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

I would like to thank all senators who have spoken today on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. Regrettably, many of the opposition's comments—those of Senator Birmingham, Senator Joyce, Senator Macdonald and Senator Bernardi, which at times was like listening to people baying at the moon—have focused on its opposition to the NBN.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Howl!

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

Exactly. I am not sure Hansard could pick up the baying from the other side just then, but they should have. Their comments have focused on their opposition to the NBN as a matter of policy, not the bill before us. In the interests of time I will not dwell on this but will focus on the bill. I think Senator Birmingham was the only one who even got close to speaking on the bill, so he does deserve some credit for at least attempting to pretend he is opposed to the bill.

The government does not agree that, in the absence of public sector investment, Australia will have the broadband infra­structure available to improve our productivity, global competitiveness and social wellbeing. This is demonstrated by the private sector's failure to provide this infrastructure even with the offer of govern­ment funding under the original NBN request for tender process. Many of the problems people have with broadband access relate to a copper network that is inadequate and failing, wireless that is inadequate to the demands being placed on it and fibre provision that is extremely limited and patchy at best.

Contrary to the calls of opposition senators, a cost-benefit analysis is not required. The project has already been subject to extensive examination, including the implementation study by McKinsey-KPMG and Greenhill Caliburn's review of NBN Co.'s corporate plan. The project is subject to extensive ongoing scrutiny including by the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, as Senator Ludlam noted. The government is committed to getting on with the project.

Senator Birmingham, what do you think the Productivity Commission could add that you could not? Personally, I think you are more than adequate to ask questions regularly of the NBN. You argue that your attempts are inferior to those of the Productivity Commission, but I am going to disagree with you and stand up for you on this point. It is in this context that I welcome Senator Ludlam's words of support for the NBN generally. He recognises the real potential of the NBN to advance Australia and prepare it for the digital economy of the future. Services on the NBN will be affordable. This is already being demon­strated by proposed pricing packages being launched by retail service providers. NBN Co.'s discussion paper on its proposed special access undertaking does not contradict this. NBN Co.'s SAU will set out NBN Co.'s regulatory undertakings for the supply of services to provide certainty and transparency, but it is not a forecast for actual prices. NBN Co. has also said it will be adhering to the pricing set out in its corporate plan.

Senator Joyce again raised the idea of 'unit pricing', as he calls it, and through it the government's commitment to uniform pricing. While this is not very relevant to the bill at hand, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to yet again reiterate the government's rock-solid commitment on uniform national wholesale pricing—something he will not get under his own plan, something he will not get under the plan of Malcolm Turnbull, something that Senator Joyce will not be able to deliver for regional and rural Australians if he votes for the plan of Mr Turnbull. This is required under the statement of expectations the government issued to NBN Co. last December. It is embedded in NBN Co.'s network design and operation.

NBN Co. will be able to use revenue from lower cost, higher value markets, such as metropolitan areas, to deliver equitable pricing outcomes for users in regional, rural and remote communities. As Senator Joyce knows, this is just what the Queensland Nationals demanded at their state conference in 2005 when they passed a resolution calling for uniform national wholesale pricing in:

… all new telecommunications and satellite Internet connections to ensure all Australians are charged the same basic price for maintenance and new connections.

Senator Humphries asked about aerial cabling. NBN Co.'s corporate plan assumes that the majority of cabling will be underground—some 75 per cent. This will be supported by definitive agreements between NBN Co. and Telstra. Where existing cabling is underground, and in new developments, cabling should remain underground. Any aerial cabling would be kept to a minimum and would be in areas where there is existing overhead infra­structure, such as powerlines. It is not, however, a cost-cutting measure. It is simply the most efficient and feasible solution in some limited situations. These principles would apply in the ACT as they would apply anywhere else. As Senator Humphries himself mentioned, there is already overhead cabling in parts of the ACT, often in backyards rather than in the street.

Coalition senators have queried the government's commitment to competition in the provision of new infrastructure in new developments. The government is open to competition and innovation in the provision of such infrastructure. Senator Macdonald read several quotes to this effect. However, the government has also consistently said that, if alternative providers want to compete with NBN Co., they are welcome to do so. But it is on the understanding that they have the resources and ability to do so.

Mention has been made of competing fibre providers. There are a small number of alternative providers—around 10 of them. They have some technical expertise and experience. Senator Humphries mentioned TransACT, which is one of the larger ones. But, as the opposition pointed out in its dissenting report on the bill, it is a nascent sector—that is, it is in its earliest stages. These are relatively small-scale operations. Generally they have targeted developments which have been the most commercially attractive. They have been able to pick and choose the developments which they service. Their own evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network indicates that they are not well placed to service Australia as a whole. Around 200,000 new premises are constructed each year. These providers do not have the scale to deal with this. It needs a national operation. Even if they could deal with this scale, to do so they would require extensive subsidies both for fibre and for backhaul. The reality is that they want to pick the lucrative markets while leaving the NBN Co. the hard ones and national coverage—or they want to be paid handsomely to do otherwise.

The government has established NBN Co. to provide high-speed broadband all across Australia for all Australians, charging uniform national wholesale prices, and the government is providing equity funding to deliver this outcome. This includes allowing NBN Co., in new developments where required, to spread its costs nationally and recover them over time. If other providers wish to compete with NBN Co., they are free to do so, but they are to do so on their own terms.

I turn now to the matter in hand. This bill will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to provide a legislative framework for the installation of fibre-ready telecom­munications infrastructure in new develop­ments. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that new developments are ready for fibre based technology. It is part of the govern­ment's strategy to build a superfast broadband network which will underpin our future productivity and competitiveness and meet our citizens' needs.

There is a new senator in the chamber tonight, Senator Madigan, and I welcome his participation and his listening in on this debate. It has been an extensive debate. I am sure you have seen much canvassed in it. But what I would really want to ensure you consider before you decide how to vote on this is that the NBN is being rolled out today. It is being rolled out very shortly in Bacchus Marsh, an area not far from where you originally came from in the good state of Victoria. Those are the fibre-to-the-home developments. We are also going to be rolling out, as you might have seen in a recent announcement from the government, the fixed wireless network. That will also go to regional areas around Ballarat. Among all the excitement of coming here, I am sure you have not had a chance to follow everything I have said—and congratulations and good sense there—but we have also started delivering the interim satellite, which covers all of Victoria, including areas in and around Ballarat. So the NBN Co. is delivering fibre, wireless and satellite to everybody across Australia. In its early stages, it is going to be in all three forms in and around Ballarat very soon.

The key thing to understand is that the uniform national price is enabled by charging more in metropolitan areas to cross-subsidise the bush. We are unashamed about this. We have said that we believe it is what should be done and that it will deliver equal opportunity for everybody, no matter whether they live in Ballarat or any of the areas around country and regional Victoria. Our opposition have said that they support vouchers. People in and around Ballarat, in and around regional Victoria—Mr Turnbull's plan is to give them a voucher. He has recently stated publicly that he does not believe in cross-subsidies. He does not believe that metropolitan areas should pay more to subsidise people in regional and rural Australia. Here is your opportunity today, on behalf of regional and rural Victorians, to let Malcolm Turnbull know exactly what you think. Should regional and rural Victorians be, as Mr Turnbull wants, receiving a voucher for telecommunication services or should they get a cross-subsidised price equal to what people in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane pay? Those are the very simple economics of the NBN.

Very shortly, you will see some amendments being moved which are all about destroying the economics of the NBN—cherry-pick, pick the rich areas, go to the wealthy areas, destroy the economics of the NBN and the NBN will fall over. That is what is being proposed—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: the minister—

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

Are you feeling unloved because I have not mentioned you yet, Senator Xenophon?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can do without Senator Conroy's love any day. If I do this, I am picked up on it. The minister is referring to Senator Madigan personally. Any references should be through the chair. That is my understanding and that is my point of order.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please be guided by the standing orders.

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.