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

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. In the minister’s media release of 11 February titled ‘Minister discusses CDMA shutdown with stakeholders and Telstra’, he said:

If I am satisfied that the identified issues have been rectified, the network could be switched off by 28 April 2008.

Given the vital importance of this issue to rural and regional Australia, would the minister inform the Senate what those identified issues are and also what criteria he will use to determine whether those issues have been satisfactorily rectified?

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

I thank the senator for her question. She is someone who has genuinely followed these issues over a very long period of time. On 18 January this year I notified Telstra that at that point in time I was not in a position to declare equivalence between the Next G network and the CDMA network. My decision was based upon an ACMA report which found that, while the footprint of the coverage was equivalent, there were issues around, particularly, handsets. For that reason, I said, ‘We can’t proceed with your close-down on 28 January.’ My department had also conducted a shoppers survey—going around many Telstra stores and posing as customers to see what sort of advice was given to the customer about what the handsets were. After all of that, we sat down with Telstra and said, ‘We can’t do this and we expect you to address these issues.’ What we asked for, sought and received from Telstra was a number of commitments. Firstly, and most importantly, that there would be a 1800 number available for people having reception problems to contact and to have a discussion and that this would be advertised. That number is now being advertised nationally.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator—What is it?

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

The number is 1800 888 888. Feel free to give them a ring any time you want. If there is a problem with the reception and you are not getting equivalent coverage to what you previously received, you should use that number. If it turns out that you do not have the appropriate handset, then Telstra, at no charge—and this was insisted upon—will replace the handset with an appropriate one. That was the first thing we asked for—the advertising and the commitment to replace phones. We also sought commitments to the farming community on issues around telemetry—because this is critically important, as Senator Nash would understand—in that those who used telemetry to run equipment on their farm have the ability, since there was a shortage of equipment initially, to have their equipment replaced.

The local wireless loop provides vital services to regional and rural Australians, and there are equipment issues there again. Because of the deadline that Telstra sought, many people had yet to receive the equipment they needed to make the conversion from CDMA to Next G. We sought that, to ensure that the promises made by Telstra were delivered and that people had equivalent coverage. Those were the sorts of things about which we said to Telstra, ‘You must identify and rectify this before we give any consideration.’ Telstra came to us and said, ‘We believe we can achieve all of what you have asked for by 28 April.’ What we have said clearly and consistently is that, if Telstra do that, that would then be an appropriate date. But Telstra have to meet those challenges. So on Monday we convened a meeting with a whole range of interested stakeholders to talk about whether or not Telstra were meeting the objectives. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from that that the minister says the identified issues are handsets and equipment. Wouldn’t it then be appropriate for ACMA to undertake similar testing of those handsets and equipment before you agree to a switch-off? Is ACMA going to be undertaking that testing to ensure equivalence? If not, why not?

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

Thank you for the supplementary question. I had not finished my answer so I appreciate the opportunity to finish it. The stakeholders we met with on Monday included the Australasian Fire Authorities Council, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, the Australian Local Government Association, the Australian Telecommunications User Group, the Australian Trucking Association, the Consumers’ Telecommunications Network—

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

Mr President, on a point of order: my question very clearly went to whether or not ACMA was going to be conducting further testing to ensure equivalence.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: Senator Conroy, you indicated you were going to continue to answer the original question. There was a supplementary question asked, so I draw your attention to the supplementary question.

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

Thank you for that, Mr President. It also included the National Farmers Federation and the Rural Doctors Association. So we are apparently considering—and I am sure this will come up next week for a much lengthier discussion; I look forward to the opportunity—what we intend to do to rectify it. But we are considering what role ACMA should play and what role my department should play, and I look forward to continuing this conversation next week when I will be able to confirm to you our exact rectification process. These are issues that are currently under consideration, because we want to work with stakeholders. (Time expired)