Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to record my objection and opposition to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008. This is a poor piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that will have not only a negative impact on my electorate of Mitchell but also serious consequences for those in rural and regional Australia.

One of the Howard government’s many great initiatives for rural and regional Australia was the introduction of the $2 billion Communications Fund, which was enacted through the 2005 telecommunications legislation amendment act. This act secured investment in broadband infrastructure for the future of all Australians, especially those in rural and regional areas. I note, with particular concern, that this bill proposes to remove the requirement in the act to keep the balance of the Communications Fund above $2 billion and also permits the use of the fund for another purpose. Therefore, in effect, the outcome of this bill is vintage Labor.

Labor never think ahead or plan ahead on how they will fund infrastructure. Just think about every state government in Australia; think about what they are doing to utilities. They are ripping the dividends out of every utility in Australia. When you consider that, you start to get a picture of Labor thinking in relation to infrastructure funding: ‘Spend now and don’t plan to protect your future revenue base for essential infrastructure.’ Every Labor government seems to abandon prudent measures to fund infrastructure in favour of short-sighted spending measures. Under this bill, how will Labor guarantee that funds and resources go back to rural and regional Australia, once we have smashed the piggy bank, raided the money and spent all the change? The answer we are supposed to believe is: ‘Somehow.’

We understand that Labor made a lot of promises at the last election—promises that they knew they could not keep. They promised, if elected, a broadband tender process to be announced within six months of the election. But now we know they cannot possibly deliver on such a commitment, and it is at least 12 months away. Prior to the election, Labor and Senator Conroy promised that Labor’s broadband tender and the ACC’s wholesale-price-setting process would all be complete, together with a signed contract, within six months of the election. If we were to believe them, it would be occurring by 24 May 2008—an absolutely unrealistic timetable, and they have now been forced to admit it. I believe that this bill is a further admission of the major problems that the government are having in getting broadband right.

Let me also stick up for the sensible and prudent financing that was in the original act. It is much more preferable than Labor’s preference for having funding mechanisms such as new or higher taxes or charges. It is a mechanism that provided for the future of rural and regional Australia without having to seek revenue from other places.

So what is the real purpose of this bill? Its real purpose is to grab money to fund unrealistic election promises for the city at the expense of rural and regional Australia. It must be asked, however, whether Labor and Minister Conroy actually believe that, in less than six months, they could prepare the rollout of the entire tender process. If you look at what such a process entails—and I think this goes to the heart of what this bill is saying—did Labor believe that, in less than six months, they could prepare, publish and consult on the criteria for a $4.7 billion tender? Did they really suggest to the electorate that they could have the industry write and submit its proposals against those criteria? Did they think that an expert assessment panel would assess every one of the industry’s proposals, cabinet would give its approval, negotiations would be conducted, all terms and conditions would be signed and a contract with the preferred bidder would be out within six months—including the introduction and debate of legislation and, as we now know, the amendment to the act that we have before us to raid the telecommunications fund and secure the passage of this legislation through both the House and the Senate? It is a completely unrealistic expectation. We now know that it is going to take much longer—12 months or longer—for them to get a tender process up and running. That 12-month period or longer represents an election commitment they have broken already. However, Labor did continue in their insistence to the electorate that this unrealistic goal could be achieved; hence, we have this legislation before us today.

Unlike Labor’s unrealistic objectives, the policy of the Howard government was not limited simply to broadband. The Communications Fund, which was established and which is now open to raiding if this bill passes this House, provided essential financing for all telecommunications challenges in rural and remote Australia. Furthermore, the $400 million that the fund has returned in interest every three years would have ensured that, as infrastructure needs arose in regional areas, finance would be readily available to support these communities. I think this is a very important point. The member for Grey, who represents 97 per cent of the state of South Australia, made the excellent point that, as technology improves and increases, money is going to be required to ensure that those technological advances reach rural and regional Australia.

Again, Labor knows what it wants to achieve, which is broadband rollout to all of Australia, but it has not addressed the fundamental question of how that infrastructure is going to be funded—and you can cannot separate the end from the means. You cannot separate how you are going to fund those technological upgrades to reach rural and regional Australians from the objective that you are trying to reach.

The funds that were available for much-needed infrastructure upgrades—which included things like mobile towers, broadband investment and the availability of backhaul fibre capabilities—are all gone, if this bill passes this House and the Senate. The previous legislation not only included this essential $2 billion Communications Fund but further provided a holistic telecommunications policy—which, again, rural and regional Australia will suffer from not having, if we pass this bill.

I would like to know how any Labor member from the bush can support the removal of this guarantee of financing for future infrastructure upgrades. Where are the rural and regional Labor members? Why aren’t they here? Why aren’t they speaking on this bill? And why aren’t they consulting with their communities and justifying why they are removing the guaranteed financing for the future of rural and regional Australia? We want to know where they are.

Another problem with this bill is that it lacks detail. Again they know what they want to achieve but they do not how they are going to get there. In fact, one of the hows, the $400 million in interest from this $2 billion fund that would guarantee infrastructure upgrades in the bush, is now going to be removed. Not only did Labor take a communications policy to the last election which lacked a lot of detail—indeed, it had some false details in it—but also the bill being debated in the House today continues to be devoid of any real substance. Again, let us be clear here. The devil is always in the detail and the devil in the detail of this bill is $400 million being removed every three years from rural and regional Australia to fund essential upgrades to their infrastructure.

As Minister Conroy is finding out, it is easy to promise something in opposition. It is easy to say, ‘We want world’s best broadband; we can do it in six months.’ But they are finding out that in government the realities of how you fund essential infrastructure are very different. They are prioritising the city at the expense of the bush. The $2 billion which Labor will take from this fund will more than likely be siphoned to metropolitan areas whilst those Australians in more vulnerable positions will be left behind in the telecommunications wilderness.

In both the semirural communities in my electorate and the new emerging housing corridors in Mitchell, broadband access is unacceptably poor. I have had constituent after constituent ringing me from suburbs like Kellyville, Beaumont Hills and Rouse Hill upset that they cannot gain access to faster broadband. Now they are also concerned to hear that Labor lied to them before the last election. There are at least another 12 months before a tender process can be announced, rather than the stated six months that Minister Conroy promised before the election. In much of Mitchell the infrastructure installed over many years has been pair gain telephone lines and systems in new housing estates. This was based on an assumption of around a 30 per cent take-up of broadband, which is now a vastly out-of-date figure. Many old systems in Mitchell carry phone and dial-up internet with no high-speed ADSL or ADSL2+.

Telstra revealed yesterday in the Hills Shire Times, a local newspaper, one of the problems with the government’s broadband approach and one of the problems that will be revealed from the passing of this legislation. Any delay in the implementation of a broadband network also prevents the private sector from taking up some of the slack in relation to investing in infrastructure. It is interesting to note that in this particular article in relation to telecommunications infrastructure in my electorate Telstra acknowledged that, with the government examining a $4.7 billion spend on a new broadband network, it was withholding any investment in broadband upgrades until it could be certain of what the government was doing. The direct quote is:

... because Telstra was awaiting federal government assurances that profitability would be protected on that network investment.

But it does not stop there. Exacerbating the problem is that there is no detail outlining how and when broadband will be delivered in the new homes and suburbs of Mitchell, the established semirural communities of Mitchell or rural and regional Australia. If you examine some of Minister Conroy’s comments in relation to this matter, he is frustrated, as I read in the papers, with working with the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the bureaucracy, describing it as an episode of Yes, Minister. Again, he unrealistically promised before the election that in six months he would have a whole entire tender process ready to roll out broadband across Australia and then got into government and realised that there are legal problems you have to look at and there are processes you have to go through to deliver effective government infrastructure.

So the question needs to be asked: did Labor purposely mislead the public before the election or did they simply did not understand the legislative processes and difficulties which arise in enacting legislation? In addition, if you examine the comments of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, you start to see some of the problems in relation to this bill. The minister for finance said in February:

The final decision on use of the fund will be made in the context of the government’s overall fiscal strategy ...

That was a comment to AAP. Here we go again: more vague, unsubstantiated rhetoric that really does not give you a lot of confidence about what the government is intending to do with this fund. From the bill, we get the understanding that it is going to be spent on broadband, but why are the government taking the $2 billion that has been set aside to ensure that rural and regional Australia has infrastructure funded into the future? They will not tell us how they are going to upgrade the network or what kind of broadband network they are going to build.

It only gets worse. Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, when he was asked in Senate estimates about the broadband network, said:

The final shape of the network ... is as yet unclear ...

If the government does not know what shape the final broadband network is going to take in Australia, why is it proposing to grab the $2 billion from this fund? The broadband network that it is proposing is as yet unclear, and that is incredibly unreassuring for the people of my electorate. It does raise serious concerns for people all around Australia who desperately want broadband support. Why has the government moved to take the money from this fund and from rural and regional Australia? Have things now become clear? If they are clear, I would like to know what kind of broadband network the government proposes. Why does it need the $2 billion now? Until these questions are answered, I will not be supporting this bill. This detail-free approach to policy is hardly a recommendation of this government in its first 100 days.

In essence, the government is now abandoning those vulnerable Australians who face telecommunications inadequacies. The government is deserting those Australians who most need assistance with telecommunications. Rural and regional Australia needs our support. This fund is a practical and realistic way of funding telecommunications infrastructure upgrades into the future. The Labor government is proposing in this bill to rip out this funding mechanism but not to replace it. It wants broadband rolled out to all Australians, but then, with technological advances, how does it propose to upgrade rural and regional networks? In my electorate we are suffering from the problem of outdated telecommunications infrastructure. When technology advances, people are left behind. You will have an infrastructure network across the country that you have funded with your $4.7 billion, but you have not thought about how to upgrade that network. You are not keeping pace with modern society.

The Howard government put into place a forward-thinking, practical and realistic mechanism to fund the future needs of rural and regional Australians; this government is proposing to rip it out. These sorts of short-sighted policies have long-term consequences for those in rural Australia, who need these policies and our support the most. I ask the government and the minister to reconsider this amendment for our future and, in particular, I ask those Labor members who represent country and rural electorates to come in here and tell their constituencies and us how they propose to guarantee to their constituencies that they can upgrade their telecommunications infrastructure without a viable, long-term funding mechanism. Those Labor members need to come in here and tell this House why they would support a bill that removes the only proposed funding mechanism that will ensure that their constituencies have modern and advanced telecommunications networks into the future.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context