Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak in the committee stage again. I have been asking a number of questions of the minister. I must say I have not received a lot of answers. I know Senator Birmingham, who is dealing with this matter on behalf of the coalition, will be in the chamber shortly to take up where he left off. He was speaking, the Senate might recall, when the Senate adjourned for question time. It is important, because this has been a truncated debate, that we reiterate briefly what this is all about, for those who might be listening.

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

Listening for the third time!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjects and says that nobody listens to this debate on the TV.

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

That is an outrageous assertion! I never said that!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, can I say to you: since I last spoke I have had a couple of very interesting emails—unfortunately, I have come from the other side of the building, or I would have brought this letter down, because I would have liked to have read it to the chamber. Suffice to say that a constituent—well, actually, not a constituent of mine; he is from New South Wales—indicated that he had been listening. He was grateful that we were standing up for those people who work for the private contractors who are dealing with the greenfields sites that are going to be put out of business by this government's activities—yet more unemployment. He thanked me, and Senator Birmingham as well, for standing up for them and for putting the government through its paces and for trying to get the government to answer questions. He did say that he was disgusted that the Senate had to call quorums to make sure that the minister was in the chamber and listening to the questions and actually responding to them.

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

I was in the chamber at all times. You should stop telling lies in the chamber!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, we made it quite clear this morning that we expected you at least to listen to the questions and perhaps try to give answers. But of course there was a period when you just disappeared; you were up the other end, talking intently, and when we asked questions there was no-one here to even attempt to answer them.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

This sort of thing, Senator Conroy, is a demonstration to those who do listen to these debates of the absolute arrogance of this government in dealing with the NBN and in dealing with the carbon tax. The government and the Greens in partnership, in alliance, in coalition in government, just ride rough and ram through any bit of legislation. We are going to see later this month and next month an absolute spectacle from the Greens political party, who have always pretended that they are bastions of free speech and have always said they want to allow full debate in the chamber, wanting issues like the spending of $55 billion of taxpayer money to be fully debated. With perhaps the biggest tax ever to be imposed upon the Australian public, what are the Greens political party going to do with all the great principles that they used to have about allowing free debate in this chamber? I read in the paper—of course it has not come to the chamber; who would expect the Greens and the Labor Party to follow the processes and do things through the democratically elected parliament?—that the Greens and the Labor Party are going to guillotine the debate on the biggest taxation imposition on Australia for many, many years.

It is a taxation imposition that will do absolutely nothing for carbon emissions from Australia. Indeed, we know from the government's own figures that at the end of 2020 the emissions of carbon from Australia will have increased. The only thing that will have happened is that Australians will have been slugged with a huge tax which we know will increase the cost of living and will make electricity, gas and transport dearer. That is what the Greens political party, in collusion with the Australian Labor Party, will do with that.

The way the government has dealt with this bill and the carbon tax bill shows the absolute arrogance of the Labor Party and the Greens when it comes to democratic institutions like the Senate of our national parliament. I asked a number of questions earlier. I am concerned, as I mentioned previously, about the cost of the National Broadband Network as proposed by the Australian Labor Party. In the 2007 election they promised a national broadband network that would cost the taxpayers $4.7 billion. We are here debating another bill which is part of the series of pieces of legislation that will impose a $55-plus billion National Broadband Network on Australia.

In answer to a previous question, Senator Conroy, the minister, said that the corporate plan had determined that the prices would come down. This is a document written as a corporate plan. It says, 'We propose this. Our plan looks forward and what we want to do is bring the prices of telecommunications down.' What we then find is that someone—and Senator Conroy was a bit reticent on who it was, but I think it was the NBN Co.—has actually made an application to the ACCC for a special access undertaking, which is lodged with the ACCC, that proposes yearly price rises of up to the CPI plus five per cent. Everywhere else in the world and here in the last 10 years prices of telecommunications have come down with competition, and Senator Conroy says, 'That is what the corporate plan says too—that prices are going to come down.' Yet if the prices are coming down, Senator Conroy, as proposed by the corporate plan, why was it that NBN Co. applied to the ACCC for special access undertakings which propose yearly price rises of CPI plus five per cent? Senator Conroy told us earlier, 'No, you're wrong because the corporate plan'—the bit of paper with a hope written on it, and that is all I can say the corporate plan is—'actually talks about prices going down.' But what actually happened last week is that NBN Co. applied to the ACCC for permission to increase prices not just by CPI to maintain equity but by CPI plus five per cent. We know that that is true because this financial white elephant cannot make money. The only way it can be propped up, as Senator Birmingham has mentioned several times before, is if the Labor Party uses various tricks of the trade like this fibre deployment bill that we are debating to try to shovel some revenue into the NBN Co. so that it will not make as big a loss as it is obviously facing in the future.

In this committee stage, I ask the minister again: if, as he indicated, the corporate plan says prices are to come down, if Australia's history with competition in the last 10 years has shown prices coming down and if telecommunications prices around the world are coming down because of competition, why is it then that NBN Co. has applied for yearly price increases of CPI plus five per cent?

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

We clearly have a tactic being run by the minister present. That tactic is obviously to ignore all questions or comments that come from the opposition. He has made that clear for some period of time now. In the main, we have asked about the viability of greenfield operators; he was not interested in answering those questions. When asked about NBN Co.'s future pricing arrangements and, in particular, their application to the ACCC, he was not interested in answering those questions. So we are just not hearing from the minister in this regard. As I indicated in the earlier debate today, I am realistic now about these amendments. I would like to see the minister speak plainly and honestly to the Senate, to the Australian people, to the stakeholders in the communications industry and particularly to the people whose jobs and businesses are on the line as a result of this legislation about what the impact will be, but he appears to be unwilling to do that in this chamber, unwilling to provide the type of clarity that we think is warranted.

I am not going to keep the Senate going forever on this, because it is obvious that the minister is not going to come to the party in that regard. That is, as I said just prior to question time, symbolic of the approach that the government take and of the overall contempt and arrogance that they demonstrate towards this chamber, indeed to the entire parliament, on so many, many fronts. Most recently, as I highlighted in an MPI speech, they have demonstrated great contempt with the way that the carbon tax bills will be treated in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, especially scrutiny by the committee systems of this parliament, compared with what happened with the GST.

I will turn now to one area of the amendments that I have moved that has not been explored in any great detail and that the government has not particularly addressed to date. Senator Ludlam earlier posed some questions in regard to this, and we had an exchange about it. It is the issue relating to the setting of minimum conditions for the installation of fibre, the process by which those minimum conditions are set and who actually sets those conditions. We see in the bill as it is presented, in clause 372B(2), the requirement that:

A person must not install a line in the project area, or any of the project areas, for a real estate development project, unless:

(a) the line is an optical fibre line; and

(b) the conditions (if any) specified in an instrument under subsection (4) are satisfied.

And in proposed subsection (4) it says:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify conditions for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b).

That appears to give basically all power to the minister in terms of setting such conditions, with no particular restraint, condition or otherwise on the minister's activities in that regard. The opposition has proposed an additional subsection (4A), which states simply:

The Minister must consult the ACMA and relevant industry bodies before making an instrument under subsection (4).

This is reflected in the other relevant proposed subsection, namely 372C(4). We think that that is a pretty reasonable and sensible point to insert to ensure that there is a level of independent consultation that goes on in the development of these guidelines and this legislative instrument that will outline the conditions necessary to satisfy the installation of optical fibre in a real estate development.

The concern—and it has been expressed in numerous places and I have highlighted it here before—is that, without at least some type of independent oversight of the minister's decision-making powers in this regard, we will see a situation where the minister will presumably be acting on the advice, demands and needs of NBN Co. and of NBN Co. exclusively. That of course could provide another means to shut out whatever is left of those greenfields operators who may still manage to find some work under the other parts of this legislation.

So, Minister, I am attempting to bring you back to some of the detail of the legislation, noting that you will not give an answer about any of the other issues that Senator Macdonald or I have raised. Could you at least with these proposed sections outline how you envisage the conditions of such an instrument being developed, who you believe you would be obliged to consult with and why the government thinks that it is unreasonable to require in the legislation some degree of consultation with the relevant statutory body and other relevant stakeholders?

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

As I have indicated a number of times, if you ask the same questions over and over again—whether it is you or Senator Macdonald—I will simply make the point that I have already answered them, no matter how many times you try and rephrase them. Having said that, you have actually asked a new question. I am not sure if you have genuinely been misinformed about this or you have not had a chance to keep up with what is actually happening, but I have here in my hands—and I am happy to table it for you—the draft industry guideline, produced by the Communications Alliance Ltd, the industry standard-setting body. It says on the front page:

DRAFT INDUSTRY GUIDELINE

DR G645:2011

FIBRE READY PIT AND PIPE SPECIFICATION FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Issued: 6 September 2011

Comments close: 29 September 2011

The recognised industry standard setters are drafting this up. Following public comments, they will put it forward as the industry code of practice. So the process which is being gone through is about as consultative as it is possible to be. These are codes being designed by the industry for the industry. We welcome this and we look forward to this being put forward as the industry code of practice. I will table it for you to have a look at. That should answer all of your concerns about a lack of consultation. It is a document put together by the industry experts, for the industry. It is out for public commentary, after much consultation before that. Comments are now being sought before it is put forward as the industry code.

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

I thank the minister for that. That is useful information for the chamber and indeed is an answer to at least part of the question. It is an answer to how at present he envisages such an instrument being developed and the conditions for such an instrument being developed. It does not answer why then he believes that all future ministers—as this legislation will apply to those who come after you, Senator Conroy, you will not be there forever; yes, even you will not be there forever—

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

Even I have to concede that.

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

I am pleased to hear that. This legislation will apply to all future ministers but with no condition that any minister actually follows such industry standards, follows the consultative approach that you inform us of with these current guidelines. I assume from your statement that you would base the legislative instrument under this bill, if it passes, on these current guidelines. There is no requirement for ministers to follow that process. If there is, please point me to where in the legislation that requirement is, because I cannot see it at present in what appears to be a bill that gives the minister carte blanche to develop the legislative instrument as they see fit.

I look forward to being corrected if you can, but I think that is the secondary part of the issue that I was raising. You have addressed the primary part, at least in terms of how you as minister propose to apply this section of the legislation—that is, you would follow the industry consultative process that you just outlined and adopt the standards that it recommends as the conditions as the instrument within these clauses of the legislation. But what ensures, as a safety mechanism in this legislation, that all of your successors as ministers for communications will follow the same pathway?

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

Among the objectives of the Telecommunications Act 1997 is the promotion of the greatest practical use of industry self-regulation. Part 6 of the act outlines how industry self-regulation is to be achieved through industry initiated and developed codes of practice. Industry codes can be developed by industry bodies and associations that represent sections of the telco industry on any matter which relates to a telecommunications activity, which is defined very widely in section 109 of the act. Codes can be presented by industry bodies to the ACMA for registration and, where the ACMA is satisfied that the code meets stipulated criteria, it is obliged to include the code on a register of industry codes and a register of industry standards. Once the code is registered, the ACMA can direct any participant in a section of the telco industry which is breaching the code to comply with it whether they are a voluntary code signatory or not. Effectively, this is the industry standard-setting mechanism. It is how the system works under the existing act. I appreciate that you think there is something there, but there is actually not. You are just barking up the wrong tree on this one.

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

I will bark a little longer. Minister, I appreciate your outlining the mechanism under the existing act and outlining the mechanism for the process of self-regulation. But this bill appears to provide you and future ministers with an unfettered capacity to impose government regulation on the industry in this space. You may choose not to go down that path. You may choose to simply apply the regulation developed by the industry through the mechanisms you have described. Or you or a future minister may choose under this bill to do whatever they want and to disregard that process for the application of self-regulation. My concern is not with how the current act works; my concern and my question are how this bill will work—and you can give us assurances at present about how you as minister will treat the matter, but as I said before you will not be the minister forever—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's for sure!

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

Senator Williams has his eyes on the communications portfolio, you know, Senator Conroy!

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

God help the country!

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll have carrier pigeons everywhere!

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

That is right! Inverell is going to have a gold-plated service! To come back to the point: the question really is particular to this bill. If you have such confidence in the industry self-regulatory requirements that are there at present and they operate effectively to ensure that the industry has a good self-regulatory standard in place, why do you need in this bill the capacity to set the conditions and specify an instrument that is specified in clauses 372B(4) and 372C(4)? Why do you need those provisions if the self-regulatory standard that you outlined before works so effectively?

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

These provisions provide a reserve power to fast-track the standardisation process if required, noting that normal standardisation can sometimes be time consuming and subject to gaming within the industry.

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

Thank you, Minister. So they provide a reserve power to fast-track the process. That being the case, should there not be some limitation on that reserve power that ensures an obligation of the minister of the day to consult with the relevant statutory body and with relevant industry groups? Why is it that this reserve power appears to be unfettered in its application in the legislation?

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

It is a reserve power. I am not sure, genuinely, that there is much more I can add. If you want to be worried about what some future minister may do then that may be something you might want to take up with a future minister, Senator Birmingham. I am giving an indication that the standard-setting process is being followed acutely, and we do not see any need to intervene in any way with that.

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

It is the height of arrogance from the executive, and executives of many different governments end up guilty of it, Senator Conroy, but it is the job of the parliament to worry about what a future minister may do. When we pass legislation through this place it is not passed just for the next six or 12 months, unless it has a sunset clause on it, or for any particular period of time. It is passed indefinitely until such time as the parliament changes it. It is passed in a manner that applies to all future ministers, equally to all of them, equally to you and to whoever comes after you. Senator Ludlam might come next if the Greens and Senator Brown get their way and manage to knock you guys off as the majority party on the left of Australian politics. I look forward to Senator Ludlam sitting there. I am not sure whether I would look forward to Senator Brown sitting down here, but I would look forward to Senator Ludlam sitting there and following you. I hope, of course, that it is Mr Turnbull who follows you as minister.

However, the point for the minister is that reserve powers need not necessarily, should not necessarily, be unfettered reserve powers. Reserve powers are simply powers to be used sparingly in exceptional circumstances, yes, but those powers still need limitations attached to them as well. I understand, obviously, the minister is not about to budge on the coalition's amendments but I do think, in wrapping up the debate around these amendments, that it is important to understand that they seek to achieve two particular goals.

One goal is to ensure that, whoever the minister of the day is, they do not have an unfettered capacity to impose regulations and criteria on the industry for the laying of optical fibre in a manner that advantages NBN Co. and that disadvantages private operators. The second goal is critical to all of this. It is the overall objective of the opposition's amendments to ensure that some choice, some competition, actually remains in the deployment of fibre in greenfield sites. I have argued this case many times before, so I am not going to go over it at length.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

You know, Minister, that attitude diminishes the chance of votes. If you had listened to what I was saying you might have noted that I was attempting to provide some concluding remarks around these amendments and to sum up the opposition's arguments for them. Perhaps that would lead to a vote. So, Minister, do not be too quick to jump to your judgment on these matters. In particular do not be too quick to provoke, because you never know where provocation may lead sometimes.

As I was saying, there are two key attributes to these amendments. One is providing some restriction on the executive power to put in place regulations that could advantage NBN Co. and disadvantage private providers and private competitors in the optical fibre space. The second is to ensure that we have some level of competition in this space and that we do not have the ridiculous situation where you pretend developers have a choice between having fibre laid by a private provider or having fibre laid by the NBN Co. when in fact, commercially, there is no choice because a private provider will charge for the service and NBN Co. is going to be offering it for free in terms of direct costs. Quite clearly that is going to drive many, many private providers out of business. You will not admit that in the chamber but the opposition has heard the concerns, has acted on them and has presented these amendments.

I would hope and urge the chamber and in particular Senator Ludlam and the Greens to reconsider their opposition to these amendments. They will not stop fibre being laid in new developments around Australia. They will not impact, one iota, on who gets fibre or who does not. All they will do is ensure that people who have been innovators and done the right thing and gone into this space and built businesses for the purpose of laying fibre get the chance to continue to do so. That is all it is about. It is about a fair go for Australian businesses who have done the right thing and been pioneers in this space and who are going to be shut down as a result of the government's legislation. I would urge the Senate to support the amendments.

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

I make the obvious point that the minister's power in the bill, as I said, is a reserve power, and for the record so that Senator Birmingham can sleep tonight—I would not want him to stay up at night worrying—any instruments are subject to consultation and disallowance as a matter of course under the Legislative Instruments Act. You could have saved yourself a good 15 minutes there.

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

Thank you for the gratuitous comments at the end, Minister. Yes, legislative instruments are subject to disallowance. I was aware of that fact. I think everybody in the chamber is aware of that fact. There is a period of time, however, and in these amendments we have attempted to ensure that, in the drafting of such legislative instruments, there is a clear process that requires you or future ministers to consult and engage. So, do not come in here and tell us that it is a legislative instrument. As is not uncommon, we want to put in place a process that ensures you must talk to certain stakeholders and go through that process rather than purely rely upon the legislative process to fix an errant or wayward minister. That is the intent of those changes.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. The question is that amendments (2) to (11) on sheet 7133 moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:41]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Carr did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (12) on sheet 7133:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

[exemption from Parts 7 and 8 for networks operated by the original providers]

(12)   Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3—Amendments relating to Parts 7 and 8 of the Telecommunications Act 1997

Telecommunications Act 1997

17 After subsection 141(1)

Insert:

(1A)   However, this section does not apply to a local access line that:

  (a)   was installed in a project area of a real estate development project after the commencement of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Act 2011; and

  (b)   was installed in compliance with any applicable provisions of Part 20A; and

  (c)   was installed by a person that is not Telstra or NBN Co; and

  (d)   is owned by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and

  (e)   is operated by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and

  (f)   is used only to supply carriage services to end-users in the project area.

18 Subsection 141(10) (after the definition of national broadband network)

Insert:

related, of bodies corporate, has the same meaning as in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

19 Section 142A (after the definition of rail corporation)

Insert:

related, of bodies corporate, has the same meaning as in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

20 After subsection 143(1)

Insert:

(1A)   However, this section does not apply to a local access line that:

  (a)   was installed in a project area of a real estate development project after the commencement of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Act 2011; and

  (b)   was installed in compliance with any applicable provisions of Part 20A; and

  (c)   was installed by a person that is not Telstra or NBN Co; and

  (d)   is owned by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and

  (e)   is operated by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and

  (f)   is used only to supply carriage services to end-users in the project area.

[exemption from Parts 7 and 8 for networks operated by the original providers]

I will speak very briefly to these amendments. Many of the substantive issues have been canvassed in regard to the previous amendments. Suffice it to say that these amendments seek to provide additional provisions to parts 7 and 8 of the Telecommunications Act that would exempt operators from these parts should those operators run a network that is not owned or operated by NBN Co. or Telstra, that is installed in a new development under a contract between the network's owner and the developer, that the network is owned and operated by the same entity which built it and that the network delivers retail services only to persons who reside in the development.

We think this has the potential to preserve competition in the market for the provision of fibre infrastructure and would allow competitive greenfields operators to install and operate new fibre networks in new developments without the need to meet these parts of the act but still be subject to appropriate other conditions, including the right of other retailers to access their networks. This would preserve some competition not just in the delivery and build of networks but also in the provision of services over those networks. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

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

The second set of amendments would undermine the level playing field arrangements in new developments. This would mean small providers would not have to offer a layer 2 bit stream service on a non-discriminatory basis or to operate on a wholesale only basis.

Vertical integration and the lack of wholesale services have been longstanding concerns in new developments. People have moved into new estates with fibre, only to find they have no choice of retail provider and are captive to the vertically integrated provider whose prices are high. The approach of the government means end users will enjoy NBN Co-like outcomes, regardless of the network provider—in other words, choice. First, the provider will need to provide a suitable low level layer 2 bit stream product that wholesale customers can use to provide higher level services; second, the layer 2 service will need to be provided on an open non-discriminatory basis; and, third, the provider will need to offer that service on a wholesale only basis. As such they have been required to provide comparable outcomes to the NBN.

The arrangements also ensure that NBN Co. operates on a more level playing field, meaning it is better placed to provide faster broadband across 93 per cent of Australia, an open access platform for retail competition across Australia and uniform national wholesale pricing for the benefit of all Australians, including those in regional, rural and remote areas.

As such, these amendments should be seen as nothing more than an attack on the fundamental economics of the NBN. Do not be fooled by the smooth talking from those opposite. These amendments are a fundamental attack that would destroy the economics of the NBN, so do not believe the smooth talk from over there.

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

For reasons that were outlined in previous stages of this debate, the Greens will not be supporting these amendments. I am sorry to extinguish the small spark of hope that obviously still lived on in Senator Birmingham, but we will not be supporting these amendments. We believe that they are misconceived in intent and unworkable in practice. I think the minister is probably overdoing it a bit. I do not think that this is a ram-raid attempt to sabotage the whole basis of the NBN, but we do not believe that they would actually work, even though I think the opposition has made an attempt to solve a genuine issue. I will leave it there.

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

Senator Conroy is being very misleading in his comments there. It is not the case that this would prevent retail operators operating over these networks. It would just provide another wholesale competitor to NBN Co.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.