Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to start my contribution to this debate by thanking Senator Conroy for providing a ministerial statement on the National Broadband Network which provides a progress report on the National Broadband Network project, outlines the government’s plans to settle the outstanding policy and commercial matters associated with the project, and comments on progress with Telstra negotiations. It also talks about how the NBN will fundamentally change the structure of Australia’s telecommunications industry by facilitating equitable access to voice and high-speed broadband services and genuine competition to benefit all consumers and businesses.

The Gillard Labor government is committed to bringing Australian broadband services into the 21st century. We began the task of building the National Broadband Network during our last term in government and we are determined to continue our plans to deliver the National Broadband Network to the Australian people. Those opposite seem hell-bent on doing all they can to delay and destroy this rollout of technology that will connect our rural and regional centres back to our main cities and the wider world, and to destroy infrastructure and technology that is vital for small businesses, healthcare delivery, education and our ability to work cleaner, smarter, faster. But the question is: why?

This definitely is not about the expense of the NBN. This is about the opposition’s desire to demolish the NBN—oh, except for in my home state of Tasmania, where Mr Tony Abbott recently promised the Liberal Party state conference he would keep the NBN there. So that is okay, we can have it there but nowhere else. It is somewhat absurd now to see the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team up here trying to demolish the NBN whilst back home, facing the electors, they admit they want to keep this critical infrastructure.

What is the opposition’s plan to deliver this critical infrastructure to all Australians? Are they hoping to stall the rollout of this infrastructure just to try and buy a bit more time to come up with a plan? Just this morning on Sky News, Senator Joyce himself could not provide an answer when questioned about what the coalition’s actual plan was for Australia’s future broadband needs. All Senator Joyce could say was he wanted to stop government spending. That is a very clear indication that the opposition have no plan for delivering broadband services to Australians. All this cover about handing over figures, costings, reports and inquiries on the project that has been reported on and inquired into will reveal nothing more than what we already know.

We know that the opposition will never be satisfied because they want to tear down the NBN, regardless of the benefits to Australia. Why? Because they are working under direct orders from Mr Abbott to Mr Turnbull to demolish the NBN. It seems they will do whatever it takes to fulfil this objective. We have already seen those opposite call for a joint committee and a Productivity Commission review. We have already had NBN Co. come before estimates three times and we have already had NBN Co. go to several committees. Those opposite had the NBN go to their own Senate select committee—a committee that was extended five times and produced five reports. What more information could a further study over and above those five reports, the estimates answers and the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study furnish to the opposition or to the Australian people?

This is all about delay. It is what they have been doing all along. The most recent calls for the Productivity Commission to conduct a cost-benefit analysis are another tactic for delaying, and we know that because Mr Turnbull himself admitted that even if the cost-benefit analysis came back unequivocally positive and in favour of the NBN he still could not guarantee the opposition’s support for the continued rollout of this critical infrastructure. So, if the report was not even going to sway the opposition’s position, what would be the point in having the analysis conducted, other than to cause unnecessary delay and thwart the government from delivering broadband to Australia? Mr Turnbull knows that the Productivity Commission would take years to do a formal cost-benefit analysis of the NBN because the NBN affects almost every aspect of our economy and society. That is why he asked for it. The longer the rollout is delayed, the more Australia will lag behind the rest of the OECD.

Recently, the Japanese government tried to calculate the economic value of the flow-on effects that a fibre-to-the-home network would have in enhancing the lives of Japanese people. That task defeated them. What was projected, however, was the value that would have been added to the Japanese economy during the period 2010-11 had they completed the fibre-to-the-home rollout by 100 per cent by the end of March 2011. That figure was estimated to be ¥73 trillion. That is around A$900 billion. If you use those same calculations with adjustments for the GDPs of Australia and Japan that figure is around $182 billion. The fact is that the task to accurately calculate the value of the long-term social benefits arising from improved infrastructure is almost impossible. This very fact was conceded by ACCC boss, Mr Graeme Samuel. There are just too many variables and indicia to form a correct calculation. However, what Mr Samuel did say was that in all three economies—those of Japan, Korea and Singapore—the ACCC found ‘a firm and non-controversial belief that the usage of their fibre and mobile networks is generating significant work and is crucial to maintaining and improving national economic competitiveness’.

The modelling of revenues and costs shown in the McKinsey-KPMG report, based on what could be expected from the project, found that the NBN can be expected to repay the taxpayers’ investment with a small return. So let us take a moment to summarise the steps we have taken on the NBN based on the report alone. The government released the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study in full on 6 May 2010. After eight months of detailed analysis, the implementation study confirmed that under a range of realistic scenarios NBN Co. would have a strong and viable business case. It also confirmed that the project could be expected to generate a return of six to seven per cent and that the government could expect to generate a return on its investment to cover its cost of funds. NBN Co. has finalised its three-year corporate plan and 30-year business plan. The company submitted the plan to the government on 8 November 2010. The government is currently considering the document and proposes to make a range of information from it publicly available in due course.

So why do the opposition continue to scaremonger about this investment in crucial infrastructure? It just does not make sense. The hype around the nondisclosure of information is ridiculous. The government have offered some initial briefings on the business plan to the crossbench and the Greens. These briefings will take place next week. The purpose of these briefings is to outline for the Greens and Independents what is contained in the business plan and the document. We want to provide them with some assurances about the viability of the NBN. As the Prime Minister has said, we will make the business plan public, and that will happen shortly, in December, once commercial-in-confidence material has been removed. We are not trying to hide anything. We are just being diligent in the way we manage this critical investment. As our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said this morning in an interview with the ABC:

… whether it’s inside the parliament or beyond, Australians want to see government being careful, being prudent, looking at the details, crossing the t’s dotting the i’s. That’s the kind of government I want to lead.

That is exactly what we are doing with the NBN. We have heard of the benefits of the NBN repeatedly. The OECD and Access Economics have confirmed that investment in high-speed platforms will generate billions of dollars in economy-wide benefits. Not only will this critical infrastructure provide innovations in areas such as e-health but it will promote efficiencies, also generating a fiscal return.

To again refer to Japan, let us consider their e-medicine trials. What we can see is that by using technology, teleconsultation and home recuperation, using metropolitan medicos to service remote regional centres, there is a saving of ¥41 billion per annum. These healthcare innovations reduce travel for patients, shorten hospital stays and also increase income for patients, who are able to get back to work sooner. This is just one example of the benefits that we will be able to deliver to Australia’s health system and to our citizens if we continue with our plan to roll out the NBN.

In light of all this evidence, why are those opposite still not convinced? The National Broadband Network and the proposed reforms to the telecommunications sector will revolutionise the communications market for Australian consumers. The United Nations said:

Broadband is the next tipping point, the next truly transformational technology. It can generate jobs, drive growth and productivity, and underpin long-term economic competitiveness.

Yet we are consistently thwarted in our attempts to deliver this technology to the Australian people. A study commissioned by IBM in 2009 found that the inferior fibre-to-the-node network would conservatively boost the NPV of GDP by between $8 billion and $23 billion over a 10-year period. That same IBM study also found that over a 10-year period this rollout would create 33,000 jobs in an economy operating at less than full employment.

I will say it again: despite all the evidence we have for delivering this critical social and economic infrastructure for the future, the opposition still want to pull it down. Just this morning those opposite have also attempted to stall legislation designed to promote competition in our telecommunications sector and improve consumer safeguards. Taking action to correct the vertically integrated, privately owned monopoly that Telstra enjoys in the Australian telecommunications industry is long overdue. This legislation is not about the NBN, and those opposite should stop misleading the parliament and the Australian people on the true purpose of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010.

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 is about a substantive regulatory reform package that will deliver a more efficient and effective telecommunications market with appropriate consumer safeguards. Whilst the separation of Telstra will certainly allow for a smooth transition to the NBN, it is not essential for the ongoing rollout of the NBN. Those opposite are either a bit confused or just trying to distort the issues in the debate. Either way, just to clear it up one more time: the NBN, Australia’s first national wholesale only communications network will support genuine competition in the telecommunications sector and promote better outcomes for Australian consumers.

The reforms to the telecommunications sector proposed in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 are purely about, as I said, overcoming the vertically integrated, privately owned monopoly that Telstra enjoys in the Australian telecommunications industry. The telecommunications reforms have nothing to do with the role of NBN Co. and its commercial structure. Those reforms are about telecommunications reform.

Now that I have clarified that confusion we can get back to talking about the NBN. The National Broadband Network, as you have all heard, is the largest nation-building project in Australia’s history and will lift Australia to the top of world rankings in broadband access. It will drive major productivity and growth opportunities and ensure our children get the best education in the world. The NBN will deliver high-speed broadband to all premises in Australia, no matter where they are located. Every home, business, school and hospital will be included and no-one will miss out.

Under the NBN, 93 per cent of premises will be connected with fibre-to-the-premises technology providing speeds of 1 gigabit per second. The remaining Australians who live outside the footprint will receive faster and cheaper broadband from the next generation of satellite and wireless technology. This access will be at a rate 1,000 times faster than what many people experience today. The NBN is not a quick fix; it is a solution for the long-term benefit of the country, especially for our rural and regional areas.

The rollout of the NBN is already putting communities and businesses such as those in my home state of Tasmania on the map and ensuring that Australia remains a player on the international stage. As well as improving services, the construction of the NBN is supporting 25,000 jobs every year on average for the eight-year lifespan of the project. I have already talked at length about the McKinsey and KPMG study which confirmed that a high-speed broadband network can be built on a financially viable basis with affordable prices for consumers.

That is right—it has been confirmed that a high-speed broadband network can be built on a financially viable basis with affordable prices for consumers. That is why we are delivering the NBN, because under the watch of those opposite Australia’s broadband speeds lagged behind the rest of the developed world. This government, however, is committed to building the National Broadband Network over eight years.

Can those opposite dispute that this is a large-scale infrastructure project which will deliver growth and stimulus to the Australian economy? Have those opposite ever denied that the NBN is critical for small business, crucial for our future healthcare delivery and vital to ensure the quality of education of our young people, to connect communities, to promote jobs growth and to ensure that we are able to work cleaner, smarter and faster?

In my home state of Tasmania we have already had three towns—Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point—receiving high-speed broadband services for the first time. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, herself came to midway point just outside Hobart to switch on the first customer to the NBN. We now have a take-up rate for a fibre connection that exceeds 50 per cent, and after only a few months. The take-up of these services already exceeds the annual rate that the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study concluded would be needed to make the NBN viable with affordable prices for consumers.

NBN services are delivering previously unseen levels of competition and choice in Tasmania. As I have stated previously, the first five retail service providers who are working with NBN to deliver broadband services are Primus, Internode, and iiNet. Telstra has now also signed on to test its services over the NBN and a fifth provider, Exetel, has signed up to provide services. These packages are extremely competitive. Let me give you a few examples. Internode has released its retail prices. Its entry level is for a 25 megabit per second service for $29.95 per month and an entry level 100 megabit service for $59.95 per month. iiNet is offering a 25 megabit per second service for $49.95 with an introductory offer of free set-up, some in-home wiring and a free ‘Bob’ box. For an extra $9.95 per month, an iiNet customer can get a phone service with 15c calls to fixed phones in Australia. iPrimus has released its retail prices which include a 25 megabit per second service with bundled phone, including all calls within Australia for $89.95, and that includes calls to mobiles. Never before have Tasmanians been able to enjoy such affordable, high-speed broadband services.

In Tasmania we are already undergoing planning for the stage 2 rollout. On the mainland, construction work has begun on the first five release sites in Armidale in NSW, Townsville in Queensland, Willunga in South Australia, Minnamurra-Kiama Downs in New South Wales and Brunswick in Victoria. The government’s plan is for 19 second-release sites to have fibre deployed in 2011 in areas such as Coffs Harbour, Toowoomba, Bacchus Marsh, Casuarina and Geraldton. These are but a few of the 14 new locations and the government is working with NBN Co. on the further rollout to prioritise regional areas.

After all this progress and all this planning, those opposite still want to delay and assess the benefits? There is simply no rationale for stopping the NBN just to backtrack over the same issues that we have already dealt with. The government welcomes transparency, but the continued analysis and scrutiny of one of the most scrutinised projects ever funded by government is without further benefit considering the opposition’s view that, regardless, they still want to tear down the NBN.

Earlier in the year we have seen Telstra and NBN Co. announce that they have entered into a financial heads of agreement. This is expected to reduce significantly the overall build cost of the NBN and improve the business case. Customers are already receiving cheaper and faster broadband across Australia. Yet those opposite want to cut off those services? Perhaps Mr Abbott and his Liberal Senate colleagues should come clean to their Tasmanian constituents and clarify what exactly they plan to do with the existing infrastructure in our state.