Senate debates

Thursday, 24 March 2011

National Broadband Network Companies Bill 2010; Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures — Access Arrangements) Bill 2011

In Committee

9:16 pm

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

I thank the minister, Senator Ludlam and Senator Macdonald for their comments on this amendment. I particularly thank the minister for his comments on clause 41, the carrier licence conditions, and the expectations of the government in regard to developing and imposing some conditions in this space. The coalition welcomes that commitment, we note it, we bank it and we look forward to seeing it honoured. It is important in these debates for commitments like that to be noted and to be recorded so that all understand where they are going in this space.

I equally note Senator Ludlam’s approach—a little from column A, a little from column B—and I appreciate that he is attempting to work with the government and show some good faith to the government in regard to the development of this bill. I also appreciate his comment that he is hoping in the future to see some provisions that surround the disclosure of some of these arrangements and matters. If there are further amendments to come we certainly look forward to seeing them, getting to them and seeing just what shape and form they take. We hope that the Greens and the other crossbenchers, if they are working with the government on such disclosure amendments, ensure that they are rigorous, comprehensive and cover many of the concerns that we have discussed.

Notwithstanding the assurances of the minister and the comments of others, the opposition, as Senator Macdonald has indicated, does believe that our amendment still has value and that it is important. We believe that to be the case largely because we are approaching this, as we have with numerous other amendments, from a position of caution going into this debate. We think it is better, wiser and more sensible to ensure that risks are minimised, that doors are closed rather than left ajar and that we actually have a very tight framework in place for the operation of  NBN Co. from day one. If the government then needs to open the door a little to create some exemptions and to find the space to have a bit of extra flexibility, we can do that. But, to start with, the parliament should be ensuring that this entity is living by the principles that the government has set out and works within the mandate that the government has stated time and time again. We believe that when we look at this there is a real concern that NBN Co. could move up the value chain and could start to operate outside of that mandate. We trust the government will act to ensure that does not occur, in the way that Senator Conroy has outlined, but we would rather not have to finish this debate operating on trust. We would rather conclude this debate operating on certainty. We think the industry, the sector and consumers all deserve to be able to conclude this debate operating on a level of certainty as well, rather than on just a level of trust.

That is why we think that the amendments we have proposed that provide for a clearer definition, but equally provide the minister with a capacity by means of legislative instrument to have some exemptions, give the right balance between security and confidence. They also ensure that NBN Co. will not move up the value chain and engage in mission creep of any sort whilst providing the flexibility that may be necessary for the minister, the government and NBN Co. to operate in a sensible way into the future. This is probably going to be a point of principle on which we differ, but it is fundamental to the approach the opposition has taken. It is consistent through most of the amendments that we have moved to date and it is consistent in the fact that we are arguing, in so many of these instances, for an approach where we expect NBN Co. to be operating very firmly within its mandate. This legislation is the means to define that mandate and to curtail that mandate. We should not be leaving wriggle room, we should not be leaving room for expansion and we should not be leaving room for doubt in the future. We should be creating certainty tonight and tomorrow and however long it takes to pass these bills. We should be ensuring they leave a certain framework and environment, and not a framework that allows NBN Co. to expand its scope or mission into the future.

That is why I would again implore the chamber to look favourably upon these amendments. As the minister has indicated, and I welcome his indication, they are offered in a constructive way. We have taken on board concerns from the debate in the House of Representatives and made sure that more flexible amendments are put forward in this place. We think that it is a stronger, better and more secure way for the parliament to ensure it gets what the minister says he is going to give us. This is so we do not wake up in two, three, four, five or 10 years time to find that we have a new government owned monopoly that is starting to sell, or has been selling, in markets that none of us thought or wanted to see happen, and as a result we have a whole new problem in the telco sector.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Birmingham’s) be agreed to.

Comments

No comments