Thank you Rosemary for that kind introduction.
Before I move on to my speech, I'd just like to take the opportunity to pass on my thanks to you Rosemary for the strong and sensible leadership ATUG continues to show in this important debate.
Rosemary, I'd also to thank you publicly for the assistance you have provided me to help me better understand Australia's telecommunications sector.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you all here today on an issue I am passionate about – regional telecommunications.
What I’d like to do is speak to you for about twenty minutes, and then leave about six or seven minutes aside for you to express your views on regional telecommunications. It’ll give me an opportunity to listen to the things you think are important in this debate.
Those of us who live outside of the big cities certainly understand the challenges associated with the tyranny of distance, and it is not surprising that we should be concerned about the delivery of adequate telecommunications, both now and into the future.
Many of you would be aware, that prior to entering the Senate in July last year I chaired The Nationals’ Page Research Centre’s inquiry into future-proofing telecommunications in non-metropolitan areas.
The Page inquiry gave me an excellent insight into the issues surrounding the regional telecommunications debate.
It was an exercise that allowed me to meet with many people, some of whom I can see in this room today, and resulted in the Centre receiving submissions from 34 individuals and organisations.
Those submissions formed the basis of a position paper, or discussion paper, that was presented by the Page Research Centre to the Federal Parliamentary wing of The Nationals for consideration, presented to the party in March last year.
Let me stress, our report was not a policy paper for the party. It was, as I said, a discussion paper, and it is true to suggest that a lot of discussion has ensued.
My role in Page was of great benefit to me when I entered the Senate in July last year, and well positioned me to value-add to the telco debate that continues in the Parliament today.
Debate on issues such as ULL, mobile phones, broadband delivery, operational separation, the sale of the Government's remaining shareholding in Telstra, and the role of the regulator, to name but a few.
And, if you want my honest opinion, I think we've got a bit of a way to go yet.
Frankly, if the solutions for regional telecommunications were simple we would have already solved them. But they're not.
There are a lot of voices in the current telecommunications debate.
In fact during last week's parliamentary sitting among what was a very busy week with parliamentary commitments, committee responsibilities and a lot of meetings on other issues, I had seven separate meetings on rural telco issues. And I'm but a humble backbencher!
It's fair to say regional telecommunications is normally quite high on my radar, and it was certainly a lot higher last week!
One thing is certain, The Nationals are focussed on improving telecommunications across Australia, not just because of The Nationals interest but more importantly, because it is in the national interest! In the interest of future generations of Australians.
Today, most of Australia’s regional communities are not realising the true benefits of 21st century telecommunications because of the age-old issue of supply and demand.
There are many people in the big cities who take broadband and mobile phone access for granted, without giving the hardships experienced by their country cousins a second thought. That is, until those who choose to venture outside of the cities find that broadband access isn't available on tap, and their mobiles don't always work – although as I'm sure many here today would agree that it's not always an issue confined to the bush.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but it's important that we do all that we can to educate all Australians that telecommunications can and does reduce the obstacles of the tyranny of distance, lack of time and impediments to productivity.
It's often said that telecommunications infrastructure is as much a driver of economic development in the 21st century, as roads and railways were in the 19th century.
The telecommunication technological advancements we've witnessed in this new century, such as mobile phones with Pocket PC and Blackberry capability, ADSL, and VOIP would have been beyond many peoples wildest dreams ten, twenty and thirty years ago.
Granted, some people, businesses and communities are beginning to realise economic efficiencies and increased productivity benefits, particularly through the delivery of services such as e-commerce, education, entertainment and health.
However, it is unfortunate that many of the 7 million people outside the metropolitan areas are not realising these benefits to the extent they should be - in rural and regional Australia.
They're not realising the benefits because the infrastructure necessary to provide the services is either not available, or is not to a sufficient standard, in many areas.
The Howard / Vaile Government, particularly through the work of my senate colleague Helen Coonan, is doing all it can to get the policy framework right, but without infrastructure all the policy settings in the world are going to be of little help.
Helen Coonan is doing a great job as communications minister. It would be fair to say that Helen's got some very complex issues on her plate, and in my view not only is she well equipped to meet the challenges of her portfolio, she also has a solid understanding of all of the issues before her.
Ladies and gentlemen, an important aspect of the telecommunications debate is the issue of competition.
I do not believe that under any circumstances we should allow a monopoly telecommunications carrier to operate in rural and regional Australia.
I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of rural and regional Australians.
I do not believe a monopoly carrier will provide the level of telecommunications services and infrastructure necessary to grow our regions into the future.
Since my days with Page I have continued to argue the case for competition.
I've dealt with many telecommunication companies and I believe there are many telcos out there who are, and would be, even more committed to competition if only they were given the opportunity.
This government is committed to giving them that opportunity through mechanisms such as; government funding assistance, and a regulatory regime that does not favour the dominant integrated telecommunications provider.
The Howard / Vaile Government's 3.1 billion dollar funding initiatives, including the 2 billion dollar Communications Fund and the 1.1 billion Connect Australia package, which includes 878 million dollars for Broadband Connect and 113 million dollars for Clever Networks, are certainly big steps in the right direction towards getting telecommunications right in the regions.
In fact this is the biggest regional telecommunications assistance package in Australia's history.
It is my expectation that this funding package will deliver three things; competition, infrastructure and innovation.
I am confident that the Government's 3.1 billion dollar package will stimulate a considerable degree of investment into large scale infrastructure across non-metropolitan Australia.
We've already witnessed a couple of collaborative proposals within the industry for infrastructure development; firstly the FTTN proposal from eight telcos - Internode, Macquarie, Optus, Powertel, Primus, Soul, Transact and iiNet - and then last week Austar, Unwired and Soul announced their joint approach.
It's possible that we'll see more of these partnerships popping up in the months ahead, particularly given Helen Coonan's message yesterday that the Government is not looking for a 'one size fits all' solution, like Labor's Fibre-to-the-Node proposal, but instead wants to see a mix of technologies that will deliver what is effectively a wholesale open access network.
The Government, of which I am proud to be a part, is also working towards the operational separation of Telstra.
I believe operational separation will be a boost to competition, indeed a requirement, to ensure that competition thrives.
Operational separation will enable greater transparency through the separation of the wholesale and retail arms of Telstra.
It will ensure a fair and level playing field for new players entering the regional telecommunications marketplace.
We are working to get this right so that a range of telecommunications companies will be able to access the Telstra network under the same conditions as Telstra’s own retail arm.
With operational separation we will work towards an environment where there will be a level playing field, where market forces resulting from real competition will deliver real benefits to end users; not just in product delivery but also price.
Ladies and Gentlemen, competition is the best mechanism to deliver services and infrastructure to rural and regional Australia.
However, as I said when I handed down the Page recommendations, I believe that government has a social obligation to ensure services to non-metropolitan areas where competition fails.
The government's 3.1 billion dollar package will ensure that obligation is met, now and into the future.
The Howard / Vaile Government is taking our regional telecommunications services and infra-structure into the future with a regulatory and legislative framework which, I believe, both encourages competition and enables the government to financially assist where there is market failure.
We are creating an environment that will encourage private sector investment in telecommunications in our regions.
Ladies and gentlemen, earlier I made a brief mention of e-commerce, education, entertainment and health, as just some of the benefits that the people, businesses and communities in rural and regional Australia are set to realise as new technology becomes available.
I'd like to expand on one of those areas, health.
Many of you may be aware that rural and regional areas are experiencing a shortfall in a range of professional services, because there just aren't the bodies out there to do the job.
And we certainly can't afford to go without the doctors that we do have for extended periods because they're off to the big smoke for further education or training.
I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine.
ACRRM recently developed a world first – Rural and Remote Medical Education Online (RRMEO). An online learning platform designed and built specifically for rural doctors. It is a suite of powerful electronic tools that assists doctors, ACRRM and associated medical education providers in the management of information, administration and professional education requirements.
RRMEO is accessible from any location via an internet browser with no need to download additional plug-ins or applications.
The quicker we can get decent broadband speeds out to rural and regional Australia, the quicker our medical professionals will be able to take full advantage of this wonderful Australian innovation.
Yesterday you heard Senator Helen Coonan talk about the roadmap ahead for Connect Australia funding, including the call for expressions of interest, the tender process and the Federal/State/Territory & Local government online council, and the Broadband Blueprint.
There's another element – community awareness.
Within the Connect Australia funding package, something that seems to have escaped many, is the 6 million dollar rural community awareness program to help the people, businesses and communities that make up rural and regional Australia better understand how the new technology can help them work smarter, not harder.
It's a welcome move to make the sorts of technology our city cousins take for granted available out in the regions, but what good will it be if nobody understands how to use it, let alone what it can do for them.
We're talking, in part, about people who haven't even bothered to get computers. Or where people who have computers don't recognise their potential use because it's all too hard.
Where I live, about half-way between Young and Cowra in the NSW cental west, our only option, besides satellite, to connect to the internet is dial-up. There's no ADSL and the only fibre we see is in our breakfast cereal.
I know that PC modems are capable of reaching 56kpbs. However, in our district the modem certainly isn't called upon to work anywhere near capacity.
We're flat out getting better than 30 kilo-bits-per-second. Sizeable documents aren't bothered with through email. Most people just fax instead.
So it’s important we all play a role in heightening the communities awareness and understanding of new technologies, and as industry I ask you not to forget the very important role you can play.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the rollout of mobile coverage continues to be a priority for people in rural and regional Australia.
There has been a significant improvement over recent times in terms of coverage, and while there is still a way to go, it should be recognised that there have been real steps forward.
Which brings me to the proposed change by Telstra to switch from CDMA mobile technology to a 3GSM network.
The new network would obviously provide real benefits in terms of data access, and as we move through the new millennium this will prove to be a real advantage.
Telstra have undertaken to provide a service with the introduction of the new network that will be at least equivalent, if not better, than the current CDMA network.
Telstra have also undertaken to have a period of time with both networks operational, to ensure there is equivalent coverage before the CDMA network is switched off.
Both undertakings are very welcome.
However, as a Nationals senator, my role is to ensure there is no disadvantage to rural and regional Australia, and I will be holding Telstra to account on both statements.
Under no circumstances should Telstra be allowed to switch off the CDMA network until their commitment to equivalent coverage is met.
I say to Telstra – over my dead body – will you switch off the CDMA network unless the 3G level of service delivers coverage at least equal to the CDMA network it is going to replace.
There are still some issues that need to be clarified by Telstra, such as the pricing structure for handsets, costs of associated hardware such as car-kits and aerials, and also their position on reselling the new network, and think I it’s time Telstra made its position clear on these issues.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as I told the Senate in my second reading speech on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005, that "I am confident that Telstra will not attempt to circumvent the laws and regulations this government puts in place, but I put Telstra on notice: any attempt to engage in anti-competitive practices or to undermine the integrity of the government’s legislation will result in swift regulatory action or change to strengthen the regulatory regime if necessary".
Ten days ago I wrote to Senator Coonan to express my concern over what appears to be Telstra's latest attempt to undermine the integrity of this government's efforts to ensure competition in the Australian telecommunications marketplace.
Recent action by Telstra to challenge a competition notice issued by the ACCC over wholesale line access rental is apparently a clear demonstration that it, Telstra, continues to thumb its nose at government.
I have asked the Minister to revisit the consultation notice provisions of the Trade Practices Act and give consideration to removing this part of the act, so as to send a strong message to Telstra that this government is serious about competition.
Ladies and gentlemen, I just quickly want to turn to comments yesterday by Labor's spokesman for Communications & Information Technology, Senator Stephen Conroy.
Speaking about Mr Beazley's budget reply speech Senator Conroy said Labor's Broadband Plan will deliver access to broadband of at least six mega-bits-per-second to 98 per cent of Australian businesses and homes via the roll-out of a national fibre to the node network.
It’s pie in the sky!
As my colleague Helen Coonan said yesterday afternoon, apart from the fact that Labor’s proposal lacks detail, it is uncosted, and picks one technology that would not suit the varied geography and scattered populations across Australia.
Senator Conroy was also quick to cast aspersions on The Nationals and the two billion dollar regional communications fund, describing it as a Nationals slush fund.
He said "It’s a good lesson for future reference - never stand between a National Party MP and a slush fund."
I've heard all of these allegations and throw away lines before. But the Nationals will not apologise to anyone for fighting for the best outcomes for the seven million people, living outside of metropolitan Australia.
I think Senator Conroy's just having whinge because he hasn't been able to deliver outcomes of a similar magnitude for his constituents.
As for quotable quotes, I personally like the quote from The Australian's Matt Price in reference to the ability of the Nationals to get funding for our constituents on matters that count!
Matt said "your average Liberal has more chance of taking a set of tennis off Roger Federer than beating a National in a footrace towards a pot of taxpayer funds"
All jokes aside, the real issue here is the ability to deliver real telecommunications services and infrastructure to real people, businesses and communities in rural and regional Australia.
To deliver an appropriate level of service we need an appropriate level of funding and the Howard Vaile Government is committed to delivering the telecommunications outcomes people in rural and regional Australia deserve.
END
Media Contact: Mark Croxford 0422 404 149
Source:
There are currently no comments, be the first to post one.