Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Regional Backbone Blackspots Program.

As part of the National Broadband Network initiative, the government has fast-tracked a $250 million program to address regional backbone blackspots. Access to competitive backbone infrastructure on an open-access equivalent basis will stimulate competition and allow retail broadband providers to offer better services to rural and regional Australia. The government’s intention is that the backhaul assets built will ultimately form part of the new National Broadband Network, to be owned and operated as NBN Co.

The program addresses the following priority locations identified through a focused public consultation process: Geraldton, Western Australia; Darwin, Northern Territory; Emerald to Longreach, Queensland; Broken Hill, New South Wales; Victor Harbor, South Australia; and the south-west Gippsland region, Victoria. Innovative and value-for-money solutions for these locations are being identified through an open, competitive tender process, which is being conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth procurement guidelines. The tenders have been received and the government now aims to finalise contract negotiations and commence construction as soon as possible. So that improved services can be delivered to regional consumers as soon as possible and that effective and timely stimulus can be delivered to economic activity in regional locations throughout Australia, the government have resolved, pursuant to section 18(8)(b) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient and appropriate for the works associated with this program to be carried out without reference to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works.

The Public Works Committee performs an important role in ensuring public works represent a value for money use of taxpayer funds. However, in this case the government considers a Public Works Committee hearing would delay urgent work to improve telecommunications and internet access in regional areas which have already been the subject of parliamentary and public scrutiny. The program is already within the scope of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. That committee which has an opposition majority and representation by the Australian Greens is able to and indeed has scrutinised the government’s commitment to fast-track the $250 billion program to address regional backbone blackspots amongst other issues relating to the rollout of the National Broadband Network.

There has been a positive response to the program from all levels of government and industry, including some members of the opposition. A stakeholder consultation program was held during April-May with in excess of 60 submissions received in response to the public consultation paper and over 40 discussions held with interested parties. Prior to this, the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, established in August 2007, found in its September 2008 final report Framework for the future that competitive backbone infrastructure is critical to the rollout of high-speed broadband services in rural and regional Australia. I note that a proposal to proceed with a construction project without referral to the Public Works Committee is not common. The government very much support the work of the Public Works Committee and have not taken this decision lightly. I commend the motion to the House.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted, with a view to substituting the following words:‘The following work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report by 17 November 2009: Regional Backbone Blackspots Program.’

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works met this morning and there was almost universal unhappiness with the minister’s letter to the PWC that was received this morning. There was no explanation in the minister’s letter as to why this expediency motion is needed. There was no indication about what the program is actually about. There was no suggestion as to why we should be passing this motion in the House of Representatives today. I am seeking to ask that the House allow this public scrutiny of this particular government program in a timely fashion.

The Regional Backbone Blackspots Program is not of the highest urgency. Taking two months now to examine the intricacies of the program is the responsible course. It is a substantial amount of money, over $200 million. It is an important public work and it should not be undertaken without the proper consideration of the parliament. I believe that the government know this and the members of the Public Works Committee know this. The government know that by doing this they are attempting to subvert normal practice to avoid accountability and to pretend that the National Broadband Network has not been beset by problems. The government announced that the blackspots program would be underway by September this year. It should be noted that this urgency motion moved by the minister coincides with the last sitting day of September, the last day for the government to try to rush this program through.

The government have consistently played politics with the National Broadband Network. They have made numerous mistakes with the policy. Before the 2007 election, the Prime Minister  promised to spend $4.7 billion creating a national broadband network, and to start the network by the end of 2008. I think we all know now that the government have failed to deliver on this promise. The government then wasted 18 months and nearly $20 million on flawed tender processes, which failed to find a private company for the program and were abandoned on 7 April this year. The government then rushed out their alternative, the National Broadband Network mark 2, at a cost of $43,000 million—an immense jump from the $4.7 billion promised before the 2007 election.

The cost blow-out has been immense and demonstrates the many mistakes the government have made with this policy. They have created the National Broadband Network Co. and are paying its CEO and board an astonishing $46,000 a week to run a company that has no customers and provides no services. The motion from the minister today is not the first time the government have avoided scrutiny of their broadband plans. They have refused to submit the entire National Broadband Network to a cost-benefit analysis. The Rudd government have ignored the advice of Secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, who said:

Government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.

The Rudd government have broken their own promise in the 2008-09 budget, where they pledged:

Where governments invest in infrastructure assets, it is essential that they seek to achieve maximum economic and social benefits, determined through rigorous cost-benefit analysis …

The government have lost their credibility on broadband. Given this track record, they do not have the standing to be allowed to run an expensive program of over $200 million without scrutiny. The Public Works Committee must be allowed to conduct an inquiry into this program, as is the normal course for other government expenditure of this nature. I do hope the parliament will support this amendment to allow that to happen by 17 November this year.

The amendment I propose today is that the program be referred to the Public Works Committee for report by 17 November. This is a responsible approach. It is not an extensive delay, and the PWC will deal with this in a timely way. If the government adopted this course of action, there could be concurrent documentation so that there would be no delay in rolling out the program.

I am a strong supporter of regional Australia, as this parliament knows. The value of providing improved services to regional communities is certainly great. There is no value, however, in rolling out a system full of inefficiencies and hidden costs. The blackspots program must be given the appropriate scrutiny of the parliament through the Public Works Committee. It is in the best interests of regional Australia for us to do so.

We in the coalition firmly believe in the principle of accountability. The Australian people expect this from their parliament. I invite the government to stand up for these values, to stand up for respecting the process and to see the attempt to rush the blackspots program for what it is: playing politics. We must take a reasonable amount of time, respect the processes of parliamentary committees and ensure that all public works policy is thorough and effective. I have served on the Public Works Committee for a number of terms. The committee plays a very important bipartisan role in ensuring public works are undertaken in the most effective and cost-efficient way. The government cannot be allowed to undermine this.

Finally, I wish to advise the parliament that it is my understanding that the minister’s own department supports the Public Works Committee process. I have that on very good authority. Minister, this is not a delay to the program. The member for Mallee and I can assure you that we will deal with this in a timely way. It will allow proper scrutiny of such huge amounts of government money to be done in a bipartisan way, and we will come back with any sensible suggestions that arise from our examination of this project. I urge you, Minister, and my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this amendment. I encourage you to consider the real issues at stake.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a plea. I have served on the Public Works Committee for my entire time in this parliament. It is a committee whose work I enjoy. It gives me the opportunity to use my professional expertise as a civil engineer. During that period there have been many occasions when requests for expedition of projects have been made and the committee has worked extremely hard to facilitate the process. It has given permission for concurrent documentation and has not stood in the way. I am somewhat disturbed when I hear reports of thoughts within the bureaucracies that the standing committee is in the way. It is not at all. It is a very useful and important committee, not only to supervise the precious resources that taxpayers, who are listening, provide for us to spend on public infrastructure but to scrutinise them to ensure that there is value for dollar and the money is well spent.

In my time there have been a number of projects in which the process of evidence and the comments and submissions from outside players have saved the Commonwealth enormous amounts of money. One such project involved the unloading of armaments into Australia. A site was suggested that was completely remote, which the Department of Defence had not even recognised. I think the involvement of the Public Works Committee in that process saved taxpayers $50 million. The Public Works Committee process is a good one, a process of accountability.

The thing that disturbs me most is the willingness of the minister to override this important public process. I am not placated by his comment at the dispatch box that he recognises the significance of the committee. I say to members on both sides of the House, who beaver away on committee work, travelling the nation collecting evidence: think about the question before us. It is a reasonable request that this inquiry be referred to the Public Works Committee. We will treat it expeditiously and report by 17 November. It is a perfectly reasonable request and it is not too late for you, Minister, to see reason and accept that the public of Australia would expect the Public Works Committee to exercise its statutory rights and supervise the expenditure of the public’s precious money. I leave the decision to you, Minister. You have an opportunity now to do the right thing by Australian taxpayers in ensuring that their precious dollars are supervised properly, which is the role of the Public Works Committee.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.