Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I find myself speaking on the mobile phone black spot issue, this time on behalf of the community of St Andrews—just near your electorate, Mr Speaker. Through the Mobile Black Spot Program, my electorate of McEwen—which covers 4,592 square kilometres, is a recognised growth area in the north of Melbourne, is prone to natural disasters and submitted over 30 black spot locations for consideration by the program—received funding for two towers in the recent announcement made by this government. To put this in context, of the 500 mobile towers announced in the July 2015 release, 417 went to Liberal and National held seats. Only 81 towers went to other electorates—including 30 in lndi, seven in Fairfax and 18 in Kennedy. And a paltry two towers were allocated to McEwen, an area that has experienced some of the worst disasters of modern times.

When this outcome was realised, we asked questions. We asked how one of the most bush-fire prone areas of Australia, that met and went beyond each and every single criterion set by the government, received such a paltry outcome? The answer we have received is that the decision was essentially a commercial one made within the rules laid down by this government. Decisions on locations were driven by economic consideration rather than operational effectiveness. Were there existing towers in the area that could be upgraded? Or, would new ones need to be built which would increase the cost? Pragmatism ultimately prevailed—for the benefit of the shareholders, not for the benefit of communities. The focus has been on picking the low-hanging fruit—that is, where existing towers could be recommissioned or upgraded. I do not blame the telcos for playing by the rules set out by the government for this program. I do blame the government, and the Prime Minister when he was Minister for Communications, for establishing a program that puts dollars before lives. I have been saying for a long time now: this program is broken and the Prime Minister must now recognise that and fix it.

This is the case for the community of St Andrews, one of the two locations selected in my black spot, natural disaster prone electorate. The town of St Andrews has existing coverage. It lies in a gully surrounded by hills that are about 190m above sea level. The outlying areas around those hills are black spots. Under the Turnbull Black Spot Program it was decided to recommission an existing tower—which has not been in use for years!—that is located inside the gully to provide a service to a town that already has coverage. The locals reckon the tower has been there, switched off and doing nothing, for more than 20 years. Looking at the tower's licensing history, they are pretty close to the money on that. The key point is that recommissioning this tower will not extend coverage far enough to include the black spot areas, and that is what the locals need.

At a community meeting last week, St Andrews locals told Telstra they wanted coverage extended to the black spot areas. These were the areas of greatest risk and threat to life. They were satisfied with the existing coverage in the town. Locals explained the community's needs and made a reasonable request—to please address the real black spot problem. The local residents asked the right question—is this the best location for the tower to address the black spots on the outskirts of the town? What we have here is a failure to communicate. Instead of addressing the community's concerns, we are told that the recommissioning of an existing tower will go ahead. This is despite the fact that local residents, with local knowledge, explained that the service would not reach where it was needed most because of the terrain. This was despite mapping evidence showing that the residents are right.

What does this inflexibility achieve? It is all about acquitting the program implementation plan, regardless of the real outcome? Big tick, save money, so-called black spot problem solved. Only it isn't. I am left scratching my head because there is no logic here. Does recommissioning this particular tower give the government and the community it is supposed to serve the biggest bang for its buck? The Turnbull government should have shown more rigour in the approval process and tested the communications companies' claims to make sure the proposals were the solutions the community where seeking.

St Andrews and other black spot areas of McEwen were not talking about the need for additional towers to cope with seasonal demand, like ski-field selfies. The black spots are not going to go away by themselves. The solution to this problem requires real dedication and commitment. It is only when we have a real conversation, when all parties are able to identify the problem, offer alternatives and agree on a solution, that any progress is going to be made. The approach taken in St Andrews to stubbornly recommission a defunct tower, which had obviously been switched off for a reason, is not a good outcome. I stand with the St Andrews community and call on the government to declare this consultation process over. I call on the government to show some rigour and start a new consultation process with the community—one without a predetermined outcome. We need towers in locations that will actually do something.