Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Bills

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011; Second Reading

5:33 pm

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise to Senator Xenophon that I have not spoken directly to him yet, but I will get around to it. So, there is a very clear choice before the chamber—do you support the principle that everyone gets an equal chance, everyone gets an equal price, everyone gets an equal service, based on the three technologies? That is what the NBN delivers. Or do you want to try to sabotage it? Those on the other side will be moving amendments that are all about destroying the economics of providing that cross-subsidy. This is essentially about the cherry-picking debate. Public ownership and the capacity to provide equal services across the state of Victoria are at the heart of today's votes and today's amendments.

The purpose of the bill, as I have said, is to ensure that new developments are ready for fibre-based technology. If fibre-ready infrastructure is not installed in new developments, it will have to be fitted later at greater cost. It will cost more for every house and business than doing it up-front. Retrofitting would also be much more destructive. It is simply more sensible to install fibre-ready ducting in a trench that is already open. Fibre can then be installed and the houses occupied, or if that is not possible it can be pulled through later.

Having said that, I stress that this bill is a safety net. Most developers are already installing fibre-ready infrastructure, and we expect that most will continue to do the sensible thing. This is a sensible preparation for fibre and it appears to be generally accepted. It was accepted by the joint committee on the NBN, which recommended that the bill be passed. It also appears to be sensible to those opposite, although they also demand that the bill be amended to tackle issues far beyond the bill's intended purpose. I could say much more but in the interests of bringing the debate to a conclusion I rest there.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Comments

No comments