Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to add some brief comments to those I made during the second reading debate on this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. I do not think these amend­ments—opposition amendments (2) to (11)—are illegitimate. Unlike with many of the amendments and proposals the coalition have served up during the course of this debate, I do not think this is an attempt at wanton sabotage. At least that is a relief; maybe we have moved on from that stage. I think the coalition, and all of us, are grappling with the fact that it is actually very difficult to compete in an open market with a utility provider that will be leveraging gigantic economies of scale.

The issue I touched on in the second reading debate—and I will address some of these questions to Senator Birmingham—is the issue of exactly how these amendments will work. I am speaking in particular about clause 11, which I have had a bit of time to think about as I have been listening to the debate. My main questions are how it will work in terms of pricing if NBN Co. is being forced to purchase an asset that has been put into the ground by a third party as well as the question of standards. I do think this is a valiant attempt to grapple with the very difficult issue of what happens when private fibre providers, who have been quite happily going about their business in cities like Canberra and in other places around the country and putting in the infrastructure, suddenly find that a national monopoly utility rolls over the horizon, with enormous economies of scale. It is going to be very difficult to compete. That is why I have some sympathy for these amendments. However, the problem I have is that it appears to me that the amendments would simply make things worse—although I note that some of the providers have offered conditional support to what the member for Wentworth and Senator Birmingham are attempting to do. My first question to Senator Birmingham goes to the heart of the promotion of competition. Perhaps the outcome would be cheaper, more efficient and of a higher technical standard if we just let the larger providers do their work. Competition may not in fact be appropriate. My question is about amendment (11) and subclauses 372CA(8)(a) and (b). The way that this amendment will operate in practice is that a third-party provider will put a network into the ground and then NBN Co. is going to be forced to buy it. How are the parties going to come to an agreement over price? Perhaps Senator Birmingham would care to address that issue and maybe flesh out a little bit how these changes, particularly proposed sub­clauses (6) through (8), would function in practice. I do not understand how you could negotiate a contract and fair terms of a transaction under the kinds of clauses that the coalition have drafted here.