House debates

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures — Access Arrangements) Bill 2010

Consideration in Detail

9:05 pm

Photo of Luke HartsuykerLuke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on opposition amendments (1) and (2) to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Bill 2010. Certainly it is of concern that we are going to create potential discrimination between telcos when we are really keen to encourage as much competition in the market as possible. The offering of volume discounts, on whatever basis, does have the potential to create an advantage for the larger telecommunication companies over the smaller ones.

Cherry picking is an important concept. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport referred to the fact that regional and rural Australia is of concern in this area. Where there is market failure that is where the government should be stepping in. That is the role for the government. What we do not want is government interfering where there is no market failure. These cherry-picking provisions have the potential to discourage innovation and new services. It is vital that the free market has the opportunity to compete right across the spectrum.

We see highlighted here the very concerns that the opposition has been putting forward about this bill and this project—that we are going to have a subsidy being provided to the NBN. We have a massive financial subsidy through massive investment of government funds that would not be available to other competitors in the market. On top of that we have a distortion of the market through anticompetitive legislation that prevents competition. What will that result in? It will result in consumers paying more. So Australian consumers will be paying an effective subsidy to prop up the NBN project, as well as paying the massive capital cost that they are actually incurring.

So, whilst we believe very much that there is a role for government in regional and rural areas to ensure that there is high-speed broadband, that role should not be achieved through artificially propping up the cost of broadband in metropolitan areas or on high-volume markets. It is a very important concept. If we are going to make Australia a 21st century superpower, we need highly efficient broadband services, and the way to do that is not to put restraint on competition and not to artificially stop innovation. We should be encouraging those things and we should be encouraging competition in every area of the market. In fact, the very cherry-picking provisions that you refer to as providing some form of subsidy for regional and rural areas, effectively at this point in time are retarding the rollout of fibre in a range of regional centres. People are concerned about the impact and suppliers are concerned about the impact of these very same cherry-picking provisions. So, contrary to what the minister has said in relation to the fact that this is somehow going to be the panacea to the problems of regional Australia, the reality is quite different. It is going to drive up the cost in metropolitan areas and, at the same time, it is retarding the rollout of fibre in some regional centres.

Comments

No comments