Download Fragment

Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Page: 5434

Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (19:08): One of the things I really like about Senator Ludlam is that, compared to some of his colleagues in the Greens, he is an optimist. When I hear contributions from some of his colleagues in the Greens, especially in some of the climate change and environment debates that I also have carriage of in this place, I find myself leaving rather depressed, concerned that the world is going to come to an end, possibly as early as tomorrow morning.

Senator Ludlam: My glass is half full!

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Senator Ludlam has a glass-half-full approach to things and his optimism about the take-up rate and about how wonderful the NBN is going to be is an admirable thing. We have an argument that it might be misplaced optimism, but I respect the fact that Senator Ludlam brings that optimism into this place. I want to turn to his questions, but before I do—otherwise I will forget—I do find it remarkable that the minister could offer no answer to Senator Nash's questions at the end of her contribution—

Senator Conroy: Just a timing question.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Yes, in particular her question of timing about when the provider of last resort trigger is triggered. When actually is it the case that a determination occurs that on this greenfields site fibre has not been laid and rolled out and so it is now up to NBN Co. to assume responsibility? There is a separate question which Senator Nash also asked which went to how long it will take NBN Co. to fulfil that responsibility. That may require separate advice, Minister, but I would have thought and hoped that you would be able to answer both of those questions during the conduct of this debate, because I think that is perfectly sensible and reasonable.

Senator Ludlam asked questions earlier and then repeated some of them about pricing and standards in relation to the amendments that the opposition are proposing. If I can tackle those—and he is right—this amendment sets up a situation where NBN Co. can be compelled to purchase the network off the developer. It is not a case of NBN Co. negotiating each individual purchase with each individual developer on those individual terms. It is in fact that, as proposed section 372CA(6) states:

The amount of the purchase payment must be in accordance with a scale of payments determined by the Minister for this subsection and published in the Gazette.

It then goes on in parts (7) and (8) in particular to outline how the minister determines the scale of payments. Part (8)(a) indicates that the minister must consider 'the typical costs of providing such networks or elements of such networks, including significant regional variations in costs'. That is an important point given the minister's allegations that this would enable cherry-picking of the cheapest places in which to do business. In fact, the minister would have in his power and at his discretion the capacity to indicate that, yes, it is more expensive to lay the fibre in some locations than in other locations. Part 8(b) states that the minister would take into account 'the costs that NBN Co. would have incurred had it undertaken to provide such networks itself', which again of course would provide for regional variations and the like, but they are of course explicitly provided for in part (a).

The really obvious area of competitive tension or opportunity here is that you would hope that the more this work occurs the more it is keeping NBN Co. and providers honest in terms of laying out the fibre in these developments. But of course the best argument here is that it ensures you get the best result for the developer. The developer and the people who purchase premises within the development get their fibre; they get it as fast as the developer can find somebody who can lay it and who can do so on terms that they find profitable enough to operate on according to the scale of payments that the minister has scheduled.

With this whole NBN construct we are in a world of regulated payments. I know that Senator Ludlam appreciates that. In terms of access to the network, payments are regulated. This is providing for an element of regulated payments at the construction point and the construction end. With regard to the standards that would be set—and I think this is an important point to make—we are attempting through these amendments to provide a greater level of independence from NBN Co. of what those standards are. We are attempting to ensure that there is some level of independence, and our amendments (5) and (9) identify the ACMA as having a role in setting the standards and doing so in consultation with relevant industry bodies and—yes, absolutely—at a standard that is compliant with what NBN Co. needs. But, by having the ACMA play a role, what we hope to get away from is where NBN Co. demand a gold-plated system, where NBN Co. set any unreasonable level of standards for how it is done. Obviously, what we want are speeds that are required for the network. What we would expect are the standards to be correct. However, the minister seems to be quite happy to have a situation where NBN Co. can require such standards in these developments that would just render it utterly unprofitable for anybody else to provide the services, with not the slightest independent check on what it is that they demand or what it is that they want. We do not think that is reasonable. We think that, if you are going to have standards, obviously they need to meet the requirements and specifications of what NBN Co. need, but there needs to be—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Minister, either you can snipe away in the corner there or, occasionally, you could actually provide a constructive contribution. I have heard you speak in the committee stage to date and, more often than not, it has been to rehash the history of Telstra as a vertically integrated monopoly, to rehash the coalition's policy position—to rehash everything. It has never been to argue the case for the bill that you have presented before this chamber. If you want to get into some detail and start arguing the case for your bill, then feel free to do so. But all you want to do is snipe from the bench over there, without providing any arguments or details of your own or anything substantive to refute the concerns. These are not just concerns the opposition has made up. Mr Turnbull and I did not just sit down in a corner, and say, 'Geez, I wonder how we can invent some concern here.' Senator Ludlam and Senator Xenophon, as well as the other members of the committee, heard evidence from concerned businesses. That evidence is reflected in the Senate committee inquiry and it is evidence that we have tried to act upon by developing these amendments.

So to return to Senator Ludlam's question, we believe the approach we have laid out ensures there will be standards that meet the specifications that NBN Co. needs. They will be standards, however, with a level and a modicum of independent oversight that the ACMA will provide and they will be standards that are developed with industry consultation.

We believe the pricing can be set in a way that avoids the type of cherry-picking fears that the minister has been trying to create and that provides some level of certainty for businesses going in and that, most import­antly, provides developers and households with the opportunity to ensure they can get the fibre laid in a timely manner.

I will finish by, again, reminding the minister of Senator Nash's question about timeliness. Minister, perhaps it would really help this debate if you could actually tell us how long we would have to have no fibre laid in the pits and ducts before NBN Co. considered it was their responsibility to do so and, once they acknowledged that respon­sibility, how long it will take them to do so. Why don't you try answering those two questions?