Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of this bill, the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024. I'll keep my remarks relatively brief because I appreciate the lateness of the hour and because all of my colleagues have effectively made the points that I would otherwise have made. I commend the member for Bean, who has just spoken, for outlining much of the history of the NBN and for again putting forward the very strong case for why it should remain in public hands. But let me just make a few observations about government or public assets and their privatisation more broadly.

Firstly, I can recall, from day one, when the NBN was mooted as an important piece of national infrastructure to be rolled out, that the opposition at the time never had their heart in it. They were opposed to it from day one, and quite frankly when they came into government they made that absolutely clear by rolling out a second-rate NBN using the copper wires et cetera that we've spoken about time and time again. They did that I think for two reasons—and it's not just because they wanted to save money.

Firstly, they wanted to get it finished off as quickly as possible so that they could then sell it off and get some money back into the coffers. Secondly, I genuinely believe that many members of the opposition did not really understand the significance of the NBN for the future of our country and future generations. It is not just another piece of government property; it's actually an essential national asset, just like our highways, which connect people from one city to another. The NBN has done even more than that, because it has become crucial to the way we operate as a society today.

As I get around the community, one of the things that come back to me time and time again, particularly in the midst of cost-of-living debates, is: 'Why can't the government put a cap on these prices, and why can't the government control this other price? In fact, why were those assets ever sold off in the first place, because they are so important to everyday living?' Indeed, there is a growing sentiment that I'm detecting out there in the community that essential services should always be owned by the government and remain as government assets.

In fact, years ago there was some survey done—I'm talking probably 20 or 30 years ago—where we went through a period not only here in Australia but across the world where public assets were being sold off by governments to private entities. That proved in the end to not have been a very smart decision—again, it happened across the world—and there was a trend, particularly in Western countries, to buy back those assets. I'm sensing the same mood right now.

The reality is that the sale of public assets in the past may have provided some instant cash for the government of the day—and I hold governments of both persuasions to account with respect to that; I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I'm talking about past governments—but in the long-term the public has paid dearly for it, because, firstly, the price of the services provided by those public assets has ultimately gone through the roof, and, secondly, in very few cases have they been properly maintained, and in reality, when they are not properly maintained, it always comes back to the taxpayer or the government of the day to pick up the cost of that unfunded infrastructure, which ultimately builds up over time. The argument that the private sector can provide services at lower cost than publicly owned entities is also a fallacy. It never truly eventuates. Quite frankly, if there is a problem with the government's management of a particular entity, the answer is not to sell the entity off but rather to look at what the problem is and get management to perhaps change its direction or whatever the case is. What we have seen—I will use two or three examples—is that over the years those assets that were sold off ultimately ended up charging prices that were unrealistic.

The first example I want to use is the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank was sold—I think it was in 1996 that the last part of the sale went through—for about the same amount of money that the Commonwealth Bank now makes in profit each and every year. But, even worse than that, the other three big banks are making similar massive profits. Last year, the four major banks together made just under $30 billion of profit. The benefit of having the Commonwealth Bank at the time wasn't just because of the services it was providing; it also acted as a regulator for the other banks in terms of the interest rates and the fees that were being charged. It set a standard that the other banks had to compete with, and in order to do so they had to maintain the same level of charges and fees that the Commonwealth Bank did, so everybody benefited, and that's why the massive profits were not made.

The other matter with respect to the sell-off of those assets is that, where they are sold off, more often than not it is foreign investors who come in and buy them. Many of our energy suppliers today have foreign owners, so, if there is a profit to be made, the profit is not spent here in Australia; it is usually shipped off to an overseas country, where it is used to benefit that country and the owner of those assets. So it is not even as if we're selling them off and ensuring that the profits made are then respent in our own country.

The reality is that the same applies to Telstra. Telstra made $1.8 billion in profit last year. Yes, if it were government owned, perhaps the profit would have been lower, but the fees and charges would also have been lower, so again, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, people would have been able to cope a lot better. Importantly it would also enable the government of the day to ensure that the fees being charged were affordable for the broader public, whereas now, whenever someone says, 'Energy prices are too high,' or, 'Telstra prices are too high'—or whatever other private asset—the response is, 'Well, that's the free market in operation, and governments really can't do very much about it.'

I've listened to some of the debate from members opposite, and I do not understand what their problem is with the government retaining ownership of the NBN. Because it is such a crucial piece of infrastructure and it is a monopoly service, it is important that, firstly, it's a reliable piece of infrastructure that the Australian people can have confidence in. It must be secure because if it's not it can totally disrupt the whole operations of this country. It must be affordable because everybody needs it. It's no longer a luxury or a commodity that people can choose to have or not have. The reality is that we cannot operate today without it, so it must be affordable. And it must be secure, and the only way we can best guarantee its security is if it remains in government hands, where the government can have oversight over exactly what is happening to it, who has got access to it and what needs to be done to ensure all that security continues.

I will finish on this: I thank the minister, who is sitting at the table, for this legislation. From day one, when the sale of it once it was complete was talked about—or that a sale might happen—it was something that did not sit comfortably with me. When the Albanese government made the decision that the NBN would remain in public hands, I thought, 'That is a decision that makes a lot of sense and provides confidence and security to the Australian people.' It is a decision that I would have thought the Australian people would get behind, including—but it seems this is not the case—members of the opposition. This is a decision that will be supported by the Australian people very broadly. This is a decision I believe they will be calling for. The last thing they would want to see is such an important piece of infrastructure sold off to a private investor, possibly a foreign owner. With those comments, I support this legislation.

See this speech in context