Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

As deputy chair of the committee, I rise to make some remarks on the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. I will just make a few brief comments around some of the issues that arose during the course of the inquiry.

The first issue that was raised is the 98 per cent target for rolling fibre out across the country. There were some concerns as to how that figure was determined in the first instance. The issue of modelling was raised and how that 98 per cent will be measured. This is an issue that goes to the difference between whether the 98 per cent is going to be modelled geographically or is going to be based on population density. Because, using Queensland as an example, if they do the 98 per cent modelling on population we are going to have a significant land mass that is still not covered under the fibre plan just by dint of the nature of the population arrangements in that state. It was raised that the modelling had to be undertaken geographically to make sure that we are going to get those underserved and unserved areas.

Another area that was raised as an area of real concern was that open access arrangements should definitely be more clearly defined. The ability for competition was also an issue. Many people saw that the arrangements that would be in place would be a natural monopoly as a result of this process. It was raised that there should be a requirement of true and open access on the new network. The concerns were that it was not defined clearly enough. There were going to be some real issues around retaining competition under the new network framework if that open access was not very clearly defined.

Senator Minchin quite rightly raised the issue of the regulatory framework. There was a good deal of discussion around that framework and that it should have been put in place by government before the RFP process. The evidence brought to us in the inquiry was that bidders would have had a much clearer picture of what that regulatory framework was going to be if the government had moved to put that framework in place or had at least indicated very clearly what that regulatory framework was going to be before the RFP process took place. We have a situation where there have been a number of bidders who really do not know at this stage how those regulations are going to apply to their bid. This comes back to the issue of having the regulation in place to ensure that competition will be enabled in the event that the successful bidder—who will by all accounts have a natural monopoly—is ensuring that they will provide that access.

There were a number of concerns raised about the need for the ACCC to be given greater powers to ensure that that regulation could be enforced. We need to determine what those regulations are going to be. Given that they had not happened before this process commenced, we still need to get a very clear indication of how those regulations are going to operate. This goes to the very heart of ensuring that we have clear and precise access. There is also the issue of rolling in, not rolling out. I see this to be a very important issue. We need to ensure that the process. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.