Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise to speak in the second reading debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010. I listened very carefully to Senator Birmingham’s contribution, and I think it is important to highlight some of the fundamental contradictions in the coalition’s position. On the one hand, the opposition claimed that there is a need to separate all matters associated with the National Broadband Network and NBN Co. from the telecommunications structure—to separate the structure of the industry, the regulatory environment, from the matters of substance that are contained in this bill.

This is contradictory. The two are invariably associated because the telecommunications industry structure needs to adjust to accommodate a wholesale-only open-access fibre-to-the-home network—that is, the NBN. It is essential that the competition and consumer safeguards bill accompany the progress of the National Broadband Network policy. To argue for a complete separation of the issues denies that there is an association between the progression of the policy and the build of the National Broadband Network. This legislation is motivated to facilitate the structural adjustment the industry needs to make to sustain this excellent model of an open-access, wholesale-only, independently regulated fibre-to-the-home network.

The argument that we should separate the two issues is just another tactic in the opposition’s attempt to delay consideration of this legislation and the National Broadband Network. In a previous contribution—in relation to, I think, a general business notice of motion—I covered what I thought the political motivation of the opposition was in that regard, and it was not auspicious. I thought it exposed the opposition’s complete lack of vision in relation to the internet, telecommunications and the network for the future.

Another contradiction is their ‘go fast-slow down’ approach. Almost every question time the government receives questions about how many people have been connected to the National Broadband Network. The question is asked with a pejorative, accusatory tone: ‘How come so few are connected to the National Broadband Network?’ In responding to that, we inform the coalition that far more people than they purport are actually connected. So, in the chamber the coalition is pleased to place pressure on the government for more NBN connections. ‘Why aren’t there more?’ is the implication of their questioning. Yet, in the debate on this bill and their utterances outside of question time, their argument is, ‘We don’t need to go so fast.’ We just heard very clearly from Senator Birmingham, from the Liberal opposition, that we ought not to proceed, we ought to delay—we ought to have a Productivity Commission inquiry before we progress, we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis before we undertake this build.

There is a profound contradiction in what they convey in the public arena of question time and what they convey elsewhere. As I stated recently, local Liberal members are clamouring for the NBN to come to their communities. Yet, in this formal debate, when the rubber hits the road and it is about progressing legislation to facilitate the regulatory environment so that all of these policies can progress, they want to stifle, inhibit, delay, block. There is no reconciling those two positions. I think this exposes the very shallow political opposition to the National Broadband Network and to this legislation, which facilitates the regulatory regime.

The idea that Telstra is very much under duress brings up another contradiction. If what the opposition is saying is true—that this bill somehow facilitates the establishment of a new monopoly—which, quite frankly, ignores the fact that there is independent regulation associated with it, why would Telstra be under duress? We know, colleagues, that Telstra fought for the retention of their monopoly for many years. To imply that they would somehow be under duress to participate in a future monopoly defies belief. The fact is that Telstra and NBN Co. have entered into a practical agreement, which the coalition clearly lauded and encouraged. They criticised Labor for the process not occurring—now that it has occurred, it is suddenly problematic.

I am speaking on this bill today as an ACT senator. I have strong views on, and a strong history in the area of, public policy. I want to make it very clear that my comments relate to my experience. I would like to turn to a little bit of history in the telecommunications debate. Senator Macdonald does not fall into the following category, but some of his colleagues would. This discussion has been going on for a long time. Senator Macdonald would have been participating in the debates about the privatisation of Telstra, the various Estens reports about regional telecommunications services and so forth for a really long time and would have an appreciation—even though, obviously, a different political view—of how hard it is to get the telecommunications regulation and policy right in this country. Some members of the coalition who appear not to be apprised of this history seem to think there is a simple solution. Senator Birmingham’s in his contribution said very clearly, ‘Surely there’s a way that we can just organise this, commission a report and fix the policy so everybody’s happy.’ Well, Senator Birmingham, the coalition government had many years, 13 years, of government in which to do that. Some 14 different Senate inquiries across telecommunications, information and communication technologies, and internet have occurred over those years. Many more reports were commissioned by the former government about the challenge of regional telecommunications services and what was needed to provide universal, affordable access. And there has been recommendation upon recommendation—some accepted by the previous government and some rejected. None of them fixed the problem.

The only thing that will fix the problem is Labor’s vision and policy for a national broadband network, which is informed in part by a series of successive Senate inquiries into various bills and into the general issue of broadband. One of those inquiries was by the broadband select committee, which I think at one point you were chair of, Senator Macdonald.