Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to associate myself with the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 because it is a very good piece of housekeeping for the statute books. It maintains the very sound practice of this government to eliminate regulation that has become outdated or unnecessary by amending and/or repealing certain legislation, in this case over 30 pieces of legislation. As a former legal practitioner, like the good parliamentary secretary sitting at the table, it was always annoying to be confronted with outdated legislation, especially when giving advice and opinions. The reason we have this legislation before us is that this government responded to the recommendations of the Murray review. The government accepted that it should conduct a housekeeping exercise by repealing standing appropriations that are redundant and that at least annually the Department of Finance and Deregulation should undertake a review of these appropriations and report to the parliament about whether there is a continuing need for the appropriations or the legislation that is relevant to them.

I said that there are over 30 pieces of legislation being amended or repealed in this bill, but I want to highlight a few of them. There is a lovely synergy in some of the pieces of legislation that are being amended or repealed. I particularly point to the AUSSAT Repeal Act 1991, the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 and Telecommunications (Transitional Provis­ions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997. What links these pieces of legislation? Regarding the first act, AUSSAT was the former government satellite provider. In 1991, under the Hawke Labor government, we began 20 years of very well managed telecommunications liberalisation. We went from a managed duopoly to an oligopoly to what we have today—full competition in telecommunications markets. We started out in discrete areas of services. First we liberalised international services and then long distance. When mobile came into effect we had the duopoly and then we had the entry of other carriers in order to provide competition. The result was that in some areas of our telecommunications sector we did have a very strong regulator and we enabled competition to develop and flourish.

I now turn to the Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act, which in 1997 formed the basis of what became the 1997 reforms, but of course had its genesis yet again in the reformist Hawke-Keating years. They took on the idea that we should not have competition in the telecommunications sector. They actually opened up competition in the form in which we have now, with open carrier licences and carriers and carriage service providers basically being able to operate and compete in every single facet of our telecommunications system.

Finally, there is the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act. What links all of these three things? It is a lovely synergy that on this of all days we are looking at this legislation, because we had the ann­ouncement of the deal between the government and Telstra that facilitates the structural separation of Telstra and opens up for the first time broadband services and infrastructure in Australia to proper competition. What does the Snowy Hydro act have to do with it? The NBN is the biggest infrastructure development in Australia since the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

The entry into the definitive agreements and the paving of the way for the structural separation of Telstra achieves something that was not achieved by the Howard government. They attempted to deal with it. I lost count of the number of times we would go to conferences and talk about the sticking points for competition to develop telecommunications and particularly to develop new services such as broadband, and I am sure I heard the member for Bradfield give these exact speeches on this topic on many occasions. On how many occasions were we confronted with the inability of the market to deliver affordable and accessible broadband throughout Australia?

It is a tremendous day today as we have the definitive agreements being entered into with NBN Co. to give them immediate access to Telstra infrastructure—the pits and pipes—to support the rollout of second-release sites on the mainland. Why is this so important? The reason is that it goes to the fundamental 'telco 101' of why we have infrastructure investment and how this leads to competition at the retail level for the benefit of consumers.

As someone who represents an area that is a second-release site on the mainland—and in fact the first Sydney metro rollout will be occurring in Riverstone, in my electorate—this is very welcome news. It means that NBN Co. will be able to use the existing pits, ducts and pipes that are already in place. Having this agreement in place means that we can get on with the job of delivering the NBN with certainty for investors and for NBN Co.

It is interesting to point out that this access to infrastructure is over a minimum 35-year period, reducing duplications and enabling efficient use of existing facilities. Under the agreement Telstra is going to provide much of the infrastructure needed to build the network. As I said in my first speech, it really does establish for the first time 'a national piece of telecommunications utility infrastructure' by enabling the wholesale layer of the network to be ubiquitous and capable of being regulated in a way that ensures all retail service providers have not only equivalent access but also equivalent price irrespective of whether you live in regional or rural or outer metro seats, such as mine. It will mean that competition will flourish, because you effectively 'disinfect' the wholesale layer of the network.

We heard the member for Wentworth talking today, with his same old rhetoric. He has not been able to get a question up on the NBN in question time until today. I have been able to get far more questions up on the NBN and I am just a humble backbencher. The member for Wentworth keeps banging on about how this is a raw deal for Australians and for Telstra and everyone else involved. I think we need to look at the facts. Telstra has entered into this agreement of its own free will and, secondly, we are entering into this and building the NBN because the market has failed. When it came to broadband accessibility and affordability in Australia the market failed and when markets fail we on this side of the House step in and regulate to the extent necessary in order to ensure certain equitable social outcomes. That is what makes us different. We were not so different some time ago. Those opposite once believed in markets, but it seems they do not believe in markets when it comes to some aspects of policy and of law.

I sympathise with the member for Wentworth. He ran a really good dial-up company so he would know a lot about this. Harking back to the consideration in detail on the NBN legislation earlier in the week the member for Wentworth talked about how the issue of access to broadband is about poverty. What would this bloke know about poverty? In 12 years under the Howard government there were 20 or so failed plans and they delivered absolutely nothing. They did not even recognise that the market had failed and yet they have the hide to come in here with no knowledge, by the way. But that does not stop them from having an opinion on something they know nothing about. They have no knowledge at all about what it is like to be representing areas that have suffered for too long from a lack of access to high-speed and ubiquitous broadband, and they have the hide to come in here and say that they oppose the NBN. For so many years they did absolutely nothing and they will stand condemned for it. The coalition should get out into the community a bit, where they are not asking why we are getting the NBN but when we are getting the NBN.

To conclude, I want to talk about one other aspect of some of the laws that are being amended by this statute-book cleanup. They relate to a couple of superannuation acts, some of them a bit more obscure than others, but it does give me an opportunity to talk about superannuation, another area that was defined by the visionary Hawke-Keating government, which identified that superann­uation and our ageing population were going to be a massive issue in years to come. I do want to mention on the issue of superannuation how the coalition went to the last election with a so-called plan for action—just like they had a plan for action on telecommunications, which actually advocated using a copper network. They were so concerned about superannuation, guess how many dot points they could muster up on superannuation—four dot points and less than two pages in their plan for action on a very critical area of public policy. Only last night we heard the shadow Treasurer confirm the coalition's opposition to this government's plan to increase the retirement savings of Australians by lifting the superannuation guarantee rate from nine to 12 per cent. The opposition is simply committed to standing in the way of sensible reform that has received ample support from the Australian population, including the superannuation industry itself. This increase from nine to12 per cent is sound and has the support of key industry groups such as the FSC, the AIST and ASFA. Let us not forget, when those opposite were in government they were obsessed with tinkering with the superannuation system. It is those opposite who riddled the superannuation industry with the superannuation surcharge tax, which was an additional tax on superannuation contributions between August 1996 and July 2005, when they finally bowed to industry pressure to abolish what they had so foolishly introduced. To this day, superannuation providers, retirees and the Taxation Office are still grappling with the disastrous legacy left behind by the superannuation surcharge tax.

This government is committed to the superannuation industry. We are committed to making a positive difference in the retirement savings of Australians, as set out by the Assistant Treasurer in his statement only last night. That is why this government is working with the industry to make the most of the recommendations of the Cooper review and to ensure that we prosecute the case for the superannuation guarantee rate to be lifted from nine to 12 per cent. This legislation is very timely in terms of the beautiful synergy we have today, where everybody else in Australia other than those opposite is happy that the NBN is taking one more step towards being developed on the mainland, and that cannot come soon enough for the residents of Riverstone—the site of the first Sydney metro roll-out site and an area that I represent.

See this speech in context