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 today’s statement by former ACCC Chairman Allan Fels that:

… the Government is playing with fire. By weakening Telstra, it may be killing the only foreseeable competitor to the NBN.

I ask the minister: is the real objective of the government’s attack on Telstra to create, via its NBN Co. and its $40,000-a-week CEO, a government owned monopoly of Australia’s fixed line network, rather than using its NBN to create another competitor for Telstra and choice for consumers?

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 that question. The government is aware of claims that the NBN will be creating a new monopoly. These claims completely miss the point that the government is transforming the structure of the telecommunications market with the rollout of a wholesale-only open access network. Currently, Telstra owns the network, supplies wholesale services to its competitors and, crucially, provides retail services to consumers. It has the ability and incentive to discriminate against its competitors or access seekers in favour of its own very profitable retail business. In contrast, the NBN will be a wholesale-only open access network and all access seekers will be treated equally.

The government announced in April our intention to legislate a regulatory framework, administered by the ACCC, within which the NBN Co. will operate. This will ensure that all access seekers receive equivalent terms and conditions, in turn ensuring the best possible deal and range of choice for consumers. The current ACCC chairman, whose principal job it is to promote competition and protect consumer interests, has strongly welcomed both the NBN and the regulatory reforms announced this week, stating:

I call it a telco revolution. It is a quantum leap for competition and consumers, and the ACCC welcomes what is being proposed.

So let us be clear— (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. Given that the minister has claimed that the break-up of Telstra is ‘not without cost’, has the government undertaken a thorough analysis of the costs to the company, shareholders, employees and the telecommunications sector of imposing structural separation on Telstra? If so, will it table such analysis? Further, is the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union right to be worried that the government’s plans will put thousands of jobs under intense pressure?

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

Fair dinkum, it’s entertaining! This is the ‘shareholder minister’ who presided over the Trujillo regime, whose almost-first announcement was the intention to sack 10,000 workers and then proceeded to do it. The shadow minister comes into this chamber and cries crocodile tears, trying to create a fear campaign. Well, Senator Minchin, you have 10,000 Telstra workers unemployed because of your regime, 10,000 workers who no longer work for Telstra because you stood there and encouraged and then thanked Mr Trujillo when he left the country. (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 further supplementary question. Given that the government today is so supportive of the comments of the OECD, does the minister agree with the OECD Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Service Policies, which concludes in relation to structural separation:

Vertical separation is a significant intervention in the market place with substantial and—unlike behaviour regulation which can be reversed—irreversible costs—

and also that there is little evidence that the benefits of structural separation are sufficiently in excess of costs?

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

Thank you again, Senator Minchin, and I understand we have now shot past 155 press releases without troubling—

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

To the question, Minister!

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

Let us be clear. When those opposite decided to privatise Telstra, the most vertically integrated telco in the world, they made an ongoing policy mistake, a mistake that began under the former Labor government but was perpetuated and made much, much worse. If you are happy, Senator Minchin, to accept 90 per cent of profits, after 11 or 12 years of infrastructure competition, being with one company, then that is fine, but Australian consumers were worse off, Australian small businesses were worse off and Australian kids have got a lesser education because of the policy you pursued. And all those Collingwood fans who are going to be happy on the weekend missed out as well. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Can the minister inform the Senate of how the telecommunications regulatory reforms introduced this week and the government’s National Broadband Network initiative will benefit consumers and small businesses in rural and regional Australia? In particular, can the minister advise the Senate when people in rural and regional Australia are likely to see the benefits of these initiatives?

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

I thank Senator Collins for her question. Delivering high-quality telecommunications services to consumers, small businesses, hospitals and schools right across Australia, including those in rural and regional Australia, is a priority for the Rudd government. Ultimately the NBN will deliver high-speed broadband services to all Australians no matter where they live or work. It will provide world-class fibre-to-the-premise technology delivering speeds of 100 meg to 90 per cent of homes and businesses, including many in regional areas. The remaining 10 per cent will have access to state-of-the-art, next-generation wireless and satellite services that will be capable of delivering Labor’s election commitment of 12-meg speeds.

However, the government recognises that during the transition to the NBN rollout the delivery of telecommunications in many areas, especially regional Australia, needs to be dramatically improved. We recognise that Australians in rural and regional areas potentially have the most to gain from high-speed broadband. It will help overcome the array of issues associated with the tyranny of distance. That is why we have taken decisive steps to improve competition, choice, affordability and service quality in regional Australia as we move to the NBN. On 1 July this year we announced the first six priority locations that will receive investment under the $250 million Regional Backbone Blackspots Program. These are: Geraldton, in WA; Darwin, in the Northern Territory; Emerald and Longreach, in Queensland; Broken Hill, in New South Wales; Victor Harbor, in South Australia; and the South-West Gippsland region, in Victoria. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister outline specifically how the regulatory reforms to the telecommunications sector introduced this week, including measures to address Telstra’s integration, the competition regime and consumer safeguards, will benefit people in rural and regional Australia?

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

The reforms announced yesterday will lead to substantial benefits for people in rural and regional Australia as we transition to the full rollout of the NBN. The three key elements of our reform package are critical to improve telecommunications services in these areas. Firstly, reforms to address Telstra’s high level of integration will mean greater competition, more choice and more affordable prices for people in regional Australia. Secondly, reforms to telecommunications competition will give competitors greater confidence to enter the market and provide services in regional Australia. Thirdly, reforms to strengthen consumer safeguards, including more stringent standards for the delivery of voice services and preventing the removal of payphones, will ensure that people in rural and regional Australia have access to better quality services. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister explain to the Senate what alternative policy options have been put forward to improve telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia and their relative merits compared to the Rudd government’s initiatives?

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

I am sad to inform the chamber that I am not aware of any proposals that will provide an alternative to the NBN. There were some a while ago from some at that end of the chamber, but unfortunately, as always, the Liberals decided that they were not going to play ball. It is apparent that the shadow minister has no interest in developing policies. He would rather spend his time churning out press releases. The Liberal Party is oblivious to the need for 21st century infrastructure and is unable to move past its failures. They will continue to call for their failed wireless broadband proposal to be revived, despite the fact that OPEL failed to meet the terms of the contract that was signed under the watch of the now shadow minister. (Time expired)