Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill 2007 and the Higher Education Endowment Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 both go to the creation of the Higher Education Endowment Fund as an autonomous fund administered under the umbrella of the Future Fund—hence the need for two separate pieces of legislation, one of which focuses on the operations of the fund itself and the other of which seeks to make the structure of the fund and particularly its investment activity compatible with the wider Future Fund legislation that was passed some months ago by the parliament.

Labor support the legislation and we regard the establishment of the fund to provide for infrastructure grants to Australian universities as a long-overdue, belated gesture on the part of the Howard government to Australia’s higher education sector—after 11 long, hard years of neglect and indeed derision. Over the period of the Howard government, total government investment in higher education in Australia has slipped from 0.9 per cent of GDP to 0.6 per cent of GDP—notwithstanding the modest boost that will be provided by the revenue earned by the Higher Education Endowment Fund. It is interesting to note that the forward projections in the budget this year for government spending indicate that, even though there is an increase in spending on higher education, by the end of that four years government spending on higher education will actually be a lower proportion of total government spending than it is today. So, even though there is some increase occurring here, it is still a lower proportion of the projected trend of government spending generally.

I will concentrate my remarks on two specific provisions of the bill which are all about Labor’s national broadband proposal. These provisions apply with respect to the Future Fund legislation. They amend the Future Fund Act and they are designed to prevent a future Labor government instructing the Future Fund to dedicate a proportion of its Telstra shareholding to investment in the construction of a national broadband network. Some months ago Labor announced that, if elected, we would establish a national high-speed broadband network accessible to 98 per cent of Australians with a minimum speed of 12 megs per second and capable of upscaling. The financing for the government part of the partnership with the private sector that would be involved in constructing this network would come from two sources. The first is the $2 billion Communications Fund established by the government with proceeds from the sale of the last remaining slice of government shares in Telstra and the second is the approximately $2.7 billion of the remaining Telstra shares that are currently held by the Future Fund and must be held by it until November of next year. Obviously, the value of those shares fluctuates from day to day, but that $2.7 billion of Telstra shares is approximately one-third of the total shareholding value of the Future Fund’s holding of Telstra. With these two amendments the government is seeking to ensure that, if Labor are elected to government in the election that is very shortly to be held, we will have to legislate in order to be able to make this investment.

A number of things need to be said about this initiative by the government. The first observation is the extraordinary arrogance of what they are doing. They are seeking to prevent an incoming government, if Labor is elected, from implementing one of its key policies, seeking to ensure that they in opposition will have some prospect of blocking Labor from implementing its plan to establish a national high-speed broadband network.

You can rarely see a better example of the ‘born to rule’ arrogance that is the historic mentality of the Liberal Party than this particular piece of political posturing. They have not yet been defeated in an election; they clearly fear defeat; and they are seeking to set themselves up already as an obstructive opposition. Already they are laying the groundwork for an obstructive opposition to preclude Labor from implementing its policy with respect to a national broadband network. This is a return to the outrageous ‘born to rule’ mentality of 1972 to 1975, where the vast bulk of Labor’s commitments were blocked by the Liberal and National parties in the Senate. And, of course, ultimately an election was forced—twice, in effect, the opposition Senate forced an election when it was not due upon the Whitlam government.

The critical thing here is that there are issues on which oppositions are entitled to oppose governments in the Senate. There are plenty of examples where parties of both persuasions have done that because they have made a clear, principled commitment on the issue well in advance. There is no question about which way Labor will vote on industrial relations proposals put forward by the Howard government—similarly with the GST. There are equivalent examples on the other side where big issues of principle are involved and where they are entitled to continue to vote in the way that they believe is right.

Leaving aside the outrageous arrogance of trying to set themselves up in advance, clearly anticipating the possibility of defeat, to cripple Labor’s plans from opposition if they can, the issues here that need to be considered are: first, is there some kind of big issue of principle involved in the debate about national broadband? Is there some longstanding matter of conservative principle that is involved which dictates that the Liberal Party and the National Party should oppose Labor’s proposal? The answer is no. Are they opposed to fibre to the node? Are they opposed to high-speed broadband? No, they are not. Are they opposed to substantial public sector involvement in the provision of telecommunications? No, they are not. Two billion dollars of our proposal is to come from their own Communications Fund, which finances public sector involvement in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure. There is no fundamental issue of principle involved here.

Will the target of the Future Fund for financing long-term Public Service superannuation liabilities be jeopardised as a result of Labor’s policy? Several months ago, when we announced our broadband policy, we were told that this would be the end of the Future Fund. It would be the end of the ability of the fund to finance the long-term public sector superannuation liabilities by 2020, which, of course, is the mandate of the fund and which we supported. Within months of those florid statements being made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, we have reached a position where the Future Fund is now in the process of fulfilling that target, 13 years ahead of schedule. So much for all of the outrageous and ludicrous claims that Labor’s broadband proposal would effectively prevent the fund from achieving its objectives.

To illustrate that, you have nothing better than the legislation before the parliament today, which sets up with $5 billion, soon to be $6 billion, a new fund with money that otherwise was going to the Future Fund for financing higher education. So, within months of claiming that Labor’s plan for $2.7 billion worth of Telstra shares to be used to help construct a national broadband network would destroy the Future Fund and put Public Service superannuation at risk, we are now in a position already where that 2020 target is effectively being met and the debate is moving on to other uses for surpluses.

Is there any question now, if there ever was, that Labor’s broadband plan would in some way jeopardise the achievement of that 2020 target for fully financing the long-term Public Service superannuation liabilities? The answer clearly is no.

Finally comes the obvious question: if Labor are elected and we proceed to implement our national broadband plan, is there any suggestion that this will have been done by stealth—that in some way we have created a particular impression in the minds of the electorate about our policy on these issues and that, having been elected, we will then proceed to do something different? The answer clearly is no. So what the government is seeking to do here is to ensure that it is as well armed as it can be to frustrate an incoming Labor government, if we are elected, in implementing one of our key policy positions—one of the key issues that will undoubtedly have a significant role in the election campaign and, if Labor are elected to government, will rightly be seen as one of the key policies which has persuaded people to vote Labor into office.

This is a remarkable testament to the ‘born to rule’ arrogance that is never far below the surface in the Liberal Party. We have not even had the election, and already they are demonstrating that they will not be prepared to accept the result if Labor are elected—already they are demonstrating that, and we have not even gone to the polls.

A particularly exquisite irony in this regard is that the debate about the prospective use of surpluses has already been moved by the Prime Minister to the question of infrastructure. A couple of years ago Labor indicated that we intended to use some of the revenue earned by the Future Fund for the purpose of investing in infrastructure. At that time, of course, this was derided by the government, and, more recently, when we put forward our broadband proposal, which was a concrete manifestation of that commitment, equally it was derided by the government.

What is happening now? The Future Fund is on the verge of fulfilling its obligation to fully fund the Public Service superannuation liabilities by 2020; we are in the process of establishing what will now be a $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund with money that would otherwise have gone to the Future Fund, and indeed will be managed by the Future Fund; the government has flagged a health and medical infrastructure fund equivalent to the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which no doubt it will seek to establish in due course—it too will be operated by the Future Fund along the same lines—and the Prime Minister has flagged the prospect of establishing some kind of infrastructure fund in the wake of these two additional funds. In other words, the government has finally got into a similar position, broadly, to the Labor Party, while still continuing to make ludicrous and outrageous accusations about the implications of Labor’s position and, in the instance of the legislation before the parliament today, seeking to do everything it can to prevent Labor from implementing its policy should it be elected to govern Australia.

The one message I can give the Howard government on this issue is that we will not be diverted and we will not be scared by its political posturing. We are committed to fixing the broadband shambles that we will inherit if we are elected to govern Australia. We are committed to implementing our high-speed national broadband plan. The plan recently cobbled together by the government, in a panic, for WiMAX wireless in regional Australia is a second-rate solution. It will ensure that people in regional and rural Australia have a second-tier quality and level of service compared with people in metropolitan Australia. The spectrum that is used for this proposal is subject to interference. The technology cannot properly project through buildings and geographical impediments, otherwise known as ‘hills’. Existing laptops are not compatible with the technology. It is notable that the government, when advertising the merits of its plan, changes its language quite a bit but most of the time says it will deliver up to 12 megs per second. Labor’s plan is for a minium of 12 megs, and in most cases it will be a lot faster than that. The government is claiming up to 12 megs. That will only apply when there is not a congested network. This technology is very susceptible to congestion crowding out people’s speeds. It will only apply when the weather is good and there are no geographical obstacles. The government’s claim that this technology will provide up to 12 megs should be taken with a grain of salt.

It is worth noting that if you look at the website of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts you will see the maps that were distributed in a great flurry when this proposal was announced. You will also see a disclaimer on the website that essentially says: ‘The department makes no claims and takes no responsibility for the accuracy of any of these maps or for their meaning. The department does not rely on them and does not accept any liability or responsibility if anybody else does.’ In other words: ‘The maps are rubbish. Believe them at your peril.’ All the government is doing, in a panic after having allowed the issue to fester for years and having failed to tackle the problem, is setting up a second-rate system for people in rural and regional Australia, once again trying to look like it is doing something.

We will not be deterred on this issue. Broadband is fundamental to the future of this country. It is fundamental to young people’s ability to learn, to small businesses’ capacity to compete, to the Australian economy’s capacity to grow and to productivity’s capacity to grow. It is an absolute disgrace how the Howard government has handled this issue. It is extraordinary how it constantly comes up with new, supposed plans and announcements that are all mickey mouse symbolic things designed to make it look like the government is doing something without addressing the underlying fundamental problem.

I will conclude with one observation. Having been shadow communications minister for three years from late 2001 to late 2004, I have naturally been interested in these developments and debates in recent times. One thing has struck me with a degree of irony. For all of those three years when I had responsibility on behalf of the Labor Party for advocating, amongst other things, the retention of Telstra in majority public ownership, I had a single mantra, a single statement, that preceded everything I said in public—at public meetings, on radio and television and in newspaper media. Everything I said in public on the issue of Telstra privatisation commenced with these words: ‘A privately owned Telstra will be a giant private monopoly too powerful for any government to effectively regulate.’ Guess what has happened. This is precisely the stalemate that the Howard government has found itself in, courtesy of its own obsession with privatisation. You now have Telstra—understandably, justifiably, acting in defence of its own interests—no longer answerable to the public interest, no longer answerable to the national interest through government ownership. It is there to defend its shareholders and it is doing that vigorously. Why should it do anything else?

Because Telstra still comprises roughly two-thirds of the entire telecommunications sector and still owns and controls the dominant monopoly telecommunications infrastructure in this country, and because it is very difficult for anything to occur, such as the establishment of a major national broadband network, without the involvement or acquiescence of Telstra, the government has created a shambles because of its obsession with privatisation. The government is now caught in a stalemate, a gridlock, on broadband because its only concern in telecommunications has been to sell Telstra—not to solve problems and to get Australia into the 21st century with a top-class, internationally competitive telecommunications network but to pursue its obscure ideological obsessions on privatisation. The end result is that it is very difficult to fix the problem. The government clearly has no idea what to do. It has been wallowing, working on endless small initiatives that are designed to look like it is solving the problem, but it does nothing to fix it.

This disaster is a creation of the Howard government’s making. That is why Labor is committed to fixing it. That is why we are committed to mobilising a very large sum of government capital, all of which is currently invested in telecommunications related assets, in order to invest in a national high-speed broadband network with a private partner to solve the problem. And the problem is that we have third-rate broadband in this country—too slow, too expensive and not accessible enough. That is the problem that we are going to tackle and no number of political stunts, like the amendments that have been tacked on to this legislation today, will deter us from that commitment. If we are elected to government, we will fight long and hard to ensure that all Australians have access to internationally competitive high-speed broadband. If the Liberal and National parties lose the election and they want to take that kind of obstructive position that they are clearly flagging in this legislation today, after having been defeated on issues like this, they will have to account to the Australian people for their behaviour.

See this speech in context