Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. Fundamentally, what this bill points to is the government's failure to provide digital equality of opportunity. We often hear those opposite talking about the previous Rudd and Gillard governments, but they do not talk much about the Howard government. Eleven years in power, a critical time for telecommunications and internet infrastructure, and what was done?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think they had eight plans over 11 years, and no action. We all know that in 2007—I know the member for Kingston can remember campaigning in 2007 about the internet—the Liberal Party's failure on this policy was writ large and was there for all to see. We were just at the beginning of people's need for high-speed internet. That need, as we know, has only grown over that time.

Let us remember where we began before the National Broadband Network came to be and before this debate came to be. We had dealt with 11 years of inaction in a vital area of microeconomic reform and a vital area of the growing and emerging economy. For all the now Prime Minister's talk about and agility and innovation, his party shows none of that. Their history on this is appalling. When we got to government there was basically a sclerotic system based largely around Telstra, but Telstra did not have the incentive to invest in high-speed internet in places like Craigmore or Andrews Farm or anywhere else. We had a situation where in fact there were significant disincentives for them to invest and upgrade their facilities.

I can remember having a discussion with Telstra in which they basically told me they were not going to upgrade the exchange in Craigmore, a growing suburb, because there was no money in it for them—they would put in all the infrastructure, and pay for that, and then other carriers would monopolise their market. So during the Howard era we had significant disincentives for investment in internet infrastructure, in the then sclerotic copper network.

When Labor came to government we had a bold and agile policy of innovation when we said we were going to have 'fibre to the preference'.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flexibility!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member opposite cry out 'flexibility'. We said we were going to have 'fibre to the premise'. That took a lot of planning and a lot of action. We put in place the great fibre network, the backbone.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

As the member for Kingston says, removing Telstra as the arbiter of the copper network and forming the National Broadband Network was probably the most significant bit of microeconomic reform we have seen. So Labor put in place all the architecture that we are now debating.

As we know, when those opposite came to power—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I hear my friend 'the colt from Kooyong'. We know about his leadership ambitions.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

You might be the next Prime Minister, Josh. You might be the next Liberal Prime Minister. Hope springs eternal for the colt from Kooyong. We know of the great ambitions of the branch members and indeed his own expectations for himself.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Bradfield?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Bradfield is a candidate for high office in a government led by the colt from Kooyong. He could be Treasurer and we could have a dynamic duo at the table. Perhaps that is the future of the Liberal Party in the next term. The current Prime Minister will not be leading them, that is for sure. After events this week, we know that this government is hopelessly divided. I remind those opposite that they have had two prime ministers, two treasurers and three defence ministers. There is a revolving door on your National Security Committee of Cabinet. It is like a hurdy-gurdy, a merry-go-round, in that place. The poor old Defence officials would not know who they are talking about. How many ministers of communication have we had during that time?

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Are you the minister for communications? I can never recall.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He could easily be.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He could easily be. I think he played some role in that. But I digress. We hear those opposite. They buy into this stuff, when they are hopelessly divided. Those in the gallery would recall that, when the member for Warringah was opposition leader, he basically gave the member for Wentworth a hospital handpass when he gave him the communications portfolio. He sent him out there with the explicit aim of destroying the NBN. That was the mission statement! We have here a program of great national significance, as great as the Snowy Mountains scheme. Imagine if Menzies had done that to Chifley's legacy. Imagine if he had sent out a member of the executive to destroy the Snowy Mountains scheme. Where would the nation's electricity infrastructure be today if we had had an opposition of such mindless destruction back then?

In his mind's eye, the member for Warringah remembered all those days at the University of Sydney and the great rivalry that existed even then between these great men of great ambition—for those listening, I say that facetiously. He had in his mind's eye that the future rivalry would play out in a coalition government. What he did was fit the member for Wentworth up with something that the Australian people would feel did not fit the national interest—that is, destroying the National Broadband Network.

Under the Howard government, people waited 11 years for any action at all. There were eight plans in 11 years. There was an extraordinary amount of talk and malarkey. Last night we had the 20th anniversary of the election of the Howard government and everyone was falling at John Howard's feet. That happens to prime ministers. After about 20 years people start to forget all the bad things. They forgot the inaction on broadband, which cost this nation dearly.

So with a hospital handpass the member for Warringah sent the member for Wentworth out to destroy the NBN. Of course, that was at great cost to the nation and to people in Gawler, Craigmore or anywhere else in the rural areas of my electorate who desperately want broadband so that their kids can get educated, so that they can run small businesses and so that they can avail themselves of the new technology of streaming television. That sounds unimportant but imagine if we had a government that set out to not have television. That is the equivalent these days—to not have the great communication devices. It is like being against the telegraph or any other bit of progress. Imagine if we had governments that were against radio, telegraph and television—against progress in all its forms—and sent ministers out there to destroy the networks.

So what did they do when they got to government? They appointed the Vertigan panel—

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

It is qualified in Liberal Party terms. It is stacked full of people who do not like the NBN. It is stacked full of people who are going to do the government's bidding.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

I have awoken the member for Bradfield from his boredom and slumber. We do not often see much animation from him—apart from question time and just then. If you get him on certain subjects, away he goes—there is life! It is like awakening the mummy. Remember that movie The Mummy? That is what the member for Bradfield is like—talk about the NBN and you awaken the mummy!

These are the broad figures around the record of this great panel and this great minister, the now Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who will not last the test of time. We saw it just this week. There was open warfare between two prime ministers in the party room. It was extraordinary and it was over national security—over the defence white paper. There have been leaks and police inquiries. That is what we are seeing. You can trace it all back to one event. You can go back as far back as the University of Sydney when these two 'great men' were there and this great rivalry began.

So the member for Warringah gives the member for Wentworth the hospital hamper, and what did he come up with? Fibre to the node. Hooray! Well done! It takes us backward. He said it would cost $29.5 billion. That is now up to $56 billion for copper. Is the Copperart store still around? Remember Copperart?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought they had gone out of business.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have gone out of business! Remember Copperart, Deputy Speaker Mitchell? They might have been a South Australian retail store. Everything in there was made out of copper. They could not operate today, because the government is the main buyer of the old copper technology. Anybody who has been down a street in a new suburb and had the most cursory look at a pit will see the little tent up and the Telstra guy busy in there. If you had even the most cursory look at the pit, you saw it was like looking into a cave. It reminds me of the Kapunda mines. I know the member for Kingston has seen them full of water and she is not the only person who has.

This is the brave new technology that the member for Wentworth embarked upon. He said that the copper would arrive this year. Everybody would have copper or HFC this year. That has now doubled to 2020. He said it would cost $600 a home. It has actually cost $1,600 a home, and anybody who had taken the most cursory look at those pits or talked to a former Telstra linesman—who have all been sacked, by the way; there was great knowledge with those old Telstra linesmen. They had great knowledge of the pits and the technical things. All of that was wasted as they were made redundant or sometimes pushed off to contractors.

He said it would cost $55 million to patch up the old copper network. Jeez, there was a heroic assumption! It has only blown out by 1,000 per cent to $640 million, and that is an understatement. Anybody who knows these pits—full of water, sometimes full of asbestos—knows it is a very heroic assumption that it would only cost $55 million. He said 2.61 million homes would be connected to pay-TV cables by 2016. Alas, it is only 10,000. They said it would bring in $2.5 billion in 2016-17, and that is only $1.1 billion, so there is a $1.4 billion hole in nbn co's revenue line.

We hear nothing from the member for Bradfield about that. The mummy has returned to his sarcophagus in the chamber of horrors!

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

He says it is not worth responding to.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I hear the colt from Kooyong. He is busy. You can imagine the colt from Kooyong playing fantasy football, can't you? He is a Carlton man, and I know the Deputy Speaker is as well—

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

You want to watch what you say about Carlton!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously this madness is bipartisan!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're 20 years into our five-year redevelopment!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twenty years into their five-year redevelopment plan—sounds like the NBN! Maybe the Carlton Football Club and the NBN new management should get together and talk about progress! But we know he is playing a sort of fantasy front bench. You can imagine the colt from Kooyong up there late at night, scribbling down who he thinks and maybe even imagining himself in a war cabinet: 'I hope I get a guernsey.' This great man, the colt from Kooyong: perhaps his government—and this is just a suggestion—should spend less time focused on themselves and their own divisions, with two prime ministers, 14 ministers, three defence ministers, how many communication ministers, this revolving door that is all around division. Beneath it all is just ambition—not ambition for the country, for policy or for progress but just ambition for themselves and for the offices they hold. What a distressing thing for the Australian public when they were promised adult government.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be clear what the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015 is all about. This bill is ideologically driven and underscores the key philosophical differences between those who sit opposite and those of us on this side of the House.

While I am a supersub in the debate, I do note that the member for Paterson is an omission from the speakers list. Where is the member for Paterson? Could it be that the member for Paterson has worked out that speaking on this bill in support of the government proposition might be a bad thing for him in his electorate, particularly his new electorate, where he now faces an uphill battle against a resurgent Labor Party in the region and boundaries which give Labor a notional advantage? It is not too late for the member for Paterson to come on down, participate in this debate and explain to his constituents, both present and potentially future, why it is that he is about to ensure that this place abolishes Labor's legislated commitment to universal national wholesale pricing.

We often have debates in this place which have a particular impact on rural and regional Australia. I concede that sometimes there are merits on both sides of those debates. You can argue philosophically, ideologically or in public policy terms which is the approach that will best serve rural and regional Australia, but in this case there could be no debate. This bill undermines the capacity of people living in rural and regional Australia to access the NBN at the same price as those living in our capital cities. We want to ensure that, whether you are living in rural areas like Cessnock, Maitland, Burnie in Tasmania, or Armidale in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister, you will get NBN at the same price as your city counterparts.

This is a basic philosophical question. Someone on the other side will no doubt say that the cap is still there on the wholesale price, but you will be able to work under the cap. This is where we differ. They think it is okay to let the market completely rip and let the market determine what the price impacts will be on consumers. I say something quite different. I say I too believe in the market, but where there is clear market failure government intervention is justified. What is the market failure here? The market failure is distance and geography. We want a country where those living in rural and regional Australia have the same opportunities as their city counterparts, for very many good reasons. Members of the government have to understand that we do not want everyone living in our capital cities. We want to develop populations in rural and regional Australia. To do that you need to be able to provide services in rural and regional Australia.

There is a sound economic proposition here. Cross-subsidising delivery of services in rural and regional Australia is a good thing for all of Australia. There could be no better example than this. The NBN can be a complex debate—I accept that—but people can grasp one thing very easily, and that is, it costs more to roll out a broadband service in the bush than it does in the capital cities purely because of distance. But should people who live in rural and regional Australia be disadvantaged by that? Of course not. They should not be disadvantaged by geography. If that is the approach we are going to take and we are going to accept that as a basic proposition, we will all be living in the capital cities, which of course is impossible. This is good economic policy, it is good population policy, it is good building economic infrastructure policy.

Those in the National Party who sit opposite often attempt to differentiate themselves from the Liberals, and I can understand that. But the fact is that time and again they confirm for us in their actions—not so much their words in this place—that there is nothing between those who sit in this place under the Liberal banner and those who sit in this place under the banner of the Nationals. There can be no better example than their willingness to just roll over and accept this attack on universal wholesale pricing. Every resident in rural and regional Australia today should be making contact with their local member if he or she is a conservative and asking them why they are doing this. Of course, they are already asking an even more important question in some senses, and that is, why is this government delivering a second-rate NBN service?

This is another simple policy proposition that I think people find easy to grasp. I think they do understand the proposition that the now Prime Minister tried to put, and that is, it is cheaper to roll out the fibre just to the node and allow the extra distance to the premise to be delivered by copper wire. I think people understand that. Then it becomes a debate about whether the savings that might be involved there are worth it, given the inferior quality of the NBN service they will receive because they are going across that copper network for the last mile. The problem is that even those who would support the proposition that it is an overbuild, if you like, to go all the way to premise, or the cost is too great to justify it, would be absolutely shocked to learn that it is costing some $600-odd million to repair the copper wires. I must admit I was not aware of that figure until I was preparing for this contribution. I was astounded, and I am sure all Australians will be astounded. Those with investment in copper might be pretty happy about it.

It is just incredible that a government which said it would cost $55 million, I am told, to fix up the copper is going to spend $640 million on a 19th century technology. I cannot believe anyone would be so stupid, to be frank. It is a stupid proposition. We are going to have a second-class service. No-one would argue—not even the Prime Minister—that fibre to the premise is not better; of course they would not. Fibre to the premise is better. Having a bit of copper along the line—it is like a chain; it is only as strong as its weakest link—makes it an inferior service. That is just a scientific fact, a technical fact. What we are really only arguing is whether you spend the additional money to provide the first-class service. Let us be clear: Labor believes in a first-class service. Labor believes that everyone in rural and regional Australia, everyone in Australia, should get a first-class service. We certainly do not believe that spending $640 million to retain a second-class service is a good economic proposition. It clearly is not.

I issue some challenges to the member for Braddon, the member for Bass, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Page, the member for Hume and the member for New England, none other than the Deputy Prime Minister. I often see cabinet ministers these days, as you would have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, coming in here and talking in second reading debates about issues that are outside their portfolio responsibilities. It is not very conventional, but they are doing it on a regular basis. There is nothing to stop the Deputy Prime Minister from coming into this place—I will make sure I do not sit down for another five minutes; I am sure he can sprint from his ministerial office to the chamber in that time—and justifying why they are launching or joining in the launch of this direct attack on rural and regional Australia and why they are supporting the proposition of spending $640 million to repair a 19th century technology as part of their alternative NBN proposition. They need to come in here and explain themselves. I could be wrong, but I think there probably will be an in-detail stage of debate on this bill, so there will be plenty of opportunities for them to come down and explain themselves. Some of them are on the frontbench now and, as I have said, that should not stop them from speaking. They have set the new precedent, and they should be down here speaking on this bill.

Here are some facts. The Prime Minister said his new proposal—here is the member for Paterson now! I welcome the member for Paterson who, I understand, will now make a contribution to this debate. It is interesting that the member for Paterson has been crowing, in his local media, about the NBN rollouts in his local electorate. The fact is since his government took power, the rollout has been slower than it was under the former Labor government and the rollout has been inferior because, no doubt, some of that $640 million the government is spending to repair copper is being spent in the electorate of Paterson. I hope the member for Paterson has done his research. He can tell the House how much of the $640 million on copper has been spent in the Paterson electorate. I suspect it is quite a bit, and I will tell you why. I have had residents in the member for Paterson's electorate call me and say, 'I now have Malcolm Turnbull's version of the NBN and it's slower than ADSL2.' The service that people are receiving in rural and regional Australia under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's plan is slower than they were enjoying under ADSL. I can see Minister Fletcher at the table frowning, and I understand why he is frowning. He cannot believe that! You would not believe that a government could spend some $60 billion on a project that delivers an inferior service to the one that people already had under ADSL. It is unbelievable, Minister. I can understand you frowning.

The member for Paterson has joined us, and I look forward to his attempt, at least, to justify why he is joining with his government on this proposition, and why he has been prepared to just roll over and accept this inferior NBN and this $640 million investment in copper. But I am still waiting for the member for Gippsland to come down. I am still waiting for the member for Riverina. They can all speak on this bill. The members for Page, Eden-Monaro, Bass, Braddon, the list goes on. All those who purport to represent rural and regional Australia—all those Nats who purport to be different from the Liberals; to be different from the member for Paterson—but who go missing in action when they are required to be in this House, defending the people they purport to represent.

But it does not stop on this issue. We have seen, in recent days and in recent months, their unpreparedness, on a whole range of issues, to defend rural and regional Australia. Their infrastructure rollout is hopeless. It is going backwards on what the former Labor government was doing. They like to crow about the inland rail build. They are spending less money than the former Labor government. The reality is there is only one party in this place that stands up for rural and regional Australia on a regular basis, and that is the Australian Labor Party. The member for Paterson; the member for Braddon; all those Tasmanian lower house members, including the member for Bass; and, as I said, the members for Eden-Monaro, Page and others—I hope they have found the member for Page, because they could not find him in the building when we asked, in Senate estimates, for his report on cooperatives to be tabled. They all need to be down here explaining why they are not defending their local residents. People living in rural and regional Australia deserve as good a service as their city cousins, and those members should be in this place, alongside the member for Paterson—at least he has been prepared to front up; I will give him credit for that—defending their local constituents.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to the House for not coming in earlier. I was dealing with a contamination issue in my electorate. It required some urgent attention.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About time you did something!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address that interjection. I speak today on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015. What an absolutely fascinating speech that was from the member for Hunter! Prior to that speech, the contribution to the debate in this parliament by the member for Hunter had only been a fleeting one, across four speeches, with no detail or substance—the man who purports to stand up for his electorate. I would also remind the House that, prior to the 2007 election, the coalition government were putting into plan a system called OPEL, which would have provided high-speed broadband wireless across most of our nation at a cost of less than $1 billion.

One of the first things that the Labor government did, supported by the member for Hunter, was to abolish that. Then they rolled out the NBN broadband, which was, originally, about a $5 billion program, and then it just went up tenfold and more, and delivered nothing. So the question that the member for Hunter should ask himself and actually explain to his constituents is, indeed, particularly through the actions of the former member for Newcastle: given the NBN plan was their design, given they championed it so much, given they went to two elections pushing and promoting, what was the rollout in their electorate? I have to say that it was virtually nothing. In fact, this is the opposition that, when in government, wanted to provide the satellite services and did not even provide sufficient capacity for regional and rural Australians that we hear the member for Hunter standing up and wanting to represent so much. They could not even put enough capacity on the satellite, and it took the coalition government's actions to put into place a second satellite to carry the load.

The other thing I would remind the House about is how the former Labor government would approach the NBN rollout. They put out all these glorious sheets about build commence and what would happen in each area, when the reality was: it was only bit of paper and there was no action. By contrast, the coalition has implemented a policy and a plan that mean, when a build commence date comes, that is when the build commence happens.

I will go through and highlight to the House some areas, and, in particular, areas that are currently in the member for Hunter's seat and will soon come into the seat of Paterson. The fixed line build commencement date of October 2015 affected 7,180 households in Aberglasslyn, Ashtonfield, Bolwarra, Bolwarra Heights, East Maitland, Gillieston Heights, Horseshoe Bend, Largs, Lorn, Louth Park, Maitland, Metford, Mindaribba, Morpeth, Oakhampton, Pitnacree, Raworth, Rutherford, South Maitland, Telarah, Tenambit and Windella. In the second half of 2017 the commitment is to commence the rollout in Abermain, Cliftleigh, Heddon Greta, Kurri Kurri, Neath, Pelaw Main, Stanford Merthyr and Weston. In Newcastle, in the fourth quarter of 2016 the build commence will go through Beresfield, Chisholm, Hexham, Tarro, Thornton, Woodberry, Fern Bay, Fullerton Cove, Kooragang and Stockton.

In my electorate, in the second half of 2017, the build commence will occur in Lemon Tree Passage, Mallabula, Medowie, Salt Ash and Tanilba Bay. In the third quarter of this year, it will go through Ferodale, Heatherbrae, Raymond Terrace and Tomago. And of course in December 2015 the build commence for fixed line happened in Anna Bay, Boat Harbour, Corlette, Fingal Bay, Fishermans Bay, Nelson Bay, One Mile, Salamander Bay, Shoal Bay, Soldiers Point and Taylors Beach. Of course, there have been massive rollouts of the fixed wireless system. In October 2015 areas such as Buchanan, Hexham, Lenaghan, Raymond Terrace, Sawyers Gully and Telarah received that. In the first quarter of 2017 the build commence will occur for the fixed wireless in Anna Bay, Fullerton Bay and Salt Ash.

That is a definite plan. But I can remember being in this House in 2005-06 and raising the issue of Thornton, which was not in my electorate—it was across the road from my electorate—and how they were on pair gain copper and could not get ADSL. The then member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, campaigning in that election, said, 'It's got to be fixed. It's an urgent priority.' Well, guess what. Through the inception of the NBN rollout plan, through six years of Labor government, nothing was done in Thornton—absolutely nothing. The member for Hunter comes in here and complains about it not happening. I would ask him to be accountable for his plan, his six years of inactivity, his six years of failed representation of the people that he seeks to represent.

But then again, we know how he fails to represent people, because he has just taken the easy option. He lost half of his seat of Hunter to the seat of Paterson but, rather than standing up and having a fight in a marginal seat campaign, he wanted the safer option—a safe seat—and he has been locked in by the executive of the Labor Party to the seat of Hunter. He might make words upon the floor of this parliament about his ability to stand up and fight, but when it comes to the street, let me tell you, he put on that yellow coat and ran. He did not want to take me on. He ran away. He has got no guts for a marginal seat fight. He just wanted that safe haven that he has always been used to. He has never had to fight a marginal seat campaign in his life. He has never been committed to delivering anything for his constituents. So don't you come in here and lecture me, Member for Hunter, because at the end of the day you lack the intestinal fortitude, the backbone, to stand up for your constituents and fight the fight.

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

All right. The member for Paterson will get back to the bill. You have had a fair run. Stick to the bill, please.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought you might have reminded the member for Hunter, Deputy Speaker, when he was making his comments, but, be that as it may, I am getting back to the NBN.

A couple of key and critical issues have been reported to me about the NBN. People have come to me and said, 'I'm not getting the increased speed.' Well, a lot of the increased speed comes with cost to the individual. If people want higher bandwidth when they are on the NBN, then the plan that they must subscribe to will come at an increased cost. One of the unfortunate things is that the Labor Party, when in government, led everyone to believe they would have super high-speed broadband at no additional cost to them as an individual. It comes down to the basic plan. If you go onto the NBN and you want to pay the same price as you paid for the speed that you were getting under ADSL then that is the speed that you will get off the NBN optical fibre.

This government has rolled out the NBN across Australia and we are on time and on plan to deliver it across the nation. This was a basket case that we inherited. Labor kept putting out proposals of what they would do and where it would roll out, and, each time there was a plan, there were adjustments: 'We're not delivering. We're not going down that area.' Deputy Speaker, what they were doing was playing with people. I give you proof of this. You only need to look, in our region of the Hunter, at how little was done with the commencement under the Labor government—nothing. In fact, more has been done by private developers who have had to install the optical fibre in new developments than was done by NBN when Labor were in government. More was done by private corporations installing optical fibre as a part of their development rollout, as required by legislation.

So enough of the rhetoric from the member for Hunter, who on, I think, about four occasions prior to today has made a fleeting mention of the NBN. Where was his standing-up, within his own party, to Senator Conroy and for his area, which he claims he so valiantly represented and has now deserted? Where was their NBN rollout? The same could be said for the former member for Newcastle, who used to carry on, up hill and down dale, about Thornton, but there was not one attempt to roll the NBN out through Thornton. I am glad to see that it is now in the current plan, and I am glad to see that the Turnbull government will deliver this NBN rollout as laid out. We are not giving false hopes. These are dates of build commencements when the community will see the trenches, the excavators and the pipe layers in the streets—delivery, real and measurable.

In relation to the optical fibre, anything is better than the pair gain that the people in areas like Thornton suffer. We need to make sure that they have access. Under the Labor Party they might have had their rolled gold system, but at the end of the day at what expense? At what expense to the taxpayer? Remember—and I ask people to go back—when the original NBN plan—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

God, you sound like a raving parrot! Have you ever thought about having any manners?

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

The member for Paterson will withdraw that remark.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask you to draw her to account, Deputy Speaker. I cannot even hear myself think when she is carrying on like that—

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

Do not reflect on the chair. I have asked you to withdraw that remark or I will sit you down. It is your choice. I have asked you to withdraw that remark.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one? That she is parroting.

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

You know exactly what you said.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the fact she is a parrot. It is probably derogatory to parrots.

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

No, you will withdraw unreservedly.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw unreservedly. The reality is, yes, we need improved communication systems. The expectations of community and the availability of programs, software and viewing options are increasing. It will not come about by just putting out bits of paper with what we think we are going to do, as under the former Labor government. It will actually come about with detailed plans and commitments to rollouts. That is what the coalition have done.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to deliver this summing up speech. I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015 sought to enhance the telecommunications access regime and nbn co's line of business restrictions.

The government has amended the bill to include only the measures that are accepted by Labor and the Greens, or to be precise the government will shortly move amendments which will have the effect, if accepted, of amending the bill to include only the measures that are accepted by Labor and the Greens in the dissenting Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report, to ensure that uncontested measures proceed.

There are now, or there will be should those amendments be accepted, four measures remaining in the bill which will take effect should the bill be passed in that form. Firstly, there are changes to the Telecommunications Act and the Competition and Consumer Act to clarify the regulation of facilities access. Secondly, there are changes to the standard access obligations, which will ensure that a service provide who controls or owns in-building cabling must provide access to that cabling as part of providing access to a declared service. This removes scope for restricting access to competitors and ensures end users can get faster access to broadband and telephone services. Thirdly, there are changes to the treatment of fixed principles in access determinations and special access undertakings, which will improve regulatory consistency and provide for more-effective regulation. Fourthly, changes to nbn co's line of business restrictions will ensure that nbn co can dispose of surplus assets to any person, whereas currently under the existing law it can only sell those assets to another carrier or service provider.

Some of the reasons which have been levelled against the measures that have been removed from the bill warrant a response. It is necessary to put on the record why the government considers that those proposed measures were important and worth pursuing. Some have argued that the bill was moving away from the NBN model highlighting proposed changes to non-discrimination obligations, to nbn co's line of business restrictions and to the law governing authorisations for nbn co's conduct. This was an ill-informed argument which did not reflect the reality that the government was proposing to fine tune the framework to provide some additional flexibility. The government sought to make some modest changes to non-discrimination obligations facing nbn co with a view to promoting innovation through pilots or trials.

In its review, the Vertigan panel recognised that that current obligations do not promote innovation. Other measures that the government proposed in the bill sought to improve the consistency of regulatory decision making, and to cement procedural fairness requirements, by clarifying the point at which the ACCC would be required to consult.

The government sought to introduce a regulation-making power that could be used to amend nbn co's line of business restrictions. This proposal responded to experience which has shown that the current restrictions are so sweeping that nbn co is being prevented from operating on an optimal basis. This power, however, could not have been used to allow nbn co to supply content or to supply retail communication services, and the exercise of this power would have taken the form of a disallowable instrument. This would have meant that the parliament would have been able to oversee any regulation made by the minister.

Finally, under the bill as originally put forward, the bill would have amended existing authorisations for the purposes of competition law, which allow nbn co to limit the number of points of interconnection to the national broadband network and require its customers to purchase bundled services.

Some have erroneously sought to conflate the government's change in pricing policy already in place with the proposed change in legislation. The government went to the last election stating that it would remove uniform national pricing and it would require nbn co instead to operate under price caps.

This policy was reaffirmed in 2014 through the government's response to the Vertigan review, so this is nothing new. The measure contained in the bill as put before the House simply sought to continue the existing authorisations—introduced by the former government—without reference to the former government's pricing policy. The object of the government's authorisation provision was to ensure that superfast carriage services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia, wherever they reside or carry on business.

Under this government the NBN rollout is finally back on track. The NBN plans to expand its footprint by 15,000 premises per week, rising to 25,000 per week by the middle of the year. The NBN is on track to meet its target to have 500,000 premises able to order a broadband service via fibre to the node by the end of June.

The facts speak for themselves. NBN has met its rollout and revenue targets for the past six quarters in a row and is on course to meet its financial year 2016 targets, published in the corporate plan. Under the Turnbull government the number of connected households and businesses using the NBN has increased more than tenfold since 2013. One in four premises will have access to the National Broadband Network by the end of this year, and around three-quarters of all premises will be in the footprint by 2018. nbn co reported strong revenues and activations for the half year to 31 December, just a few weeks ago, and it will continue to report quarterly, so the Australian community can judge for themselves.

We said we would make the rollout faster, and it is very clear from the weekly reports published on NBN's website that that is exactly what is happening. For example, the published weekly progress report shows that connections have been tracking above 14,000 per week since the start of February—connections above 14,000 since the start of February. This is in stark contrast to the rollout under Labor when the company managed to connect only 51,000 users to the built network in three years. We have 14,000 per week under the Turnbull government and 51,000 over three years under the previous government. The contrast is very stark indeed. The published corporate plans over the years from 2010 make it plain for all to see that the NBN under Labor was one of the most poorly-managed infrastructure projects in the history of the Commonwealth.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.