Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. I heard the member for Wide Bay in a very animated, if not agitated, state talking about regional and rural Australia. It must have been very interesting to be in those cabinet meetings when he sat at the table in that period of failure and inaction by the coalition. The regulatory framework for telecommunications in this country has not changed much since 1997. The many plans the coalition came out with—18 in 11½years—failed absolutely dismally regional and rural Australia, including provincial towns in Queensland. The member for Wide Bay is so aggressive about our plans, yet what did he say when Telstra was engaging in this sort of behaviour for such a long time? He is highly critical of Telstra and of us but has no word of criticism for his own government, at whose cabinet table he sat. What happened to regional and rural Australia under the coalition? Very little when it came to telecommunications. The OECD shows that Australia has fallen to 16th out of 30 countries in broadband penetration. We are the 20th most expensive country in average monthly broadband subscription prices. Telstra admitted on 16 July 2008 that two-thirds of metropolitan areas and more than 50 per cent of people in regional areas cannot get 12 megabits per second.

The only plan that the coalition came up with was the OPEL plan, and they want to reinstate it—a broadband network that comprehensively failed to demonstrate that it could meet the terms of the funding agreement on service coverage. You can see that in my electorate. The reality is that large parts of my seat were not covered by the previous government’s plans. You have only to look at what Geoscience Australia said in relation to my electorate to see that the coalition were not taking into consideration hills and mountains in their fixed wireless coverage. Large parts were not being covered. The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy determined that the OPEL network would cover only 72 per cent of identified underserved premises within its agreed coverage area. By calling for OPEL to be reinstated, the member for Wide Bay and the opposition are being grossly irresponsible. They are not thinking of rural and regional Australia at all. My constituents in the federal electorate of Blair complain constantly about Telstra. The previous government held a number of inquiries into telecommunications—for example, the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, which reported in September 2008. The package of reforms we have here goes to strengthening the safeguards for consumers. If everything was sweetness and light, as the member for Wide Bay suggests, why establish this review?

The truth is that consumers, businesses, hospitals, schools, individuals, farmers and students were frustrated with the lack of broadband and adequate telecommunications services throughout the country. The previous government knew that. The member for Wide Bay knows it. In his heart of hearts, he knows they failed the very constituents they mean to represent—the Nationals call themselves the people for rural and regional Australia. He knows they failed. Our national broadband rollout will make a huge difference in the lives of people in rural and regional Australia. We do not want to perpetuate the legacy of failure of the previous government. We certainly do not want to perpetrate problems in this sector. What we want to do is overcome the rigidities and the obstructionism of Telstra, overcome the failures of consumer safeguards and overcome the stringent and rigid monopolistic practices that Telstra engaged in. We want to make sure that we broaden the telecommunications network throughout the country and let other players have a fair go. That is what the National Broadband Network is going to be all about.

Why are we dealing with Telstra in this way? Because we believe national investment in broadband infrastructure is critical for the 21st century. We want to increase our productivity. We want to give children who live in rural and regional Australia the same chances and educational opportunities they would have if they lived in Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. We will not build the education revolution simply by building libraries and multipurpose halls and by educating teachers better. We have to make sure they get access to 21st century telecommunications so they are not disadvantaged in any way at all compared to children who live in Adelaide, Perth or Hobart. We want to make sure, if you live in Lowood, Toogoolawah, Esk, Gatton, Laidley, Boonah, Kalbar or even Ipswich, you get the same access to the same form of telecommunications. That is why the National Broadband Network is so important. It will rival, as we have said on many occasions before, the Snowy hydro scheme in terms of its scale, significance and importance for the future. I have every confidence that in decades to come Australians will look back and say, ‘What a great initiative this National Broadband Network has turned out to be.’

The investment of $43 billion over eight years to build that network is simply critical to the future of Australia. The legislation that is before the House in effect goes hand in glove with what we are doing. The member for Wide Bay was talking about the implementation study. We are getting the ball rolling by doing the National Broadband Network implementation study. We are initially putting in $4.7 billion and looking for further investment through the Aussie infrastructure bonds. We want to engage constructively in negotiations with Telstra and with state governments. I am pleased that we are negotiating with the Tasmanian state Labor government to build the network in Tasmania first. It is important that, whether you live in Strahan, Hobart or Launceston, you get access to the same form of telecommunications as everyone else.

I heard the member for Wide Bay talk about the fact that Telstra is in many ways quite dysfunctional in its business operations and dealings with consumers. But no real plan was outlined by the member as to what they would do, except to hark back to the good old days—as he thought of them—in terms of bringing back OPEL, and OPEL failed. We need to look to the future and ensure that we increase productivity, promote greater competition and, at the same time, benefit consumers. That is why it is so important to get rid of the red tape, the redundant and inefficient regulation, in this sector. Competition is important, and we need to make sure that everyone across the country gets equitable access to telecommunications.

In this regard, we are looking at changing the way Telstra operates. We are requiring Telstra to functionally separate, unless it voluntarily structurally separates. That is at the heart of this legislation. We are also making sure that Telstra does not acquire extra spectrum for advanced wireless broadband unless it submits to a voluntary enforceable undertaking acceptable to the ACCC to structurally separate and divest its Foxtel interests and ownership of its hybrid fibre-coaxial network. That is what we are doing in this legislation.

Contrary to what the member for Wide Bay said, we are strengthening the consumer safeguards. If you left it up to the member for Wide Bay, the safeguards would all be at the discretion of the Telstra universal service obligation. But we are not doing that. We are going further than the previous government did. We are also increasing incentives for providers to comply with the customer service guarantee and we are putting forward what I think is very important: more stringent rules on the removal of payphones, because that is important, particularly for those in lower socioeconomic areas and those in rural and regional Australia.

We are making sure that ACMA can issue infringement notices for contraventions and we are beefing up the support in that regard. We are also looking to amend the trade practices legislation, because we think it needs to be changed with respect to the specific access regime set out in one of the parts of the Trade Practices Act but also to make changes with respect to the anticompetitive regime set out in another part. We are making big changes in that regard.

What we are doing here is important because we are doing it in response to what consumers of Telstra services and telecommunications services have said. There have been many reports, many reforms and many submissions made with respect to the challenges and the problems in relation to telecommunications in this country, and it is not surprising because the ACCC has noted that Telstra remains one of the most integrated telecommunications companies in the world, both horizontally and vertically. The consequence of that market share is that it is almost monopolistic in terms of its control of the market in so many areas.

As I said, we have had many stakeholders interested in what happens in telecommunications. That is why we have announced this commitment to reforming the telecommunications regulatory system. A discussion paper was issued subsequent to the 7 April announcement in relation to the changes we were going to bring forward, specifically in relation to the National Broadband Network, and a consultation process occurred on similar issues in 2008, previous to our announcement. Over 80 submissions were received and there was a strong response to our recent discussion paper with respect to this matter, with 140 submissions received. We have consulted widely and those submissions have been on government websites. After a period of 15 months and the receipt of over 200 submissions, the message is crystal clear: there needs to be change; there needs to be reform; and the Australian public is heartily sick and tired of putting up with inadequate services including the removal of payphones, coverage for mobile phones and access to broadband and internet services generally.

Because Telstra controls the only fixed-line copper wire that connects most premises in Australia, controls the largest hybrid fibre-coaxial cable and mobile networks and has a 50 per cent stake in Australia’s largest subscription provider, Foxtel, it really has the capacity to tell consumers what they need and what they should pay, and those people do not have access to the alternatives they need. That effectively means that it is put up or shut up—use Telstra services or go elsewhere and pay more. The truth is that we need to make the changes we are proposing in this legislation.

As I said before, when it comes to the universal service arrangements, Telstra really has its own discretion and can do what it wants. We need to make sure, as this legislation does, that those universal service obligation arrangements are fulfilled. The member for Wide Bay was quite critical of us in this regard, but I think that when it comes to reliability and repair the Australian public knows that Telstra has failed on many occasions, particularly in rural and regional areas. A councillor in my area, Councillor David Pahlke, constantly contacts my office in relation to Telstra failings. When I was recently driving around with him in the Somerset region he was pointing out all the failings of Telstra. He represents 60 per cent of the Ipswich area. It is a big rural area including small country towns that are part of the City of Ipswich—places like Walloon and Rosewood. He was expressing to me his absolute frustration with Telstra. Certainly we know from the facts that Telstra has failed to fulfil its universal service obligation. The most recent Australian Communications and Media Authority report, published in the March quarter in 2009, makes that crystal clear and the facts are very obvious in the circumstances.

The amendments in this legislation are about protecting consumers’ access and about reliability for basic telephone services—and we are going to do that and give ACMA, which fulfils the role of the independent regulator in the circumstances, more effective powers to regulate. We are not going to simply rely on Telstra saying, ‘We’ll be good boys and girls and do the job.’ We are going to make sure that they comply with their obligations.

The Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, which I referred to before, released a report which highlighted the declining effectiveness of the customer service guarantee. That should have been very obvious to the coalition in all those years they occupied this side of this House, but for some reason or other nothing was done by those opposite in relation to that. So we are going to give ACMA broad powers to issue infringement notices—on-the-spot fines, effectively—if there are breaches of the civil penalty provisions in the Telecommunications Act and other like pieces of legislation. As a government we recognise, and it is crystal clear to the public also, that if we are fair dinkum about protecting consumers the universal service obligation needs to be not just a matter whereby Telstra determines whether it complies but a matter of enforcement with respect to its obligation.

Finally, we are going to remove a lot of the regulatory red tape. There are some major changes in the legislation with respect to that. I will not outline those in the couple of minutes remaining to me, but I will say this: the member for Wide Bay was highly critical, in a very agitated way, of the government’s commitment to communications and the reform plans that we have. But I say to those opposite that they should back this legislation. They have a failed track record when it comes to telecommunications reform and legislation. They presided over a system that was full of rigidities that allowed one company to dominate the market, not just vertically but horizontally, and it was done to the detriment of consumers and the very small businesses and the very farming communities they purport to represent. I have always maintained that it is Labor and Labor governments that are the true champions of small business and the farming community, because Labor is on the side of those who do not have the power. We believe the legislation before the House goes a considerable way to not just getting rid of rigidity but improving equity and accessibility to telecommunications services for rural and regional Australia. In the circumstances, I am happy to support the bill.

See this speech in context