David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to develop a comprehensive plan to deliver a national broadband network, and the impact of this on regional Australia

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence, Mr Speaker, before I commence could I join with others in congratulating the Clerk of the House, Ian Harris, on what is a well-deserved honour. He has been a wonderful servant of this place, and I have had the opportunity over the 17 years that I have been in it to avail myself of his assistance. So, well done, Ian, and congratulations.

Today we got another reminder of how abysmally this government has failed the nation in terms of Broadband Connect—the front of the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Australia left for dead, says net guru’. It is another wake-up call about the need to deliver real broadband to all Australians regardless of where they live, not just those in the capital cities, as you would well appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. It is another indication of the government’s policy failure, another example of the squandered opportunity to invest in this nation’s prosperity—a government awash with money in what is arguably one of the longest resources booms in our history and it still cannot connect the whole of the nation in terms of vital access to this infrastructure.

In the Sydney Morning Herald article, Professor Larry Smarr, the Director of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, says that Australia’s internet infrastructure has not kept up with international standards and that, if this is allowed to continue, we will be ‘left out’ of existing and emerging business opportunities. It does not matter what grading of Australia against international standards you look at, in terms of broadband Australia is well down the list, with slow connections across all parts of Australia, even in centres within major cities, restricting businesses—restricting not only economic connectivity but social connectivity as well.

This is a problem that, as bad as it is for the nation, is even worse when it comes to regional communities. Hundreds of thousands of people in businesses in those areas are still waiting to be connected—to step over the digital divide and join the 21st century. The benefit of connecting our regions is monumental for this nation. High-speed broadband is the great enabler for this country, enabling in terms of infrastructure not only for economy purposes but also for social and community purposes. It is what will connect this nation to the information superhighway. Put simply, those regions that have access to fast-speed broadband over the internet are the ones that go ahead; those that do not have it fall behind.

We did not need the good professor today to tell us of this problem because indeed last year the Australian Local Government Association presented its latest State of the regions report, which showed the cost to this nation of failing to connect our regions. In 2006 alone, just one year, the cost of that failure to this country was $2.7 billion in forgone gross domestic product and almost 30,000 regional jobs. Regions such as Wide Bay stand to benefit from an estimated $78 million in additional revenue and 1,000 jobs. Another example is the Mackay region—over $100 million and 1,000 jobs. Gippsland in my home state of Victoria is missing out to the tune of $170 million and 1,500 jobs. In fact, I have a table which I am prepared to present to the House which indicates the costs, broken down, throughout the whole of the country, and I seek leave to table that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I haven’t seen it. I don’t know—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You haven’t seen it? This is a person who represents the National Party. He is the Deputy Leader of the National Party and he has not seen—

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s your document. It’s your document.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not our document; it belongs to the Australian Local Government Association.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Show it to me. Bring it around and show it to me. No, you’re not throwing it. Bring it around and show it to me.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said you wanted to see it. I can’t bring it around to show it to you.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Hotham has the call.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the contempt that the Deputy Leader of the National Party is showing his constituency on this very important issue is an indication as to why the regions are not connected. They are not connected because this government does not care about them. That cost, $2.7 billion—that is 30,000 jobs—is the cost for one year alone. Just imagine how much the regions have been missing out since this government has been in office!

It is not, as I said, just about how businesses can take the opportunity. Just think about it: why would businesses set up in the regions if they cannot get the same speed of access to the internet as you get in the capital cities? Where is the encouragement to decentralise? Where is the encouragement to home based industries? Where is the ability for people looking for markets to access this information readily? Where is its ability to make the tenders and make the offers? That is what the regions are missing out on. But it is not just businesses.

Think about it in terms of educational opportunity for young kids growing up in the regions. If they cannot get the same access to the internet as their contemporaries in the capital cities, just imagine what they are missing out on in terms of their learning opportunities. And what about entertainment, the cultural dimension, for people who make the choice to live, grow up and develop in regional communities? They cannot get the same entertainment. And what about the cultural connectivity? This is why this is such a fundamental investment that needs to be made.

I note that Professor Smarr said in the article today that it was encouraging that this debate was being had in this country today. The only reason we are having the debate in this country today is that Labor has put out a plan to connect the nation—a plan that is costed, a plan that is funded, a $4.7 billion plan that will enable the rollout of a new fibre-to-the-node network across the whole of the country. It will connect, through fibre to the node, 98 per cent of Australians to high-speed broadband services at a minimum speed of 12 megabits per second, a speed almost 40 times faster than most current speeds. The remaining two per cent—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s it!

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not. That is not it, and this is where the leader of the National Party has misrepresented our position: 98 per cent is all that can be done on known technology today, fibre to the node. We have committed to ensure that the other two per cent get the equivalent access through alternative technologies, and we have funded and built that into our program. The Leader of the National Party said the other day that 400,000 Australians will miss out—that is the two per cent. He has not even bothered to read the policy. But then he goes on to assert that even the 98 per cent fibre-to-the-node connection cannot be made. Well, he is wrong on that count too, because Telstra itself has said it is capable of connecting 98 per cent with fibre to the node. What it is not prepared to do, though, is what this government leaves it to do, and that is make the investment where there is market failure.

The simple fact remains that, if it is left to Telstra or the G9 group, they will only connect where it is economic to do so. That is the capital cities. The regions will be left behind. That is what is called market failure. That has always been the case in this country. It always will be, in my view, because of the vastness of our size and the dispersal of the population. There is market failure when it comes to telecommunications, and that is why you need a government in there in partnership with the private providers, connecting the nation—the whole of the nation: all of the regions, not just the capital cities.

We have heard in this House that the government say they can do it without any public expenditure. That is what we have heard the smug Treasurer say: that their proposal to connect fibre to the node will be done without any public expenditure. But what then, I ask, has been the need for the $4 billion in public expenditure that this government has put into programs since it came to office—$4 billion ostensibly to connect the nation? They have criticised us for our $4.7 billion plan, essentially implying that you do not need any public money, when in fact they have spent $4 billion since they came to office but have failed to connect the regions at all. It has been a complete waste of money. We know they have had the money, of course, because they have sold Telstra. In fact, the only telecommunications plan the government have had has been to sell Telstra, not to connect the nation. But the simple fact remains that from all of those proceeds they have failed dismally to connect the nation. They have gone about from election to election offering more suggestions, more pork barrels, but they have not connected the nation.

Professor Smarr has also said that we need a fibre network because the copper network is not fast enough. We agree. But that is what our commitment is. We are the only party with a commitment to forge the partnership that will offer that fibre network, a network which can be continually upgraded so that the investment we make today can be built on for the future. The $4.7 billion that Labor have committed to is funded from existing government investments in telecommunications, including the $2 billion Communications Fund and through the Future Fund’s 17 per cent share in Telstra, which will earn dividends and be sold down to normal levels after November 2008. I ask the House: why should the proceeds of the further sale of Telstra simply be used to go to pay off the superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth public servants? Why shouldn’t there be a preparedness to use the nation’s earnings on its investment to reinvest in the national interest, for all Australians? In essence, what Labor are proposing to do is to use the proceeds from the nation’s past investment to reinvest in the nation’s future. That is a smart way to do things. It is the Labor way to do things. It is not the way this government is going.

In essence, Labor will do more with the remaining 17 per cent share of Telstra to connect the nation than the government has done by flogging off the other 83 per cent. The government’s sale of Telstra has been a disgrace in terms of reinvestment back into much-needed telecommunications infrastructure in this country. They talk about the need to have a community service obligation when it comes to standard telephone services, but why not a commitment to guarantee standard access to fast broadband over the internet? They will not do it. Only Labor is prepared to make that commitment. Only Labor is prepared to address the market failure. As usual, we see the government panicking. They know that Labor’s initiative has real traction. They are now trying to pretend that they really are committed to connecting the nation, but not so long ago the minister was saying, ‘No-one is complaining about broadband speeds in metropolitan Australia.’ I do not know who she has been listening to; there are parts of my electorate that still do not get broadband, and I know that other seats that we represent do not get it.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Altona, of course. These are all areas in metropolitan Australia that, like regional Australia, are missing out because of the government’s flawed approach. The government have no plans and no costings. They have made no commitment to roll out 12 megabits per second. Labor is the only party to have made such a commitment. On the one hand, we have the Treasurer saying that no public money needs to be committed and, on the other hand, we have other ministers telling us how they are going to find additional funds to meet regional Australia’s needs. Why would we believe them now? They have been making these claims for the past 11 years and they have failed to deliver.

This country needs a party that is committed to addressing the market failure and committed to ensuring that the whole of Australia is connected and that the regions are not left behind. The only party with such a plan is the Labor Party, and the sooner we have an election to give us the opportunity to implement it, the better off this country will be.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government welcome this debate on broadband and we are delighted that the opposition—although late to the discussion—has been prepared to list it as a matter of public importance. I am a little surprised, though, that there has not been the traditional focus or attention placed on the matter of public importance during question time. Invariably, the practice is that questions are asked of the Prime Minister or relevant ministers in the lead-up to a matter of public importance immediately following question time—building expectation, creating a sense of drama and setting the scene. But there was not a single question to the government today about broadband. This issue is of such biting importance to the Labor Party that they did not ask a single question about it. I stand to be corrected, but it has been many weeks, if not months—I will go through the Hansard records—since a question was asked in this House by the Labor Party on the broadband issue. This is very much a filler. The Leader of the Opposition is not here at this moment; consequently someone has to take up the matter of public importance, and it has fallen on the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham.

The government have been rolling out broadband policies and programs since 2002, and it was only a few months ago that the Leader of the Opposition launched a new program which, if you look carefully, is a rehashed Beazley—the member for Brand—policy of about four years ago. There is very little to distinguish it from the earlier version. But no matter; we welcome the Labor Party’s interest. This is an issue of critical concern to all Australians—wherever they live—in economic, social and cultural terms. It goes to the heart of our international competitiveness. That is why the government have invested so much time and so much money into bringing Australia up to a high world standard. We know that a great deal more needs to be done, and there will be announcements before very much longer. In fact, I even chance my arm to say that it is likely that the government will have another major announcement before the week is out, as we further develop broadband policy and invest heavily in it.

The member for Hotham was at pains to stress the Labor Party’s credentials on broadband with its recently released policy. The problem is that the policy ignores regional Australia—for two reasons. The first reason is that it abolishes the regional Communications Fund established by the government—$2 billion—to pay for a policy that is city-centric. There are many areas of Australia that miss out under the Labor Party’s program. A number of regional centres, such as Ballarat, will not be serviced. Traralgon will not be serviced. Wollongong, Canberra, Townsville, Burnie, Geelong and Cairns will not be serviced, and the list goes on. The Labor Party’s policy is for metropolitan centres or capital cities. To help fund its policy, the Labor Party will abolish the regional Communications Fund, which was established by the government to invest directly in regional areas.

We believe that where there is market failure in non-metropolitan areas the taxpayer has a responsibility and will fund it. I noticed that the member for Hotham was critical about the roughly $4 billion that we have already invested in broadband. I think that is something that should be recorded for later reference. He is critical that we have already invested so heavily in regional and rural Australia. That is because there is market failure. That will always be government’s responsibility, but we do not have to invest in metropolitan Australia, because the private sector wants to. Both Telstra and the group of nine telecommunications companies have taken out full-page advertisements saying that they do not need government funding and that they will invest themselves. What they want is for the regulatory regime to be right—and that is what we have to concentrate on. I have heard of suckers before, but I have not heard of a whole political party committing itself to spending $4.7 billion that the private sector has offered to spend.

The second reason that Labor’s policy ignores regional Australia is, of course, that the plan does not work. The plan does not make sense, even leaving aside the financial considerations, which are, firstly, that the private sector has offered to pay the money and, secondly, to help pay for the plan—which they do not have to pay for in the first place—they will abolish the $2 billion regional Communications Fund and, to top it up, take the remaining $2.7 billion from the Future Fund, which is a guaranteed payment for retirees and superannuants. So they will burden future generations for their immediate political purposes and concerns.

Moreover, shockingly, the Labor Party’s plan is hopelessly unambitious: firstly, because it does not reach so many Australians; secondly, we do not believe that the speeds the Labor Party has set are fast enough; and, moreover, it cannot be afforded. It is the laughing stock of the telecommunications industry. A significant number of independent commentators have said the plan as outlined by the Labor Party is unaffordable. The Labor Party says it will connect broadband for $4.7 billion, although you will need another $4 billion according to Senator Conroy, the shadow minister for communications, but that will come from the private sector. So, as I understand, it is a total plan, and it is very difficult to get some consistency in its explanations of $9 billion. We know already that, according to the telecommunications provider PIPE Networks, it would cost at least $16 billion. Telstra has said that it could cost up to $30 billion. Telecommunications analyst Market Clarity has added that the Labor Party’s cost estimates lack detail required to build any sort of realistic network cost model. It is just absurd that firstly the Labor Party would be using $4.7 billion of Australian taxpayers’ funds, stored in the regional Communications Fund and in the Future Fund, to contribute towards a $9 billion program that will not even begin to achieve its objectives. But not to worry: the private sector will pay for the capital cities and the government of the day should help to a greater extent to connect broadband to non-metropolitan, regional and rural areas. The Labor Party is just being reckless.

Our proposal is in stark contrast to that of Labor. Quite frankly, the Labor Party is being economically irresponsible in abolishing a regional Communications Fund and raiding the Future Fund. The Labor Party has no answer for the real issue here, which is the regulatory regime. The government has been in discussions with both Telstra and the group of nine about addressing this issue. Neither will the government dictate the type of technology that an investor has to put its money into because these are decisions best left to the marketplace. The Labor Party’s proposal has no dialogue; it has no detail. The Labor Party’s policy has been exposed as being very light, shallow and thin on detail. It has been discredited because it is uncosted, untested, unworkable and undeliverable. The industry and the public want more detail in regard to the Labor Party proposal.

I issue an invitation to the member for Hotham to start providing detailed costings. How would this joint venture between the government’s $4.7 billion and the private sector’s $4 billion actually work? Moreover, when are we going to get the details? Before the election? I doubt it. In fact, I think it is safe to say now that we are not going to hear another word in regard to this policy in providing further details. I do not believe we are going to see a single question answered. When is the Labor Party going to provide some substance to its generalised assertions? It is simply a cop-out. Despite the regulatory issues being cited by Telstra as the reasons it is yet to invest in fibre, there are no details of Labor’s regulatory regime or system. Labor is afraid to release any more details.

In contrast, the Howard government is committed to providing all Australians with access to high-speed broadband, regardless of where they live. Look at the things we have done in remote Australia and anywhere a broadband service is not available. We have the $163 million Australian Broadband Guarantee program. That is a guarantee that Australians can access a broadband service with a $2,750 subsidy per household. Look at what the government is doing in rural and regional Australia with the $878 million Broadband Connect program, which assists the delivery of a new high-speed national wholesale broadband network. We also have e-health and online education services in regional areas with the $113 million Clever Networks program, which is harnessing smart solutions such as interactive distance education and real-time medical diagnosis, which can save lives. The community is already benefiting from the Howard government’s policies on broadband.

Under the coalition government, 4.3 million Australians have gained access to broadband services and the average price paid by consumers has dropped by 64 per cent since 2000. Today, 90 per cent of Australian premises can access speeds of between two megabytes per second and eight megabytes per second and more than 50 per cent of metropolitan areas can access even faster speeds through ADSL2+ and cable broadband platforms.

We can do better, much better. We are going to do better. An announcement shortly will build on the government’s already huge investment in  infrastructure. The Labor Party needs to realise that you do not need to waste billions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds for the telecommunications industry to invest in highly commercial areas like Sydney and Melbourne. There is critical mass. That is a commercial decision and investment that the telcos are happy to make—they have told us. Telstra and G9 are both prepared to roll out a fibre broadband network in the capital cities and major regional centres without a red cent from the taxpayer. They must have seen you coming with your $4.7 billion offer and thought, ‘All of our Christmases have come at once.’

Both Telstra and the G9 have run full-page advertisements recently and both advertisements highlight the folly of Labor’s broadband policy. For instance, Telstra’s advertisement said this:

Telstra needs no money from Canberra to build a world-leading broadband network.

Then, in another swipe at Labor, the group of nine telecommunications companies advertisement said this:

The group of nine plan does not require taxpayer funds. It will be independently financed.

So why spend $4.7 billion on something the private sector will take up for themselves? It is total recklessness. Instead, the government has an integrated strategy that will provide all Australians with access to high-speed broadband—and especially taking into account where they live, because we do not discriminate between city and rural Australians. But you need a responsible and measured approach. If you try to do this on the run or do it on the back of a serviette, which the Labor Party’s policy, most kindly, can be described—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the back of a union ticket.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the back of the union ticket—that is an even smaller space to scribble your ramblings on telecommunications. Instead, you have got to have a broadband policy that is multidimensional and keeps ahead of the game in a sector such as telecommunications. The government’s incentive programs, such as HiBIS and Broadband Connect, have resulted in over a million premises gaining access to terrestrial services and over 250,000 customers taking up these subsidised services. The programs have resulted in increasing competition amongst providers, and over 1,500 exchanges have been enabled for ADSL.

The Labor Party’s policy is a sham: it does not work, it lacks detail, it has been ridiculed by the industry as being technically deficient, and it is financially reckless. The government, on the other hand, has the building blocks in place. We have invested heavily for many years in rural and regional areas and we will continue to do so. We will enlist the private sector to the greatest extent possible and will shortly be making announcements that provide the way forward for broadband connections in this country.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

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

It does not have to be sale proceeds; it can be government moneys, taxpayers’ money. There is $2 billion in the Communications Fund. There were commitments given by the government on the sale of Telstra about equity of access. We would all remember Peter Corish, the President of the National Farmers Federation, when he made these comments. Barnaby Joyce, a senator from Queensland, said on those comments that there would be equity of access to broadband and basic telephone services. He said that the sale could go through and there would be future proofing for any new technology. Well, look at the shemozzle that is developing with the conversion from CDMA to Next G. Where is the future proofing in relation to the provision of that equity?

On the changeover from CDMA to Next G—and I raised this with the Prime Minister last week—there is a term ‘equivalence of service’ that is being bandied about. It is a bit like ‘up to scratch’, which was bandied about previously in relation to the sale. I asked the Prime Minister to define what ‘equivalence of service’ means. I have since found that the definition of ‘equivalence of service’ between the two networks, Next G and the old CDMA, will be determined by a truck driving around for eight days assessing the reception in various locations to see whether there is equivalence of service. You would be very interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that that truck will not be going anywhere near Tasmania, but I am told it will go to New England. Presumably they will draw some analogy from New England and transfer it to Tasmania to see whether Tasmanians have any equivalence of service. That truck will not be going to Western Australia or the Northern Territory either. You can imagine how far it will go in eight days in terms of equivalence of service.

I think most of us lived through the Keating induced arrangements for analog into CDMA. I know the government has made great sway of that over time, and I have too because I thought it was badly done. But we have to make sure that with these very important pieces of infrastructure, whether for the future technology of Next G or for broadband facilities across the nation, the government plays a role, because I think that with the CDMA-Next G changeover the government has very little power through the licensing arrangements to change the timetable, irrespective of any equivalence of service. So I would like the next speaker to explain, if he would, what he understands to be equivalence of service for country and city people. (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel a little as though I am the dark rain cloud that is going to rain on the ALP parade or, perhaps, the Labor Party picnic day, because we have heard from the opposition about their big, bold plan to roll out a national broadband fibre-to-the-node network across Australia. It almost harks back to the glorious days of the seventies and the eighties during the Cold War period, when they would have stood shoulder to shoulder with their communist and socialist friends from the Eastern bloc countries, with their great plans for nation building. That is what we have heard from the ALP. But I have to say that in this day and age it is perhaps a little understandable that they get a bit excited about being able to go back to the days when the Labor Party could stand up in front of the Australian people and say, ‘Comrades, we have a plan to build our nation.’

As I said, I feel a bit like that dark rain cloud that is slowly coming across to rain on their parade. And the reason why their parade should be rained upon is that it is absolutely reeking of financial irresponsibility. Let us get to the central issue of the Labor Party proposal of fibre to the node for Australia. The central issue is this: the Australian Labor Party say they are going to invest $4.7 billion of Australian taxpayers’ money to build a fibre-to-the-node network across Australia, and they are going to make up the $4.7 billion by smashing and grabbing $2.7 billion from the Future Fund, money that we have quarantined and set aside to pay off debt for superannuation liabilities owed to public servants, owed to the Defence Force—owed to hardworking Australians who have toiled and have a right to know that their retirement will be funded. That is why we have set up the Future Fund. We have put some $150 billion in there, and the Labor Party now say they are going to smash it and grab from it to pay for this proposal. That is how they are going to pay for approximately half their plan. The other $2 billion is coming out of consolidated revenue, out of an expending program. The concern is that the $4.7 billion that the Australian Labor Party say they are going to waste Australian taxpayers’ money on is happily going to be paid for by either Telstra or by the G9. It begs the question: why would you use Australian taxpayers’ money to build something when you have the private sector willing to expend the money to build it, knowing that they are going to get a commercial return? It beggars belief.

Only about 20 minutes ago, the member for Hotham conceded that Telstra or the G9, irrespective of which is successful, would be providing a commercial opportunity. The opportunity would go along these lines: they would build fibre-to-the-node networks in the capital cities and, most probably, in my city on the Gold Coast as well as other regional centres, and I would hazard a guess that would include, for example, Wollongong and Newcastle, larger urban regional centres. They are prepared to build these networks at no cost to Australian taxpayers with a commercial return for those providers. The concept is really quite simple and it is a concept which this coalition government is putting forward. The proposal is: great, let the private sector go ahead and build the commercial networks where it is commercial for them to do so, without using Australian taxpayers’ money; using their own money to develop a commercial return on that money. Then, where it is uncommercial, we will use Australian taxpayers’ money to make it a commercial case to continue investment. That is the proposal of this coalition government. We do not spend money where it is commercial to develop a return but we do expend money to make sure that those areas where it is uncommercial are serviced in exactly the same way as metropolitan markets. That is the proposal on this side of the House. It is logical, it is financially responsible and it makes sense.

It stands in stark contrast to the rubbish that is the proposal of the Australian Labor Party, a proposal that would see the expenditure of $4.7 billion for no reason other than to be able to hark back to the great Soviet days. That seems to be the only rationale that the Australian Labor Party can come up with: the opportunity to have command and control of the Australian economy and say, ‘Comrades, look at what we have done and isn’t it great!’ The only ones that are excited about the Australian Labor Party proposal are the Australian Labor Party. There has been a flurry of emails between members of the Australian Labor Party and some of their contacts in the Soviet Union and in China saying: ‘Look at the great things we are building in Australia. Fly over and we will show you.’ No doubt that is why they are all excited over there. But the fact is that the private sector does not share that excitement. We all know in the private sector and on this side of the House that it is a ridiculous and financially irresponsible plan that does not deserve the light of day.

So what are people saying about the Labor Party plan? We know that the Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor, agrees with the member for Hotham—and I really have to question why on earth that would be. I guess he has very limited knowledge, as does the member for Hotham, on this issue, so I suspect that that is the reason why they would be agreed there. Let us have a look at what the private sector says about the Labor Party plan. ABN Amro—pretty well respected in the financial markets and one of the country’s leading financial houses—declared that Labor’s proposal would take industry ‘back 20 years to government provision, gold plating and restricted rollout’ and that it failed to ‘resolve access regulation issues but entrenches them and adds new inefficiencies’. That was the ABN Amro report from 21 March this year. That is what ABN Amro said about the Labor Party proposal. I have no doubt that the Labor Party members were saying in response to that quote, ‘Well, of course it does.’ The notion of government provision, gold plating, restricted rollout—these are all the things the Labor Party stands for. No wonder you are all scratching your heads and saying, ‘Of course it does.’ You fail to see the problem. But I think that most other people see the problem with this.

Importantly as well, let us not lose sight of the fact that the Labor Party proposal is predicated upon an $8 billion rollout cost. Knowing the Australian Labor Party’s form when it comes to major projects like this, we would really have to question whether that $8 billion cost that the Labor Party has put forward is likely to be the cost at the end of the day. We know that PIPE Networks, a network infrastructure specialist, released what it termed a ‘conservative estimate’ of the cost of Labor’s proposal. Their conservative estimate was that it would cost approximately $15 billion to $16 billion—not $8 billion as the Australian Labor Party says, but double that. That is how much an independent provider says the Labor Party proposal will cost on a conservative estimate—double the Labor Party proposal. So you can already see the Australian Labor Party—they will be running around saying: ‘We need to raid the Future Fund again. We need to go and get more Australian taxpayers’ money to put into our marvellous Soviet network. If we do not do that, we have got a chance that it will not roll out.’ That is a major concern. It would not be $8 billion as the Labor Party proposes, but $16 billion on a conservative estimate, not by this government but by PIPE Networks, a specialist provider in the area. That is what they had to say about the Australian Labor Party proposal.

A telco analyst Market Clarity also slammed Labor’s costings as ‘insufficient’ and said that their cost estimates lacked the details required to build ‘any sort of realistic network cost model’. So we get these back-of-the-envelope calculations from the Australian Labor Party that it is going to cost $8 billion. We have already got a major infrastructure supplier saying that it will cost more than double that and we have Market Clarity questioning the cost rationale and the cost formula that the Australian Labor Party are using. That is what Market Clarity is saying in the marketplace. ABN Amro criticises it as a ridiculous proposal and one that would take industry back 20 years. So what is very clear is that not only have you got Telstra willing to invest the money, not only is the G9 willing to invest the money; you have got ABN Amro saying, ‘Please, don’t do it,’ and you have got PIPE Networks saying that it would cost at least $16 billion—not $8 billion—and you have got Market Clarity questioning the cost basis for determining the $8 billion. All of this adds up in a very straightforward way to show that the Australian Labor Party broadband dream is nothing but that: an illusory dream that does not deserve the light of day.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a past pig farmer, I have heard squeals like those coming from the members opposite before. They remind me of pigs waiting to go to market—squealing and whining but not understanding the fate that awaits them. In this case, what is coming up for this lot opposite is the next election. Because when it comes to the need for a fast broadband service they just do not understand what Australia needs. Australia deserves better.

The importance of broadband to Australia’s future economic prosperity cannot be overstated. The presence of a world-class broadband network is fast becoming the litmus test of a developed country’s economy. We are engaged in a race where economic progress is now measured in megabits and gigabits of data; it is a race Australia is losing—a race in which we cannot afford to fall any further behind our global competitors. Broadband is the transport infrastructure of the knowledge economy. It will open new markets for Australian business and drive our future productivity growth as our population ages. Just as highways, rail lines, ports and energy grids were the foundations of Australia’s economic prosperity in the last century, a world-class broadband network will be the foundation of Australia’s prosperity in this century.

The statistics on Australia’s current broadband performance are damning. The OECD ranked Australia 17th out of 30 countries for the take-up of entry-level broadband, the World Economic Forum ranked Australia 25th in the world in terms of available internet bandwidth and the World Bank last year ranked Australia 23rd out of 30 OECD countries for relative broadband speeds. Most damning is the fact that Telstra estimates that it rejects more than 100,000 applications for a broadband connection each year.

Mr Ainslee Arnott is a resident of Kewdale. He lives no more than five minutes from the city and he has no access to broadband. He has applied for broadband many times with several internet service providers, only to be told that he lives too far away from the Ascot exchange. However, the Kewdale exchange is only 900 metres from Mr Arnott’s house. He told me at the broadband forum held in Belmont last month that not one single internet service provider is able to give him a straight answer as to why he cannot get access to broadband. My office continually receives similar complaints from constituents unhappy at being unable to obtain broadband access.

Adil Safdar is an engineer from Rivervale. He says he feels like a ‘football being thrown around from here to there’ trying to find answers as to why he and other residents in his street are unable to get broadband access. Peter Bull is a business owner from East Cannington who, despite living a mere kilometre from the Perth CBD, cannot get broadband access. He has been told he has to wait at least 10 weeks for a broadband service. What, he says, should have been a painless process has turned into an ongoing saga of phone calls and misinformation.

The inability of Australians to access high-speed broadband will have dire economic consequences now and into the future. This is particularly the case in education, as around the world broadband is revolutionising the way students learn. It is only Labor that has a plan for a national fibre-to-the-node broadband network, a plan that will drive an education revolution in Australia. By providing access to the world’s finest museums, libraries and institutions, high-speed broadband brings the very best of educational resources into universities, schools and homes. According to a detailed survey conducted in Britain, broadband is having a marked impact on children’s education. Ninety-seven per cent of children in the study reported that they used broadband internet connections to help them with their homework, and 58 per cent believed that their schoolwork would suffer without it.

In remote areas of regional Australia, improved broadband services will enable students and teachers to participate in virtual classrooms while being physically separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometres. Yet it is a sorry fact that, due to this government’s neglect of broadband infrastructure, our students are unnecessarily suffering and falling behind. A number of Curtin University students living in my electorate of Swan have no access to broadband. This is simply an unacceptable state of affairs for students at any university, let alone one of Australia’s premier learning institutions. Yet where is the government on this issue? The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, is content to fiddle while Rome burns.

Thousands of Australian families are being left in the digital Dark Ages because this government cannot get the policies in place to deliver a world-class broadband network. Only Labor’s policy will open the broadband bottleneck and deliver the vital investment in broadband infrastructure Australia desperately needs. Labor gets it. We know the importance of broadband for Australia’s future. Labor’s plan provides the needed infrastructure while the government is still living in the Dark Ages of the past. It is time for the Prime Minister to realise that the abacus is out, that slide rules were phased out years ago and that calculators are there but not quite. It is the computer that you need. (Time expired)

Ken Ticehurst (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For many years the Central Coast has suffered as a rural area and we have had problems with telecommunications infrastructure. However, the Australian government’s $878 million Broadband Connect and the $50 million Metro Broadband Connect have been assisting people on the Central Coast to get access to broadband. The recently announced $162.5 million Australian Broadband Guarantee builds on the success of these programs. It will fill remaining broadband black spots across Australia. Broadband is, of course, offering substantial benefits to local small businesses by helping to improve productivity, save money, provide greater flexibility for workers and allow businesses to better explore the benefits of having an online presence. It is also providing families with better and faster access to a range of services from news and entertainment to education and government services. That is why, as the federal member for Dobell, one of my priorities is to assist communities, small businesses and constituents in my electorate to gain access to these services. I have been lobbying for several years to sort out the problems with these black spots.

We hear Labor talking about fibre to the node as though that is the only technology available. We saw what happened when Labor were in government and they picked winners. They dumped AMPS because they are only interested in capital cities. AMPS worked in rural areas and they adopted the GSM system, which is solely based on European technology. Once you got 32 kilometres from the cell you had no mobile phones. It was only with the advent of the CDMA, which was introduced by the Howard government, that rural constituents got access to mobile phones. Now, of course, Telstra has come in with the Next G, which is a wideband CDMA network, and when it is rolled out correctly, when it has run its full distance, we will find that broadband will actually be available on the Next G network. In many areas around Australia you can access broadband now on your smart phone.

I have invited Senator Helen Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to come to my electorate on a number of occasions. Some years ago, we had a roundtable to discuss these issues with the providers: Telstra Country Wide, Business Central Coast, Connect IT and then local internet providers Cirrus and Central Coast Internet. These are wireless providers who have been offering wireless broadband to residents for a number of years.

The Australian government is committed to bringing broadband to the Central Coast and solving black spots. For the electorate of Dobell, the benefits of the guarantee have been increased up to $2,750 per connection. This is a five-fold increase on previous commitments from the federal government. Areas such as Bateau Bay, Wyoming, Warnervale, Wyong and Tuggerah will be able to receive this subsidy for connections to new services. Some parts of the electorate, including east of Cedar Brush Creek and of Central Mangrove, were eligible for subsidies under the Broadband Connect incentive scheme.

Anyone on the Central Coast who is unable to gain a reasonable level of broadband service at their principal place of residence or small business will be able to receive a subsidised broadband. It is as simple as that. The guarantee will be very similar to the Australian government’s popular and highly successful $878 million Broadband Connect program and the guarantee will continue to give eligible consumers—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded.