Senate debates
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Questions without Notice
Broadband
2:10 pm
Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister confirm that the wireless broadband network being funded by the government uses shared space public spectrum in the 5.8 gigahertz band? Won’t the minister’s second-rate system share this space with common household appliances like cordless phones, automatic garage doors and microwave ovens? Can the minister guarantee that when Australians answer their cordless phones or shut their garage doors their wireless broadband won’t drop out or be interfered with? Aren’t Australians living in rural and regional areas entitled to an assurance that they will not have to stop surfing the internet when they are microwaving their meat pies?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It will be diverting, to say the least, to see how many automatic garage doors there are on very large rural properties. There might be a few. I suppose rural properties have the odd microwave oven and maybe a few other devices. My information is that that will not be an issue in relation to interference and spectrum. OPEL is able to utilise a class licence spectrum—the 5.8 gigahertz band—if licensed spectrum is not available commercially. This class licence spectrum band is utilised by the majority of wireless broadband providers in regional areas and is capable of supporting the high quality of services which OPEL will be implementing, including 12-megabit speeds.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, has provided advice that interference is in fact a minimal issue in rural areas at the point where OPEL would be using it because there are fewer operators—which is logical, when you think about it, but it is good that there is technical backup for my view. Even so, licensed spectrum would overcome some potential risks of interference from other users. OPEL has indicated that opportunities for purchasing licensed spectrum in the marketplace will be pursued as well as investigating using apparatus licenses where available.
It is very interesting that this government’s costed, fast broadband deliverable to 99 per cent the population—that can and will be delivered—stands in stark contrast to nothing but a back-of-the-envelope proposal put out by the Labor Party 89 days ago with nothing to support the fact that it cannot reach beyond 72 per cent of the population. I would be very interested to know where the Labor Party thinks it can actually run its build to. And where are the three million premises that are going to miss out under the Labor Party’s proposal? I am going to be calling upon the Labor Party to produce some information, some technical plans, some coverage maps—anything that could actually prove that the Labor Party can deliver a plan. Until they do that, every Australian is entitled to say that this is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky ‘fraudband’.
Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it the case that under the minister’s second-rate system people in rural and regional areas will not be able to surf the internet without interruption unless they live in a flat area, there is a cloudless sky, their neighbours are not online and their microwave is not being used? Does this mean that the minister agrees with the statement by her colleague Senator Adams yesterday that people in the bush cannot expect to have proper services?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The answer to the senator’s question is no, the government only has an absolutely first-rate system, it does not have a second-class system. The only second-class system is a pie-in-the-sky proposal without a document, without a plan, without any technical details to prove that the Labor Party can stand by their proposal. In fact, we know that the cat has now been belled on the Labor Party’s plan. I call on the Labor Party to prove that they can even go to 72 per cent on $8 billion.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Steam driven microwave!
2:16 pm
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the Hon. Helen Coonan. Will the minister inform the Senate of details of how the government will deliver world-class broadband services to all Australians regardless of where they live?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank Senator Joyce for a very perceptive question. As someone who lives in rural and regional Australia, he actually has some idea what he is talking about. On Monday I announced, as Senator Joyce has since commented upon very favourably, that the Australian government is providing $958 million to enable the construction of a new state-of-the-art network that will extend high-speed broadband to 99 per cent of the population by 2009—and, I might add, with very minor consequential overbuild to be able to reach under-served premises. The government is strongly committed to the proposition that all Australians, regardless of where they live, should have access to high-speed, affordable broadband. Unlike the Labor Party, we would not dream of leaving out three million premises in any plan that we put forward for the Australian people to look at.
Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Lundy interjecting—
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government has obviously leveraged a high level of commercial contribution towards building the new national wholesale network, with the government’s contribution assisting the business case for rolling out to non-commercial areas and premises. It was industry experts who came forward with the best mix of technologies to meet our policy aim of providing high-speed affordable broadband to 99 per cent of the population.
Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Why have your experts disagreed with your decision?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
One of the mix of technologies advocated by industry experts, WiMAX, is a proven fixed wireless technology that has already been deployed and trialled by 275 operators across 65 countries, including the United States, Canada and much of Europe. I think it is commercially rolled out in about 35 countries. In fact, I received a letter dated 19 June 2007 from Nortel, a leading global vendor of telecommunications equipment, confirming:
WiMAX will provide a leap forward in the delivery of broadband services to rural and regional Australians.
Nortel goes on to say:
WiMAX is the world’s most advanced global standards based wireless technology. It has been designed to provide users with a true broadband internet experience while enjoying the benefits of wireless freedom.
In fact the global WiMAX forum now has over 420 companies signed on to support this technology. It includes companies such as British Telecom, Motorola, Samsung, Fujitsu, AT&T and Alcatel. These are major companies that perhaps even the Labor Party might credit with some capacity to understand this. They certainly would not be investing in unproven technology. It goes to show that any serious commentator who is not trying to push their own commercial interests would tell you that you do need a mix of technologies to deliver world-class high-speed affordable broadband.
A year ago Senator Conroy was on record praising the virtues of a mix of technologies when he told the Connecting Up conference:
The most important infrastructure in this regard is the infrastructure that allows the delivery of broadband, optical fibre, DSLAMs and wireless base stations.
Well goodness me, Mr President, that appears to be what our policy does. But poor old Senator Conroy has been forced into a one-size-fits-all solution that is very inferior and can only reach 72 per cent of the population and would leave three million premises without a high-speed broadband service. The challenge is for the Labor Party— (Time expired)
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for that answer, but I am wondering: are there any alternative policies?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What I was saying is that the challenge for the Labor Party is to front up for a bit of public scrutiny for a change with the same level of detail on their proposal, on coverage, costings and, importantly, price to consumers. Not a word about that. We have now got a shadow cabinet confirming Labor’s proposal leaves many behind. It does not even cover the Hunter. Labor has picked a technology with no technical backing on how it could be built out to 98 per cent. And until Labor provide substantial detail on this proposal, all Australians, particularly those three million premises that will miss out under Labor’s plan, will know that this is just an inexperienced Labor team out of its depth with important decisions that affect all Australians.
2:21 pm
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. Can the minister explain which of her confusing and contradictory claims about her second-rate wireless broadband package is her current policy? Is it Monday’s claim that the network would deliver up to 12 megabits per second for 99 per cent of Australia, or Tuesday morning’s claim that the network would deliver a minimum of 12 megabits per second for 99 per cent of Australia, or Tuesday afternoon’s claim that the network would deliver a minimum of 12 megabits per second for 100 per cent of Australia? Why can’t the minister get her story straight, and what grandiose claim will the minister make today about what her second-rate broadband package will deliver?
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The only second-rate broadband package I know of is the Labor Party’s, which does not have a technical plan or one piece of paper to support it. I am very happy to talk about mine. As I have said on dozens of occasions this week, high-speed broadband will be available to 99 per cent of the population. I said it again in answer to an earlier question. The Australian Broadband Guarantee ensures that the remaining one per cent of the population, those in the most remote areas of the country who cannot get an alternative service, are entitled to a subsidy of $2,750 per customer for satellite broadband services.
The Howard government has always been firmly committed to providing a world-class broadband network to all Australians regardless of where they live. The OPEL network will extend high-speed services to 99 per cent of the population and provide speeds of 12 megabits per second by mid-2009. Under this government, 100 per cent of the population are guaranteed a broadband service and 99 per cent of the population will have high-speed broadband by 2009—about five years earlier, I think, than the very best the Labor Party can do. It is, of course, very cheeky of the Labor Party to run around trying to make a point about the difference of one per cent when with Labor’s plan we are talking about high-speed broadband coverage to only 72 per cent of the population—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That’s a 25 per cent difference.
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
and then only by 2013, Senator Abetz. Under Labor, the remaining 25 per cent will be left stranded without any broadband service. I repeat my clear challenge to Mr Rudd and the Labor Party to provide costings, coverage maps and technical information about their broadband proposal for the full scrutiny of the Australian public. I do not think they can and I think that is their problem. It has been 89 days since the Labor Party put out a plan and nothing more than a press release. I say to the Labor Party: if you are really serious about this you ought to get on with standing up for a bit of public scrutiny. We are very happy to do this. We have a fully costed, fully deliverable plan for fast broadband to 99 per cent of the population. No-one will be left out. A hundred per cent of Australians will be covered by broadband.
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. Why did the minister last night secretly doctor her own media release of yesterday, which originally made the farcical claim that the government would deliver a minimum speed of 12 megabits per second to 100 per cent of Australia? Given that the minister also made this absurd claim in question time yesterday, why didn’t the minister immediately come back to the Senate and correct the record, as the standing orders require? Doesn’t the minister stand exposed as being grossly deceptive in trying to spin her second-rate service?
Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator, I think the accusation you made against a minister may be unparliamentary.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am happy to withdraw that and replace it with ‘misleading’.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, she is grossly misleading.
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Apart from throwing around a few descriptions here and there, poor old Senator Conroy could not even turn up to question time yesterday, so it is good to see him back and it is good to know that he thinks a mix of technologies is a very important thing to have. As we know, he has had to do an embarrassing backflip, having told a whole conference—
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I raise a point of order, Mr President, which goes to the question of relevance. I know the minister cannot spend more than two minutes trying to explain her own policy, but the question was: did she in fact doctor or withdraw her press release yesterday, which carried the claim of 100 per cent coverage; why didn’t she come into the Senate and correct the record; and, what is the current claim she makes? It was a very clear question and she has made no attempt to answer it.
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, the Labor Party are the ones who are all over the place on this. They have Senator Conroy suggesting there should be mixes of technologies and then coming in here and worrying about whether or not there has been some secret doctoring of a press release. What nonsense! Of course I have not secretly doctored anything.