Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Senate’s man of the moment, Labor’s man of fibre, the minister for communications, Senator Conroy.

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

Senator, you need to address ministers by their correct title. You need to bring yourself to order and address the minister by his correct title.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do so; thank you, Mr President. My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Has the government assessed, or will the government assess, the relative risks posed by natural disasters to a national broadband network based on fibre, including fibre swinging from poles, versus broadband based on wireless?

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 generous introduction to your question, Senator. As has been stated on many occasions, under the agreement that the government reached with Telstra last year we will match the footprint, both underground and overhead, of the Telstra existing network. We have just recently seen Cyclone Yasi come through Queensland and affect Townsville, and fortunately for all there was minimal loss of life. In terms of the National Broadband Network build in Townsville, we have seen minimal disruption to the network.

The relative merits of fibre versus copper are fairly well known. Fibre is clearly superior in resisting water and floods, so in terms of the argument as to what is going to last longer—fibre in the ground, fibre hanging or copper—clearly fibre is superior. For those who continue to not keep up with the technology debate, fibre connects every single mobile phone tower. A wireless system does not work on the basis that a phone call goes from my phone and it flies all the way through the air to your phone, wherever you are standing in the country. It actually goes to the nearest tower, and then it is sucked down into the ground and, guess what, it is transmitted along a piece of fibre all the way to the phone tower nearest to you, and it comes up there and then gets transmitted. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of President Obama’s promise to the American people of wireless broadband built by the private sector, and assuming that the ‘secret’ parts of NBN Co’s business plan do not show ‘secret’ benefits of fibre versus wireless, why is this government insisting on spending up to $43 billion mainly on fibre—fibre which is at risk from natural disasters, construction delays and cost blow-outs?

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

We welcome President Obama’s announcement. We welcome his leadership in developing—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you know that he doesn’t? Tell us.

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

What I do know is that Dr Hugh Bradlow, Telstra’s Chief Technology Officer, said:

If God had not meant us to have fixed networks he wouldn’t have constrained spectrum in the way he has done. Or she’s done ...

Could we wait eight years and not require high-speed networks? The answer is no because of the capacity issue. We could quote Vint Cerf . In fact, we can quote those opposite on the Senate Select Committee on National Broadband Network who stated:

The committee believes that, given the vast geographic expanse of the Australian continent, its varied climatic conditions, and its diverse topography, the technologies of both wireless and satellite should be considered as complementary to the FTTP network.

That is your committee. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that wireless technology is rapidly advancing, wireless is quick to build, delivers mobility and is delivering speeds of up to 100 megabits per second—supposedly, the same as your NBN—won’t your NBN, built mainly on fibre, be obsolete before it is even built?

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

I would love to defer to the good senator’s technical knowledge on this but perhaps I might defer not just to Hugh Bradlow but to an Optus official, Mr Maha Krishnapillai, who stated:

We hope that we can now move beyond the broadband debate and get on with the job of building a world class broadband network.

I specifically draw your attention to another statement by Mr Krishnapillai, who said:

... fibre is indisputably the best way to deliver high-speed broadband for the long term.

The experts go on and on. Chris Chapman, chair of ACMA, said:

It’s a proposition I don’t agree with. I think they’re highly complementary and people who make those statements are being grossly simplistic and have no feel for the physics that underline the different architectures of both.

We have also seen that one of the inventors of the internet, Mr Vint Cerf, has described Australia’s NBN as a ‘stunning’ investment and he stated, ‘I continue to feel a great deal of envy because the US are broadband— (Time expired)