Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to continue from where I left off on this very important bill about the National Broadband Network, theTelecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. It is one of those nation-building infrastructure bills and it is incumbent on all of us in this place to not only pass it but to go out and promote it and to assist government in whatever way we can to make sure that this historic National Broadband Network can be implemented. On 7 April the government made a historic announcement by establishing a company that would invest over $43 billion to roll out a superfast fibre-optic based national broadband network, something which I know all Australians are very excited about and something that I know my community is very excited about; my constituents, people who live and work in my area, people who commute in and out of my area and all the businesses in my region as well.

The National Broadband Network will fundamentally change forever Australia’s communications landscape. It will create a new environment. It will create the capacity for Australians to communicate not only domestically but internationally at a level we have not seen before. In comparison to the rest of the world when we talk about competition, it will bring Australia to the competitive front. It will mean that we can compete in the Asia-Pacific region and with the rest of the globe, including the United States. We will be able to communicate, to transact and take part in commerce. New areas that we have not even yet thought of will be created through providing this opportunity, providing this vehicle that this government is moving forward to do.

I mentioned when I started speaking on this bill last week that we hear a lot from the other side but we do not hear the right sounds. We hear a lot of complaint, that it is too much, too little, too late, too soon—there is always some problem. We do not hear anything about the positives, that in the end it takes a government with courage to finally step up to the mark and get on with the job and make this happen. Once it begins, as it is now beginning, the whole of Australia can come along with the development that is taking place. I would be more interested to hear from the other side what they have to say in terms of their own communities and the new opportunities that will be created in their own electorates, particularly country members who sit in this place who can see the vast opportunities that will be provided to farming communities, to agriculture, to commerce, to people that trade via the web and via the internet, when a government finally stumps up some real cash—$43 billion, in partnership with the private sector—to make these things happen.

It may be more important to me than some; I am not sure about that. But I know this particular legislation is very important, why we are doing it and the powers that will be created in the formation of this new company. The western corridor that I represent, particularly that part of the western corridor between Brisbane and Ipswich, for many years has had a substandard service provision of internet and broadband facilities. That in itself is pretty commonplace right across Australia, particularly in new areas, where there has been a lack of investment by telecommunications companies—Telstra to name one, but others as well—where they just have not invested either in fibre optics or other cables that are needed to actually provide the sorts of networks that are required by people today, whether it is for provision of health services, whether it is for education or whatever it might be.

What is pretty exciting about Queensland and the western corridor is that there are some real opportunities, and there are some real opportunities that exist in my electorate. The Springfield Land Corporation has been noted for many years as being the leader on a whole range of fronts, with some very innovative development through Education City and now Health City, with the education it has provided in the region, with some of the very innovative ways it has developed a community, and now also in telecommunications with the completion of the Polaris Data Centre. This is a world-standard, top-level, top-security building which provides data storage. It is capable of housing data from anywhere in the world, for organisations ranging from technology companies through to banks and governments. It is quite an important piece of infrastructure in my electorate. Not only is it a job creator, providing new jobs, jobs of the future, but it really does create a whole new economy. I think that is the key to this debate. It is about the creation of new jobs in a new economy, an economy that will not start, that will not have the parts in place, until we have a national broadband network in this country. That is why this bill is so important, not just to me and my local region in the western corridor of Queensland but right across Australia—because of the new economy that it will create.

I want to put on record my support for the opportunity that is taking place in Queensland. I want to encourage the Queensland state government. I want to ask people to take the opportunity to work together in partnership. We are providing the tools, the vehicles and the investment here federally to make that all happen. For Queensland there is an opportunity to find a place to centralise a network operations centre, a NOC, to be able to house these operations, the back office operations, to be able to have a place with the facility, the infrastructure and the security, with the pipeline and the cables already in the ground for that to happen. There is nowhere in Queensland better suited or more ready to go than the western corridor. It is an opportunity I know Queensland is currently investigating.

I believe the Queensland government is in the process of looking at also investing in a fibre spur that would link the Gold Coast of Queensland to the Pipe Networks PPC-1 international submarine cable network that links Sydney to Guam. This is a fantastic opportunity. This is an opportunity that should not be wasted. I believe the Queensland government is committing to offering a connectivity solution to the National Broadband Network Co. that we have created. The Queensland government will provide the National Broadband Network Co. with single-hop connectivity to the United States of America, Japan, Singapore and India, a direct five-gigabyte link to these key markets, for a period of at least 10 years.

While in Canberra we are putting together the vehicles, the investment and the structures that we need and the legislation to make all this happen, the Queensland state government also has a role—as I know other state governments will have also—in making sure that we can have the network in place and can use it to its full capacity. I can think of no better way than by connecting what we are doing with what the Queensland government is proposing to do with the submarine cable network linking Sydney to Guam—linking it directly to Queensland through the Gold Coast. This will have a whole range of benefits—as you can imagine, Mr Speaker—in a whole variety of areas, including commerce, trade and connectivity between countries for sharing of information on health, education and a whole range of other areas. There are some wonderful opportunities that exist.

There are other opportunities that exist out of this vehicle that we have created, and Queensland can play its role. There are a number of companies globally and a number of companies nationally here in Australia that are already working in partnership and have the capacity to deliver the sort of technical expertise that we need to make the National Broadband Network happen. The reality is that we are only going to get one shot at getting this right. We are only going to get one opportunity, and that opportunity needs to be taken in the best possible manner. I want to encourage both the National Broadband Network Co. and the Queensland state government to look at a trial of 5,000 homes or thereabouts in the western corridor and look at how you actually roll this out—basically use it as a test bed as you are rolling it out to make sure that the National Broadband Network works as efficiently as possible and is as best placed as possible. You can do that in conjunction with the rollout. You can actually have it working at the same time.

This is quite important when you look at centralising a networks operations centre. You need a back office operation. You need somewhere where that infrastructure exists, somewhere where you can deliver all the key parts—the management, the technical expertise, the connectivity, the billing arrangements and the connection with what the National Broadband Network Co. does with its customers, with the carriers and service providers. I think that link is going to be critical.

We will certainly provide the legislative framework to ensure that we have the information and that we have access to the hard infrastructure—the poles, the cables and whatever other parts of infrastructure we need. Critically important in this will be to bring together all of those partners. That is contained in our legislation. We talk about the partnerships with the business sector, with commerce, to make sure that we can deliver in all of these areas. Pipe Networks, which I spoke about just a moment ago, would operate a network across the fibre spur which would provide carriage directly to Guam. In Guam, the network would then link into the global reach of the Tata Communications network via the United States of America through to Tokyo, Singapore and India. This is an incredible opportunity for Australia, one that would not exist or could not be fulfilled if it were not for the National Broadband Network.

As I said earlier, it is particularly exciting for me because of the opportunity I can see arising for the western corridor. We have the infrastructure in place today. We talk about shovel-ready projects and infrastructure that is ready to be delivered. Well, in the western corridor, we are prepared and we are ready to deliver now. I will be doing everything I can as the representative of that area—and it will benefit not just my electorate but also the broader western corridor and all of Queensland—to make sure we can get that partnership happening at a high level to ensure that the Queensland government, through its commercial partners and the National Broadband Network Co., can provide a network operations centre.

For us here in the parliament, trying to put together something of this size is obviously a massive undertaking. It is an undertaking that will span over the next eight years—well beyond this parliament and possibly even the one after that. It is the sort of long-range, long-term critical infrastructure decision making that governments ought to be about. We have heard for many years the complaints from the community that governments only ever focus on the short term—what gets them through the next election cycle. Well, this is not one of those areas. This is an area of significant investment, significant partnership and significant longevity that will deliver for Australia long into the future—beyond this generation and well into the next. It will provide a platform for Australia to compete in a whole range of areas where we have not been able to compete up until today. So I am very proud of being able to support this legislation.

I want to make particular reference to setting up Australia as a financial services hub. I am currently having a bit of work and research done in that area, as I am particularly interested in it. It is particularly linked to the National Broadband Network. There are a whole range of barriers to Australia being a financial services hub in the Asia-Pacific region, including the lack of decent connectivity and our lack of punch—and we need a broadband network in Australia to deliver that.

All members of the parliament, including those on the other side, ought to consider this for a moment. A National Broadband Network is a really key factor in being able to use Australia, with its proximity to the Asia-Pacific region, as a stepping stone, a springboard, to link the world. We can achieve that because of our good governance practices, our high-end expertise in terms of financial services and products and our managerial expertise. We can break down one of the barriers to achieving that by having a National Broadband Network. It requires a massive investment over a very long time, and I know that it will be a complete success. It will be a success because of the way we have approached this.

I want to again encourage the National Broadband Network Co. to look very closely at some of the significant partnerships that currently exist in the western corridor. The reasons the National Broadband Network should be based in the western corridor are not necessarily based on profit. The western corridor would provide a scalable option in terms of delivering upfront a place to start the National Broadband Network on the Australian mainland. It would also bring together existing significant partners, including NEC, which can carry out the deployment in parts of Queensland; the Queensland government itself, which can provide the data centre space for a network operations centre; the Ipswich City Council, in my area; the Brisbane City Council, which can assist in the fast-tracking of approvals and working in partnership with both the federal government and the Queensland government; the University of Queensland, which is currently based in the western corridor, which can provide research and development activities; the University of Southern Queensland, also located on site, which can also provide some expertise and development activities; and the local developer, the Springfield Land Corporation, which can provide the backhaul and perhaps even temporary office accommodation—right there in the western corridor and ready to go.

This truly is an opportunity which needs to be looked at seriously. If there is any better place in Queensland, I would like to hear about it. But I certainly believe very strongly that the National Broadband Network headquarters for Queensland should be in the western corridor. It would provide the best opportunity in terms of economies of scale, locality and the most efficient way to use the existing infrastructure. The western corridor provides not only that infrastructure opportunity but also a range of other opportunities. It has a workforce that is ready to deliver a range of people working in broadband and internet provision. They are already working in the area through NEC. The people with the right skills—designers, engineers, project managers and a whole range of other people—are already located throughout the western corridor.

There is an opportunity for both the Brisbane CBD and areas outside the Brisbane CBD to play their part. The best place for the networks operation centre is definitely in the western corridor, because of all the things I have mentioned, and perhaps the legal and management services and associated administrative services could be provided in the Brisbane CBD. This is a one-off opportunity. It cannot be replicated; it has to be done right the first time. I am going to speak to the ministers responsible and to the governments, including the state government, to ensure that we get this right. I have spoken to the individual partners. They have been meeting over a period of time, because they have seen a great opportunity to be partners in this. If we all work together we can not only deliver a National Broadband Network, but do so in the most efficient, cost-effective and timely manner possible, which would benefit all Queenslanders and all Australians. It will set Australia on a future path to be a global competitor—which has not been seen in the past—and create jobs in the future. That is something we all know we want to do.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This government’s policy on the provision of new broadband network would be laughable if it were not such a serious, knee-jerk policy made up as we go along, with empty election commitments and no practical idea on how to deliver them. It was almost like a cartoon strip unfolding as we saw the Prime Minister come up with a thought bubble, making an announcement telling us how lucky we all are to have a man of such vision leading the nation and then starting to wonder whether the idea was feasible or not and to try and work out how to back away from that commitment when it proves not to be. Then we suffered the empty spin on how this defeat and miscalculation was in fact a great victory.

Let us have a look at the recent history on this subject, and when it comes to broadband all we have is recent history because on any timescale it is a new and evolving technology. The robotic lines delivered by the government on this subject imply that the coalition government did nothing for 12 years. This is a total misrepresentation of the facts. The concept of a broadband super highway 14 years ago was as fanciful as robotic nurses and doctors. The technology then was incapable of delivering what we are discussing today, but as the technology evolved the government then acted to roll out the next wave as it came on stream.

In fact, at the time of the last election we had in Australia a telco—that is, Telstra—which was ready to roll out a new high-speed service to urban Australia at the company’s own cost. The government—that is, the coalition government at that time—had committed to a wireless network which was to service regional Australia. It was to deliver speeds of 12 megabits and it was going to cost the taxpayer just $958 million. The contract was signed with OPEL, who was proposing to put in $1 billion dollars and if the government—that is, the incoming government—had not cancelled the arrangement, more than half of this network would be operating by now.

At the time of the last election the coalition government had invested $2 billion in a trust fund, the telecommunications fund, which was to provide a permanent income stream to enable regional Australia to be provided for as new technologies were inevitably developed. The cost of providing these services to rural and regional Australia is inevitably higher than in urban Australia. Then in the same period Kevin Rudd, in one of his ‘good idea at the time’ statements, said none of this would be good enough. A private company providing high-speed broadband to urban Australia at its own expense, a $1 billion investment on behalf of the taxpayer matched by $1 billion from a private consortium to provide for rural and regional Australia and $2 billion in the bank to provide for future services to rural Australia were not good enough. We should have a new super network.

The now Prime Minister proposed at that time that the government would build a 12-megabit, fibre-to-the-node network for 98 per cent of Australians, operating by the end of 2008. I thought at the time this seemed like little more than an uneducated guess, that its proponents had no understanding of the difficulties and challenges in rural Australia. I am not a telecommunications expert but I would have thought this outcome was extremely unlikely. I remember the great Telecom copper rollout to rural Australia in the seventies and eighties—the years and years of watching large caterpillar tractors drag cable into the ground.

Coming from rural Australia, I could not believe we had any chance of delivering the fibre-to-the-node network to 98 per cent of Australians for the $10 billion the government suggested this network could be built for. The government seemed, to me at least, not to have any understanding of how big Australia is, how many small communities there are and how many people live on rural properties. The plan was to steal the $2 billion telecommunications fund and add another $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and private enterprise would fall over itself to find another $5 billion to build this new fibre-to-the-node network.

This was when it became obvious we had policy on the run. They had not planned, they had not consulted with industry and they had not commissioned a business case, because after 18 torturous months the process collapsed. Despite interest from six parties, no-one could deliver the goods for the money; no-one could find a business case that would work—surprise, surprise. So it went from a situation where the wireless network proposed by the previous government, which would be over half-built by now, which had the contracts let and which would have given 12 megabits to all of regional Australia had been scrapped. A network which would have provided 15,000 kilometres of new, open-access, fibre-optic backhaul into rural and regional areas at an extremely low cost to the taxpayer has been completely abandoned. Instead we have had 18 months with no action.

So does the government have the intestinal fortitude to come out and admit their complete failure, to admit they got a bit over enthusiastic and overstepped the mark? Do they even try and conceal their mismanagement and lack of knowledge? No, they proudly proclaim their failure as an outstanding success and commit the government not to a $10 billion network but to a $43 billion fibre to the house and business network for 90 percent of Australians. Had they learned anything? Had they consulted with industry? Had they commissioned a business case? Is anyone going to be interested in building and operating this new network? Will private enterprise come up with the $20 billion the government seems to think they will and be falling over themselves to invest?

We should also remember at this point there are fewer potential customers in this new $43 billion project to 90 per cent of Australia than the last—the $10 billion model to 98 per cent of Australia—and that industry could not make the sums stack up on that program. So why does the minister think he can get private enterprise to part with four times as much money for a smaller customer base? There are no more customers and it is at four times the price, and it seems almost inevitable that this bid will collapse as well. ‘No problem,’ says the Prime Minister, ‘We’—that is the taxpayer—‘will fund the entire network’. There is still no business case, just the realisation that this pig is not going to fly, so the taxpayer will have to fund it because no-one else is likely to—the taxpayer will fund the full $43 billion. If within five years we as taxpayers sell off the network as the government has suggested, then the price will be governed by the revenue stream. The value will not be decided by what the government has spent on it but by how many consumers will subscribe and what they are prepared to pay for the service.

There are some lessons here for us to learn from overseas. In Finland, for instance, a nation which has been quite aggressive in its broadband rollout, government was planning to guarantee delivery of 100 megabits of capability with fibre optic to every house and business. In reality this has meant the supplying telco has planned to deliver fibre to within two kilometres of the home. This is proving to be enormously expensive because, the further you move away from population density, the process becomes exponentially dearer. If Finland is being challenged by its vast remote areas—and I have my tongue firmly planted in my cheek—you can only start to imagine what this will mean for Australia.

What is happening in Finland is that the telco is now revising the target to deliver fibre to within 20 kilometres of the home—effectively, a fibre-to-the-node or a wireless based technology. That is interesting, isn’t it? Having said that, 100-megabit broadband is currently available to 40 per cent of homes and businesses in Finland. One hundred megabits costs about 2½ times as much per month as what is generally available, which is 10 megabits. So how many Finns are signing up for this service? The take up rate is 1½ per cent, just 1½ per cent! How can anyone make a business case if your total market is just 1½ per cent, surely something has to give. Even in Helsinki, the place with the highest population density, it is proving difficult to sell the service.

In Singapore, surely one of the most technologically advanced nations in the region at least, where 100 megabits is available to all by cable, take-up rates of the 100-megabit service are as low as one per cent. It must be pondered what take-up rates like this would mean for the government’s planned network. If there were 10 million potential users in Australia, and we were to achieve a 1½ per cent uptake, that would be 150,000 customers. A network costing the $43 billion the minister proposes would equate to a debt of $286,000 for each connection. That is clearly an absurd amount.

It just goes to show how important a business plan is. How could any government make such a monumental decision as this, not knowing what its customer base is likely to be, not knowing whether it will be possible for the network to break even, let alone make a return on capital. If the government builds its super network, it is highly likely it will have to fund the whole thing itself and in the end, far from being saleable, it could well be stuck with an enormous white elephant.

The government appears also not to have considered what the effect of building a new network will have on the marketplace. Firstly, at a time when the challenge I have just detailed will be to get enough customers to subscribe, we can be sure that the price of internet access on current networks will fall significantly. The owners of those networks will not give up customers willingly. It is certain the price will fall; speeds will increase and this will bring the viability of any new network even further into doubt.

For all those Australians who have invested in Telstra—and remember most superannuation funds have serious investments in the telco—a government owned and subsidised competitor will erode their investment. Even more fundamentally we will be returning to an era where the government is the major competitor, the owner and the regulator of our telecommunications industry. In the past this has been a handbrake on innovation and private investment.

Telecommunications will always need innovation and here we are running the fundamental risk of turning back the regulatory tide and stifling that innovation and investment. And what of rural and regional Australia, the constituency that I represent in this place? What is the government proposing? Well, even if Senator Conroy manages to roll out this network, regardless of what it costs and then what it might be worth, even if he manages to establish this network, what will my constituents receive? The member for Oxley was on his feet a few minutes ago in this place and he told me that I should welcome the move to a government network because my farmers will be able to participate in the new broadband technology. If the member for Oxley had checked the government’s own plan, his own plan, he would know that most farmers live on farms, they are currently on satellite technology and their access will not change at all.

The government has said that any community under 1,000 will not receive the fibre-to-the-house network; 10 per cent of Australia will operate on a lesser service. Towns in my electorate such as Booleroo Centre, Cleve, Yorketown, Wudinna, Gladstone, Kimba, Minlaton, Cummins and Stansbury to name but a few of the more than 18,000 people who will miss out on fast broadband. And that does not include the farmers, that is only the people who live in the towns of less than a thousand. But they will not be entirely forgotten, they will certainly qualify for their full share of the $43 billion debt, of that they can be absolutely certain.

Along with the more than $200 billion-plus debt that this government is committing all of Australia to, there will be the $43 billion for their broadband adventure—and every Australian will get their full share, including those who get the B-grade service. This side of the House has constantly criticised the government for its financial management of the economy and its overspending of borrowed funds. This project slips in on top of the $200 billion already proposed.

Now we have this legislation aimed at trying to belatedly collect some of the information to try and work out how the government can make some kind of a fist of delivering on its extravagant promises to supply the super network to the marketplace. The legislation will compel industry over an extended period to deliver confidential market information to someone building a competitor. It is true the government needs the information—indeed, they should have had it and commissioned a business case before their grand announcements—but what if, as I suspect, the bid falls over? Why will the government then retain the right to harvest future information? That is why I support the amendment that has been put forward. We need a business case before taking the economy into the unknown and those in industry need protection from future governments which may be sourcing information from them for no good reason.

We have come to this because of the ‘thought bubble’ process the now Prime Minister constantly indulges in. During the last election campaign, responding to the previous government’s broadband projects, Mr Rudd was compelled to say, ‘We will build a bigger, better one than yours.’ Certainly not much different to a number of other thought bubbles such as GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, and the Pacific economic community—whatever happened to that one? They are projects mining The Hollowmen ‘wow’ factor. It does not matter what the plan is, just make sure we have a big enough announcement.

We certainly got a big commitment on broadband, robbing regional Australia to fund it, but it was undeliverable, so now we get the bigger wow factor—the $43 billion model. No consultation with industry, no idea on how to deliver, certainly no understanding of Australia outside the city. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and it seems this may be no more deliverable than the other thought bubbles, but I am not sure whether the government knows that yet.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 and listened with great interest to my two colleagues who spoke before me. I come from a regional area where one would think we would have fairly good access to broadband. But I am consistently dealing with people in suburbs in my area who, because of the geography of the area, are not able to access existing cable broadband and, because of the escarpment issues, find wireless a particularly unsatisfactory solution to that.

As our economies develop and the world develops its business models based much more on online presences, it is critically important to Australian industry, business and communities that we have the broadband infrastructure that enables us to expand into and be part of that future. As a very small example of why this is so significant, some of the tourism operators in my area tell me that, when overseas travellers look to book travel accommodation and events that they might want to participate in whilst they are in Australia, they have an increasingly high level of expectation about what information they can access online before they travel. Having travelled to a small extent myself I know I actually do the same thing, so it was interesting to hear this from the tourism operators’ perspective. For example, if people are booking accommodation, they now expect to be able to go to a website to download video footage of the area and the room and to interact with the sorts of services and sites that are around the accommodation.

The level of infrastructure that is needed to support the type of information people seek from the internet, even at the simplest level of travelling and booking accommodation, is increasing year on year. When we build a national broadband network we should be looking towards the growth in that demand, not simply at the current demand. The level of expectation of the performance of broadband in all sorts of industry sectors is going to exponentially increase over time. For the success of our businesses and our industry sectors, we need to ensure that we have a modern, efficient broadband network that can provide that service. Clearly before the last election we were not well on the track to having achieved that. I am conscious of the wireless proposal of the previous government which the former speaker mentioned, but while wireless fills a gap in some areas it is far from sufficient and appropriate for the vast majority of needs that will be developing into the future.

The bill that is before us is part of the requirements that need to be put in place for the broadband network to roll out. It basically seeks to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997. For the record, it seeks to do that in three ways to impose a requirement to provide information, if requested, on utilities as well as telecommunications carriers. It sets out the purposes for which information is permitted to be disclosed and used so that two specific achievements can be met. Information may be disclosed to and used by Commonwealth officials and advisers for the purposes of the implementation study for the National Broadband Network or for a purpose specified in the regulations that is related to a broadband telecommunications network. Secondly, if appropriate, information can be disclosed to and used by the NBN Co. and any other company that is designated by the minister for a purpose related to a broadband telecommunications network. Thirdly, the amendments impose sunset periods on certain provisions in part 27A, as amended, so that information can only be obtained, disclosed and used during the period of the rollout of the National Broadband Network.

The bill before us sits within the context of the announcement the Rudd government made on 7 April, which was a historic announcement. I appreciate the cynicism and concern of the previous member speaking, but if we all took such a narrow outlook on any sort of significant infrastructure then many of the great achievements of transport, water and electricity infrastructure that we all take for granted today would never have got off the ground. Sometimes you just have to take the leap into the future and make sure that the country is well established and able to take part in the global economy. The National Broadband Network is most definitely that sort of initiative. The National Broadband Network will fundamentally change Australia’s communications landscape and vastly improve access to broadband services.

In my own area, the Illawarra, I have had a lot of conversations and I know the region is extremely excited by the potential of the National Broadband Network. The city of Wollongong is called the city of innovation, and local people take that very seriously. There is an organisation known as ICT Illawarra, which is an information and communication technology industry cluster made up mainly of small businesses. It comes together as an industry cluster to collaborate and share experience. Its purpose is to support the Illawarra information and communication technology industry by building on local strengths. An important part of that is encouraging the economic growth of the region and the continued development of ICT, which it does through a number of initiatives.

Firstly, ICT Illawarra promotes the success stories of the local ICT industry, and I want to touch on a few of those. It also wants to nurture new entrants into the industry. For a region like ours, based on the old industries of coal and steel, we look forward not only to the ongoing future of those old industries but to the development of these new industries. ICT Illawarra is working on identifying emerging trends in the industry and providing resources to support those new entrants and emerging companies. It fosters social capital and joint ventures, which are very important drivers of much of this sector. The sector is so new and innovative that it often needs capital and joint ventures to be fostered for it to get off the ground. ICT Illawarra also provides a forum to engage with other stakeholders in education, government and other industry organisations and is administered by a management committee.

The sector is particularly keen to engage with our government on the rollout of the National Broadband Network. Indeed, quite a number of its members attended a very exciting sphere—and I will not go into the technical explanations—organised by Senator Kate Lundy at the University of Wollongong. The information and communication technology cluster of the Illawarra hosted, with the University of Wollongong, this particular public sphere camp at the iC Central campus. It was the first such camp outside Canberra and it was designed to give interested parties the chance to discuss topical issues relating to ICT and creative industries with an idea to producing a document to provide to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to inform public policy. Senator Kate Lundy in particular should be commended for this tremendous initiative and her capacity to use these new platforms to engage with broader community and public policy. The sphere was particularly important for our region in that it enabled a showcasing of some of the amazing expertise, dedication and enthusiasm of a range of ICT operators in our area and in particular the industry cluster. It was designed to use social media technologies to engage people across the country, essentially picking their brains and having a dialogue and a conversation in order to produce some policy suggestions for the government. We were networked with simultaneous virtual events in Melbourne and Brisbane. There was twittering and live blogging going on during the presentations and it was a really exciting example of how important new technologies will be, not only for the public sphere—for the discussion of public policy, the strength of democracy and the participation of people in public policy—but also for the education sector, and there was quite a lot of interest from the university students.

This particular sphere highlighted a local company which is doing very well, a company called Internetrix. It was established by a young man, Geoff McQueen. I think he is still not even 30, and he quite puts me to shame with his life achievements! His company is, I believe, one of only two in Australia that is a Google Analytics authorised consultant. He also managed win the Integral Energy Illawarra Business of the Year Award in 2007-08 and has an extremely successful online company that provides management, consulting and online website advice and products to business. It is doing extraordinarily well. Geoff also sits on Regional Development Australia – Illawarra, a newly formed board, and will advise and assist the board to put together a proposal to come to myself and Jennie George and, through us, to the government about the rollout of the National Broadband Network in the Illawarra. This is significant for us as a regional economic driver, and the company are absolutely excited about that. They have a lot of telecommunications expertise from the university working with them on it. I would say to the member who was speaking formerly that I would suggest that if people in research at universities and businesses on the ground in regions are excited by this proposal, it is because there is a reason for that—they recognise its potential to drive new opportunities, new jobs growth, new economic growth in regions and foster the development of these new businesses.

Another example in our area is a company called Tibra Capital, which operates from a small office in Austinmer. To establish that office, the company had to negotiate a special high-speed broadband access agreement. It is not normally available at the level that they needed in that region but they were able to do that. If companies like this one are to spring up in regions and to do so successfully, we have to provide that infrastructure and not leave them in a situation where they have to try to negotiate a specific agreement. Otherwise they end up relocating. Tibra Capital is a global securities firm specialising in high-frequency equities trading, arbitrage, market making and algorithmic, or automated, trading. It has 120 staff in Hong Kong, Sydney, London and Amsterdam and includes 45 professional traders and in excess of 40 in-house software specialists. It trades more than a billion dollars worth of equity volume each month, with up to 20,000 transactions a day. It is one of several specialised finance companies choosing to locate in Wollongong. Why? It is because the university is amongst the highest producers of IT graduates. I understand about 25 per cent of all the graduates in New South Wales come from the University of Wollongong. Tibra Capital is another company that is now a real driving force in our region but that requires high-speed broadband to operate the type of business it wants to.

Finally, at the other end, I want to highlight another organisation run by Andrew Connery. He is the managing director of Your Online Community Pty Ltd and in 2004 was the winner of the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership Award for his development of community portals in New South Wales. At that point in time he had a local amateur sports website sponsored by the University of Wollongong that was very well regarded and contributed to his winning of that award. Andrew is an absolutely passionate advocate for online community portals and enabling the internet to provide much better information and engagement of communities of common interest not only in sport but also in business and broader conversations. He runs a great online newsletter as well. Andrew is also constantly knocking on my door, saying: ‘I want to be part of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. It is critically important to regions like ours.’

Those are examples of local companies who are so keen to be part of the National Broadband Network—companies who have the experience and the capacity to identify where the future is going, who are innovative, who are enthusiastic and who are part of the new breed that will drive a lot of growth in regions like mine. They are really keen to be part of this and they see great potential in the National Broadband Network that we intend to roll out. The bill before us today is an important part of that, but the overall agenda of rolling out this fast-speed National Broadband Network is critically important to the economic growth of regions. I put on the record the evidence of those participants in my own local region as to why it is so important that we commit to this and why the bill before us today should be supported.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This bill is not individually influential but does form part of the legislation that is necessary for the government to come good with its promise to deliver a national broadband network, so it is part of that process. It is because I recognise the importance of the universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband that I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak. It is certainly an issue that is enormously important in an electorate like Pearce which, although it has a number of urban cells, has a large rural and regional component. At the moment, it is people in those outer areas who are having difficulty in accessing broadband services.

It is unfortunate that, despite the announcement of a $43 billion spend on broadband services, constituents in those outer areas—like Pearce—are not likely to benefit. It is interesting to have a look at a breakdown of some ABS figures in relation to that. For example, over 1,000 towns would miss out under the government’s broadband plan as it has been announced. Towns with 1,000 people or less will not receive high-speed fibre-to-the-premises broadband services, as has been outlined by the government as part of its $43 billion program. ABS lists over 1,000 locations—1,033—with a population of less than 1,000 people. These are the people who will miss out on some of these services that will cost the Australian taxpayer dearly. That represents about half a million Australian people living in those towns, Australia wide. If you looks at Western Australia, 113 towns—or 53,697 people—are likely to miss out on broadband services under the government’s proposal and, in the electorate of Pearce, 21 communities—or 12,142 people—have been dumped in the too-hard basket by the government and will wait years for improved services.

It is certainly a major issue when I am travelling around those country and regional areas. They are not so far out of the city—some of them are maybe an hour and a half’s drive—and yet they do not have access to a reasonable service. In this day and age, when a lot of people run their businesses from home using broadband services, it is a great detriment not to be able to decentralise from the cities and live in rural areas and run businesses from those locations. It is a great detriment to many people who live in the electorate of Pearce.

This bill amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which enables the minister to require telecommunications carriers to give information to the Commonwealth about their telecommunication networks. That is not just carriers, I note. In 2008, when part 27A was enacted, the Commonwealth required this information so that it could provide it to those firms that intended to submit a proposal for the government’s first—now terminated—fibre-to-the-node national broadband network, or what is known as NBN mark 1. This bill removes a sunset clause which made most of part 27A inoperative after 26 May 2009 and expands the class of firms from which information can be compulsorily obtained to include utilities. As I said, it goes beyond just telecommunication carriers. There are other companies that will be subjected to this. It also changes the purpose for which the information can now be used. Information is to be received for the purpose of the implementation study that the Commonwealth is to conduct and by the company NBN Co. that the Commonwealth has established to own and operate a new fibre-to-the-home national broadband network, NBN mark 2.

In this day and age, high-speed fibre-to-the-node is one of the most important services a government can provide to its people, so I do not have any argument with the government’s stated objective of providing it. Where the coalition differs is in the method of delivery and in that group of people who will miss out because of the methodology and the policy and the way in which it is applied. At the last election, Labor gave a firm commitment to start the rollout of a fibre-to-the-node broadband network to 98 per cent of the population by the end of 2008 and, clearly, this is another promise that has not been fulfilled by the government. We now find ourselves with an implementation study that may report—it is not guaranteed—in 2010 and a build that is likely to take more than eight years. That means the network will not be completed until 2018 or possibly later.

This bill and the National Broadband Network itself have major implications for both the general electorate and the companies expected to comply with the government’s requirement, and both points of view are important and need to be given consideration. This bill was introduced, I believe, and I think our report in the Senate has indicated, without adequate opportunity for consultation with key stakeholders. These stakeholders have indicated they will cooperate—well, really, they do not have any choice, because there are penalties for noncooperation—with the government on the provision of necessary information. But they have indicated that they have a number of concerns about the potentially broad and burdensome requirement that could be imposed on them by the minister. And they were only consulted as a result of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee—that is when the consultations began.

There are quite serious issues for companies which must comply with this piece of legislation, and they involve cost, practicalities and, of course, security. Indeed, I think the evidence of Mr Hughes from the Australasian Railway Association to the committee is evidence of the kinds of burdens that will be placed on many companies, not just telecommunications companies. He said:

According to the legislation, railways will be required to provide information on land infrastructure and other facilities under their control. I am sure that you will appreciate that there are millions of pieces of information which may be requested varying from digital location information to the size of ducts. There are over 44,000 kilometres of rail track in Australia and countless stations, terminals, offices, yards, sidings, depots and other facilities. A simple question such as the boundaries of land under railway control represents an enormous amount of work to answer with any degree of accuracy. Yet this is exactly what the rail industry fears could be required under the legislation. If such information is required without due regard to reasonableness or compensation, it will impose an unacceptable burden on the industry.

Again, I find it extraordinary that there was no plan to have adequate consultation with these companies before this legislation was to be debated and passed in this place. Again, it shows a failing, perhaps, of a government that lacks experience.

The inquiry raised a number of concerns, including the tight time lines proposed for consultation, when they were agreed upon. Also, as to the provision of information sought under the legislation, civil penalties do apply for carriers and utilities that do not provide accurate information. Stakeholders believe they should be immune from such penalties if they act in good faith, and I think that is a reasonable proposition. I think it is evident that there are great complexities in what many telecommunications and other utility companies are being asked to do. Utilities also raised concerns about the bill’s failure to clarify arrangements for cost recovery associated with the provision of information, and there is currently no mechanism for consideration of compensation under this mandatory requirement.

Of particular concern to the coalition is the scope within this bill for information to be sought and then used by the government not only for the purpose of the implementation study but also by the NBN Co. and its suppliers for a period of 10 years to assist any network rollout. It would be entirely fair if these provisions were to only apply for the implementation study period and cease in June 2010. In the event that information is required after that period by an NBN company, the government should seek a fresh authority through this parliament. This is highly sensitive information and I think it is reasonable that there be some restriction on it.

The government itself has expressed a preference for an approach that allows carriers and utilities to provide requested information on a cooperative and commercial basis. Regardless of the passage of this bill, that avenue does apparently already exist. There is also a Senate order in place requiring the communications minister to table the reports of both the NBN expert panel and the ACCC which relate to his first, failed, NBN tender process before any NBN related bills are debated in the Senate. Of great concern is the fact that the government has proven that it is incapable of meeting its self-imposed time lines on the delivery of the National Broadband Network, of which this legislation is a perfect example.

The government is treating taxpayers, I think, with contempt in its dereliction of duty by neglecting to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of a $43 billion project. That is a very large commitment of taxpayers’ funds, and the bill to taxpayers is growing already, with the NBN CEO earning $2 million a year. Public confidence in the government’s capacity to deliver this project is at an all-time low.

I thought it was interesting to hear the comments of the member for Grey who spoke, I thought, very well on this bill earlier today, when he said that no business case has been made and the cost is likely to be much higher than the returns. One has to query, also—and I think the member for Grey touched on this—the number of users who will be able to actually access the service. It is all very well to make a commitment to provide a service to 98 per cent of people who mostly live in city areas, but we have seen nothing about what the cost to the consumer will be, and it is another matter entirely whether people will be able to afford the cost of connecting to the service. Because there is no cost-benefit analysis, we have no idea who is likely to be able to take up this service when it has actually been built and developed. It is fundamental, with any business proposition, that the first thing you do is a cost-benefit analysis, and I think that not doing so is a great dereliction of duty.

In my electorate, many people are concerned that they will not gain any benefit from this large expenditure of taxpayer money. For example, it is very unlikely that a place called Gidgegannup in the Pearce electorate, a community that is less than 50 kilometres from the CBD of Perth, will benefit from this measure. At present the people in that locality are unable to access ADSL broadband even though fibre optic cable runs metres from their home. They are forced to make use of whatever internet connection they can get on phone lines that would be every bit of 40 years old. What hope for some people living hundreds of kilometres further from Perth? A constituent highlights the inadequacy and lack of fairness of the current proposals.

The lack of a business case has been severely criticised, and the Productivity Commission submission to the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network made this comment:

The proposed implementation study provides an ideal opportunity to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis, gathering the appropriate evidence to ensure the project best meets the nation’s interest. In this context, evidence needs to be gathered from the perspective of the welfare of the wider community, and not just the interests of particular sectors.

           …         …         …

Similarly, cost-benefit analysis can assist in contrasting ‘gold plated’ service provision and investment options motivated by short-tern cost savings. Whereas the former can have high up-front costs, the latter may incur significant future expenditures, including those required to meet demand growth.

           …         …         …

…the application of a thorough cost-benefit analysis would aid the implementation study during its detailed work, including its application to a pilot project in Tasmania.

There were a couple of comments from the media that I thought were relevant. One is by Michael Stutchbury, economics editor of the Australian in June 2009, when he said:

But what does Rudd then do with what is touted to be Australia’s single biggest infrastructure project, the $43 billion broadband plan? He and Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy brazenly flout the rigorous cost-benefit analysis that is supposed to be applied to all big infrastructure projects. They announce the plan to directly connect just about all Australian homes to an optic fibre network, whatever the technology risks, along with a price tag plucked out of nowhere. The technocrats and merchant bankers are supposed to reverse engineer the cost-benefit numbers to make them add up. This puts Eddington and his Infrastructure Australia in an impossible position in demanding that the states lift their game.

I think that is a very good summary of the concerns that we in the coalition have for this proposal. Further, Paul Kerin in the Australian on 15 April 2009 said:

If election promises are sacred, what happened to Rudd’s far more important ones such as evidence-based policy, not grand rhetorical flourish?

I quoted the concerns that people have in an area like Gidgegannup, 50 kilometres from the city, but whether you go north, south, east or west of my electorate the same problems are emerging. I have got the third largest electorate in Western Australia. It covers 26,000 square kilometres. I have many of these areas that will miss out. As I said earlier, over 12,000 constituents will not benefit from this $43 billion taxpayer spend on communications. But those who live further north in spots such as Nilgen do not even have a postal service. They do not have newspapers delivered. If you do not drive a car, you are in big trouble. Some of these people need to know what is going on with the weather and other important information. It is almost impossible for them to have any kind of communication except perhaps the telephone. It is hard to imagine what it would be like to live in those areas. I am not talking about a place that is 200 or 300 kilometres from the city of Perth. I am talking about a place that can be accessed in about a 1½- or two-hour drive at most. I think it is unreasonable that the people living in these areas should be expected to contribute to a system that they will personally get no benefit from. The electorate will be made to suffer in waiting for the drawn-out introduction of a broadband network, while industry will have little option but to grin and bear the government accessing their information. On top of all of that there is no cost-benefit analysis that informs us as to whether this is a good or a bad plan. (Time expired)

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. In beginning my speech to that support, I want once again to put on the public record the great pride that I feel in being part of a government that has made such a significant commitment to establishing a national broadband network throughout this country of Australia. It has been said many times, but it is true, that this infrastructure investment could well be the most significant infrastructure investment that we have ever seen in this country. We hear tell of the significance of the Snowy Mountains scheme. We hear tell of many significant decisions that have been made around our road networks. We know that, as a result of governments of all persuasions over the life of this Federation putting dollars and capital investment into infrastructure, we have seen prosperity in our business community and, indeed, the progression of social benefits within this country. But I believe that this investment in broadband will probably be one of the biggest transformations that we will see.

I am particularly proud that the government has said clearly that it will be putting $43 billion into ensuring the rollout of this network and that it will be done over eight years. I am proud that we have not just honoured our election promises but indeed exceeded one of our election promises by committing to fibre to the premises, not just fibre to the node. Not just will this network be rolled out with significant government investment but it is yet another sign that we can do business in this country to deliver vital services by forming partnerships with the private sector; that it is not just the taxpayer who always foots the bill for these particular investments; that we can be mature about the way we deliver services and about the governance and provision of infrastructure; and that we can involve the private sector in a significant and meaningful way.

This bill is a fundamental part of delivering that very important infrastructure. It amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and will provide access to very vital network information. That information will feed into the development of the National Broadband Network and make sure that when it is delivered to 98 per cent of this country it will be delivered in a way that is of most benefit to both the providers and the consumers. It will ensure that the implementation study that is being conducted around the NBN will be better informed in determining such vital matters as operating arrangements and network design.

I want to reinforce just how important it is that we get this right. It is right that in an investment of this scale the government are mindful of how we spend taxpayers’ dollars. More importantly, though, an investment of this scale will have far-reaching ramifications for the way in which we conduct our private and public business in this country, and it must be done properly. It is therefore essential that we gather as much information as we can from the telecommunications providers and other utilities about the infrastructure that is out there. Doing so will enable us to deliver this network in a timely and cost-effective fashion.

Having been in local government—I was a member of the Brisbane City Council for 13 out of the last 17 years—I am well aware of how important the provision of basic infrastructure is to any community that wishes to thrive and prosper. I am also well aware that local government is always seen as the doer of the community—that it provides roads, rates and rubbish. Indeed, over the last 10 to 20 years it has provided a lot more than that. Once the internet had been developed and it was clear that its usage was much broader than simply downloading a document or the kids being able to play games online, I very strongly argued, in my time in local government, that it had become a fundamental part of everything we did. It is fundamental to the governance of air traffic control, the banking system, small business, and the reforms that are possible to our health system. It is essential to the gathering and passing on of information. Everything we do is intimately connected to a functioning internet network and it is essential that people have access to that network in a way that delivers them information in a timely manner.

I argued long and hard within the Brisbane City Council that whilst local government believes its fundamental role is to provide roads, footpaths and such basic and essential infrastructure as water, sewerage and all of those things that we take for granted, the provision of broadband infrastructure had become the new essential and basic service of our communities. In order for people to get to work it is just as important for them to have high-speed online access as it is for them to have a road to get them to their workplace. Indeed, more and more people are now staying at home and conducting very successful and profitable businesses via the internet. It has become the new highway, and it is therefore fundamental that government gets into the game to provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate people’s use of those services.

So it has always been a passion of mine that we should see broadband as the next step in the provision of infrastructure for our community. That is why I am so pleased that this Commonwealth government has taken the initiative to roll out a national broadband network. Having been involved in local government for that many years, I am also well aware of how much infrastructure there is already out there that can assist in facilitating the proper rollout of this particular network. Underneath the ground in every city and community across the country there is an enormous amount of infrastructure that can assist this rollout, whether it is water pipes, cables or all sorts of ducts in which cable can be laid to facilitate fibre-optic rollout. It is important that we do not just walk into this blindly, saying simply that it is something new and we are going to come in and do it. It is fundamental that we get proper information as to what networks already exist below and above the ground, which will ensure that this is rolled out successfully. That is why I am very pleased to support this bill. I wish to emphasise to the House just how important it is that this particular piece of legislation is passed, because it is this information and data that will facilitate the rollout of the National Broadband Network. We have to be very mindful of collecting this data and information and of making sure that this rollout is done properly, because it is such a significant investment within our country.

I must also say that it is also a shame that communities like mine in the electorate of Bonner have already missed out on the benefits provided to those households and businesses that have access to high-speed broadband. I have said before in this House and I have said at many meetings in my local community that I find it almost unfathomable that an electorate like Bonner—which is contained wholly within the third largest capital city in this country and which is part of the fastest-growing region in the country, being South-East Queensland—has suburbs that are less than a 20-minute drive from the CBD that do not have access to broadband, let alone high-speed broadband. There are people who are still using dial-up, and that is just not acceptable in this day and age. It means that students in the electorate of Bonner do not have the same advantages as other students who do have access to this facility.

I speak to a vast number of small business people who say that their single biggest frustration not just in improving their businesses but indeed in staying up there with their competitors is that they are not able to access high-speed broadband. I talk to university people. I talk to people who have developed very successful, majorly profitable companies from their homes who have moved into the area but now cannot conduct business in the way that they did in the past because they are unable to access high-speed broadband.

This network, as I have already said, is one of the most significant and important pieces of infrastructure that we can provide to the Australian community. It is such a shame that it has taken us this long to get here, but I applaud the Prime Minister, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and others in the executive for demonstrating their leadership in understanding the needs of the Australian people, both the business community and private residents, in conducting their daily affairs now but also in anticipating how significantly the growth of the economy will depend on broadband services in the future. I commend this legislation. We need this information. We need this data. We need the cooperation and information of both the telecommunication carriers and the utilities to enable this major development for our country to be rolled out in the most effective manner, and I certainly commend the bill to the House.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 as somebody from regional Australia. A large part of my electorate is not just outback New South Wales and western New South Wales but small towns that are right up against the foothills of the Blue Mountains, and those areas are all in various ways affected by the lack of readily available fast broadband. I will talk a little later about what might have been and the fact that we could have been standing here as we are, in September 2009, very close to the completion of a broadband network which would have looked after all regional Australians.

But I have to say it is outrageous that this government is overseeing such a monumental—not to put too fine a point on it—stuff-up with broadband. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 is a case in point, because it highlights that they are still working out the details for NBN mark 2 more than six months after the promised time line for their full-blown broadband services expired. Since the Rudd government took office, and it is almost two years now, not one home, not one business and not one farm has received a new service under Labor’s national broadband network proposal—nothing.

Under the coalition policy, 99 per cent of us would have had high-speed, affordable broadband just about by now. The cost to taxpayers would have been less than a billion dollars—$958 million, to be exact. For a total expense of about $2 billion, including private money, we would have had a high-speed broadband service now for 90 per cent of the country. Everyone in my regional electorate would have been better off by now. Instead, there is a great deal of uncertainty about telecommunications because, as we all know, the minister cancelled a signed contract and nothing has proceeded.

When Labor wanted votes during the election campaign, they promised fibre to the node to 98 per cent of Australia for less than $5 billion. Admittedly, a lot of that was going to be pinched from the $2 billion that was until recently held in reserve to help service regional infrastructure, but that has gone. That was plan 1, which was replaced after 18 months, and $20 million was wasted in coming to that decision. We now have the headline-grabbing $43 billion plan, which is apparently going to be a Rolls-Royce service but which is only going to get to 90 per cent of Australia. So we will be getting less. I can assure you that the electorate of Calare, west of the Blue Mountains, will be getting less, but we are going to have to share in billions of dollars of debt, whereas at one stage for a cost to the whole nation of less than a billion dollars we were going to get a high-speed service to 98 per cent of the population.

Which 10 per cent of us will miss out on the topnotch broadband speed? I do not think it is a coincidence that 16 per cent of the country’s population live outside capital cities and major urban centres. It is pretty obvious regional people are going to miss out on the fastest speeds in this grand scheme but still be lumped with paying for the $43 billion plan. Let us remember that there was no cost-benefit analysis involved in the $43 billion. Most of the money is obviously going to be borrowed, but what the heck? Australia is certainly into borrowing money at the moment. Labor says, ‘Full steam ahead.’ It has not worked out how to pay it back, but I dare say we will at some stage in the future.

The broadband plan of Labor would see taxpayers carry the bulk of the risk, with the government becoming a 51 per cent majority stakeholder in a new public-private company. This is all well and good, but Labor has made it clear that towns of under 1,000 are going to be left with slower speeds. I happen to be the very proud representative of a lot of towns, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as you would be yourself without a shadow of a doubt—towns of well under 1,000, and some over. Darwin might not have towns of fewer than 1,000, but there are quite a few not far from it. On that basis, in my electorate of Calare 21 communities, representing 8½ thousand people, have been dumped in the too-hard basket in one hit and will have to wait years for services. It does not matter whether it is Carcoar, Millthorpe, Peak Hill, Spring Hill, Tottenham, Trangie, Trundle, Tullamore or Yeoval. There are heaps of them under 1,000, and they will miss out not just on a Rolls-Royce service but on any service in the near future.

Let us remember that about now the coalition deal with Optus and Elders would have had all of us—98 per cent of Australia—covered. But, instead of that, not one house is covered. In fact, the bigger regional towns, such as Parkes, Peak Hill, Forbes, Blayney, Molong, Cobar, Bourke, Nyngan, Narromine and Trangie, could miss out on fibre to the premises, because only 90 per cent of the population will get connections of 100 megabits per second, with the remaining 10 percent, or about two million people, to get speeds of 12 megabits delivered through wireless and satellite services. I ask this question: when will this happen? As I said, they would have had it by now under our scheme, under the contract that was cancelled by the minister—a signed contract with government. We need to clarify this, because until we know what the government is planning our regions have every right to be worried about what sort of service they will end up with, if they ever do end up with one. I think the government has to release its broadband coverage map so that we know where the two million or so people are who will be dudded on speed, with broadband connections almost 10 times slower than everybody in the major cities.

It is a disgrace, especially when you consider that, as Optus itself said this year in its submission to the Senate inquiry on Labor’s NBN:

The cancellation of OPEL was a lost opportunity for Australian business and consumers, particularly in the bush. Almost 900,000 premises across rural and remote Australia were to have been delivered metro-equivalent services at metro-comparable prices. Many of those—

or most of those—

premises would have been receiving services now.

I guess it is something we have come to expect. It is Labor in the never-never—in this case Labor broadband under Rudd with a nine-month implementation study, planned at a cost of over $50 million and with a rollout period of eight years. But do we have the faintest idea when that is? No. I think you have seen as much detail in that last sentence as you are likely ever to see in the near future.

We also set aside $2 billion in the Communications Fund to ensure that earnings from the fund—around $100 million a year, depending on investment opportunities—would be available so that our telecommunications in regional Australia could be updated to be modern and, where possible, to have the latest technology. Our national broadband scheme would have benefited our country and would actually have been established by now. So much for that, because Labor cancelled that; they actually cancelled a signed contract with Optus and Elders.

As it is at the moment, with $43 billion set to be blown, our country businesses and students are looking at not only being disadvantaged but having to pay, or at least share equally in paying, the billions involved, as well as having the uncertainty about when they will get some sort of service—if ever, because it is pretty obvious that Labor have taken a look at this and said, ‘We’ll cancel this contract because it’s for regional Australia.’ I think everyone forgets that it was only inner metropolitan areas that would not have shared in that OPEL contract. Even outer metropolitan areas would have done well out of it. But Labor did not really see regional Australia as their hardcore constituency. They looked at the 10 per cent they were leaving out of their potential scheme and they said, ‘How often do we get a seat here?’ The member for Solomon is fine—he is in a city—but his colleague in the Northern Territory may not be so happy about the fact that OPEL was knocked over.

I cannot leave without making this point once again: when the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy cancelled the signed contract held by OPEL to deliver broadband to regional Australia, which would have been finalised between now and next month and would have been delivered, he did a severe disservice to regional Australia—not just the big towns but all the towns, and not just the towns but all people bar the two or so per cent who would have had to make use of our subsidy to go onto satellite. That was to be continued. They would all, at the very least, have had wireless. Let me tell you: as much as people like to put wireless down, something like 100 million Americans use it. The figures of usage in Australia have gone up exponentially in recent times. When all is said and done, if Labor ever get around under their own program to looking after the 10 per cent they are wiping like a dirty rag at the moment, wireless is what they are going to give them as well.

Regional Australia not only has missed out on having a service this year, which it would have had, but has had a good $4 billion stolen from it: the $2 billion of the Communications Fund set up to keep telephonic services up to date in the bush, the best part of $1 billion that OPEL was putting into that scheme and the matching amount of money that our government committed to it—$4 billion in total. Instead of getting that $4 billion to provide a service for it by the end of 2009, regional Australia is going to share in a debt and not get a service at all. It is going to share in a $43 billion debt and have no service.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I note the comments of the previous speaker in regard to broadband and how it was going to be done in the coalition’s 13th year of government—like a lot of other things that were going to be done in their 13th year of government, such as real action on climate change, a fairer industrial relations system and all of the other things that they said. So it is great to see that, just like all the other things that they were going to do in their 13th year of government, broadband has been put on that list as well!

I rise today in strong support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I support the comments from the member for Bonner where she said that it gives her a great deal of pride—as it does me also—to be part of a government that will, over time, deliver a high-speed broadband system to Australia. The purpose of this bill is to establish a regime to provide access to network information held by telecommunications carriers and other utilities where it is important to the planning and the rollout of the new National Broadband Network, or NBN, initiative.

It is important to the planning of the NBN and its rollout that information about existing infrastructure that might be utilised in the rollout of the network is accessible. For example, information on the location and availability of facilities such as poles, ducts and pipes can be assessed to ensure the network can be rolled out as cost-effectively as possible. Of course, the preference is to acquire this information on a cooperative or commercial basis from telecommunications carriers and other utilities such as suppliers of electricity, water and transport services. This legislation will provide a safety net to allow the Commonwealth to seek the necessary information where cooperative or commercial approaches may not be successful. This may be necessary to ensure the project is not delayed or otherwise frustrated by firms that have important information but have strategic or other reasons to withhold this information.

Earlier this year the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a new company to build and operate a new superfast national broadband network. The Prime Minister described the initiative as a historic nation-building investment focused on Australia’s long-term national interest. The NBN will fundamentally transform the competitive dynamics of the telecommunications sector and underpin future productivity growth and our international competitiveness. The reason we need to act is the appalling legacy the previous government left the nation regarding broadband and critical economic infrastructure. That neglect is the basis of our nation’s current broadband situation when compared to other developed nations.

The latest OECD figures show that Australia is ranked 16th out of 30 OECD countries in terms of broadband take-up. The figures also tell us that we pay more for broadband than do people in most other OECD countries—in fact we are ranked 20th out of 29 countries. And, in terms of average monthly subscription costs, Australia is the fourth most expensive for low-speed connections and the fifth most expensive for medium-speed connections. When it comes to something as necessary in day-to-day life as the internet, these are less than impressive figures.

The National Broadband Network is to be built in partnership with the private sector and will be the single-largest nation-building infrastructure project in Australia’s history. The new National Broadband Network will connect 90 per cent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second—100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses. The NBN will see remaining premises connected with next-generation wireless and satellite technologies that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second. The proposed eight-year project will directly support tens of thousands of local jobs.

In Solomon we often suffer from the tyranny of distance. Just like other communities in regional and remote parts of Australia, we have become ever-increasingly dependent on reliable internet access. Whether you are a small business operator, a student, a teacher, a medical professional or a tourist, or if you are a mum or dad who works from home, you need the internet to go about your day-to-day business. I know there would not be too many Territorians who would forget what happened in April this year when the Territory was cut off from the rest of the world because our major internet and phone services collapsed for more than 10 hours. I raise this point not to have a go at the telecommunications sector—I know that they do their best and that these sorts of accidents and interruptions do happen. But anyone who has experienced an entire network collapse will understand just how reliant on the internet we are.

That is why I was extremely happy when the very committed Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced earlier this year that Darwin will be one of six priority black spot locations under the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program. A new optical fibre broadband link to Darwin will increase access to broadband services, which we in Solomon need more than other capital cities because of our distance from other commercial centres. It will put downward pressure on prices by increasing competition. I am advised that we experience broadband backbone prices that are three to five times higher than the costs of similar routes elsewhere. And of course a new link will increase the reliability of services, as we are the only capital city with no competitive broadband backbone link.

The minister and I understand that new competitive broadband backbone infrastructure is critical to the rollout of high-speed broadband services in rural and regional Australia. Access to competitive broadband backbone infrastructure on an open access, equivalent basis will stimulate competition and allow retail broadband providers to offer better services. The government has received positive responses to the $250 million Regional Backbone Blackspots request for tender, which closed recently. The level of interest in the request for tender provides further endorsement of the government’s decision to invest in competitive broadband backbone infrastructure in regional Australia. This program is just one part of the government’s National Broadband Network, which will deliver superfast broadband to all Australian homes and workplaces. The government and I look forward to delivering this vital piece of infrastructure for Territorians and the nation as a whole. The NBN will add new potential to the lives of so many Territorians in so many areas.

I have heard many speakers talk about the benefits that a new superfast national broadband network will bring to their electorates. I know the member for Kingston spoke about the significant impact the NBN will have in the health sector. Recently, the Minister for Health and Ageing and I had the pleasure of witnessing the signing of a memorandum of intent between Charles Darwin University and Flinders University, which is in the Kingston electorate. This collaboration came about because our government committed over $32 million dollars to establishing a medical school in the NT. That is a significant commitment. One of the problems we have had in the Northern Territory is getting doctors. A lot of our young people who go away to study medicine do not come back but go interstate, so having that commitment in the health sector to train doctors locally by 2011 and to have 40 doctors coming out to do their final year’s on-the-job training by 2015-16 is certainly a benefit to the Northern Territory. No longer will our local students be required to travel and live interstate, as much of their training will be done at home. No doubt the NBN will significantly improve the capacity of the new medical school as well as provide great potential for all our medical professionals.

But it is not only in the health sector that we will see the benefits of a new superfast national broadband network. This government wholeheartedly understands that Australians need improved broadband services no matter where they live, study or work. An improved broadband network will improve the productivity of small business. It will improve how schools, universities and TAFEs deliver education and change how we communicate with each other in the future. A superfast national broadband network will enable us all to do things in the future that nobody could even anticipate today. The NBN strikes the right balance between supporting growth and jobs now and delivering the investments needed to strengthen the economy for the long term.

As the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said in his address to the Australian Telecommunications Users Group conference earlier this year:

For these reasons, the Rudd Government is driving forward with its investment with the private sector in the National Broadband Network.

The project will exceed our election commitment and deliver high-speed broadband to every home and every business across Australia.

It will ensure our nation is at the forefront of the global digital economy.

Importantly, it will revitalise our regional economies, provide new job opportunities, drive efficiency, enable new trade links and improve the delivery of social services.

The National Broadband Network is a bold nation-building project.

In fact it is the largest infrastructure project undertaken in Australia’s history.

It will ensure that all Australians, no matter where they choose to live or work, will have the best opportunity to participate in the digital economy.

I would like to speak on another matter just briefly, if I could. During the adjournment debate on Monday last, the member for Ballarat informed the House of White Ribbon Day activities in her community. White Ribbon Day is dedicated to raising awareness of domestic violence against women in our community. I put on the public record my support for the member’s contribution as I fully support all programs that address the disturbing levels of violence in the Australian community. As a member of the Australian parliament, I condemn violence in any form—be it physical, emotional or psychological—against any member of our community. Thank you for that indulgence. In regard to this bill, I fully support the bill and I commend the bill to the House

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 in terms of the government’s broader proposal to introduce a national broadband network. In particular, I rise to speak in the context of the delays in delivery of this program against a government promise. This is a promise that the government made much about in the lead-up to the last election, and ever since that last election we have just heard excuse after excuse for why this is not happening. You could say that the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made what you might call a ‘comfort promise’. I note that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation recently said the promise made by the government, when in opposition, that in relation to industrial relations no-one would be worse off was a promise to provide comfort, not an actual promise. In this place at the moment and particularly in the other place we are voting on and have voted on bills in relation to the government’s broken promises on things like private health insurance. So when it comes to the government fulfilling promises on broadband, what we have seen even from the speaker just before me are a government that are still talking about their promise, their vision and the things that may happen. What we are not seeing is something actually happen.

It was said before this bill was introduced that one thing that was supposed to be in the legislation introduced in this session was a requirement for greenfield developments to use FTTP technology from 1 July 2010 and for the government to acquire network information needed to assist in the design of the national FTTP rollout. That is what Senator Conroy said, but we do not see these provisions in the legislation. These are concerning provisions that have been the subject of much discussion with the housing industry. It is particularly from that context that I wish to address the House today. The housing industry is tremendously concerned that this amounts to a requirement for the developer—which will ultimately mean the person who purchased the house—to pay for this fibre to be connected to every single house in every single new development. The estimate from industry is that this will cost $2,500 per lot. One of the challenges we have in this country is housing affordability. It may come as a surprise to those on the other side of this chamber that 95 per cent of people live in the private housing industry. Ninety-five per cent of people are renting, buying or seeking to purchase homes in the private housing industry.

One of the reasons we have had rents rising—in fact, the key reason we have had rents rising—in this country, and the key reason we have seen housing prices moving forward and forward and beyond the reach of many Australians, is the excessive level of taxation, delay and charging that is shored up in the cost of developing a block of land. Then there is the failure by state governments to release land, the absolutely merciless taxation by state governments of that land and the failure of state governments to provide the infrastructure that services that land to make it a viable investment.

Instead of addressing these challenges in housing affordability, this government has sought to confine its activity only to things that it wants to spend money on. So we have the government’s program on public housing, but we do not have a program to address what is in fact the other 97 per cent of the residential construction market. Now that the first home owners grant boost is winding back—and that is something we supported both in its introduction and now in its winding back—and as that stimulus is being withdrawn from the housing market, which is the right thing to do, what we are going to be faced with in the residential construction sector is: where to from here? Probably the most important thing we can do in ‘Where to from here?’ for the residential construction sector is make sure that we do not tax them more—and that is what this proposal from the government will do. It will apply further taxation in the form of the requirement to pay for this fibre regardless of whether whoever buys the house wants it. They might want wireless. They might want some other form of technology. But Kevin knows best, and he is going to say, ‘You will pay $2½ thousand per lot to have this connected’—a further tax.

Here is another idea that the government might think of. How about saying to state governments, on whom they are spending absolute billions of dollars of borrowed money on behalf of taxpayers, ‘In return for spending billions of dollars to mop up your failure to undertake any repairs and maintenance work on your own housing stocks in the last 10 years, in return for us providing billions of dollars, particularly hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments to support local infrastructure’—many of which are very worthy projects—‘in return for all of this considerable expenditure, how about we insist on some reform from state and local governments when it comes to making sure that in north-western Sydney, for example, it does not cost $200,000 before you even put a brick on the block?’ It is $200,000 before you put a brick on the block in the electorate of the member for Mitchell. That is what it costs. In the electorate of the member for Greenway, that is what it costs: $200,000 before you even lay a brick.

The answer from the government is this: ‘Let’s add another $2½ thousand to every single one and let’s think that’s going to do something about housing affordability in this context.’ The government have recklessly, once again, forged ahead with a proposal which they have failed to consider. When I have the opportunity later on today to resume my remarks after question time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am looking forward to taking you through the comments from the housing industry that set out how much damage this could do to an industry which is so important in times like this.

The other challenge to that industry from this government is what it is going to do to interest rates over the next 12 to 18 months, because as the first home owners boost comes off—as it should—the government has decided, by continuing to spend borrowed money, to put pressure on interest rates. We have a residential construction industry who will be looking for opportunities. They will be looking for people who want to come and buy and build new homes. I think this government has totally misunderstood the positive impact that lower interest rates have had over the last six to nine months in ensuring that there was a buoyancy in consumer spending and, in particular, that there was a confidence amongst new home buyers to go out there and build a new house. Once the first home owners grant has been rightfully withdrawn, what is the answer going to be from this government? The answer is going to be to keep recklessly spending money, which is going to drive up interest rates. That will mean that people will not be able to take that commitment.

There are 200,000 young people, as reported today, who have gone and bought their first home. The only interest rates they have ever known are the ones they have just bought their house on. The interest rates they are about to know are the interest rates that the government is going to give them by refusing to rein in reckless spending—refusing even to stop and consider. This is a government that can only see its own efforts. It cannot see the efforts of others out there, small business people working in the economy to create jobs and keep people in work—no, it was all created by the government. So the government is going to ensure higher interest rates for people who want to build houses, higher interest rates for people who want to buy houses and higher interest rates for people who want to pay off a house. It is going to do this by not withdrawing its reckless spending, because the government is of the view that there is only one way to support this economy, and that is with its spending.

But there is a contrast to that. The government can choose to rein in their reckless spending and keep interest rates low. Keeping interest rates low will support jobs, it will support the economy and, in particular, it will support the residential construction industry, who, as a result of bills such as this and the government’s refusal to withdraw their reckless spending, will see interest rates go up and will suffer from that. What we want to see from the government is the opportunity for the government to stop, to look and to listen about what the impact of their reckless spending is going to be on interest rates. They may well want to argue for stimulus, but they need to acknowledge that stimulus can be delivered by keeping interest rates low. Australia has some of the highest rates of interest in the world, so I do not accept the argument that they simply have to rise, as the government would suggest. They do not have to rise. They do not have to rise if the government will stop their reckless spending and not put this pressure on those interest rates. The government can choose between less spending and higher interest rates. The government have chosen to go for higher interest rates because they would prefer to deliver a stimulus through spending rather than give small business the opportunity and people who want to buy a home and people who want to pay off a home the opportunity to do that with lower interest rates.

We have a very real risk that we will see the residential construction industry come under pressure. They will come under pressure from higher interest rates. They will come under pressure from the proposals by the government to put more taxes on the development of land, more taxes that are preventing people from having the opportunity to buy a house and to buy it affordably. People do not want go into public housing; they want to go into a private house, like 95 per cent of Australians do every single day. If this government continues to spend recklessly, it will drive up interest rates and it will drive away the opportunity for homebuyers to buy a home and, more importantly, pay that home off. So I call on the government to rein in this spending, to choose to provide support to our economy through lower interest rates, not through more government spending. That is the stimulus the government has chosen: higher interest rates and more government spending. Those on this side of the House want to see lower interest rates. We want to see people being able to pay off their home, not just today. Those 200,000 people who have bought a home just recently want to see lower interest rates, Treasurer. They want to see lower interest rates, and they will not get them from you.

Debate interrupted.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Cook will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.