Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes the:

(a)

19 September 2010 Declaration by the members of the Broadband Commission for Digital Development to world leaders attending the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Summit at the United Nations on the benefits of broadband as the transformational technology for employment generation, productivity growth and the long term economic competitiveness;

(b)

OECD report of December 2009 which makes the case for investment in a competitive, open access national fibre network rollout based on benefits to four key sectors of the economy: electricity, health, transportation and education;

(c)

the positive externalities of broadband in providing increased opportunities to access Australian health and education services, and the linkages between disparities in broadband access and social disadvantage; and

(d)

the technical limitations of non fibre approaches to national broadband development, particularly in respect of video and other ‘real time’ applications used to deliver health and education services; and

(2)

recognises the merits of the development of universal broadband access in Australia with an emphasis on options for niche broadband delivered content and applications to provide immediate benefits to areas and groups of identifiable need.

I have moved this motion because I have a fundamental belief in the transformational power of information technology to improve the lives of individuals and their societies. It is a belief forged through legal and regulatory experience and my responsiveness to the needs of the communities I represent. I believe this parliament has a responsibility to our society and its future generations to base its deliberations about broadband development in Australia on a well-informed, sound, factual policy basis. For these reasons I believe it is imperative that Australia firstly place itself in the global policy context. In September last year the members of the Broadband Commission for Digital Development addressed a declaration to the world leaders attending the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Summit at the United Nations Headquarters which called upon them to embrace a common goal of broadband inclusion for all. It states in part:

We believe that broadband inclusion for all will represent a momentous economic and social change commensurate with the very problems that the MDGs aim to solve and that it will be a game-changer in addressing rising healthcare costs, delivering digital education for all and mitigating the effects of climate change. Already we see the transformational progress which digital inclusion offers to youth, women, the elderly and people with mental and physical disabilities in rich and poor countries alike.

Just as I have espoused in this place the merits of the virtuous cycle of education, the Broadband Commission advocates a virtuous cycle for digital development that interlinks technology, infrastructure, policy, innovation, people, government, content and applications. Its advocacy on infrastructure is instructive. Whilst a variety of technologies—such as satellite, wireless and microwave—will undoubtedly be employed, achieving a technology-neutral approach, these technologies require a physical backbone in order to function. Accordingly, the Broadband Commission states unequivocally:

A high-capacity fibre optic packet transport backbone is the fundamental backbone infrastructure that countries need to deploy to support the growth in broadband services.

There are two critical points to note here. Firstly, I reiterate my comments made here on several occasions that Australia’s National Broadband Network is the reality of these internationally irrefutable goals and the steps necessary to implement them. We are creating a national piece of utility infrastructure, regulated as a utility, in the public interest. Secondly, those who are opposed to the NBN are fond of asserting that this government has picked a fixed technology and ignored other broadband solutions such as wireless. This is a nonsense. The NBN is not just about fixed networks; to the contrary, the NBN augments all other technologies because it is a technology-neutral backbone. The NBN architecture and infrastructure is the only option which represents unlimited technological diversity and, because nothing is faster than the speed of light—which carries the electromagnetic energy that comprises a communication—it alone has capacity that cannot be achieved by anything else in the network layer of the stack. It is little wonder then that some of the most enthusiastic backers of the NBN are in fact our mobile operators.

Here in Australia we are putting the theory of broadband inclusiveness into action and we can be confident that we are on the right path. But do not just take it from me. Take the endorsement of Eric Schmidt, the former CEO and now executive chairman of Google, who recently said at the Mobile World Congress:

Let me start by saying that Australia is leading the world in understanding the importance of fibre. Your new Prime Minister, as part of her campaign and now as part of her prime ministership, has announced …93 per cent of Australians …will have gigabit or equivalent service using fibre and the other seven per cent will be handled through wireless services of the nature of LTE. This is leadership, and again from Australia, which I think is wonderful.

This motion also notes the analysis by the OECD of the need for investment in open access national fibre networks in order to deliver benefits in electricity, health, transportation and education, which together are estimated to comprise a quarter of a country’s GDP. The quality of the network, its bandwidth and scalability, is a first-principle issue that is determinative of whether these benefits can be realised. Again, the real-time nature of these services and applications requires bandwidth that can only be achieved by a fibre backbone.

While some in this place have sought to argue that the laws of economics demand we instead revisit wireless solutions, I say this: the laws of economics may be malleable but the laws of physics are not. Radio communications spectrum is a shared resource, which means that practical wireless speeds are incapable of achieving the outcomes of fibre. And, like all attempts to quantify a cost-benefit analysis of public investment in new high-speed fibre networks, the OECD emphasises that, contrary to what some in this place would have us believe, the imperative for direct government investment is not novel. It states:

Policy makers understand the importance of these spillovers and government leaders have committed to promoting the extension and upgrade of broadband networks to benefit from these spillover effects. In the OECD’s Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, ministers agreed to ensure broadband networks attain the greatest practical national coverage and to stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity information and communication infrastructures ... The recent economic crisis and emphasis on fiscal stimulus have opened the possibility of governments directing investment to building broadband networks. These types of interventions are not new because telecommunications markets have faced a similar challenge before with ensuring a national/universal rollout of PSTN and mobile networks.

Those rural and regional members in this place who want to ensure that their constituents and their local economies are not deprived of these benefits, and those who, like myself, represent some areas of outer-metropolitan Sydney where accessible and affordable broadband is non-existent, are united in our vindication by the OECD’s analysis.

Finally, the linkages between disparities in access and social disadvantage are well documented by the broadband commission and the OECD, as well as even the most rudimentary analysis of broadband accessibility and postcode. I have placed such evidence before this place on numerous occasions; today I draw on my own analysis I delivered in my presentation to the 2009 Communications Policy and Research Forum, which is widely regarded as one of the leading fora in communications and media thinking in this country. The question I posed there was, ‘Universal broadband in an NBN nation: what’s the objective?’ And my thesis identified a potential model for addressing the disparities in broadband access in Australia and the linkages to social disadvantage. My conclusion was that the objective—the answer to my question—needs to be to harness broadband as a mechanism to break cycles of educational, employment and other disadvantage. A year later, I am comforted by the goals of the broadband commission, which are aimed at the same.

Moreover, I am looking forward to the broadband debate moving beyond where it has stagnated in the minds of some in this place—beyond the tactics of delay, beyond attempts to argue economics over physics, and beyond a refusal to admit that the private sector alone will not pick up the mantle to make a truly national high-speed broadband network a reality in this country.

I want this debate to proceed—this is the reason I have raised this motion—to a situation where we work in the common interest of those in our society who stand to benefit from the transformational change of the NBN.

I want the debate to move to the competition for opportunities to utilise the NBN from the ground up—opportunities such as running educational access pilots in Mt Druitt; exporting our educational programs to China from regional universities such as Armidale; having telecommuting hubs on the Central Coast of NSW; or having an elderly person in Riverstone, who may be on the verge of entering permanent assisted care, spend an extra year in her own home because her condition could be remotely diagnosed and treated.

In resolving to note the items in this motion we also acknowledge the logic of the NBN as having a sound, globally endorsed policy basis, which is coming to fruition. Our next step as representatives in this place is to ensure that those who matter—the people we represent—are, and remain, at the forefront of our deliberations. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this motion as it is an issue of great interest to me and one that I have worked on for many years. There is no doubt that Australia and Australians will benefit from the provision of high-speed broadband access across the nation. What is in dispute is that NBN Co. is the model with which to deliver it.

If we look at the method of communication delivery and the access of communities in past centuries we see that that was through the roads and the railway lines that were built in those centuries. In this and in future centuries, the connection of our communities, in relation to economic agreements and business going forward, will definitely be through broadband. But just as roads were not the only way of accessing remote communities the NBN Co. will not be the only way to go forward. We need to look at fibre being delivered not just by a monopolistic outdated telco model but through a model that will deliver opportunities for everyone. A model which will have open access and high speeds and will encourage innovation and competitiveness. The coalition says that that will not be delivered by NBN Co.

Looking forward, we need to find a model that delivers opportunities for our communities. As the member for Greenway said, broadband is a way of delivering improved services across the nation. NBN Co. is not the way to deliver that model. NBN Co. is delivering ADSL2 up to 2030. That year is more than 20 years into the future; that model will be obsolete by the time this project is finished—and at what cost? It will come at a cost of over $2,800 per household at today’s costs. Yet the City of Brisbane is delivering this to every household and every ratepayer in the city at no cost to the ratepayers and at no cost to the city. Quite obviously we should be working hand in hand with private enterprise. We should be looking at a mix. We should be looking at what is already there.

The government would have you believe that there is not already existing broadband in our community. Yet the reality is that there is already fibre—superior fibre. But NBN Co. wants to come along and build over the top of existing fibre networks with an inferior model and an inferior product at the taxpayers’ expense. What a waste of money. This is why, from day one, the coalition has said that this project by the government needs to go to the Productivity Commission.

We cannot justify this sort of expenditure—over $43 billion—of taxpayers’ money at a time when there are so many other demands on those dollars and when private enterprise and other models are not only on offer but working already in other parts of the world. Look at the Amsterdam model. Look at what Huawei are doing around the world. Look at what Axia are doing in Canada. Look at what ETRI and other companies are doing in South Korea.

We do not have the right solution. That is what the coalition is saying. Yes, we support broadband; yes, we support fibre; but the NBN Co. model is wrong. It is restricting advancements; it is restricting competition; and—indeed, the most important part—it is restricting speeds.

Look at some of the projects that are happening around our country now. Already the preliminary one in Tasmania—strangely the government is not releasing the result of that preliminary project for NBN Co.—I understand is well over the estimated cost. Yet the Brisbane City Council implemented a program in a trial which came in at one-third the cost of NBN Co. Doesn’t that send up some warning signs for the government that they could do better, that we must do better—that in the interests of providing a genuinely competitive and a genuinely beneficial system for our country going forward, that we need to look at other models, that we need to refer this to the Productivity Commission, that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis? Because only through doing that will we actually get the best outcome for Australia and the best outcome for Australian citizens.

Broadband as it is, is going to offer some wonderful opportunities. Already our health system is spending millions of dollars compressing information to send through existing fibre systems. By delivering dark fibre around the country, government delivery of health can benefit. What we are saying is that, with the advancement of technology, with the advancement of new systems, it is not just ADSL2+; we can deliver much better and much faster systems with the benefit of partnerships with private companies. You only have to look at how fast new products and new innovations are developing.

The member for Greenway said she did not want to argue economics. But that is what we do need to argue. Cost-benefit analysis is critical on any project. This will be one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in the history of this country. Our residents need to know that they are getting value for money.

Going forward, we need to look at some of the innovations. We need ubiquitous speeds: the same speed going up as we have coming down. We do not even know tomorrow what is going to be invented or created that can be delivered down broadband, and yet we are still planning a system under NBN Co. which will only deliver what we currently know is in existence to 2030. Are you really trying to tell me that there will be no advances in technology before 2030, that we really do not need speeds more than ADSL2+ before 2030 and we are going to restrict the delivery? It is like giving all the roads to Ford and Ford being allowed to say, ‘We are only going to have Ford cars travel on those roads.’ This is an incredibly prescriptive and restrictive process. We need to open it up to genuine competition and we need to open it up to genuine innovation.

People used to claim that Napster would have been the death of the music industry, because they opened up the music industry online. Yet, what has happened? The latest music star, Justin Bieber, would not be there if they had not opened it up with that opportunity. The record companies rejected him—just as NBN Co. will reject people who are in competition to what they are trying to achieve with their outdated telco model.

The coalition are great supporters of broadband. We have never disputed the necessity of universal access. What we oppose is the plan to create an outdated telco monopoly that will have no scrutiny; intends to build over the top of existing, superior infrastructure; and, most critically, will waste of billions of dollars in doing so. Once again, it is the height of hypocrisy to move this motion today knowing that some of the advances that the member for Greenway spoke about will not be delivered through the NBN Co. outdated telco model. The only way some of the innovations can be delivered is through an open-access, competitive process.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to be speaking on the motion brought to this House by the member for Greenway, who has really been at the forefront of taking this important debate up in this House.

In the debate today we have heard something similar to what we have heard in the debate in this House for around four years now. The objection to our visionary NBN plan can be boiled down to three key points. The first objection, as we have heard from the member for Ryan, is that it would all be well if we left it to the market. After 11 years and something like 19 failed broadband plans, it is quite clear that the solution of leaving it to the market certainly has not worked for Australia and it certainly has not worked for the people who live in electorates like the member for Greenway’s, like the member for Cunningham’s or my own—those people who represent constituents in the outer suburbs of capital cities. Whilst I can understand the member for Ryan coming in here and putting on her rose coloured glasses and talking about how wonderful the market has been in delivering broadband services to people in the city of Brisbane—or even the member for Wentworth talking about how excellent the broadband services are in the inner city of Sydney, where he lives—I find it very, very difficult indeed to understand why the National Party members, who purport to represent regional Australia, have been so absolutely mute in defending the government’s NBN plan. We know that leaving it to the market means a two-tiered system. It means those who live in inner city suburbs will have an excellent, world-class broadband service, but those who live in suburbs that are represented by people in regional Australia will have a B-class, a C-class or even—as the member for Greenway says—access to no broadband services at all.

The second argument that we have seen being developed over the last couple of weeks, particularly by the member for Wentworth, is that somehow wireless is better—that somehow our fibre to the home is going to be redundant technology because radio communications technology is going to fill the space and we will all be better off with that. That is an argument best adored by those in the opposition caucus, but anybody who knows anything about the delivery of broadband services through wireless technology knows that it is complete and utter bunkum.

I suspect the member for Wentworth knows this himself, because he is an early adapter to most new technologies. He very proudly sports an iPad and delivers many speeches in this House from his iPad. As I am sure he is very familiar with the technology inside that iPad, he would know that the designers of wireless technology like iPads and other reading tablets specifically design those products to ensure that, where there is no access to fibre or broadband technology, people will use 3G and the other wireless technologies available but, where there is a broadband hotspot, where broadband technology is provided through a cable, they will default to a broadband WAN, wide area network, service. The reason they do that? Because the producers of that technology know that it is a far superior means of delivering effective broadband technology. If the member for Wentworth spent a little less time looking through his rose-coloured glasses at his opposition policy on this issue and a bit more time reading and looking at his iPad, he would know that his second argument is complete and utter bunkum.

The third argument that is often put by those opposite is: ‘Let’s have another study.’ This one is the most risible of all because it comes from the party that went to the last election championing something called ‘real action’. Their solution to 10 years of failure and 19 failed broadband plans for people in electorates such as Greenway, Cunningham and my own, and many electorates represented by those opposite, was to go and have another study.

The member for Greenway throws down the challenge to those opposite and all of us in this House, and that is: let’s get beyond these horrible debates and let’s focus on the real issues. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion put to the House today by the member for Greenway. Her contribution and that of the member for Throsby encapsulated the reason that we, at least on this side of the House, are so adamantly enthusiastic about the National Broadband Network and why it was so resoundingly endorsed by so many people at the last election. We represent outer metropolitan, regional and rural communities who know only too well the failure of the market to deliver what is becoming an increasingly important piece of infrastructure for modern living, and that is fast, accessible and affordable broadband.

I am quite surprised that more members on the other side have not reflected that their offices, like mine, are consistently dealing with people contacting them to complain that, because of old pair-gain systems and outdated copper technology that has not been upgraded, their access to broadband is severely limiting the capacity of their family to operate. What I particularly hear from people is the effect it has on their children because of the importance of broadband as a study tool, not only at school but, obviously, also at TAFE and university. Many universities now have a huge access requirement. Students often have to download lecture documents and discussion papers that are large and take up quite a bit of capacity and time to access. That is an important reason for requiring broadband access.

It is also important for people who are running small and micro businesses at home. Home based businesses are an often misunderstood growth sector of our economy, particularly in our regions, where a number of people participate in our economy by running such businesses. For them, video access, allowing them to demonstrate their products so that people can view and order them online, is a requirement. This is a growing trend in our communities driving people to seek fast, secure, affordable broadband access.

I represent a region where about one in three of my voters travels outside the region for work every day. I have a very large commuter base—which I know that both of my colleagues who have spoken on the debate today share. The capacity for teleworking and remote work access would decrease the pressures on our cities. For example, if a third of the commuters from my area who go to southern and western Sydney to do back-office jobs in HR and finance were able to work from home two or three days a week over a secure, fast connection to their workplace, it could decrease the demand for new road and rail networks as our cities develop. Through teleworking, a broadband network could address some of the transport and infrastructure issues of our cities, and there is an obvious environmental benefit to having fewer people travelling for work. That is a real opportunity that this broadband network is, importantly, opening up.

I understand that some of those opposite will argue, ‘Well, we also think fast broadband’s important; we just think it should be delivered in a different way,’ but they are living in a bit of a dream world. As the member for Throsby said, they have tried 19 different models. None of them worked. None of them were getting us where we needed to be as a nation. We have bitten the bullet. We are putting in place a model that will deliver that.

With a delegation of this parliament to the United States in September 2009, I visited many tech companies, and they said to us clearly that our model was the way to go, that the models that relied purely on the private sector were failing those who could least afford to be failed: the disadvantaged, the isolated, those who most needed equity of access to participate in a modern community. We see the National Broadband Network as part of delivering access, equity, affordability and growth.

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.