Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 ensures that the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund—part of the proceeds of the final tranche of Telstra’s sell-off—is maintained as a perpetual fund.

The $2 billion is under management and invested in short term, low risk assets. The earnings on investments are made available at around $130 million a year to fund infrastructure for broadband, additional mobile telephone towers and backhaul fibre capabilities to rural communities.

According to the government, it enables the Commonwealth to implement responses to recommendations made by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee relating to the adequacy of telecommunication services in regional, rural or remote areas.

This is a very common approach of this government. It steers clear of guarantees of universal entitlements and instead drip feeds funds, mostly through grants to organisations in a patchwork of projects.

However, there is no overall plan and despite spending over $11 billion on telecommunications in rural Australia between 1997 and 2005 broadband services are still inadequate.

We said then and we say again now that there needs to be an audit of current fibre networks, a national plan and an adequate fund to roll broadband out.

We suggested that rather than use the $2 billion for infrastructure that it be used to maintain and upgrade services into the future.

Of course the commitment by the government at the last election was to not sell Telstra until rural service obligations and levels of service in rural areas were met. They were not acceptable when that last tranche was sold and they are still not acceptable.

But of course, as Minister McGauran admits, this bill is all about playing politics and a total waste of our time. It will obviously pass into law but as everyone knows, takes only a bill to repeal it which presumably the ALP will introduce as soon as it wins office.

The Government is quite open about it. This is to ensure that the Labor Party in office cannot, by ‘sleight of hand, or under cover of night’, abolish the Communications Fund.

Minister McGauran says if Labor wants to undo the legislation it will have to ‘do so in the full glare of public accountability’.

Well I suppose it will but would people in rural and regional areas prefer to wait for services while the interest of about $130 million a year is dribbled out for broadband or would they like the benefits of the full rollout as soon as possible.

In the full glare of the public gaze, as people despair at ever getting fast, affordable Internet services, I think they are likely to go for the latter.

The interest on this $2 billion was always going to be inadequate which may be why the government has only provided the woolliest idea of what these services are that the government is protecting or who will be entitled to them.

Like most politicians I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on broadband. A tourist business in the Grampians (Royce Raleigh) said:

“We are disgusted that after all the publicity and advertising re Broadband in rural areas by both the Government and providers, that even while paying $49.50 per month, the best we can get in practice, is a Broadband service slower than Dial-up. When is the Government going to get fair dinkum and make Broadband /SP providers deliver the speeds that they advertise? When are we going to get the same Communication Technology that people in the city take for granted?

We have put up with bushfires and drought in the last 12 months. We are trying to run a business in a very busy Tourist area, with no mobile phone coverage and no Broadband service. We are getting more and more international guests, who comment and ask: ‘Why is the Internet so slow in Australia? Why is mobile phone coverage so poor?’ We can only respond that the government does not see it as priority for country people. When are we going to get some real communication?”

In another instance an Albury-based businessman located in a regional hub with close to 100,000 people complains about the service level of broadband upload and download speeds and the impact to his business.

There are many cities in regional Australia with over 40,000 people, and a number with over 80,000.

This bill should be about delivering minimum services to regional cities and towns that match the standards in our capital cities.

And at the heart of this—the broadband debate—is the future competitiveness of regional Australia. What is needed is public Fibre to the Node infrastructure that gives fair access to all players, and a level playing field.

One solution might be to replace existing networks entirely and put in fibre or a wireless solution to every home and business as South Korea and Japan have done. They would cost far more than the $4.7 billion the ALP is offering but we need an honest debate about whether this is the way to go or not.

If this level of investment is not an option then we need as a minimum to sort out the regulatory mess. On the one side we have Telstra claiming that it will not make investments on account of the risk to shareholder returns and the share price because of current competition regulation.

The G9 group has the opposite problem - it needs regulation to get access to premises and that means connecting its fibre to Telstra’s copper pair.

I hear that Telstra will not even switch on the equipment it has, arguing that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will force it to accept unreasonably low rates. Of course if the equipment remains switched off and effectively mothballed then it can’t generate return on share holders’ investment in any case—so the question has to be asked: what is Telstra’s game?

Should the G9 lay their own fibre network there is the risk that has been Optus’ experience that Telstra will duplicate the infrastructure. This would deliver another Mexican stand off.

So while the G9 proposal is a way forward, the options are to do this with public money as Labor is proposing or to place restrictions on Telstra.

In either case these problems would not exist if Telstra was properly structurally separated and all retailers, including Telstra Retail, bought network services on the same terms. Critically the issue of access to Telstra’s copper pair needs to be dealt with and through competition policy.

It is regrettable that we are today dealing with a bill that achieves nothing constructive. Instead, we should be removing the structural impediments to competition through the restructuring of Telstra and by giving the regulator effective divestiture powers, as recommended by ACCC and OECD.

We should be introducing a well funded national strategy with targets and timeframes that has as its basis the supply of affordable broadband to all Australians.

We should have an industry/government coordinating body to implement this national strategy.

The Democrats say funding should be available for new technology only, not to upgrade existing copper networks. Fibre-to-the-House and/or true wireless broadband at a minimum of 10Mb, should be implemented as a high priority. Federal Government should support local councils to facilitate broadband access in their communities. All new housing estates should be fibre.

The Government should specify in legislation and regulations minimum service requirements for broadband access and minimum broadband speeds to provide Australians reasonable access to data services.

Subsidisation of satellite technologies should be reviewed to find the most appropriate means of supplying the technology to isolated areas and where possible provide all Australians with equal access.

The Democrats call on both the government and the opposition to act in the long-term national interest rather than the short term politicking reflected in this bill.