Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the Treasurer’s comments this morning that Telstra and the G9 already have plans to build a national fibre-to-the-node broadband network and that government intervention is therefore not necessary. Can the minister confirm that Telstra have advised the Australian Stock Exchange that they will not be proceeding with the rollout of a fibre-to-the-node network? I ask whether the minister can also confirm that Telstra regulatory policy head, Phil Burgess, has stated:

The government needs to get its own policy house in order before there will be progress for all Australia on the FTTN talks.

Aren’t the major players making it clear that, unless the government changes, Australians will not get the broadband that they need?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to 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—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I know the Labor Party does not care about this at all, but this government will ensure that we provide a regulatory framework that will let the market work and we will continue to invest in underserved areas that provide services to rural and regional Australians.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the Treasurer’s comments that the private sector will build a national fibre-to-the-node broadband network without government intervention. Can the minister point to any proposal—any proposal at all—to construct such a network, reaching 98 per cent of the Australian population, that does not involve government investment? Minister, hasn’t the Treasurer shown that your government has no idea how to deliver a fast broadband network to Australians and that this is a gross act of economic vandalism?

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

I thank Senator Conroy for the very amusing supplementary question. Senator Conroy has a very poor grasp of what it costs to deliver fast broadband—not only in metropolitan areas but anywhere throughout rural and regional Australia. This government is already delivering fast broadband throughout Australia and investing in a new network. We will continue to ensure that all Australians—not just 98 per cent; 100 per cent of Australians—will continue to get fast broadband regardless of where they live.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Will the minister inform the Senate how the government is ensuring equitable access to broadband in rural and regional areas? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

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

I thank Senator Nash for her question and for her ongoing interest in investment in broadband internet in rural and regional parts of Australia. The Australian government is investing more than $4 billion in broadband and telecommunications services, guaranteeing fast broadband to every person who wants it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you are warned!

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

We are currently providing more than $600 million in incentives to leverage investment by the private sector to build a new high-speed open access network across the country. Through the $2 billion Communications Fund, we are future-proofing the bush and ensuring its future telecommunications needs will be met.

Senator Nash asked me about alternative policies. Yesterday the Labor Party sought to unload one of the greatest policy con jobs on the Australian public, even more dubious than the infamous ‘noodle nation’, with a thinly detailed, poorly costed and essentially undeliverable proposal to lay fibre end-to-end across Australia. The policy to date has seen Australia’s foremost institutional analysts condemning Labor’s proposal as taking the country back 20 years and as being impractical. At the same time, other telecommunications specialists have labelled Mr Rudd’s first technological foray as overkill and redundant. As ABN AMRO concluded, ‘It really is broadband dreaming.’

No-one can deny that Australians have an appetite for broadband. As I have often said, we are second in the world in terms of OECD broadband take-up rates. But Mr Rudd’s Labor plan is quintessential Labor of old—leave out the detail, fudge the costings, throw out any semblance of prudent economic management. Out of yesterday’s 22-page document, which Senator Conroy admitted in his Press Club address had kept him up late for the previous 48 hours, only one page is devoted to any sort of detail on Labor’s proposal. I looked in vain for a coverage map or a costing table, and there is an abject omission of any level of technical detail. Already, yesterday’s mid-morning announcement of an $8 billion costing for Mr Rudd’s broadband stab in the dark is rising at the rate of about $1 billion every 12 hours. By late afternoon, Senator Conroy said in an interview with Steve Price on Sydney radio that Labor’s costings had already increased and were now about $8 billion to $9 billion.

But, even with those rising numbers, Labor’s upwardly revised figure is well short of what is realistically required to build a national fibre network capable of delivering a universal minimum speed of 12 megabits to 98 per cent of the population. But don’t take my word for it—less than a year ago Telstra was widely reported as saying that a national fibre rollout would cost in excess of $30 billion. That is about a $22 billion shortfall so far on Labor’s estimates. Two years ago, in evidence to Senate estimates, Telstra executive Bill Scales said in relation to the fibre rollout:

At the very least it requires literally tens of billions of dollars of investment.

Independent experts have said that it is about $20 billion. So while Telstra and independent analysts have proven Labor’s costings to be little more than a back-of-the-envelope stab in the dark, the most damning assessments come from proven international experience. In the case of Singapore, a country with a land mass half the size of Sydney, the fibre rollout cost was $5 billion. Does Labor really expect the public to swallow Labor’s claim that they can cover seven million additional square kilometres with fibre with only $3 billion more? (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Further to that answer, would the minister explain why the government will not be adopting alternative policies to the ones she has outlined?

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

I thank Senator Nash for her supplementary question. I was explaining that Labor’s costings are hopelessly flawed—about $22 billion short at the moment. In South Korea, which is about half the size of Victoria, the cost of the fibre network was in excess of $50 billion. Let us make no bones about it. Fair is fair. The Australian public should not be duped by Labor’s broadband fantasy. Labor’s costings are flawed, they are undeliverable and they do not stack up against international comparisons. You only have to look at international comparisons and what Telstra says to know that Labor is fishing up a dry gully here. It is back to its old tricks of wasting taxpayers’ money, making promises it cannot deliver. This should be a very clear warning to all Australians that Labor is not fit to manage the trillion-dollar Australian economy, cannot be trusted with the nation’s savings and is certainly not fit for government.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister confirm that since 2002, the Howard government has launched at least 17 different broadband programs? Haven’t these been piecemeal, hastily cobbled together, short-term measures driven by their political needs? Minister, do you agree with Terry McCrann’s comments today that building a high-speed broadband is a no-brainer? Minister, other than a series of National Party photo opportunities, what does Australia have to show for this procession of programs that have left Australia on the IT goat track?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you got against goats?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in charge of rabbits and rats.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you are, as Leader of the Labor Party.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Abetz!

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

I consider that question to be ill-considered. This government is extremely proud of the fact that, after the Labor Party failed to take any of the tough questions on the privatisation of Telstra, failed to do anything about shutting down analog mobile phones and did not have any kind of substitute technology in place and left the bush high and dry, with no consumer protection, the government has entrenched safeguards for consumers and has delivered services to rural and regional Australia. It has appreciated that in populous areas the market works well; the market will deliver these services.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me examine the minutes.

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

This government understands that, in order to deliver services to rural and regional Australia—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Kind regards’—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner! I remind you that shouting across the chamber is disorderly, and you have been doing it all question time. I would ask you to come to order.

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

I was in the course of saying that government investment is targeted at the particular needs as they evolve with broadband. Who can forget that the Labor Party were so technologically challenged that, just a couple of years ago, they all voted in favour of getting the government to invest $5 billion in dial-up internet? How silly do they look now, when they are trying to advocate something they cannot pay for—an end-to-end fibre network? So there was dial-up internet, which I think everyone thinks is a joke, and a pie-in-the-sky uncosted proposal. We have targeted investment. We have connected over one million premises and small businesses. We have enabled some technology changes throughout rural and regional Australia. We have in play a tender process that will deliver a build for a new network for regional and rural Australia. We have delivered a broadband guarantee so that all Australians—not just 98 per cent of them; 100 per cent of them—will have access to broadband regardless of where they live. This new network that will be rolled out needs to be sustainable and scaleable as people’s appetite for broadband increases and at a price that people can afford.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s piecemeal. It’s been cobbled together, and you know that!

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, you are warned!

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

One of the very interesting things about fibre is that it has not been a commercial success anywhere in the world. It has not had much of a commercial return. Even Telstra’s estimates were very low. We have to ensure that the market does what the market will do. There are currently two fibre proposals being looked at. Then we have to ensure that, regardless of where people live in rural and regional Australia, they will not be dudded—that they will get the services they need, together with a future fund and a communications fund that will ensure that liabilities going forward will be met and that they will have access to better services as they come on-stream. It is very important for people listening to question time to know that this government is absolutely committed to ensuring that rural and regional Australia continue to get the benefits of targeted investment and that we will not step back from providing it.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why has the government ignored its own broadband advisory group that identified a $30 billion economic benefit of true broadband? Will the minister now accept that the Howard government’s neglect of Australia’s broadband infrastructure has been the worst kind of economic vandalism?

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

The government’s investment has simply transformed the way in which people can live, work and run their businesses in rural and regional Australia. The ABS data that I have available shows that public investment in infrastructure is growing at twice the rate of that for the rest of the economy. All of the investment we make is targeted. It will be delivered in a way that continues to deliver benefits to rural and regional Australia. We will continue to ensure that fast broadband is available regardless of where we live.