Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate, I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the minister relating to requests by emergency services authorities for the quarantining of 20-odd megahertz of the spectrum that is proposed to go to auction. I will not elaborate unless the minister wants me to. I just invite him to respond to those concerns.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   I thank Senator Ludlam. As I comprehend it, the issue here is state and territory public safety agencies seeking an allocation of digital dividend spectrum as a means of meeting their wireless broadband capability requirements. I think it is important for me to stress that the gov­ernment understands the critical importance of supporting our public safety agencies with the best possible communications networks.

The options for the best way to achieve the new mobile broadband capability sought by public safety agencies are—as you have touched upon—being looked at by the Attorney-General's Department. Senator Conroy's department and the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, are of course assisting the Attorney-General's Department in that endeavour. In fact, a roundtable meeting was held only this morning, on 10 May 2011, and that meeting was attended by public safety agencies, industry and Commonwealth agencies. In fact—this is hot off the press—I can advise that that meeting was also attended by the Attorney-General and Minister Conroy. At that meeting, agreement was reached to establish a steering committee with repre­sentatives from all interested parties to determine the best way to meet the spectrum needs of police and emergency services. This will involve ACMA working with police and emergency services to identify the appropriate spectrum to be reserved in the 800 band—which has been identified for public safety purposes in the harmonised band plans for the Asia-Pacific region. This is the appropriate and agreed process to address this issue, and I understand that there are no measures in this bill that in any way impede or otherwise affect that process.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   I have a couple of questions, but I first ask the minister whether or not he would be willing to table the document that he was reading from just then.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   It is my handwritten notes on the basis of a conversation. It is not such a glamorous document.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):  It may not be decipherable other than to Senator Feeney.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is probably not the smoking gun you might be looking for, Senator Ludlam.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   In relation to the issue of emergency service networks and their access to spectrum, the coalition have been particularly aware of this issue and concerned for some time now. We are aware that people raised issues in relation to this legislation. We believe that there is some merit in ensuring that particular considera­tion be given to this issue, and that is why we moved to establish terms of reference on it for the Senate Environment and Communica­tions References Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry into the capacity of communication networks and emergency warning systems to deal with emergencies and natural disasters. They are broad terms of reference that have the capacity to deal with a range of potential issues, but it is important to note that the terms of reference also include a capacity and requirement for the committee to look at new and emerging technologies, including digital spectrum, that could improve preparation for responses to and recovery from an emergency or natural disaster.

The coalition sees this as an important issue. We are encouraged that the chamber—including, indeed, Senator Ludlam—supported us in ensuring that these terms of reference were passed through to the committee. We do think that it is critical that the concerns of those state and territory agencies as well as the concerns raised by many other groups about spectrum access for emergency services be heard and properly considered. We trust that the government, as part of their responsibility, will do that, and this chamber is already doing that through the Senate Environment and Communica­tions References Committee. We think that that is an appropriate forum in which to air all of those issues properly and to ensure that, if the case for particular spectrum to be allocated is valid, the committee will make recommendations to the government for that spectrum to be allocated. We would hope that the government would look favourably upon such recommendations.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for that contribution. You are quite correct: we did support that committee reference. I think it is timely and it is certainly a very good idea. But does not go to the heart of the issue that I am raising here, so I will perhaps put a question to the minister. I understood that what you told us just then was that the roundtable, or however you defined it, had convened to discuss the allocation of spectrum in the 800-megahertz range—I think that is what you just said—which is not actually what they are asking for, and I wonder whether you would like to clear up that discrepancy before we move ahead.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess, Senator Ludlam, that you are interested in the 400-megahertz band. On the 400-megahertz band the government has already made significant progress through the COAG process—which I think you touched upon, Senator Ludlam-to deliver an agreed national framework for improved radio communications interoperability. In April 2010, the ACMA announced arrange­ments for the provision of harmonised spectrum for use by government agencies in the 400-megahertz band. Under those arrangements, several segments in the 403-megahertz to 470-megahertz frequency range were identified for the exclusive use of government. That exclusive use is primarily to support national security, law enforcement and emergency services but is also available to support broader government use once those core requirements have been compre­hensively met. Provision of this dedicated spectrum for emergency services require­ments in the 400-megahertz band will ensure interoperability of voice networks between different state jurisdictions. These arrange­ments complement the objectives developed by COAG under the national framework.

In conclusion, the government remains committed to supporting the needs of public safety agencies, and the government will continue to work with the states and territories to determine the most efficient and effective communications network to meet Australia's emergency management and public safety needs.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, the issue that I addressed and my understanding of the area of spectrum that these organisations are most concerned about is in the 700-megahertz band, so it is well outside 400 megahertz. They are seeking a 20-megahertz slice of that spectrum, which, as I understand it, for technical reasons—and this is obviously not my specific area of expertise—carries further. It is a better piece of spectrum for the kind of equipment that these people seek to operate in that it can penetrate buildings and so on and not be subject to rain, other weather conditions or that kind of thing.

The question I put to you, and I would be happy if you could just give us a yes or no answer, is this: is the government committed to resolving these issues through the roundtable process that you have established prior to undertaking the auction—that is, will you commit to ensuring that the organisa­tions that you are with now at the table will have their concerns addressed before you give up that slice of what is effectively taxpayers property?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the answer to that is yes. The issues will be resolved prior to auction.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a succinct answer. I am a little bit taken aback and surprised. I thank the minister for that. I again invite the minister—through you, Senator Feeney—to resume communications with some of the local government authorities and other agencies who have been working on pooling the SSS, because I think there is potentially a good outcome there for everybody. Would the minister like to briefly address the question that I raised right before I moved the amendment? It was about the gov­ernment's attitude—and I certainly do not want to misquote the government's inten­tions—to the second reading amendment that the chamber just passed.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that, Senator Ludlam. I think you quite accurately characterised those two amendments put by you, one of which was passed only a few moments ago, as an expression of the will and sentiment of the Senate—and I think that is right. Those amendments do not amend the bill or impose any legal obligations on the government; rather, they are an opinion of the Senate expressed by the Senate. As a consequence of that, together with the fact that I am advised that a second reading amendment for a bill has no consequences for the House of Representatives and is rather an expression of opinion by the Senate, I said something to the effect—I cannot quite remember the phrase I used, forgive me—that these amendments would have no effect upon the bill. That was really what I was saying. I guess I made the remark on those two grounds. I cannot quite remember my phraseology, forgive me, but I guess I said something to the effect that these amendments would have no effect upon the bill. That is really what I was saying. I hope that is of assistance.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was certainly more politely worded than your comments prior to closing the second reading debate. I wonder whether the government can offer a commitment, then, whether or not they will extend time frames for the consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the scheme. That is effectively what we are asking. Your response is, 'We're not legally obliged to do anything, so we're feeling free to ignore it'—again, I am paraphrasing. Can you offer a commitment as to whether the will of the Senate will be respected in this instance?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Notwithstanding your vicious paraphrasing, Senator Ludlam, the govern­ment's answer is that it is and remains committed to working with local commun­ities. It has already granted extensions to local governments. It appreciates that there are particular concerns and it will regularly review the progress of this work.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say by way of closing that I greatly preferred it when you stood up and just said yes. I have no other questions on this matter.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.