Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

On indulgence, Deputy Speaker Adams, on behalf of the Independent members of the House, I would like to congratulate Ian Harris on his recent nomination. I thought both the Prime Minister and the Acting Leader of the Opposition summed up well the contribution that Ian and his colleagues have made to the wellbeing of this chamber.

I am very pleased that the member for Hotham has raised this matter of public importance, because I think it is an issue that needs to be brought before the public once again and particularly in relation to the debate that is going on at the moment with the G9 group, the Telstra arrangements—or disarrangements and disarray with the minister’s office—and a whole range of other events that are happening out there, not the least of which is the changeover from CDMA to Next G and the broad policy issues that are being confronted there. You may remember, Deputy Speaker Adams, I asked the Prime Minister a number of questions in relation to the process last week, and I might, if time permits, speak briefly about that in a moment.

The issue of broadband that is before the House is a very important and complex issue. It is definitely in my view the most important piece of infrastructure that this nation is going to embrace during the early part of this century. There has been a lot of talk about $3 billion going to a railway line in inland Australia. When you look at the maths of that particular railway line—and I do not disagree with the railway line—it is talking about three trains a day between Melbourne and Brisbane, or 0.6 trains per day you are talking about 8,000-tonne trains. But if you get back to a reasonable tonnage, the tonnage that is being explored through the Ernst and Young consultancy document on small trains, it would be about three trains a day. The government is quite prepared to spend $3 billion on that sort of infrastructure. I would suggest that infrastructure that negates distance as being a disadvantage for regional Australia, as well as our city cousins, is the most important piece of infrastructure that we can invest in in this decade and most probably decades to come. I agree with the member for Hotham when he said, ‘What is wrong,’—and I do not mean to verbal him—‘with investing the proceeds of the sale of Telstra in that very important piece of infrastructure?’ It would deliver equity of access, and hopefully pricing, to all Australians, including those Australians in Tasmania, Deputy Speaker Adams.

The member for Hotham raised a couple of other issues as well, one being market failure. The minister, who has just spoken, also talked about market failure and the role of government in relation to that failure. I would like to give an example, if I could, of a small community on the Queensland border called Yetman. Yetman is a very progressive small community. It does not have CDMA and broadband coverage to the extent that it would like. There have been a number of representations made to the minister and others and Telstra Country Wide and Telstra itself in relation to the people of Yetman and their facility. The Treasurer, when this general issue has been raised with him, retreats to the argument that competition will provide it. The minister says a similar thing, along lines that Telstra is a commercial operation and it will make commercial decisions. Where does market failure fit into these sorts of operations?

The people of Yetman have been told by Telstra, and the government has not stepped in to override this with any amount of money, that if they want equity of access to CDMA services—which are going to be in a short period of time superseded by Next G, and I presume it applies to Next G as well—and if that community of some hundreds is prepared to find some land that is suitable for a tower, provide a road that would get to the tower, provide the tower which would be placed on that land and maintain that land as a community, Telstra Country Wide would have a look at putting an aerial or an antenna on top of the tower.

I recently went to a public meeting in Yetman, and a similar situation has developed on Acacia Plateau. Acacia Plateau is in the eastern part of my electorate—again, near the Queensland border—where there is a beautiful site for a tower. But the market has failed because there are not enough users there to pay back the capital requirements for a tower in the three-year period that Telstra now says it requires in terms of its accounting procedures because it is a commercial entity. When I went to the public meeting, I did not see all the competitors competing to get this tower up. I saw one provider, who was suggesting to the community that they should do the work, which would reduce the capital costs. Therefore, at a certain figure they would look at putting up an aerial which would give them some return on investment. I did not see any government involvement. My concern about those two instances is about what happens with broadband in the future in terms of access to regional Australians.

I do not have a problem with parts of the sale of Telstra—I was opposed to that sale to start with—and I do not have a problem with government investment in infrastructure into the future.

See this speech in context