Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If accepted by the House and the Senate, this motion would enable the creation of a joint standing committee to have continuing oversight of the National Broadband Network. Recognising the current makeup of both houses, in accordance with this motion neither the government nor the opposition would have a majority on the committee. There would be four members from each side of the House, plus two crossbenchers—one from each chamber.

The NBN is the largest single infrastructure investment in our country’s history. It has been subject to no financial scrutiny at all. The government has set up a body called Infrastructure Australia, which it said was designed, and is designed, to analyse, prioritise and assess on a cost-benefit basis—rigorously—infrastructure projects. That is its job, and it has a very distinguished board, chaired by Rod Eddington. And yet the government has refused to let it anywhere near the National Broadband Network.

The government has said that it is committed to competition, and yet it is proposing to enter into an agreement with Telstra which will preclude Telstra not simply from competing with its copper network but from competing on a facilities basis with its HFC cable network. So it is essentially designed to eliminate all facilities based competition with the NBN.

The government would say, ‘Well, that is in the public interest’—fair enough. The judge of whether monopolies and restrictions to competition are in the public interest is the ACCC, and yet the legislation that is before the parliament will actually exempt this new government owned monopoly from consideration by the ACCC.

We know that one of the objectives is to eliminate the vertical integration of Telstra. We know that is one of the objectives of the NBN, and that is one that has been welcomed by many people in the community—particularly in the telecommunications sector. And yet the achievement of structural separation does not depend on the destruction, the closing down and the cancelling out of Telstra’s copper network. It does not depend on the elimination of any competition from the HFC network. If vertical integration is the problem, structural separation is the answer. Again, there is no assessment of why the NBN is needed to achieve that.

We are told that this is required to deliver affordable broadband across Australia. Unless it is suggested—and it is not—that nobody in Australia has access to broadband at acceptable standards then a clear alternative is to consider what it would cost and what the approach required would be to enable those parts of Australia, be they in cities or in regions, that do not have access to affordable broadband at acceptable speeds to do so. It is quite clear that there would need to be upgrades to network architecture in the cities to eliminate pair gains, RIMs and other features of historical network design; and, of course, substantial investment in fixed wireless and satellite facilities in regional Australia.

The truth is that both sides of politics have been in favour of that for some time. Indeed, if the coalition had won the 2007 election, a program—the OPEL program—would already now have provided broadband right across regional Australia. Because of the pending nature of the NBN nothing has been done. The NBN has been a real obstacle to any other investment in fixed line network infrastructure in Australia because people are saying, not unreasonably: ‘Why should I upgrade my network? Why should I invest in a new network, because the NBN is going to come and overbuild me?’

Right now the group of companies that presently provide fibre optic services in greenfields developments do not know what to do. They do not know whether their existing investments are going to be acquired by the NBN and whether they are going to be overbuilt. Developers do not know whether the NBN is going to provide connectivity to their greenfields developments and, if so, when. Telstra does not believe it has an obligation under the USO to connect new developments to the copper network, and instead is helpfully providing people with a mobile phone. This is a massive project that requires real scrutiny.

Another committee of this parliament that is under statute obliged to look at public works is, of course, the Public Works Committee. And yet the government has made a regulation to exempt the activities of the NBN from the Public Works Committee. The parliament will have to consider whether to disallow that regulation. The Public Works Committee’s scrutiny would considerably benefit the operation and the construction of the NBN. The nature of the Public Works Committee is to look at a proposed project and then report on it, but what we have here with the NBN is a project that will be built over a decade, so it is going to require continuing scrutiny over a very long period of time. The issues that the Public Works Committee look at on a continuing basis would be very appropriate for this joint select committee: the cost-effectiveness of the proposal, the stated purpose of the work and the suitability of its purposes.

But, above all, this is the biggest investment of Commonwealth money ever made in infrastructure in our country’s history, yet we do not have a business case and we do not have a cost-benefit analysis. We have a government that hangs its economic credibility on Ken Henry’s shoulders every day, and yet it was Ken Henry, the Secretary to the Treasury, who said that every major infrastructure project must pass an appropriately designed cost-benefit analysis and if it does not then it ‘necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing’. There is nobody better suited to undertake the cost-benefit analysis than the Productivity Commission, and that is of course why just a few moments ago I introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Representatives.

This committee, however, will provide continuing scrutiny. There will be continuing issues, assuming this project is to go ahead, that will arise with the NBN. There will be major issues about competition. We have seen for the last decade telecommunications prices come down year after year after year. If you cast your mind back 10 years, let alone 15 years, the change in the cost of telecommunications is really extraordinary, and we would hope that that decline in prices would continue—in other words, that telecommunications and access to the internet would become cheaper over time. What we have with the NBN, however, is a massive investment that will need to have some revenue generated to support it. Even if it is to achieve an anaemic return—any return—it is going to need to have strong revenues. How can that be achieved without driving up prices?

The McKinsey implementation study—which was not a cost-benefit analysis, which did not look at alternatives and which was precluded from doing so—recommended that wholesale prices for the NBN should increase in real terms, that is to say over and above inflation, every year for the next decade. In other words, in the NBN world we will see internet access prices going up whereas for the last decade or more they have been coming down. People might say, ‘Well, households will be prepared to pay higher prices for greater speeds.’ Anyone in the telecommunications business will tell you that there is no evidence that people will pay a premium for higher bandwidth. History has shown that as higher bandwidth has become available it has been made available to households and businesses at costs that are comparable to, if not lower than, the previous lower speed products. The NBN has been undertaken with little or no scrutiny. This committee is an essential part of the parliament doing its job. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are we here? We are here because the member for Wentworth in his previous guise and those who sat with him in the Howard coalition cabinet failed to come up with an affordable and appropriate telecommunications policy. They left the legacy after privatising Telstra of Telstra owning the fixed line and copper network connecting almost every household, as well as the largest cable network, half of the largest pay-TV network and the largest mobile network. The member for Wentworth talked about OPEL. Before the 2007 election I got Geoscience Australia to provide me with a map of my electorate—which then took in the Lockyer Valley, about 60 per cent of Ipswich and the old Boonah shire—just to see what the coalition’s wonderful plan would look like. I ask them to put red where there were gaps—where broadband would not reach premises. This covered farms, businesses, schools and hospitals. Great swathes of Ipswich were not covered, parts of the Lockyer Valley were not covered, and most of the Boonah shire was not covered. That is the legacy of 18 failed plans.

Let us not kid ourselves about why we are here today. We are here today because the member for Wentworth was looking for a job. He was looking for the job of shadow Treasurer; he is looking for the job of shadow finance minister. He went in to meet with the opposition leader. He was looking for a job and the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘I’ll give you the job to demolish the NBN.’ Even if the cost-benefit analysis of the Productivity Commission report came down, in his public utterances he still would not commit himself to supporting the NBN.

We know it will connect over 1,000 cities and towns. Small towns in my electorate like Kilcoy, Toogoolawah, Lowood, Marburg and Rosewood are connected on the NBN. It is rolling out in Springfield Lakes next year. The NBN is vital infrastructure for this country and for regional and rural areas. The coalition’s legacy and what the coalition put up at the last election failed. The 150 members that sit in the House of Representatives know that the failure of the coalition on telecommunications in the last election was the decisive factor that means they are not sitting on the treasury bench. All through the issue with respect to the NBN they have procrastinated. We have symbolism and semantics. Even the bill and the motion here today are all about the perpetration and perpetuation of procrastination. That is what this is about. They have no intention of supporting the NBN. They have every intention of wrecking the NBN. This private member’s motion, and indeed the bill that the member for Wentworth put into the House of Representatives before, is all about wrecking.

They came up with some plan. It was a $6.3 billion plan. The opposition leader did not have the integrity, grace and fortitude to stand up and say, ‘I own it,’ but let the now member for Casey, who is consigned to the shadow parliamentary secretary position, as the shadow minister, stand there and present it. Scorn was put upon that plan. We know it was just a patched-up attempt to come up with something because, on the first day of the last parliament, we had the shadow Treasurer asking about telecommunications. And he said, ‘I think if we could get broadband across the country it’d be a good thing.’ The coalition has simply failed time and time again.

The member for Wentworth talks about the implementation stuff. He talks about the independent advisers McKinsey and KPMG. We released that study on 6 May this year—eight months of detailed analysis. And guess what? It confirmed that, under a range of realistic hypothetical scenarios, NBN Co. would have a strong and viable business case. That is what it said.

There is no guarantee that, if the Productivity Commission looked at this and came up with a recommendation, those opposite would support it. We have had a $25 million implementation study. Look at the motion put forward by the member for Wentworth. Apart from the first subparagraph, it is all about the methodology, operations and semantics of this committee. Everyone who sits in this place knows that that committee will take months and months and months. There will be submissions. They will take a long time to process.

We know—through what people like Access Economics have said in terms of the benefits of telehealth to Australia—that the National Broadband Network would benefit Australia to the tune of between $2 billion and $4 billion a year. Access Economics have also indicated that Australia could save between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion a year if 10 per cent of the workforce teleworked half the time. This is what the National Broadband Network will do. It will make sure that whether you live in Toorak or Toogoolawah you will have the same access to fast-speed broadband. That is why it is important.

There have been so many occasions when this thing has been looked at. As to the record of those opposite: what about when we introduced our competition and consumer safeguards legislation in 2009? They did not want to debate it until we produced an ACCC report in the original NBN tender process. We did that. Then they would not debate the bill until the implementation study was released. We did that. Next they claimed the NBN legislation was bad for Telstra’s shareholders, and when the chairperson and the CEO came to an agreement with us—guess what? There was no pat on the back from those opposite. They came up with this patchwork system and claimed it was better than ours. But the Independents did not think so, and the public did not think so. Now the coalition oppose the NBN and claim that we need a cost-benefit analysis. Last time, as I mentioned before, when the competition and consumer safeguards were debated, we had what the Americans call a filibuster by those opposite. They put nearly 20 speakers on the list so we could not get to a vote. Now they want another parliamentary committee overseeing the NBN. But we have already seen Senate select committees look at this and produce reports. How many more?

The truth is: those opposite are wreckers, and this reeks of desperation. This is all about them attacking. This is all about them not accepting the outcome of the election. They claim they support regional and rural Australia. Well, I represent a regional and rural seat in South-East Queensland. I represent farmers, I represent small towns, I represent rural hospitals and rural schools, and I can tell you: they want the NBN. That is why the Somerset Regional Council, in my electorate, put forward, along with regional councils like those of Toowoomba and Ipswich and the Scenic Rim and the Lockyer Valley, an implementation proposal so they could get on to the NBN. They wanted it early. I have been there, at the Somerset Region Business Alliance meetings—and that is not exactly a body affiliated with the Australian Labor Party Queensland branch, I can assure you, because the people on the executive of that association in my electorate were there handing out how-to-vote cards for the LNP on election day. But they have said on numerous occasions how important the NBN is for the Somerset region and regional and rural areas in South-East Queensland.

The member for Wentworth is looking for an agenda. He is looking for a solution. He is looking for a job. And that is what this is all about. We talk about Lazarus rising. Well, he is looking for another resurrection—a resurrection from the political graveyard of opposition and irrelevance. He is looking to do that because that is what this bill and this motion are about: wrecking the NBN and trying to resurrect the career of the member for Wentworth.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to reflect for a moment on that contribution, which was, I think, not much more than personal abuse. It was very low on facts, very low on vision and very low on the important concept that we should be accountable for the taxpayers’ money that we spend. In the debate that we are going to have on this issue in this place, we have one side, the government, which is running from scrutiny. And it is absolutely important that when we spend one dollar of taxpayers’ money we should be getting value for money for that dollar, because our taxpayers work hard to provide the funds which we spend on their behalf through this place. Yet we have a government that says: ‘We are going to embark on the largest public infrastructure project in this nation’s history. We’re going to be visionary. We’re going to be nation building. But we’re not going to do a cost-benefit analysis.’ And why is that?

If I were recommending a project to the Australian people, I would welcome a cost-benefit analysis because it would show that the assumptions I had made in putting the program together were correct. I would not welcome it if I had been fudging the figures, I would not welcome it if I had been gilding the lily, I would not welcome it if I had been overly optimistic and I would not welcome it if I had been dreaming. I say to the members opposite: which of the things I have just mentioned apply to you? Quite clearly, you are all about avoiding scrutiny. Quite clearly, you are not willing to put your project to the test; otherwise, you would welcome the cost-benefit analysis.

The opposition is not saying we should stop the bus; the opposition is saying we have got to make sure the bus is heading in the right direction, we have got to make sure the bus’s engine is going to operate efficiently and we have got to make sure the bus is going to get us to our destination efficiently and effectively. Governments deal in priorities. Quite clearly, high-speed communications are an important priority for this country, but they need to be judged on the basis of the alternative types of investments we can make. For the money that is proposed to be spent on this project we could complete the Pacific Highway. For the money that is proposed to be spent on this project we could upgrade our health system beyond our wildest dreams. Yet Senator Conroy and the government seem to be saying: ‘It doesn’t matter what the opportunity cost of capital is—I have a dream! Build it and they will come. But please don’t do a cost-benefit analysis. Please don’t establish a committee that is going to examine in great detail the progress of this project.’

I think it is very sad that the government is so hell-bent on pushing ahead without scrutiny. What would the committee that is the subject of this motion achieve? The proposed committee would be working in real time and looking at issues as they arise. It would be taking evidence from NBN Co. in real time and checking that the project is performing as they believe it should be and as the Australian people have the right to expect it to. We do not want to see a Building the Education Revolution disaster or a pink batts disaster and then be faced with having to clean up after the event. We want to build a fence at the top of the cliff, not send an ambulance to the bottom of the cliff to clean up the mess afterwards. And that is the real situation that we face here. We do not want to have an Auditor-General’s report in X years’ time saying $43 billion was blown—was wasted. We want to make sure that this project is kept on track. Based on their performance with regard to the pink batts program, computers in schools and Building the Education Revolution, this government have a very poor record of keeping projects on track.

I remember that the member for Leichhardt used to have a T-shirt with a big crocodile on it. The crocodile was licking its lips and, at the top of the T-shirt, it said ‘Trust me!’ I really do not feel well disposed to trust the government based on their financial performance to date. The implementation report by McKinsey assumes that everything has to go right, that the take-up rate has to be around 90 per cent and that the costs need to be kept under control. Where is the contingency? Where is the provision for the things that are going to pop up? We do not know what they are but we sure do know that they are coming. Where is that prudent contingency that would allow for the almost inevitable cost overruns? We have seen discussions about labour force shortages. Where is the contingency for that? Where is the sensitivity analysis with regard to blowouts in labour costs, as opposed to the total cost for the completion of the project? Where is that? I have not seen it. It has not been published. The government give me no confidence that they can train the workforce, deliver the project on time and ensure that wages do not blow out to a point where the project becomes unviable. It is just like that crocodile: ‘Trust me!’ The coalition are about ensuring that this project is properly analysed. The government are about trying to sell a dream to the Australian people. It is a project that they are not willing to subject to scrutiny.

The Prime Minister is promising that all people will pay the same wholesale price for broadband. But counter that with the fact that there will be different costs in providing services to different parts of the country and the government’s proposal to sell off a proportion of this project. Will a rational investor purchase it based on regulated prices? What is the likelihood that the government will be able to sell this project as a private-sector investment? We have already seen the government retreat from the original proposal that it should be an investment that would be attractive for the public to invest in; we are seeing a very rapid retreat from that.

I would also like to mention the very important issue of opt in, opt out. We had a pilot program in Tasmania—and it was so successful that the Tasmanian government has to adopt an opt-out model! We have not seen the people who were provided with this technology as a pilot for the whole of Australia racing to take it up and embrace it. We have seen what I would say is very much a reluctant take-up. What does that say to a prudent investor? A prudent government would look at the situation and perhaps alarm bells should be ringing. The take-up rate is not what they were expecting. What does the take-up rate in Tasmania say for the projections of the McKinsey report? It says to me that the projections are very much at risk. It says to me that a prudent investor would exercise caution. But the government do not believe that is so. Despite the risk, they want to push ahead. They do not want a cost-benefit analysis and they do not want to have an inquiry that could subject this project to scrutiny as it progresses. They do not want to see the Australian public informed of cost overruns or time delays in construction or low take-up rates. They want to be able to conceal that. The government’s strategy on NBN Co. has been very much a strategy of concealment.

In estimates, we have seen Senator Conroy ducking and weaving, arguing and trying to avoid simple questions that were aimed at getting the sort of information that the Australian people have a right to receive. People in regional and rural Australia, quite clearly, want high-speed broadband. They believe the priority should be given first to those areas with the worst services. That is the coalition’s point of view. Instead, this government is all about charging ahead, under a veil of secrecy, on a project that it cannot demonstrate is financially viable. They are, in fact, keeping the truth from the Australian people and concealing issues such as the take-up of broadband. Why are they not upfront with these sorts of issues? Getting information out of the government as to how this project is progressing is like getting blood out of a stone. This motion is a very important one, as this committee would go some distance toward providing the sort of transparency that Australian taxpayers want and deserve.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion comprises 18 points of procedure for a joint select committee to examine all aspects of the business of NBN Co. I note that there have been public statements by those opposite urging the independent members of the House to support this motion, as an adjunct to a separate private member’s bill, introduced by the member for Wentworth today.

There is a clear contrast here between Labor’s position and that of the Liberal-National Party. On this side, we are about getting on with the job of delivering high-quality broadband into people’s homes without delay, whereas the implications of the coalition’s position will reinforce the digital divide and the lack of decent broadband services in rural and regional areas.

I note the public rationale given for this proposal—that such a committee will oversee the rollout of the NBN. I know this from my research on the Liberal Party’s website. I am therefore bemused by the slogan, on the same website, that preceded these great platitudes on why it is so imperative to establish such a committee. It says:

Fighting for less talk more action. The Liberals believe infrastructure is about getting things done, not just talking about it.

Well, obviously not. I went from bemused to amused when I clicked on the Liberals’ broadband and telecommunications policy. It is exactly the same document that was universally lampooned at the federal election, and it still says—on its very first page—that the coalition will cancel the NBN.

So, in response to the member for Cowper, who is talking about his team not wanting to stop the bus, I suggest that he should get off that bus. He represents an electorate which has the 20th worst level of broadband penetration in the country—a measly 27.6 per cent. With 150 being the best and one being the worst, he is representing an electorate at number 20. So those opposite are not about transparency; they are about trashing. It is no wonder, then, that in telco circles they have been referring to the member for Wentworth as the shadow minister for dial-up.

Today, I want to present three factual and logical reasons why this proposal for yet another committee to examine NBN Co. should be rejected. I will also provide compelling data which demonstrates why this proposal is contrary to the interests of the constituents who are represented by the independent members in this place.

The first reason is the notion that NBN Co. is somehow lacking in its governance arrangements and oversight of the progress on its principal activity—to build and operate a national broadband network. Hence, there is the need for another layer of supervision of its operations and financing. Such assumptions are ill-conceived and they ignore one of the most basic facts about NBN Co. It is an entity which is subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act. It is a Commonwealth company and is classified as a government business enterprise under regulation. What does this mean? As a Commonwealth company, NBN Co. bears a statutory requirement to submit financial reports, directors’ reports and auditors’ reports on its operations. It is subject to a series of other reporting obligations. The finance minister has the power to require interim reports from NBN Co. and those reports must be tabled in both houses of parliament.

But it does not stop there. The obligations on NBN Co. also require its directors to prepare a corporate plan, at least annually, for the responsible minister, and that plan must cover a minimum period of three years. The directors must keep the minister informed about changes to the plan and matters that arise that might significantly affect the achievements of its objectives. Other matters covered by the plan include assumptions about the business environment in which it operates; its investment and financing, including strategies for managing financial risk, financial targets and projections from the company; and an analysis of factors likely to affect achievement of those targets or create significant financial risk for the company or the Commonwealth.

I note the statements by the CEO of NBN Co. in Senate estimates last week, that its corporate plan and business model would be presented to the NBN Co. board, last Friday, and that its board recently signed-off on its annual report for the first full year of its operations—including an unqualified report by its external auditor, the ANAO. I also highlight the stringent reporting requirements prescribed in that act. NBN Co. must keep the responsible minister informed of its operations. It must give reports and documents in relation to those operations, as required by both the minister and the finance minister.

These are not merely issues of internal functioning. These are matters which go to the principal activities of NBN Co., which are stated as:

… to build and operate a new National Broadband Network to deliver telephony and high speed broadband to Australian homes, schools and businesses.

If anyone holds concerns about the operation of NBN Co. that are so grave as to warrant an even fuller degree of parliamentary scrutiny, then they should not beat around with a half-baked excuse for delay in yet another form of inquiry that conducts an unbounded series of reporting and produce a report or series of reports that end up as doorstops.

The existing statutory framework for an entity such as NBN Co. does not allow for anything less than full scrutiny and accountability of its activities. The member for Wentworth misses an important point. There are multiple pieces of legislation before the parliament, or about to come back, including the NBN companies bill and the access arrangements bill, which address many of the issues he has already raised. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to comprehend what this motion would achieve, other than to add an unnecessary distraction from the real debate. There should be a consensus in this place on the need to deliver the benefits of the digital economy to the Australian people, and the vital role of world-class broadband as part of that delivery.

This brings me to the second point of my argument. Whilst the proponents of this motion have couched their motivations in the alleged pursuit of transparency, I put it to those here that yet another parliamentary committee would in fact be the least effective mechanism to oversee its roll-out. NBN Co. already has the things that are needed to ensure that it has an effective roll-out and effective oversight. Far from holding a view that its operations are faultless, I believe that it is the combination of factors operating together, often in a state of tension, which keeps an entity like itself focused and in check. I therefore put to the proponents of this motion that if there is an aspect of NBN Co.’s operations which are deficient, they should be identified and dealt with directly and not couched in yet another referral to a committee, with the sole motivation of delay.

Finally, there has been much said about the realities of the timing of the Commonwealth parliamentary committee process, which, as a practitioner in this field I have observed. I have had cause to analyse and assist in the preparation of what seemed to be countless parliamentary inquiries into broadband, including that of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network and its five reports. We have a duty to the citizens of Australia to avoid political expediency and obstructionist tactics and to focus on an efficient delivery of this vital piece of national infrastructure.

But do not take my word for it; look at the evidence. As I mentioned earlier, one only needs to examine the ranking of Australian electorates in terms of households with a broadband connection. Out of 150 electorates the member for Cowper represents an electorate which has one of the worst penetration rates in the country, at 27.6 per cent. The member for Hinkler will speak next; only 32 electorates in Australia fare worse than his. For the member for New England, barely a quarter of his household constituency has a broadband connection. The member for Lyne has the 18th worst in the nation. The member for Denison has the 44th worst ranking out of 150. And I do not think my own electorate of Greenway is good enough; it is ranked around the top 30, at position 120, but there are still less than 50 per cent of households with a broadband connection. And this is after 12 years of coalition government, with 18 failed broadband plans. This is the best they could come up with.

I can go back to my constituents at the end of every sitting week, look them in the eye and tell them that I am doing my best in this place to fight for real high-speed broadband, but tactics like this motion stand against the residents I represent in Riverstone—the site of the first Sydney metro roll-out of the NBN—and the constituents of New England, Lyne and Denison, moving out of the mere 30-per-cent-and-below bracket for broadband penetration.

To those who think this is somehow a noble and justified motion I say this: show me that groundswell of 74.8 per cent of households in New England who do not have broadband who think it is a great idea to delay the NBN roll-out; show me the 72.6 per cent of households in Lyne who think they will get access to faster, more affordable broadband if the issue is shifted off to yet another parliamentary committee.

I am all in favour of oversight of the operations of NBN Co.—and the Australian public would expect nothing less—but at least I do not think the Australian public are so naive as to believe this motion is sincere in its motivations. Let’s pass Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010, let’s bring on the NBN companies bill and the access arrangements bill and let’s finally give Australians the high-speed broadband they deserve.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure today to be supporting the motion by the member for Wentworth, who has articulated a very clear case. You will note the passion and the ridicule that was inherent in the two speeches we have heard so far from the government, but they are more concerned about trying to kill this in the cradle than they are about scrutiny.

There were always alternatives to spending $43 billion of taxpayers’ money to get high-speed broadband to Australia. The emotional appeals made by the government do not examine the real cost of the roll-out, nor are they capped, nor are the benefits comprehensively examined—especially if you are in that last seven per cent of Australians who may have to wait eight years or even longer before they enjoy some of the benefits of broadband.

This Turnbull motion gives an all-party joint committee the role of overseeing and reporting on aspects of the business of the NBN Co.—its composition, its constitution, its operations its financing and related matters. That is not an unreasonable proposition when you consider that we have embarked, at the government’s instigation, on the largest single infrastructure spend of its type in Australia’s history—spending, I might add, that is out of kilter with anything else going on in comparable countries around the world. As the member for Wentworth illustrated earlier in the main chamber, we will be spending 100 times, per capita, what the United States is outlaying on a similar endeavour. Then the government says that there is no need for scrutiny! What do you take the Australian public for—fools?

It is obvious from this passion and abuse that I spoke of before, that the government is lacking in any argument at all. It simply wants to kill the thing in the cradle. What about this paradigm that we were coming into with the opposition and the Independents—the crossbenchers? What about this new paradigm of clarity, even-handedness and bipartisanship? Why would you be frightened of an all-party committee?

This is a very comprehensive committee. It covers two members of the government and the opposition in each chamber: two government members in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate and, similarly, two opposition members from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate, plus one each of the crossbenchers from both chambers. It is not a talk fest committee; it has the power to call witnesses. One thing I very much like about it is that it has the power to meet in any place that it sees fit. That means that it will go out to those country areas—that seven per cent of Australia that may not, under a Labor government, receive any sort of reasonable telecommunications—and hear what people have to say.

Diverting just slightly, I was on the inquiry into racing on radio. Racing is a big deal in the period from mid-October to mid-November. The ABC closed off its radio racing service without any reference to the people of Australia, especially rural people. Not even its own advisory committee was consulted. As part of the inquiry into that, we went to a little place called Barraba, near Tamworth. It was interesting to sit there and know that the ABC was the only form of connection to a lot of the information that made that race meeting possible. In this modern era of telecommunications, country people have a great need for good-quality communications, whether it is delivered by fibre, copper, wireless or satellite, but under Labor’s plan the last seven per cent can just keep wishing.

The member for Blair was quite derogatory in his comments about OPEL. There is a funny thing about OPEL. In the last term of parliament I had an electorate that was even larger than the one I have now, and OPEL covered every corner of my electorate bar a small place called Didcot. I would have thought that, 3½ years on, the people of Hinkler would have been better served, with everyone in that electorate—whether they are in communities of fewer than 1,000 or in larger communities; whether they are in the heart of Bundaberg, Hervey Bay or Bargara—having access to wireless broadband, but that is not the case. Let me say that we were talking about $2 billion and then, during the interregnum following the campaign, we had five telcos telling us that they could deliver broadband via wireless for $3 billion. Let me take another step. Some years ago, Senator Nash, Senator Joyce and I formed a committee of the National Party to look at ways of getting broadband into the country. We had Baulderstone Hornibrook work with us, and Leighton at another stage. We came up with a plan of fibre arteries into the inland, followed by nodes of wireless, followed in turn in the most remote areas by satellite, and we could do that for $7 billion. ‘Shock, horror!’ they said at the time. ‘The wasteful, profligate National Party wants to spend $7 billion!’ Try $43 billion, six times that number, and still not getting it to the bush!

Why would you not want oversight of this biggest spend in Australia’s political history? You might like to have a look at the pink batts program. We did not have any oversight there to speak of, and of course the green audits did not even really get going. The rorting was so profound so early that even the government had to get rid of it. If you are talking about the BER and, in particular, the school halls program, where we have seen some of the most flagrant overspends, if not rorts, in our country’s educational history, why would you not be sceptical about a $43 billion spend—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With no scrutiny.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, with no scrutiny. This is not meant to hold the thing up; this is meant to be ongoing oversight—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like hell!

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like hell, he says. You must have ongoing scrutiny. If the Labor Party and the crossbenchers are so sure of their case, why wouldn’t they be part of it?

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’d welcome it.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why wouldn’t they welcome it? Why wouldn’t they be on that committee making sure that it justified what they had done—that it was bringing home the bacon, so to speak? But no. It was also interesting to hear the member for Blair saying what a marvellous thing the McKinsey report was. It cost $25 million—$46,000 a page, I think the member for Wentworth estimated. This little quote sums it all up:

The purpose of the Implementation Study is to advise Government on how best to implement its stated policy objectives—

and note this—

not to evaluate those objectives, given that the policies have already been agreed to by Government.

In other words, ‘Let’s go round and chase our tail because we did not get any clear direction from the government.’ The member for Wentworth has come up with a very good plan that adds a level of probity that has been missing in all these government programs, particularly in telecommunications. I commend his motion to this House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion in question purports to be about a cost-benefit analysis for the government’s exciting proposal to roll out a National Broadband Network. Whenever the words ‘cost’, ‘benefit’ and ‘analysis’ are included in a proposal, they have a superficial sheen of credibility. Unfortunately, in this instance what undermines that superficial sheen of credibility is that the proponents of the motion spent most of their time in the last parliament criticising the government for conducting endless rounds of reviews and establishing committees on everything that we proposed to do and not getting on with the job of implementing our policies. Indeed, the members opposite have spent a great deal of their time over the last three years criticising our action on rolling out the National Broadband Network. In my own area, the member for Gilmore has gone to print on several occasions criticising the government for not yet having the suburbs of that electorate already wired up. Its credibility is undermined even further by the fact that it comes from a party whose leader has dedicated himself to the task of ensuring that this National Broadband Network never gets built.

We can see from all of this that it is not about the costs and the benefits but it is about opposition, it is about blocking, it is about sowing the seeds of doubt in the electorate. It is a tactic, because those opposite know that, if they were ever able to occupy the treasury bench and if they were to set themselves about their task of digging up the National Broadband Network and its kilometres of fibre-optic cable, the Australian people would criticise them and condemn them roundly, so their only choice is to stop it dead in its tracks.

We stand here opposing this plan and all the ruses and guises which are a part of the tactics to deliver that policy objective. We stand for rolling out broadband, and it matters a lot. The National Broadband Network is as important to the economic development of Australia in the 21st century as the railways were to the economic development of this country in the 19th and 20th centuries. Yes, the NBN is about entertainment and home users and residential users, but it is about much more than that. It is about enhancing productivity. It is about ensuring that we can deliver state-of-the-art health and medical procedures to those people who live in regional Australia—regions that are represented by many members opposite—people who live in regions such as mine in the electorate of Throsby, delivering first-class health and education services to people who do not live in the capital cities of this country. Quite simply, it is critical for regional Australia.

In my own electorate each week about 20,000 people crowd the train platforms of the suburbs to make a daily journey to the CBD of Sydney in pursuit of work. The National Broadband Network is their opportunity to spend less time on those trains and less time on those freezing cold train platforms at five and six o’clock in the morning, and a little more time in their homes and in workplaces closer to their homes. It is critical for small businesses, which those opposite often purport to represent, but does little to ensure that small businesses have the infrastructure which makes them viable. In the electorate of Throsby, over 67 per cent of the small businesses are home based small businesses, and the National Broadband Network is critical to connecting those businesses to the markets of Australia and the world.

The National Broadband Network is already attracting exciting investment in the electorate of Throsby, on the South Coast and Southern Highlands of New South Wales. I was delighted this morning to read an article in the Illawarra Mercury where the journalist was reporting on an exciting investment by an Indian IT company, which is a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard, which has announced that it will be establishing a new information and communications technology centre in the innovation campus of the University of Wollongong. This will employ around 250 people in an electorate like Throsby, which has a great university but does not always have the employment opportunities that will attract and retain the graduates. Investments like these will make an enormous difference to my electorate. I am very excited because the investors in this new facility specifically cited the National Broadband Network and the opportunities for early rollout of the National Broadband Network in the Illawarra region as one of their reasons for choosing the Illawarra and the University of Wollongong as their site for investment and development. This is a factor which is also reported in an article in the Australian Financial Review under the headline ‘NBN stimulates investment in research’.

I support the continuation of these exciting investments and I know that the people of my electorate do as well. We have been advised by NBN Co. that in the areas which are identified for early rollout and where cable is currently being rolled out past the suburbs on the South Coast of New South Wales, in places like Minnamurra and Kiama Downs, over two-thirds of the eligible households have put their hand up and said, ‘Yes, please, I want to be connected to this National Broadband Network.’ So it is not only businesses but also individuals that see the enormous benefits of the NBN for a regional electorate like Throsby.

Australians have suffered and waited a long time for the NBN. Under the previous, coalition government there were something in the order of 18 failed plans for broadband. In fact, you could characterise the coalition’s policy on broadband as a vacant field. They had only one policy, and that was a policy for privatising Telstra. They had no policy for dealing with the consequences of privatising such a large near-monopoly provider. So there were over 18 failed broadband plans over a 12-year period and now they have the temerity to come to this place and attempt to put more and more roadblocks in the way of us rolling out one of Australia’s most important pieces of nation-building infrastructure.

They talk about the importance of a cost-benefit analysis. I just say this. We have had a cost analysis, the $25 million McKinsey report which said that the National Broadband Network can be delivered within the cost envelope proposed by the government. As to the benefits of the NBN, the people of my electorate know them full well, and I believe the people of Australia have got a pretty good eye for what the benefits of this proposal are too, because this proposal has gone before no fewer than two elections. We took a proposal to build a national broadband network to the 2007 election and the Australian people saw the benefits of it and voted for it. We took this specific proposal to the 2010 election and those opposite made it one of the foci of their opposition during that campaign, and once again they failed to win the support of the Australian people. So when it comes to the cost-benefit analysis, we have had enough of committees, enough of reviews. I think the people of Throsby and the people of Australia just want us to get on with the job.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.