contrast to the coalition’s thorough and cost-effective broadband strategies. The former coalition government had a firm plan to deliver affordable and high-speed broadband services to the entire population by the middle of 2009, meaning that under the coalition this argument would be null and void, as many Australian that had wanted broadband access would have it today.

This would have all been possible under the coalition’s plan to include a targeted rural and regional Australian broadband plan, OPEL, which would have seen the Commonwealth invest $958 million to deliver new metro-equivalent broadband services to in excess of 500,000 underserved premises across the nation. The Paterson electorate would have been directly benefited by these plans as the coalition stood firm on their promise to deliver 25 new WiMAX base stations and eight telephone exchanges upgraded to ADSL2 broadband in the region. Furthermore, OPEL would have delivered new metro-equivalent broadband services to around 22,750 underserved premises. Disappointingly, the Rudd Labor government inexplicably cancelled this project despite having no real alternative to it. Also interesting to note is that, whilst Labor promised at the last election that they would have their broadband network operating by the end of 2008, they have failed. The last 22 months have been wasted by Labor due to their poor planning and incompetence. During this time, their National Broadband Plan has also become increasingly irrelevant, with more and more people taking up wireless internet services, making a cost-benefit analysis into the NBN mark 2 plan even more poignant.

The relevance of broadband has been further placed in the spotlight after comments from BBY Telecoms analyst Mark McDonnell, as reported by Communications Day, who has told a major industry conference that Labor’s National Broadband Network proposal is ‘lacking in any measure of financial or commercial rigour’. Furthermore, he said:

More to the point, no one has yet provided any real evidence relating to unmet demand for 100Mbps broadband delivery for the household. No one from government has been able to give any clarity on the prices consumers or wholesale customers could expect to pay.

The analyst said that without clarity investors would steer clear of the NBN:

Few analysts have been moved to describe it as a rational investment proposal … When it comes to risk, this is about as high risk as it gets.

Stephen Conroy and other NBN proponents have ridiculed the proposition that consumer prices of up to $200 per month would be needed for broadband to cover the costs, but completely avoid giving any statements as to what it could or should be.

Mr McDonnell’s comments are especially poignant given that in the June 2009 quarter around 640,000 new wireless broadband subscriptions came online, compared to around 80,000 fixed line subscriptions. As my colleague, the shadow minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy pointed out:

This trend cannot simply be ignored by the Rudd government, but the reality is Labor has no idea how many customers will choose wireless services over fixed line in the coming years and what impact this will have on the viability of its NBN.

The coalition fully recognises the importance of universal access to fast, affordable, reliable broadband; we always have. We also fully support the continued enhancement of broadband services so that constituents in townships such as Boat Harbour, Brandy Hill, Clarence Town, Coomba Park, Green Point, Gresford and East Gresford, Hinton, Karuah, Nabiac, North Arm Cove, Pacific Palms and Blueys Beach are not disadvantaged.

Whilst Labor now begin to start a new process from scratch to implement their National Broadband Network, we must ask ourselves at what cost. This program comes with a $43 billion price tag; $43 billion of money that we as a nation just do not have. And the bigger question of what timeframe it will all be delivered in is yet to be addressed with any surety. To quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 September in the Business News section, it says:

In a recent report entitled Navigating the Path to Australia’s NBN, a Goldman Sachs JB Were telecommunications analyst, Christian Guerra, predicted the network roll-out would not begin until 2011, and by 2017 it would pass only 50 per cent of homes. Mr Guerra thinks the Government’s target of 90 per cent will not be achieved until 2025.

So the government’s so-called action plan is, according to the article:

… [a] study by McKinsey & Company and KPMG which will not be finished until February 2010. This report will address network design, governance, ownership caps and ways to attract private sector investment.

I have to ask: when will rural and regional areas receive the much announced prior to the election broadband service? What the Australian public has witnessed is a litany of time delays and cost blow-outs, both of which will disadvantage the Australian public and business alike, particularly in regional and rural areas with little or no access to acceptable transmission rates.

On top of this, the cost is anticipated to be around $200 per month. This is an expensive option that I cannot imagine those on low incomes, pensioners or farmers struggling to survive on the land being able to afford. This is also a program that is city-centric at the expense of those in regional and rural Australia, particularly those in towns of less than 1,000 people. And that is where we, the coalition, come in; we are urging the Rudd Labor government, which has a history of reckless spending and project mismanagement, to do a full cost-benefit analysis and to ensure that they get key stakeholders onside, before pressing ahead with this controversial project.

The constituents in my electorate, particularly those in townships of less than 1,000 people, deserve better broadband services. They need cheap, reliable and easily accessible broadband services that will enable them to communicate online and connect with people around the world for work, play and leisure. The reality is that for those in towns of less than 1,000 people, they will get no better service than what was promised by the coalition and on the way to completion by mid-2009. Under this new NBN mark 2 scheme, as stated in the report, they may not see any action until 2025. They do not need their broadband bills escalating to ridiculous prices of $200 a month for inadequate services.

Broadband is not a new technology, and the Rudd Labor government needs to go back to the drawing board and keep in mind that they have been elected to represent all Australians, Australians living in urban and suburban dwellings as well as regional and rural areas, and not to forget those companies that are trying to survive in the competitive telco and energy industries. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that the angry ant, the member for Paterson, sounds like he thinks it is the end of the world. I will just remind the member for Paterson that I live in a rural and regional part of Australia. NBN is starting very soon in a town of less than 1,000 people in my electorate. So, for your information, it is on and about. What really strikes me about the comments of the member for Paterson, and the member for Fadden before him, is that we have gloom and doom preached to us by those on the other side after12 years of all talk and no action. We went to the last election with the NBN plan, and that is what we are about to roll out.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may suggest to the member for Paterson, if you sit here long enough and listen very carefully you will hear what this legislation is intended to do and what is going to happen in my state of Tasmania, where the rollout is commencing very soon. So listen carefully and you might learn something.

I am very pleased to speak on what is a small but crucial part of one of the most important infrastructure projects of the Rudd government and, may I suggest, for the nation’s history this century. Specifically, this amending legislation, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009, will play its part in bringing about the National Broadband Network, the NBN. The superfast National Broadband Network is about bringing Australia firmly into the 21st century and putting us ahead of the game rather than comparatively well behind, where we languish at present. This bill is essentially technical in nature—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

if the member for Paterson actually were to read it—but could prove crucial in ensuring that the rollout of the National Broadband Network happens in a timely and efficient manner.

As the member for Braddon, I have had the privilege to witness not one but two major milestones so far in the establishment of the NBN, or, more accurately in my case, the TASNBN. I was able to stand alongside my fellow federal members when Prime Minister Rudd came to Tasmania in April to announce that my home state would be the vanguard for this leap into the future. Indeed, I was privileged to host our Prime Minister; the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Hon. Stephen Conroy; and the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. David Bartlett, in Devonport at the Aurora substation to make the announcement. Together with David Bartlett’s Tasmanian government and Aurora Energy, this government will use the natural advantages of Tasmania to begin the rollout and test the technology for others.

In July, I was again alongside the Prime Minister and Premier Bartlett when they were able to announce the detail of the rollout for the superfast broadband network in Tasmania. It was exciting to hear that Smithton, in the western end of my electorate of Braddon, would be one of the three start-up locations for the network, along with Scottsdale in the north-east and Midway Point in the south. Smithton is part of the Circular Head local government area, a close, progressive and caring community that has often suffered from being at the end of the line, so to speak. Although it has benefited from the efforts to upgrade its transport and communications links over some time, projects which I am proud to say I was able to help bring about, it now has the opportunity to be a leader in many ways. I cannot think of a better place to kick off a revolution. That is what it is—a revolution in communications possibilities for small business, hospitals and health, and schools in particular. The sky is the limit and the world is our oyster, particularly in a place like Smithton, which boasts the cleanest air in Australia at Cape Grim and produces some of the nation’s best oysters.

Once established in Smithton, the superfast broadband network will be expanded as it wends its way along the north-west coast and across Tasmania into townships of less than 1,000 people. Tasmania currently has the lowest proportion of households with broadband of any state or territory—39 per cent compared with the Australian average of 52 per cent—and the north-west region mirrors this comparatively disappointing trend. I want to see the new superfast network turn that around. This clearly demonstrates the government’s commitment to connecting the most regional parts of Australia first, wherever technically possible. They have as much right as the rest of the world to connect and to be connected.

I have been in close contact with the federal communications minister, Stephen Conroy, on a range of communications issues since the Rudd government came into office, and he has been willing to listen to me about the benefits this could bring to the people of my region. The first stage of the rollout has already begun. Aurora has conducted an open competitive tender for fibre-optic cable, and further tenders will be conducted in coming weeks. Physical work on the Tasmanian NBN will begin shortly. We will start digging new trenches in October and connecting the first homes at the end of the year. Our objective is for new services to be switched on in July next year.

On 13 August, Minister Conroy announced the establishment of a wholly owned subsidiary of NBN Co., NBN Tasmania, to roll out and operate the National Broadband Network in Tasmania. It will be jointly owned by Aurora Energy when Aurora and the Tasmanian government telecommunications assets are vended into the company. Mr Doug Campbell has been appointed as executive chair. He has more than 40 years experience in the telecommunications sector. Importantly, he has experience in country and regional areas, which will be vital in the rollout of superfast broadband in Tasmania. Six other directors have been appointed to the NBN Tasmania board, including Alison Terry, Greg McCann, Jodie Fassina, Mark Kelleher, Daniel Norton and Sean Woellner.

The statewide rollout seeks to connect 200,000 homes, businesses, hospitals and schools in Tasmania with optic-fibre cable capable of delivering speeds of 100 megabits per second. The remaining premises will be connected with next-generation wireless and satellite technologies that will be able to deliver speeds of at least 12 megabits per second to people living in more remote parts of rural Australia and Tasmania. Places like Smithton in the regions are currently bound by a lack of competition and provision for broadband services, but the delivery of a new superfast network will make that part of history. It will not just give people access to broadband that will be up to 100 times faster than anything available today but will open up a whole new world of possibilities in the digital era. I am sure many of these new frontiers are not even developed, but the new network will give young people in Smithton in particular and other regional locations the chance to be part of this development.

Already we have in my region companies that are making their mark in the information technology sector. They are excited not only about the potential for their own businesses through this unparalleled project but also that it will allow others to do what they have done, perhaps without the same obstacles that they have been forced to overcome because of current average communication systems.

Stan Kaine is one such Tasmanian IT innovator who is excited about the National Broadband Network and what it offers. From Ulverstone, his company, Point Duty, has been creating solutions to cybercrime and working with other companies on a range of IT projects for some years, particularly in relation to security matters. Mr Kaine says:

The NBN project is certainly a fantastic opportunity, not just for regionally based IT companies such as ours, but also for all levels of the community.

He goes on to say:

Broadband connections of the type being rolled out in our area gives the whole community access to improved services in health, education, government services and with the potential to create employment in each of these areas.

In our case, we are hopeful of creating opportunities to undertake work outside of Tasmania using the NBN infrastructure. We will be collaborating with other Tasmanian IT companies to allow us to contract for work on larger projects.

He concludes:

This will not only safeguard the employment of present staff, but will allow us to expand and employ more IT graduates.

Stan Kaine is just one of the many people who can see great benefits from the National Broadband Network, but it is not just a boon for the cyber savvy; Tasmanians will also be the first beneficiaries of hundreds of local jobs that will be created during the five-year life of the project. This nation-building network will be the most significant infrastructure project in Tasmania’s history—something akin to, and as important to the future of our island state as, the hydroelectricity drive in our state during the last century. It is another example of the Rudd government investing in nation-building infrastructure in order to support local jobs in communities across Tasmania.

The decision to launch the National Broadband Network in Tasmania was based on the advice of the government’s independent expert panel. Given the longstanding disadvantages faced by Tasmanians in accessing high-speed broadband, the Australian government happily accepted this advice. Last year the Tasmanian government submitted a proposal under the request for proposal process to roll out a national broadband network. The Tasmanian proposal combined use of fibre to the home and workplace as trialled by Aurora over the previous few years as well as adopting high-speed wireless services. I congratulate Premier David Bartlett and his government on their foresight and I look forward to working together with them to see it proceed further in the future. They have joined the Rudd government in a journey into the future—unlike those across the chamber, who can only seek to pick holes and criticise in a vain attempt to cover up their own inadequacies over the past decade in the broadband sphere.

For the record, the current opposition left a legacy of 18 failed broadband plans in 11½ years of government. Before the 2007 election the current opposition was prepared to deliver high-speed broadband only to those living in five capital cities, ensuring an ongoing digital divide. Furthermore, they provided no safety net for regional and rural Australia. In opposition they are policy-void—they have not announced a single broadband or telecommunications policy.

As a result of the current opposition’s inaction as a government over 11½ years, the Australian broadband performance is behind that of countries we consider as our international peers. The latest OECD figures show that Australia is in the bottom half of OECD countries in terms of broadband take-up—indeed, we are placed 16th out of 30 countries. Australians pay more for broadband than most other OECD countries—in fact we are 20th out of 29. And Australia is the fourth most expensive for low-speed connections and fifth most expensive for medium-speed connections in terms of average monthly subscription prices. So all in all we have fallen further and further behind. Telstra admitted on July 16, 2008 that two-thirds of metropolitan areas and more than 50 per cent of people in regional areas cannot get speeds of 12 megabits per second.

This government understands that Australians need improved broadband services no matter where they live, study or work. Broadband is critical enabling technology that will change how businesses serve their customers; how government delivers services; how schools, universities and TAFEs deliver learning; how hospitals and health professionals deliver better health outcomes; and how citizens collaborate in the future. It will enable businesses and individuals not only to do more efficiently what they already do but also to do competently new things that nobody could anticipate today. I think that is the most exciting aspect of the National Broadband Network: its capacity to be able to do things into the future that really we cannot imagine now. I think that is very important, and we all know how quickly that future comes upon us.

Let me look at this particular piece of legislation. It is important to the NBN and its rollout that there is access to vital information about current networks, both communications and other infrastructure. The people planning and building this network must be quickly and easily able to access the detail of poles, ducts and pipes as well as cables and more. The preference is obviously to access this information in a cooperative manner. I am sure we will have little problem with this in Tasmania as Aurora is a key partner in this project and already has an extensive network through its electricity operations and is used to dealing with other utilities and service providers.

But it is important to have a mechanism where the government can place some obligation on other communications carriers and utilities to provide this type of information in a timely manner to prevent delays and problems in the rollout. This cannot be done in a haphazard or unregulated way. This legislation includes detailed protection for the confidentiality and security of the network information that will be the subject of planning for the National Broadband Network. This is important given that such information may relate to sensitive and critical national infrastructure and also may have commercial impacts.

Let me recap on what I have been saying about this program and the benefits it will bring. This government has committed to spending up to $43 billion on what is a massive infrastructure program with real and tangible benefits for just about every Australian. I am sure there are people out there who think that this will not have an impact upon their lives, but in months or years to come they may look back and wish they had had the benefits of this network many years earlier. This has the potential to touch the lives of everyone at work, study, rest and play in ways that we cannot even imagine now. The National Broadband Network will support and stimulate jobs in the short term and create the jobs of the future, drive productivity and underpin the strength of our Australian economy, improve our international competitiveness, assist the nation’s fight against climate change, improve education and health service delivery and ensure the connectedness of our regions.

I am sure that my sons, who live away from home to study, would agree that I am not the most technically adept person around, but I am looking forward to the day when I can access a superfast network to keep in touch with them by more than just a phone call or a patchy online camera system. This may be while they study or it could even be the catalyst that can bring them closer to home because of new business and employment opportunities that the National Broadband Network could open up in my region. Indeed, I am confident that it will do this. I am sure many other parents in regional and remote locations look forward to the improved communications that this project promises. Perhaps the new network will also allow me to speak face to face online with my constituents, wherever they may be across what is a large electorate. I am excited by the potential that it offers and I urge my colleagues here in this House to do whatever they can to support it. No-one can argue against the fact that it is time to bite the bullet and move forward, and I am delighted that the National Broadband Network is beginning in the beautiful township of Smithton in my electorate of Braddon.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 following the member for Braddon. I am sure we all look forward to the day when the member for Braddon can skype, and it will be an enjoyable experience I am sure for his family to have him dialling in each night and having his face over their computer screen. It is interesting to follow a member from a Tasmanian electorate, given that the whole farce of the government’s plan is being unravelled in Tasmania. It is interesting to note that, had the government continued with the OPEL program and not broken the contract as it did, by the end of this year the Braddon electorate would have had 13 new WiMAX base stations, would have had five exchanges, expanded to cell II-plus and would have been delivering faster speeds. Instead, we have this opportunity for a hard hat for the member for Braddon, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to have their photos taken but not to have any actual services delivered.

But let us not let the spin get in the way of the substance, which highlights the biggest issue with the NBN mark 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, whichever one is to come. It highlights the approach of this government like no other issue, and that is the approach of spin over substance, the photo opportunity and the announcement over the detail. We saw in April this year the second mark of the National Broadband Network announcement, which was the new plan to spend, as I understood, 51 per cent of the potential value of the NBN—although the member for Braddon has just said that the government will spend up to $43 billion, which appears to be the total cost indicated in the back-of-the envelope calculation. So confusion reigns over on that side of the place on the economics of this plan. No business plan has been released. It is a $43 billion network without a business plan. There are no investors and there has been no information to market. If they were a company they would be locked up it is that badly planned and that badly thought through. But it does highlight like no other issue the spin-over-substance approach of this Prime Minister and this government. It is the New South Wales government’s way of doing business—the New South Wales Labor Party’s way of doing business—and we have seen the results in the state of New South Wales and what is happening there today with people like Senator Arbib from New South Wales and the minister for consumer affairs inflicting on the Australian public what they have done to that state.

This issue is a good example of that. We had during the last election campaign in April 2007 the NBN mark 1 announcement, which was that we would have a $4.7 billion spend for a fibre-to-the-node network of up to 12 megs per second. That promise, of course, was never deliverable to 98 per cent of the country. However, it was a good election promise; it was a nice pie-in-the-sky optic. Everyone thought that would be a nice thing for everyone to have—it sounded like it was new and fashionable, which fitted with the Kevin 07 mantra—but the problem was that it was never deliverable. So Labor get into government and they do a study. I think they spent about $50 million at looking at whether they could do it. There was great fanfare and it was all meant to be rolled out by the next year, from memory.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Services by the end of 2008.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, services by the end of 2008, that is right. But instead we had some delays because they started to work out that they could not actually implement what they had announced in April 2007 without any plans, with just an announcement, with a nice press conference with the then Leader of the Opposition and the shadow spokesman on the issue. There was no plan and no detail, just a couple of things about a five-page policy document.

April 2009 comes along and we have another plan—NBN mark 2. This time, rather than $4.7 billion—destroying along the way the Communications Fund, which was the fund set up to support regional and rural areas, the very areas that the member for Braddon was talking about and that would have benefited from the OPEL project by the end of this year—we have a new plan, which is the $43 billion fibre-to-the-home network to 90 per cent of Australians. That would be on their own planning without the business case, so we are operating in the world of guesstimates a little bit here, but they say it is an opportunity for a large part of our population—most of the big cities—to get access to 100 megs per second with a fibre-to-the-home network. It sounds like a wonderful idea. They have it in Korea. I think the latest figures there are that about 15 per cent of people have taken it up because the cost is quite high. They have implemented it in Korea, so you can tell what their business plan was, unlike in Australia where there are no business costings and no plan about how to spend $43 billion. Numbers these days with this government are so high that it does not sound like a lot of money, but it is a substantial amount of money without a business plan.

We do not know how much it would cost per household—somewhere in excess of $200 per month, most probably—and it would miss most areas. It would miss most areas in my electorate. Even on the government’s own plans, which I take very sceptically, they say towns with over 1,000 in population would receive the service. That would mean that at least 24 of my communities—American River, Balhannah, Birdwood, Carrickalinga, Clarendon, Echunga, Gumeracha, Hindmarsh Island, Houghton, Kersbrook, Macclesfield, Meadows, Middleton, Milang, Mount Compass, Mount Pleasant, Mount Torrens, Normanville, Oakbank, Penneshaw, Springton, Somerton, Uraidla and Yankalilla—would all miss out. I suspect there would be more. I suspect Mount Barker, Nairne, Littlehampton and Stirling could be added—you name it. The reason is that it is not an actual policy or a thought-through plan. It has no business plan attached to it and no costings. It is a bit of spin. It is a bit of politics. It is designed to get a headline. It is designed to spread a message about being forward thinking and being for new technologies. We heard that all through the speech from the member for Braddon, who talked about the new service being the productivity lifter for the country. I agree with some of the things that the member for Braddon said; they are very true.

The internet provides an opportunity for our country to move to new and exciting industries and new and exciting ways of doing business. However, the problem is that, when you mislead the Australian people to the degree that those on the other side have, eventually someone is going to work it out. That time will come. You cannot just announce NBN mark 3. What will it be—$100 billion? This is the lunacy of this proposal. There is no detail. There is no outline of how the business case would work and yet we still have the farce of those opposite coming into this place and singing the virtue of a plan that just will not go ahead. We have just seen that from a member from Tasmania, where it has been outlined writ large today.

The service is already two years delayed and it will continue to be delayed. This bill relates to provisions which the government sees it as necessary to pass as far as allowing access to important network information goes. We have seen a bill similar to this in this parliament before with NBN mark 1. We will potentially see another bill similar to this with NBN mark 3, mark 4 and maybe even mark 5. It depends on how long they can keep putting off the promise, making spin over substance. This bill seeks to allow access for, as I understand, a period of 10 years. We have moved an amendment on this side of the House to restrict that access to a certain period of time and I certainly support that amendment.

I think it is important that we put the challenge of broadband in Australia into context. Those opposite talk very often, and have for some time, about the fact that Australia lags behind in its service compared to the rest of the world. In some places that is true. In my electorate that would be true. We have significant challenges with broadband in Mayo, in the Adelaide Hills and outer metropolitan areas. Aberfoyle Park has some particular challenges. That relates to a couple of things. There is the history of the area in the way that Telstra first invested in the services many years ago. It also relates to the topography which, as many of you would be familiar with, is a similar issue as far as digital TV goes; that is another area where this minister seems to have some problems at the moment.

There are some challenges in certain areas, particularly outer metro and regional areas of our country, because we are so vast. The cleverness of the OPEL plan was that it addressed these issues in a way such that future technologies could be built onto it. The issue we should be dealing with in relation to broadband is that where the government can assist, have some real impact and help Australians is in areas such as mine, regional areas and outer metro areas where broadband fibre services are not likely ever to be viable; therefore the market is not going to go there. That is where government can assist through a range of technologies.

In some places investing in fibre will work where there is enough of a scale. However, in most regional and outer metro areas internet delivery will be via a mixture of wireless, ADSL2+ and these types of services. That is where OPEL was very clever in that it addressed these issues across the board and brought most Australians up to reasonable speeds—I think up to 98 per cent of Australians to speeds of 12 megs per second. Let’s be honest about this. Twelve megs per second is actually quite fast. I suspect very few people in this place actually have faster speeds than 12 megs per second at their house and, if they did, they would not know the difference. When you get past 12 megs per second, you are starting to talk about downloading videos and watching TV live across the internet. That is where a lot of this is being driven from. A fibre-to-the-home network is another way into the house for a communications company which can then start to deliver on-demand services—a fifth TV station, some would allege.

That is all very well where there is market and, frankly, that is happening in some places already. Many new housing developments in suburbia have fibre-to-the-home networks. In fact, on Hindmarsh Island—which is an outer part of my electorate in the Lower Lakes, for those of you unfamiliar with my electorate—there is a new independent living retirement village which opened late last year with fibre-to-the-home services. The residents have TV through the fibre-to-the-home services and they get on-demand videos et cetera. They get the benefit of those services. However, there is no possible way for the government to build that network across this country. We are already seeing speculation that if they go ahead in some parts there will be overhead cables along streets. Those sorts of battles in my area will be interesting ones for this government to deal with.

If we are going to be serious about broadband and are not going to treat it with political spin, as an optics issue rather than looking at the substance of the issue, we should be looking at the mixture of technologies which will deliver the fastest and best services available to all people—not just those who are fortunate enough to live in the confines of the city but those who live in the outer regions of our country, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. For those who live in my area and in the Deputy Speaker’s area, the services are underdelivering. In fact, for the first 14 months that we lived in Mount Barker we could not get broadband. That was because of the pair gain system that occurs in Mount Barker, a problem that affects my area.

However, the truth is that, if you want to really compare our speeds and availability of speed, most of our metropolitan capitals actually have very good speeds by international standards. Most of our metropolitan capitals have reasonably low-cost access to speed, because competition is working there because the scale exists. Most of our population centres have access to fast broadband speeds—or fibre speeds, in some cases—and the market is working quite well. Telstra provides a very good, competitive service, as does Optus and some of the smaller internet companies. Of course, another outcome of the government’s flawed plan is that, if they do build this network, they will destroy competition completely. All it will leave are Telstra and Optus, with the big scale of their operations, to offer plans which will just destroy anyone who wants to compete.

So at the moment we have good access in our major population centres—in most cases; there are some exceptions—but not in the outer metropolitan and regional areas such as that of the shadow minister at the table, the member for Dunkley, who still has issues in his area that relate to scale and distance. Australia is challenged by the tyranny of distance in many areas and this one is probably the greatest. That is why it needs an approach such as the WiMAX solution that was looked at in OPEL or the 3G solution which now operates so well throughout my electorate. In most parts of my electorate I now get downloads on my Blackberry very quickly, and that is how the competitive market has worked. This intervention by the government, this $43 billion pipedream, is all about politics and not about substance. It is missing the point of the challenge of broadband in our country—that is, the challenge of investing in the areas which are underserviced.

It is also the challenge of delivering the services that people want. A few years ago—I forget the exact year—there was a study done which showed that, even when fast speeds were available, about 60 per cent of people still chose dial-up or dial-up-equivalent speeds. That will change in time as more services are delivered over the internet, but many of my constituents and many of those in the constituencies of those opposite—it is probably a little bit different for Minister Plibersek, who is at the table, with a constituency such as Sydney, where they probably do access faster speeds more often given the nature of her electorate—still choose to go for the slower speeds because all they want access to is email and maybe some internet banking or a small amount of surfing the internet.

So the government is planning a network which most people do not want, which has not been thought through and which is going to spend a large amount of taxpayers’ money without any detailed business case and without being honest with the Australian people and saying, ‘If you want this network, you are going to be paying about 200 bucks per month.’ How many constituents will be willing to pay $200 per month in my electorate? I can tell you that it will be very, very few. In fact, I have some interesting statistics about my electorate from the last census—which, granted, was a few years ago now. Sixty-four per cent of people in my electorate have access to the internet but only 29 per cent take up access to broadband. Some of that will be because they cannot get access to broadband but some of that will be choice. Some of that will be that they do not want to spend more money than they would on what they think is a service that they need or want.

Of course, we have a plan for the future in this space. There is huge opportunity in this area to increase our productivity and our productive capacity for new businesses to enter the global economy. For small businesses based in small regional towns I think that is a wonderful, fantastic opportunity. If the government were serious, they would not have destroyed the $2 billion Communications Fund which was there for futureproofing the underserviced areas. But they have already done that.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Billson interjecting

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They would not have killed OPEL. They would be thinking about how we genuinely deal with the areas which are underserviced in this country. The government do not need to invest in the inner cities. The inner cities are looking after themselves.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oi!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister at the table is disappointed with that but the truth is that, if you went to Sydney today, you could get fast broadband. That is a good thing. It is because there is scale there and it is working. However, if you come to my electorate, in many parts you cannot get fast broadband. You would have had it by the end of this year had the government gone ahead with the OPEL solution; they did not. They have chosen to use this as a political bludgeon tool. It is going to fail the government and it is going to fail the Australian public. The government have announced a $43 billion plan without a business case on how it will work. It is going to cost Australians. It is very disappointing that the government have done it and they stand condemned for their lack of thoughtfulness on this issue.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to follow the member for Mayo, one of the architects of Work Choices, one of the Howard advisers who under the previous government of 11½ years came up with about 18 different plans. In the lead-up to the 2007 federal election I can recall, when I was a candidate, having a look at what the Howard government proposed for fixed and wireless telecommunications solutions for my electorate of Blair. I decided to go to Geoscience Australia and have a look at what impact the proposal would have on the federal electorate of Blair, because I knew down at Mount Alford in the Fassifern Valley meetings were being held by furious residents. My predecessor was down there and I saw pictures of him in the Fassifern Guardian with irate residents in the Mount Alford area who could not get access to broadband. In the area of Lowood—which used to be in Blair and may well be in Blair in the redistribution for the next election—I saw with Senator Helen Coonan, the then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and my predecessor residents who were angry about not being able to get access to the kind of broadband connection they needed. So I decided to get hold of the Howard government’s proposal, the latest version, the latest incarnation, the last plan that they would take to the Australian public after 11½ years of failure, to see what impact it would have. It was a very interesting map I had of the electorate. There were lots of country towns—Kalbar, Boonah, Laidley, Gatton and a medium-sized city like Ipswich where I live. I had a look at what it said and the interesting thing was that there were vast areas that were not covered for the kinds of telecommunications and internet access that people wanted. The reason was topography. The Howard government forgot about hills and anyone who knows Ipswich knows there are plenty of hills. So lots and lots of people could not get access to the kinds of internet services that they expected, desired and needed. That was the Howard government’s legacy in telecommunications. It was simply astonishing that the Howard government could not come up with a solution after 11½ years.

I say to the member for Mayo: OPEL could not do what we wanted it to do and our proposal goes way beyond anything contemplated by OPEL in the kind of coverage it will bring to the regional and rural areas in Australia and the kind of quality of service it will give the Australian public. It really is galling to hear members like the member for Mayo go on about the failures of the Rudd Labor government with respect to national broadband when they have such form on the board.

The then shadow minister, now the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, came to Ipswich and we did a telecommunications forum together. Dozens and dozens of people came to talk to the shadow minister and me about their really strong frustration at the previous government’s failure with respect to the internet. University students told us that they could not get the kind of world-class education that they expected when it came to getting access to the internet. They were incredibly frustrated that the internet kept dropping out. Doctors concerned with e-health came and complained about the fact that they could not get the information that they needed for their patients and the operation of their practices. We had small businesses coming to talk to us about the fact that they constantly found themselves knocked out of their computers and the internet and were constantly frustrated by the slowness of the connection. Young people said they could not download the kinds of videos and games they wanted. I even recall one particular gentleman who was frustrated at his failure to get access to the kinds of sites he wanted to use for—to put it euphemistically—‘recreational purposes’. It was a litany of complaints, and that is the legacy of the Howard government.

I am therefore very happy to support the Rudd Labor government’s commitment in this area and to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 because we are committed to regional and rural Australia. As the minister said in his letter of 7 April 2009, this is not ‘a broadband bandaid’ as proposed by the previous government. This is in fact a superhighway. This is a superinfrastructure plan. It has been likened to the Snowy River scheme and not only is it a wonderful opportunity for university students, small business operators, those involved in recreational pursuits and those involved in the medical and allied health professions but also it will enable farmers in my community in the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley to get access to the information that they need on websites run by organisations like the National Farmers Federation, the Queensland dairy association and others that will help them in the management and operation of their farms in these rural communities which are the lifeblood of regional and rural Australia.

What we are proposing here in this legislation is to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act to impose a requirement to provide information if requested on utilities as well as telecommunications carriers. It sets out the purposes for which the information is permitted to be disclosed and makes very clear that it is able to be disclosed and used by Commonwealth officials and advisers for the purpose of the implementation study for the National Broadband Network. If appropriate, that information can be used for other purposes associated with the broadband telecommunications network as designated by the minister. There is also a sunset clause attached to the amendments.

We are carrying out an implementation study which will provide a detailed rollout schedule. That is important. We are making sure that the $4.7 billion that we are putting in will be an upfront statement of the government’s bona fides and intention to ensure that NBN Co. will operate and do what we said it will do, namely, build the National Broadband Network. The company will invest up to $43 billion over eight years, which will make a huge difference to the people of the city of Ipswich and of the rural communities and towns in my electorate of Blair. We are absolutely determined that 90 per cent fibre-to-the-premises coverage takes place. We are determined that 100 megabits per second will be delivered to consumers. We think this is important. I do not share the sentiment of the member for Mayo, who was prepared to say that 12 megabits is good enough and most people would not know the difference. That is not what my constituents tell me and it is not what the businesses and farmers in rural and regional Australia believe either.

This legislation and the National Broadband Network are important. Let me give you a couple of examples of why it is important. I do mobile offices around my electorate regularly and I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who tell me that, just outside Ipswich in the rural areas, they cannot get the kind of internet connection and coverage they desire. Large schools like West Moreton Anglican College on the periphery of the city of Ipswich inside the city’s municipal boundaries—a great school of about 15 years duration, a wonderful P-12 school—have the frustration of finding their internet connection dropped and lost on almost a weekly basis. This makes it difficult for the school. Ross Switzer, the principal, has talked to me about this and I have met with senior management and trustees of the board about this. It causes immense frustration for wonderful schools like WestMAC and to the parents who send their children to schools like this. It is inexcusable that in the 21st century this can happen at large schools like WestMAC. Fortunately, through efforts we have made and through the efforts of the school, we have been able to improve the situation, but we have had tremendous frustration with Telstra and with the whole process. If children cannot get access to the internet, how in the world can they possibly complete assignments, tutorials and examinations? If we want to make sure that we build the education revolution, if we want to make sure that our children—whether they live in Maroon or Melbourne, in Ropeley or Redfern—have the same kind of access to a good education, we need to make sure that they get access to an internet connection that will not simply drop out and punt them off the internet.

This legislation is extremely important and the National Broadband Network is absolutely vital for South-East Queensland. One in seven people in this country live in South-East Queensland and we will see more than a million people take up residence in South-East Queensland in the next 10 to 20 years. This morning, among a bipartisan crowd at a breakfast held by the South-East Queensland mayors, and hosted by Campbell Newman, the LNP Lord Mayor of Brisbane, there was talk about the need for greater infrastructure in South-East Queensland. I can assure my constituents who may be listening that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the physical infrastructure in South-East Queensland improves. The best example of that is the upgrade to the Ipswich motorway in my electorate, which is creating 6,700 jobs along the connection between Ipswich and Brisbane. The National Broadband Network will create thousands of jobs in its construction and its maintenance. It will facilitate greater productivity among businesses and among our employees and across the four million people who work in small business and the 1.9 million people who own and operate small businesses in this country. This gives small business a greater chance both domestically and internationally.

The National Broadband Network is vital infrastructure for the 21st century. I am pleased for the member for Braddon that he has seen the National Broadband Network first rolled out in Tasmania. He is a good member and he has advocated on this issue for a long time. I know that the Tasmanian members, who are all on this side of the House because the good people of Tasmania have seen the sense to return five Labor members to this House, are pleased that the government has used Tasmania as the first cab off the rank for the National Broadband Network. The people in my constituency of Blair know that the National Broadband Network is in the long-term interests of this country. They know that it is vital infrastructure and they know that those opposite have been obstructionist and that they have been procrastinators when it comes to the National Broadband Network.

The Labor Party is the party to help small businesses. We are the ones who have done it—from the trade practices legislation in the 1970s, which gave small business a chance to compete against big business, to the lowering of tariffs to the internationalisation of the economy. We want to make sure that small business gets a greater chance, and the National Broadband Network will help small business compete with large businesses domestically and internationally. We want to make sure that that happens.

I believe firmly that we would not be in the situation we are in today with so many of the problems that we have in telecommunication in this country if the previous government had stopped and listened to the voice of the Australian people with respect to the privatisation of Telstra. The coalition should do what they say and support this legislation here. We know that the shadow Treasurer, on his first day, said that improving broadband would be a good starting point. Amen to that. He is right: it would be. It is a pity that that starting point did not happen years and years ago.

We should guarantee, as the shadow minister has said, that the people of Tasmania will get broadband services—and we are guaranteeing that they will. We are guaranteeing across the country that broadband services will be improved. What we are doing here vastly exceeds what Telstra has proposed and does. It will vastly improve on OPEL. It will make a big difference to the constituents of my seat of Blair in South-East Queensland. It is pro-jobs, pro-infrastructure, pro-business and pro the economy, and I am happy to support it.

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

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009, which seeks to require telecommunications carriers and utilities to provide information about their existing networks to the Commonwealth, to assist with the planning of the government’s National Broadband Network for both the duration of the implementation study and for a 10-year period should any rollout actually occur.

This bill, as we know from the Senate inquiry, raises serious concerns for the industry—the telcos and utilities—who were not consulted by the government about the content of this bill prior to its introduction. The utilities may be compelled to provide information for at least 10 years. The minister, through this bill, wants coercive powers to be able to take information from potential competitors of the government’s NBN Co. I note from the coalition senators’ additional remarks in the Senate report on the legislation that, even after meeting with some stakeholders, the department is opposed to any improvements to the bill to address the stakeholders’ concerns—and clearly the government has had time to do so during the process of drafting the bill.

Carriers and utilities are concerned about the restrictive time lines for the provision of information. That is information provided at their own cost. The government has stated:

The cost of making this information available is not considered onerous.

I think the utilities might have a different view on that. Coalition senators noted that there is no evidence to support these assumptions regarding the cost to utilities.

Another key concern for the coalition senators is the protection of sensitive information about assets and infrastructure. This will be handing over information to a prospective market competitor. In real terms, that is what this is. The coalition senators also agreed with the Business Council of Australia in its serious concerns about the apparent lack of certainty regarding competitive neutrality in the context of this bill and NBN Co. They also did not agree with giving the minister complete powers for 10 years.

The issues of competition and competition policy are major concerns with this bill and its provisions. The coalition senators concurred with the Business Council of Australia that:

The proposal raises a number of issues in relation to competitive neutrality principles agreed by all governments at COAG and therefore warrants a net benefit assessment.

The assessment should take into account the likely impacts on competition resulting from the provision and use of information under Part 27A, in particular the possible consequences resulting from the broad definition of information that can be required and the time period of up to 10 years.

The senators also noted concerns about civil liabilities in the provision of information and made a very strong recommendation that the government further consider the concerns of stakeholders and refine the bill to accommodate these concerns, including through the reconsideration of the 10-year sunset clause.

The coalition strongly supports improved broadband services but, as I have stated, we have very serious concerns about this bill and the government’s entire approach to the proposed NBN. One of the greatest concerns for all Australians, including those in my electorate of Forrest, is and should be the very serious concern regarding the costings of the NBN and the amount of funding needed to be borrowed and repaid by taxpayers. Already we have seen waste and mismanagement of the NBN process. Labor’s election commitment was a $4.7 billion promise that the network would be operating by the end of 2008. Following over 18 months of wasted time and, according to shadow minister Nick Minchin, $20 million of totally wasted taxpayers’ money on the flawed original broadband tender process, we now have the NBN mark 2. This time it is a proposal to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ funds without, as we have heard in question time, any detailed cost-benefit analysis—a $43 billion commitment without any semblance of economic modelling.

We now have a further cost to taxpayers, a $50 million nine-month implementation study and a rollout period of eight years. My constituents are very rightly asking me: ‘When will the NBN actually be delivered in the electorate of Forrest?’ Leading analysts and those in the telecommunications industry are not all convinced that the government’s NBN program can or will be delivered at the proposed cost of $43 billion. It is now a matter of public record that the government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution budget has blown out by at least $1.5 billion. I ask what the potential blow-out for taxpayers to pay will be on this $43 billion project. Given that there has been no thorough cost-benefit or economic analysis done or provided, and given that this is at least an eight-year project, with challenging topography in my electorate and around much of Australia as well as in our major cities, I can certainly understand their reservations.

Ovum research director David Kennedy said that the rollout of such a network ‘would take up to 20 years’, not the eight claimed by Labor. Commentator Terry McCrann said of the plan: ‘It’s not crazy; it’s insane.’ And former Optus executive Paul Fletcher said:

They may wonder where the traffic will come from to fill up the new network and generate the revenue streams necessary to earn a return on the $43 billion.

Paul also said:

… the incumbent Telstra, which dominates voice telephony and broadband, will be allowed to continue to operate its own network. So when the new network operator starts looking for traffic to carry on the network, it may well not have Telstra as its ‘anchor’ customer.

I recently met with a telco company in my electorate of Forrest and they informed me that in their view the proposed $43 billion will only cover approximately one-quarter of the cost of the NBN. As an example, again in my electorate, it was recently estimated that it would cost $1 million to run eight kilometres of fibre from a town site to a major industrial site—that is, $1 million for just eight kilometres.

I understand that projections have been done in the continuing absence of economic analysis, which is that 99 per cent of internet customers must take up the national broadband network just to service the interest repayments. As one simple example, I asked the government, ‘How is this going to be achieved with the latest statistics showing growth in the uptake of wireless broadband?’ In the June quarter, around 640,000 new wireless broadband subscriptions were taken up compared with about 80,000 fixed line subscriptions. Constituents in my electorate who have taken up this option have told me they are choosing wireless services over fixed line because of the mobility of the wireless service. I will be interested in seeing where the alternatives to the government’s NBN are factored into the economic analysis.

The coalition would like to see all Australians have access to an affordable, fast and reliable service but with the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ funds. According to the government’s NBN proposal and announcements, the fibre-to-the-premises proposal is extended to towns with a population of around 1,000 people or more. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that there are over 1,000 locations in Australia with less than 1,000 people and more than 550,000 Australians live in these towns. In Western Australia, there are 113 towns that fit this category.

People in 15 towns in my electorate of Forrest will miss out on the broadband proposal because their population is less than 1,000. The combined population of these 15 towns is 7,491 people, which means that 7,491 people in my regional and rural electorate, who currently may have fibre running to the nearest exchange, will be excluded from the government’s NBN. They are part of the 10 per cent of the population who will be excluded.

I also expect the government to use up-to-date statistical data when identifying the population of towns. The 2006 population census data for my electorate is, of course, outdated—for example, the town of Nannup had at that time a recorded population of under 1,000 but the Shire of Nannup informs me that the population is currently 1,200 people. So, in the economic analysis of the $43 billion cost, will this include or exclude the projected population growth of regional towns which, over the eight years of the roll-out, will exceed the 1,000-person cut-off for the NBN? How many towns in my electorate that currently have populations under 1,000 will have in excess of this number when the rollout is actually delivered? Will they be included or excluded? Should the government use the 2006 census data for towns such as Nannup, which misses out on the NBN? That will be an issue in my electorate. These same constituents will have to bear the costs of the borrowings and interest for the NBN, like all Australian taxpayers, but will not have access to the service.

The coalition believes that government funding for broadband should be targeted at under-served areas, such as those 15 small towns in my electorate. The South Australian Farmers Federation recently said in the Adelaide Advertiser:

Some of these small towns could be considered major service centres for their regions.

And they are. Constituents in my electorate have serious doubts over the government’s ability to deliver the NBN and at the proposed cost. The Labor government promised at the last election that they would have their $4.8 billion broadband network operating by the end of 2008 but my constituents have seen nothing but a further waste of taxpayers’ funds on NBN mark 1, and now NBN mark 2. Even further delays and costs in the actual delivery of the NBN are forecast, as we know. The government has not provided any details about the likely customer uptake rates or prices that consumers will have to pay to use the network. The coalition has concerns about the affordability of the NBN for the average working household. Analysts’ predictions that consumers could be forced to pay double the amount the average broadband user pays today would clearly come as a major expense and burden on the average household. And how many customers will the NBN actually have in a competitive environment? I note that AAPT CEO, Paul Broad, said on the Lateline Business program:

If you project yourself 10 years ahead and you have a $43 billion investment, on any sort of reasonable return—say of 10 per cent—you have got to generate $4.3 billion just to make a return on the investment. And if you add up all the bits to run a wholesale and retail business, you will see that the average punter will be paying something like $200 a month for this service.

Mr Broad also said:

We could not see the economics stacking up for fibre-to-the-node so we obviously can’t see the economics stacking up for fibre-to-the-home.

Because of the government’s election promise my constituents expected, needed and have been waiting for the roll-out of the NBN—the students, the farmers, the small businesses, the contractors, the seniors—people of all ages right across the spectrum. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are unable to access fixed line internet as all the ports in the D-slams are fully occupied.

One example is the town in my electorate of Dalyellup, where a constituent moved just two houses away, on the same street, and can no longer access ADSL internet. This particular constituent runs his business from home, and the internet is a necessity. He was counting on the roll-out of the NBN proposal from the Labor government for 2008. I am told that it will cost approximately $7,500 including installation to put in another D-slam in the exchange, which would allow around 100 more homes to have access to the ADSL internet. My constituent is now not only waiting for the government to implement their long-awaited NBN promise but also for Telstra to install another D-slam. I have written to Minister Conroy for advice and a solution for my constituent, given the delays in delivering the NBN. If the government had delivered on its election promise he could have already had access to high speed broadband—as could the students, the farmers, the seniors and the individuals.

I have also been contacted by constituents in my electorate who query the use of existing infrastructure for the NBN. Will the government duplicate existing telecommunications infrastructure? When will the government release the actual details? My constituents need the NBN now. The coalition, along with those in my electorate, are urging the government to act on their election promise and deliver the NBN network to the people of Australia.

As I said, the coalition strongly supports improved broadband services, as demonstrated by our fully costed and targeted plan to deliver new, fast and affordable broadband services across the country. If this plan had not been rejected by the Labor government, Australia would have had a service that would now have been delivering services and been completed by the end of this year, 2009. Under the coalition’s national rural and regional broadband plan of OPEL, 32 new base stations would have been constructed and six telephone exchanges upgraded to ADSL2+ in my electorate of Forrest, which would have delivered new services to approximately 25,000 underserviced premises—again, the students, the farmers, the families, the small businesses, the individuals and the seniors.

I am seriously concerned about the potential cost of the NBN project for Australian taxpayers and the fact that the government has not conducted or released any cost-benefit analyses. It needs to be very clearly understood by Australian taxpayers that they will be carrying the bulk of the risk and cost of this project whether or not they are able to access the service and whether or not the price for accessing the service is affordable to them.

The coalition remains committed to the Australian Broadband Guarantee program, which the coalition established, seeing subsidised satellite services provided to people living in areas that do not have access to metro-equivalent services. I support the amendments by the coalition.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009, a bill supporting the government’s rollout of a national broadband network for Australia. This bill is an adjustment to the Telecommunications Act and is concerned with access to network information and its protection. The information will support the national broadband implementation study that will guide the NBN rollout.

Let us just consider for one minute why we need to implement this amendment to the Telecommunications Act. It is because the government has decided to act when it comes to our nation’s infrastructure. The opposition, when in government, neglected the country’s critical economic infrastructure. It has been left to the Rudd government to fix. This bill and the National Broadband Network is the government’s plan to fix the former coalition government’s shocking track record when it comes to broadband. In fact, when it comes to broadband the Howard government’s legacy is shameful. They had 18 failed broadband schemes over their time in government.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Moreton asking how many. They had 18 failed broadband schemes. These programs were created at the last minute, in desperation and on the eve of an election, by an out-of-touch government. We have heard in this debate some members from the opposition talking about the virtues of the Elders OPEL agreement, which the previous government hastily signed in an election campaign. This ‘had great promise’, the coalition government told us. It would give 98 per cent of Australia wireless broadband. However, after the election, the company quickly revised down its figure saying that it could only cover around 72 per cent of the country. There has been a lot of talk in this House about value for money. I would say that a revision from 98 per cent coverage of Australia to 72 per cent coverage of Australia does not equal value for money.

The National Broadband Network as it rolls out across the country will create jobs, build vital infrastructure and support small business. In my electorate, residents are well aware of the former government’s lack of investment in critical infrastructure, from roads to ports to urban rail. But, in particular, they are acutely aware of the failure of the previous government when it comes to broadband. The reason for this is that they are experiencing it first hand. Residents in Hallett Cove, only 23 kilometres from the CBD of Adelaide, and Sheidow Park, Aldinga, Reynella and Woodcroft—just to name a few suburbs—cannot even access ADSL2. They have been frustrated by the lack of action of the previous government, who refused to address their serious concerns. Residents in my local area understand the potential that fast broadband can have to assist with health care, support education and create new opportunities in business, especially small business.

While the Liberal Party pretends to be the party for small business, they have failed in their 12 years of office to address the No. 1 impediment to small business in my electorate, and that is the lack of access to fast broadband. It is not just saying me saying this. The Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board and the councils in the area have all identified lack of access to broadband as the No. 1 constraint for small business in the area.

Let us just consider the implications for small business. A national broadband network will allow small business, regardless of where they are in Australia, to be connected to a fast, high-quality broadband service. Small businesses will be able to easily file their online tax, place orders for stock and perform many administrative tasks quickly and efficiently in ways that currently do not exist for Australian small business. The increase in productivity for a small business will be met only by the increase in the reliability of having the communication tools to perform their business activities. The National Broadband Network will bring Australian small businesses into the 21st century, allowing them to operate in the way they actually want to.

The need for a national broadband network is not just an imagined need of this government; it is a vital piece of infrastructure for this country, which my constituents know we desperately need. Just as at other times governments in our history have had to make bold decisions to build our great highways, our great railways and our great dams, so too must this government build the information highway. A national broadband network will change Australia like never before, giving improvements in business, in medical endeavours and in uniting Australians from the bush to the city.

I want to talk about some of my local constituents that have had real concerns with the lack of broadband—residents such as Shawn, who works from home looking after oil, gas and thermal drilling rigs. He is not able to receive broadband at his home in Aldinga Beach. Troy from Sheidow Park cannot get broadband because he was told he was not quick enough to get access. He was told that the street already had too many high-speed internet users and therefore he would not get broadband. As a result, he has to rely on dial-up, which makes it impossible to operate his business activity from home.

Heather and Shane, from Hallett Cove, use the internet for home use and have recently set up a business to sell video-digital phones. These phones, which have just been released, cannot operate on the current internet services that are available to them. They are very frustrated, as they need fast broadband to promote their new business product. So if Troy, Heather, Shane and Shawn all understand the vital importance of broadband, why not the opposition?

My electorate is ready for a National Broadband Network. It is a network that should have been built many years ago. However, as I have mentioned before, it falls to the Rudd Labor government to correct the shortfalls of the previous government. We do not shy away from this responsibility. We are here to engage in nation-building, and broadband is no different. My constituents have welcomed this. Gary and Thea wrote to me earlier this year. Speaking about the National Broadband Network, they remarked:

We are very glad to hear that this is actually going to happen.

This reflects the sentiments of the many constituents in my electorate who have contacted me and are eager to know when this will happen. The government has moved forward in building this network by announcing six initial priority locations where it looks to build an optic backbone, a link that connects the towns to the cities. I noted with interest the member for Mayo’s contribution to this debate. He talked a lot about areas in his electorate that are not getting broadband at the moment, but he did not mention Victor Harbor. I was quite surprised at that because the government has announced Victor Harbor as one of the initial priority areas that are being looked at. The member for Mayo was scathing in his remarks about the National Broadband Network. Does he agree with Victor Harbor being an initial priority area to be connected to the National Broadband Network? He needs to be upfront with his constituents and answer that question.

This government is not sitting back and waiting for someone else to do this. It is getting on with the job of building this network. The government’s broadband network will be built in partnership with the private sector. At the peak of the project it will support 37,000 jobs and, on average, it will support 25,000 jobs per year over eight years. Building this network, which will be one of the greatest national infrastructure investments in Australia’s history, will make a significant contribution to Australia’s economy in the short and medium terms.

Since elected to the parliament, I have spoken a lot about health care. The National Broadband Network will have a significant impact on our health system, allowing 21st century medical care to be delivered to all Australians. I have seen the potential of this at Flinders University, my local university, which teaches doctors in Alice Springs via broadband. Those doctors do not have to come down from Alice Springs to learn. In real time they are virtually sitting in the lecture theatre as they get trained in their local area. The National Broadband Network has great potential for training in medical services—things like e-records, which are currently being talked about under the national healthcare reforms.

In education, the National Broadband Network will give new potential to our classrooms. Every school will be linked to the National Broadband Network, creating the opportunity for a new understanding of learning. Students will be able to share and learn collaboratively across the nation. I think we will start to see real opportunities in education and connection.

While we are rolling out our long-term solution for our National Broadband Network, the government—and this is a very important point—has not forgotten that there are many people who need broadband right now. So I was very pleased to be part of a joint announcement by the federal government and the South Australian government of funding which will enable Adelaide to receive state-of-the-art wireless broadband to help address more than 350 black spots right cross Adelaide. This is a collaborative approach, with the state government investing $3 million and the federal government also contributing through the national Broadband Guarantee program. I have welcomed the announcement that southern Adelaide, in my electorate, will be one of the first areas to benefit from the progressive rollout. This is an interim solution that can work alongside the National Broadband Network, and certainly both have a critical role in connecting my electorate to the rest of Australia.

I will now turn my attention to the specifics of the legislation. This bill amends part 27 of the Telecommunications Act and allows for ready access to information about existing infrastructure that might be utilised for the rollout of the network and, importantly, for the implementation study for the National Broadband Network. Given the size and scope of the new National Broadband Network, the Commonwealth will require information on existing infrastructure that might be utilised for its construction—information concerning things like fibre transmission links, points of interconnection, ducts, pits, poles and utilities such as electricity, water and transport services. This information is a necessity so that the options for the rollout can be assessed and the network can be rolled out in the most cost-effective way possible. This is particularly important for the implementation study for the network.

These amendments allow the Commonwealth, in the event that it cannot access this information through a cooperative or commercial approach, to seek this information. This is extremely important to ensure that this very important project, which people have been waiting for for some time, is not delayed. Of course, the government does understand the commercial-in-confidence issues. It has included detailed arrangements to protect the confidentiality and security of the information concerned and will impose a sunset period on certain provisions, which means the information can only be obtained and disclosed during the period of the rollout.

As I mentioned at the outset, this piece of legislation will assist the rollout of the National Broadband Network across the country. It is essential, because the rollout of the National Broadband Network is without precedent. It is the transformation of this country into the 21st century that will revolutionise the way we do business, the way we interact with each other and the way we live. Just as when the telephone entered widespread usage, and modern air travel was introduced, our society transformed, so too will it change again with the introduction of the National Broadband Network.

In thinking about the NBN, the greatest significance of this project, for me, is that its fullest capabilities and possibilities are still unknown. As this project is rolled out across the country it will spark innovation and create opportunities that are not yet imagined. We are bringing this country into a whole new environment of opportunities. Standing at the edge of this future landscape, I am proud to support this project and support this bill.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 today because it has many implications not only for this country but also for my electorate of Canning. Delivering better broadband services to Canning is essential, so I welcome this opportunity to speak because it is very relevant to the electorate.

I might say as a precursor that the previous speakers that I have listened to, the member for Kingston, the member for Braddon and the member for Flynn, seemed to be running this line in the House today that the opposition does not want broadband, that we are not keen on having broadband as soon as possible. That could not be further from the truth. That is what the debate is about, and I will be alluding to it further in my speech. We want to see it rolled out as soon as possible, as promised by the Labor Party in opposition. We do not want to see it taking until 2013 and all the years that are going to ensue. We want to see it rolled out as soon as possible. The markers on this debate have shifted all the time in terms of delivery, and this is what we are saying is an issue with this particular program, that it is taking so much time.

My good friend, the member for Braddon, tells me that Tasmania is ready to go, and I saw a few people with hard hats on with the Prime Minister in Tasmania. Let me remind the House that it was Senator Harradine who probably delivered more in terms of telecommunications for Tasmania than any other member of this federal parliament, given his ideal position as holding the balance of power in the Senate for several years and his ability to extract a certain amount of largesse from the federal government at the time for Tasmania. That is why he continued to be popularly elected as a senator for Tasmania for so long. So let us not talk about Tasmania being in any way disadvantaged and behind the eight ball. In fact, it has had a walk-up start on these issues for many years. I need to put that on the record.

As a whole, the National Broadband Network mark 2 is a case of deja vu. Last year similar legislation to this before us today was brought before the parliament in relation to the first bungled NBN. That was 18 months ago, and $20 million later there is nothing to show for it, so we are going over old ground again. The handling of the National Broadband Network, quite frankly, has been farcical; now the government wants to create a company to deliver a $43 billion mark 2 fibre-to-the-node network. If history is anything to go by, unfortunately for all Australians I have serious doubts that this project will actually get off the ground. How many marks 2, 3, 4 or whatever is it going to take to get this program right? The fact is that this amount of money, $43 billion, is a massive amount when there were other proposals placed before the government.

As we have heard, this legislation seeks to amend sections of the Telecommunications Act to require carriers and utilities to provide information about their existing network and infrastructure to the Commonwealth to assist in the planning of the NBN and over the course of the rollout, if we ever get to that. It was aptly named by the member for Dunkley the ‘show-and-tell’ legislation. While it is hoped that all carriers will cooperate with the request to provide information, there is the power in the legislation to compel disclosure. That is what it is about.

Nine submissions were received from the major telecommunications carriers and utilities by the Senate select committee. Most highlighted major concerns about the onerous obligations contained in the legislation; timeframes and fundamental security of handling of sensitive information. Why would they want to give a competitive edge to the Rudd company, as it might be called, which might eventually build the NBN? I can understand their grievance. What we should not be surprised about is that the government has failed to consult any of the stakeholders before introducing this bill. They had to read about these new obligations in the media. Because of the nature of the information sought, the coalition believes that the application of this bill should be restricted to the implementation study period only. When there is no real plan as to how the services are going to be rolled out and no idea about how it is going to be paid for at any level, obviously there is a great deal of uncertainty for carriers and utilities, which really deserve consideration.

The government’s original $4.7 billion broadband plan never got off the ground. Now this latest $43 billion proposal, if it does go ahead, will take up to a decade to roll out. That is 10 years for it to get to the populace. In fact, by the time it is rolled out it will probably be redundant. The coalition champions universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband. But the country deserves a plan that will benefit all Australians at an affordable cost. I put the emphasis on ‘all Australians’, because there are going to be a heap who will miss out.

Analysts believe that if this plan is delivered, accessing it will cost anywhere between $100 and $900 a month. This is obviously dearer than existing high-speed broadband and casts doubt over its take-up rate for this massive investment. In fact, some economists believe that the NBN cost will exceed the benefits by up to $20 billion. Of course, the government does not want to do a cost-benefit analysis. We have heard this from many speakers. It is easier to be ignorant of the reality of the costs. I might point out, as other speakers have, that if it is $100 to $900 a month, how are pensioners going to stay online? At the moment you can get some very nice packages for $29 95 and so on from a whole range of people who advertise. But $100 a month? I would like to see that.

Just to give you an idea of the cost of this plan, in 2005 the West Australian Premier, as opposition leader, proposed building a 3,700 kilometre canal to bring water from the Kimberley through the Pilbara and the mid-west to the southern part of Australia to ensure Perth’s water security. It was lampooned. It was expected to cost $2 billion and was going to take 10 years to build. To put it into context, it was going to cost only $2 billion to solve Western Australia’s water woes. Here we have $43 billion to be spent on an unviable broadband network that will bypass thousands of my constituents when we could have built that canal from the Kimberley 21 times over. In other words, for the same amount of money we could have built 77,700 kilometres of canal. Forty-three billion dollars rolls off the lips pretty easily. When Colin Barnett was talking about $2 billion to bring water from the Ord River to Perth, people said what a shocking amount of money that was, yet here we have $43 billion being passed off as though it is just pocket money.

I take this opportunity to discuss the broadband situation as it relates to Canning. Canning is a diverse electorate with outer metropolitan suburbs as well as rural and regional areas making up what is called the Peel region. Because of this geography, metro-equivalent broadband access is one of the most prominent issues for my constituents Those who have internet access are often forced to rely on expensive wireless and satellite options—and even this is nearly impossible for those living along the ranges. Thank goodness the previous government gave the broadband guarantee because at least people can afford satellite in some of these areas where cable could not be rolled out—the land does not allow certain types of wireless. There has been a public outcry in Canning at the government being citycentric with its NBN mark 2 not being extended to towns with fewer than a thousand residents. This is a real issue. There are many towns in my electorate with fewer than a thousand residents and we have already been told that they will not receive the rollout. For example, Serpentine, Jarrandale, Mundijong, Dwellingup and North Dandalup will miss out on the rollout of high-speed broadband. That is 3,000 Canning residents alone who will get a raw deal. The then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Daryl Williams, along with Geoff Booth from Telstra, was able to get dedicated broadband into Dwellingup. So the people of Dwellingup have been well served, unlike people in some of the other towns. Unfortunately, these towns will miss out on the high-speed initiative. They will have the basic broadband but not this high-speed initiative that the government is talking about.

Families in the towns I have just mentioned who use the internet to keep in touch with loved ones and local businesspeople who use the internet to contact their customers and suppliers and to find new markets for their products simply cannot access a reliable service. Under this $43 billion plan, they will still not be able to. For example, there is a poultry breeder in my electorate who provides many hens to the market and he tries to stay in touch with market innovations in the United States. He tells me he has a terrible time trying to get decent broadband, and he is probably only three-quarters of an hour, particularly with this new highway that is being built, from the Perth CBD. These residents were promised true metro-equivalent internet services, but under NBN mark 2, while city dwellers will get a much faster 100-megabit connection, many of my constituents will continue to rely on this inferior service where they get only half a megabit, if that. As Glenn Milne wrote in the Australian on 27 April this year:

Labor’s election plan treated 98 per cent of Australia equally and two per cent unequally. The revised version, while delivering faster cyber speeds to a reduced  90 per cent of the population, increases to 10 per cent the number of Australians who effectively will be treated as second class citizens.

Those second-class technology citizens represent 113 Western Australian towns. I recently led a petition calling on the Prime Minister to explain why Canning towns are in his ‘too-hard’ basket and calling for an explanation of how he plans to ensure they have access to metro-equivalent services, as they were promised before the last election. My petition reads:

Mr Rudd promised a fibre to the node network for 98 per cent of Australia. Excluding Dwellingup, Mundijong, North Dandalup, Serpentine and Jarrandale from the high speed roll out is not good enough. I support delivering better broadband to my area.

Not surprisingly, hundreds of frustrated local residents have joined the fight and signed my petition because the NBN misses the mark. It is a classic example of this government’s focus group, the Hawker Britton focus group—election centred policy on the run. Rural and regional centres are not important to the Prime Minister. The Labor Party hate the bush, and that is why they are leaving them out. My office continues to be inundated with petitions and comments from locals who feel shafted. For example, Mrs Pettett from Serpentine wrote this to me:

We are amazed that the basics of broadband are still not reaching various parts of this beautiful country … What adds salt to the wounds is we have relatives living in Great Britain in the Welsh mountains who have had high speed broadband for a number of years and they just thought we were in the dark ages when we talked of the speeds and costs involved here in Serpentine.

Yvonne from Serpentine says:

Would the Rudd government like to drop the taxes for the people put out by their lack of lateral thinking? At times it feels like people living in areas like here are being punished … I pay dearly for living in my little patch of heaven but why can I not enjoy facilities that other residents have? The monies collected by the government from me are hard earned and should I be late paying anything they soon let me know. Can I have some back because the government has let me down?

The coalition had a real plan to deliver these services, and Canning residents would have been amongst the first to reap the rewards. We recognised that broadband should be targeted to those areas where there was a lack of access to and options for broadband. The coalition’s broadband plan would have reached 99 per cent of households and, unlike Labor’s broadband mess, would have cost only $1 billion to roll out Australia-wide. It would have been complete already. It would have been in now. It would have included the rollout of 15,000 kilometres of new open-access fibre optic backhaul in rural and regional centres.

Under OPEL, the previous initiative, Forrestdale, Dawesville, Mandurah South, Forrestfield and South Yunderup were to have services upgraded from basic ADSL to extremely fast ADSL2+. The Peel region would have benefited from fibre-to-the-node technology, so much so that it would have been sinking in fibre optic cables and new wireless sites which were to be established in Armadale, Mandurah, Pinjarra and Waroona. All this in electorates across the country for less than $1 billion of taxpayer’s money, and that $1 billion was from government savings not borrowings.

The point has to be made clearly—our plan was funded from government surpluses not from the borrowings that this government is continually procuring. Now the government want to spend $43 billion, which they will have to borrow, and sink this country even further into debt. This $43 billion is part of the one-third of a trillion dollars that this government intends to borrow. So we have gone from surplus to having a debt of one-third of a trillion dollars.

Michael Costa and Scott Homes of the Daily Telegraph hit the nail on the head when they said:

The Government has decided to gold plate an economically unviable strategy. This thinking equates to building an eight-lane freeway to every house in Australia, when what is needed is funding to upgrade local roads.

Industry experts have verified that satellite and mobile wireless solutions are underutilised and underestimated as a cost-effective solution for rural and remote access.

The Government could invest a lot less than $43 billion to subsidise these approaches.

The coalition does not support the unnecessary duplication of telecommunications infrastructure, but it does support its immediate rollout in areas of under service. I encourage the Rudd Labor government to get on with this program—instead of, as we have seen today, putting together a working group that is going to spend $25 million looking at how to roll this out. This will go on forever—as I said, taking 10 years to connect people around Australia. Tasmania might be lucky because it is first cab off the rank; but people in my electorate feel aggrieved because they are going to miss out, some for 10 years and some forever.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. I note the remarks of the member for Canning. I certainly acknowledge his interest in his community and his electorate. But I think that, to a large degree, many members and a lot of residents are misinformed about what essentially we are as a government attempting to do. It is interesting to talk about major projects—this project is by far one of the largest projects under consideration, and to an extent it is probably one of the largest infrastructure projects this country has ever embarked on. We talk quite often about the Snowy River scheme and the immensity of that project. This far surpasses that not only, probably, in the work involved but also, certainly, in the impact it will have. Of course the important thing—the difference—is that this is something we need to do immediately. The member for Canning certainly made that point. But in terms of the understanding of what we are trying to do, and certainly given the information provided in some of those letters the previous speaker read out, it is clear that people are not quite aware of what we are trying to do.

Labor governments have a long history of and interest in rolling out infrastructure, certainly telecommunications infrastructure. I am going to talk about that a bit later in this debate. It is part of what we did 16 or 17 years ago with the fibre optics that were rolled out, certainly from Melbourne to Cairns; and the introduction and creation of Optus and all of that commercialisation that occurred. It was about looking at the major telecommunications needs of the country.

I will now speak about this bill. The main purpose of the bill is to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the Commonwealth a higher level of access to telecommunications network information. The federal government requires this additional information for the planning and rollout of the National Broadband Network. The existing telecommunications infrastructure is large and complex, including ducting, conduit, poles and other infrastructure components. In rolling out the National Broadband Network the government will often require information on these infrastructure components from utilities and telecommunications carriers. This information will allow the fast and cost-effective deployment of the network.

The legislation proposed is about having a safety net. While most information will inevitably be provided in a cooperative manner, this legislation acts to ensure that the information needed is not withheld from the Commonwealth. The information that can be requested must be appropriate. The bill therefore limits requests to information that could be used for or in connection with the creation or development of a broadband telecommunications network or the supply of carriage service over this type of network. The amendments to part 27A are to require utilities and carriers to provide information as specified by the minister. Carriers and utilities will have five business days to provide comments. These requests will be enforceable, and failure to comply would contravene existing civil penalty provisions.

The national broadband network implementation study is due to report early in 2010. For this reason the disclosure of and use of protected information for the implementation study has a sunset period of 30 June 2010, or a later date if necessary as specified by the minister. Information for use by the National Broadband Network Company will have a sunset period of 10 years. This reflects the long-term nature of the rollout of the massive broadband infrastructure investment. The member for Canning spoke directly about the 10 years the project will take. The reality is that this is a major rollout and a major piece of infrastructure; and certainly the planning, and the need to have all the information in place and the access to information, is very important.

There is an opposition senator who likes to provide misinformation in my electorate. This particular opposition senator has put out information attacking the government on its broadband proposals. Not only is the information misinformed but it is scaremongering. We hear all the time in this chamber about the worries involved in rolling out such a massive piece of infrastructure. However, everyone is calling for it and we hear the opposition talk about it regularly, yet they are scaremongering. It is opposition for opposition’s sake, which I guess is an important part of the Westminster system, but sometimes it gets very frustrating to hear some of the arguments that are put forward. I welcome the political debate, but we also talk about the three tiers of government working together. Certainly the opposition in Parliament House should consider the important nature of this plan to roll out major infrastructure.

Broadband internet is an issue that matters to a lot of people in my electorate of Forde. My office has fielded well over 100 calls to date on this one subject. The issue regularly arises in public meetings and even appeared as an issue in the recent community cabinet that we held in Beenleigh back in July. Despite what our children may suggest, broadband internet is about a lot more than just games. Not only is it about entertainment but clearly the economic advantages of having good data transmission are very important. Broadband internet is already a critical business tool, and the increasing load on the service means that it will become more and more critical in the day-to-day operation of most businesses. It means reliable transmission of large volumes of data, audioconferencing and videoconferencing. As many of my residents will attest, transmitting large files over slow, unreliable services wastes a lot of valuable time and resources. Many people in Forde run small businesses out of their homes in areas from information technology through to transport. It is not a bad way to live, with the lifestyles that the area has to offer, but it can quickly become unnecessarily problematic with low-speed and unreliable broadband internet services.

I am privileged to represent this diverse area, which includes old suburbs, new suburbs, small towns and semirural and fully rural environments. Interestingly enough, if you want to have a good ADSL broadband internet connection locally at the moment, the trick is to live in an older suburb or a small town that is more than 20 years old. Unfortunately, new areas had the minimal amount of infrastructure put in at the planning stage. So the commitment to providing infrastructure at the development stage is very important. We hear the opposition talk about their plans and their processes in the past, but the problem is that they were and are uncoordinated. There have been hotspots and there have been great rollouts of certain infrastructure in some areas but, because planning has not been consistent in broadband rollout, there are certain issues.

On the other hand, if you want to get good access to the internet right now in the electorate of Forde, you have difficulties choosing a spot. There are areas that are very close to large population areas that have little or no access, and then there are areas out in some of the rural areas of the electorate that get very good coverage. It is an interesting mismatch, and that is why the plan of ours as a government to roll out one single large network is very important. We know that ADSL broadband currently has a limited range and can only be used within small distances from telephone exchanges. Many people in Forde live outside these boundaries in rural as well as semirural environments. The problem is common in areas like Buccan, which, while rural, is still very close to a town centre. In areas of North Maclean, which is on the Mount Lindesay Highway, a major transport corridor, there are still problems. Rural and semirural areas present a particular challenge for the National Broadband Network as it currently exists: where will the line be drawn between areas to be serviced by fibre to the premises and areas to rely wireless and satellite solutions? It is too early for definitive answers, but this is a topic of interest locally.

While the former government had a view and an understanding of the importance of a good telecommunications network, there was a mismatch in the various different options provided. I liken it to people with the old HQ Holden: you can turbocharge it, put on twin exhausts with headers, convert it to gas and put on large tyres, but at some stage it becomes economically unviable. You just cannot keep retrofitting and retrofitting, so you will probably need to throw out the old HQ and buy a modern, more efficient and faster family station wagon. That is the difference in view between the previous government and us. They were very clever in a lot of ways in the solution that was provided at the time, and the copper wire network provided a lot of services that it was never intended to. The Keating government way back in the early nineties made the Creative Nation statement. It said that, if you wanted large volumes of information rolling down the telecommunications network, you had to have fibre and you had to have broadband. That was understood then. The copper wire network provided many different options but it is tired now. The previous government considered maintaining that network and adding a little bit of wireless here and a little bit of satellite there. However, the core and the infrastructure just were not up to the task. So it is about the old Holden and deciding you need to borrow money, invest in the future and upgrade to that new family station wagon. That is probably a good analogy.

As I said, there are issues in Forde in some of the newest estates. I mentioned before how minimal planning has been disastrous for some of the newer areas like Cedar Grove, Ormeau, Eagle Heights and Waterford, which have very poor broadband services. These are new suburbs that have been developed in full knowledge of our needs in terms of access to telecommunications. About 15 years ago, some of the very early developments in South-East Queensland promoted and presented fibre options for those particular estates. I spoke a minute ago about the time of the Keating government and the Creative Nation; there was also the creation of Optus, the broadband rollout and the fibre network from Melbourne to Cairns, which was all about building a spine that could adapt to modern usage. In the electorate of Forde as it currently stands we have no broadband services in some areas at all because of their distance from local telecommunications hubs, but the fibre optic broadband network that runs from Melbourne to Cairns runs right through the electorate, right down that spine. Because of the lack of planning in access to and control over that piece of infrastructure, a lot of changes could not be implemented.

The unfortunate thing, of course, is that when these services inevitably fail in these areas the blame is not placed on the developers, the planners or the telecommunication companies. In fact, as you would know from your electorate office, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, when there are problems the telecommunications company staff tell people to ring their federal member. The interesting thing is that we were not the cause of this problem but we are dealing with it. Our answers are: ‘Support what we as a government are doing. We will find a way. We will have the solutions, but it’s not going to happen overnight.’

As a government, we must not be drawn into paying big dollars to fix these problems that should not have arisen in the first place. For this reason, today I am talking about this government’s move to ensure that greenfield estates across Australia are built with fibre to the premises, having the infrastructure in place from that first development stage. This is not only about building the fibre-to-the-node or fibre-to-the-home network but about consistently planning at all stages. So all levels of government are involved: the federal government is rolling out the major piece of infrastructure, the state governments through their planning laws are ensuring that certain planning schemes require certain outcomes for development, and then the local council authorities are ensuring with developers that that level of infrastructure is provided at the outset.

As a federal government, we have committed to rolling out broadband. The reality is that we will probably have to go much further than we would otherwise have liked in providing these services in areas that were previously developed, and developed at a time when developers and local authorities knew the demands and the requirements. But I think everyone was lulled into some level of complacency, because there have been plans to use existing networks and there have been plans to provide access in other ways but there was never a real test of what we could actually provide.

People who live in these areas where the current network is at capacity will find that their services are just nonexistent. The frustrating part for most people is not that these services will come, because they eventually will, but the priorities and the rollout. Some of these people will be without services for a long time. I should say that a lot of the telecommunications companies are providing some interim solutions, but it is so important that we as a government gain access to existing infrastructure and have knowledge and understanding of what exists so that we are able to plan and put in place a network that actually works.

Our plan is to connect 90 per cent of homes, schools and workplaces with fibre-to-the-premises broadband of up to 100 megabits per second. The remainder of the premises, we are proposing, will receive wireless or satellite at speeds of at least 12 megabits a second. The essential thing in this is that we will provide total coverage and it will be through a very coordinated system, as opposed to the ad hoc approach we have currently. There are a lot of promises. When I talk to my constituents—and I am sure you have done the same with your own, Mr Deputy Speaker—I hear that they have had certain conversations with their telecommunication providers where the companies make promises that ultimately cannot be kept. Unfortunately, there is just nowhere to go with that.

In the second reading speech, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government rightly noted:

Access to high-speed broadband services is critical to Australia’s future economic prosperity and social wellbeing.

That certainly goes without saying, and I am sure that members on both sides of the House understand that, but we seem to be at variance in how we roll out this service. I have talked many times in this chamber about the seat of Forde and its infrastructure, whether it is roads, rail or even our access to good freight networks. The reality is that the rollout of a good national broadband network is an absolutely essential part of our communications. We generally talk about transport and communications as a bundle. We cannot have the best ports, the best roads or the best airport facilities unless we have access to good telecommunications through the broadband network.

It is clear from the discussions that we have heard in this House today that there are differences, as I say, but I think we on this side of the House understand our role in rolling out major infrastructure. Way back in the early nineties there was what was then known as Creative Nation, which at that time was about providing an entertainment network. That was part of the rollout of what we understood at the time to be ‘new media’—this thing called the internet which was making its way to houses around Australia. The reality is that, while the internet was originally proposed to be an entertainment service, many providers of content have developed in this country. We need a network that can sustain the load, that can be accessible and that has the speed required not only for these entertainment services but for industry. Industry has progressed through the use of online services, e-commerce. All of that terminology and all of that use of modern technology so dearly depends on having what we on this side of the House understand to be a very effective rollout.

In conclusion, broadband internet services are important to the residents and certainly the businesses of Forde, in my case, because it is such a diverse area. As I said before, there are not only rural areas but some high-density areas. There is so much inconsistency that people who have established businesses in certain areas, expecting to be able to ring up their provider and get adequate services, find that none exist. For companies that make those commitments, invest in an area and find that they are somewhat hamstrung in their ability to access certain pieces of infrastructure, it is really frustrating. It would be like moving onto a main road, to have your business and your signage on the main road, and not having a driveway out of your property. It is essentially the same thing.

We understand it at that level, but when it comes to telecommunications we have developed over the last 18 to 19 years from those early days of Labor’s commitment to communications and a telecommunications network, and the ability at that time to put together an option to commercialise through companies like Optus. All that is ahead of us, but somewhere along the line we have lost 11½ to 12 years of future planning and investment.

While we have always understood the need—and the previous government certainly were aware of the need—the solution provided to them by certain companies at the time seemed to be in order and seemed to be able to provide coverage. But the copper wire network particularly was never going to pass the test of time. The broadband, the fibre optics and the sort of approach that we are taking as a government is absolutely essential. For those reasons, I certainly implore those in opposition to support these amendments, which go towards making us better informed as a government, making us better able to make the decisions that will ultimately roll out that major network which, for all the reasons I have given in my speech today, is so important. I commend this amendment bill to the House.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 is interesting legislation for the precedents it creates, the purpose of its very large sums of government money, the priority of government spending and other matters relating to the normal practice of business. It is interesting to consult the history of this matter. The Rudd opposition, as it then was, went to the last election saying that for $4 billion it would provide a fibre-to-the-node network throughout Australia. No doubt a lot of people were interested in that concept, and to those people in the industry $4 billion would not be much—and that might have influenced their vote. The government then went to tender on this principle—I think it was $4 billion or it might have been $8 billion; it does not matter—and said to the operators of electronic communication systems in Australia, ‘We will give you this money if you will build it.’ They called for tenderers and of course the biggest provider, Telstra, looked at it, realised that it could not get within a bull’s roar for that sort of money or with that sort of subsidy considering the areas of market failure that would be involved and eventually lodged a non-conforming tender for which they were strongly criticised. Their competitors also lodged tenders.

It appears they were all non-conforming tenders because one day there was a press conference and the government said, ‘We have scrubbed all that. It is going to cost $44 billion, not $4 or $8 billion subsidised. Nobody has come anywhere near it.’ They did not say a kind word about Telstra who had come to the commercial judgment that their shareholders could not carry the burden of what the government promised for the money that was available. As a result of all that, the government announced on 7 April 2009, as the minister advises us, that it would establish a company—a commercial enterprise—NBN Co. Ltd. I have never seen a government enterprise that was limited. As money is required they just keep pouring it in. But it is limited! They announced that they would invest up to $43 billion in partnership with the private investors to build a new superfast fibre optic based national broadband network. So the government is going in to business. It expects to attract some partners at a point of about 49 per cent. There are some very well-known comments made by big business about investing in something and always having 51 per cent, but the government proposes to retain 51 per cent.

The next thing we find is this House debating—and I do not think the coalition is necessarily opposed—over entitling a business owned by the government to have access to its competitors’ commercial-in-confidence information. It is amazing that BHP has not rung up and said, ‘Can we have that on Rio? Can we go in and search their books?’ I find it astounding that in this current climate a government is saying, ‘We are going to run a business but we are going to have the opportunity to virtually commandeer other people’s commercial-in-confidence information.’

When we go to the explanatory memorandum we find that:

The Bill provides that the obligation on carriers and utilities to provide specified information to an authorised information officer would apply for a period of 10 years. Although it is anticipated that the roll-out—

of the proposed business outcome—

… will occur over an eight-year period, this provision permits flexibility.

It sure does—even if you have got the company up and running, you can still go and access your competitors’ information. There are also a couple of clauses referred to in the explanatory memorandum designating to whom this information will be disclosed. It is headed ‘Disclosure to and use by entrusted public officials.’ So there is apparently someone in the public service to whom this information will be given so that, one would think, it will not be leaked to anyone else. But then it says:

Under the amendments made to Division 3 by the Bill, protected network information may be disclosed to, and used by, an ‘entrusted public official’ for the purposes of the Implementation Study—

which, by the way, the minister provides. He tells us, ‘This is really all that is happening so far and there is good reason for that. There has been no funding authorised for this $43 billion experiment. There is no appropriation.’ But it goes on to say—

… for the National Broadband Network, or for a purpose that is specified in the regulations.

I do not think the parliament has seen the regulations yet, so goodness knows what that means. But then there is another section referring to ‘Disclosure to, and use by, entrusted company officers.’ And we get similar advice. In other words, notwithstanding some promises of privacy, this information will be floating around all over the place and that is the purpose of the legislation. So far as I am concerned, I think it is an amazing abuse of the power of government. Yet, of course, it is the only way that this particular company can go into business.

The other thing that annoys me about this whole process is that, in the interests of competition, in the interests of letting the commercial or private sector manage a mature telecommunications industry, the coalition sold Telstra and I think mistakenly made a very large allocation of shares to the Future Fund. I am highly critical of the behaviour of Mr Murray, the entrusted chairman of the Future Fund, and his pursuit of the board of Telstra to force them to comply with the government’s wishes. I am not sure that did much for the share value. Having forced the share value down somewhat, I notice that the Future Fund has recently sold a large tranche of those shares. Of course their responsibility is to future superannuants from the Public Service. That is what the Future Fund is there for. I do not think any of this did any good for the value of that fund. That is an issue that might be raised on another day.

I have looked very closely at this proposal and I have had communication with people within and outside my electorate. A lot of hoo-ha was directed towards Tasmania, an area about which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, would be aware. A big publicity campaign was produced, and what have we discovered? We have discovered that somewhere around 15 or 16 per cent of Tasmanians want this new service. On its announcement, the AAPT chairman made a rule of thumb assessment that if every household in Australia signed up for this, and the business was run as a business, it would cost $200 a month to participate, at 100 per cent sign-up. So far the level of interest in Tasmania, an area where in many respects the service would be needed, is at 16 per cent. So not even a quarter of people think they will sign up.

So what is the revenue potential of this business? For most Australian households, the only advantage is being able to download movies a bit quicker. Yes, for the medical profession and others it is a case of the faster the better, and for certain business enterprises that is also the case. But I am quite sure that Telstra, Optus and the other suppliers in this region were quite cognisant of that and were developing programs to connect those particular interest groups to high-speed networks. They would have done that, and they would have made commercial decisions on whether traffic would pay for the capital expenditure involved. This proposal is clearly not going to be capable. The member for Canning complained, as I would, that many sectors of our electorates will be bypassed anyway, and in some instances getting a service to a very small community with fibre optic cable is just not practical. What is more, as time goes by, the wireless services are probably going to meet a lot of the demand throughout Australia anyway. It is technology that is expanding at a tremendously fast rate.

When a government commits to an ongoing program which it estimates at $43 billion, I think it is the responsibility of both sides of this House to ask whether that should be the highest priority for government investment in infrastructure. Of course this House has debated and will be called on to debate again the carbon emissions system. We are told by the Prime Minister and others that, if Australia does not address this problem, the end of the world will be nigh—the Barrier Reef will turn white, farming properties will close down, the Murray River will dry up. Why, then, is the government not seriously investing this sort of money in that sort of problem? We seem to have with the National Broadband Network more of a convenience than a necessity and, what is more, the private sector has been moving at a reasonable rate—though I would not say a satisfactory rate; I frequently have to correspond with Telstra and others about improved services, the coverage of black spots et cetera. That is a fact of life—it is not perfect. Maybe people feel that perfection will arise from this proposal. But is it worth $43 billion—and that could possibly be half price, if one is going to attract a 49 per cent partner—and should it have the highest priority?

Today’s Australian Financial Review carries the sad report of a renewable energy company going into receivership, not through bad management but through their inability to raise funds to build a project in which the federal government was going to put in $75 million and I think the Victorian government $50 million. The reality is that they could not raise the balance to go on with this project. More importantly, as the article proceeds we get to a very serious issue. I quote:

The Australian Geothermal Energy Association this week released modelling that concluded the early construction of transmission lines to geothermal plants in northern South Australia, at a cost of $171 million –

a bit different from a $43 billion –

would deliver benefits to electricity consumers on the eastern seaboard worth about $2.8 billion by 2030.

They went on to say:

Terry Kallis, managing director of listed geothermal company Petratherm, said the report demonstrated the need for regulatory changes to encourage the fast-tracked construction of transmission lines.

“This report shows early investment in transmission will allow low-cost geothermal energy to push electricity prices down along with the cost of renewable energy certificates [under the RET]—

the renewable energy target. Surely that is a priority. It is not uncommon for governments to invest in transmission lines.

And it goes much further than that. The world is embracing high-voltage DC transmission. The Chinese are presently building one of 2,000 kilometres at 6.2 gigawatts. I happen to know that that is double the installed electrical generating capacity of Western Australia—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, might like to compare that with the full capacity of Tasmanian hydro. The line that now connects Tasmania and the mainland is a high-voltage DC line. It is used because energy losses in that technology are minimal, and that is the only reason that you can get electricity from one side of Bass Strait to the other. The Europeans are looking at putting a solar plant in the Sahara desert and transmitting the energy by high-voltage DC lines under the Mediterranean to Europe. There is other discussion—and, I might add, some controversy—that they are also proposing to fund the building of a big hydro project on the Congo river, for the same purpose. That is going to be a pretty fair trick. So that is available.

The other day, the Prime Minister gave his deputy an extra $1.7 billion to plug a hole in her BER—Building the Education Revolution. Had that money been invested in a power line of this nature, between the Pilbara and the Western Australian AC network, it could have saved hundreds of thousands of tonnes of emissions caused by pumping gas down the existing pipeline for the purpose of electricity generation in Perth—as compared to generating it where the gas comes ashore in the Pilbara and sending it down on electrical wires to that network. How does $1.7 billion compare with $43 billion? Is it a better investment? Were those lines then extended from the WA network to the eastern states network—and this type of technology already connects South Australia with Victoria, and Queensland with New South Wales—there would be massive opportunity to improve the efficiency of electrical transmission.

Of course, if you can get more electricity from one end of a set of wires to the other, you generate less at the feed-in end and you reduce emissions from the type of generating technology we use today. Three billion dollars or $4 billion—or say $5 billion or $10 billion, if you like—would create that network and it would open up huge opportunities for very reliable new technology in renewable energy that can compete with coal. In other words, you do not have to put financial burdens upon the coal generators. If you can connect it to the community through this technology you can save large amounts of electricity that are lost in present-day transmission. There is the real opportunity for government to invest money and, in my mind, it rates much more highly in priority than running around and starting a company to virtually compete with an established and mature commercial sector that is so far looking to be very reluctant to invest the other $40 billion, or whatever it is, and expect to make a profit. I think they know they cannot, and that is why, when they eventually made submissions, they failed.

Debate (on motion by Mr Byrne) adjourned.