Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about mobile phone blackspots in my electorate of Barker. As you know well, Deputy Speaker Hogan, good mobile phone coverage is essential for economic productivity, not to mention safety, in rural and remote communities. My electorate spans some 60,000 square kilometres. It is, necessarily, sparsely populated in many areas but is, of course, a hub of economic activity. The flows and benefits of this high level of agricultural productivity are clear but, sadly, the existence of all too many mobile phone blackspots operates as a significant handbrake to that productivity and the dividends that can be derived for my electorate, for both the individual and the state.

Further, these blackspots pose significant safety risks to those who work alone or in small teams, particularly those who work alone and in small teams in very rural and remote locations. Sadly, this cannot necessarily be remedied by private telecommunication companies, as many of these blackspots are simply uneconomical to service.

It is for that reason that our government, over the course of the 44th Parliament and now in the 45th, has committed a total of $220 million in public funding to the Mobile Black Spot Program. This is funding that will supplement and encourage investment in this critical technology in these remote and sparsely populated areas.

Why then am I speaking in a grievance debate on this matter? Sadly, due to the lack of investment by the South Australian state government in round 1 of the program, my beloved state received only 11 of the new towers—133 fewer than New South Wales and only 11 of the 499 allocated nationwide.

To put it in local terms, in round 1, we identified 174 blackspots in Barker. After the completion of round 2 and the allocation of sites, 172 of those sites will remain unserviced. That is a disappointing result by anyone's measure, but when I look over at my Victorian colleague in the seat of Mallee and I see that he has 22 of his sites serviced I have cause for concern. My constituents, like me, are looking for the reason. The reason is a clear and concise one. This program called for a co-contribution from state and local governments. In the case of New South Wales, the New South Wales government contributed $24 million to the program. As a result, they attracted 144 sites. Victoria contributed $21 million to the program. They attracted 110 sites. Queensland contributed $10 million to the program, attracting 68 sites. Western Australia contributed $32 million, attracting 130 sites.

So the question you might ask is: in light of those contributions by the other mainland states, what did the good state government of South Australia do? They made a zero sum contribution—not one zack. As a result, South Australia predictably received the minimum number of allocations—that is, 11 sites. Hence my electorate got the paltry sum of two.

As a result of this, the member for Grey and I lobbied the state government, indicating to them that we were confident that we could persuade our colleagues here in Canberra to open up round 2 of the program. We were successful in doing that. Round 2 of the program was announced a significant time ago, taking the round 1 Commonwealth contribution of $100 million and adding to it an additional $60 million.

What has the South Australian state government done in relation to round 2? You would think they would have taken the lead from those successful states in round 1—New South Wales, $24 million; Victoria, $21 million; Queensland, $10 million; and Western Australia, $32 million. You would think they would take the lead, and take the lead they have. They have managed to rummage around in the treasury on North Terrace in Adelaide and found the princely sum of $2 million. That is $2 million against a background where New South Wales contributed $24 million, Victoria contributed $21 million, Queensland contributed $10 million and Western Australia contributed $32 million. And it is against a background where it is clear to any of us involved in this issue that those states are going to make similar contributions. In punting parlance, those states have got to double down. When they do, the South Australian state government contribution of $2 million will, sadly, once again result in the South Australian community missing out on an allocation of mobile phone towers.

I have said it is $2 million, and $2 million it is. But of that $2 million sum you will be surprised to learn that only $1 million is new money. $1 million of it is coming from an existing regional development fund. So the people of South Australia, particularly residents in Barker, who are enjoying the benefits of our rollout of the NBN have been coming into my office and saying, 'Why is it that I can access data in this very regional and remote area but I can't make a mobile phone call from the paddock?' I say to them the answer is clear. They need to speak to the relevant minister in the South Australian state government, Kyam Maher, and tell him that a $2 million contribution to this program is not only insufficient but quite frankly disrespectful. I should say that I failed to get his ear after making repeated requests to meet with him to talk with him about this issue. He hails from Mt Gambier, my home town, so I was disappointed that a local would not pick up the phone and take my call. If they fail to get Minister Maher's ear, they should pick up the phone, write an email or pen a note to Premier Weatherill.

I understand that Premier Weatherill is in a very difficult position. His government has been in government for some 13 years. The South Australian economy, sadly, is tanking. We have unemployment a whole two percentage points above any other state in this country. The funds are hard to locate. They are building a new royal Adelaide hospital which is going to be the most expensive building on the face of the earth per square metre. They are off to the Supreme Court to argue about when they can access the building in proceedings vis-a-vis the joint partner development.

Things are difficult in South Australia—I understand that. I understand that money is tight. But, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the Wetherill government taking it out on rural and regional South Australians. It is the politics of punishment. There is no other way to describe this. They know that electorally they cannot be harmed in the country. They hold one seat outside of metropolitan Adelaide. But that is not the test of a good government. That is not the test of a premiership. Premier Weatherill needs to govern for all of South Australia, and that includes, in my case, the 120,000 or so people that live in the electorate of Barker. They deserve, as do other rural and regional constituents across the country, to live in areas that are serviced by mobile phone towers.

My concern is that, once round 2 and round 3 of this program are complete, the problem will be resolved in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia—across all other mainland states. All that will remain will be mobile phone blackspots in South Australia. If that comes to pass, as is my clear and present concern, this will cease to be a national issue. It will be an issue only for South Australians living in rural and regional communities, and I fear that, electorally, we will not be able to resolve this issue. So I call on Premier Weatherill and Minister Maher to think again about their contribution to the Mobile Black Spot Program and up it significantly. (Time expired)