Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the collapse of Telstra’s plans to roll out a fibre to the node network. Does the minister accept that Australia needs a significant fibre broadband infrastructure investment to bring the country back into line with our international competitors? Isn’t it true that the reason for the collapse of these talks was, in the words of Telstra executive Phil Burgess, the government’s confused, inconsistent and ultimately counterproductive telecommunications policies? As the minister for communications, will the minister finally accept responsibility for Australia’s status as a broadband backwater and for the government’s complete lack of policy for turning this situation around?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Conroy for the question. I must say that I am disappointed that Telstra has pulled out of talks with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about the regulation of fibre to the node, which Telstra had proposed to roll out to five major cities. I think that is really the point, that there are a couple of furphies about the rollout of fibre. The first is, of course, that the fibre rollout would not have benefited all Australians, as has been claimed from time to time, but was only slated for major metropolitan cities, not even for big regional cities such as Wollongong and Newcastle. It would not even have been in Darwin under the current proposal. The reality is that the fibre proposal is certainly not the only game in town here.

Telstra did cite the ACCC’s alleged unwillingness to recognise the actual costs of Telstra’s fibre to the node investment as a reason for this breakdown. In fact, when setting access prices, the regulatory regime is very clear that the ACCC is required by law to take into account the costs of the investment and the legitimate commercial interests of the infrastructure owner, including the investment risk faced by the owner, and the need to provide incentives for investment. The ACCC has assured the government that it has always been prepared to consider both fair and reasonable access terms, as indeed it is legally obliged to do.

As to Senator Conroy’s suggestion that this proposal was only going to be rolled out to major centres, where there is already competition in any event, I think it is a real furphy that somehow or other Australia is placed in some kind of broadband impasse. Telstra could, for instance, start to use its longstanding investment in ADSL 2 Plus technology equipment in its exchanges which can deliver high-speed broadband to about 80 per cent of the population. It is important to note that several telecommunications experts estimate that at least 55 per cent of Australians already have access to very fast fixed broadband today, via either ADSL 2 Plus—and there are nine companies, nine competitors, who are rolling out ADSL 2 Plus—or over cable broadband. When Telstra switches on its ADSL 2 Plus network, which should be imminent, the number will of course rise exponentially.

Where the competitive rollout of high-speed broadband will make a significant difference will be in relation to the government’s Broadband Connect policy: $1.1 billion earmarked to ensure that where Telstra would not have gone in any event with this fibre to the node rollout there will in fact be competitive infrastructure programs by some competitors. An expressions of interest proposal that has been put out by me has received 70 submissions, with some very innovative and quite exciting combinations of technologies designed to deliver these kinds of outcomes for rural and regional Australia, where under no circumstances would the fibre to the node proposal that Telstra had on the table have benefited all Australians. So the most important points are that not all Australians would have benefited under the fibre proposal, there are already multi-megabit speeds available in those markets and the government is getting on with delivering competition and solutions in rural and regional Australia.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of recently released national broadband targets which suggest that 80 per cent of Australians will need to have access to 10 megabits per second broadband by 2010 in order for the economy to remain internationally competitive? Doesn’t this document call for ‘significant and meaningful changes in attitude and leadership from the government and policymakers’? In light of the collapse of Telstra’s fibre to the node plans, when will the minister, in her confused broadband policies, change her attitude and provide the leadership that is needed for Australia to remain competitive?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What would of course help would be if Senator Conroy would stop trying to join some Greek chorus and actually understand what this is all about. The only thing that Labor have ever come up with is to try to piggyback on Telstra’s proposal and then raid the Communications Fund of $2 billion to try and get a leg-up to provide some assistance to rural and regional Australia. That has all fallen very flat now, hasn’t it? And of course we have not got anything from Labor. Their policy proposal, if you could call it that, is in absolute ruins. This government will get on to ensuring that there is equitable broadband for all Australians.