Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Bills

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011; In Committee

6:35 pm

Photo of Simon BirminghamSimon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, there is a remarkable inconsistency in what you say and in what you argue. Do you stand by the statements you have made previously? On 9 December last year you said:

It has been a consistent feature of the Government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.

Developers will be able to source fibre from competing fibre providers if they wish. Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments, for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.

Do you stand by that and, if you do, isn't that somehow allowing the type of cherry-picking you are suggesting, in that it will be only the easier and cheaper ones delivered? The ones where there are better returns available will see developers and providers go in and provide the fibre services in those greenfield sites. Isn't that just what you were railing against? Yet that is what you said would be the case and is what in other places you and the department have indicated is what this legislation provides for.

In addition to responding on whether you still think there should be room for competing providers, which is all the opposition is attempting to facilitate through these amendments, can you make it equally clear—and I will put this as simply as possible—whether it will be cheaper for developers to use the provider of last resort that is NBN Co. to get fibre laid than it will be for them to use anybody else? Will it be cheaper for them to do that than to go to anybody else? It is a simple question and would demonstrate whether your belief that there will still be some competing market and some room for other providers is the case, or whether, as we and many others contend, you are setting up a system where the provider of last resort becomes the default provider because it is going to be significantly cheaper for developers to use it and it alone.

Comments

No comments