Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Conroy for the question. It is of course the case that, in the competitive environment that this government has encouraged, in metropolitan areas there are two proposals currently being discussed for a fibre rollout. That has been the case since sometime last year—probably about 18 months ago—when Telstra brought to the government a modified proposal to the one currently being considered.

Since then, there has been an alternative to Telstra’s proposal: a fibre-to-the-node network proposed by a group called the G9. It is a consortium of leading telecommunication providers, including Optus, IAPT, Macquarie Telecom, Soul Converged Telecommunications, Primus Telecom, Powertel, iiNet, Internode and TransACT. The G9’s proposal is a demonstration of competition at work in the open telecommunications environment that the government has established since 1997. The G9 propose a very similar network to the one that Telstra proposed—to cover five major capitals and the next 15 largest cities, a total of five million premises, at a cost of about $4.1 billion. Their proposal is for an open access network that would be open to all telecommunications providers to use to provide their telecommunications services to the public at a fair and cost-oriented price.

I think it is fair to say that competition has meant that Telstra is also very interested in rolling out a fibre network. That is why we want to continue to encourage competition. Telstra has an opportunity, of course, to continue its negotiations—and in fact is doing so. I encourage this. Telstra’s proposal would cover the five major capital cities. Telstra has estimated that its process would take about 3¼ years.

The important point is that neither the consortium of the G9 nor Telstra has sought any government money to do this. So what we have here is a proposal for metropolitan areas, where two commercial providers are prepared, subject to getting a proper return on their investment, to undertake a rollout of fibre without the necessity to go and raid the Future Fund and without any necessity to go and rob the bush by taking away their $2 million Communications Fund. What they require is regulatory certainty—and that is in fact what they will get under the flexible regime that the government has in place. We will also be looking at the particular requirements of both groups, because their requirements differ. This government will continue to ensure—