Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great pleasure, I make a contribution on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which could be described as an omnibus bill providing what, on the face of it, are a range of administrative and largely sensible amendments to both the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011. In summary, the amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act change the account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements for commercial broadcasters; remove the duplicative requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, of certain changes in control of regulated media assets; and provide a consistent classification arrangement for all television programs, including films. These are all sensible reforms which Labor supports.

I'd like to make a few more comments about the changes to the National Broadband Network Companies Act. The changes in this omnibus bill include a change which allows the NBN Co to dispose of some surplus non-communications goods. Some technical prohibitions in the existing legislation limit NBN Co's capacity to dispose of such assets. It is an unintended consequence of the original legislation. We should support this provision. I say with tongue in cheek that it might help them to dispose of some 16,000 kilometres of copper wire, which at some point in time is going to be obsolete. We don't object to the provision. We support it.

I do say that if we're looking at the priorities that the government should be focusing on, this bill should have also included provisions that are going to enhance consumer protections and consumer rights in the area of telecommunications. Just last week, with the publication of the ASX-listed companies report, we learned that a staggering 83 per cent of small businesses are lacking confidence in the delivery of the government's second-rate NBN. Fifty-four per cent of small businesses believe that they're going to be left behind as the digital economy develops, with technology infrastructure given by those respondents as the key barrier to starting a new business. We have seen consumer complaints hit a record high level, with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reporting that NBN complaints in the 2016-17 report surged by a whopping 159 per cent when compared to the previous period. NBN complaints are growing 37 per cent faster than the number of new premises that are being connected to the NBN. So clearly there's an issue here.

The government has come very, very late to a realisation that there is a deep-seated concern within the community about the quality of service, whether that's at the install, whether it's the service that they are getting or whether it's a problem with their internet service provider. There are deep-seated problems within the community, and the government has been nothing short of sluggish in responding. An announcement was made just before Christmas, after significant pressure from Labor and from communications advocacy groups, that we needed more action on the consumer protections framework. The government's announcement—changing the acronym that applies to the universal service obligation and kicking that can down the road—is, quite frankly, no answer to the problem. The house is burning down. We don't need a committee being formed by government to establish whether we need a fire hydrant or a garden hose. We need action on consumer service protections. We are seeing nothing from the government. That's the first comment I want do make. That's about what the government should be including in any national broadband bill before the House.

The second thing I want do focus on is included in the bill. It goes to the requirements on the NBN or potentially other carriers or internet service providers in new developments. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to repeal the power of the NBN Co to issue a statement that it's not installing fibre in a new real estate development, and to remove the obligation for the NBN Co to maintain the associated public register of these instruments. This is a sensible reform. We don't believe that it's appropriate for the NBN Co to have this quasi-regulatory power in the existing environment. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explains that the provisions are intended to provide a mechanism by which relevant developers—they are constitutional corporations—can seek to be excused from the default obligation to provide fibre-ready facilities, such as pit and pipe, in areas where the NBN Co would be providing services using fixed wire or satellite technology and where the NBN Co could not be using fixed lines. In such circumstances, it was envisaged that the installation of pit and pipe would be unnecessary, as there would be little likelihood that they would be used by the NBN Co.

The ability for the NBN Co to make such statements failed to recognise that other carriers may wish to come in and provide fixed line infrastructure in such areas. I'm mindful of the fact that Telstra has obligations as a universal service provider to provide voice services in those parts of Australia where the NBN is not rolling out a fixed line technology—that is, in the wireless and satellite footprint. Telstra may well want to use pit and pipe to do this. In addition, other competitive providers could be contracted to service developments in such areas—for example, but not exclusively, a mining community. There are many new developments where this is occurring.

While the issuance by NBN Co of a statement under section 372J would not preclude Telstra or a competitive carrier requiring pit and pipe as a contractual matter, it could lead a developer to believe—and I am going to have something more to say about this—that it had been exempted by virtue of NBN Co's statement. It could lead to confusion on the ground for the developer and the carriers and has the potential for delays, costs and inconvenience in providing services—and I will give some instances of where I believe this problem is coming up. So the amendment here is sensible.

I do want to deal with the issue of NBN Co rollout in new developments, and connectivity in new developments in particular, because it has attracted a high degree of complaint. I've picked it up in my own electorate and I'm sure that there are many other MPs in this House who have picked up similar issues. It comes up a lot in small-scale infill developments. It also comes up a lot in small-scale new commercial developments in existing developed areas.

Despite the Australian government's introduction of the Telecommunications infrastructure in new developments policy, the 2015 policy, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure that the process of installing new telecommunications infrastructure in new developments is working for all parties. Currently, a large number of local government areas across the country do not have provisions that require the installation of telco infrastructure in new developments—that is, it's not a part of the development application and it's not a part of the occupancy certificate—and that is creating problems. Some jurisdictions do have a provision. In Victoria, there's a standard condition, the 2013 Victorian planning provision amendment VC81, which is entitled 'Telecommunications services and facilities and subdivisions'. This requires the owner of the land to enter into agreements with network service providers for the provision of telecommunication services. I believe that it is a sensible condition and should be provided elsewhere around the country, by either individual councils or entire states taking up this provision. I think it's something that should be seriously considered by the federal government.

I want to give one example—but I could cite several—of a company I'm working with in my own electorate, who go by the name of Rideworx Pty Ltd. They're a small business in my electorate who service and repair bikes. They employ around 13 staff. They're currently in the process of building a new factory in Berkeley. They gave all the requisite advice well in advance. The company have recently been told there's no telecommunications infrastructure available in the street to connect to their new factory. They need a phone line in order to take business and do the regular stuff that a business does. I'm using Rideworx as an example but I could cite three or four other businesses in my electorate who, over the last 18 months, have had similar problems. Rideworx were told that a development application should have been made three months prior to the factory being built by the developer but no such application was made. This leaves the small business in the lurch. They turn up expecting there will be water, electricity and telco into the premises, only to find that telco is not there.

We're onto it; we're attempting to get this one fixed, and today I intend to write to every council in my electorate asking them that they make it a condition of both the development application and the occupancy certificate stage that telecommunication services are available to the premises. The alternative is that the new occupant of a premises could be out of pocket by thousands and thousands of dollars and have months and months of delay because there is no equipment available. In this day and age, we should be treating telecommunications infrastructure—the line from the street into a new premises—the same way we treat electricity and water. You could not get a sign-off by a council for starting a new business and get occupancy for a new business if it didn't have electricity and water and many other facilities. In this day and age we should have telecommunications equipment as a part of that requirement. I will be taking the initiative in my own electorate by writing to every council and asking that they consider their own approval arrangements to ensure that these sorts of examples—I have cited one; I could cite many, many others—aren't repeated around my electorate.

I think a requirement that for new developments we ensure that telecommunications equipment is actually available to the new occupier of a new premises is something that should be taken up at least at the state if not the national level. It costs business thousands of dollars if it isn't there and it's simply not good enough. As we're doing all of this work to roll out a new network throughout the country—and we can see that new developments are going to be a part and parcel of infill, of conversion of use from one type of residence or premises to another—this is going to be an ongoing issue. The bill doesn't deal with it and hasn't dealt with it. It's not a criticism of the government in and of itself, but it is something that I put on the agenda that simply has to be addressed.

We can't have a situation where businesses or households are out of pocket for thousands of dollars for the connection of a service that the house or the business literally 100 metres up the road has had connected for nothing. It is simply not good enough in this day and age. With those comments made, I again commend the need for upgrading our consumer protection frameworks to the House. It's an urgent job and work that needs doing. With the exception of those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be able to speak to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 and the amendments to be moved by the shadow minister for communications. This bill amends a range of acts so as to minimise the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors. Labor supported an earlier version of this bill in 2015. Of course, that bill lapsed when the election was called. This bill has been one of the last flames from the unmemorable deregulation bonfire initiated by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, some years ago.

Some may be wondering why the bill has taken so long to reach a second reading debate. Indeed, it was not quite panic that I felt when I noted this was on the program and that I was to be speaking on this legislation. I then saw that I'd actually prepared the first draft of this speech about four or five months ago. It's interesting coming back to a piece of legislation and then reacquainting yourself with the central provisions, particularly with a piece of legislation like this, which is an omnibus bill.

The important issue addressing us today—it was of prime importance when I first prepared this speech—is that schedule 2 of the original bill had been removed. Labor intended to move amendments to remove schedule 2, because schedule 2, in Labor's view, was a bridge too far with respect to deregulation. Labor was going to argue and, in fact, successfully did argue with the government that the complaints handling provisions which were previously in place, which enabled complaints to be properly considered by the industry and then addressed by the ACMA, were appropriate and that this particular deregulation which sought to remove that was inappropriate.

Schedule 2 did seek to repeal part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act, and, in our view, it was an overzealous and ill-judged deregulation. The effect of that particular amendment would have been to undermine and confuse the current system of broadcast co-regulation, where, as I indicated earlier, industry is the front line for consumer complaints handling, and the taxpayer funded ACMA is the backstop regulator for shortcomings within industry processes. There are also some administrative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to amend account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements for commercial broadcasters. These are fairly trivial in effect and really don't need to concern us here today. But it also removes duplicative requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify ACMA of certain changes in the control of regulated media assets and also provides consistent classification arrangements for all television programs, including films, and amends statutory publication requirements.

There's also an amendment to the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 so as to permit NBN Co to dispose of surplus non-communication goods. A technical error within the Telecommunications Act 1997 is corrected so as to provide for admissibility of certain evidence in court proceedings. There are some minor amendments to remove the requirement for the ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine cable protection zone. There are other amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 so as to make technical amendments.

There are, I'm informed, some very interesting amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 and three other acts for the management of telephone numbering to be transitioned from the current arrangement, which is a co-regulatory arrangement, to an industry managed scheme. There is a repeal of 53 acts and the removal of redundant provisions in four acts.

There are amendments to the obligation imposed upon NBN Co to issue and keep a register of statements that they will not be installing fibre in new real estate developments. I'm really indebted to the member for Whitlam for his contribution this morning, particularly about the issues that arise with the rollout of NBN with respect to infill. I know, within my electorate, we're extremely fortunate to use the existing NBN fibre technology, which provides—much to the disgust of my fellow caucus members—400- to 500-megabit connections to domestic premises within Northern Tasmania, and the first commercial gigabit connections to NBN at a reasonable price in the Australian market. You can see how fundamental the installation of fibre is, and will be when you are talking about infill development, which of course is an important town planning consideration.

As I indicated earlier, the bill contains provisions that deal with the disposal of surplus assets by NBN Co. Due to some technical provisions in the law, NBN Co currently finds itself unable to sell surplus assets, such as office equipment and vehicles. Addressing this unintended consequence will assist NBN Co to manage its assets in a more efficient manner. Surprisingly, I'm informed that the bill restores a provision that was repealed by a previous deregulation bill.

Labor's view, as I indicated earlier, is that this legislation is straightforward. It fulfils an important function; it forms part of a rudimentary regulatory housekeeping exercise. Labor is supportive of aspects of the bill that amend unnecessary administrative requirements imposed on industry, and that portion which repeals redundant legislation and/or spent acts. We do give credit to the government for listening to the concerns expressed by the opposition with respect to the repeal of the consumer protection and complaints handling mechanisms within the act. I would like to digress, because, whilst this is nominally a deregulation bill, as I previously indicated, the bill doesn't appear to result in savings to industry. If it is a deregulation bill, it's relatively simple in operation.

It would be remiss of me to not pass comment on the extraordinary changes that have occurred with respect to both telecommunications and broadcasting/datacasting. Of course, that fact that this legislation is in omnibus form and deals with telecoms, broadcasting, datacasting, media regulation, telephone numbering and the installation of fibre within real estate developments emphasises the broad field which used to be described as communications and media. It is a moot point to query whether social media, such as Facebook, Twitter or other platforms, answer the description of 'media', particularly the news media and entertainment. Of course this has been the subject of much debate surrounding the reach of organisations and whether the previous regulation on the extent to which you could have cross-media ownership was appropriate.

There has been absolutely amazing change in the last 10 years. Even in the short time that I've been in this place, social media has been refined, particularly with the pushing of video and other media into the community. That media can be targeted and shaped and the responses received can be taken into account really places an order of complexity on considerations of regulating that industry. And that's before you consider the fact that these very large organisations are, in the whole, based overseas.

As I indicated earlier, this issue was front and centre in other legislation. That legislation dealt with, at the request of industry, the threats presented from new technology. The question which was debated at that time was whether the threats from social media and new media determine the particular response which was sought by industry and in particular the abolition of existing cross-media ownership rules.

At the time I wrote this speech there was a very interesting article written by Margaret Simons published in The Guardian online. It posed the question as to how society will adjust the way it satisfies its information needs in light of the dramatic changes within the communications and media industry. Some of the material in that article is relevant and was relevant to the issue of cross-media ownership, but in some of the remaining time available to me today I would like to focus on the issue of so-called fake news and the potential implications for traditional media and journalism. It's particularly relevant in the sense that the government did listen to the concerns raised by the opposition with respect to the maintenance of the existing complaints regime.

The central tenet of Margaret Simons' article is that journalism still matters. I do agree with that. I think, therefore, there needs to be a robust discussion about the future of, in particular, public interest journalism in a landscape that encompasses both traditional media and social media as we now know it and the forms of other social and other media that are developing or yet to be developed. Deregulation of the industry may assist in resisting what is seen as a threat from new media, but from a public policy perspective it is very important for the public to have confidence in the institution which is always referred to as the fourth estate. Complaint-handling issues may be relatively arcane, but they remain important in ensuring that the public maintains confidence in the operation of the industry.

With the election of the current American President the concept of fake news has been highlighted. We now know that there are dangers associated with the nature of new media, where barriers to publication of information are so low so as to permit any person to publish any information, sometimes with malicious or less than honourable intent. Indeed, we have heard in this place about the fact that there are Eastern European farms that operate to harvest media and then promote that media through social media channels for pure financial gain. That may have the effect of distorting our political process and is something that we need to be mindful of.

Social media has demonstrated that fake news may be amplified to the extent that it drowns out even established media. Who could contemplate that an organisation as powerful as News Ltd could be shouted down by social media? That happens. We see that organisations like Fairfax are under pressure. The traditional print media is under pressure, and of course broadcast media is operating in an environment whereby anybody with a smartphone can broadcast on Facebook Live. The Simons article argues that the prevalence of fake news highlights the importance of good journalism. I argue also that the maintenance of confidence in journalism requires a regulation framework which ensures that good journalism is celebrated and breaches are called out.

So, again, congratulations to the government for maintaining the complaints-handling process within this legislation. As I indicated previously, the existing complaints-handling process supports an 'industry first, government second' approach to facilitate appropriate regulation, whereby complaints are made pursuant to the industry codes of practice to a broadcaster, and the ACMA acts as a backstop if the complainant does not receive a response within 60 days of making the complaint or if they are dissatisfied with the response.

This is a deregulation omnibus bill. As I indicated earlier, it is supported by Labor, with the concession of the removal of schedule 2. It is important that we recognise the environment that we're now operating in and the enormous changes that are occurring. Things that once were thought trivial may become very important or remain increasingly important. I think that the issue of complaints handling is something that really snuck under our collective radar, and it's very important that we ensure that we maintain confidence in both telecoms and the media industry generally.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this bill. The purpose of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is to amend administrative requirements imposed on broadcasters and datacasting licensees and to remove tariff-filing requirements for certain carriers and carriage service providers. It will allow for the communications industry to develop an industry scheme to manage telephone numbering. It will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to repeal the power of NBN Co to issue a statement that it is not installing fibre in a new real estate development, and remove the obligation for the company to maintain a register of the statements. It will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011, the NBN Companies Act, to allow NBN companies to dispose of surplus goods. It will abolish the requirement for ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine cable protection zone. The bill also repeals redundant legislation and spent acts, and corrects an error in the Telecommunications Act which relates to the inadmissibility of evidence in certain proceedings. For legislation around one of the fastest growing industries, it's good to finally see it here in the House again, getting some airtime.

In 2016, Australians watched 18.7 billion hours of TV and nearly 20 billion hours on the internet. As our dependence on utilities like the NBN grows, so must government efforts to ensure quality of service and that no-one is left behind. Let's be honest: people being left behind is what's happening in Tasmania. With our NBN rollout almost complete in Tasmania, we already see huge differences on the ground in how the rollout has taken place. Hobart and Launceston have the Labor fibre to the premises, so businesses and households there can access and are accessing the fastest speeds and connectivity. Launceston, in the north of the state, is the first one-gigabit-per-second city in the country, and it is taking advantage of the opportunities that come its way. But out in the regions, which is much of my electorate, it's not such a pretty picture.

In Lachlan, a town with a population of just over 800, the NBN is a complete sham. At peak hour, once the kids come home from school and get on the net, it grinds to a stop for town residents—and, even after a petition has been pulled together begging for action from NBN Co, it remains that way. Sometimes, at peak hour, they can't even get two megabits per second in that town. It's so slow, so bad, they can't even do a speed test. Imagine that: a supposed broadband system that is so slow you can't even do a speed test. How on earth are you meant to do school work, business, research or anything else when you can't even do a speed test? I should note that Lachlan is just 45 minutes north of Hobart, so it's hardly a remote area. On that note, I'll wrap up. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate interrupted.