Senate debates
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Questions without Notice
Broadband
2:51 pm
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I ask the minister if he has seen an article by the respected—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Just wait a minute, Senator Minchin. You are entitled to be heard in silence, as is any other person asking a question. Senator Minchin.
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I ask the minister if he has seen a recent article by the respected Alan Kohler speculating that wireless broadband could be faster than fibre optic within two years. Has the minister sought any advice from his department on these forecasts and how they impact on his national broadband network? In particular, has the minister sought advice on Mr Kohler’s conclusion that the losing bidder for the national broadband network could simply build a rival wireless broadband network and, in Mr Kohler’s words: ‘destroy the economics of the fibre-to-the-node network’? Finally, could the minister make an attempt at crafting an answer that has at some least some relevance to the question?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
May I thank Senator Minchin. I think that is almost my first question in my portfolio capacity. The Rudd Labor government supports all broadband developments, be they delivered over fixed line, wireless or satellite technologies. The importance of different broadband technologies is highlighted in the statistics released by the ABS on 22 September 2008. For example, the ABS showed that wireless broadband technology subscriptions saw almost a 90 per cent growth—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Resume your seat, Senator Conroy. The time to debate this is at the end of question time when a motion is moved to take note of answers. Senator Conroy is entitled to be heard in silence, just as the questioner was.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, wireless broadband technology subscriptions saw almost a 90 per cent growth in the six months to June this year. Furthermore, wireless connections now account for 14 per cent of all broadband subscriptions. The ABS statistics released on 22 September show that broadband subscribers continue to choose faster connections. The number of subscribers with download connections of 1.5 megabits per second or greater has increased to 43 per cent of all subscribers, compared to just 36 per cent at the end of December 2007. This demonstrates that Australian consumers have an appetite for faster broadband connections. That is why the Rudd government has committed up to $4.7 billion and will consider regulatory changes to facilitate the rollout of the National Broadband Network that will boost Australia’s productivity. It represents a long overdue investment in our nation’s infrastructure.
David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Loath as I am to take this point of order, I direct you to standing order 187, which says: ‘A senator shall not read a speech.’
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When there is quiet in the chamber I will give Senator Ludwig the call. If you want to debate it, there is a time after question time to debate these matters.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, as the Senate quite rightly knows, many senators do make speeches in this place with copious notes. Sometimes they have short notes and sometimes they have longer notes. Both sides of the chamber have continued to use notes. I am sure that the Liberals, on the other side, also use notes in their contributions to the Senate, as does this side of the house. Some use more copious notes than others, some use notepads and others use even shorter versions. It has been a long-standing practice in this place not to take points of order on these.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Resume your seat, Senator Ludwig. I am not going to tolerate debate across the chamber.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, it is a matter that is not normally raised during question time, nor in other debates is it taken as a point of order. I would submit that it is a frivolous point that is being raised in respect of this. Using notes has been a practice for quite a long time in this place, and I would ask that you rule that there is no point of order.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, there is a plain distinction between referring to copious notes and reading verbatim. It is as plain as it can be to you, Mr President, with respect, as it is to everyone in the Senate, that Senator Conroy has been reading verbatim from his laptop screen. It is a point of order seldom taken because it is regarded as an insult to another senator to suggest, as appears to be the case with Senator Conroy, that he is incapable of addressing the chamber without reading verbatim.
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I do agree with one of the points that Senator Brandis makes in speaking to this point of order—that being that it is a point of order rarely taken in this chamber. I would respectfully suggest, however, that is because I think all of us in this chamber from time to time refer to what is described as ‘copious notes’, which we all understand is codeword for a written document in front of us. I have been here in this place a long time. I would certainly be the first to admit that I have often referred to notes. Sometimes I make extemporaneous speeches. Most people refer to notes in contributions. There is a very important point here. This is something that the opposition should, I think, reflect on. It is a very easy point of order to take against any of, I would respectfully suggest, the 76 senators in this chamber from time to time. The point of order is not taken because we all, on occasions, do precisely what Senator Conroy is doing. Let us be clear, however, about what we do not always do, and I accept this element of what Senator Brandis says: instead of using a written document it is the case on occasions, obviously, that Senator Conroy uses a document that appears on a computer screen. Let us be frank about this. Let us be sensible about it. Let us not have points of order here that can reflect on everyone in this chamber and can be used in relation to every single senator in this place.
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, surely the distinction here is the fact that, as Senator Faulkner quite rightly points out, most if not all of us use a combination of referring to notes and also making extemporaneous comments. In most speeches it can be a combination of both. The point here is that Senator Conroy consistently, for many months now, has in every question time read verbatim from an electronic document holder. That is not the normal practice of senators in this place. As Senator Brandis quite rightly says, there is a difference between—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The exchange across the chamber should cease. Senator Coonan is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Faulkner! Senator Brandis! I am waiting to call Senator Coonan so she can continue.
Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said, Senator Faulkner makes a very good point. We do not want to be holding up the chamber with spurious points when people use a combination of referring to notes and speaking extemporaneously. The issue here, though, is that this is one of the most egregious examples I have seen in 12 years in this place of somebody reading verbatim every day in relation to every question. On that basis, you should call him to order, Mr President.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In an answer in the portfolio area of the Digital Economy, to be actually objecting to using a computer screen rather than a file and a piece of paper is a little bit embarrassing.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
But it is no more embarrassing than having a shadow minister asking about the laws of physics—because this question is actually about the laws of physics. Unless, as commentators and the shadow minister are suggesting, somebody has recently discovered something that is faster than the speed of light, which is how fibre optics works—unless wireless technologies suddenly have become faster than the speed of light—the question is an embarrassing nonsense. It is really that simple: the speed of light. It is the laws of physics, and no amount of posturing and not understanding the laws of physics—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy, resume your seat! I call Senator Conroy.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
To quote from some of those opposite who actually do understand the laws of physics, Mr Bruce Scott, a former Howard government minister, stated: ‘The optic fibre cable is the superhighway of the future.’ Mr Tony Windsor, the popular Independent member and someone who spends a lot of time focused on those issues, said: ‘Fibre-to-the-node infrastructure is the best option.’
Yet again, these views reflect those of senators in this chamber like Senators Nash and Joyce, who in 2005 released a report on behalf of the National Party think tank, the Page Research Centre. I know that is an oxymoron. Senator Macdonald has always agreed with me on that. This report recommended that the then government consider a five-year rollout of—guess what?—fibre optic across non-metropolitan areas. So the fact that one commentator might mislead the shadow minister this early in his portfolio is worrying; it is of concern. But let me be clear: this is about the laws of physics.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is noise on both sides of the chamber. Senator Minchin wants the call, and those on my left are preventing him from getting the call. Have some respect for your leader.
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to Alan Kohler’s report, in which he says:
The global GSM Association made a remarkable prediction over the weekend that should have an explosive impact on the tender for Australia’s new national broadband network.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think he might be reading, Mr President.
Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am quoting.
The GSMA represents about 750 3G mobile phone operators around the world, so it’s not unbiased. Its director of technology, Dan Warren, said he believes mobile broadband will reach speeds of 100 megabits per second before fibre optic does—that is, in about two years.
I ask the minister: is Mr Warren right or wrong?
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Coming from one of the proponents of one of the various technologies, it comes as no surprise to see these claims. They have been around for years. But let me just explain to the chamber how wireless broadband operates. It does not actually fly through the air all the way from computer to computer. That may come as a shock to you, Senator Minchin. What actually happens is that it gets as close as it can to its destination, gets sucked down into the ground—and guess how it travels once it goes underground? Via a fibre optic cable! Let me be clear about this: LTE, the future evolution of 3G, actually works off a fibre backbone. What we are building with the national broadband network is the biggest fibre backbone you have ever seen anywhere in the world as a proportion of the population—98 per cent of the population will have access to the fibre backbone. So I appreciate the question from Senator Minchin on the portfolio. I am very glad to explain to the— (Time expired)
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was about building a fibre backbone. Can the minister suggest exactly where that is currently being built?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order and the time has expired for the answer.
Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.