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

Last night I was talking about the need for clarity and certainty for greenfield sites. In my electorate, with the Surat coal basin, many developers have had to look at housing and industrial site developments without any certainty about how this infrastructure is to be rolled out—pipes and pits; is it going to be Telstra or will it be NBN Co.? The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said there would be consultation with the industry, but every time the industry—in this case developers—went to either Telstra or NBN Co. they were not willing to give an answer because they did not know; this government had not consulted. At last we have some legislation that will enable developers to proceed with some certainty. However, the lack of industry consultation in coming to this position is disappointing. The government have failed to talk with stakeholders, they have failed to consult with the comm­unications industry, and in this whole project they have simply not done their homework.

In December last year Senator Conroy said in relation to government policy on these new developments:

It has been a consistent feature of the Government's policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers.

We would agree with that. Senator Conroy went on:

This continues to be the case … Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments, for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.

Notwithstanding what the minister said in December last year, on 13 May this year NBN Co. issued a press release referring to an agreement signed with subcontractor Fujitsu and its construction partner Service Stream:

… Fujitsu will manage the design, construction and associated works for the deployment of fibre to new developments …

So much for consultation with the industry; so much for looking at competing ideas. This was just signed up—

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

A done deal.

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

It was a done deal, I imagine done behind closed doors. Certainly there was no consultation with the industry. Notwithstanding all of that, we and the developers now know what is happening. We have to play with the cards dealt us. In my electorate of Maranoa developers in the Surat coal basin have been desperately ringing my office wondering what on earth they can do—how can they go to their banks and raise debt to roll out these new infrastructure projects, including housing? There is a desperate shortage of housing. In the last six months rents in my home town of Roma have gone from $250 per week for a three- or four-bedroom home to $600 per week, with three-monthly reviews—and those rents are still going up. Of course part of the problem with new housing developments is the failure of the govern­ment to give certainty when it comes to the rollout of optic fibre cable and the pits and pipes that are associated with rolling out communications technology into new developments. We have come to expect that from this Labor government. They talk about big projects, but just look at the project they implemented in response to the GFC. Do you remember the BER school halls project? Here we are in 2011 and they are still building school halls in my electorate. They are winding back costs all the time because they have blown the budget and, as well, costs have increased over this time because of the inflationary effect.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis of this whole project? There needs to be rigour; there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis done on this $50 billion investment. After all, it is ultimately going to be taxpayers' money—my money, your money, the money of the people in the departments here in Canberra, the money of hardworking Australians—that will be put at risk. They deserve to know what a cost-benefit analysis of this project would show. We should be developing the nation's backhaul and replacing old technology. That is a given; we agree on this side that that is sensible. We should be replacing it from the inside to the outside of Australia. The member for Grey would well know that there are microwave links in his electorate, as there are in my electorate, and that some communities today are still serviced with single-channel radio systems for basic clear voice signals. Yet we hear from this government that maybe these communities will get satellite technology for clear voice signals for telephones. The government say that this project will be complete by 2020, but these people will still be on single-channel radio systems and microwave links for communications—and for the internet, in some cases—with the main backhaul network covering this nation.

We should be investing out there. Of course, the coalition's policy would have covered that. Had we been elected and had the Independents who sit behind us here supported Tony Abbott for Prime Minister, we would be doing those sorts of things now because we had money to invest in partnerships in communities where the market fails. That is where taxpayers' money should be going. Where the market does not fail it is for businesses to compete against other businesses to roll out this infrast­ructure. But no, not with this government. They are getting rid of what was once a monopoly and are now creating a government owned monopoly.

Before it is too late, we should have this whole project referred to the Productivity Commission for a clear cost-benefit analysis. That is what the Australian taxpayers deserve. The very least that this government could do would be to refer it to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission would be an honest broker and bring forward not the coalition's or the government's but its cost-benefit analysis of this $50 billion project.

As I said a moment ago, we can look at those areas where markets fail to build new infrastructure, such as in the outback of my electorate, in rural areas or even in outer metropolitan areas. I know that the outer areas of Melbourne—when you get up into some of the smaller communities in the hills—they are a long way from the main backhaul networks of Australia. We on this side of House agree that people do need access to affordable high-speed internet. It has loosely been called broadband, but I like to talk about high-speed internet. I am not a technical guru, but it is high-speed internet. Whether it is in those outer metropolitan areas, in the outback of my electorate, in the electorate of the member for Grey—

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

Or the member for Forrest.

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

or the electorate of the member for Forrest, in Western Australia, which is similar, there are areas where markets will fail, and under this government, should they be re-elected, the suggested date by which communities in the outback of my electorate might getting connected is 2020. I see the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade at the table and I am sure that in the seat of Richmond there would be places where the backhaul is deficient today.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are very excited about the NBN.

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

I would be most interested to do a run through of the seat of Richmond because I am sure there will be people there who will be waiting until 2020. Yes, it is coming their way, but I am sure this is not the government that will be delivering it to people living in areas where markets fail. We know that markets fail and that is where there is a role for government.

I want to touch on a couple of other issues because they are important. We have recently seen executives of Regional Devel­opment Australia writing to our councils to ask them for between $5,000 and $10,000 to do a survey of the 3G deficiencies in those areas. For heaven's sake, does the govern­ment not know? It is going to spend $50 billion and now it is asking ratepayers to contribute up to $10,000, through their local government rates, to map the areas covered by 3G or wireless in those communities. It is very curious. I thought the government was talking about fibre to the premises, but what is this survey of wireless coverage in regional communities about? The govern­ment is asking the ratepayers to pay for something they do not yet have and may never get.

The other issue I will be watching very closely under this model that the government is putting together is the adequacy of the funding for the universal service obligation. I understand that Telstra is going to be required to continue to provide that universal service to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable telecommunications. Telstra has always done that. I am particularly concerned about whether the money that is coming either out of the budget or out of NBN Co. will really be adequate. What happens if the money is not adequate and the budget gets tougher? The government is looking at this mythical surplus in 2012-13, but it might have to cut back somewhere. Who is going to miss out? It could well be the universal service obligation where $50 million has been allocated from NBN Co., which will then go up to $100 million.

I have great faith in Telstra Country Wide. They have been out there and they are the people who have always made sure that telephones are connected when the market fails to do so. When the floods swept through our areas they were the ones who went out to clean out the pits and get the communic­ations going. It is hard enough in remote parts of my electorate to get an electrician or a plumber, but how on earth are you going to get a telephone technician when the funding for the USO may not be adequate? It just will not happen. That is a concerning issue that I will be watching very closely as this government continues to blunder along. I have real concerns about how the government is dealing with this. It should be referred to the Productivity Commission for report because the taxpayers deserve nothing less. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011 and support the amendments foreshadowed by the member for Wentworth. I note a number of similarities with my electorate in the comments made by the member for Maranoa about his electorate. As the member said, this bill is another part of the government's NBN monopoly plan—nothing more and nothing less. The dissenting report of the coalition members of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network supported the policy aim of greenfields developments being, wherever possible, rolled out with fibre to the home. However, this cost is not necessarily a major cost overall when you compare that to the massive costs of overbuilding and rolling out fibre to the home in brownfields areas. The dissenting report states that this bill should be amended and says, firstly:

The regime established by the Bill is unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic for property developers.

And that is a concern for those on the ground. Secondly:

The Bill as presently drafted represents a missed opportunity to take advantage of the existence of the CGOs—

competitive greenfields operators—

to impose effective competitive and cost discipline on NBN Co.

Thirdly:

The regime established by the Bill is damaging to competition in the market for the provision of new fibre infrastructure.

All of these issues to do with competition are reflected in this government's aim to create an absolute and utter monopoly. It is now four years since Labor was elected, promising superfast broadband for the princely sum of $4.7 billion, which clearly was not enough for them. It certainly has not been rolled out in underserviced areas in the past four years. No additional broadband access or capacity has been delivered at all by the government in my electorate in those four years. But the people in my electorate will all share in the $50 billion that the NBN will cost, whether they like it or not—if indeed that is actually the final cost when it is finally completed, sometime I suspect well beyond the 2020 proposed delivery date. People in my electorate will be looking at this very closely because they know that they will have to share in the cost.

Much of my electorate will not receive fibre to the premises or fibre to the node. Many people will have to have satellite and wireless at up to 12 megabits per second—the equivalent of what is currently available with ADSL2 and certainly a long way from the promised 100 megabits that city based residents will have access to; something the member for Grey would understand. This may also prove problematic for the gover­nment monopoly, because research shows that people are not always necessarily willing to pay a premium price for increased speed.

Another issue for my electorate is the potential use of overhead versus under­ground cable with the rollout of the NBN. A number of areas in my electorate of Forrest are prone to bushfires—and other members in this House are in similar situations in their electorates. The constituents in my electorate really want to know when the NBN will be rolled out in their part of the world and whether the NBN will be using overhead or underground cabling throughout the south-west.

As members on this side have previously said, the goal of a national broadband network should be to deliver affordable access to all Australians. We want fast broadband that is accessible to all Austr­alians but we do know that the government's NBN is the most expensive way to achieve this goal. There is no guarantee that broadband access prices will actually be cheaper for consumers. They certainly will not be cheaper without genuine competition in the market. The ABS confirms that the biggest barrier to internet access in Australia is actually household income. Put simply, 34 per cent of households in Australia on $40,000 a year or less do not have access to the internet. If those on marginally higher incomes were able to afford to access the internet, they would simply approach an ISP and pay perhaps $40 per month for a subscription. Now, thanks to the Labor government's NBN, Australians will not only pay their monthly subscription but also pay their share of the $50 billion, and they will have to share the economic risk that goes with this whole NBN Co. plan.

We also know that the NBN will be the most anticompetitive government-owned telecommuni-cations monopoly in the world. So we are setting a new benchmark, but it is one which I think most of us would be very concerned about. To exempt NBN Co. from the competition and consumer laws is proof that the government are very aware that the anticompetitive elements cannot be supported by public benefits, otherwise they would not be doing this. There is no precedent for this exemption. Accountability and transparency are really sacrificed in this whole NBN process. In fact, NBN Co. completely destroys the gains made by the telecommunications act 1981, the one that opened markets to competition, that reduced cross-subsidies and set clear parameters on political interference—it is reversing that.

As we have heard repeatedly, there has been no cost-benefit analysis and no Productivity Commission inquiry. It says a lot about the government's proposal that they would not subject it to a Productivity Commission inquiry. Telstra is going to be paid to shut down its copper network and for 20 years restrict the promotion of wireless as a competitive alternative to the NBN, and actually be paid bonuses to migrate customers to the NBN. That is a closed loop if ever I heard one, and I am sure the member for Grey and the member Tangney would agree with me. I saw in one newspaper:

Australian taxpayers' latest NBN horror show.

One thousand staff, 561 customers—remem­ber this?—34 staff earning $300,000 to $400,000, $132 million in staff costs and still $36 billion left to spend. That was in one newspaper. They called it 'Australian taxpayers' latest NBN horror show'. And once again, in developing this legislation, the government left industry in the dark—yet again failing to engage. As we know and we keep hearing, many in the industry object to details in the draft regulations. But of course it appears that that is irrelevant to the government. And as I said, the Labor government's handling of the whole NBN process has been one debacle after another, ever since the NBN policy was announced in April 2009.

I referred previously to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission should be conducting a full examination of the NBN proposal, a project which is going to cost this nation in excess of $50 billion. We have seen in so many of the government's other programs—Building the Educating Revolution, home insulation, even delivering computers in schools—the eno­rmous budget blow-outs. I share the concerns of so many others that this $50 billion project could well become far greater than that. If we see the same sorts of cost blow-outs as we saw in the BER, that will be a real issue for taxpayers in this nation.

I agree with the member for Maranoa—someone like me, who has a rural and regional constituency and is very concerned about the USO. This is the one thing that guarantees people in rural and regional areas continual access to services, and they rely on them. If you live in a regional area, you know that telecommunications are so important to you.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cyclone.

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

Cyclone, any issue. Frequently it is a matter of life and death. That is what telecommunications mean in a rural and regional area. People need to have confidence that they will have access to their telephones and to all the services previously provided by Telstra. There were time frames around that, but as we are aware, there are $50 million allocated to the NBN. Whether this is sufficient to deliver over time remains to be seen. However, $50 million on a USO to service the majority, all of Australia in rural and regional areas, is a major issue for my constituents and for those right around Australia in rural and regional areas.

As I said earlier, this is a life and death issue for some people. I get phone calls in my office from people who may have gone two days without a telephone. If you have overhead cabling and you do not have access, you are completely isolated. Most of the information people receive now comes that way and that is what they rely on. Like so many people, I have great concerns about NBN being a government monopoly. I have concerns about the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the fact that there is going to be so much going on in NBN Co. that taxpayers and this parliament will never ever know about.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that all Australians should have access to fast, affordable broadband, but certainly not at the price it is going to cost them. Along with many members on this side, I am very concerned that the $50 billion may well be just a start. With a 2020 time frame for rollout or access, it is going to be those of us in rural and regional areas who will be waiting the longest and will be most in need. These are the underserviced areas the government has chosen not to take up as a priority. So I support the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Broadband Network continues to be plagued by cost blow-outs, rollout disasters and questionable business practices, yet the Gillard government are barrelling ahead, unfazed by the mess they are really in. We have long known that Telstra, under its deal with NBN Co., will be forced to rip out its copper network to make way for a fibre replacement, but we are neglecting the ultimate consequences this will have for the end consumer. Closing down the copper network will force customers who only use a phone line to switch to NBN Co. retail service providers. As you can understand, pensioners who have been with Telecom or Telstra all their lives will not be happy changing providers, but what really bites is that this change will mean higher service costs. Customers will potentially pay a higher retail internet rate for their phone service as opposed to the line rental and fixed price package they have always signed up for.

Minister Albanese, in the consideration in detail stage, could not guarantee that those people who do not wish to be hooked up to NBN Co. will still be able to access a telephone-only service for the $19.95 a month plan, including line rental, Telstra currently quotes for a home phone service. Simon Hackett, founder and managing director of retail service provider Internode, recently gave an interview with the Business Spectator, and his predictions on service costs do little to allay my fears:

The NBN Co.'s business model says they need to earn $33 to $34 per month, per customer, on average to pay the government back. The NBN Co's business model says they need to earn $33 to $34 per month per customer on average to pay the government back.

I repeat that this is $33 to $34 per month per customer—wholesale. He says:

Yes. I’m talking about wholesale price, but it will directly reflect into retail price.

Just the amount that NBN Co. need to charge each customer wholesale exceeds the current commercial rate that is charged for a retail 25 megabits per second service. Hackett continues:

... we and everyone else are just going to add a reasonable commercial margin to those costs and charges, so like the NBN we are just passing on government policy in terms of what that does to consumer prices.

Senator Conroy continues to tell the Australian parliament that one of the benefits of the NBN is to lower the price of services to consumers. But to maintain the fated seven per cent return on investment as outlined in their business case, NBN Co. must charge a premium price for its backhaul and thus the cost to the retail service providers will be in the order of $50 to $60 per month for a 25 megabits per second service. Senator Conroy continues to quote the rollout prices of the Tasmanian trial but, as we now understand, the retail providers are yet to be charged for access to this network. After all, this is just a trial and does not represent commercial reality. Senator Conroy clearly misunderstands basic economics. The $29.95 per month fee provided by one retail service provider could increase to $59.95 once the NBN backhaul charges are applied on the mainland.

How can the government justify this significant increase in cost for broadband services during a time when average Australians are struggling to meet their basic needs? The likes of Dodo and TPG currently offer a 24 megabits per second service for $29.95 per month. If the average Australian has to pay more for their internet access, would this not drive more people to cheaper and just as fast 4G networks? The NBN Co. business case assumes a cap of 17 per cent of the market accessing wireless services. But Telstra and Optus are building 4G networks Australia wide. Two profitable companies would rarely invest billions of dollars for a share of the market of only 17 per cent.

These telcos know they have the economic and technological edge. Telstra now have $11 billion to further develop this NBN competing technology, courtesy of government policy. Their wireless networks can provide internet access from as low as $20 a month and NBN Co. can only offer through its retailers a basic service at $50 to $55 per month. Telstra will be laughing all the way to its shareholders—a copper network that it no longer wanted and funding to develop a wireless network in direct competition with the NBN, courtesy of the government.

Not only is the 17 per cent wireless cap blown out of the window but the seven per cent return on investment will also never be reached. Further, according to the NBN Co. business case, the writers have assumed as part of their modelling that 100 per cent of greenfields sites within the fibre footprint will be serviced by NBN Co. It is my understanding that already there are other companies developing greenfields sites, so the 100 per cent is clearly shot. How does this affect NBN Co. modelling if it does not get all greenfields sites? Will this affect the seven per cent return on investment? The government is the guarantor of a huge equity injection into NBN Co. But the government expects this money back. It is not a subsidy; it is not a grant; it is a commercial investment needing a commercial return—so we are told. As we know, that means everyone in the city is going to have to pay more than they could have for the NBN in order for country consumers to pay the same price. So the cross-subsidy is actually coming out of consumers' pockets, rather than subsidies provided by the government.

There is a huge amount of pressure on that seven per cent figure that I have mentioned. Given the issues of take-up, wireless competition, greenfields developments, wage break-outs and infrastructure cost blow-outs, the government faces significant pressure to deliver on its NBN promises. But does the government have a contingency plan if the NBN cannot make a return on its capital? Removing the moral hazard inherent in bailing out a government backed enterprise, would the government allow the NBN to fail? If the government had to raise more money, would this come from consolidated Treasury revenue? If NBN Co. were to fail, would the government look at selling it back to Telstra? Do you think Telstra expects NBN Co. to fail?

The coalition is asking these pertinent questions but answers from Conroy and Gillard that refrain from focus grouped hyperbole—or, for the benefit of the Prime Minister, 'hyper bowl'—are few and far between. Private enterprise is always better than government at running a business. Even from afar we can see that Telstra is running a game plan whereby the final outcome of its $11 billion deal with the government will be to buy NBN Co. from the government. This will of course include the buyback of its infrastructure at a reduced cost to supplement its already thriving wireless services. Are the government and Senator Conroy happy to be bested by Telstra in the game of business? Is the senator a pawn in Telstra's endgame, a mere naive recalcitrant who is holding a losing hand and does not even realise the game has been won and lost, right now, under his management? The winner, as always, will be the more efficient private sector, the loser being the taxpayer and Senator Conroy. Nobody is suggesting the government does not have a role to play. Government can do a lot of good, but only if it settles for being the handmaiden of the market. There are serious issues, but the waters grow murkier.

I have received information that complaints have been made to Senator Conroy's department regarding breaches of the commercial-in-confidence contracts signed by the companies who entered the NBN Co. greenfield tender process. The companies involved are complaining that NBN Co. had stolen intellectual property provided to the government through its tender process. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you can understand the seriousness of stealing another company's intellectual property. It would, of course, undermine the future business dealings of a state sponsored enterprise like NBN Co. and would reflect poorly on the minister who selected the management team at NBN Co.

Then we come to another costly spin campaign. An outfit is being paid $4,000 a day to develop and implement a comm­unications strategy, which, I understand, is an $800,000 total package. Labor is quick to publish the headline, but we are kept guessing about the story long after the paper has been recycled. I maintain, if the NBN is a good idea, you do not need these types of marketing campaigns, and that is precisely the point. The NBN is a bad idea. We do not need to spend $50 billion plus on fibre to every home whether the occupants need it or not, want it or not, or are prepared to pay for it or not.

The NBN can be replaced by a comparable alternative with better funct­ionality that utilises a mixture of techn­ologies for less than a third of the cost currently put up for the NBN. There are a lot better things to spend this money on, but then this government does have a propensity for wasting money and for bad policy development.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. The bill is designed to push ahead with the National Broadband Network by ensuring new developments include fibre to the premises. We all remember that originally the promise was fibre in the home.

I would like to start by saying that the coalition will be moving amendments to this bill. They are amendments that will increase competition because, as we know, competition is what brings about lower prices. Of course, Labor does not want and has never wanted competition. It wants to build the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history and make it a government monopoly. It is a monopoly that would decrease competition and make broadband unaffordable for the very same people whose taxpayers' dollars built it in the first place—but more about that later.

This bill will ensure that greenfield developments—that is, new housing est­ates—include fibre to the premises. This is good news for those moving into new developments in my region such as developments like Chisholm, which is the old Thornton North, which will have over the next few years a couple of thousand new households. In the future they will need to include infrastructure in those developments for broadband. According to the NBN there are 1.9 million homes that will need to be connected by 2020.

The coalition amendments ensure that the developers behind these new estates have real choice, rather than being dictated to by a government on who they must use. Our amendments will mean that developers can choose a cable operator, such as TransACT or Opticom to name but a few, to install the cable according to industry specifications, rather than having to wait for the NBN to show up and do the job. This not only will mean that cables will be installed quickly and efficiently, but it will keep our cable operators in business and provide jobs and competition. The one thing that this government has missed is that one of the things that drives up housing costs in development projects are holding costs such as delays in getting approvals and delays in getting services. I can already see the delays that will be incurred by this government through singling out a monopolistic oper­ation such as the NBN, which will increase the holding costs before a block of land can be sold and therefore will increase the costs to householders.

The second point I would like to make on behalf of thousands of my constituents and those in Hunter electorates, who have been completely ignored by their Labor members of parliament, is the plight of towns under 1,000 residences that will not be covered by Labor's NBN optical-fibre cable rollout. My electorate has many towns that are under 1,000 residences. I was absolutely disgusted sitting here yesterday listening to the member for Newcastle lie and lie about her party's uncosted broadband plan.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, it was a lie. I will rephrase it to 'use the truth rather loosely'.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The Minister for Human Services.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order and would ask the member to withdraw that unparliamentary language.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will rephrase it that she used the truth rather recklessly. She has actually misled the parliament in that she—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson will resume his seat. The Minister for Human Services.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member is making an allegation that there has been a misleading of parliament, he has to do that using a substantive motion rather than include it in the debate as he has.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the truth is always defensible, but untruths are not. The untruths are the uncosted broadband plan. Half a dozen times in her speech she used the phrases 'every household' and 'all Australians'. But, of course, it is not every household that will have access to this high-speed cable broadband internet under the NBN, but it is every household that will actually pay for it. The member for Newcastle stood here yesterday and said:

... the National Broadband Network is a major economic and social reform that will benefit the entire nation.

She then went on to say:

We want to overcome the historical disadvantage of the tyranny of distance, both between us and our major trading partners and between our urban and regional, remote and rural centres.

The National Broadband Network will deliver affordable high-speed access to all Australians, irrespective of where they work or where they live.

That is a complete and utter mistruth. Those people living in towns with fewer than 1,000 residents will not get the NBN cable. In my electorate of Paterson alone that includes over 20 towns and villages—towns like Boat Harbour, Brandy Hill, Clarence Town, Coomba Park, Green Point, Gresford, East Gresford, Hinton, Karuah, Nabiac, North Arm Cove, Pacific Palms, Vacy, Blueys Beach, Paterson, Pindimar, Salt Ash, Seaham, Smiths Lake, Stroud and Wall­along, to name a few. If I went through all the towns in the electorate of the member for Hunter or in the electorates of the member for Lyne and the member for New England, to the north of my electorate, I doubt whether I would have enough time to mention all the towns that would miss out. Yet, there was the Prime Minister at the big switch-on in the electorate of the member for New England. Sure, the major town will get the optic fibre cable, but what of those who live on rural properties and big acreages? The cable will not roll out to their homes. What of those who live in the small villages such as those that I have quoted in my electorate? They are not going to get the optic fibre cable. Guess what, though? They are going to be paying for it. They will pay for it and they will pay dearly.

The Labor Party obviously does not consider that residents in remote, rural and isolated small towns are important. But they are not nameless, faceless residents—at least not to the coalition. They are people like Mr Barton from Smiths Lake, who wrote to me saying that internet services are basically non-existent in his area. The NBN will do nothing for Mr Barton, who is among the seven percent of people who simply do not factor into Labor's plan. Yet the member for Newcastle stood in this House yesterday and proclaimed that the NBN cable would reach beyond regional, rural, remote and urban boundaries. I would have thought that Paterson fitted into that regional and rural category—after all, we are less than two hours drive from Sydney, but apparently not.

Labor's arrogance is to stand here and argue that everyone will benefit from its NBN, but that is just not true. Speaker after speaker has repeatedly said in this House, and would lead you to believe, that the coalition did nothing in 10 years to deliver high-speed broadband. When we were in government in 1997, there was no high-speed broadband; there was dial-up. In 1998, it was the same. It was only as we got closer to 2000 that ADSL first came on the scene, and it was only in later years that ADSL2 came on the scene. I remember the campaign in 2007 very well because the member for Newcastle, taking in Thornton, that new area of her electorate where pair gain is an issue, campaigned very highly and hard and said, 'I will deliver high-speed broadband.' It is now four years on and not a single sod has been turned and there has been no improvement for those people. All of those constituents are struggling to access quality broadband under this Labor plan and they always will, simply because Labor does not care about the seven per cent that the NBN ignores.

If the NBN does get delivered at all, that seven per cent will still miss out. We have already been told that the NBN will take eight years to roll out if it is managed properly. Four years plus eight years is 12 years, so it will be 12 years before the people of Thornton in the electorate of Newcastle—it used to be in my electorate—could possibly receive high-speed broadband. If we rely on those eight years, it is the same government that could not even manage to put insulation safely into people's homes or build school halls without massive rip-offs, and it cannot control our borders. So the faith I have in the government delivering a high-speed broadband network is truly under review.

We are supposed to trust this government to deliver the single largest infrastructure project in Australia's history. The coalition did have a plan to deliver quality broadband through the wireless internet service. The OPEL plan would have seen a Comm­onwealth investment of $958 million, not $55 billion, to deliver metropolitan-equivalent broadband services to more than half a million premises. Paterson residents and premises would have been amongst those who would have had a direct benefit through the coalition's plan to deliver 25 new WiMAX base stations and eight telephone exchanges upgraded to ADSL2 broadband. So here we are, four years on, and if the government had not interfered in mid-2009 the OPEL plan would have been completed. Most people in Thornton, in the electorate of the member for Newcastle, who are still on basic dial-up would have had high-speed wireless internet. But, no, here we are, four years later with a $55 billion bill mounting and still nothing has been delivered to that area.

The coalition believes that a mix of cable and wireless is the best way to deliver quality affordable broadband to everyone. Had Labor adopted our plan, residents like Mr Barton of Smiths Lake would already be enjoying reliable internet. Instead, it is four years on and still nothing has been done. Worse still, Labor has taken absolutely no action to deliver alternative services to those seven per cent of people who will never be serviced by fibre to the premises under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government NBN plan.

There is nothing stopping Labor from taking action now, and I urge it to do so. There is nothing to stop the Labor government from immediately rolling out wireless to those areas which will not receive the cable network. There are no trenches to dig. In fact, as I understand it, the wireless network will be installed on existing towers and those people could have service relatively immediately, not in eight years time.

The third major problem with Labor's NBN plan is the cost. As my honourable colleague Mr Turnbull has already pointed out, the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that those currently having the most difficulty accessing broadband are in households earning less than $40,000 a year. The biggest barrier is cost. So it is a ridiculous notion that Labor wants to build the largest infrastructure project in our nation's history, because it will be completely funded by the taxpayer and create a monopoly that will decrease to competition and make broadband even more unaffordable. Further, because Labor refuses to release a cost-benefit analysis of its $43 billion plan which is blowing out to $55 billion, we simply do not know whether enough people will take up the NBN to make it viable. This is despite Labor's promise pre-election that it would undertake such an analysis of all major infrastructure projects. Without one, this project is only risky—it is downright reckless actually. Of course, this is just another example of this Labor government being totally untrustworthy in managing our economy, our budgets and our projects.

The Prime Minister stood before the Australian public less than one week before the August 2010 election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That fits into the same regime as the promises by the member for Newcastle prior to the 2007 election to give people in Thornton in particular high-speed broadband. One election has gone by. It is now four years on and those people are still on dial-up.

This amendment needs to be supported because competition will deliver lower prices. It needs to be supported because competition and the use of individual contractors will reduce the holding costs by developers in putting estates into market. They cannot afford the hold-up that will occur with a monopolistic structure in having services delivered to their sites. If this government were serious about affordable housing and delivering services, it would adopt our amendment and open up competition for the delivery of the cable installation program as part of this hideous NBN project.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The new division in our society is actually between information rich and information poor. Historically, it has been between those who are more wealthy and those who are less wealthy, but in 2011 nobody argues the need for people right around the country, regardless of their socioeconomic position, to be able to communicate and to access the modern technologies which are now available. This is why I am very pleased to speak tonight on the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. I refer to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network entitled An Advisory Report on the Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011and in particular to the dissenting report lodged by members of the opposition. I commend the contents of that report to all honourable members as being a very reasoned and sound response to a challenging problem confronting our community.

The rollout of the National Broadband Network should include the connection to the network of some 1.9 million greenfield sites by the year 2020. It is pretty clear that this is the obvious time to conduct installation works to sites as they are devel­oped, as it is cost effective and the works are not restricted by pre-existing infrastructure. It is clearly the sensible thing to do and no reasonable person would oppose this appro­ach.

The cost of installing fibre optic cabling during development provides the best opportunity to install the latest technology from the word go at a reasonable cost. Admittedly, it is technology that is a little more costly initially than the traditional copper based technology, but there is consensus that in the longer term it will deliver an improved service and so most people would agree that the initial outlay is worth it. The extra costs upfront are outweighed by the additional and improved capacities of fibre over its lifetime.

This reality, however, does not diminish the Liberal National Party's continued firm belief that the NBN is a shonky government policy and is an initiative that is overpriced, provides an unacceptable burden to the Australian taxpayer and will create a communications monopoly that disadv­antages rival commercial internet operators. I think that in 2011 we have moved beyond the situation where we had a monopoly of telecommunications, originally in the hands of the Postmaster-General's Department, then Telecom Australia and then Telstra. Happily, in more recent times, competition has brought in a range of other providers and that has benefited the Australian taxpayer. I am sure that most members, regardless of their political allegiance, would agree that competition is a good thing and that no-one would want to go back to the bad old days.

In fact, I was talking to someone who mentioned to me that years ago when the PMG was going to install a telephone the linesman would not put the connection close to the floor because some outdated union regulation said that 30 years down the track the then 20-year-old linesman might develop a back problem. So they had these hideous connections highly visible. With improved commercialisation, initially of Telecom Australia and then Telstra and then compe­tition, those bad situations no longer occur. But I do believe that what is proposed in this bill could well bring about a return to a communications monopoly or near mono­poly that will disadvantage rival commercial internet operators. While that of itself is undesirable, what is even more undesirable is that a lack of competition will mean that in the long term the Australian taxpayer will pay more.

This bill will enforce developers to install fibre optic at new developments at greenfield sites and recognises the value and benefits of fibre optic technology. The provisions include that, in those developments where fixed lines are installed, the lines must be optical fibre lines. When fixed line facilities are installed in a development, those facilities must be fibre ready. To sell or lease land or buildings in new facilities unless fibre optic facilities have already been installed will be prohibited. Obviously, while civil penalties may apply to the corporation that sells the land or building without fibre optics, the sale would still stand. Carriers are able to access fixed line facilities that are owned by noncarriers to ensure that fibre can be rolled out using these existing facilities. This access would be at commercially negotiated rates.

The bill exempts businesses from these provisions in cases where contracts for land sales or leases have been signed before the bill comes into effect. That is a sensible provision because in 2011 no-one supports retrospectivity. I think it is vital to recognise that, when the law of Australia says a certain thing on a certain day and people act on the basis of that law as it then exists, it is inappropriate to change the law as at a certain date but backdate the operation of that law to make illegal an action which was within the law when it was taken. I think that makes a lot of common sense and most people in the country would agree.

Many of the provisions in the bill will in the long term result in a multitude of fibre-ready commercial facilities around Australia. That is good in principle for business. It is good to enable our businesses to compete and it is important to recognise that the world is a marketplace today, that we are not a closed society and that the proper ability to communicate on the part of businesses will assist them to compete in the world community. With those facilities—that is, the multitude of fibre-ready commercial facilities—will come the convenience of faster internet services that, quite naturally, will boost efficiencies and ultimately business success and profitability.

In case you think that I have unadulterated admiration for this particular bill, it is important to recognise that while it does have some positives it also has some negatives. The honourable member for Wentworth and other members of the Liberal-National Party opposition have made it very clear what those defects are. The provisions will mean additional initial cost for business and the entire NBN situation is messy and potentially damaging for some carriers involved in fibre-optic installation.

It is understood that the NBN will roll out its optical fibre at no charge to the end user, with costs to be recouped over time through service provision. While this is an ideal situation for the NBN, it places at great disadvantage those other commercial installers and operators who are not in the same position to forgo costs at the time of installation due to their understandable need for regular income to sustain their businesses. The financial position of the NBN, obviously backed by the government, to be able to install its hardware at no initial cost to the client is a condition that competitors, who must instead negotiate installation costs with the developers, would find impossible.

Currently, the greenfields fibre-optic market is very competitive, with some 400,000 of the 909,000 cable and fibre installations in Australia having been installed by smaller operators, yet the government argues that the NBN will help to end the dominance of Telstra, which has something like 82 per cent of the fixed phone line market in Australia and some 65 per cent of copper digital lines. However, the ability of the NBN to provide installations at no upfront cost will not only have an impact on Telstra but will also impact upon those smaller operators, which have so far conducted some 44 per cent of installations. There is a very high likelihood that the NBN will become the dominant force with a solid monopoly in the fibre-optic sector, effect­ively replacing a commercially competitive market with one dominated by a government funded and government controlled oper­ator—in other words, going back to the situation that existed before, where there was something approaching a monopoly in telecommunications. Ultimately, a monopoly will mean higher costs and lower services. This of course will be to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer.

To be fair to the government, it does claim that there will be room, or there should be room, for competing providers. These concerns are addressed in amendments being proposed by the Liberal-National Party opposition. These amendments propose that the NBN pay installation costs where a compliant fibre network is installed in a fibre-ready facility. In other cases, the amendments propose that the NBN purchase the completed infrastructure to ensure the installers get a return for their efforts and are not disadvantaged by their need for a prompt return for their efforts.

The bill also supports the rollout of the National Broadband Network and other superfast telecommunications networks in all new developments, broadacre estates, urban infill and urban renewal projects. In supporting the bill with the amendments moved by the opposition, I reiterate that it is really important that Australia should have a world-class ability to communicate. We should have fast internet and the opposition is not arguing with the government's proposal that there should be faster internet. However, I think this bill, while it does contain positives, also contains some defects and it would be enormously improved were the government to accept the proposals being put forward by the honourable member for Wentworth. I therefore indicate my general support for the bill and its aims but also my very strong support for the amendments being moved by the honourable member for Wentworth and supported so strongly by members of the Liberal-National Party opposition.

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

Let's take a step back to 2007, when Labor promised it could deliver fibre to the node for $4.7 billion. That is a long way from its revised fibre-to-the-premises proposal of $43 billion—one of the most expensive solutions in the world, especially as the government has promised this solution will go to 93 per cent of the Australian population, notwithstanding the fact that South Korea, one of the most technologically advanced communications providers, sees fibre to the node followed by copper as an acceptable model for massive multi-unit accommodation high rises. It also uses a variety of other solutions to cover the country with high-speed broadband, includ­ing HFC, which we are going to sideline by the purchase of an $800 million payment to Optus. In other words, the old pay TV cabling will not be able to be part of the solution. We will effectively buy Optus's customers under this bill. We will give them to NBN Co., and it will then buy the services back from Telstra or Optus, presumably—a funny, roundabout way to do things, is it not?

Now we find that the NBN solution, on the government's own figures, will cost about $36 billion, not allowing for recent changes and the buyout of Telstra and Optus. Then we need to take into account that with the rollout in Tasmania—and we have been to Tasmania to see this—costs have blown out to as much as $7,500 per connection. Worse still, 14 leading Australian based companies were accused by NBN Co. of gouging when their responses to tenders indicated that the mainland rollout was likely to be massively—note the word 'massively'—over budget. It is understood, though not admitted by NBN Co., that the project is already behind in time, so there is every possibility that the eight-year rollout target or the oft stated 2020 completion date will not be met.

That is the background against which we move to the next phase of the NBN saga: the deployment to greenfield sites. So we hardly start from a position of confidence, high performance or rigour on the part of the government when we consider this bill. Let me interpose by saying that there is a twofold crisis developing in the housing market: first, the burgeoning cost of the family home, and second, availability. Both these factors are impacted by the cost and efficiency of connecting services to greenfield estates. Later I will show how we might improve this situation in the field of communications.

The House will be aware that a compre­hensive Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network has been formed. The committee has been asked to report on the bill before us. In fact, it tabled its report yesterday. Coalition members delivered a dissenting report. Central to this dissenting report are two suggested amendments focused on the efficient, timely and cost-effective rollout of fibre connections to greenfield sites. It is also planned that the abilities of small and proven greenfield operators will be utilised.

The first amendment allows for a developer, having provided the pits and pipes, to choose to have a private fibre installer connect his estate, provided that the installer meets the stipulated industry standards—not necessarily NBN standards but the industry standards. We make that proviso in line with earlier reforms whereby it was necessary not to have Telstra judging Telstra. It would then be required that the developer be reimbursed by NBN Co. This cost, in turn, would be set by the minister, based on a per-residence tariff set against market experience, special costs of construction and any special costs to NBN Co.

What will this do? For a start, it will not act against the objectives of the NBN. Best of all, it will ensure the expeditious conn­ection of estates without developers having to wait for NBN Co. and its preferred contractor, Fujitsu. It will ensure that NBN Co, wittingly or unwittingly or through the pressure of backlog, will not hold up services to estates going on the market. That is very important. It is very important that a full range of services are provided. The whole thing falls down if the fibre is not connected at the time all the other services are in place.

The second amendment will allow private-sector greenfield cable operators to operate a network they have installed as a small boutique network. By exempting these operators from cherry-picking provisions, a range of options would be open to developers. It would work on the basis that the greenfield operator would build, own and operate the network until such time as it was sold to NBN Co. Given the huge eight- to 10-year task ahead of NBN Co., it is highly unlikely that the company would be tempted to overbuild such a small network.

Returning to the theme of housing and development costs and taking my own area as an example, developers in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay struggle with the imposts of state government and council costs. Council, I might add, has been put under extra pressure by the withdrawal of local government subsidies and the interference of government departments with unrealistic expectations. An expression of this was the withdrawal of the 40 per cent subsidy for water and sewerage—a cost that is now reflected in increased rates and costs of developed land. In other states it is even worse. It is said that a $500,000 home in New South Wales has $150,000 of government charges of one sort or another embedded in it. With this as a backdrop, every effort should be made to ameliorate the costs that go to make up a fully serviced block of land—the share of head works, curbing, channelling, roadworks, water, sewerage, gas, electricity park charges and so on but, most importantly, comm­unications.

Let me say at this juncture that the coalition shares the concern for a modern, timely, cost-reflective high-speed broadband service. We have never argued against that. In fact, the OPEL scheme proposed by us in 2007, had it been adopted, would have covered 93 per cent of Australia with ADSL 2+ and wireless broadband. It would have been rolled out by now, right across Australia. That means that now, not in eight to 10 years time, and at a fraction of the cost, Australians would have had up to 10 or 12 megabits of broadband coverage.

If a plan developed by Senator Nash, Senator Joyce, me and the Page institute had been adopted, a more elaborate scheme with a strong country and regional focus, costing around $6 billion, could have been consid­ered. So even if you took the two of those together—Opel, which was $1 billion from the government and $1 billion from the company and, say, $6 or $7 billion from the National Party proposal—you would be looking at about $8 or $9 billion. That is a far cry from $36 billion, and we now predict the figure could blow out to as much as $50 billion.

Having said all this, we accept that if you are rolling out fibre to 93 per cent of the country it makes sense to commit to fibre to the premises on new estates where you might not otherwise do so—if, for example, you followed the South Korean option. Though it might be a little dearer than other options, the incremental cost of fibre to the premises is worth while, especially if it is efficiently installed at the same time that water, gas and electrical services are being connected. What bewilders me somewhat is why the government has stepped aside from its long-promulgated competition model, as outlined by Minister Conroy as late as 9 December last year:

It has been a consistent feature of the Government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case. … Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments, for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.

The government now say, however, that, yes, you can use any installer, but at the developer's cost. If the developer wants NBN Co. to do the work, and ultimately its downstream subcontractor Fujitsu, there will be no cost. So you can see what is going to happen. Obviously people will run to NBN Co. and this will create a monopoly, as most developers are not going to pay for a service that is available free of charge, albeit that they might have to wait some time to get it. In extreme cases this waiting time could jeopardise the ready availability of land for sale and development. In a worst-case scenario, with NBN Co. exercising a cost advantaged monopoly, one could envisage a huge bottleneck, with home sites being held up for months on end to the detriment of developers, builders and homeowners alike. So we welcome the deployment of broadband fibre to new developments but we deplore the removal of effective competition from the scenario. It is somewhat akin to a return to the bureaucratic days of Telecom and the PMG, where you had to wait an eternity to have services connected. Hardly the hallmark of a progressive government!

The Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network heard evidence from Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia. It has in its membership seven fibre installers: OPENetworks, Service Elements, TransACT, Comverge, Broadcast Engin­eering and Pivit. GFOA companies have been in competition with each other as well as Telstra Velocity, OptiComm, VicUrban, Broadband Multinet and still others for more than 10 years. They are not Johnny-come-latelys to the field. They are experts in high-speed internet, data, voice, free-to-air TV, pay TV, CCTV security, power, water, traffic and other utility management services. They connect or pass 400,000 homes and businesses and have another 350,000 premises to connect in greenfield estates already committed to their networks or under other deployment contracts. With a resource like that that could create competition and that has the runs on the board, why would you so alter the NBN modus operandi to exclude them from the scenario? What possible good sense does that make?

Having said that, the coalition have concerns about the cost of the scheme and about competition. We accept that we need high-speed broadband, but we call on the government, through these two amendments, to bring other operators into the field to create a spirit of competition and, without damaging the NBN scenario, to make the system much more efficient.

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

I thank all members who have participated in this debate on the Tele­communications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill. A great deal of the opposition's comments have focused on its opposition to the NBN as a matter of policy, not on the substance of the bill before us. In the interests of time I will focus on the bill before us.

The government does not agree that, in the absence of public sector investment, Australia will have the infrastructure that we need to compete in the 21st century. This is demonstrated by the private sector's failure to provide this infrastructure, even with the offer of government funding under the original NBN request for tender process. As other government speakers have detailed, many problems with broadband access relate to the copper network, which is inadequate and failing, wireless that is inadequate to the demands being placed on it and fibre provision that is extremely limited and patchy. The opposition have made much of the government's statement that it is committed to competition in the provision of new infrastructure. However, they fail to note that the government has also consistently said: 'If alternative providers want to compete with NBN Co., they are welcome to do so, but it is on the understanding that they have the resources and ability to do so.' Much has also been made of the existence of the competing fibre industry. There are a number of alternative providers, around 10 of them. They have some technical expertise and experience. But I think the word used repeatedly in the opposition's dissenting committee report on this issue is very telling. It is a 'nascent' sector—that is, it is in its earliest stages. They are very small-scale operations; they have typically serviced developments that have been the most commercially advantageous—they have been able to pick and choose which they service. By their admission in evidence to the Joint Com­mittee on the NBN they are not well placed to service Australia as a whole. Around 200,000 new premises are constructed each year. These providers do not have the scale to deal with this; it needs a national operation. Even if they could, they would require extensive subsidies both for fibre and for backhaul. The reality is they want to cherry-pick the lucrative markets while leaving NBN Co. to do the hard ones and provide national coverage.

The government has established NBN Co. to provide improved broadband for all Australians, with uniform national wholesale pricing. This includes in new developments. NBN Co. can spread its costs nationally and recover them over time. If other providers wish to compete with it, they are free to do so, but it is up to them to do so on their own terms.

The bill before us provides a framework for the installation of fibre-ready teleco­mmunications infrastructure in new develop­ments. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that new developments are ready for fibre based technology. It is part of the government's strategy to build a superfast broadband network that will underpin our future productivity and competitiveness and meet the needs of our nation. If fibre-ready infrastructure is not installed in new developments it will have to be fitted later. This will cost more for every house and business than doing it upfront. Retrofitting would also be disruptive. It is simply more sensible to install the fibre-ready ducting in the trench that is already open. Fibre can then be installed when the house is occupied or pulled through later.

Having said that, this bill is a safety net. Most developers are already installing fibre-ready infrastructure and we expect that most will continue to do the sensible thing. This is sensible preparation for fibre and appears to be generally accepted. It is accepted by the Joint Committee on the NBN, which has recommended that the bill be passed. Many fallacies have been put forward as to what the bill covers. Let's be clear: the bill will require developers that are constitutional corporations to install fibre-ready passive infrastructure like pit and pipe. It does this by imposing a penalty on corporations which sell or lease land or buildings in new developments without such infrastructure. This is not unique. Developers have long contributed to the cost of a range of infrastructure.

The bill also supports the rollout by creating an access regime covering non-carrier-owned pit and pipe and by making it easier for ACMA to make standards for customer premises equipment and in-house cabling. It allows the minister for commu­nications to specify conditions for fibre-ready infrastructure, though it is the government's preference that industry make a code or standard. This power is in the bill as a safeguard in case there is delay in making such industry specifications.

Much of the debate has been about things that are not in the bill. The bill is intentionally narrow in its scope. It supports a rollout of fibre. Contrary to the assertions of those opposite, the bill is not about conferring special privileges on NBN Co. or preventing other providers from providing service. The bill is about ensuring necessary passive infrastructure used by all fibre providers is available. The bill does not impose NBN Co.'s standards on others. The government has stated consistently that it expects that the industry will make a code. The bill does include a fallback provision for the minister to specify features of fibre-ready infrastructure if necessary to be used if no industry code or standard is available. Any such instrument would be subject to consultation and to disallowance by the parliament.

Some concerns have been raised about what will happen in smaller developments pending the rollout of fibre. Contrary to opposition assertions, it will not be a case of a developer putting in fibre-ready pit and pipe, and it being left empty pending NBN Co.'s arrival. Developers will be able to go to the fibre provider of their choice or Telstra will install copper pending NBN Co.'s arrival. NBN Co. will also be able to provide fibre in these developments if it is practicable for it do so. This is a simple transitional reality. The default solution in Australia has been the provision of copper infrastructure in new developments. We are now moving to a world in which fibre will be the default solution. This is a major change. It cannot be done all at once, and a transitional approach is needed. The most cost-effective approach is to continue to provide copper in smaller developments pending the rollout of fibre. The approach proposed by the government ensures everyone has access to quality telecom­munications, although some developments will necessarily receive fibre before others. The thresholds that have been put in for the provision of fibre reflect a reasonable break point at this time but they do not preclude any developer having fibre installed anywhere.

The opposition has proposed a number of amendments to the bill which seem aimed at three objectives. First, the amendments would require NBN Co. to operate a scheme under which it would be forced to fund fibre infrastructure that developers choose to have installed, subject to it meeting industry standards and cost controls. Second, they would seek to narrow the minister's ability to specify conditions for pit and pipe and other infrastructure. Third, the amendments would enable small carriers in new developments to operate a vertically integrated business model. It is far from clear that the amendments as circulated would achieve their stated purpose. More substantively, the amendments go well beyond the scope of the bill and seek to raise much wider, more fundamental issues. The opposition has again chosen to turn a non-controversial bill that simply seeks to ensure fibre-ready passive infrastructure is installed, a practical objective on which everyone who has spoken on the bill agrees, into an ideological debate over the NBN. This should not be the case. The government consider the amendments to be unnecessary and ill considered and therefore we will be opposing these amendments.

In summary, this bill will support the rollout of the fibre based network by requiring that fibre ready infrastructure be installed in new developments. This means that carriers, including NBN Co., and households will be spared the expense and the disruption of retrofitting. It means that households and businesses will be ready for the fibre based communications of the future, with all this means for higher productivity, more efficiently delivered government services and a better quality of life. This is the bill's simple objective and one that everyone seems to agree is common sense. We know that the National Broadband Network during the past month, through its agreements achieved with Telstra and with Optus, has achieved significant advances. This bill should be supported on the basis that its objectives are clear and that everyone agrees that it is common sense. We should not confuse this issue with unproductive detours into much broader issues. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.