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

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. The bill seeks to protect the $2 billion Communications Fund, the pork-barrelling slush fund that was established by the government in September 2005 under pressure from the National Party in response to the privatisation of Telstra. The Communications Fund was intended to earn an income stream to finance spending on telecommunications projects in Australia. The projects are supposed to come from the government’s response to any recommendations proposed by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee. Despite the fact that the fund was established in 2005, the first report was not due until 2008—that is, until the government went into full panic mode and brought forward the review committee report, announcing on 13 August that it would start immediately.

Senator Barnaby Joyce was the man who christened the Communications Fund a slush fund—and proudly so, as this was his prize for selling out the people of Queensland after he promised them that he would oppose the sale of Telstra. This was his slush fund. Senator Barnaby Joyce, along with many other members of the National Party—who have realised that political expediency is yet again failing to deliver broadband to millions of regional and rural Australians—have demanded that the review committee start immediately so that they can get a few photo opportunities between now and the federal election. No-one should be under any illusions: the recommendations that will come forward over the next few weeks will be nothing more than pork-barrelling and photo opportunities for a panicked National Party, which has been involved in a tawdry process from day one when it comes to the sale of Telstra.

This new legislation quarantines the $2 billion capital of the Communications Fund. If passed, only the interest earned on the $2 billion fund may be used to improve the state of telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote Australia. This will result in up to $400 million every three years to ensure that telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote Australia keep pace with the rest of the nation. Just in case the National Party cannot add up, subtract or divide, let me be clear about this: the price of the National Party’s votes was $133 million per annum. I am looking forward to the contribution of Senator Fiona Nash, who is here in the chamber today, as she tries to explain why the National Party went so cheap that it sold out for $133 million per annum. That was the National Party’s price for selling out millions of regional and rural Australians and their ability to get decent telecommunications and broadband. This amount is not enough to ensure telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia keep pace with the rest of the nation.

Does the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts believe that this amount is enough to ensure that the intent of the Communications Fund is met? Is $133 million a year enough to provide adequate broadband to millions of regional and rural Australians? Is it enough to ensure that Australians living in rural, regional and remote areas have access to affordable, reliable and up-to-date telecommunication services into the future? Labor—and, indeed, some of the government’s own senators—do not believe so. That is right: this may come as a surprise but some of the government’s own senators do not believe that this legislation is worth while. The truth is that the legislation will not improve telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote Australia. If it would do so, the government’s own backbenchers would have recommended a vote for it in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Let me be clear: the government’s own senators—your own senators, Senator Nash—did not recommend a vote for this legislation in the Senate committee report. The truth is that this legislation will not improve telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote Australia.

This legislation is another sign of the Howard government’s desperate politics. It is a political stunt with the intended aim of highlighting the fact that Labor will use the Communications Fund to provide investment capital to build a national broadband network. This is a national broadband network that will benefit all Australians. This is a national broadband network that will ensure Australia’s future prosperity. Rather than governing in the national interest, the government prefers to attack Labor for showing leadership and solving the broadband problems that continue to plague our country.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you say that with a straight face!

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

Over the past 11 years the Howard government has proposed 18—that is right: 18—bandaid broadband solutions. How proud you must be, Senator Nash, of your 17th and 18th plans which you have just announced in the shadows of an election—11 years and we have our 17th and 18th broadband plans! Not one of these piecemeal attempts will ensure Australians living in rural, regional and remote Australia have access to high-speed internet. The introduction of this legislation clearly shows that the Howard government is once again, with the connivance of the National Party, abandoning rural, regional and remote Australians.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

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

If only you had had the courage, Senator Nash, to stand up for your principles, to stand up for your fibre proposal the Page Foundation recommended, you might not be getting the reaction out there in regional and rural Australia that you are getting.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, Senator Conroy, if only you would direct those remarks through the chair you could continue!

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

I accept your admonishment. I have been unduly provoked by Senator Nash’s interjections! Labor believes that this is not good enough and strongly opposes this bill—and so should other senators who believe that all Australians, no matter where they live, should have access to the best available telecommunication infrastructure. Australia does not need another set of patchwork broadband solutions. Australia needs to invest in a national broadband network that will ensure everyone, no matter where they live, has high-speed internet connections. That is why Labor will use the capital of the Communications Fund to help build a state-of-the-art national broadband network that promises to turn around Australia’s poor broadband performance.

Let me remind you that, after 11 years of the Howard government, the state of telecommunication infrastructure and services has suffered. Our ageing infrastructure continues to lag further and further behind countries we consider our international peers. Currently, Australia is ranked just 16th out of 30 countries regularly surveyed by the OECD. The Howard government may think this is good enough but, let me tell you, Australians do not. Over the past 11 years the Howard government has taken a haphazard, pork-barrelling approach to changing the state of broadband services. To date 18 different broadband plans have been proposed, at a cost in excess of $4 billion—rising to nearly $5 billion with the signing of the OPEL contract. How proud the senators on the other side of the chamber must be! Nearly $5 billion, and what will you have to show for it? A clapped-out, obsolete wireless network. Congratulations; you must be proud! Not one of these plans has managed to address the poor quality of telecommunication infrastructure to ensure our broadband performance is turned around—not one of these plans! Australians deserve better. Australians need a government who puts the national interest first rather than one whose sole aim is to get through an election year.

Contrary to the Howard government, Labor recognises that it is imperative that we invest in telecommunication services to enable the full potential of the information superhighway to be reached. Labor understands the benefits of high-speed broadband infrastructure and the impact it will have on Australia’s future. The increased connectivity from vastly improved telco services will ensure future prosperity for all Australians. True broadband services will allow small and medium businesses to compete in both national and international arenas, increasing productivity gains and opportunities. New markets will be created, resulting in more jobs for Australians. A study by the New South Wales government has shown that true broadband would boost the state economy by up to $1.4 billion. A similar study in Queensland has shown productivity returns of up to $4 billion. The Victorian state government anticipates that broadband will boost the state economy by $15 billion over the next decade. But none of these calculations was based on a clapped-out, obsolete old fixed wireless network.

The potential for broadband is enormous. New services will change the way we lead our lives. E-health will revolutionise the health care sector, enhance patient services and ultimately save lives. E-education promises to enhance learning opportunities for primary, secondary and tertiary students and beyond. These services will benefit all Australians, particularly those in rural, regional and remote Australia. Broadband promises to overcome the tyranny of distance, which up until now has inhibited the potential of many Australians, socially and economically. However, Labor recognises that the full potential of the enhanced services offered by broadband will only be achieved by investing in state-of-the-art communications infrastructure. And let me make it very clear: the best technology, which under Labor’s broadband plan will be available to at least 98 per cent of Australians, is a fibre-to-the-node network.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

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

And let us be clear—because I accept that last interjection from Senator Nash, being provocative again—that this is the sort of proposal that Senator Nash herself signed up to, that she herself put her name to with the Page Foundation. How galling it must be to have not been able to convince her own colleagues to adopt her own idea and then to watch as Labor receives applause and plaudits from around the country for having the courage and initiative to go for a national high-speed fibre network. Her own colleagues rejected it. She was dismissed with a simple ‘The government will look at it’—not that they ever did. For nearly 12 months I asked the department at Senate estimates whether they had looked at the Page Foundation report. Not once did the department ever even bother to consider Senator Nash’s idea. How disappointing, how galling, how bitter it must be for Senator Nash!

We have only to look to the countries who continue to lead the way in telecommunications, including Japan and Korea, to see the countries that have invested in fibre technologies. No fixed wireless for them! Fibre-to-the-node networks offer minimum connection speeds over 40 times faster than today’s average—and I stress the word ‘minimum’. I know it is something that the minister has a lot of difficulty with. She cannot get the words ‘up to’ out. She will keep misleading the Australian public about the speeds and the coverage. If you are listening, Senator Coonan, just make sure that you put the words ‘up to’ in. I know you are not engaged in trade in commerce; otherwise Graeme Samuel would have fined you by now.

Fibre-to-the-node networks are future proof. They scale in ways that alternative technologies just cannot. Over time, they can be easily upgraded to cope with the ever-increasing demand for bandwidth. Fibre-to-the-node infrastructure is an investment. It is not a quick-fix solution. It is more costly to deploy than cheaper, less scalable alternatives. Nevertheless, the government should stand up and meet the challenge of deploying a fibre-to-the-node network across Australia.

To achieve this Australia needs a government that is prepared to invest in telco infrastructure, and oversee the deployment of a national broadband network. Australia needs a Rudd Labor government. A Rudd Labor government will use the Communications Fund to enable all Australians to have access to vastly improved telecommunication services. Labor will deliver a fibre-to-the-node service that will deliver guaranteed minimum—again I stress ‘minimum’—connection speeds that are 40 times faster than today’s average to 98 per cent of Australians. The remaining two per cent of Australians will receive a standard of service which—depending on the available technology, including fixed line, wireless or satellite—will be as close as possible to that provided by the new network. Labor’s new network will have open access. This will promote competition and drive consumer prices downward.

Labor’s carefully costed fibre-to-the-node network is based on a detailed calculation of the number of nodes required to reach 98 per cent of Australians. This includes the number of upgrades of exchanges and pillars into nodes that are required. To deliver the national broadband network Labor will use a $4.7 billion public equity injection, which includes the $2 billion asset in the Communications Fund. Under Labor’s network the Communications Fund will be used to achieve the aim for which it was intended. ‘To future proof’ were the famous words—bandaids worth $133 million. Labor will build a network that is actually future proofed, when it puts the fibre in the ground, just as Senator Nash and the Page Foundation recommended all those years ago.

Labor’s broadband network will ensure that Australians living in rural, regional and remote areas have access to affordable, reliable and up-to-date telecommunication services into the future. The national broadband network will ensure Australians living in rural and regional areas will have not just metro-comparable pricing—the bauble that the National Party and the National Farmers Federation rolled over to endorse—but also parity of service. This is in stark contrast to the Howard government, who prefer to insist on a two-tier system. Some Australians living in metropolitan areas—and we do not know who, judging by the incredibly vague and highly criticised guidelines—will have access to a fibre-to-the-node network. The remainder of the population, including those in rural, regional and remote Australia, will have to put up with a second-rate system. The second-rate system is based on the government’s favourite technology, fixed wireless WiMAX. This technology is widely regarded by industry experts as obsolete.

Under ideal conditions fixed wireless WiMAX will allow broadband speeds up to—there are those words again; ‘up to’—20 times faster than today’s average, but in reality the technology is plagued with a number of issues. Firstly, the connections speeds are shared. These things work according to the laws of physics—for Senator Nash’s and the Senate’s interest—and no amount of spin by Senator Nash when she speaks next, or jawboning by Senator Coonan, when she eventually turns up in the chamber for her own bill, will get away from the laws of physics. The laws of physics say that with wireless the further you stand away from the tower the slower the speeds and the more people using the connection at the same time the slower the speeds. Senator Nash might sit there making notes and trying to rewrite the laws of physics but it is just not going to wash. The laws of physics are the laws of physics and there is nowhere to go.

The connection speeds, as I said, are shared, meaning that the average speeds for Australians living in the outer suburbs of the major cities, as well as for those living in rural and regional areas, will only be double today’s average. So, when you hear the words ‘I’ll deliver you 12 meg in the bush,’ just remember that the average speed that they will be able to deliver over this network, if they are lucky, is double what you get today. Congratulations to Senator Nash and the National Party! As I said, the connection speeds depend on the distance from the tower. In fact, the Optus-Elders consortium, OPEL, who were awarded the grant to build the new network, have acknowledged this in their press release. You will not hear this from the other side of the chamber. The consortium say:

Actual speeds will vary due to various factors such as distance from the base station, selected service, customer equipment and general internet traffic.

There it is in black and white. OPEL have to tell the truth. I know that Senator Nash is not going to, but OPEL have to. (Time expired)

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Allison’s speech.

Leave granted.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 ensures that the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund—part of the proceeds of the final tranche of Telstra’s sell-off—is maintained as a perpetual fund.

The $2 billion is under management and invested in short term, low risk assets. The earnings on investments are made available at around $130 million a year to fund infrastructure for broadband, additional mobile telephone towers and backhaul fibre capabilities to rural communities.

According to the government, it enables the Commonwealth to implement responses to recommendations made by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee relating to the adequacy of telecommunication services in regional, rural or remote areas.

This is a very common approach of this government. It steers clear of guarantees of universal entitlements and instead drip feeds funds, mostly through grants to organisations in a patchwork of projects.

However, there is no overall plan and despite spending over $11 billion on telecommunications in rural Australia between 1997 and 2005 broadband services are still inadequate.

We said then and we say again now that there needs to be an audit of current fibre networks, a national plan and an adequate fund to roll broadband out.

We suggested that rather than use the $2 billion for infrastructure that it be used to maintain and upgrade services into the future.

Of course the commitment by the government at the last election was to not sell Telstra until rural service obligations and levels of service in rural areas were met. They were not acceptable when that last tranche was sold and they are still not acceptable.

But of course, as Minister McGauran admits, this bill is all about playing politics and a total waste of our time. It will obviously pass into law but as everyone knows, takes only a bill to repeal it which presumably the ALP will introduce as soon as it wins office.

The Government is quite open about it. This is to ensure that the Labor Party in office cannot, by ‘sleight of hand, or under cover of night’, abolish the Communications Fund.

Minister McGauran says if Labor wants to undo the legislation it will have to ‘do so in the full glare of public accountability’.

Well I suppose it will but would people in rural and regional areas prefer to wait for services while the interest of about $130 million a year is dribbled out for broadband or would they like the benefits of the full rollout as soon as possible.

In the full glare of the public gaze, as people despair at ever getting fast, affordable Internet services, I think they are likely to go for the latter.

The interest on this $2 billion was always going to be inadequate which may be why the government has only provided the woolliest idea of what these services are that the government is protecting or who will be entitled to them.

Like most politicians I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on broadband. A tourist business in the Grampians (Royce Raleigh) said:

“We are disgusted that after all the publicity and advertising re Broadband in rural areas by both the Government and providers, that even while paying $49.50 per month, the best we can get in practice, is a Broadband service slower than Dial-up. When is the Government going to get fair dinkum and make Broadband /SP providers deliver the speeds that they advertise? When are we going to get the same Communication Technology that people in the city take for granted?

We have put up with bushfires and drought in the last 12 months. We are trying to run a business in a very busy Tourist area, with no mobile phone coverage and no Broadband service. We are getting more and more international guests, who comment and ask: ‘Why is the Internet so slow in Australia? Why is mobile phone coverage so poor?’ We can only respond that the government does not see it as priority for country people. When are we going to get some real communication?”

In another instance an Albury-based businessman located in a regional hub with close to 100,000 people complains about the service level of broadband upload and download speeds and the impact to his business.

There are many cities in regional Australia with over 40,000 people, and a number with over 80,000.

This bill should be about delivering minimum services to regional cities and towns that match the standards in our capital cities.

And at the heart of this—the broadband debate—is the future competitiveness of regional Australia. What is needed is public Fibre to the Node infrastructure that gives fair access to all players, and a level playing field.

One solution might be to replace existing networks entirely and put in fibre or a wireless solution to every home and business as South Korea and Japan have done. They would cost far more than the $4.7 billion the ALP is offering but we need an honest debate about whether this is the way to go or not.

If this level of investment is not an option then we need as a minimum to sort out the regulatory mess. On the one side we have Telstra claiming that it will not make investments on account of the risk to shareholder returns and the share price because of current competition regulation.

The G9 group has the opposite problem - it needs regulation to get access to premises and that means connecting its fibre to Telstra’s copper pair.

I hear that Telstra will not even switch on the equipment it has, arguing that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will force it to accept unreasonably low rates. Of course if the equipment remains switched off and effectively mothballed then it can’t generate return on share holders’ investment in any case—so the question has to be asked: what is Telstra’s game?

Should the G9 lay their own fibre network there is the risk that has been Optus’ experience that Telstra will duplicate the infrastructure. This would deliver another Mexican stand off.

So while the G9 proposal is a way forward, the options are to do this with public money as Labor is proposing or to place restrictions on Telstra.

In either case these problems would not exist if Telstra was properly structurally separated and all retailers, including Telstra Retail, bought network services on the same terms. Critically the issue of access to Telstra’s copper pair needs to be dealt with and through competition policy.

It is regrettable that we are today dealing with a bill that achieves nothing constructive. Instead, we should be removing the structural impediments to competition through the restructuring of Telstra and by giving the regulator effective divestiture powers, as recommended by ACCC and OECD.

We should be introducing a well funded national strategy with targets and timeframes that has as its basis the supply of affordable broadband to all Australians.

We should have an industry/government coordinating body to implement this national strategy.

The Democrats say funding should be available for new technology only, not to upgrade existing copper networks. Fibre-to-the-House and/or true wireless broadband at a minimum of 10Mb, should be implemented as a high priority. Federal Government should support local councils to facilitate broadband access in their communities. All new housing estates should be fibre.

The Government should specify in legislation and regulations minimum service requirements for broadband access and minimum broadband speeds to provide Australians reasonable access to data services.

Subsidisation of satellite technologies should be reviewed to find the most appropriate means of supplying the technology to isolated areas and where possible provide all Australians with equal access.

The Democrats call on both the government and the opposition to act in the long-term national interest rather than the short term politicking reflected in this bill.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before we proceed further, Senator Conroy, are you circulating a second reading amendment?

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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate condemns the Government for failing to invest the $2 billion Communications Fund in a national fibre to the node broadband network to ensure:

(a)

parity of service and metro comparable pricing for all Australians serviced by the fibre to the node network;

(b)

the state of broadband services in Australia is turned around, after the past 11 years of neglect under the Howard Government;

(c)

that Australians have access to the best available telecommunication technologies;

(d)

that Australians in rural and regional areas have improved telecommunication services, including access to e-health and e-eduction, which are only possible over a fibre to the node network—the interest earned on the Communications Fund (up to $400 million every 3 years) is not enough to ensure this;

(e)

that 98 per cent of Australians, including those in rural and regional areas, have access to future proof telecommunications technology; and

(f)

that the 2 per cent of people that the new fibre to node network will not reach have a standard of service, depending on the available technology, that is as close as possible to that provided by the new network”.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make some comments about the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. I do so because, quite simply, if the government had not moved to introduce this legislation, rural and regional Australia would have been completely disadvantaged and would have lost out as a result of the Australian Labor Party—there is no way around that; there is no other way of saying it, but that is it.

The National Party and the coalition government introduced a $2 billion Communications Fund to ensure that rural and regional Australia would have telecommunications to a level that they needed into the future. It was fairly simple and obvious to those people looking at it. Senator Conroy on the other side of the chamber would have you believe that the Labor Party’s plan is going to deliver for rural and regional communities, so I rise tonight to let the people, particularly of rural and regional communities, know that this is not the case. The government has put in place a $2 billion principal Communications Fund to ensure telecommunications for regional communities. Interestingly, Senator Conroy fails to tell the Senate that they have no plan for rural and regional Australian telecommunications whatsoever—absolutely none. As I have referred to before, I do not think Senator Conroy has actually been out of Melbourne and into regional Australia, because I live out in a regional community, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I can tell Senator Conroy that there are no nodes where I live and no nodes anywhere nearby, and I live in a reasonably populated part of rural Australia.

Their plan will not work. What is fascinating about this is that all we have had from the Labor Party so far on their grand plan for broadband rollout in rural and regional Australia—actually all of Australia—is one media release. There are no costings, there is no detail and there is no substance. There is absolutely nothing except this superficial commentary about the great things they are going to deliver. It is absolute rubbish and there is no substance whatsoever, which is like a whole lot of other Labor policies at the moment—there is absolutely no substance to them whatsoever. We have from Labor a plan for broadband for the nation which, if it were not so sad for rural and regional communities, would be absolutely laughable. Interestingly, their fibre to the node—and I think that side of the chamber got so caught up with the actual word that they cannot get past the phrase ‘fibre to the node’ because it is all really exciting—does not get to more than about 75 per cent of Australians.

I represent rural and regional communities and they are the most important thing to me as a National Party senator. The very simple message for our rural and regional communities is that, under Labor’s plan for fibre to the node, 25 per cent of Australia is going to miss out and that includes every single little bit of rural and regional communities, because fibre to the node is exactly that; fibre to the node. Senator Conroy—‘No Nodes Noddy’, on the other side—again: there are no nodes out there. I do not know if Senator Conroy does not ‘get’ the technology of what fibre to the node is—maybe that is true; I am not quite sure. It does not go to rural and regional communities. I can stand here and talk for 20 minutes and say 27 million times how this is not going to get to rural and regional Australia. But it is simple—Labor’s policy will not deliver to rural and regional communities. There is nothing; there will be no broadband and no fast speeds, because it is all about ‘big city’ Labor and making sure that everything is okay in the cities. Well, that is not okay, because rural and regional communities are the ones that are going to miss out and that is not fair and it is not right.

Labor are going to steal the very money from rural and regional communities that was put there to ensure that they had telecommunications services. It was put there by the National Party and the Liberal Party to ensure that it was guaranteed into the future that we would have those services for regional communities, because we recognise how important it is that we have them. Those on the other side in the Labor Party have absolutely no idea. I might be wrong, but I would imagine that every single person living in a rural and regional community at this moment, tonight, is aware that, if they have a Labor government after the election, they will have no capacity for faster broadband speeds because Labor want to steal the money from the very fund that is going to help deliver to those rural and regional communities. I do not think it is right for them to take that money and put it into the cities when, by the way, private commercial companies are delivering broadband services to the city anyway. The Australian Labor Party want to steal that $2 billion and put it into the cities. I defy anybody around this country to tell me why that is right, because it is not—it is absolutely wrong. As I said earlier, Senator Conroy should be ‘No Nodes Noddy’ because there are no nodes; they cannot deliver. Most people probably do not realise that the speeds of broadband delivered from the nodes go 1.5 kilometres. That is fine if you are living in the middle of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, but it is not fine if you are living in Young, or Albury, or Mendooran, or in Tamworth or on the north coast.

It is not fine and it is not right. We are talking about a distance of 1.5 kilometres. The Australian Labor Party are dealing in ‘fraudband’. They are not being fair and they are not being truthful with the people living in our rural and regional communities. The Labor Party would have people in our regional and rural communities believe that they are going to deliver this great broadband speed that the government cannot possibly deliver. That is rubbish. It is absolute rubbish. They are leading the people of rural Australia down the garden path, because they cannot deliver what they say they are going to purely by the dint of technology. I know that, and many of my colleagues on this side know that. Certainly my National Party colleagues know that. My National Party colleagues in the House who have spoken on this bill—Mrs Hull, Mr Scott and Mr Neville—all made the point that the Australian Labor Party were going to steal from rural and regional communities. That is exactly what it is.

What we have under this government is a very solid plan for the delivery of broadband around this nation. It is not just about regional communities getting the level of service that they need. It is not just about our regional communities being able to communicate with the cities around this nation. It is about our regional communities being able to play on the global stage—we are part of the world; the barriers have broken down—and we need that ability. This government actually has a plan to make sure that those people in regional communities have the telecommunications services that they need. We are putting $958 million into the rollout of a broadband network that will reach 99 per cent of the country. The last one per cent of the country, as everybody knows, out in those very remote areas, needs satellite capacity to get this broadband network there. We are going to ensure that 100 per cent of the country is covered. That 99 per cent figure is not some pie-in-the-sky, Senator Conroy style grand plan of absolute rubbish; it is a substantive, costed, sensible, measured rollout of broadband capability for this nation. We are doing the right thing in ensuring that this nation gets the broadband capability that it needs.

It really concerns me that we see a scare campaign coming from the Australian Labor Party, denigrating what the government is doing. If the Australian Labor Party were really concerned about telecommunications in this nation, if they were really concerned about telecommunications in rural and regional communities, they would actually say how they are going to deliver their fibre-to-the-node plan—because, quite frankly, one media release does not cut it. The people of this country deserve more. They deserve to know how it is being costed. They deserve to know where it is going to be rolled out. They deserve to know where all these nodes are going to be, given that it is only 1.5 kilometres from the node that this technology is going to deliver to. I can almost hear people around regional communities laughing about the 1.5 kilometres, because they are tens of hundreds of kilometres from nodes and they know that that is not going to deliver.

What is also really interesting is that the $958 million, which this government is putting in to roll out broadband around this nation, is there because this government has the economic credentials to be able to afford it. It is a bit like running a household; you cannot spend money on things if you have not saved it up. This is the money the government has very carefully saved because it has managed the economy of this country well. While that phrase sometimes gets lost on people, what that actually means is that this government has money to spend on things that are important to the people of this nation—and one of those things is telecommunications. When I came into this place, and for a long time before, I was very aware of the fact that we had budgets in deficit. There was no money. We came into this place with a $96 billion debt from Labor. And it was not just $96 billion of debt; along with that came an $8 billion a year interest bill. That meant that there was no money to spend on things like telecommunications broadband plans for the nation. Now, because we have finally paid off that debt—and it took a lot of hard work and a lot of good management—we have that money in our household budget, in this country’s household budget, to spend on telecommunications. It is all very well for Senator Conroy to stand on the other side and talk about his grand plan about fibre-to-the-node blah, blah, blah but under Labor there would not be the money to pay for it. That is not just a throwaway line; there is a track record.

You only have to look at all the state Labor governments right around this nation to know that Labor cannot manage money, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that federal Labor would be any different because the philosophy is entirely the same. For state Labor, federal Labor, Labor people and the unions it is exactly the same. To suddenly expect that, because Mr Rudd says, ‘I’m an economic conservative,’ all will be okay in the economy is wrong. It will not be okay, and people in rural and regional Australia in particular need to know that Labor cannot manage money. It is because they cannot manage money that they have never been able to do things like roll out a $958 million broadband plan, which is what we are doing.

The fibre-to-the-node proposal from the Australian Labor Party means that they have to steal $2 billion from rural and regional communities. I find that absolutely abhorrent because, at this moment, an enormous percentage of the nation—including 75 per cent of New South Wales—is going through one of the worst droughts on record. People in those areas are doing it very tough. I take my hat off to them because they battle and battle to provide food for this nation and to provide an economic powerhouse for us as a trading nation. On top of that drought, we see Labor wanting to rip out the $2 billion Communications Fund that was set up purely to help rural and regional communities. We do not know where technology is going to go in the future, but The Nationals and the Liberal Party know that we have to make sure that we look after those rural and regional communities and we look ahead, we think and we prepare. We know there may well be changes in technology and technology delivery down the track, and we have prepared by setting up a $2 billion fund from which $400 million every three years is going to go to rural and regional communities. It was set up to be substantive and ongoing.

We need to protect that $2 billion fund, which is why this legislation has been introduced. If we protect that $2 billion fund, then rural and regional communities will have $400 million every three years in perpetuity to go towards their security of telecommunications. It is a sensible, practical measure that will ensure telecommunications in rural and regional communities. But, oh no, Labor want to get rid of it. Very simply, the Australian Labor Party want to take $2 billion from rural and regional communities and put it in the cities. That is not fair. It is not right. Private enterprise is going to deliver broadband to the cities anyway. How the Australian Labor Party can sit on the other side of the chamber and say, ‘This is fine; we will steal this money from the bush and give it to the cities,’ I do not know. I do not know how they can possibly think that is right, proper or fair, because it is not.

The government has had to bring in this legislation because, if we had not, rural and regional communities around Australia would have missed out. We have had to do this as a safety net because we know that the Australian Labor Party would steal the fund. We will not stand for it. We will not wear it. We are going to secure the future of rural and regional communities. We are going to secure the telecommunications needs of rural and regional communities into the future.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. This bill seeks to introduce legislation to prevent the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund from being drawn upon to deliver telecommunications services to rural, regional and remote Australia. It is a bill that Labor opposes. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, in her press release on 21 June 2007, made it clear that this legislation is to prevent Labor from using the Communications Fund to provide a national broadband network should a Rudd Labor government be elected. Surely such motivation is further evidence that the government does not hold the national interest as paramount. The government is more interested in trying to cover up its own incompetence than in getting on with the task of connecting the nation to world-class broadband access.

There is one little, simple, single-syllable word that characterises the Howard government’s action on the issues that matter to the Australian people. The word is ‘slow’. We know only too well that the government has been slow to even admit climate change is a crucial, compelling challenge. It has been slow to address the nation’s growing skills shortage. Infrastructure is yet another area that has suffered due to the federal government being slow to act. And now in this chamber, focusing on the issue of broadband, again the government has been slow. The only thing slower than the government’s moves in this area are the snail-paced internet speeds that many Australians have to deal with on a daily basis in family homes, in small businesses and in rural and regional Australia.

It is not in dispute that fast, reliable broadband is essential for our society—for families, for education, for medicine and health, for small businesses and for the economy. As it stands, our nation’s lack of high-speed broadband is hurting and holding back Australian families and small businesses. Australia’s broadband performance is poor. We are ranked only 16th out of the 30 countries surveyed by the OECD. We lag a long way behind the countries we consider our international peers. Yet the coalition has sat on its hands for years, only cobbling together a plan in the shadow of a looming federal election. And even now the result is unsatisfactory on so many levels—a poorly devised plan that will inhibit Australia’s potential both socially and economically.

The government’s plan is a two-tiered system which discriminates against rural and regional Australians. They will be treated as second-class citizens by the legislation the government wants to enact. Those living outside of metropolitan areas will be left with an inferior wireless service. Those living outside of the inner suburbs of any of the nation’s five major cities will have shared connection speeds. There should not be a debate over how important this issue is for a progressive and competitive Australia. There really is no argument. As we look at the detail of the government’s plan, it is hardly worthy of the tag ‘next generation’. Despite its posturing, the government just does not seem to get it.

Some months ago, Senator Coonan told The 7.30 Report that Australian broadband is ‘okay’ and that ‘no-one is complaining about the speeds of broadband in metropolitan areas’. How complacent and out of touch with Australian families this government is. Its procrastination in this matter has been costly for many people in metropolitan areas and in rural and regional areas. Mr Howard has had years to deal with broadband—as he has with other aforementioned issues—and is only acting now because there is an election on the way. Indeed, the federal government’s performance on broadband has been a broadscale hoax on all Australians, particularly those who live in rural and regional Australia.

Despite its name, the purpose of this legislation is not to protect people in rural, regional and remote areas. Senator Coonan’s claims that the government would deliver high-quality, high-speed broadband to 99 per cent of Australians, using the income generated by the Communications Fund, have been little more than an act. By the government’s own figures, the slush fund will generate a maximum of $400 million dollars in interest and other income every three years. Labor believes this is not nearly enough revenue to raise the standard of telecommunications services outside of city areas. Instead, Labor will make the Communications Fund true to its name. Under a Rudd Labor government, the fund’s capital would be used to build a national broadband network that would guarantee that those in rural and regional Australia would no longer be left behind when it comes to crucial, even lifesaving, communication. There is no risk to the government in being part of a joint venture for such a network; broadband is an essential utility and therefore an important investment.

The Communications Fund would form part of the $4.7 billion which will see 98 per cent of Australians serviced by a fibre-to-the-node network, with minimum connection speeds of 12 megabits per second. The remaining two per cent of Australians will receive a standard of service as close as possible to that provided to other users. Labor believes it is crucial that people living in regional and rural areas have, where possible, access to metro-comparable broadband. Labor rejects the claim that the coalition’s proposed new network would deliver broadband services 20 to 40 times faster than today’s average. The OPEL consortium—which was awarded the grant to build the government’s planned new network—admits: ‘Actual speeds will vary due to various factors such as distance from the base station, selected service, customer equipment and general internet traffic.’ So speeds under the government’s plan are seriously in question, with even the successful tenderer unable to confirm Senator Coonan’s claims. When I asked Senator Coonan in this chamber on 20 June why the government was spending up to $1 billion to duplicate an existing service, she replied that there was no duplication, but she then went on to say, ‘You cannot push out to 99 per cent of the population without having some minimal duplication of coverage.’

A failure to rule out investment in a duplicate network is not the only problem Labor sees in the guidelines for the government’s 18th broadband plan. They also failed to specify whom the network would reach. They omitted to state a minimum connection speed and did not rule out a government contribution for network losses—a very different story from that which the minister has been telling. Also providing a challenge to the minister’s claims is OPEL, the consortium which is providing the WiMAX network, which has stated delivery speeds up to six megabits per second, being scaled up to 12 megabits per second in 2009—a long way short of the claim made by the Howard government. After years of inaction, during which Australia slipped further and further behind other nations, and 17 previous attempts at a broadband plan, the government have come up with a substandard proposal—a second-class system. Labor believes this is simply not good enough. It is of fundamental importance that we get it right when it comes to broadband. Labor’s broadband plan uses superior technology to that of the government’s scheme; and crucially, it provides for the migration to the ultimate technology: fibre to the home.

Bringing Australian broadband into the 21st century is no easy or quick task, because our infrastructure is in such a deficient state. The Howard government’s indifference and neglect have come home to roost. They have been indecisive and painfully slow. Labor understands the importance of high-speed, accessible, affordable broadband internet for all Australians and is ready to roll up its metaphorical sleeves and get to work on this and other issues. A brighter, more competitive future when it comes to the benefits of broadband is reliant on the building of better fibre networks. Labor’s plan for a national broadband network would deliver the future to all Australians.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to Senator Nash tonight and I thought her contribution to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 was worth while. She does put a lot of effort into telecommunications in Australia. This bill seeks to lock up the $2 billion that the National Party won in exchange for the sale of Telstra. In the party room, or forums, we said that if Telstra is sold then we want to ensure that rural and regional Australia never gets left behind, as it was at the end of the Labor Party administration. I remember that, when Labor came to office, rural and regional Australia did not even get untimed local calls. There was no such thing as broadband or the internet—just one lonely telephone, and you were even charged if you rang your next-door neighbour. In fact, you were charged for a long-distance call if you rang the cottage from the main house. Even a call to your employer was called a long-distance call.

The previous speaker, Senator Wortley, said the government has been indifferent and has not moved. There is $4 billion worth of indifference: there are mobile telephones right across Australia, there are mobile telephones in the smallest village and there are mobile telephones up into the Torres Strait and out to the islands. Towers have been put up and subsidised by the government to ensure that everyone gets a mobile phone. You can now ring from Birdsville to Bedourie, from Birdsville to Boulia and it is classed as a local call. These are things which the coalition has done. This bill seeks to lock in that $2 billion under legislation, and it can never be removed unless Labor has a majority in the Senate. That $2 billion is there to keep rural and regional Australia up to speed when new technology comes through. I am sad to say that Labor will raid that $2 billion. It has said it wants that $2 billion to put forward its plan for the use of fibre-to-the-node technology.

Senator Nash said that fibre to the node will be implemented within 1.5 kilometres. I have a note here to the effect it will go four kilometres. But, whether it is 1.5 kilometres or four kilometres, it does not make a great deal of difference when your telephone is five kilometres from the front gate, let alone five kilometres from the nearest town. There is no fibre to the node in rural and regional Australia, and 25 per cent of the people will be left out. There will be no plan under Labor to support them. It is bad enough to exclude 25 per cent of regional Australia, but they then want to rob the fund and say: ‘We’re going to use that $2 billion to push forward our fibre to the node. We’ll take that away from you and, if you fall behind in telecommunications, that is just too bad.’ Unfortunately, that is what the Labor Party have said they will do. They will take the $2 billion that the coalition has put in a trust fund which will produce $400 million every three years. Labor are going to use that money and then they will turn their backs on rural and regional Australia. I find that pretty hard to accept.

Only a couple of weeks ago we in the coalition put forward a program of, I think, $958 million to try to give people the latest technology, through a company called OPEL, which is a combination of Elders—a real Australian company—and another company. We actually reached 99 per cent of the people. We were not able to reach the other one per cent of the people, who are on radio digital concentrators and kilometres away from any town. But we have not ignored or forgotten them. We have not said, ‘Sorry, you’re just within the one per cent and that’s tough luck; you live out in the bush and you have to accept that.’ We have $400 million to fix that problem. We have appointed a very prominent eye doctor in Brisbane, Dr Glasson, who has taken on the duty of running around rural Queensland with the Mayor of Barcoo, ‘Barcoo Bruce Scott’. They will go out to those remote areas and ascertain what people are looking for.

We have provided $400 million to pick up that one per cent of the people, in contrast to Labor, which will raid our fund of $2 billion that will lock in the advanced telecommunications technology. Rural Australia will be left high and dry. Senator Conroy, you ought to be honest and say: ‘Fibre to the node just will not work in rural and regional Australia. If you are four kilometres from the node, you will be completely left out.’

This bill is needed. We need to lock it in. We want to ensure that that $2 billion can never be removed and that it picks up interest. There may be a time when $400 million is not sufficient to keep the telecommunications technology up to speed. That does not mean we will just say, ‘Well, here’s the $400 million and we’re just going to use that,’ as Senator Conroy has suggested. Senator Conroy will know that in the 12 years we have been in government we have spent $4 billion on telecommunications. What a disgrace it was when we came in: all people had was one lousy telephone and, even then, they could not use it to ring their neighbour up or even the house on their property. We have gone so far in telecommunications. No-one can deny that the National Party and the Liberal Party have stood up for the bush. We have had so many programs, including $50 million for regional mobile phones, regional highway satellite phones, internet assisted programs, national communication funds, Indigenous communication scoping funds, Torres Strait community funds, the telecommunications action plan, local government funds and building rural networks—time after time we have come up and met the needs of rural Australians.

All we have in return is the Labor Party saying: ‘Let’s go to fibre-to-the-node technology. We’ll put it in the cities and the bush can’—I do not know what happens to the bush, they will just carry on the way they are and gradually fall behind the rest of Australia. I say to Senator Conroy: the market is prepared to put in this broadband in Australia. You do not have to go and spend $15 billion of taxpayers’ money to put in what the market will put in. Where the market fails is where there are not enough people to make the market work, and that is in rural and regional Australia. That is where the government has to act. But you in the Labor Party just cannot help yourselves. You have $15 billion earmarked for a communications project to put in broadband that many companies in Australia are quite prepared to fund. However, those companies are not prepared to go out and fund telecommunications projects in the bush where there are not enough people to make the market work, so that is where we have come in with $400 million. We are looking after the people that have supported the National and Liberal parties. But Labor has walked away from them, Senator Conroy: you have not explained to us how you are going to get broadband out there. We have even supported mobile phones that are satellite phones when people get so far away from the CDMA that they cannot connect with it. Unfortunately, we need to pass this legislation otherwise the $2 billion will go up in smoke. Rural and regional Australia would then be left seeing telecommunications as they were before we came into government.

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

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007, which seeks to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. From reading the title of the amendment bill one would be forgiven for assuming that the government is aiming, through this bill, to do something positive for the future of telecommunications services in rural and remote Australia. Indeed, one would be forgiven for assuming that this bill is aimed at doing the right thing by protecting the standard of telecommunication services in rural and regional Australia for the future.

If Senator Nash and Senator Boswell were serious about delivering broadband to the bush then they—the Nationals—would be supporting Labor’s national broadband plan. However, unfortunately for the people of rural, regional and remote Australia, the government’s intention through this bill is far from aimed at investing in and protecting the standard of telecommunications services; this bill is about preventing the ALP from using the Communications Fund to provide a national broadband network announced by Labor—should a Rudd Labor government be elected. The Howard government is not motivated by the long-term national interest; it is motivated by short-term political interests. The Labor Party are not the only ones to see that this government is all about stunts and does not stand for anything. I quote from yesterday’s Sunday Age:

After 11 years of being run by a policy contortionist, it’s difficult to see why the Liberals want to be in government.

They don’t stand for paying less tax, not for less regulation, not for smaller government, not for protecting civil liberties, not for investing in universities, not for the arts or sciences, not for a fair go in the workplace, not for states rights, not for an open economy, not for less welfare, not for caring for the planet and not for respecting international law.

The government recently released the draft guidelines for its 18th broadband plan. The guidelines are appalling and vague and leave the majority of Australians, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, in the dark, with it containing no firm guarantee that they will receive reliable, high-speed broadband access. The guidelines fail to specify who the network will reach and the minimum connection speed and to rule out government contribution to network losses.

So what is the point? The guidelines smell of another ad hoc political stunt by an out-of-touch, arrogant government, designed to convince the voters that they are committed to delivering a broadband solution for all Australians. However, it is obvious from the vague nature of the government’s guidelines that their broadband plan is a bandaid, a poorly thought-out policy that has been slapped together on the run in the lead-up to the election. Their vague, poorly drafted policy, which is set to invest in obsolete technology and see the majority of Australians still without a fast, reliable broadband service, proves once and for all that this government just does not get it when it comes to investing in the future of this nation. Just as it does not get it when it comes to climate change, it does not get it when it comes to providing a genuine broadband solution for this country.

This is a government that is stuck in the past and is not willing to invest in the future. The measures contained in this bill prove it. Through this bill the government intends to lock up $2 billion of government money set aside to improve telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia and effectively deny people and businesses in such areas the chance to access metro-comparable telecommunications services.

It seems that this government is so hell-bent on political stunts that, rather than turning around the poor quality of telecommunications for all Australians, including those living in rural, regional and remote areas, it is willing to underinvest in essential infrastructure such as telecommunications. While the government plays games in the lead-up to this year’s elections, people and businesses in rural, regional and remote Australia are set to suffer. It is measures like those contained in this bill that leave no doubt that this government is old and out of touch with the people of Australia and that investment is needed now to ensure the health of the Australian economy in the future. It proves that this government is more concerned with holding on to government money in the lead-up to an election than investing in essential infrastructure for the future. It proves that this government, at this point in time, is so obsessed with serving its own political interests in terms of preserving its own power that it no longer has the best interests of the Australian people at heart.

This bill seeks to effectively lock up $2 billion in the Communications Fund, which was initially established in 2005 to improve telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia by implementing the recommendations given by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee. As a result of this measure only the interest earned by the fund will be available to implement the recommendations of the committee. This will equate to about $400 million over three years, about $133 million a year being available to be spent on telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia.

Labor is 100 per cent committed to improving the appalling standards of telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote Australia and does not believe that $400 million every three years is anywhere near enough to ensure this occurs. At present Australia is ranked only sixteenth out of 30 countries surveyed by the OECD when it comes to our broadband performance. Over the past 11 years the Howard government has failed to do anything to improve this situation, with 18 failed broadband plans under its belt to prove it. Labor believes that what is needed is a national broadband network that ensures 98 per cent of Australians, regardless of whether they live in metropolitan areas or rural and regional Australia, have access to quick, reliable broadband services that deliver a minimum speed of 40 megabytes per second and the remaining two per cent at the very least have access to standard service comparable to that provided by the new network.

Labor plans to deliver such services by rolling out superior state-of-the-art, more reliable fibre-to-the-node technology to 98 per cent of Australians. Labor believes that investment in telecommunications services now and in the future is of comparable importance to investment in rail infrastructure at the turn of the century. Labor’s plan will ensure that all Australians, regardless of where they choose to live, will be granted access to a global market and a catalogue of information which will be pivotal in guaranteeing economic prosperity in the future. It will ensure that no Australian is left behind or left needlessly to struggle with inferior telecommunications infrastructure.

For this to occur there needs to be an obvious investment in telecommunications infrastructure over the next couple of years. As an indication of just how important investment in such infrastructure will be, Labor is willing to invest $4.7 billion to improve the standard of telecommunications services in Australia, particularly in rural and regional areas. This initial investment is sure to pay off in the not-too-distant future, with the network set to open up businesses, particularly in rural and regional areas, to the global market ensuring flow-on investment in such areas. This is why the government’s plan to lock up $2 billion of the Communications Fund, some of which could be used to improve the standard of telecommunications services in Australia, is simply not warranted. It just does not make good economic sense. Four hundred million dollars over three years will do nothing to improve services, let alone maintain them in rural and regional Australia. For this obvious reason, Labor opposes the bill.

The government’s broader approach to telecommunications services in this country just does not add up. It announced earlier this year that it intended to provide a ‘complete and comprehensive broadband solution for Australia’, yet it plans to invest only in the fibre-to-the-node technology in major metropolitan areas, leaving people and businesses in rural and regional Australia out in the cold. How can neglecting the needs of people in rural and regional Australia and leaving them with an inferior, second-rate wireless service be considered as ‘providing a complete and comprehensive broadband solution for Australia’? It is not.

The government has proved with this bill and its broader botched broadband plan that it just does not get it when it comes to investing in essential services for the future. It has proved that it does not get how investing in essential telecommunications infrastructure and lifting the standard of service delivered to rural and regional areas will pay considerable economic dividends in the future. Why doesn’t the government get these things? Because its attention is fixed on retaining power at the next election, rather than coming up with a plan that genuinely invests in telecommunications infrastructure and the future of Australia. It is too busy playing politics. And that is what this bill is about: politics.

Labor has openly expressed its intention, if elected, to put to use the money from the Communications Fund to assist in the rollout of fibre-to-the-node services to 98 per cent of Australian households under its national broadband plan. Now, ironically, here we are debating a bill proposed by the government to lock up that money before the next election. Once again we bear witness to a government that are willing to use and abuse parliamentary processes to play politics and suit their own political agenda, rather than promoting the interests of the Australian people. We have seen it time and time again. Now, with the election looming, they have turned to childish tit for tat politics to ensure that, even if things do fall in their favour at the next election, they will still be left a lasting legacy. This is the work of a government that are scared of losing power, rather than using it in the interests of the people they serve.

Why shouldn’t the money in the Communications Fund be available to invest wisely in the services it was formed to improve? Why should people in rural, regional and remote Australia be left behind? Access to quick and reliable telecommunications services will have a significant bearing on the long-term prosperity of my home state of Tasmania in particular. Tasmania has in recent times enjoyed a period of growth, thanks to the state government’s commitment to investing in the long-term future of the state. Indeed, in recent years there has been an increasing number of people moving to the state as well as an increasing number of young people choosing to stay and invest their futures in Tasmania. This has resulted in a significant amount of development in many parts of the state. In the north-west, places such as Stanley, Ulverstone and Burnie have witnessed a significant amount of development and investment.

Likewise, so has the Kingborough region in the south, where I recently toured with some of my colleagues. This region, combined with the accompanying Channel-Huon region, is one of the fastest growing regions in Tasmania. However, at present many of the people and the small and medium businesses in the region are unable to access the government’s current wireless broadband service. Further, those few who can are constantly hampered by interference, delays and slow upload and download times. The geographic nature of Tasmania, in particular, is not conducive to the Howard government’s proposed second-rate wireless service because of its hilly geography—the very thing that makes the region so appealing.

Under the government’s proposed broadband plan, the people and businesses located in Tasmania will be left either without service or to struggle with the second-rate and highly unreliable wireless network. How can this be in the best interests of the small to medium businesses emerging in Tasmania? This gross underinvestment in essential telecommunications infrastructure by the government will mean more to the people of Tasmania than simply not being able to check the footy scores or to log on to YouTube. The standard of access to telecommunications services in such areas will have direct bearing on the health of the local economy, the success of local businesses and the degree of prosperity they can generate for the national economy.

Indeed, the Australian Local Government Association’s State of the regions report of last year found that inferior broadband services—that is, wireless—in 2006 resulted in the loss of $32.1 million in forgone gross domestic product and around 415 regional jobs in southern Tasmania alone. This is a tragedy. And the figures are similar for other regional areas across Australia. How can the government ignore such figures and continue to underinvest in essential telecommunications infrastructure in Australia? How can we expect people to continue to invest in regional and rural areas when the government is not willing to provide them with basic, reliable telecommunications services to facilitate the growth of their businesses? Why can’t the government see that an investment in essential telecommunications infrastructure in such regions will no doubt result in the generation of more wealth to be invested in the local economy, which will in turn boost the health of the national economy now and in the future?

Such an investment will open local businesses to national and global markets, attracting international interest and investment. This is the way of the future. If Australia is to prosper beyond the current mining boom, investment in this infrastructure is essential. It will not only open up the global market to local businesses; it will also open up a catalogue of ideas to bright young minds, hopefully stimulating creativity and innovation. This will also no doubt benefit the Australian economy in the future.

Gone are the days when people were forced to move away from their local communities, families and friends and give up their lifestyle in order to make ends meet. The information superhighway and ever-increasing mobile means of communication ensure that people now have the option of staying with their families and in their local communities while pursuing a meaningful and productive career. Such advances are welcome in Tasmania, in particular, with the attractiveness of our way of life luring interstate and overseas investors to the state. It may also represent the first small step towards facilitating a means of fusing work and childcare duties for young parents struggling to juggle both.

For this opportunity to eventuate, there first needs to be an investment in the infrastructure to make it all possible, yet the government’s proposed broadband plan will deny nearly all Tasmanians access to a fast, reliable broadband service. They will be left to struggle with the second-rate and unreliable wireless technology. This is simply not good enough. It is not good politics, it is not in the best interests of the Tasmanian people and it is certainly not going to contribute to the future prosperity of the state.

Why throw $54 million into marginal electorates like Braddon in the form of ad hoc, quick-fix, vote-grabbing policies like the one aimed at the Mersey hospital—which one of the government’s own senators thinks will be a disaster? Why open a technical college campus in the same area when enrolment rates well below target are doing nothing to aid the skills crisis in the area or help people retrain to fill the ever-increasing number of job vacancies opening up in this developing area? Why not invest in the long-term future of the state and ensure that every Tasmanian has access to a fast, reliable broadband service?

Labor is aware of the possibilities and the need for investment in essential telecommunications infrastructure. That is why it has allocated $4.7 billion to invest in a high-speed, fibre-to-the-node national broadband network which will be rolled out to 98 per cent of Australians and deliver a service which will be a minimum of 40 times faster than that which is currently provided. Meanwhile, unfortunately the government is more interested in using rural and regional Australians as infantry for its pre-election campaign rather than coming up with a genuine plan that will see an investment in essential telecommunications infrastructure in such areas.

As with an increasing number of bills that have passed through this chamber in recent times, this bill is an attempt by the government to enforce its own political agenda in the lead-up to the election. It is unfortunate that the government has chosen to pursue its own political agenda rather than to consider the needs of people in rural and regional Australia. This bill by no means, as the title suggests, promotes or secures the future of telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia. In fact, it does the opposite.

For this reason and because Labor is 100 per cent committed to improving the standard of telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia, we oppose this bill. Locking up $2 billion and allocating only $400 million over three years is simply not enough, and the government knows it. The Howard government’s WiMAX solution will be badly affected by interruptions to line-of-sight vision. True broadband will bring enormous prosperity. We need to be prepared to take on the challenges so that we can compete in a competitive economy. More needs to be done than this government is prepared to do, and it appears that Labor is the only party with the vision, the plan and the will to do it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to join this debate because I think I actually bring a reality check to the debate that we have had tonight. Unlike the Labor Party speakers who, with respect, have simply read speeches written by some Canberra based backroom clerk like the one who cleverly wrote Senator Conroy’s speech, I actually live in rural and regional Australia. I live a small country town. In July every year I drive throughout north-western and western Queensland. I am often in Far North Queensland, down in Rockhampton and out in Gladstone and Longreach, and, rather than reading these prepared speeches by some Canberra based adviser, I actually get out there and understand the work that Senator Coonan and other members of the government before her have done to assist telecommunications in rural and regional Australia.

I cannot forget the days when without any warning the Labor government shut off the analog telephone, which used to provide a service to rural and regional Australia, without any alternative strategy or system in mind. As is always the case with the Labor Party—and particularly with Senator Conroy—you do not listen to what they say or what they promise; you look at what they do when they are in government. They are criticising us now for interest rates hikes up to seven or eight per cent and say that it is terrible. They do not remember—they do remember but they choose not to remember—when I personally was paying on my own home loan mortgage interest rates of 17½ per cent. When you hear Mr Rudd saying that he is a fiscal conservative and that he will not let interest rates get up to that, do not listen to what he says; just look at what Labor do when they are in government.

The previous speaker had the temerity to mention the Australian Local Government Association. The Labor Party pretend that they are a party interested in rural and regional Australia. I would ask anyone sitting opposite me today to indicate if they happen to live in rural and regional Australia, and not one of them puts up their hand. Do any of them understand what the terminology ‘rural and regional Australia’ means? For Senator Conroy I think that means driving a truck. You were in the truckies union, weren’t you, Senator Conroy, and very involved in driving those big trucks? You were doing something in the Transport Workers Union. I am not quite sure whether you were actually driving trucks but it was probably driving trucks from the CBD of Melbourne to Mordialloc—and Senator Conroy probably thought that was regional Australia. Regional Australia is where I come from and where I drive every year. Senator Conroy, hopeless at policy but quite a nice fellow, should come out with me as I drive—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, I request you to address your remarks through the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would make the invitation for him to come with me out to north-western and western and far northern Queensland to see what rural and regional Australia is about. He would be surprised to know that just in July this year I drove around with my new Palm Treo, that device that gets emails, messages and the internet. It is not a bad device—it does not always do what I want it to do. Would you believe that as I drove through western Queensland the device, using the Next G—or whatever Telstra do and I do not particularly want to promote Telstra—was working when other people travelling with me in the car found their phones were not working? It is not a perfect system, I have to say, but it has been doing pretty well in rural and regional Australia—unlike when the Labor Party shut off the analog system and left rural and regional Australians without any form of mobile telecommunications.

Over the years in my travels in what is genuinely rural and regional Queensland and rural and regional Australia I have been able to see the improvements that this government—Senator Coonan and her predecessors—have made to telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. Several years ago I was in Birdsville, almost in the centre of Australia. People there were actually using the internet to sell organic cattle from Birdsville into Japan. It was a satellite service but it was a service sponsored by the Howard government, a government that understands the needs and interests of rural and regional Australia.

So it is not what Labor promises in their great taxpayer funded robbed telecommunications fund plan for broadband in rural Australia. Do not listen to their promises. Have a look at their record. Up in Rockhampton, where I am spending a bit of time these days, there is a bit of a debate going on about dental health for rural and regional Australians—in fact for all Australians. The Howard government has put in the Medicare funded scheme to spend up to $400 million, I think it is, on people’s dental health. The Labor Party had a proposal that would give everybody dental health at the Commonwealth’s expense. It is a state responsibility. The Howard federal government has come into it because the state Labor governments are absolutely hopeless when it comes to dental health. The Labor Party spokesman promised that every Australian could have this at a cost—and I just want to mention this figure, Mr Acting Deputy President, because it is relevant—of $5 billion per annum.

For those who might be listening to this, that was the surplus in the last budget. The Labor Party would have blown $5 billion on one initiative. I mention that figure because here today the Labor Party are saying that they will blow another $5 billion on their broadband scheme. They do not have to, because, as Senator Coonan has proved, the commercial operators will take that up and the market forces will drive it. But there we have the Labor Party in one year spending twice the surplus. You do not have to be Einstein to work out where this is leading. In just two initiatives the Labor Party have spent twice the surplus. When they promise things for ports, roads, universities or whatever, you can easily see why they ran up a debt of $96 billion before 1996.

It is simply the case that you cannot trust Labor with the chequebook because they just keep signing the cheques and have no idea where the money is coming from. They borrow it, which pushes up interest rates and pushes up inflation. That is what Labor are all about. Their plans for broadband are just more of the same. They are simply signing the cheques with no idea of where the money is coming from. They work through the focus groups that Mr Rudd seems to be so driven by and find out what is popular and then promise some money for it.

I mentioned the ALGA. Ask any local government council anywhere in Australia—but particularly in Queensland—what they think about the Labor Party. The Labor Party are destroying local governments—and mainly the ones in rural and regional Queensland. By opposing this bill, they are destroying the people they are pretending to support. I cannot believe what the Australian media has picked up on. The Labor Party made it an offence to have a plebiscite on what form a local government should take. I cannot understand the Australian media. If Mr Howard blows his nose with the wrong handkerchief it is a front-page headline. But here a Labor Premier—sorry, ex-Premier, thank goodness; he has done the best thing by Queensland by resigning today—and a Labor government, supported by Kevin Rudd and all the other Queensland Labor Party people, although they are trying to distance themselves, brought in legislation that prevents free speech in the state of Queensland.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That bill is listed for debate later this week. You might like to return to the topic.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was listed in the Queensland parliament, but—surprise, surprise—it is not coming on in the Queensland parliament. Would you believe that? Here we have a party that in the debate on this legislation is claiming to be the saviour of rural and regional Queensland and what do they do in Queensland? They destroy the government at the local level that gives local people a say. Councils might have said: ‘We don’t like Labor’s broadband policy,’ or ‘We didn’t like the way they shut off the analog network in our place,’ but the Labor Party know that they will not have to face those sorts of objections and criticism anymore, because they have taken the easy way out and abolished the councils in rural and regional Australia. For the Labor Party to quote the ALGA in support of their propositions regarding this bill is unbelievable. For the Queensland Labor government to stop people having a vote on their own local situation is beyond belief. Perhaps Senator Conroy in the committee stages could tell us why a Labor government destroyed the analog network back when it was important and why it has destroyed local government and free speech in Queensland.

I drive around Queensland a lot. I was amused to hear the previous speaker’s reference to climate change. Just last week, I was up in Nebo and Murrumba and Middlemount in the Bowen Basin coalfields. There it is well known that the ALP, with the support of their mates in the Greens, would shut down those coal mines because they want people to sign a bit of paper called the Kyoto agreement. What they are intending to do is to destroy the jobs of hardworking Australian families—people who labour in those mines but are well rewarded. The Labor Party, with their mates in the Greens, would shut them down. The reference to climate change and Labor’s approach to that is humorous. If you shut down every power station in Australia and turned off the engine in every motor vehicle, it would make less than 1½ per cent difference to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

What Mr Howard so cleverly and professionally did during the APEC meeting was to get the big emitters, China and the United States, to the table to talk about these things in a sensible way. That is not the way that the ALP would do it. They would shut down the mines and destroy the livelihoods of many hardworking families in rural and regional Australia—and particularly in the electorate of Capricornia, where the Liberal Party has a great candidate in Scott Kilpatrick, and in the electorate of Flynn, where the Liberal Party has a great candidate in Jason Rose. Those two gentlemen will be fighting to ensure that the jobs of the miners in the Bowen coalfields are saved from the ravages of the Labor Party and the Greens.

This is a very important bill because the interest from the Communications Fund, up to $400 million every three years, will be able to be used to provide telecommunications. On top of everything else that Senator Coonan and her predecessor Senator Alston have done for country Australia, there will be a permanent commitment of funds to providing real telecommunications support in rural and regional Australia.

I get to my conclusion on the same basis that I started. I do not read my speech from something that has been prepared by an adviser to Senator Conroy who lives in Canberra. Unlike Senator Conroy, I do not live in Melbourne and pontificate about telecommunications in the bush. I actually live in the bush and I travel widely in the bush. I know how telecommunications have improved under the Howard government. Anything and everything the Labor Party might say has to be judged against reality. The reality is—and I entered this debate to bring the reality check to it—that, when the Labor Party were in charge, they did nothing for the bush. You can understand that, because they hold no seats in rural and regional Australia. Even if we were to be defeated at this next election, which I think would be a sad and unlikely event, Labor would still not hold seats in rural and regional Australia.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s Kirsten Livermore the member for if it is not a seat in rural and regional Australia?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad you mentioned that, Senator. You have mentioned Kirsten Livermore. Most of her constituents have not heard from her for the last 2½ years. I have to say they have heard from her in the last six months. Most of them come up to me when I am in Rockhampton supporting Scott Kilpatrick, the Liberal Party candidate, and say, ‘There must be an election on, because we’ve heard Kirsten is actually getting out and doing a few things these days.’ In the one media release that I have seen in recent times from Kirsten she criticised the Liberal candidate, Scott Kilpatrick, for being a wealthy person. Would you believe that, Senator? She criticised a Liberal candidate for being a wealthy person. The Liberal candidate happens to be a self-made builder who builds 200 affordable homes for the people of central Queensland every year. He is self-made. I do not know how wealthy he is but, whatever he has, good luck to him. For Kirsten Livermore to attack the Liberal candidate because he is ‘wealthy’ is beyond the pale to me. Think about your leader, Mr Rudd, and his wife, who are multimillionaires. We wonder how they got their money—they are multimillionaires—but, if they have earned it, good luck to them. In the Liberal Party we support people who get out and work. For a Labor candidate to criticise a Liberal candidate because he happens to be wealthy, when you have the most wealthy man in this parliament as your leader—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And don’t talk to me about Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Rudd could buy and sell Malcolm Turnbull twice over. And let me tell you something else. The Labor candidate in the electorate of Herbert, in Townsville, where I come from, is another multimillionaire on the back of the McDonalds franchise, of which he holds the monopoly in Townsville. Labor Party candidates who criticise Liberal candidates for being wealthy should have a look at their candidate in Herbert, who is a multimillionaire on the back of the McDonalds franchise, or their own leader and his wife, who are multimillionaires. That sort of thing we should not look at. My time unfortunately has drawn to a conclusion. I do urge the Senate to support the bill. (Time expired)

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

I will sum up on behalf of the government in respect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. I have brought forward the bill to ensure that the Australian government’s $2 billion investment in the Communications Fund is preserved in perpetuity to provide an ongoing income stream for future telecommunications improvements in regional, rural and remote Australia.

The Communications Fund was established by the government in 2005 and provides a guaranteed income stream to fund services and infrastructure for regional communities such as additional mobile towers, broadband provision and even backhaul fibre capabilities. Interest earned from the Communications Fund is used to implement the government’s responses to recommendations made by triennial independent regional telecommunications reviews. The current review, chaired by Dr Glasson, is underway.

The bill protects in legislation the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund so that only the interest earned from the fund’s investments, up to $400 million every three years, will be available for future upgrades and can be drawn upon. Importantly, the bill will ensure that the $2 billion Communications Fund cannot be pillaged by a future government for wasteful purposes. It will also ensure that it continues to support areas that need ongoing, targeted government assistance—that is, rural and regional areas where commercial solutions are not always viable.

Labor has committed to draining the entire $2 billion from the Communications Fund, to rob the bush of its ongoing funding and to squander it on a network that is otherwise commercially viable in built-up metropolitan areas where industry has said, in the clearest of terms and publicly, it is prepared to invest. Somewhat ironically, it is rural and regional Australians—whom the Communications Fund was established to protect—whom the Labor Party will, true to form, abandon. Taxpayer funds should be used to deliver equity in under-served areas, and to ensure that regional and rural Australians are not left behind in the ongoing telecommunications technology revolution. We know that the solutions of today will not be sufficient for tomorrow. That is why there needs to be an ongoing dedicated fund for people who otherwise will not be able to get the upgrades and services they deserve and want.

The government has the only plan that will deliver fast internet to 100 per cent of Australians by 2009. When you contrast it with Labor’s so-called plan, which leaves out thousands of the most needy Australians, it is clear that Labor’s plan is a substantially flawed proposal that will not even provide a service until 2013. It is a fair time to 2013. We do not know what technology will be the best solution by 2013, but we know that the Labor Party has very little understanding or grasp of the need to roll out a fast internet solution. In fact, Labor’s proposal is so underdeveloped and incomplete that it has been incapable of providing a map, costing or developed plan—not even an indicative map—to show where this mythical fibre-to-the-node plan will roll out. I think the cat has been well and truly belled in relation to Labor’s plan. It seems quite clear that the Labor Party not only has not thought through this plan but also has absolutely no way to develop a plan of a roll-out to 98 per cent of the population.

Anyone who knows anything about telecommunications knows that Labor’s plan is farcical. In fact, it is a fraud on the Australian people. The Australian people need an internet service that will be available to all Australians—and that is what they are going to get from the Howard government. The bill that I have put forward will ensure that the Communications Fund cannot be pillaged for a plan that industry has said that it will develop. The bill protects the long-term interests of regional, rural and remote Australia, and it will protect regional Australia from the ineptitude and the gross economic irresponsibility of the Labor Party. It is important that these funds be locked away so that they will be available for the purpose for which they were established—that is, to look after the neediest Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.