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 refer the minister to a statement by the then shadow communications minister and now Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner, in February 2003. The statement read:

… Labor believes that whatever the telecommunications policy merits of full structural separation of Telstra may be, the existence of the minority private shareholding in Telstra and the cost and complexity therefore associated with such separation, make that an inappropriate strategy for reforming Telstra.

I ask the minister: is that still Labor Party policy?

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

I thank Senator Minchin for his question. The national broadband network will be the biggest national investment in broadband infrastructure ever made by an Australian government. As expected with a project of this magnitude, there has been considerable debate within the industry and media about the regulatory settings and the structural arrangements that should apply to the national broadband network. Far from shying away from this debate, this government has encouraged it.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Minchin interjecting—

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

Senator Minchin, I know that you are new to the portfolio—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, address your comments to the Chair.

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

I appreciate that some of those opposite are new to this debate but they seem to—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat, Senator Conroy. When there is quiet we will proceed. Senator Conroy.

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

Thank you. I would encourage those opposite—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, address your comments through the Chair and do not encourage those opposite.

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

I congratulate you, Mr President, on seeking silence from those opposite, because they might learn something! In parallel to the RFP process, the government called for submissions on regulatory issues, which were due on 30 June. Over 80 submissions were received and these are all now publicly available. To quickly recap for those opposite: the government asked the public and all interested parties to put in submissions on the regulatory issues—far from gagging anybody, including participants, from commenting on the regulatory issues. These are a valuable resource on which the expert panel can draw in assessing the NBN proposals, including in assessing the impact of legislative and regulatory changes put forward by proponents. The government has been very clear on the objectives of the NBN, including those relevant to future regulatory settings. The request for proposals—

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: we have been listening to this diatribe now for two or three minutes. My question was a simple one: does Mr Tanner’s statement on the issue of structural separation of Telstra still reflect Labor policy? The answer is yes or no, not the diatribe we have been getting for the last three minutes.

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, Mr President: what the opposition have failed to hear, and perhaps they did not hear it because of the hubbub that they generated, is that Senator Conroy has been specifically answering the question. If those opposite are that unfamiliar with the debate then it is on their heads, not Senator Conroy’s. Senator Conroy is going through the NBN process, the experts within it plus the regulatory issues that are being addressed through submissions that were made available to the expert panel. I am sure Senator Conroy will go on to explain further the objectives in the national broadband network proposal. Unfortunately, the opposition seem to have failed to grasp the issue, but I invite them to at least recognise that Senator Conroy is answering the question—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. As you know, Senator Minchin, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. I draw the minister’s attention to the question and the minister has one minute and 58 seconds in which to complete his answer.

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

The request for proposals sets out 18 objectives that proponents should address, including open access arrangements to facilitate competition and ensure equivalence of access terms. Section 1.5.16 of the request for proposals states:

Proponents should submit their proposed arrangements for ensuring open access to the NBN, including measures or models to ensure that access is provided on the equivalent price and non-price terms and conditions.

This section goes on to state:

If a proponent proposes to supply both wholesale and retail services it should demonstrate what structural measures or models it proposes be put in place and maintained to prevent inappropriate self-preferential treatment and ensure that effective open access is achieved on the terms required by the Commonwealth.

The government has no preconceived preference on whether any particular measures or models for open access are better than others. What is important is that the government focuses on objectives such as competition, open access and equivalence. The arrangements put forward by proponents in response to the RFP will be considered by the expert panel, which will provide a report to the government on its recommendations.

It is not surprising that some proponents are keen to avoid the competitive tension of the NBN process by seeking to have regulatory options ruled in or out before bids have even been lodged. It is disappointing, however, that the current shadow minister has bought into this public posturing around the NBN process. Senator Minchin’s comments on this process are particularly difficult to understand— (Time expired)

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 the statement by the CEO of AAPT, Paul Broad, whose company has now withdrawn from the Terria consortium. He said of Labor’s NBN tender:

It seems to me that the rules of the game are being determined by the bid itself …

And that the government has got it ‘arse about’. In light of Mr Broad’s criticisms and those of many industry leaders, will the minister now admit that his NBN tender process is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith?

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

As I said, it is very disappointing to see the knee-jerk reaction from the current shadow minister. Senator Minchin’s opposition to this process is particularly difficult to understand in the context of his boast that he sat around the cabinet table for nine years under the previous government dealing with every submission that came forward on this issue. We have taken exactly the same approach on these regulatory settings as the previous government took in its process last year.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Minchin interjecting—

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

Wrong one. The previous government’s expert task force guidelines—and Senator Coonan’s guidelines—state:

The onus is on each proponent to detail and justify any proposed legislative or other regulatory changes as being necessary to facilitate its proposal.

Yet this is exactly the process the shadow minister is now criticising.