Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to the Telstra decision on fibre to the node. The fibre-to-the-node proposal relates to adding nodes to the broadband network to deliver ADSL2+ broadband in five capital cities, thereby excluding major regional areas like the Illawarra, where my electorate office is located. Telstra pulled out of their talks with the ACCC on a fibre-to-the-node network, even though they had been saying publicly that there were very few issues left to be resolved. It is puzzling why they would discontinue the talks when they seemed so close to a resolution.

Telstra cited the ACCC’s alleged unwillingness to recognise the actual costs of Telstra’s fibre-to-the-node investment as a reason for the breakdown. In fact, when setting access prices the ACCC is required by law to take into account the costs of the investment and the legitimate commercial interests of the infrastructure owner, including the investment risks faced by the owner and the need to provide incentives for investment. The ACCC has assured the government that it has always been prepared to consider fair and reasonable access terms, as indeed it is legally obliged to do. The government reviewed telecommunications regulatory arrangements only last year and specifically made legislative changes to further encourage investment and ensure investors’ risks were taken into account in regulatory decision making. There have been no substantive changes to the market since the 2005 review and Telstra remains in a strong position in many markets. However, at the end of the day, this is a commercial decision for Telstra.

The government’s telecommunications regulatory framework has created a competitive environment that has brought more choice, innovative new services and lower prices for Australian consumers and businesses. There are many companies—iiNet, Internode, Primus, Optus and Austar, to name a few—already making investments in next generation broadband services. Industry commentators estimate that as a result of these competitive investments very high speed broadband is already available to more than 50 per cent of customers.

In fact, Telstra also has other means of providing high-speed broadband apart from fibre to the node. At any time it chose to, Telstra could start using its longstanding investment in ADSL2+ equipment, which can deliver very fast broadband, in its exchanges. Indeed, I would urge them to do so. Telstra’s fibre proposal was only ever intended to target the five major capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth where there are already significant broadband speeds and ample competition. For instance, in the five capital cities where Telstra’s fibre network was to be deployed, multi-megabit broadband speeds are already available to most consumers via alternative platforms including ADSL2+, cable and wireless. When Telstra switches on its ADSL2+ network, which we hope is imminent, this number will rise exponentially.

At least nine service providers already offer ADSL2+ in the capital cities and major regional centres at very fast speeds. The competitive rollout of high-speed broadband infrastructure which is taking place will be complemented by the $1.1 billion Connect Australia package and the $2 billion communications fund established by the government. These programs will ensure people living in rural and regional Australia can access world-class telecommunications services both now and into the future. So any suggestion that Telstra’s decision to discontinue the talks with the ACCC somehow spells an end to the rollout of fast broadband infrastructure is misplaced.

Telstra’s decision has left Labor’s broadband policy in an absolute shambles. Only two years ago the Labor recommendations in a Senate inquiry report were that we should spend billions on guaranteeing dial-up internet speeds of 40 kilobits per second—up to 300 times slower than the speeds available on ADSL 2 enabled exchanges available in many parts of Australia. Mr Beazley pinched a publicly announced plan by Telstra as his only policy, and the whole house of cards was built on Telstra funding a fibre network in five capital cities. Without it, Labor’s policy falls down into a big hole.

Labor has been confused about broadband since the very beginning. First, Senator Conroy labelled any broadband under 10 megabits per second as ‘fraudband’. Then his leader came out with a plan for six megabits per second, and Senator Conroy suddenly changed his mind. And when it became clear that 12 megabits per second was widely available in metropolitan areas—the exact areas where Telstra would have installed fibre to the node—Senator Conroy started talking about 100 megabits per second. The ALP needs to make a decision and stick to it. The only card the opposition has got to play in the broadband debate is to misrepresent what the government says.

The minister has clearly said that, even in the absence of any metropolitan fibre network, Australians living in inner metropolitan areas can access faster broadband speeds of between 12 and 18 megabits per second if they can access ADSL2+ or, indeed, cable networks. The government’s longstanding policy of encouraging competition in telecommunications has delivered to metropolitan consumers a choice of broadband providers and speeds. Clearly, different people have different needs when it comes to broadband speeds, but for most people a connection of 1.5 megabits per second is currently adequate to deliver the services and downloads they want. Others may want faster connections, and these are currently largely available in the metropolitan areas that would have benefited from fibre. For instance, ADSL2+ and cable networks enable service providers to deliver a rich mix of data services to users, including high-quality video, audio, voice and text.