Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008, the first piece of legislation relating to the government’s proposed national broadband network. I and all members of the coalition recognise the fundamental importance of broadband and effective delivery of broadband to Australians across the diversity of our country, in metropolitan and country areas. We recognise its importance to our economic development and to ensuring that Australia prospers now and into the future. We know that broadband and effective communications policies will play a very important role in Australia’s future and in ensuring that we enjoy the same type of economic growth and economic benefits that Australia has enjoyed so much over the last decade. That is why it is so important that we get this process right—that the new Rudd government gets communications policy right. In particular, it needs to get the process surrounding the national broadband network right, because Australia’s future and our economic sustainability into the future will very much depend on correct policy parameters in these important areas.

Our concerns lie in the rushing of this process and the risk that it will not be right and that we will see billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money squandered to get a less than satisfactory public policy outcome for all Australians. We believe it is important to be judicious in the expenditure of the public funds that have been put on the table here. A figure of $4.7 billion was plucked by the then Rudd opposition, and this legislation is now being rushed through just so that it can be spent and they can meet their election promise as quickly as possible, regardless of the implications of this for good communications policy along the way.

Government funds in sectors where the private sector is at play should be invested where there is a clear market failure. That should be the overriding priority for where government funds are expended. The concern with the approach adopted by the government is that it is not focusing on where market failures may exist. Far from it; it is throwing $4.7 billion at a broad and sweeping proposal that does not target the likelihood of market failures in regional Australia. In fact, it probably pushes regional Australia to the end of the queue, so that the likely development of broadband may be hastened in metropolitan Australia at the expense of areas that commercially would not otherwise have been delivered. The market failure may exist in regional Australia. It probably will not exist in metropolitan Australia, where commercial providers have already been working to deliver such services.

I commend to the Senate and to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy the Australian Financial Review editorial of 22 April, which talks of the risk of the Rudd government enacting:

… a policy blunder with anti-competitive consequences … simply to fulfil some lazy election rhetoric by using a taxpayer-funded sledgehammer to crack a phoney broadband crisis. The “crisis” is gradually being fixed—at least in built-up areas—by competitive investment in fast broadband services …

We are seeing the delivery of services into metropolitan areas and yet we have seen the government kill off the chance of early delivery of services, through the OPEL contract, to areas that were underserviced. We are seeing the government ignore market failure that may exist and simply proceeding with the policy that it did on the run to get a great headline in the lead-up to an election. It wants to ensure that it can rush it through and claim to have implemented this policy, knowing that the long-term consequences for Australia could be very severe.

As the AFR editorial goes on to state:

There is no justification for the rush, apart from politics, and no evidence of market failure sufficient to justify a government intervention on the scale proposed.

It is a damning indictment of the government’s approach here and it certainly highlights the fact that this government is hell-bent on delivering its election promises, regardless of whether they will produce the right outcomes for Australia.

This bill in particular relates to the release of information for the building of the national broadband network, information that is critical for the request for proposals that the minister has released. We accept that clear information is important for those who are going to bid to be involved in this process. It is critical—and that information is largely locked up and held, as we know, by one major carrier, Telstra.

The request for proposals issued by the government states, in section 6.2.1:

The Government intends to make available to proponents network information it considers necessary for the development of proposals.

That of course is a very reasonable approach. This legislation provides a framework for that. It does not actually tell us, though, what information is to be provided. This legislation simply provides the framework for the minister to issue an instrument, or instruments, that will mandate and require telecommunications carriers to provide certain information.

The problem with this is the timing with which it is occurring. Here we are in the Senate on 14 May debating this bill, but the request for proposals went out more than a month ago, on 11 April. Prospective tenderers were given until only 25 July to put their proposals in. That means that, by the time this bill passes and the minister issues his instrument and the consultation period that applies to that instrument passes, we will have seen information provided to telecommunications carriers possibly—or probably—less than two months before they were due to provide proposals and tenders for $4.7 billion worth of government funding.

Quite clearly, this advantages just one player in the market—Telstra—as the holder of most of the information that would be required to put in a substantive proposal. Telstra has all that information at hand already. No doubt it is already effectively working on its proposal in the very short time frame the government have provided for. Other potential bidders are having to wait, having to second-guess what information may be there. They will have to scramble at the end of the process to try to get their proposals together in time, based on the information that is provided. Other bidders will be at a great disadvantage compared to Telstra. The government are looking for a truly competitive proposal through this process. They should be ensuring equity in the treatment of all prospective bidders. They are not. They are failing in that regard because they are giving a very clear advantage to one bidder above all other bidders by ensuring that that bidder has all the information currently at their disposal and other bidders do not.

The G9 consortium, led by Optus—a likely bidder in this and one that you would hope the government wants to have bidding because otherwise the process will be seen to have dramatically failed if indeed the government does not see the second major telecommunications carrier in Australia put in a bid—recently called on the government to extend the bid deadline by five months. This would ensure that all parties actually have the opportunity to assess the information provided and to put in a comprehensive bid. The government appears to be ignoring such a request. It remains hell-bent on putting politics before policy on this issue. This is of great concern to the opposition. It is a concern that we believe needs to be considered by the government to ensure that it can get an effective policy in place if it goes down this pathway.

We have a range of other concerns with this proposal. We are particularly concerned with the gag order that the government appears to have applied to players in the market. This is a gag order that had implications for the Senate inquiry that was conducted into this bill. Section 11.1.1 of the request for proposal states:

Except with the prior written approval of the Commonwealth, Proponents should not make a statement, issue any document or material or provide any other information for publication in any media, concerning this RFP, the proposal evaluation, the acceptance of any Proposal, commencement of negotiations, creation of a shortlist, or notification that a Proponent is a preferred Proponent.

This is a remarkable gag applied to public comment on this issue. It is outrageous that the government is seeking to gag telecommunications carriers in this way. It demonstrates that the government is trying to fly under the radar of any scrutiny or any real criticism of the processes at hand.

The gag order created additional problems in the assessment of this bill by the Senate committee. We saw very limited submissions made to the Senate committee. Feedback provided to the opposition was that, not surprisingly, telecommunications companies and others were concerned about airing their grievances about the processes the government is applying because of the gag provisions that have been put in place. They were concerned that airing such grievances might ensure that they were disadvantaged and that, potentially, they were breaching those provisions. One has to question why it is that the government feels the need to have such a broad-sweeping confidentiality provision that it appears to inhibit all aspects of debate in such a critical public policy area. The government needs to explain why it is imposing this gag and it needs to explain why it is trying to stop bidders from exercising reasonable public criticism of the process.

In contrast to all of the restrictions placed on companies bidding in this process, the government is looking at giving itself maximum flexibility and freedom. Indeed, we have had the rather bizarre situation of the minister indicating that the government will be willing to accept non-compliant bids. This adds further confusion in an already very confused public policy area. We have a request for proposals that is more like a request for policy in that it does not outline any clear conditions as to the regulatory or structural framework. In fact, it invites submitters to tell the government what they think the regulatory and structural framework should look like. So we will have bidders putting in all manner of proposals, based on their impression of the ideal regulatory and structural framework. They will be putting in proposals based not on an equitable assessment of that framework but on their position on what the framework should be. It is a ludicrous proposition that you should not sort out what the ideal regulatory framework should be before you go out and invite—

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

Are you listening to yourself? You should write your speeches down.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I do not need to read my speeches off the laptop, unlike you. I am quite happy to come here and mount arguments, highlight the flaws in the public policy process the government is applying to this broadband legislation—and those flaws are great. As I was saying, companies will be putting in their bids with quite possibly multitudes of proposed regulatory frameworks. This is because the government will not work out what the ideal regulatory framework is before inviting those proposals.

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

Yes. That’s the purpose. That’s the intent. That’s the idea.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is saying that that is the purpose. We are all very happy for the minister to want to get the regulatory framework right. It is perfectly reasonable to seek comment from industry on what that regulatory framework should be. What is not reasonable is to expect industry to simultaneously bid on an unknown regulatory framework. That is what the minister is asking industry to do.

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

Yes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is asking industry to bid for $4.7 billion of public funds on an unknown regulatory framework. The minister is saying, ‘Yes’, that is right. The minister wants industry to bid on an unknown regulatory framework.

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

Yes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a ludicrous proposal. I am pleased to see that the minister acknowledges it and recognises it as such. Australia needs a broadband policy that will deliver the lowest cost broadband in the future to the maximum number of people at the highest speed. There are no guarantees that this process is going to do it, because we have no idea of the regulatory framework that will be applied and we have no idea of what approach the minister is going to take to structural separation. We have no idea of just how the minister intends to actually deliver this policy. The reason we have no idea is that it appears that the government has no idea. That is why the government has asked for all manner of contributions from all over the place, simultaneously, across an extremely short time frame—because it has no idea. It is asking others to help make the policy up and at the same time it is looking to dish out the dollars to deliver the policy.

The AFR editorial that I quoted earlier highlighted that little would be lost and much could be gained by taking a little longer and doing some more work to get the market structure and the policy right. The government may even find that it does not need to throw $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ funds at it. That is the crux of the matter—this government rushing in on an election promise and not considering whether it really is valid to actually be spending the money and the funds that it has outlaid. We have the unusual situation of the government announcing in the budget last night new investment funds for broadband and infrastructure purposes yet at the same time seeking to raid funds set up to benefit regional communities to fund this policy. In another piece of legislation we have the unusual situation of the government wanting to abolish the Communications Fund set up by the previous government—wanting to raid that fund, which was set up specifically for regional players and for regional delivery of services—and instead spend the money on this broad, unknown policy objective that will most likely put regional users at the end of the line. At the same time the government is saying that it is going to put more money aside for broadband in future years. So it is raiding the regional fund and not delivering for regional areas when apparently it has money for broadband in this year’s budget and future budgets.

A question for the minister in this process is: why are the government not taking those funds that they have identified for broadband and infrastructure and committing them to the delivery of this policy, rather than raiding the Communications Fund that is there specifically for regional Australia? That is a question that I hope the minister very clearly answers in the debate on the other piece of legislation.

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

I think you are very confused.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think unfortunately you are very confused. I think unfortunately you do not have a policy framework for this, you do not have a regulatory framework and you are asking the public to simply trust you and believe you when you say that the $4.7 billion will be spent wisely. You have given no clear assessment of why that is the figure that is required. You have given no clear assessment of how you are going to achieve open access, fair competition and a reasonable regulatory regime that is appropriately enforced. Indeed, in your expert panel, you have shut out the ACCC from playing a key role—the people we would expect to actually be delivering and regulating the right framework for delivery of this policy.

There are many questions that the government have left unanswered in this policy and many questions that are left unanswered in the release of their request for proposal. Their main problem is that they are rushing this. That is the most outrageous thing here. They should be giving carriers fair time to put in fair bids to ensure they get the best possible outcome for all Australians, not risking us blowing billions of dollars to end up with the worst possible of all outcomes—less competition, higher prices— (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Birmingham on his speech because he eloquently detailed the issues that we have with the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008.

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

Faster broadband.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In some respects I do not know whether I feel sorry for Senator Conroy or not but it is either a poisoned chalice that he has created for himself—

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

Have you checked your computers?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if you want to have a sensible debate about this we can do so and I am happy to do so. If you would like to take other courses, they can be accommodated as well.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we might try for the sensible debate. So perhaps, Minister, you could restrain yourself for a while and see how we go.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a little surprised that the minister, within 30 seconds, is playing very silly games. As Senator Birmingham has quite rightly said, this is an apparent election commitment. The Prime Minister has apparently reduced Senator Conroy’s responsibilities to nothing other than delivering this. But this is a complete and utter political sham in which the minister himself, as Senator Birmingham quite rightly indicated, has excluded all those people that propriety would indicate should be included in this decision-making process—the Productivity Commission, the ACCC and Infrastructure Australia. I will say more about that later on.

This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide for information to be provided by telecommunications carriers to the Commonwealth so that this information can be provided to companies who intend to submit a tender for the creation of Labor’s national broadband network election commitment. The government has promised to connect 98 per cent of the Australian population to high-speed broadband internet services by the rollout of a new national fibre-to-the-node network. Despite the lack of detail surrounding the government’s proposal, the only certainty is that Labor is willing to spend $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on a broadband plan but has no idea what the money will buy.

This bill recognises that considerable fibre based broadband infrastructure already exists and that any plan to extend the fibre based network is more likely to involve adding additional segments to the current network—a matter that appears to be lost on the minister. For bidders to be able to submit credible tenders, a level of disclosure about what currently exists is required, particularly regarding existing Telstra assets. This requirement has been pressed by non-Telstra proponents, including the G9 consortium. NBN tenders require technical information about certain aspects of the existing fixed network in order to develop and cost their bids, which are due by 25 July.

This bill would insert a new part 27A into the act. Part 27A would set out a scheme for the provision of information as specified by the minister in a disallowable instrument and for protection of the information is provided by carriers. The bill itself says very little about the secure provision of information, only to pave the way for yet-to-be-outlined instruments which basically give the minister the scope to demand sensitive information from telecommunications carriers about their existing network infrastructure—and literally on a whim. Neither does the bill provide any detail or clarity as to how confidential information will be protected from misuse long term after the bid process.

The minister made an earlier threat that, if telcos did not provide information about existing network infrastructure, he would legislate to make them. Despite a willingness by companies to provide information on a voluntary basis with appropriate safeguards in place—which could have been negotiated—the minister quickly pressed forward to deliver on this legislative threat. The minister’s willingness to intervene in the telco sector at the first hint of noncompliance is a worrying sign from a new and inexperienced government, as a key factor for bidders is the future regulatory framework. This exercise could very well be more about the government desperately trying to get hold of information in a belated bid to educate itself about the real status of broadband in this country.

Despite Labor’s negative and disingenuous campaign to talk down existing broadband services, they were well aware that things were nowhere near as bleak as portrayed by them. In a recent report from Commsday, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation—a respected bipartisan US think tank— ranked Australia an extremely credible 12th out of 30 OECD countries in relation to broadband. The report looked at issues such as average download speeds, prices and access. Australia is ranked ahead of the UK, the US, Germany and Italy. It also found that government policy intervention had very little impact on rankings. I am sure the minister would be highly unlikely to attack anything that the Commsday report handed down in relation to these matters.

The demand for telecommunications carriers to detail all of their existing infrastructure and private investment highlights how competition and market forces are driving significant fibre deployment and the rollout of higher speed broadband networks. Last week Telstra, which holds the vast majority of existing fixed-line broadband information, handed over to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy material relating to the network, including details about existing exchanges, pillars and distances through ducts et cetera—material which would assist proponents in costing and developing their bids.

Telstra has long proposed the use of a confidentiality deed, which it believes would protect its interests and the information exchange process. The use of such deeds is quite common in the sharing of sensitive corporate information but, for some unknown reason, the minister has been unwilling to go down this path—despite Telstra’s voluntary compliance. Instead, the minister is happy to set an unrealistic bid deadline, fully aware that potential bidders are yet to have access to crucial information to assist them to develop their proposals. It seems the minister is deliberately trying to make this as complicated and time consuming as possible, so that he will have someone else to blame when he does not meet his ridiculous, self-imposed project deadlines. All Australians should be concerned about a government that rushes to spend $4.7 billion worth of taxpayer funds. In a letter to telcos, Senator Conroy claimed that this legislation would provide strong safeguards to protect confidentiality and allow national security and other concerns raised by some carriers to ‘be addressed if necessary’. These concerns are not explained in the bill.

The opposition has made it clear from the outset that it has no intention of unduly delaying the government in relation to developing its vague national broadband proposal but will not sit silently as the government embarks down a deeply flawed path that is potentially at odds with the national interest. If the government cannot get its act together and turn its broadband sound bytes into substantive and credible public policy, it has nobody to blame but itself. The opposition is committed to assisting the government in making its shambolic NBN process workable and will do so by moving some important amendments. The bill as it stands raises more questions than it answers.

Disturbingly, the government is doing all it can to obstruct the opposition from fully examining this bill in its bid to ensure that it is enhanced. As referred to by Senator Birmingham, the government has used its numbers on the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts to water down the inquiry into this bill. As a result of government imposed gag provisions in the NBN, national broadband network, request for proposals, those companies who are considering submitting a bid have been reluctant to make submissions to the inquiry. It is understood that companies and other industry experts would nevertheless be willing to provide evidence if called to do so, but this move was blocked by the government’s numbers on the committee. So much for transparency in government and, quite frankly, so much for openness in government!

The opposition is committed to doing all it can to ensure that this bill is a clear and detailed piece of legislation that assists with the exchange of existing broadband infrastructure information but at the same time provides adequate safeguards in relation to how this information is used. The first priority is to progress the voluntary provision of this information, with the government including a deed that provides the necessary protections. If this can be achieved, the legislation could exclude from the ministerial instrument power under clause 55(3)(1)(c) those carriers who have complied with a voluntary request. This would encourage and reward voluntary provision, which would in turn facilitate a timely NBN process.

Those who voluntarily provide the requested information should receive the statutory protections in the legislation. Encouraging voluntary provision of information with the appropriate confidentiality and security safeguards, including a legally binding deed between the government and the provider, would be preferable. This way the information is more likely to be provided on a timely basis and therefore not delay the NBN tender. The government’s argument that legislation is required to rope in any carriers who are not willing to provide the information voluntarily and to provide certainty in terms of the confidentiality and security requirements is undermined by the complete lack of specificity in the bill and detail about intended instruments.

The opposition has previously highlighted how the provision of information revealing the actual locality of critical telecommunications infrastructure has very significant law enforcement, national security and commercial consequences. A number of other possible enhancements to the legislation, which would largely reflect normal confidentiality agreements, would be those concerned with limiting the scope of information requests, the use of material provided, redress where inappropriate disclosure causes harm and the way in which material disclosed is handled by recipients. Labor argues that these considerations will be addressed in the yet-to-be-disclosed instruments. We argue that these concerns are central to the purpose of the bill and are too important to be left to future subordinate regulation. I have already stated that the opposition have made it clear from the outset that we have no intention of unduly delaying the government in developing its national broadband proposal, but we will be moving amendments to make the legislation workable.

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

Do you want to circulate them?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have been circulated. Minister, you had an opportunity to address, with common sense, this proposal and to bring forward what I acknowledge was a pre-election proposal. But, by failing to have adequate consultation, by debasing the committee process, which Senator Birmingham has referred to, we are effectively frightening off those who might have made a constructive contribution to this matter. We are excluding those who should form part of it. In my view, Minister, you have made this a political process as opposed to what you described as a nation-building process. Why would you exclude Infrastructure Australia from a process that you say is a nation-building process? Why would you do that? Why would you remove the ACCC from that process? Why would you remove the Productivity Commission from that nation-building process? I will tell you the one reason why you are doing it. It is because you have foolishly made this a political process. You have foolishly made this a political outcome and not what you would describe as a nation-building outcome. At least, with our amendments, we are giving you the opportunity to make this thing work—to get from you what you would have got had you bothered to consult properly.

Did you bother to consult in relation to the amendments that you apparently intend moving, Minister? You did not consult. You have refused to consult. You have abused the committee process. As you well know from your discussions with the shadow minister, we came to this process with the offer of support. We came to this process saying to you, ‘If you want to make it work, we’ll assist you to make it work.’ We came to you and said, ‘You used that committee process to obtain information from carriers and others and we will assist you in meeting this ridiculous deadline that either you have set for yourself politically or your leader has set for you—your December 2008 deadline.’ You put the deadline in place for delivery and then you had to come back and put in place a time frame—an unworkable time frame—to meet a so-called political imperative.

Quite frankly, Minister, if you are serious about nation building, if you are serious about delivering this sort of infrastructure, why don’t you stop playing politics with this process and start engaging with those who are able to assist you in delivering on this deadline? It is virtually an unworkable deadline, but the opposition members on that committee were happy to facilitate the process. The speech by Senator Birmingham indicated to you quite clearly that we were prepared to assist you in this process. Mr Billson, from the other place, has made it quite clear that he was prepared to assist you in this process. But you refused to consult. You refused to bring in those who could have assisted you. You have refused to bring in the ACCC, Infrastructure Australia and the Productivity Commission to make this ridiculous time frame, which you have imposed for political reasons, workable. We are prepared to assist you to do that. We have some sensible amendments—

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

Where are they?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which have been circulated. They are sensible amendments which you could take up now; they would add some meat to this legislation. Apparently, you had amendments yesterday afternoon. Did you have the courtesy, Minister, to let the shadow minister know about those amendments? Did you bother to pick up the phone and say, ‘Here are the amendments’? Did you bother to include Mr Billson in this process to make it better? Why didn’t you pick up the phone, Minister, and tell him that you had some amendments and then have some discussion with him? Why don’t you make everyone part of this process to make it work? If you were serious about helping those who will benefit from this sort of infrastructure, wouldn’t you want the best outcome? And wouldn’t the best outcome be to use the Senate committee system? Wouldn’t the best outcome be to use an opposition that have quite clearly said to you, ‘We are prepared to facilitate this process’? Wouldn’t you do that?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn’t they do it?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The very question is, as Senator Barnett said: ‘Why didn’t they do it?’ The reason they did not do it is that this is a political process, not an infrastructure development process. That is the question that you must answer. We have offered you the opportunity to make this workable. We gave you a very large olive branch, the sort of olive branch that you are not prepared to extend to us when we are in government. We actually believe that infrastructure is important; you believe the politics are important, and you have played that game. I have circulated amendments standing in my name, which I will move at the committee stage.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to support my colleagues Senator Ronaldson and Senator Birmingham and the coalition’s position with respect to this Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008. Senator Ronaldson has made some very important points, and the key one is this: that politics has come before policy. Nowhere is this point more important than it is in Tasmania. I want to make the point that in Tasmania we are in dire need of a broadband solution. Currently, we have one wholesale provider to the state—Telstra—and we are being poorly served in this monopoly situation in Tasmania. Internet speeds in Tasmania are up to 20 times slower than on the mainland. How is that for fairness and equity across the country?

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

What have you done about it?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you have been making the clear point that there should be equal services across the country, including in rural and regional parts of Australia. Tasmania is missing out on that particular broadband guarantee. It is not happening: internet speeds are up to 20 times slower than on the mainland. It is cheaper to move information between Victoria and California than it is between Victoria and Tasmania. How about that? How absurd! How ridiculous! How unfortunate!

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

It is your fault!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want that fixed; we want that changed. As a result, I will be holding a summit in Tasmania of key stakeholders on the broadband issue. I am into solutions, Senator Conroy, and you know that. The coalition is into solutions; that is why these amendments have been circulated in the name of Senator Ronaldson. That summit will be held at a date to be agreed in the next few weeks. We will be seeking solutions from a range of the key stakeholders. I have had feedback over the last many weeks that it is getting worse, not better. I made that clear via videolink to 200-odd guests—a capacity crowd at the Launceston Casino—at a federal budget breakfast this morning which I organised with KPMG. Invited guests included the federal member for Bass, Jodie Campbell; Chris Bowen, the Assistant Treasurer; and the shadow Treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull. There will be a crisis meeting in the next few weeks, at a time to be agreed, to address this broadband issue.

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

You caused the crisis!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of people are very upset and concerned in Tasmania, and it is not just businesspeople. Senator Conroy, your representation, your involvement, would be most welcome. I can personally advise you that you are welcome to attend that meeting and make it very clear to Tasmanian stakeholders and businesspeople how you intend to find a solution. Tasmanians want to be treated like our city cousins on the mainland in Melbourne and Sydney. Labor’s proposal does not have a solution. I call not only on Senator Conroy but also on the federal Labor member for Bass and the Labor Party in Tasmania to explain to Tasmanians how they will upgrade the state’s woeful bandwidth capacity in a timely manner. The coalition government had a fully funded solution: the OPEL network, which would have been up and running by July 2009. The OPEL network was a partnership, as colleagues know, between Optus and Elders, and would have provided much-needed competition in the Tasmanian market.

The ALP, both in opposition and in government, publicly committed to honouring the contract between the Commonwealth and OPEL. However, on 2 April 2008—just last month—the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, who is opposite me here in the chamber and is listening carefully to these points that are being made, announced that he had cancelled the OPEL contract, claiming that OPEL had failed to meet the terms of the contract. Senator Conroy claimed at the time that the OPEL network would only cover 72 per cent of identified underserved premises—less than the 90 per cent minimum required by the contract. Let me make it clear that OPEL insists Senator Conroy’s decision was based on flawed departmental advice, which is why he must publicly release both OPEL coverage data and his department’s coverage analysis, for independent comparison and verification. Put it on the table—let us find out exactly where the facts lie.

The shadow minister has been referred to—Bruce Billson. He is doing a sterling job in standing up for what is right, for trying to get a solution not only in Tasmania but across the country. I commend the shadow minister, Bruce Billson, for his leadership and efforts to try and get a solution. It is interesting to note that he said that the OPEL project would have seen the installation of 1,361 WiMAX base stations in 97 electorates across Australia, as well as the installation of ADSL2+ equipment in 312 telephone exchanges and the rollout of 15,000 kilometres of fibre backhaul. He also said that Labor MPs across regional, rural and remote Australia, whose electorates were going to greatly benefit from the OPEL network, must explain why they supported its termination and how the government plans to deliver high-speed broadband services to them by the middle of 2009—despite not having an alternative plan. Well, where are we now? We are nearly in the middle of 2008.

In the Tasmanian seat of Bass alone, held by the federal member Jodie Campbell, there are an estimated 5,371 underserved premises. The electorate was set to receive nine new WiMAX base stations and OPEL ADSL2+ equipment in five telephone exchanges. Currently, the Tasmanian broadband market is monopolised by Telstra, as I indicated earlier. I am not saying that is any fault of Telstra—it is just the fact: they have the monopoly. The OPEL network promised to introduce competition. But, with OPEL being axed, and with the ‘solution’ that the federal ALP have put forward not due until 2012, the only timely hope for affordable and fast broadband in the state is for the Tasmanian government to finish negotiations with CitySpring, the owner of the Basslink fibre-optic cable. It is a disgrace that we have a second fibre-optic cable across the Bass Strait lying dormant—in fact, it has been dormant for nigh on five years now and has not yet been commercialised. Goodness gracious me! How are we running the state? How are we running the country under federal and state Labor? It is not good enough. People coming from a business background, or any sort of background, know that you cannot go sitting on these arrangements for five years. It has been five long years and they have not undertaken the appropriate negotiations! Of course people are frustrated and upset in Tasmania. The stakeholders are very angry, and no doubt they will continue to express their views until they get a solution. And I will be working with them, shoulder to shoulder with the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, to see if we can sort this out as soon as possible—and, indeed, with Will Hodgman, the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania. I know he is very keen that these matters be sorted out as soon as possible.

The Tasmanian taxpayers are paying $2 million a year to CitySpring—literally, it seems to me, in terms of broadband, for nothing. Nothing has happened! Could the Tasmanian Labor government please make it clear what their future intentions are and how they are going to solve this? They do not understand the true cost of our lack of broadband. It is not just about being able to stream YouTube videos or download games. It is about vital government services, especially in the areas of health and education. They can take advantage of high-bandwidth applications to improve services. This is about moving forward into the 21st century in the technology age that it is. And it is moving fast. The Tasmanian state government are sitting on their hands, and they have been for too long. It is not only businesses that are affected here. It is people in health, education, the community sector and across the board.

It is clear that at the moment businesses are paying a very real and high cost. In a media release, Digital Tasmania, a grassroots community action group, quoted a Tasmanian entrepreneur, Gary Price. The media release said:

Gary Price is an event producer who ran a successful small business in Sydney before moving to Tasmania nearly 10 years ago. He now operates The Grange Conference and Meeting Centre.

As many of you know, that is in Campbell Town, a wonderful little town with a can-do attitude in the northern midlands of Tasmania. The media release continues, quoting Gary Price:

“I own and run a brand new function centre in Campbell Town. Part of my original business plan for this new complex called for the provision of high speed internet and 2-way video conferencing.”

Mr Price was disappointed to discover that due to the high costs of connecting to Tasmania, his ISP could only deliver a lower speed ADSL1 connection.

“I still don’t have 2-way video conferencing but at least I can supply a basic internet connection into my conference rooms.”

He views high speed broadband as an essential element of his business.

“We will host close to 1000 meetings here in 2008. Most are Government and corporate clients. A high-speed internet connection into meeting rooms is now a standard part of corporate presentations.”

Mr Price fears that with ISPs now pulling out of providing high speed ADSL2+ in Tasmania his chances of being able to obtain 2-way video conferencing are even more remote.

Digital Tasmania said this in a media release on 5 May 2008—less than 10 days ago.

Along with Digital Tasmania, I would like the Tasmanian Labor Treasurer and the Tasmanian government to answer the following three questions: when will capacity be available on the Basslink fibre-optic cable for ISPs and other large commercial data users? When will capacity be available on the fibre-optic network laid with the gas pipeline for ISPs and other large commercial data users? What is the location of the points of presence that the Connect Tasmania Core provides? Those are some key questions. No doubt there are many other questions that the stakeholders want to put to the Tasmanian government and the federal Labor government. They want answers and they want them fast. We cannot keep waiting.

The ALP needs to explain to the people of Tasmania how it plans to provide decent broadband access to the state in a reasonable time frame. The OPEL proposal might not have been perfect but it promised to be running by mid next year, which is in stark contrast to the ALP’s proposed network, to be running by 2012. It also promised competition, with at least two wholesalers servicing our state. I understand there are two known tenders for the ALP’s fibre-to-the-node network. I assume that Telstra will be at least one of those likely to secure it, but that remains to be seen. I think it is a reasonably fair assumption. I stand to be corrected. But it will not break the monopoly situation. It will give Telstra little incentive, in my view, to improve the Tasmanian situation before the more lucrative mainland capital cities and will see Tasmania continue to be a broadband backwater. I stand to be corrected, and perhaps Telstra can make it clear to me and the other stakeholders that that is not the case. I know they try hard and they make an effort. I commend Noel Hunt in Tasmania and Michael Patterson, who does an excellent job in Northern Tasmania representing Telstra Country Wide. They put in a big effort. They work hard. I commend them for what they do. But it is a big concern for stakeholders in Tasmania. We cannot afford another five years of Labor inaction on this matter.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join this debate because I have some concerns about the broadband future in Australia. I make this contribution because the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008 is certainly required. The importance of the bill cannot be underestimated in the quest to deliver Australia-wide the most efficient and best value for money national broadband network for the taxpayers’ dollar.

The bill does not argue how the money should be raised to build a national broadband network. It does not argue about how the technology should be delivered. Instead this bill legislates for carriers to provide information so that other bidders can put forward a competitive bid, taking into consideration the assets that are to be used. The bill recognises that considerable fibre based broadband infrastructure already exists and that any plan to extend the fibre based network is more likely to involve adding additional segments to the current network.

For bidders to be able to submit tenders that are credible, a level of disclosure about the assets that currently exist is required. This requirement has been pressed by non-Telstra proponents, including the G9 consortium. I do not know why Senator Conroy, who is so very close to Telstra, did not tell them to get off their backsides and deliver the information that the G9 component of the bid wanted. I think it is a sad day in Australia when an important piece of telecommunications infrastructure such as a national broadband network, with only two months until bids close, has to have such a piece of legislation debated to stop the schoolyard nondisclosure of information about the status and assets of our own telecommunications system.

It is a sad day too when, despite the lack of detail surrounding the government’s proposal, the only certainty is that Labor is willing to spend $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on a broadband plan but has no idea what the money is going to buy. And $2 billion of that $4.7 billion was knocked out of the Future Fund that was there to guarantee any future developments or increases in technology to rural and regional Australia, where the market would not work because of lack of people. The National Party fought very hard for that $2 billion. In fact, it was part of our agreement to support the sale of Telstra that the $2 billion be allocated to guarantee that rural Australians were not left behind, as they were when we came into government 12 years ago.

When we came into government 12 years ago we had a steam driven telecommunications system in rural Australia. In fact, one of the ironies of it was that a station could talk to the cottage next door, 50 yards away, and it was a long-distance call. I do not ever want to see that happen again. In our 12 years in government we remedied so many of the failures of the telecommunications system. To guarantee it would never happen again, we put $2 billion into a telecommunications Future Fund, which this government could not keep its hands off and has raided. But that is a matter for another debate.

As my colleagues have commented, the government are rushing into a major policy blunder with anti-competitive consequences in order to fill an election program. If they do not get this tender process for the national broadband network right then we are going to be in serious trouble. I am concerned that this legislation, even if it is rushed through with the greatest of efficiency, will only give the competitors two months to gain the information required to put forward a reasonable bid on such a major communications infrastructure project as this. Surely this bidding process is important enough that, if this legislation goes through, an extension of time should be provided. There has to be an extension of time. I call on the minister, Senator Conroy, who seems to have slipped his mooring and is out of the chamber at the moment, if he is serious about this, to provide that.

You do not just go and buy a network off the shelf. It has to be designed. It has to be structured. The minimum it will cost is $4.7 billion. It will probably go to $11 billion when the telcos put in their money. Let us say it is $8 billion. You cannot just design and put forward a tender to the government in two months, and you certainly cannot do it if you do not have the information. If the minister is serious about competition and serious about having a network with competition in it, then he has to realise his first port of call should be to one of the engineers in his department. He should ask him: ‘What is a reasonable time to design a network right across Australia that will deliver broadband to 98 per cent of the people?’ If his highly qualified engineer is right, honest, and prepared to give strong advice then I am sure that he would say, ‘Minister, I don’t think two months is time enough to deliver such an intricate piece of infrastructure.’

So we have $4.7 billion of infrastructure and two months to put forward a bid that will cover the whole of Australia. The documents say the winning tender will have to build a national broadband network providing 98 per cent of premises with speeds of 12 megabits a second. Fibre-to-the-node or fibre-to-the-premises technologies are specified, along with open-access arrangements that allow all service providers access to the network on equivalent terms.

I read an editorial in the Financial Review of 22 April which I agree with. It said that it all sounds very procompetitive but, as the article points out, the reality is that Telstra starts with a huge advantage. The first advantage is a technical advantage, because, if a fibre-to-the-node network is to be built, the builder of the network will have to interconnect with Telstra’s copper network at about 20,000 local nodes. Telstra owns the copper network and has the commercial information on where the nodes are, the age of the nodes and their condition. National broadband network tenderers require technical information about certain aspects of the existing fixed network in order to develop and cost their bids, which are due by 25 July. It is now 14 May and we have about two months to go.

This amendment bill sets out a scheme for the provision of information specified by the minister in a disallowable instrument and for the protection of the information that is provided by the carriers. But the bill itself says very little, only enough to pave the way for the yet to be outlined instruments, which basically gives the minister the scope to demand, on a whim, sensitive information from Telstra about their existing network and their infrastructure. I have seen several examples in the past of telcos being forced to provide information, and I must say that, if a telco has the choice of providing the information in an easy-to-read way or in a hard-to-read way, they will invariably go for the hard way. I have seen examples of rooms full of useless information being provided with the important and relevant documents intermingled amongst them, where it takes months and months to sift out what you are looking for.

To ensure that competitors are allowed an opportunity to provide a credible bid, it is important, firstly, that the information is made available, but it is also important that the nature of the information made available is both on time and relevant. The bill does not provide any detail or clarity as to how confidential information will be protected from misuse. The minister has previously threatened that, if telcos did not provide information about existing network infrastructure, he would legislate to make them. Now we have the legislation in front of us, so obviously the minister has failed at the first hurdle. Telstra have thumbed their nose at him, so he has done the thing that he is required to do: bring forward this legislation. This must be the first straw in the wind that there is an element of noncompliance from telcos, and these are very worrying signs as to how negotiations are progressing with the bidding war. Telstra are not going to make it any easier for G9 to have any advantage, even a fair advantage—and we have seen this happen time and time again. They will play this out in the courts; they will play it out any way they can to extend the time and to block and obfuscate any information that has to be delivered. The coalition is going to support this bill, but it is going to put forward some very good amendments that will take up some of the issues I have enunciated in my speech.

We want to see a competitive bidding process to ensure that taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar. We are concerned that, due to the rushed nature of the government’s process, they will not get the best quality bids available. I say again: to put forward a bid of around $8 billion, $9 billion, $10 billion or $11 billion in two months is impossible. I have had to do bids for government from time to time on paintbrushes, garbage bins and very minor things like that. Of course, they are not complicated, but it takes two or three weeks to even put in a bid for something very simple, yet here we are with the most complex bid on the most complex piece of infrastructure ever to be introduced in Australia and the minister has said that you can do it in two months. It is impossible. We have to question your motive, Minister. Are you making sure that your mates in Telstra are going to get this bid? Are you being fair dinkum? I say that because you were very, very close to Telstra in the last election—in fact, it was almost on your campaign team. I want to know whether the two months you are allowing for this bid is just some sort of window-dressing to say: ‘I tried and the G9 couldn’t put in a competitive bid because I didn’t give them time. But I tried. I was tough; I even threatened Telstra and I even moved legislation. That would bring them into line.’ If you are fair dinkum you know that you cannot do this in two months. You cannot do it. You know that. Anyone in your department—and I presume you have some very highly qualified engineers there—will tell you that you cannot do it. It is just impossible to do it.

I say to you, Minister: you are playing with a lot of money. You are playing with $2 billion worth of money that you stole from regional Australia. You took it; you raided our Future Fund.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You took $2 billion. If the legislation goes through, and I hope it does not—you took $2 billion away from rural and regional Australia to transfer it to providing infrastructure for the cities.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell, please continue.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the protection, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The Acting Deputy President:

I have to call Senator Sterle into line sometimes!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have said that we would like to see a competitive contract, and we do not think we are getting one. This is potentially one of the largest tenders in Australia’s history, and the concern is that for a highly technical, high-cost bid there seems to be very little time for competitors to gain the information required to put in a bid. It is also important that the national broadband network has the environment in place where competition will flourish once it is established. I want you to listen to this, Minister, because this is important: we certainly do not want to see another CDMA network situation, where everyone had open access to the network until Telstra twisted your arm and you shut it down. In this case it is the copper wire network, and it creates a Telstra monopoly. We do not want to see a monopoly; we want to see open access. In the case of CDMA, which was open access, when it was transferred to G3 everyone got shut out, including Australia’s most remote rural dwellers.

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

You are amazing!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was amazing—the phones of 13,000 people, including Aboriginal communities and flying doctors who had phones that worked on the CDMA, were made redundant; the most remote Australians you disadvantaged.

The whole point of a deregulated telecommunications industry was to encourage competition, whether that be through bidding for major projects or the competitive retailing of products. The rushed nature of this process does not hold us in good stead when it comes to competitive bidding for the national broadband network. We in the coalition are committed to doing all we can to ensure this bill is a clear and detailed piece of legislation that assists with the exchange of existing broadband infrastructure information but, at the same time, provides adequate safeguards in relation to how this information is used and that there be competition. I am terrified that what happened to CDMA will happen if this is not a strong bid. OPEL, which spent millions of dollars, got wiped out by your say-so.

This is probably the first time in the history of Australia—it might happen in Nigeria or Zimbabwe—where an incoming government is not honouring the commitments of the previous government. The G9 consortium were asked to go and whistle in the wind for all the money that they spent on putting a bid together. That sort of thing discourages anyone putting in a bid. These bids are expensive; they cost huge amounts of money. On a whim you just wiped the last one out, and that has never been heard of in the history of Australia. I suppose it is the new way the government are going to work, because they have done the same thing with the Regional Partnerships project.

I got diverted. We want broadband that works. We want broadband that will deliver to 98 per cent of the people. You say you can deliver it; I say you cannot do it in two months. The challenge is yours, and I hope that you will forget your politics, forget your commitments to Telstra because they assisted you in the last election and play the game straight down the line.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the national broadband network and information for the tender. To put it in perspective for Australians: this is as significant as the building of the Snowy. This is significant, just as it was to send a man to the moon. This network for Australia is something that we are going to live with for 20, 30 or 40 years. It is like the old telephone system that we have got by on until now. This is a huge piece of public infrastructure—$4.7 billion is being set aside for it. It is of national importance. It is important for this country and it is a decision that should not be rushed.

I have sat in this place for the last couple of years hearing how bad the coalition was at rushing things through, and guess what? It was bad. Now, at the first turn, we are potentially going to see a rushing through of a tender of $4.7 billion of government money that is a significant project—as I said, as significant as the Snowy was for Australia. This is a significant project, and I am concerned that the tender process may not be making sure that everybody who wants to bid has a fair go. Australia is a country where we need to make sure that we protect the notion of a fair go, especially with such a nation-building project as the national broadband network.

It is interesting to hear Senator Boswell from the Nationals starting to whinge and complain. I never heard those same whinges when the coalition rushed things through in the last couple of years. The fact is: the Nationals sold out the bush when they sold Telstra, so to have them complaining today about rushing things through and talking about looking after and protecting ordinary Australians in rural and regional areas is outrageous.

I appeal to the government to extend the tender. I am looking for an extension of time for the tender to make sure that anyone who wants to tender for the national broadband network has the necessary information to put a fair dinkum tender in, because this project is too important to be rushed. It is too important not to make sure that people have enough information to put in a fair dinkum bid. I will also be looking at the regulatory areas to make sure that consumers, ordinary Australians, are not going to be ripped off down the line because the national broadband network is a monopoly network. There is no use building two of them, so obviously it has to be a monopoly—it would be a waste of money building two of them. Given that it will be a major piece of infrastructure—it is the backbone; it is huge and everybody will to have use it—we need to make sure we have got the right regulatory conditions around it with the ACCC looking at the pricing, and we will be looking at that as we move forward.

I want to place on the table today that Family First wants an extension to the tender process to make sure that, once people have got this information, they can put in a fair dinkum bid to make sure that we get the best price infrastructure and the best infrastructure for this nation for the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate condemns:

(a)   the Government’s disorganised and unprofessional fibre to the node process overseen by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy), where interested parties are keen to proceed but are impeded by the Government’s lack of sound public policy; self-imposed ridiculous timeframes; absence of regulatory, access, pricing, competition and network architectural guidance; inability to articulate governance, structural and public expenditure requirements; and failure to understand the proper and durable role of the private and public sector in the provision of key infrastructure;

(b)   the sidelining of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia from what is increasingly appearing to be a purely political process;

(c)   the Government’s failure to acknowledge the existence of significant fibre-based broadband infrastructure assets;

(d)   the Government’s failure to provide detail about the operative ‘instruments’;

(e)   the Government’s exposure to risk of information ‘seekers’ and ‘respondents’ about the lack of specific information about key safeguards, assurance and requirements;

(f)   the unprecedented and heavy-handed intervention despite a willingness of telcos to cooperate and existing ACCC and commercial information gathering and sharing processes;

(g)   the multiple breaches of the Commonwealth’s own procurement requirements, the Auditor-General’s August 2007 Better Practice Guide Fairness and Transparency in Purchasing Decisions – Probity in Australian Government Procurement and the sound principles of fairness, transparency, probity and value for money; and

(h)   the lack of a consumer advocate and ‘last mile’ expertise on the Minister’s experts panel”.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008 provides for specified information to be provided by the telecommunications carriers to the Commonwealth so that it can be disclosed to companies considering bidding for the national broadband network, which is worth, as we all know, $4.7 billion in public funds. The Democrats are broadly supportive of the government’s proposal to roll out a high-speed fibre based broadband network over the next five years. It is certainly better than the Howard government’s proposal. But there are question marks over how this will work in delivering a competitive and cooperative telecommunications environment. Telstra, as we all know, has done its level best for many years now to thwart competition—in fact, certainly well before it was even privatised—and to resist regulation. If the government does not get this right, the country could be captive to monopolistic behaviour in an ongoing sense.

The history of telecommunications has been anything but cooperative and competitive. The mexican stand-off over the last 12 years between the last government and Telstra effectively delayed progress on high-speed broadband for at least two years. There has been enormous growth in the Australian market for broadband. Three and a half million or so households now use broadband and 80 per cent of businesses are connected. However, the price for high-speed broadband—that is, two megabits plus per second—is still too high to produce more rapid uptake of these services. Less than 25 per cent of Australians have connection speeds that are greater than one megabit per second. That of course compares very poorly with Europe, where most people are on services faster than three megabits per second—12 times faster than what most Australian users have access to.

Affordability is a more important factor than speed in the success or otherwise of broadband. According to Budde Communication, uptakes of between 60 and 80 per cent can only be reached with access prices of around $40 a month. Proposals that have been mooted so far have been much higher than that. So we do accept the need for government intervention and investment, and indeed this is what the Australian Democrats have been calling for for many years. We need fast internet access and email to provide e-health, tele-education, smart meters and the like, which have enormous scope for cost efficiency and better service delivery in this country. This investment in broadband should return to this country in terms of productivity.

But the government does need to get the policy right and make sure that this money is not wasted. As has already been said here, we are talking about an enormous amount of money—one of the biggest investment platforms in many, many years. We are supportive of course of the provisions of the bill. Competitive bids will be crucial to getting the best out of this $4½ billion and will depend on players other than Telstra getting access to the necessary information for full fibre-to-the-node network architecture.

I am pleased to say the government has taken on board at least some of the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, but I need to point out that it did not bother to distribute its amendments to us. So I will be looking forward to the minister’s explanation for them. I thank the opposition for briefing us on its amendments. So far I see no reason to not support them, but, as always, I will be listening to the debate.

The government’s panel of experts does not seem to me to be expert enough or broad enough for an exercise of this scale and importance. As always, there needs to be a strong focus on accountability with so much money involved.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an unfortunate day when we start moving towards the removal of the $2 billion that was set aside to look after regional Australia. That was something that we fought hard for, something the National Party fought tenaciously for over a long period of time. It was something that went backwards and forwards to Queensland. It was something that we initially said we would never support until we got what we were looking for. After an immense amount of negotiations we did get that—we got the $2 billion trust fund. But people should understand that the interest from that fund was to go towards the delivery of better telecommunications outcomes for regional Australia. I think about $480 million this year would have been available for the delivery of new mobile phone towers, new optic fibre and a whole range of different outcomes.

But that money has been taken away from regional Australia. That money has been stripped away from those on the margins and replaced by this ridiculous proposal by Labor. They are going to give a toolbox for the 21st century and computer access for every school—as long as they have broadband, and some regional areas do not have that. We are trying to get this program out to them, but they are taking away the mechanism for the actual delivery of the funds to do that. And to do what? It will become part of a bigger corpus of funds that, ultimately, will just supply broadband back to major metropolitan centres.

There is a very indeterminate time frame on what Labor are intending to do in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008. It is another one of their promises into the never-never. Despite what Senator Fielding from the one-member Family First Party said, far from selling out the bush, the National Party fought tooth and nail for the bush over a long period of time. What we will see here—and it should go on the record—is the delivery of a Labor Party outcome which will deliver nothing for regional Australia. In the process, they managed a peculiar type of arrangement where they have started sidestepping the ACCC and have cuddled up extremely closely to Telstra. In fact, I would have to say that the riding instructions almost seem to be coming directly from Telstra to the minister. This an arrangement par excellence as the minister is basically at their beck and call. He has sold his soul and now he is getting his policy from what will be a monopoly in the marketplace—that is, Telstra.

We all know what happens when you end up in a place where the market is dominated by a monopoly—that is, a very bad outcome for all consumers. This will be an especially bad outcome for regional consumers. In promoting the OPEL platform, which the Labor Party has gotten rid of, we were trying to promote a greater sense of dynamism and competition and a greater diversity in the marketplace so that people were treated fairly. But that has also been removed. So the Labor Party has not only defrauded regional Australia by taking away regional Australia’s $2 billion trust fund that was to give regional Australia a better outcome but also delivered a monopoly back to regional Australia. It is a monopoly which we can do very little about in the future because we do not have the powers in the Trade Practices Act to properly deal with it. The minister has also conformed to Telstra’s requests, especially on access regimes. It is a peculiar outcome that the minister has been unable to stand up and deal with a proper delivery of competition by finalising the access complaints that have been outstanding from the other competitors in the telecommunications market.

Where is this actually going to lead us? History will show that it was the National Party that went in to bargain for a better outcome for regional Australia—whether it was for a network reliability framework, the customer service guarantee, the universal service obligation, the $2 billion trust fund or the returns that were going to be deemed at the 30-day bank bill rate, which would have delivered about $480 million this year. To completely contradict what Senator Fielding said, the form of that was lifted from the National Heritage Trust of Australia Act. He really does not have any idea of the complexities and years of negotiations that went into this legislation and the outcomes that were delivered on behalf of regional Australia. At the end of the day, regional Australians were very happy with the fact that we had gone in to bat for them.

They knew that the National Party had to go into bat for them because they knew that the former Minister for Finance, Kim Beazley, had already said in 1985 that he was going to sell Telstra. We know that the current Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, said in October 2005 that the ownership of Telstra was not the issue. We also know that the Labor Party still has the power right now to take the shares that are currently by default still in public ownership and quarantine them, but it chooses not to. We know that the Labor Party, if it truly believed in the public ownership of the asset, has the capacity to buy it back if it wishes. But it does not. This clearly shows to the Australian people that the Labor Party was always going to sell Telstra. It started the ball rolling. What we in the National Party had to do was deal with the cards that were before us. The Labor Party was always going to sell Telstra. We knew that our coalition partners had as a policy structure the desire to sell Telstra, so we had to make do with the cards that were before us. With those cards that were before us we tried to deliver the best outcome that we possibly could. We really did have in mind the people of regional Australia when we did it.

Today, what is going to happen is that that outcome, that sense of keeping regional Australia connected to broadband and to a comparable position in telecommunications, is going to be stripped away. They are going to be left with yet another example of how the Labor Party just goes to the most marginalised and, from those who have the least, takes what they have off them. It is just like the removal of the Regional Partnerships program. This is the type of attitude that we are going to get from the Labor Party. This is the new Labor that we have now—the desertion of pensioners, the removal of the Regional Partnerships program, the isolation of regional Australia by the removal of a communications program that was there to assist and leave a body of money so that we could deal with these particular interests.

Is the minister going to leave an open line to the people out in Beulah, Longreach, Isisford or Tamworth? When things go wrong, are they going to call you up and are you going to look after them? Are you going to look after them like you did with the switch off of the CDMA network, where you just rolled over because you got the call from the policy gurus at Telstra who said, ‘You’re beholden to us’? That is the sort of delivery we are going to get from the minister from now on. That is the sort of corporate government for monopolies outside this building which will determine the agenda of the minister that we have here at the moment. That is going to be a very sad and peculiar outcome. The switch off of the CDMA network was amazing. That really showed regional Australia where this minister is and where his heart lies. One minute he wakes up and says, ‘The CDMA network is not up to scratch; therefore, you have to keep it so that Telstra complies with their agreement that they would keep the CDMA network open till there was an equivalent or better service from Next G.’ Then, out of the blue and without providing any empirical evidence, he decides that everything is fine now and he is going to switch it off. Where did the evidence come from? I suggest that it came out of Telstra’s head office. That is where that evidence came from—like every other part of this policy delivery that has now infected the Labor Party on telecommunications.

So we are about to lose the $2 billion that we set aside for investment in bringing a sense of fairness and equivalence to the people of regional Australia. It is about to go. This will be snuck through here today. It is going to go because the Labor Party are going to reinvest back into the areas where the service already exists, where the market could have provided the service. Who is going to be left out? The people they always leave out, the people of regional Australia. I hope the message goes loud and clear to the people in some of those new regional seats they hold, such as the seat of Flynn, that this is the sort of service you are going to get from a Labor Party government. This is what you got when you voted for them. Maybe some of those 250 or so people who were the difference in the vote in Flynn are starting to wonder whether, if they had voted in a different direction, they could have protected some of the services that they had.

Maybe the people in the seat of Leichhardt are going to start to scratch their heads and wonder why they delivered to Canberra a Labor government that is now deserting them. Maybe some of the people in some of the other regional seats are going to start to wonder why they gave a vote to a Labor Party senator. These are the sorts of questions that are clearly delivered in black-and-white form when the Labor Party—as it is doing right now, as it is going to do today—deserts regional Australia by the desertion of a fund that was specifically set up not to give a sense of largesse but to attempt to deliver some approximate sense of equality to all Australians. That is what you have got to be now: a government for all Australians, not just a government for those who are not pensioners and those who live in metropolitan cities but a government for all. This is a clear sign that the new Labor Party is really just a party for the middle class and the metropolitan cities.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Wortley’s speech.

Leave granted.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008.

I do so because the Rudd Labor Government is serious about broadband serious about its commitment to deliver high-quality, accessible and affordable broadband to Australians from across our land whether city-dwellers or regional, rural or remote residents.

This legislation is the foundation on which a new, top-quality, accessible, national broadband network can be built.

We are serious about making up lost ground on broadband just as we are serious about addressing the mess left by more than 11 years of neglect when it comes to a range of infrastructure. The widespread availability of high-speed broadband has many benefits for Australian families and businesses.

Indeed, fast, reliable broadband is essential for our society: for families, for education, for medicine and health, for small business, and for the economy.

We have been left the same legacy of neglect in the areas of climate change and water foreign aid reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians the list goes on.

Our nation has suffered because of the Howard years when it comes to housing affordability when it comes to job security and workers’ rights and when it comes to humane treatment of refugees.

There are many more areas I could mention.

However, my words are not about doom and gloom. Rather, the dark days the politics of self-interest and greed are behind us.

Now, with a new government one ready to look forward and strive for better, brighter times for everyone rather than a privileged few we can make progress.

As this Government has shown since taking office last November—and in its first budget just this week—that it is serious about tackling the issues which matter most to Australians.

We are serious about getting the job done and we need to be there’s a lot of ground to make up.

This government has committed up to $4.7 billion for the new broadband network to reach 98% of Australians.

This Network, which will be built over five years from this year, will deliver a minimum of 12 megabits per second over fibre-to-the-node or fibre-to-the-premises structures.

It will support top-quality voice, data and video services and, at last, allow genuine competition in the telecommunications sector.

It is a big deal—rivalling the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme in terms of national significance—and requires a strong, sure and enduring commitment from the government.

That’s exactly what we’re making.

We’ve been criticised for introducing legislation enabling us to use the $2 billion Communications Fund for the network’s regional rollout.

But if, like the previous government, we were only using interest earned from the fund for this massive project, it would take 35 years to match our $4.7 billion broadband plan.

Indeed, the former government talked long and loud about broadband but did little.

When it did come up with plans, there were promises made these schemes would never have delivered.

Meanwhile, Australia dropped further and further behind the rest of the world—we were ranked only mid-range out of countries surveyed by the OECD.

Still, the coalition came up with proposal after proposal, none of which stood the tests of time and effectiveness.

The plan the former government finally decided to take to the Australian people at last year’s election—for broadband delivery through the OPEL consortium—has since been axed in the interests of regional Australia.

That move was based on the assessment of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, which showed OPEL networks would cover only 72% of under-served premises—falling well short of the 90% required under the consortium’s own contract.

In contrast, the Rudd Labor Government is backing rural and regional Australia.

We are showing our support to people without access to a metro-comparable broadband service and those living in so-called metropolitan “black spots” by pledging $270.7 million over four years to the safety net known as the Australian Broadband Guarantee.

The ABG will also give the 2% of Australians who are likely to miss out on coverage under the National Broadband Network access to better broadband services.

By backing the ABG until 2012—and making improvements to the program in response to industry and consumer feedback—this government is showing it is serious about leaving no-one behind when it comes to broadband.

The ABG runs parallel to the National Broadband Network, which will service 98% of Australians with their broadband needs.

This government has looked at the whole picture when it comes to Internet access and, in a further budget commitment, has announced a plan to create a safer on-line environment for children.

Aspects of this plan include overhauling the existing online safety website; developing a new web site specifically for children; providing education resources and a dedicated cyber-safety helpline; and expanding the terms of reference for the Cyber-Safety Consultative Working Group to include all aspects of cyber-safety.

However, tackling the complex area of cyber-safety is a little like putting the cart before the horse for those Australians who don’t even have decent access to broadband connections.

This Bill has been to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts of which I am a member for consideration.

Various stakeholders have made submissions on the Bill, the committee has made recommendations and amendments have been drawn up.

This legislation is another example of this government’s ambitious agenda its commitment to building a better, fairer, more knowledgeable Australia and its urgency to make up for lost time.

Like our ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the national apology and many initiatives already delivered or in the process of development, this Bill will usher in a new chapter for Australia.

It is a chapter in which we take our rightful place in the world, an equal, progressive, forward-looking partner with other nations, especially our near neighbours and allies.

Therefore I commend this Bill to the Senate.

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

I rise to conclude the debate. I want to thank all those who have made a contribution. I did have a quite lengthy response, going through some of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill 2008, but due to the time I will restrict my remarks to just responding to a number of individual queries.

Senator Birmingham, the new senator for Optus, ran all of the Optus-G9 lines about the process. Senator Ronaldson stood up and, surprisingly, ran all of the Telstra lines. There is only one problem: usually a party only has one position. You cannot actually have both. I invite you to have a conversation and decide which team you are barracking for, because you cannot actually barrack for both of them at the same time. It does look a little inconsistent. Senator Boswell became the senator for OPEL.

Senator Barnaby Joyce decided to join the debate, and I did enjoy his sterling defence of the Communications Fund. It was nothing to do with this bill, but it was a sterling defence of the fund that he himself, in public, described as a slush fund. If you want to talk about the Communications Fund, we look forward to that debate, because Senator Barnaby Joyce willingly, openly and gleefully described the Communications Fund as nothing more than a slush fund. The Liberal Party conceded it to him because they wanted his vote, but he folded on the sale of Telstra, so it was disappointing. After promising not to sell Telstra, Senator Joyce, you broke your word to the people of Queensland and you are now paying the consequence. But that is something for your conscience to live with.

Probably the most disappointing part for Senators Boswell and Joyce is that they did not have the courage to stand up to Senator Minchin and the Liberal Party over their proposal, their quite far-sighted proposal, in the Page foundation report, to build a fibre-to-the-node network—in fact a fibre-beyond-the-node network—in regional Australia. If only you had stuck to your guns, if only Senator Nash and Senator Joyce, who helped write that report, had stuck to their guns and stood up to the Liberal Party at the time, you might have had a telecommunications policy going into the last election to be proud of, not one about which Bruce Scott has said, ‘Thank goodness you got rid of OPEL.’ ‘Thank goodness’!—your own side is celebrating the fact that the OPEL contract did not go ahead. So the National Party did not have the courage to stand up to the former government. And the dinosaurs are slowly disappearing—you will not get a chance to vote for the National Party in the next election. There is some new conservative party you are working on. Senator Joyce, I am not sure whether you are going to be in the Lib-Nats, the Nat-Libs, the Conservatives or whatever.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’re probably Nibs.

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

Nibs.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. How does a discussion on internal party politics in Queensland have anything to do with the carriage of the legislation that the minister is attempting to provide some sort of peculiar excuse for?

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

It has been a very wide-ranging debate, beyond many measures to do with this bill, but I appreciate that Senator Joyce is particularly sensitive on this issue, so I will desist.

There was another point—nothing to do with the bill, but I thought I should respond to it—about CDMA raised by Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell. Senator Boswell suggested that we had rolled over. There is only one problem with the position that you keep taking on CDMA, and that is: you wrote the licence condition. If you wanted more things in the licence condition that I was legally required to enforce, you should have stood up to the Liberal Party and required the former minister to include them. You failed miserably. I enforced your licence conditions on CDMA.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Conroy, you should address your remarks through the chair.

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

I accept your admonishments.

The Acting Deputy President:

I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

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

In terms of the CDMA network, if the National Party senators who want to bleat about it now had had the courage maybe they would not be sliding into irrelevance—but I am ranging widely. I want to respond to one particular point from Senator Allison. I say quite genuinely, Senator Allison, that I appreciate your point as to concern about the panel of experts. I say quite genuinely to you that you are the only person in Australia to have raised that issue. This has been considered to be a panel of genuine telecommunications experts and genuine business experts in the telco sector. Throughout the sector I have received no other criticism as to the make-up of the panel. But I appreciate your contribution. As I said, I am very conscious that if we do not move to the committee stage shortly we are unlikely to be able to pass this bill, so I will finish my comments there and look forward to the committee stage.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.