Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013. For many, I am sure, submarine cables may not be the most captivating topic—but it should be, particularly when we think about the important role that they play in connecting us with the rest of the world.

Submarine cables are how Australia connects to the rest of the world. They allow us to overcome the tyranny of distance, which has so defined our past. It is probably under-appreciated, but it is submarine cables that have enabled Australia to be the vibrant, intelligent and diverse nation that we are today. Submarine cables carry the bulk of Australia's international voice and data traffic. They are quite literally what allows us to communicate and to connect with the rest of the world in real time.

In preparation for this speech, I was looking at a global map of submarine cables, and it was nothing short of a thing of beauty. The colourful lines connecting the most far flung stretches of earth could have been aeroplane or shipping routes. But the reality is that they are something far less visible that most Australians are blissfully unaware of.

Australia's geographic remoteness, the fact that we are an island nation, means that submarine cables are of vital importance to us. And in an age where communications infrastructure defines our productivity, our success and our future, submarine cables are all the more important. Damage to these cables can have a significant economic impact. Damage can easily cause service disruption. When damage occurs, it is overwhelmingly caused by something man-made. Around 70 per cent of all cable faults are caused by fishing and anchoring in depths of less than 200 metres. In Australia, where we depend on submarine cables to connect to the global telecommunications network and engage in the global digital economy society, the risks associated with cable damage are serious and significant.

This bill, which allows for the better protection of Australia's submarine cables, is therefore a very worthy one. It streamlines some of the processes to provide protection to these cables; to include submarine cables that might only link points in Australia, such as those that cross Bass Strait; and to ensure the consistency of the laws with international obligations. When those opposite persist in speaking of the need for small government, this bill is a timely reminder that it is schemes like the submarine cable protection regime that demonstrate why government regulation is important.

This bill was originally drafted by the Gillard government, and it is pleasing to see that it has maintained its bipartisan support and has been introduced by the Abbott government. The reason the bill has bipartisan support is that both sides of this House recognise that, in the 21st century, communications infrastructure is critical. Both sides of the House recognise that it is communications infrastructure that will define our economic success in the future. Those opposite recognise the need for interconnection, the need for connection and the need for connectedness. This is why it is so puzzling, so absolutely dumbfounding, that they have chosen to significantly downgrade, cut, the most important communications infrastructure project of the 21st century, the National Broadband Network.

The amendments moved by the shadow minister point out this inconsistency, this disconnect. The government has praised the rollout of international undersea fibre optic cable for being forward-looking but is not adopting the same approach to the rollout of fibre optic cable on land. The National Broadband Network is the biggest and most important infrastructure project in Australia right now, and Labor believes it should be done right. That means fibre to the premises delivering speeds of up to 100 megabits per second to every Australian home, every Australian school and every Australian workplace where that is possible.

Those opposite agree that fibre is the endgame, that fibre to the premises is where we all need to get to eventually; they just do not want to do the necessary work to get it done now. Their plan is to build fibre to a box in the street and then use the old and failing copper network to connect to homes and businesses, delivering maximum speeds of just 25 megabits per second. If anyone wants fibre to the home badly enough, they can simply pay for it themselves—assuming they have a spare $5,000 sitting in their kitty—and then, in ten or 15 years time, when they realise that we actually need fibre to the premises, some future government can simply deal with the mammoth task of rebuilding the network. It is that simple, according to those opposite.

The NBN policy of the Abbott government is nonsensical. It may save some costs now, but the long-term costs of their plan will far outstrip those of Labor's plan. There is a saying: 'Do not put off until tomorrow what you can do today.' But obviously those opposite have never heard it, because putting off until tomorrow what should be done now is their modus operandi. It is how they are responding to climate change—do nothing now and let our children deal with the consequences in the future. And it is how they are planning on building the NBN—do half the job now and let our children deal with the rest. It is simply not good enough. Labor want to do this right, and we want to do it right the first time.

I would now like to talk about the effect the coalition's dud policy is having in my electorate. Some suburbs in the neighbouring electorate of Fraser were lucky enough to be high on the NBN rollout list. Right now, Canberrans in Casey, Ngunnawal, Amaroo, Gungahlin, Palmerston and Franklin, and businesses in Mitchell, are accessing the fastest internet speeds in the country—and they love it. In fact, these northern Canberra suburbs have had the highest NBN take-up rate in the country. There are schools in the north of Canberra who have their Japanese classes taught via video link from Japan and there are Canberrans who can access a medical specialist without leaving their homes. Those lucky northern Canberrans are realising the potential of the NBN every day.

However, just 20 kilometres south, in my electorate of Canberra, things are not so rosy. Large parts of Canberra were on the cusp of receiving the NBN prior to the election. Construction was due to begin in Kambah, Wanniassa, Mawson, Farrer and surrounding suburbs in September this year. However, when the coalition took office that construction was halted. The coalition has created a digital divide here in Canberra. While Canberrans north of the lake are already reaping the rewards that the NBN brings, those south of the lake now do not know if they ever will. By stopping the NBN mid-rollout, the coalition has created digital divides like this all over the country. Houses on one side of a road have fibre to the premises, while houses on the other side will have to pay up to $5,000 for the privilege. I wonder if the coalition has properly thought through the ramifications of these digital divides.

Why, for example, would a business choose to set up operations in the industrial suburb of Hume, in my electorate of Canberra, when they could set up in the industrial suburb of Mitchell, in the electorate of Fraser, where they will have fibre to the premises? Why would a parent send their child to the local school, which does not have fibre connected, when the school in the next suburb does? It is not so far-fetched to imagine that this digital divide could have an impact on real estate prices. Real estate ads in the future could read: 'Three bedrooms, two bathrooms, double lock-up garage and fibre to the premises.' With this digital divide, some people on one side of the road might have to pay up to $5,000 to connect fibre to their home, when a house on the other side of the road that they could potentially be looking at already has fibre to the home.

The coalition's policy is not just inferior to Labor's, it is also inequitable. It simply is not fair. Australians want a fibre to the premises NBN. As the shadow minister said today, Australians certainly did not vote for the coalition because of its NBN policy. In fact, they probably voted for the coalition in spite of its NBN policy. Just last week, a constituent of mine, Stephen Kelly, delivered a petition to me with 270,640 signatures calling for a fibre to the premises NBN. Labor is listening to Australians on this issue—why isn't the government? Japan, South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand are all investing in fibre to the premises—why aren't we? This government is putting Australians at a disadvantage. We are being left behind with a second-class, second-rate broadband network.

There is bipartisan support for the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013 because both sides recognise the importance of communications infrastructure and connectedness. Prime Minister Abbott has promised to be the infrastructure Prime Minister and he has promised to build the infrastructure Australia needs for the 21st century. Why then is he walking away from the most important infrastructure project of the 21st century? It is simply inexplicable.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to stand to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013 and the amendments moved by the shadow Treasurer. Submarine cables have been around for a while, as a previous speaker said. In fact, they were first laid in the 1850s, long before we were talking about fibre. They went to fibre in the 1980s, when fibre was found to be the best, fastest, most long-lived and expandable option.

I have to say that it is probably just as well that the current minister was not the minister then, because I suspect we would have stayed with copper at that time, or perhaps gone fibre to the low watermark and copper from there. Instead of that, we have an extraordinary submarine cable network around the world that allows for the transmission of data and communications between continents at an incredibly rapid rate with the highest possible standard of technology. We heard the minister speak about the wonders of fibre when it comes to submarine cable protection, but we have also heard him in many forums talk about the fact that, once that fibre gets to Australia an old, ageing copper network is good enough.

I want to talk today about how the minister's decision not to go with fibre to the home affects some of the people and the small businesses in my electorate. I want to talk first about a young woman in my electorate called Gretta. She is an extraordinary young woman. She has cerebral palsy. She has very little movement. She is very smart. When I first met her, she had just graduated from high school and she wanted to go to university but was having trouble because she could not get there—she needed quite sophisticated transport because of the weight of her chair. We managed to fix that with some personal plans, which we introduced as a federal government. But Gretta talked at length about the dreams that she had as a young woman, and the thing that I learned from Gretta is that, for people like her, we are at a point in time which is like an alignment of the planets.

Gretta, like so many young people around the country, has an iPad. It has the brand-new swipe technology which Gretta, even with her limited movement, can use; in fact, she operates it with her nose. She has wi-fi on her chair and, when she is at various places around the city, she can actually communicate verbally through her iPad. It is quite remarkable. And I have seen four- and five-year-old children who are not verbal do the same thing with iPads. It is this new technology which the commercial world has provided which changes the ability of a person in such circumstances to communicate and puts them on a completely different playing field to the one they were on before. On top of that, there is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which provides a person like Gretta with the opportunity for flexibility in the way her support is given—and her decision to use that support to go to university is an example of that.

And then there is the possibility of fibre to the home. For a person like Gretta, that gives her smart-house technology. It gives her back-to-base monitoring. It allows her to turn on her air-conditioning. It allows her to open her front door without having to ask her mum to do it for her. It provides a level of independence in ways that we really have not thought of yet because we are just coming to terms with the possibilities of fibre-to-the-home technology.

If those three things come together, it means the life that a person like Gretta, or a person born tomorrow in Gretta's circumstances, will live will be profoundly different from the life that Gretta has had until now. These are life-changing years that Australia faces at the moment for people like Gretta and for many, many others. The possibility of delivering speech therapy to people in regional areas, Auslan interpreters in schools in remote towns, back-to-base monitoring of medical conditions—there are an incredible range of possibilities that the NBN could provide to a whole range of people that would profoundly change their lives.

The election of the Liberal government and their extraordinary short-sightedness in believing that the copper network will do anything like this is a real blow to a whole range of people whose lives could be profoundly different if this government went along with the kinds of decisions that governments overseas are taking.

We can also see, of course, the many opportunities for business in Australia if we had fibre to the home. All over the world, in markets much bigger than ours, governments are getting ahead of us in terms of broadband speeds, and when that happens there is innovation from a whole range of people who dream—from entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers and just people in their houses. My neighbour has turned his house into a 'cloud' now, because the NBN actually reached his suburb. He has now created a cloud business in his home. The emergence of cloud style businesses and software all around the world is an indication that the rest of the world is taking on a situation where people can communicate with each other through fibre from wherever they are.

We talked about this in business 35 or 40 years ago. In fact, in the late eighties, I gave a few lectures on the possibility of fibre and I ducted my business, when we renovated, for fibre. I was ready! But we talked then about the possibility of people in one country working alongside people in another, of businesses literally crossing the oceans through fibre—under the oceans and into our homes and businesses—and allowing a form of collaboration and a level of entrepreneurial activity which we are yet to see but we are just beginning to get to. The development of this cloud based software is an indication that that is the way the world is going.

In a country the size of Australia, if we go down the Liberal path, where it is fibre to the home if you can afford it but not for the rest, we will not get the critical mass that will drive the innovation from our entrepreneurs and our businesses that will allow Australia to be part of this new world. It is not right that this government thinks it is okay that we import the best ideas from the rest of the world but do not provide circumstances in Australia where businesses can develop their own. In fact, for a government that believes it has a plan for the future and believes it is about business to turn its back on one of the biggest growth areas for business in the world is quite extraordinary.

You can see that, even dealing with businesses now. I recently drove down the highway towards Cooma, heading to a state park for a bit of a camping weekend, and I drove through a small town called Bemboka. I stopped at an art gallery not far off the main road—this is a main road between two reasonable sized centres not far from Canberra—where I decided to buy some pieces of pottery that a local potter had made, and the poor man that owned the gallery took half an hour to get his credit card machine to work by mobile. He ended up going out into the yard to get a signal that would last long enough to do a credit card transaction so that I could buy something. I stayed there for half an hour after I had decided what to buy. That is how long it took to buy it. What chance does that business have? That business, by the way, is two kilometres from the main road, so I think perhaps his connection charge would be slightly more than the $5,000 average that we are hearing about. But what chance does that business have—what chance does that community have, actually—to grow in the modern world, when you cannot easily do a credit card transaction in your small business, in a town a couple of hours from Canberra on a main road? That is an outrageous position to be in.

For a government that pretends to care about regional areas, not to have fibre to the home as its priority is quite extraordinary. People who live in regional areas a long way from the footpath, a long way from that box, will have to find thousands of dollars in order to connect to what should be a right in this country. We have an incredibly short-sighted government which does not seem to understand the possibilities of this new technology. It seems to think that all we are talking about is what we already do with our slow speeds—movies, a bit of texting, a bit of communication, a bit of skyping. That is not the world we are entering. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about making sure that entrepreneurs and businesses in this country can take advantage of who we are. We are one of the great innovative countries of the world. We produce scientific papers and inventions above our weight. We are extraordinary thinkers. We are flexible and we problem solve in an extraordinary way. We are not as good at investing in ourselves, but we come up with answers at a rate that the rest of the world does not. We are an exceptionally inventive country.

At a time when the world is becoming increasingly connected and true globalisation—which is that your inputs, labour, everything , particularly in the service economy, comes from wherever it is and is linked through modern technology into a virtual business—is beginning to happen in a real way around the world, just look at who we are. Come to my electorate, any of you, and you will see an area where there is not a single language we do not speak. We speak every language in Parramatta. There is not a country we do not know; there is not a culture we are not familiar with; there is not a city we cannot drive through without a map. We have a population in this country that can work and collaborate with people in any country in the world. The only thing that stops us from doing that to the full extent of our capacity is our slow, outdated communications technology.

It is quite shameful that the previous Liberal government did not act on this, that in 13 years the previous Liberal government did not consider that it was important to upgrade our technology in the way we needed to. It is particularly shameful now, when the rest of the world is moving so fast in this area, that our newly elected government, which thinks it is for the future and thinks it represents small business, does not bother to make sure that we have the technology we need to benefit from who we are.

Also, we are sitting on the edge of the fastest growing region in the world. There is no doubt that, just as our northern neighbours are starting to overtake us in their focus on education, they are also overtaking us in the speed of communications technology and the accessibility of it to their populations. In a very short period it will become apparent even to those opposite that we will have squandered the time that we need to make sure we are in the most competitive position. I would ask the government to consider seriously the approach it is taking to this incredibly important area.

I come from an arts background. For me, it is never about what you can do; it is not even about what you can imagine; it is about making sure that you strive for things you cannot yet imagine; it is about making sure that the people with the smartest minds, with the greatest ideas and with the greatest of entrepreneurial flair can use those talents for the benefit of the community. On this side of the House we know that the Grettas of the world need this technology to live a better life. We know that the entrepreneurs in this country, the small businesses in this country, the inventors, the scientists and my neighbour with his new cloud based business all need this technology in order to use who they are for their own benefit and for the benefit of this nation.

It is great to talk about submarine cables and it is a really terrific that they are the highest technology and the best quality we can get; that takes it to our shores and connects the businesses that are big enough to afford to be near big cities where they can benefit from the high speed. There are many others in this country who have much more to offer as we move into this new age. It is about time the government opposite made sure that they are supported in those endeavours.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of my comments are going to be very similar to those of the member for Parramatta because I too was very interested to read the history lesson we were given by the minister on the submarine cables that join Australia with the rest of the world. I remember when coaxial cables came in. I can remember, as a kid, listening to the cricket and that swishing sound which I used to think was the sound of the waves over the cable. I now understand that that is not the case and that it was in fact in-cable amplifiers which caused that noise. As the member for Parramatta said, the minister rightly spoke of the importance of the new technology of fibre optic cable that came into being in the 1980s. Even though that was at a time well before the internet, it was felt to be very important to use the latest technology. Our economy was growing and we were growing numerically, with an increasing amount of data to transmit.

But I think we are seeing some irony here. The minister went on to pontificate about his decision. While we are going to have first-class connections to the international community, once the cables hit Australia the data is going to be zooming around on 20th-century technology. I found it interesting that the minister would not be the slightest bit embarrassed by that juxtaposition and that he would indeed use his second reading speech to promote the benefits of fibre to the node.

I am going to talk about some of the reasons I think the minister is going to find it extremely difficult to meet his commitments. We all know about the inadequacy of us being confined to download speeds of 25 megabits per second, but I think the minister faces a very profound difficulty in implementing even that vision. That difficulty is the status of the copper wire network. The government has estimated that they might have to replace something of the order of seven per cent to 10 per cent of the copper network after the node point. But that appears to be a calculation with no substance behind it. It is literally a back-of-the-envelope calculation and it does not stand up against my experience of the situation in my electorate.

When the government says, 'We can deliver the NBN more cheaply,' that whole claim rests on the idea that in 90 to 93 per cent of cases it will be possible to use the copper network to go from the node to the premises. But that is, as I said, based on a calculation that has no support. No matter where you look to see where that calculation came from, there is absolutely no support for it. Where is the documentation? Where are the figures? Where is the support for that estimate? No matter where you look, you cannot find it. In reality, there is grave uncertainty about whether that copper network is fit for purpose.

In 2004 Telstra themselves were prepared to acknowledge the state of their copper network. At the Senate committee inquiry into broadband competition, Dr Tony Warren, then the group manager of regulatory strategy, said:

I think it is right to suggest that ADSL is an interim technology. It is probably the last sweating, if you like, of the old copper network assets. In copper years, if you like, we are at a sort of transition—we are at five minutes to midnight.

Telstra went on to explain that they thought, at that stage, that the copper network had perhaps another 10 years of life in it. That was 2004. Next year we come to the end of that 10-year period, yet we are now about to embark on a re-visioning of our national broadband network which relies on that copper network, a network which, in the words of its owners, is on its way out. In the words of its owners, it is reaching the very last of its life.

The experience from my electorate confirms just that. I will focus on the suburb of Bedford, a suburb about seven or eight kilometres from the CBD that was principally built in the 1930s and 1940s. In Bedford, even for telephony the copper network is incapable, in many instances, of providing a reliable service. Breakdown of lines and the discontinuation of landline services happens with great regularity. In the vast majority of that suburb, it is not possible to even get ADSL2. You cannot subscribe to ADSL2. Resident after resident with very slow ADSL has reported that even that regularly drops out. It drops out as often as every half-hour, making it virtually impossible to work from home.

We have had many technicians from the area come in and explain the problem with the network to us—that there is simply no redundancy left in the system. Pretty much all of the pairs have been consumed. It is just not possible to give any upgrades in speed, because there is not enough capacity on the network. This is compounded by very poor maintenance. The lines in this area—and, on the evidence, I am sure this is the case right across Perth—have been very poorly maintained.

It is extraordinary that the minister was talking today about how he is actually going to be prioritising those areas. He is going to be doing some work on assessing the capacity of the network across Australia and prioritising for a future rollout. But there does not seem to be any information available from Telstra on exactly what the condition of the network is. I find it extraordinary that a company that has had such an asset seems to have no data on the condition of that network and is unable to identify what the capacity of that network is. The prioritisation is going to have to be based on information from retailers, carriers and mobile services which cover that area.

But one of the themes coming through from all the people who are contacting us about the very poor level of service is that, to some extent, the companies have just given up—and, as a result, those people have given up too. Complaints go completely and utterly unattended and people have, unfortunately, just learned to live with it. They have been told by their service providers: 'Look, do not worry us. We are waiting for the NBN rollout. When the NBN rollout comes, we will be able to do something, but in the interim there is nothing we can do.'

If you have a plan that is based on using a copper network that is simply not capable of supporting in any reliable way even an eight megahertz transmission of data, how can you support 25 or 29 or whatever it is that the Minister for Communications is promising? It is simply not going to be capable of that. The cost of attempting to remediate the system is going to end up totally changing the cost differential. The minister has made so much of the fact that his project is much less costly, but it is only much less costly if you have a copper network that is capable of sustaining what he believes it can. All of the evidence that we have had to date tells us that that is extremely unlikely and that we have a five-minutes-to-midnight network.

There is also going to be a considerable problem in timing—in designing this new system, in designing the location of the nodes. This is not something that can be done overnight. This, one would imagine, would be at least an 18-month or two-year task. There is simply no way that this system is going to be in place in 2016, as promised. It is physically not going to be possible to do the comprehensive redesign of that whole system and at the same time get it built. The promises we have been made are that it is going to be cheaper and they can get it out faster. We are going to get a second-rate product, we are going to get a 20th century product, but don't worry, it is like fast food—like going to Kentucky Fried rather than waiting around for a nice, well-cooked meal. Go and get your Kentucky Fried and be happy about that. I think we will see that even the KFC of broadband is not going to be deliverable. It is a second-class product.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you got against KFC?

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do eat KFC; I quite like it. We all like rubbish from time to time, but I would not want to see us spending $35 billion on a rubbish network.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would prefer to spend $70 billion.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I am making is that we were delivering a 21st century product. We were delivering a product that was going to be capable of doing what it was supposed to. You have some profound technological challenges in delivering even this very modest fraudband that you are proposing, and I think you have completely and utterly underestimated the difficulty you are going to have delivering over the copper network.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Ryan, in continuation.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I note that the member for Perth was talking about copper, and of course the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill is about submarine cables. As I was about to say earlier, Australia's regime has been praised as a global best practice example for the protection of submarine cables by the International Cable Protection Committee and APEC. While terror attacks on submarine cables have been relatively minimal and there is no shortage of infrastructure that terrorists may attack, fibre-optic cables hold a symbolic appeal, being the vehicle that delivers cyberspace to the masses worldwide and also the conduit for global financial transactions.

While it is likely for now that cable damage will simply remain accidental and rare, the coalition recognises that it is important to remain ready and proactive to ensure that the practice does not become a serious infrastructure threat. The coalition stands ready to advance the infrastructure required for the digital age.

I understand that while I was not in the chamber the member for Greenway took the opportunity to quote statements I had made previously about the NBN. I want to place it very clearly on the record that I have always supported a national broadband network. I have never supported Labor's version of NBN Co., which is a disgrace. It is a white elephant costing the Australian people billions of dollars more than it should. I refer, as the member for Greenway did, back to my days on the Brisbane City Council. We worked for many years on a business model. We proofed up that business model; we developed a financial model. We trialled the business model and we trialled a practical example of laying fibre across the city. We went out to tender. The grand cost, the great cost of fibring the whole of the Brisbane City Council area, was going to be covered by private enterprise, not by government. We were going to offer a ubiquitous broadband network across the city at no cost to the ratepayers of Brisbane.

What did the Brisbane City Council do when we heard that the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Rudd, had had a little thought bubble? We contacted Ministers Conroy and Albanese and offered them copies of our business model and our financial model. The response was silence—they were not interested in something that had taken more than six years to develop, that had been tested and proved; they were not interested in working with us to deliver a network at no cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country. No, they preferred to spend $64 billion—plus, plus—on a project that was never going to work. I support a national broadband network; what I do not support is the absolute waste that the Labor government inflicted on the taxpayers of Australia and that future generations would have had to pay off. It is an absolute disaster and the service would be much better delivered by the private sector. Unfortunately we are too far down the track for that. I condemn the opposition for the appalling model that they developed and for their refusal to work with people like the Brisbane City Council. In fact, the minister at the time threatened to write retrospective legislation to stop us delivering our system. That was the sort of attitude this opposition had when they were in government. I commend the bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some brief remarks on the Telecommunications (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013. The Greens generally support the principle behind this bill, but will refer it to a Senate committee for inquiry. We will do this for several reasons: first, to ensure that the results of the statutory review undertaken by ACMA five years after the 2005 legislation are adequate; second, to review the decisions taken by the government in addition to the outcomes of the review.

The Greens appreciate the extent to which Australia's connection to the world is dependent upon the security of telecommunications transmitted on submarine cables and wants them to be protected. As a May 2013 Australian Strategic Policy Institute paper noted, five main international cables, each not much thicker than a common garden hose, connect Australia to cyberspace and global voice networks, making them vital to our communications, economic prosperity and national security. The ASPI report noted that the AFP is responsible for compliance with the laws but indicated in the review process that they do not have the resources to monitor the cables in maritime zones. AMSA, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and the FMA provide some surveillance, but these agencies, as well as the cable owners, indicated in the review process that monitoring arrangements were unsatisfactory. It is unclear whether these issues have been dealt with in the bill.

New Zealand apparently does better in this regard than Australia, and perhaps we have something to learn here. These cables need protection from all the inadvertent, accidental causes of disruption, such as fishing and anchoring, as well as from attack as outlined in the bill. Our cables also require protection from tapping, which could lead to indiscriminate and unlawful access to Australian telecommunications data and content. Are the mechanisms outlined in this bill, and those already in place arising from the 2005 legislation, preventing this type of interference, and will they prevent this type of interference in the future? This is a question that we hope the Senate committee will be able to resolve.

The vulnerability of submarine cables to tapping is the subject also of recent revelations. A 7 July Washington Post article analysed the ways in which surveillance of telecommunications via fibre-optic cables on the seabed could be done through:

a seemingly mundane government power: the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to approve cable licenses.

The Washington Post piece discusses the four US submarines, fitted out for special missions, that attached listening devices on the outside of a cable's housing. Apparently, cable landing stations near or upstream from them are the likely locations for electronic copying in a way that is invisible. The Washington Post article also alleges that the licensing and permit approval processes in the US were held up essentially to allow time for lawyers from the FBI and departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to broker deals with the firms wanting to lay cables that transited the United States.

The minister acknowledged in his second reading speech that he was a director of Reach. Reach would be the Telstra and PCCW joint venture company that was compelled to enter into an agreement with the FBI in 2001 to allow access to the data transmitted by undersea cable, including billing data and stored communications of Telstra customers. In the agreement, all of this was exempted from FOI and also from the privacy laws. Protecting the security of submarine cables is a very serious issue, as the minister states, but protecting the integrity of Australia's legislated privacy protections and the human right of Australian citizens to privacy and the rule of law standards are also very serious issues.

This bill includes new powers for the Attorney-General to direct ACMA to refuse a permit on security grounds. The bill provides that ACMA must, within two days of receiving an application, inform the Attorney-General, who must then get back to ACMA with a decision within 15 days. Under section 72A, the Attorney-General must consult with the Prime Minister and the minister before deciding that an action on cable permits would be prejudicial to Australia's security. Hopefully, the Senate inquiry process will clarify what criteria the Attorney-General might use to make this determination. Given that the decision is not reviewable, what the Attorney-General needs to have regard to may need further elaboration.

The Greens are committed to ensuring that Australia's submarine cables are secure, and this is inextricably linked to ensuring that the privacy of Australians' telecommunications are protected from illegal and unsupervised surveillance.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have certainly got to be quick on your feet here, but I am going to see if I can take my full time and make sure that I make all the necessary points that are required in this debate. This is an important bill. It provides for the security of Australia's submarine cable and for a whole range of measures to ensure that security and a range of related issues. I know that Labor members are supportive of the important things that need to be done in this area. There is no question in my mind that the marine cable that links Australia to the rest of the world and provides that large pipe—that window to the rest of the world—to our telecommunications and to our capacity to cooperate, link, interact and do business with the rest of the world is of vital importance. It is critical importance.

This cable is not new. It has actually been underwater for quite a number of years. It was first executed in 1946. It draws your mind, and I want to take this opportunity to speak about the cable. In the second reading speech the minister not only outlined the purpose of the bill but also decided to speak about NBN Co. and talk about the NBN. He really opened the door—or, as it were, opened the pipeline—to talk about NBN and the link between the submarine cable, which is Australia's link to the rest of the world, and NBN Co. and how we link homes to the rest of the world. And I couldn't help but think—I just had this image in my mind—back to the 1940s when this was first dreamed up. That was quite a long time ago, Mr Deputy Speaker—and longer for some than others—but in 1940 they must have been sitting around and talking about the future. I am sure there was no-one, in 1940—in the Menzies government then—who could have imagined just what might be possible with an internet connection or an underwater cable. I can just imagine that, if they had had the same principles, or the same concept, as the Liberal Party does today, many decades later, they would have said: 'Look, we are going to run this cable. We are going to go to all this expense'—it must have been an enormous expense and an enormous undertaking to lay such a cable to Australia—but they would have said: 'Do you know what? We are just going to run the cable. It is going to be fibre to the coast, and that is as far as it goes. Once it gets to the coast, that is it. The rest of you are on your own. If you want to hook into it, you can rock up to the beach, bring your little connection kit, and you can find a way—dig your own trench, hook up your own little bit of copper, and you can get yourself connected to the rest of the world.' Can you imagine what would have been going through the minds of people in the government, in the parliament or around the country, back in the 1940s, if that were to have been the case? Of course, it was not the case—because back then they could see the future even if they did not know what it would look like.

Today we have the opposite. Today, we have some sense of what the future might look like, because our eyes have been opened to the vast potential that exists through our communications, through the internet and through large fibre-optic cables—but we have a government that does the exact opposite. It wants to close that loop. It wants to squeeze and strangle the optic-fibre cable and it wants—and I cannot understand this for the life of me—to make it as hard as possible for people to connect. They are not running fibre to the home, which guarantees you that right in front of your door, whether you connect today, tomorrow, next year or the year after, the connection is there—right to your home: that is where the future exists; right at your front door, when you can connect. Instead, the Liberal Party in government wants to just run fibre to the node—just to down the street to some central point, a bit like if we ran the submarine cable to the coast and just left it there. I can imagine it flopping around on the beach, like an eel, just sitting there on the coast. And then people could come along later; it would be open slather, you could get a contractor to come in and run some cable for you—connect to the coast.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. I would find it pretty funny too, because it would be funny—if it were not true, and if it were not exactly what the Liberal Party is doing today. They are just running the fibre to the coast. If you want to come—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I would like to ask the member a question.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Oxley willing to give way?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure it is going to be a horrible question, so the answer is no.

A government member: Have a go!

You'll get your opportunities! In the 21st century, we need to consider some of the most important things that this parliament will do, not for us, not for our kids, not even for our grandkids, but for the very far distant future—things that we can do today; things that will cost a lot today but will deal with the things that we need to do in the future. It is a bit like when I am in Brisbane and, say, driving over the Story Bridge or looking at some of the things that were built back in the 1920s. I can imagine, back in the 1920s—and it is a little bit like with the submarine cable—when they were building the eight-lane Story Bridge, that some people would have said: 'Why would you need eight lanes on this bridge?', when it was still cart-and-buggy days, and there would have been enough room to fit 20 carts across the bridge. But somebody back then had the good foresight to be able to say: 'But in the future, we will need something much bigger than we can dream of today.'

When I think of connection to the internet, I don't think dial-up 50Kbps, I don't think ADSL—I don't even think ADSL2; I think, what is the largest possible connection I can get so that I can do business with the rest of the world? And it is not so much about what I can do; I think, what are the possibilities? What can others do? I remember at a debate during the election campaign—and this demonstrates the quality of the debate on this—a Liberal party candidate who was debating and laughing at the NBN. He was laughing that it was available at his mother's home. His mother was in her 90s, and he said, 'and she can't even use a computer'. And I thought, you have really missed the point, haven't you? It is not about whether your 90-year-old-plus mother can use a computer, or whether she can have an internet connection to the rest of the world in her home. It is about what her doctors can provide in terms of medical assistance, through—what is now more commonplace—alert devices like wristbands that can alert a doctor, through a wi-fi internet connection in the home, if there is a problem with your 90-year-old-plus mother. But if you can't see that, and if you can't see the future today, how can you possibly see the future tomorrow? More than anything, that is what troubles me about where this government is taking us. They are taking us back to the future. They still dream of the white picket fence of the 50s. They still dream of an era when things were much slower and kinder—which is why we have the Prime Minister speaking at the rate that he does. But the reality is that we have bigger things to do. If we are going to be debating bills on things as important as submarine cables and about our connection to the rest of the world and what that can produce for our country and for our economy, then surely the next logical step—just one step further—is to ask: once you get it to the beach—fibre to the coast—aren't you going to take it somewhere else?

I would say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in your electorate—and a fine electorate it is, Maranoa—there is a whole range of regional and rural people and people on farms who have got it. They have got it; they understand what it means to be able to deliver real-time weather information. They understand what it means for their kids to be able to access educational information around the world that would otherwise not be available to them. And they understand what it means for their businesses, be it farming, supply chain businesses or others, to be part of a global supply chain, to understand markets better, and to get real-time information. And it is not only real-time information to their home but also on their mobile devices while they are riding around on their ag bikes tending to their stock. This is much deeper than whether it is a Labor, Liberal, or some other ideological bent about the NBN. It is about the future of the Australian economy. The sad thing is that we have seen the member for Wentworth come into this place with a policy which is discredited—across any reputable area, by any reputable economist, by anybody in engineering terms. They don't even call it NBN-lite anymore, because it is not even on the same planet. It is NBN-to-a-few, at best. He might want to wax lyrical in this place about the numbers of take ups and where it has been rolled out, but it is about planning for the future. When this marine cable was planned in 1940, I am sure they were not waxing too lyrical about the take-up rate in 1945 or 1942, but they saw to the future again.

I want to draw a few connections between things that are going on in this country. Low-income superannuation contribution might have nothing to do with this bill, but there is a link between it and what is happening here: National Party electorates in particular are copping the biggest hits. National Party electorates across this country have been dudded the most by the Liberal Party as to how many people will lose out on Labor's low-income superannuation contribution. And when it comes to NBN and the connection to the rest of the world, who is it that misses out the most? People in seats in Central Queensland and along the Queensland coast—seats like Herbert, Dickson, Dawson, Capricornia and Leichhardt—who are going to miss out on NBN. Those were the areas on the map for the next phase of the NBN rollout, which is going into the ground right now, but they are being ignored. Those on the other side can laugh and carry on. Their idea of the future is what they are having for lunch tomorrow, and not what might be happening to our great grandchildren or our economy in the future. This is not a debate about the election cycle; it is about an economic cycle; it is about telecommunications; it is about the industries of the future. Those industries are not horse and buggy whips—that might have been what you were considering in the run up to the election, but it is not what we are considering today.

They had more foresight in 1940 when they were laying these marine cables than this government has today, despite the greater opportunity for insight about what the future might bring. It is disappointing that in my electorate where we had maps, agreements and the next phase of rollouts in places like Bellbird Park, Augustine Heights, Ellen Grove, Gailes, Wacol, Carole Park—working-class suburbs with a large component of commercial and business operations. Those business people want this in the ground, because they want to hook in immediately and they do not want to wait for it to be at the node. They want it right at their front door. In a thriving new satellite city like greater Springfield it is not just about being a great place to live but about business and education—it already has dark optic fibre to its universities, TAFEs and schools, because the developers had foresight. They said a decade ago, 'If Telstra won't put in optic fibre, we'll take a punt with our own money and run our own cable.' And so there is dark optic fibre cable directly to the university, to the Springfield centre for commercial purposes and to some of the suburbs, because the developers understood what the future could provide and understood the value proposition of providing that to everyone's front door. That has produced incredible dividends for commerce and business. Let me tell you that the Springfield Chamber of Commerce is an absolute advocate and supporter of this technology, because they use it. People who live in Brookwater were very lucky to be able to access optic fibre to the home very early on. Those who run a home business in that suburb know the competitive advantage they have. They understand it in the same way as those who were laying the marine cable in 1940. They did not merely run it to the beach and leave it there for somebody else to do something with later. They said: 'We're going to go all the way with this, because we know what this represents. We know the next step we have to take.'

I cannot say enough about the missed opportunity that this government has now delivered to all Australians. The time will come when there is no option but to take up the technology. Everything we do now is based on a higher need, a bigger pipe, greater access. A decade or so ago it might have been okay to be on dial-up. Some here might still remember those funny, clicky sounds when you dialled in. It was also a really frustrating sound. No-one could possibly use that today, because our systems no longer match to that. We need optic fibre to the home in the same way we need the big pipe. Whether it is infrastructure of a more technical nature like this or old-school infrastructure like bridges, roads or ports, you have to build in a bit of spare capacity. You have to look to the future. That is why we on this side will always be supporting the development of NBN to the home—it is in the national interest. While we will be supporting this bill, it does point to the failure of this government.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am rising to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Submarine Cable Protection) Bill 2013. It is designed to protect the integrity, operation and security of submarine cables that are critical in providing telecommunications services between our continent and the rest of the globe. There has been a longstanding regime for protecting these cables. In fact, we are one of the few countries in the world that has a regime in place to do just this. These cables have been in place for decades and the regime has been there to support their continued and efficient operation. About three years ago, the ACMA—the Australian Communications and Media Authority—reviewed aspects of the regime, and the review recommended a number of actions that the minister spoke to when he introduced the legislation to the House. Notably, it ensures consistency between our cable protection regime and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It provides a structured process for the consideration of matters within the Attorney-General's portfolio concerning submarine cable installation and permit applications. It also enables significant domestic submarine cables or cables that connect two places within our nation to be brought under the regime and to be protected. It will streamline permit processes that govern installation. Finally, the bill contains some administrative and technical amendments.

The bill takes on greater importance when we consider how businesses are starting to respond to the demand for cable capacity. It is not surprising that, as more and more people and businesses begin to move into the online world, they are effectively transferring the way in which they operate from analog to digital—digitising businesses, creating demand for data, downloading more data and producing more data. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that in the 12 months to December 2012, in relation to fixed line internet access, download of data had grown at a rate of about 63 per cent. I have often quoted the fact that, on figures that I have seen, the amount of data that is expected to be produced globally will increase by a phenomenal 4,300 per cent. The pressure is well and truly on for us to have the ability to transmit that data. So these cables are critical, particularly in linking us into servers based in other continents, and having this protection is vital.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Communications said that this bill was important in a wider context. He broadened the scope of his contribution and focus to state:

But connectedness is not just about ensuring our submarine cables—

which are the focus of the bill—

or satellite links or even backhaul fibre are of a high standard—it is just as much about ensuring that Australian mums and dads, school kids or small business people can take advantage of the resources and opportunities of the internet.

That then gave him a platform to broaden his discussion and, amazingly, to say that the government could claim that they are delivering a better National Broadband Network. Their definition of 'better' is not to use one of the best platforms available to deliver data, which is fibre-optic cable. Their view of a better national broadband network is to rely on copper as the platform of the future—a technology that has been used for 100 years. I heard the member for Perth in her contribution quoting Telstra executives who, some time ago, had said that they were sweating the last moments of the copper network. This is what the member for Wentworth has championed within his party as the way of the future—copper. It is not NBN-lite, it is NBN-dull, because it will slow down the ability to download data.

More importantly, as has often been reflected when it comes to issues involving the internet and broadband in this country, it is not just about download speeds but about upload capacity. In terms of the tech sector in Australia being able to conduct its work, to innovate, this is the focus for the future. We are being condemned with a fibre-to-the-node proposal that will dull down the ability of Australians to get better speeds on both download and upload. The minister in his speech stated:

… we have committed to prioritising the NBN rollout in areas with the poorest services so that those who currently cannot connect, or have the poorest speeds, get fast broadband sooner.

The Sydney Morning Heraldreviewed the minister's plan in an article entitled 'Turnbull's broadband plan too slow, too late'. The minister says that this is the plan that will see those who suffer with the poorest services, those who cannot connect, getting fast broadband sooner.

The minister knows of my long-running advocacy on behalf of residents in areas of the Chifley electorate that have been condemned with poor service. When the coalition was last in government it attempted 20 times to improve broadband and failed. For instance, residents of Woodcroft in my electorate suffered for ages. They were never going to see a fibre connection established from the Blacktown exchange. They were condemned with an overloaded copper network. In this residential estate there had been no plan for a better network. These residents had been condemned with poor service.

In his second reading speech on this bill, the minister reflected on the fact that he had been to Blacktown in the Chifley electorate, and he said that this was an area where Telstra HFC and Optus HFC cable existed. Yes, it did. HFC exists in Sydney and Melbourne. It was not widely opened up for household consumers to access broadband. It was primarily used as a method of delivering Foxtel signals, but it was not opened up for people to access internet services.

As a result of advocacy undertaken by me in conjunction with residents of Woodcroft, we were able to work with Telstra to open up areas of the cable broadband network in parts of Woodcroft as an interim measure while we waited for the NBN. The NBN was able to be rolled out in Woodcroft because it fell within a fibre footprint area which, as we announced in July 2010, allowed Woodcroft—as a result of advocating on their behalf and pushing for them to get broadband—to be included in the three-year roll-out plan. Residents of Woodcroft were finally able to see a ray of light that would let them access better internet services, because they knew the NBN was rolling out. In the interim we opened up cable broadband in parts of that suburb, which improved service dramatically, as well as an investment in ADSL Top Hat, which saw capacity for ADSL, particularly ADSL2, being offered to residents. What happened?

Again, the minister says he is looking at prioritising the rollout of broadband in areas that have had the poorest connections. When the government announced their updated maps for their NBN rollout plan a few weeks ago, one of the mostly poorly served broadband network areas, Woodcroft, was completely dropped off the revised figures. The member for Wentworth went to the election claiming that every construction contract would be honoured, but he never had the courage or the decency to say that he was going to alter that commitment and break that promise once in government.

The member for Wentworth basically manufactured a deception on people who were expecting the NBN. He changed the terms. He said he would only honour contracts where the build instruction had been issued, thereby robbing residents of Woodcroft and Doonside, who were expecting to be connected to the NBN and had been waiting for years to get better broadband. They had been denied better broadband by the Howard government and now they are being ripped off by the Abbott government. This is from a person who makes a big deal of the fact that he can catch public transport and go out to Blacktown and say, 'There's HFC out here.' He has a great sense of theatre. He does not have a lot of modesty, but there are a lot of theatrical elements to the minister, the member for Wentworth. He talked about the fact that people could access HFC. In actual fact, if you hop online and try to access HFC services in the areas he looked at, you will see that not all the providers provide HFC access to the HFC network. So, clearly, he has not even done his homework. Frankly, I would not expect much from a Minister for Communications who advocates copper as a basis for rolling out better broadband services into the future. You are not really a fair dinkum communications minister if you think that that is the thing that you need to advocate for improving broadband in this country.

The member for Wentworth has ripped off Woodcroft residents. Those residents have complained bitterly about being left off the map. They do not deserve this shabby treatment from the member for Wentworth. He came out during the federal election to try to snare votes. He then made a promise about improving broadband services. He broke his promise after manufacturing a deception on the residents of Western Sydney. Then he slunk back to Bondi, which, funnily enough, has way better connection then the residents of Western Sydney are entitled to enjoy.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Chifley willing to give way?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I am not interested in playing the game with the member for Aston, who probably has better broadband services for his constituents while we are fighting to get improved services for residents in my area.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

Why don't you go and speak to the member for Macquarie, who was present when we were turning on broadband services in our part of Western Sydney. He was quite happy to see that. Maybe even go and see the member for Herbert, who was getting NBN services turned on in his electorate as well.

Woodcroft residents do not deserve this treatment. When I was fighting for better connections for Woodcroft residents, Malcolm Turnbull, speaking on the problems that were being experienced by residents I represent, said:

… the Government now cannot get its wholly-owned taxpayer-funded monopoly to prioritize the neediest areas …

This was referring to Woodcroft in a speech that he made to a Young Liberals conference. He said:

That would be a travesty of social justice from a party that so loudly claims to believe in it.

So it is good enough for him in opposition to hold up Woodcroft and say that it is a travesty of social justice for them to not get broadband. It is good enough for him to come in here and pretend that he has some sort of concern when he quotes his visits to Blacktown in his speech on this bill. Yet the minute he gets into government he makes a decision that rips off those residents, and he does not have the guts or the decency to ensure that those residents get better service.

Instead, he is a man with a plan. His plan is to just conduct a review. It is a review that he says is very objective but is being conducted by a mate with whom he owns a yacht. I am sure that this review is going to be very objective! Is a mate who he has had for some time going to have the guts to stand up to Malcolm Turnbull and tell him where he has gone wrong with his broadband plan which, as I say, has already been slammed for being too slow and too late and will result in 30 per cent less revenue because it will be providing slower speeds? Yet we are supposed to be expecting to see some sort of fair dinkum outcome from this strategic review that is already late. No doubt it will be crunched through the minister's office. I would be interested to see how the review that goes into the minister's office looks after it leaves the office.

The fact of the matter is that they have to reach—off the top of my head—nine million premises by June 2016. I read an estimate that that means they would have to pass 12,000 homes or establish 12,000 connections a day. It will be interesting to see if the minister, the member for Wentworth, makes that mark. But he should have the decency to stand up and honour the commitments and the concerns that he put when he visited Blacktown and spoke about Woodcroft residents. They do not deserve to be dudded.

Debate adjourned.