Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 because it is an example of why this parliament actually exists—that is, to make sure that legislation and decisions brought forward by this or any government are properly scrutinised and are considered to be the best possible option and solution for the Australian public at the time and, of course, will continue to serve into the future. After all, this bill proposes to appropriate Australian taxpayers’ money. It is not the government’s money; taxpayers’ money would fund the National Broadband Network as proposed by the government.

The coalition, business and industry are not sure if this NBN proposal fits that description. We are not sure if this project is the best option for the Australian public or, for that matter, the Telstra shareholders, who are yet to decide whether they will support the divestment of a whole lot of their infrastructure for a figure of some $11 billion. They are not sure and we are not sure because we as a parliament have not been privy to the financial data associated with the NBN.

The NBN has not been subject to proper scrutiny. We see articles every other day in the newspaper that are critical of the process—and rightly so. It has not been subject to any cost-benefit analysis. Any government project of this magnitude—even 50 per cent of this magnitude—should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, as it is in the case of road infrastructure. It has not even been referred to this government’s own agency Infrastructure Australia for consideration. We have to ask why. This is the largest single infrastructure investment in Australia’s history and it deserves better scrutiny. It deserves to be referred to Infrastructure Australia. It also deserves to be referred to the Productivity Commission for their analysis, as this bill suggests.

This government does not have a good track record when it comes to rolling out big spending projects. We only have to look at the roof insulation debate and the BER school halls scheme to see that. That is why we as an opposition are concerned about this $43 billion that is to be spent on a nation-building project that has not been submitted to a cost-benefit analysis. That is why this bill has been introduced by the coalition. We are requesting that the NBN Co., which is obviously responsible for the NBN project, release a highly detailed 10-year business plan. That would be a good start. We are also calling on the NBN project to be referred to the Productivity Commission for a cost-benefit analysis. That is what the Australian taxpayers deserve at the very least. It is their money. We need to have an assurance that it is being well spent and not wasted.

An important inclusion in our proposed Productivity Commission inquiry would be an analysis of the current availability of broadband across Australia and consideration of the most cost-effective and speedy options by which fast broadband services can be made available to all Australians, particularly those in rural and remote parts of Australia. This would certainly be welcomed by my constituents of Maranoa, especially those in the far west of my electorate. Many of the shire councils in far western Queensland are working hard to increase their annual tourism market numbers and they have great initiatives and ideas to encourage more domestic and international visitors to their unique outback towns. But to do this they need the necessary infrastructure. If this NBN is truly nation building then the NBN Co. should be focusing on these areas where the market fails. Yet what we have heard from this government is that they are building from the cities to the outback and, as we understand it, the outback may one day get a satellite service. If they want to undertake nation-building projects, they should go to where the market fails with taxpayers’ money and build from the outback to the coast. I can assure you that that would have the support of many of my constituents. A cost-benefit analysis from the Productivity Commission would be a sensible move by this government.

This bill is not about delaying the rollout of the NBN; it is already being rolled out in many parts of Australia. I must say that I have already had grave concerns about the process. Earlier this year in my electorate of Maranoa we had a number of landholders from Dalby contact my office to inform me that Nextgen, the company contracted to roll out the NBN optic fibre cable are trespassing across people’s private property. They are running beside a public highway and they are running alongside the railway line—another public land corridor—but, no, they have to go through private property. Why? Because it is easier and does not require the same sort of—(Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the commencement of my contribution to this debate I must say I am really surprised that the member for Maranoa cannot see the benefit of the NBN to his constituency, because I believe that his constituency and those people that are living outside big cities are the ones that have the greatest potential to benefit from the NBN. I understand that the member for Wentworth lives in inner Sydney. That is a very nice area where you can access all the services and infrastructure you need. But in areas like the area I represent and like most of the members in this parliament represent, we struggle to get access to that vital infrastructure. Do you know what I think this legislation is? It is legislation to delay, to put barriers in front of the national broadband network, NBN, being introduced. It is a tactic.

We all know that the Leader of the Opposition gave the member for Wentworth the brief of demolishing and destroying the NBN. He is doing it in a very subtle way; he is trying to prevent it actually becoming operational. I think the member for Wentworth should be ashamed of himself, because the people of Australia can actually see through what he is doing here. I can assure the House that my constituents in Shortland are well aware of the benefit that the NBN will have for them. They do not believe that establishing a joint select committee to oversee the rollout of the NBN will benefit them. They do not see that will allow them to be able to access broadband, let alone fast-speed broadband, any quicker. They just see this as members living in a very nice area of inner Sydney putting barriers in front of their being able to access what they believe is their right. They do not believe that the Productivity Commission doing a cost-benefit analysis will do anything to help them get fast-speed broadband any quicker. No, they recognise it for what it is. They recognise that requiring a Productivity Commission cost-benefit analysis and the publication of a 10-year business plan for the NBN Co. is just a delaying tactic that is designed to prevent them from accessing fast-speed broadband.

On this side of the House we know that the nations that embrace fast-speed broadband are the nations that will succeed. It has already been shown how far behind Australia is in relation to broadband: 17th out of 31 countries on national broadband penetration; the fifth most expensive among 30 developed countries on broadband prices; 50th in terms of broadband speeds; equal last on deployment of optic fibre broadband; and 29th out of 50 countries on an average connection speed at 2.6 megabytes per second. On this side of the House we do not support that. We support fast-speed broadband for everyone. We recognise its worth to businesses. We know that businesses such as in the area I represent on the Central Coast and near Lake Macquarie need this to be competitive. It means that residents living on the Central Coast will no longer need to travel to Sydney; they will be able to work from their home. It is bringing their work to where they live.

I think the member for Wentworth should be condemned for trying to frustrate the government in its efforts to roll out fast-speed broadband to all Australians. This is good legislation that will be good for Australia and good for the people I represent in this parliament.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians have become used to big numbers being bandied around under this Labor government: a couple of billion for the home insulation scheme; a few more billion for the school halls program—it sounds a bit like the whistle effect from The Hollow Men. The Australian people can perhaps be forgiven for having become desensitised to what are significant amounts of taxpayer money.

The government’s NBN proposal amounts to the biggest spend of taxpayer funds for its infrastructure in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is why it is remarkable that this idea has not been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis or properly considered by Infrastructure Australia. In September 2009 the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, stated:

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

Mr Henry is right. This spending deserves scrutiny. I therefore rise today to support the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 which will provide this scrutiny. In supporting this bill I recognise the member for Wentworth and applaud his efforts in bringing this legislation before the House today. If passed, this bill will lead to two major outcomes. First, it will require the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN. Secondly, it will refer the NBN to the Productivity Commission for a thorough consideration. Both are required to provide scrutiny of this major expenditure project. To date the government has relied upon the advice of the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study which, its own authors were keen to point out, was not a cost-benefit analysis. Incidentally, $25 million was spent on this implementation study. As a consequence the government has been unable to justify the economic benefits of establishing such a large monopoly—a monopoly which would possibly be in breach of this country’s competition legislation.

Recently, NBN Co. CEO, Mark Quigley, would not reveal the cost of the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania. Maybe there are a couple of members from Tasmania who would be able to enlighten us, but why all this secrecy? The Australian people—or should I say the Australian taxpayers—deserve to know whether this is the most effective way of delivering high-speed broadband to them. Without the scrutiny called for in this bill, they would not be provided with this information. It is not just the coalition that is seeking the passage of this bill and asking for this scrutiny; some of the most respected business leaders in the country have added their weight to the argument. Only today, a group of CEOs have written to the crossbenchers to urge them to support this bill. In their letter they state:

The NBN proposal now differs significantly from the proposal that was contemplated in the implementation study (which already found that the proposal in its then form was unlikely ever to generate a commercial rate of return). No serious analysis has been done of the changed cost implementations of these differences. Fundamental features of the project remain unresolved.

The voices of concern have not been confined to our shores. The recent OECD report pointedly observes that no cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken and then specifically goes on to suggest that the Productivity Commission is an ideal organisation to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. So if the cost-benefit analysis is sensible, prudent and supported, why is this government so reluctant to provide one? The excuses by the Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy for delays and costs simply do not stack up. The rollout is already progressing and will continue to progress, no doubt, whilst the Productivity Commission undertakes this proposed cost-benefit analysis that would also comfortably fit within the commission’s budget.

This bill has interest for my electorate of Swan given the Labor Party’s pre-election commitment to roll out the NBN in the suburb of Victoria Park as one of the second-release sites. Why they did not choose Belmont, I do not know. Victoria Park was probably higher on their agenda to win the seat of Swan. The Labor Party announced along with the Labor candidate—with much fanfare—that the construction of Victoria Park would be at the beginning of the second quarter of 2011. Yet of course there was no proof that they could deliver and no indication of whether it would be an opt-in or an opt-out system. Will my constituents face additional charges? We do not know because there is no adequate business plan. Notwithstanding this, after such fanfare during the campaign, the people of Victoria Park will be expecting the government to deliver on this commitment. I very much doubt that the constituents of Victoria Park will see anything other than just another broken promise, as the focus is now on regional areas.

I support this proposed bill. It is basic economic sense to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. There is overwhelming pressure on the government from the business community for this cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken. The NBN Co. also needs to produce a 10-year business case. The budget deficit stands at $41 billion. For the sake of Australia and the Australian taxpayer we must make sure this spending is justified. As Dirkson’s famous quote goes: ‘A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it all adds up to real money.’

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

I wish to speak against the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 and the proposal to have a joint select committee to oversee the rollout of the NBN. The bill also includes a proposal for the Productivity Commission to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network and to publish a business plan. Although I believe that the member for Wentworth has good intentions—or I hope he does—to try and make this a transparent process and that he thinks it will not have any impact whatsoever on the rollout of the National Broadband Network, it is a little late for him to start arguing for a cost-benefit analysis at this stage. Endless analyses, studies and arguments have suggested that this should happen and that we should be getting on with it.

We did not do a cost-benefit analysis when we put in railways in Australia, we did not do a cost-benefit analysis of all the roads around the country, we certainly did not do one when the copper went into the ground, we did not do it when we got the post office service going and we did not do it when the telegraph wire was run up the middle of the country. Those were the technologies of the time; this is the technology that we need now. This is the technology which will drive Australia forward and allow us to be competitive in the world, which we have not been up to now. We have been left behind. Those on the other side had 12 years to do this when they were in government. They used the argument, ‘Competition’s going to do it,’ but we just kept copper and bits of other stuff. Other people were going to make money out of pay TV. Basically that was the argument they made.

In my electorate, people are very angry about having to use a dial-up service, which drops out frequently. There does not seem to be any understanding on the other side of dial-up or the number of people who have contacted members about it. Ever since I have been a member of the House, for 17 or 18 years, people have been really angry about it. With pair gain they have certainly gained, by taking a bit of copper off somebody.

Some of the regional towns in my electorate, especially the outlying areas, have real problems keeping up. Many people who communicate and work at home have come to my region, the great electorate of Lyons, and wanted to live in its great valleys. But, since they have not been able to connect to the rest of the world, we have lost them. They are people who could make a very good contribution to the electorate through employing people and playing a role in the local community. Losing those people has been one of the sad consequences of not having fast broadband—let alone the constituents that do live in my electorate not having the opportunity to access fast broadband.

With a broadband connection, we could have e-health in my small towns. A 90-year-old could go to the local health clinic, put a wire or something on her chest and plug it into a socket, and her vital health information would go to a nurse. That nurse could look at that information and say, ‘You’re okay today; I’ll see you tomorrow.’ E-health saves money and improves delivery of health services. There are many positive things that could come out of this network. One school told me that it takes them five hours to download a documentary—five hours! With a broadband connection, it would happen with a click of the finger. They could talk to schoolchildren in other parts of the world. They would have the free flow of information which we all talk about. Small businesses are another group who would benefit from having a fast broadband connection.

I cannot believe that the National Party, of all parties, are opposed to this. They cannot see the pluses of this for regional Australia—a failure again by the National Party to get a grip on, or have an understanding of, broadband. Maybe they are ignorant. I certainly do not support this legislation. I believe that we have to make this happen. We have to get on with it and deliver the National Broadband Network. We are behind the eight ball; we need to be in front of it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 is twofold: the first is to require the publication of a 10-year business case for NBN Co. and the second is to refer the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. I find it astounding that we actually have to put a bill to the parliament to pressure the government to do this. Doing a business case and undertaking a cost-benefit analysis should be a basic requirement for any serious government infrastructure investment. In this case we are not just talking about a small investment. We are not talking about a couple of thousand dollars or even a couple of million dollars; we are talking about the largest public investment in Australia’s history—a $43 billion project. That is $5,000 per household, and all of it, of course, on borrowed money. Surely such a massive outlay deserves scrutiny. Surely it deserves a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

The government has repeatedly justified the enormous cost of the NBN project on the basis of its large contribution to the economy. We have just heard that here. Yet they have provided neither any tangible evidence nor any concrete examples to support that claim. Most of the applications and uses for the NBN that actually add to economic productivity are available over today’s ADSL2+ broadband speeds.

The McKinsey-KPMG implementation study did not offer the financial analysis necessary for such a large-scale project. It did not attempt a cost-benefit analysis or consider any other alternatives. Over $25 million was spent on that study, but the government did not require it to answer the most important question: is a $43 billion fibre-to-the-home network the most cost-effective way of achieving universal access to affordable broadband in Australia?

It is not just the opposition that is calling for a cost-benefit analysis and the assumptions underpinning the business case to be revealed. Many other respected commentators are also doing this. For example, the ANZ chairman said:

The lack of a business case and full publicity of that business case is throwing a lot of doubt in people’s minds about the level of expenditure.

The chairman of Wesfarmers said:

I am not convinced and feel it needs a cost-benefit analysis. I just don’t know if an NBN will rank in priority.

Even the Treasury Secretary, Dr Ken Henry, said that government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test ‘necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing’. Surely they should be listening to at least Dr Ken Henry in this regard, and I am not sure why they are not. Why is the government resisting commonsense, good financial practice and what is being called for by so many people? Senator Conroy has stated many reasons. He says it will be too costly, but it will not cost any additional government outlay if it is done by the Productivity Commission. He says it will take too long, but an analysis would take probably only six months and could be done in parallel with the existing operations. Finally he says that it cannot be done because it would just be too hard to do. Yes, it would be a difficult analysis, but it can be sensibly done, as the Productivity Commission itself has indicated.

The bottom line is that Minister Conroy has made every excuse that proponents put forward when they do not want their project subjected to scrutiny. This project is too large and too far reaching to avoid scrutiny. It needs the full scrutiny of the Productivity Commission. It needs a full, 10-year business case to be made publicly available. I commend the bill to the parliament.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 that is being put forward. I want to start by demonstrating problems that are being experienced in Chifley directly by small businesses. I was at the Woodcroft Lakes Festival in late September and I was approached by a franchise partner of a Gloria Jean’s outlet that works out of Woodcroft. He has been attempting to get a service that is available to him in his other outlets where he uses web technology to install cameras to monitor workflows and customer flows. From a security perspective he is able to access the operation of web cameras in their cafes. He tried to do the same thing in Woodcroft and was told, ‘Currently we are unable to activate the ADSL connection on your number as we have been advised by Telstra that the transmission loss on your nominated phone line is too high. This situation occurs when Telstra detects the possibility of a loss of data when the service is installed or the chosen location of your ADSL connection is too far from the exchange.’

This problem relates to Woodcroft’s distance in Western Sydney from the Blacktown exchange. In Woodcroft people are basically reliant on RIM technology to get access to ADSL. That technology is overwhelmed by the number of customers present. People have to wait for customers to leave to get access. I get constant complaints from people who are unable to access ADSL from Woodcroft. This is not new. I also raised this same problem in 2004 in relation to Glenwood and I was told by both Telstra and the former government that there was no problem, though consumers were screaming. Customers were saying that there was definitely a problem and they could not get access. This problem did not arise overnight; it has built up over time. At its heart, this problem reflects a regulatory stalemate that has existed for years. Once Telstra was sold off by the coalition, Telstra’s priority was about keeping shareholders happy by giving them great returns. Whenever Telstra considered investment in its network, it had to consider its return to shareholders and ultimately what it would be able to secure via its prices.

Telstra has always experienced its own battles with the ACCC, who had reservations about consumer impacts, concerns about Telstra levering off its market power and other concerns about lack of access to the network by its competitors. What did we have? We had a stand-off where the customer lost out. The problem is that when the coalition were in government they tried numerous times to fix it and were unable to. Customers lost out then, and now the coalition are offering further delay. Consumers were not able to get access to a strong network during the coalition’s period in office and they are being frustrated yet again by the coalition delaying things. I have to say I give the coalition points for being consistent. They have been unable to solve the problem themselves. They delayed getting an answer for people and now they are attempting to delay the government with the introduction of a variety of measures to frustrate the implementation and the rollout of the NBN.

We never saw a cost-benefit analysis when they proposed the Adelaide-Darwin railway, the privatisation of Telstra in the first place, Malcolm Turnbull’s $10 billion water plan or the OPEL regional broadband plan. We never saw a cost-benefit analysis then, but that is what they are suggesting now. The other thing that gets me is that they are offering a sub-par alternative in regard to the technology, offering HFC access or wireless at best for people who are trying to get access to broadband. They are proposing a sub-par option. With the rollout of the NBN, we will be able to get access to modern technology—especially in Chifley if the rollout goes ahead. Instead, we see an elitist option from the coalition. If you are in the inner city, you have access to broadband at the moment—that is fine. But if you do not have access to it, the best you will get out of the coalition is a wireless option that is substandard and reflects yet again their disregard for infrastructure rollout in Western Sydney. This bill is nothing short of a delay and a frustration for people in suburban areas to get access to modern technology. This bill should be opposed.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a bill that we should not even need to debate, because it is a matter that one would have thought would be standard practice in any democracy, a simple matter of transparency in decision making and integrity of government—nothing more and nothing less. In October 2008 the now deposed Prime Minister made a speech about transparency in decision making. Ironically, the speech was named ‘Bringing transparency to nation building’. Mr Rudd announced guidelines about how his government would make key decisions on approving and financing infrastructure projects. He raved about the guidelines, saying it was critically important that decisions must be based on ‘objective analysis and evidence’. He insisted that there must be a serious cost-benefit analysis and warned that guidelines are not much use if they are not implemented.

People actually took the Prime Minister of the day at his word when he made those promises, but we all know what has happened since. The Secretary of Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, summed up the importance of transparency when he said:

Any major infrastructure project must be subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis and if it does not pass a rigorous cost benefit analysis then it necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.

…            …            …

That is, when taxpayer funds are not put to their best use, Australia’s wellbeing is not as high as it otherwise could be.

So here we have the government’s key economic adviser spelling out in no uncertain terms that any major infrastructure project must be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the NBN is by far the single largest commitment of taxpayers’ dollars to an infrastructure project in Australian history, you would think that it would be an obvious candidate for this sort of scrutiny. In September this year, upon forming government with Independent assistance, the Prime Minister said:

So let’s draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in, let our Parliament be more open than it was before.

…            …            …

We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform and it’s in that spirit I approach the task of forming a government.

What a load of codswallop! The Prime Minister again is all words and no substance—the grandstanding, the words and the sunshine. Well, the clouds have been blocking that sunlight for a very long time as far as this Prime Minister is concerned.

This bill, the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, would ensure that all these grand principles as espoused, but not adhered to, would actually be part of government decision making. It would assure Australian taxpayers that the government is spending their money appropriately. That is a very simple demand, and it is what my constituents and industry groups across Australia tell me they want—just some basic accountability to give faith back to them in the political process and decision making. But the Labor Party are afraid of scrutiny. Those opposite do not like to be questioned and they do not like to be challenged. They certainly do not like to admit mistakes. But, if they did actually admit mistakes, they would show the courage of leadership that has been so sorely lacking.

Deep down, every member of the government knows that a cost-benefit analysis would expose the NBN for what it is—a giant, monopolistic white elephant that will plunge generations of Australians into enormous debt. In order to illustrate this, it is worth noting that, as we speak, Labor are desperately trying to pass legislation that would exempt the NBN from the scrutiny of the ACCC. So not only do they refuse to conduct a cost-benefit analysis; they also want to hide the NBN from the independent competition watchdog.

What do we know about the NBN so far? We know it is the most expensive piece of infrastructure in Australia’s history. We know it will create a giant government-owned monopoly. We know it will destroy competition. And we know Treasury’s red book advice to the incoming government said that the NBN ‘carries significant risks, including financial risks for the public balance sheet and risk around competition and efficiency’. If those opposite want to dispute these facts, they can do so by supporting this bill and proving to the Australian people whether the numbers stack up. But, as I said, Labor know the numbers do not stack up. They know Labor’s plan is fatally flawed and they know that they will not be the ones who will have to fix up the mess.

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

When I last spoke on a motion moved by the member for Wentworth on a similar matter, I think I said that any time somebody puts a proposal together which has the words ‘costs’, ‘benefits’ and ‘analysis’ in the one sentence, it has a seductive sheen of credibility but, when you peel back the proposal, you realise that this bill, the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, like the motion that preceded it, is a sham. We know it is a sham, because the proponents are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to both the benefits and any analysis of our proposal to build a national broadband network.

This private member’s bill on the financial transparency of the NBN has no credibility because the member for Wentworth’s mission, like the mission of his leader, is to wreck and demolish the National Broadband Network. If he cannot wreck it outright, then his only other option is to wreck it by delaying it and wreck it through scare tactics. We know it is a sham, because it comes from the same party who roundly criticised the government throughout the course of the last election for not getting out there and rolling the broadband network out quickly enough. They criticised us in Tasmania. They criticised it in the electorate adjoining my own. In fact, I remember full well the member for Gilmore complaining that the government had not rolled the network out speedily enough so that people could access it. The very same member has come to this place and said, ‘Hold on, we should delay things and go through a cost-benefit analysis.’ What the member for Wentworth does not accept is that you cannot simply transfer the principles that apply to private sector investment practice to the role of the Australian government. That does not mean that the analogies do not sometimes apply, but where they do not apply is when you have an instance of market failure.

The only reason that the government has had to come forward with its nation-building project, the National Broadband Network, is that, after 19 failed broadband plans and about 20 years of deregulation in the telecommunications industry, we have had a huge and tragic instance of market failure. Throughout that time, Australians have patiently endured the market domination of Telstra, which did not deliver real competition to telecommunications. Now we have a plan that is financially viable and will deliver real competition in the telecommunications industry, real competition for consumers, and, sadly, this success is what the coalition and members opposite fear most. They fear the success of the National Broadband Network. They do not want it to be rolled out, they do not want it to be rolled out on time, they do not want it to succeed, they do not want it to work and they do not want consumers to have the benefits that it would deliver to them. The coalition knows that, if the NBN is a success, they will have zero credibility left when it comes to the economy and the critical infrastructure that is needed to ensure that we have a modern economy fit for the 21st century.

The NBN is critical infrastructure. It will connect our rural and regional centres back to our main cities and to the markets of the world, with world-class broadband services. The costs of this project have been public for quite some time. They have been debated through two elections. There is no need for further sunshine or transparency on the costs, because we have been quite up-front about the costs of this project. When it comes to the benefits, we know that Infrastructure Australia has said that the benefits of this project are hard to overestimate. We know that business supports it, because business can see that this is critical infrastructure for the future of our nation. We know that voters, in no fewer than two elections, have voted with their feet in support of the National Broadband Network. We know that consumers are lining up to gain access to the network. So the message quite simply to those opposite—to the member for Wentworth, who has been given the impossible task of defending this bill—is: get out of the way and let progress have its way.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 is simply a bill that seeks to give the parliament confidence in the unprecedented investment that is the National Broadband Network. As my colleagues have already made clear, the National Broadband Network represents the biggest investment of taxpayers’ funds into an infrastructure asset this nation has ever seen. Indeed the National Broadband Network represents a per capita expenditure for broadband infrastructure that is 100 times higher than the US has forecast for their own version of the NBN.

It would seem reasonable, if not even sensible, or, dare I say it, financially responsible, for an infrastructure investment of any significant cost to the taxpayer to undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis process. Indeed the government agrees on this point, having created Infrastructure Australia to do just this—but apparently the government does not want to be held to account to even their own standards. They have refused to allow Infrastructure Australia to look into the National Broadband Network. It is almost unfathomable that an infrastructure investment of this size has commenced without the parliament being privy to the basic financial data of the project.

The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will ensure that the rollout and operation of a National Broadband Network process is transparent and that taxpayers’ money is used wisely and efficiently. The bill requires the NBN Co. to produce and publish a detailed 10-year business case, including key financial and operational indicators. This is nothing out of the ordinary. One would expect this document to have been produced before the plan was rolled out. It astounds me that one has not yet been made. In addition to this standard financial data, this bill calls the NBN Co. to report on expected numbers of premises passed by the NBN, provide estimated residential and business subscribers and projected average retail and wholesale revenues per user and to advise on the internal rates of return on invested capital.

The second part of the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 refers the National Broadband Network project to the Productivity Commission to prepare and publish a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis will include a study of current broadband services across Australia, consider different options by which particular broadband speeds could be made available to regional and remote areas, examine the economy-wide benefits likely to flow from enhanced broadband services around Australia and give a full and transparent costing of the pros of the NBN project, including all financial and economic projections underpinning the estimates.

The analysis will also examine reasonable commercial rates of return and cashflows for the NBN Co. and give consideration of what the likely realisable value of the NBN Co. would be if it were to be privatised after five years as current legislation assumes. Other aspects to be examined are the design, construction and operating arrangements for the proposed NBN project so direct and indirect outcomes from its construction and operation can be identified and evaluated, and provide analysis of the effects of a proposed NBN on the competition for Australian fixed-line broadband. The Productivity Commission will provide independent and expert analysis of this project.

The government has previously stated that it will release much of the financial information highlighted by this bill in the near future; however, as my colleague the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull has stated, creating a statutory requirement for transparency will give parliament much greater confidence in the delivery of this information.

The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will not disrupt the rollout and implementation of the National Broadband Network project. This bill simply places a requirement on the NBN Co. to produce a business case for the next 10 years. This bill does not ask for anything beyond what the ordinary taxpayer would expect would be carried out for such a massive investment of taxpayers’ funds. This bill will provide the parliament the long-awaited transparency it expects of such an infrastructure project. The coalition has taken a common-sense approach to the NBN rollout. I urge members to support this bill.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macarthur talks about being sensible and reasonable. I just wonder if it is sensible or reasonable to have had 18 failed broadband plans over 12 years of government. Was that sensible? Was that reasonable? Did that serve any of our electors? I would say no and I can tell you that people in my electorate in Craigmore cannot get broadband apart from wireless and only creeping up the hill. These people who live in metropolitan Adelaide cannot get ADSL, and the people in Burton where I live cannot get ADSL because of pair gains provided by a vertically integrated privatised monopoly called Telstra. We have the worst broadband infrastructure in the whole country in Adelaide. I wonder if that is sensible or reasonable.

Equally, I wonder whether it is sensible or reasonable for Australia to be ranked 17th out of 31 developed countries for broadband penetration, to be the fifth most expensive of the 31 developed countries on broadband prices, to be the 50th in broadband speeds, to be equal last in deployment of fibre-optic broadband and to be 29th out of 50 on average connection speed. That is the legacy of the Liberal Party. That is the legacy of John Howard. That is the legacy of supposedly being sensible and reasonable. We know what sensible and reasonable means. It means delay and inaction, to wreck the National Broadband Network. You would have to wonder why, because it is a drag on productivity and a drag on jobs. It is a drag on infrastructure. Labor believes in jobs, productivity and infrastructure. We are the party of the future.

We do not have any sensible approach from the Liberal Party or any sensible engagement or acknowledgement of the record. We have delay, inaction and excuses. We are assured that this will not have any effect on the implementation of broadband—there are all these ‘sensible and reasonable’ statements—but we know that the consequence of delay is that Australia loses out, particularly people in my electorate in places like Craigmore, Hillbank, Burton and up the track in Liberal voting areas like Clare, Freeling and Riverton. That is why these places are turning against the Liberal Party. I cannot believe it when the Liberal Party constantly says, ‘We’re going to wreck the National Broadband Network.’ I was so impressed when Liberal senator Alan Ferguson put out a pamphlet through my whole electorate saying, ‘Tony Abbott’s going to wreck the broadband network.’ So do you know what I did? In my next pamphlet, I quoted Senator Alan Ferguson—in a leaflet to you.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Forwards or backwards?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Forwards, always forwards. Labor is always forwards. We are always going to the future. I am stunned by the Liberal Party. They lost in 2007 and they lost this election over the issue of the National Broadband Network. They lose elections over this issue because they are determined to keep Australia in the Dark Ages. They are determined to keep my electorate in the Dark Ages. They are determined to keep people in Burton, in Craigmore and in Hillbank, in Clare, Riverton and Kapunda in the Dark Ages, denying them educational opportunities, denying them small business opportunities, denying them healthcare opportunities. Why? Because they want to play the same game with the National Broadband Network as they do with every other government program: not good policy; just pure partisan politicking.

What would be the result if the Liberal Party were ever to get into government? They would condemn Australia to another generation of living in the Dark Ages. Steam-powered dial-up—that is the way the Liberal Party want to lead us. Labor believes in jobs, infrastructure and productivity. That is what we have provided to the Australian community. That is why we are not in recession. That is why we are not in the Dark Ages and that is why we are going to deliver the National Broadband Network.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is fantastic to stand in this chamber for the first time to show what the alternate government of this country believes in. Contrary to Julia Gillard’s latest slogan, we are not wreckers. Let us get it on the record. If I hear Julia Gillard say once more that we are wreckers, I will think that she has the rightful claim to be the Prime Minister renowned only for slogans and nothing else. On this side, we stand for holding the government to account, not as the opposition but as the alternative government of this country. We in the coalition have an alternative plan on broadband, a better plan on broadband. This is not about standing in the way of Labor’s policies; it is about standing in the way of bad policy. Let us make the point clear from the start. This is the largest expenditure of taxpayers’ funds on an infrastructure project in our nation’s history—that is, the taxes of mums and dads, of families in Australia going on the largest infrastructure project in our nation’s history.

And we will not forget where $2 billion of the total spend came from. That was money set aside by the Howard government to improve telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. It was put in a trust with the interest to be distributed to improve mobile and broadband services in the country. That money has not been spent in the last three years and, sadly, rural and regional Australia are worse off because of it.

What this country needs is an assurance that what this government has done and is going to do is not going to hurt us further into the future. That is why we in the coalition believe that a 10-year business case is what is needed, not the 10-week political case that has so far been provided by this sad attempt of a government. We propose a cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission, not a political rhetorical analysis by the ALP. We on this side of the chamber know that the Australian people would not invest their hard-earned money on a venture without true returns and without having a study which would give us some idea of whether we will go any way towards achieving those true returns. This is the reason why it is so ludicrous that the Labor Party continues to insist that it knows what it is doing with our money—and it is our money, not the government’s. Taxpayers work too hard every day of the year to be short-changed by a government that simply does not care whether it is making a good spend, so long as it is making a big spend.

We hear the government tell us that we should judge them by what they have done. What they have done is deliver policy on the run—from school halls to insulation. We do judge you for what you have done but we are committed to not seeing this kind of disregard for taxpayers happening again. What we propose is that the government be asked the difficult questions about what they are doing. The government say they intend to release a majority of the information provided for in our bill sometime in the future. When? Why won’t you tell us when? If the government believe so strongly in the value of expenditure, why are we having this debate? Surely a government that believes in its policy would be happy to open it up to scrutiny. Instead, what we have is the largest taxpayer funded government infrastructure spend in our nation’s history being hidden from the budget bottom line.

We in the coalition believe in spending taxpayers’ money in a responsible and productive way, and that is why we are having this debate. We stand for transparency in government. We stand for, and welcome, reasoned debate on this issue. We cannot understand what you are hiding from, why you will not let the Productivity Commission decide whether what you are doing is in our interest or not. We stand for holding the government to account, not as the opposition but as the alternative government of this country.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Wentworth has acknowledged, there are many ways to skin a cat—and what we are seeing in this process by the opposition is essentially an attempt, through a supposed inquiry by the Productivity Commission, to delay action. We all know the mandate the member for Wentworth was given by the Leader of the Opposition—that is, to destroy the concept of the NBN. His mission was not to promote it, to help it or to facilitate it; it was to destroy it. When we look at why this is being put forward, this supposed need for an inquiry, this grave concern for the taxpayers’ interests, we need to recognise that what is really behind this is yet another delaying mechanism. Were a Productivity Commission inquiry to occur, there is no guarantee from the member for Wentworth that its recommendations would be supported. So we really know what this is all about.

But there has been a lot confusion in the parallel debate that has been occurring in the House. There, I heard the member for Bradfield extolling Optus, his former employer. He was promoting his book, I must admit. He must feel that Lazarus Rising and ‘the Faceless Men’ are not much competition in the lead-up to Christmas, because he was certainly promoting his own published works in the House. His whole lament was around the question of how Optus had been mistreated, how evil Telstra was and how that had led to such a difficult telecommunications structure in this country. He was soon followed by the member for Moncrieff, who spent his contribution lamenting the way in which Telstra shareholders’ interests might be undermined. He seemed to be very concerned with Telstra and its interest. So there are quite a few pipers calling tunes on that side of the House.

What we see here is a manifest effort by the opposition to delay action on this front. They seek to delay action in the context of a situation in which this country is 17th out of 31 developed countries on broadband penetration. They seek delay in a nation where no Australian city is in the top 100 of urban concentrations for average internet connection speed. They seek to hamper change where Australia ranks only 23rd out of 50 countries on the percentage of connections of more than five megabits per second.

We have a situation where their legacy is not very impressive. The legacy of what they managed to accomplish is not something that one would go to the rooftops about. Yet they seek again, by the contrivance of a supposedly necessary inquiry, to delay very necessary, overdue action to rectify a manifest problem. It is not only the Labor Party saying this is a very urgent need. Also the United Nations has recently commented:

Broadband is the next tipping point, the next truly transformational technology. It can generate jobs, drive growth and productivity and underpin long-term economic competitiveness.

Admittedly we are the most urbanised nation on this earth, but we still have significant numbers of people whose very existence and future is around the question of distance education. We have very obvious gains to be made in regard to their situation. We have very obvious gains to be made in regard to medical accessibility, for people to be able to have swift assessments of their condition.

We have a situation where much can be accomplished in the context of failure. In Tasmania we can already see the beginnings of some success in delivery. A number of concentrated areas down there where there have been manifest problems over many years in gaining access are now having delivery of services, and the next string of Tasmanian areas is coming on-stream.

As I said earlier, we know that Access Economics can identify that Australia could save between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion a year if 10 per cent of the work force tele-worked half the time. We know that the OECD, as well as Access Economics, sees a need for urgent action. It has commented that the effective use of high-speed broadband can provide significant improvements in productivity and efficiency across a number of sectors such as energy, heath, education and transport. It is time that the opposition got out of the way on this matter. Action is overdue. There is no need for procrastination and politically motivated delays on an important national enterprise.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 requires the government to publish a business case for the NBN and to refer that project to the Productivity Commission to produce a cost-benefit analysis. Labor’s broadband policy is poorly thought out and hardly planned. The government spent $25 million trying to justify its position in a 546-page McKinsey and KPMG implementation study, which I think works out at $46,000 a page, without evaluating the objectives or doing an objective cost-benefit analysis. It is re-establishing a gigantic monopoly that is so anti-competitive that the proposed telecommunications legislation explicitly exempts it from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. When you talk to the telecommunications industry around Australia, they cannot believe it is happening. They may not be saying so in public but they cannot believe that this proposal can go ahead.

Let me tell you for rural and regional Australia there is not much going for it. My electorate of Calare admittedly is smaller compared to what I have been used to. It is 30,000 square kilometres, it has eight local government areas, but in shires like Oberon there will be no funds to improve mobile coverage, which is probably inhibiting the current and future strategic growth of the shire more than anything. And while NBN may provide better speeds within the town of Oberon itself, it will not improve broadband communication in the areas within the local government area, and that is true of almost every one of the local government areas within the electorate of Calare.

Let us remember they are not even pretending this is going to help eight per cent, it is only a 92 per cent target we are talking about here. Instead of wasting money updating sitting services where competition and natural growth are working, the money should be spent in rural and regional Australia—and I do not mean $43 billion—which needs reliable access to broadband so that it can also benefit from the technology improvements. And while it is probably the only technology to which nobody has a clue as to how far it can go, it has a long way to go.

As members of this House, we have a responsibility to use taxpayers’ money in the most cost-effective way, and that brings me back to this bill. I know that Labor want to run away from this bill as fast as possible. Why? Because they have to come up with a business case. They have to look at what are the business and financial rewards for the taxpayers, for Australians in general, and that is not going to stand up well. If it was, they would not be objecting to it in the way they are.

The government claims it is because the coalition will never support this project that they are not undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. I think we all know, and I can certainly assure you the communications industry knows, the reason they do not want to do a cost-benefit analysis. It just does not or will not stack up. The bill requires the government to publish a business case for the NBN, the biggest infrastructure project in Australia’s history. The reason it is so big is that it is going to deal with every major city which is already going there as fast as it can. Why? Because private enterprise has every reason to take it there. It proposes a sensible approach that underpins good governance. I strongly support this bill, as I think any Australian who pays his tax should. If you say $43 billion quickly it might not sound like much, but to me it does no matter how fast you say it. This is a huge thing to throw taxpayers’ money into at a time when only a fool thinks we are going to end up in surplus in 2013. I think the Treasurer was even talking earlier than that the other day. We will believe that when we see it. Rural and regional Australia are not being well served here; nor are the taxpayers of Australia. I support this bill.

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

That speech, and those similar speeches on the other side, including the member for Wentworth’s speech, are all about delay. They know everything about delay. They did nothing for 13 years when they were in government, they did nothing while they were in opposition except put up a pathetic plan—I think it was either No. 19 or No. 20—and they were that confident of it they sacked the architect, stuck him on the backbench and said, ‘Thanks very much for nothing’. That is how much confidence they had in it. We listened to the member for Goldstein trying to um and ah his way through trying to explain what their policy was, and we had the Leader of the Opposition say to Tony Jones or Kerry O’Brien—one of those perceptive interviewers—‘Don’t take me on a tech survey, I don’t know anything about it.’

Now we have his shadow opposition spokesperson on telecommunications with the absolute mission statement to destroy the NBN coming up with another delay tactic. What a joke! Isn’t it interesting that he is that keen on accountability, saying ‘We must have a Productivity Commission investigation. We must have the parliament poring over this for the future of Australia. We must have every man and his dog poring over this to make us feel confident that the investment is needed.’ We know it is really all about delay. If he was that keen on accountability, he might have had the Productivity Commission do a cost-benefit analysis of the Adelaide-Darwin railway. We might remember that one.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do.

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

Of course we do. What about the privatisation of Telstra? We all remember that cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission that did not happen as well. What about the member for Wentworth himself? If he is going to be a hypocrite, he should at least have some runs on the board. What about his $10 billion water plan? I do not remember the Productivity Commission’s cost-benefit analysis of that. Do you remember the OPEL regional broadband plan? I think that was plan number 16, 17 or something like that. I do not remember the Productivity Commission undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of that. So let us have none of this nonsense that we have heard from the other side. We all know this is about delay. That is the mission statement of the member for Wentworth. His mission statement is to destroy the NBN.

I have already spoken several times on this in the parliament—even today. We have the industry saying we need the NBN. Statistics tell us we need the NBN. Australia has a pathetic performance record of delivery—or lack thereof—of high speed broadband. We had the member speaking before me bleating on about the lack of services in regional and rural Australia and telling us that we have to leave it up to the free market because competition and the free market will provide those services. What a load of rubbish! They have not produced it to this point and will not produce it on their own plans. The NBN will provide those services to rural and regional Australia.

If Tasmania is any example, that is why they voted Labor. That is why so many of the Independents supported Labor. Indeed, it is the specific reason they voted Labor. That is why anyone who knows anything about it—including Telstra—agrees, unless they are part of the old conservative commentariat. I am talking about the good old Australian newspaper and News Limited. I am talking about the scaremongering and fearmongering that we are all doomed, that every school in Australia is a complete waste of money with the BER and that everybody has had tacky old insulation set up. What absolute rubbish! Thousands of Australians have had safe insulation installed. Thousands of schools and students throughout Australia have benefited from fantastic BER projects and they know it. I do not hear those on the other side screaming out about these schools except one or two wonky ones. But, of course, what do you expect from the other side? The NBN is what Australia needs. The NBN is what Australia wants and the NBN is what Australia should get. Move aside. Forget the delay. (Time expired)

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Braddon for raising the trifecta of reasons as to why we ought to have a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The insulation scheme is a fantastic reason why we should think, pause and carefully consider the impact of government decisions before we take them. The Building the Education Revolution scheme and the absolute rush to get projects out and handed to the New South Wales government meant that, in my electorate of Mitchell, we had two libraries built for a school of 90 pupils at the cost of $900,000. That could have been prevented by a cost-benefit analysis, by rationally examining how we were going to deliver those services.

The cost of the National Broadband Network represents the single biggest expenditure of any project in Australian history, so the member for Braddon has really raised the trifecta about why we are here today. If it were the case that, as those on the government side are consistently stating this place, the member for Wentworth’s objective was to delay or even to destroy the National Broadband Network, why would he be urging the government to do a cost-benefit analysis to consider the benefits versus the costs of implementing this program responsibly? If that were the case, the member for Wentworth would not be suggesting a deal which said, ‘Let’s pause and reflect, from a serious perspective such as that of the Productivity Commission, on how this could work, how it could be delivered and how we could best provide this broadband service to Australians.’

The experience of the member for Wentworth in business and investing leads him to understand that we need to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. We need to pause at these junctures when we have such a massive expenditure plan and say, ‘Let’s have a look at what we will get for that investment, because otherwise we will end up with a government program just like the insulation scheme or the BER where money is needlessly wasted and time and effort is spent delivering services that could have been delivered in a much better way.’ We have heard from our rural members here today that rural areas will not get the services they need even with an expenditure of $43 billion—the member for Calare is exactly right.

Why are we doing that? I come from an inner-city electorate, and there is pair gain in my electorate. I heard the member for Wakefield talking about pair gain, and of course that needs improving. Yet many inner-city areas are well serviced—there are people who do not need 100 megabits per second—while there are rural and regional areas that definitely need those services, and I endorse the remarks of those who say, ‘Why would we spend $43 billion and not service those areas of Australia where it is very difficult to provide these services in the free market?’

There is a large role for the market in the provision of broadband and telecommunications. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the experience of the member for Braddon that telecommunications in this country have been progressing in a fashion that has allowed people to better afford goods and services from telecommunications companies over time. It is not the case that the market is failing so badly that we need a massive government monopoly through an injection of money of $43 billion, a sum beyond the wildest dreams of any single investor or other provider of services in this country’s history. That is not just my view; we have heard in question time about the views of the OECD, but we have not heard about the fact that the OECD has this week criticised the NBN monopoly and called for a rigorous analysis of this $43 billion. Why wouldn’t they? The sum of $43 billion is a lot of money in anybody’s language, and it is very unusual for the OECD to call for such an analysis of a domestic policy.

The Alliance for Affordable Broadband, the AAB—which represents a cross-section of the telecommunications industry and includes in its membership infrastructure based carriers, fibre, wireless and carriage service providers, all of whom have things to gain and lose through the National Broadband Network—has written an open letter today begging the government to consider the cost-benefit of the NBN. The AAB’s members say that they can provide services in a reasonable and cost-effective way to much of Australia. In addition, the Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, has proposed an innovative scheme that has been tried in other major cities around the world.

So there are plenty of options here; there are plenty of reasons to pause and consider. The member for Wentworth’s objective in suggesting we do so is not to destroy the NBN. If a cost-benefit analysis would destroy the National Broadband Network, perhaps we ought not to be proceeding with the NBN. Perhaps the government ought to pause and think about that. Doing a cost-benefit analysis is a worthy task. The Productivity Commission can do a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and taxpayers can get the peace of mind that they deserve.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we came to government three years ago, we inherited a situation where the statistics showed that Australia had fallen behind other developed countries on broadband, and that was just not acceptable. Australia was ranked 17 out of 31 developed countries on broadband penetration. Its broadband prices were the fifth most expensive out of 30 developed countries and it ranked 50th on broadband speeds, which is pretty slow. Australia ranked equal last on deployment of optic fibre broadband and, at 2.6 megabits per second, 29th out of countries on average connection speed.

That really is an unacceptable situation. The government set out to change that so that, right across this country, Australians would have proper access to broadband or an equivalent. The NBN is the solution. It is a major infrastructure program. When I listen to members opposite talking, what astounds me is that there is no appreciation of the government’s role in the provision of public infrastructure. If we look at every piece of public infrastructure that has been provided in Australia under coalition governments, it has not been a lot. They say that this infrastructure requires a business case and so on, but if we followed the coalition’s suggestions it just would not happen. It is the role of government to provide public infrastructure. Some of those costs have to be borne; otherwise we do not progress as a nation. It just astounds me—it is another excuse for delay.

What does the NBN mean for jobs? The NBN will support 25,000 jobs every year on average over the life of the eight-year project, peaking at about 37,000 jobs. That is not insignificant; that is huge. The Australian Local Government Association estimated in its 2007-08 State of the regions report that $3.2 billion and 33,000 jobs were lost to Australian businesses in 12 months due to inadequate broadband infrastructure. The NBN will fix this. The many benefits of the high-speed broadband to be delivered by the NBN will be felt particularly in small business. In my electorate, Page, there are over 11,000 registered small businesses—and they are the ones that we know of; there are more. They are the backbone of our local economy. High-speed broadband is one of the big items that they need, from the smallest small business to larger small businesses. The NBN is critical for small business.

It is also critical for future healthcare delivery, the education of our young and education generally, and our ability to work cleaner, smarter and faster. In health, there will be remote diagnosis over high-definition videoconferencing. I have been lucky to be involved in that sort of communication—it works really well. It needs to become the norm, not seen as something that is a bit exotic. Particularly in health, it is just the way that we will communicate in real time in the future. Students living in regional areas will not have to move to the cities to get specialist education. They still may want to—that is fine—but they will be able to receive their education via access to two-way interactive, high-definition, real-time videoconferencing from where they are. In a range of other areas, people will be able to telework from home.

The coalition are seeking to further delay something they were not able to deliver. They had 12 years, but they were not able to deliver anything. There were attempts, stops and starts and failed policies, but they hardly delivered anything, particularly in regional areas. It has to be a national program to make sure that we are plugged into broadband that can access the internet at speeds that are as fast as possible. Otherwise Australia will not progress but will be held behind. This whole nonsense of this bill and a select committee is just another case of delay.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 introduced by the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. I support this bill because the residents of my electorate of Bonner support access to fast, affordable broadband. Availability of and access to broadband services is arguably one of the most contentious and frustrating issues for the residents of Bonner. Many residents—especially those who live in the suburbs of Mackenzie, Wakerley, Gumdale, Ransome, and parts of Wynnum-Manly and Carindale—do not have access to any broadband, let alone faster broadband. The majority of those households do not care about the politics of the situation; all they want is to be able to access the internet reliably, quickly and, most importantly, at a reasonable and competitive price. What they do not want is to wait for up to eight years for technology and service that may be well out of date and, at the same time, is likely to contribute significantly to Australia’s debt burden.

That is why I support this bill, which requires the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN and, even more importantly, refers the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. As others on this side of the chamber have noted, this is not a delaying tactic or an attempt to hold back the NBN. It is simply an attempt to establish the facts and allow an impartial body to assess whether or not this investment—the largest investment of taxpayers’ funds in infrastructure in our history—is a good idea.

I know that there is growing pressure amongst the business community for the government to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the NBN project. But, closer to home, my constituents constantly remind me that every dollar that this government spends belongs to the taxpayers of Australia. The coalition is beholden to the community to act as responsible guardians for every cent of taxpayers’ money, given that the government has repeatedly refused to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of this NBN project. This government has even refused to refer the NBN to its own, newly-created, specialist infrastructure agency, Infrastructure Australia. The organisation created by this Labor government, and tasked with developing a blueprint for modernising the nation’s transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure, has been refused the ability to scrutinise the biggest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history.

The Productivity Commission is strictly nonpartisan, and is the best possible organisation to ask what the implications of this project are going to be. It is staffed by experts who understand economics but also understand the importance of factoring in non-financial costs and benefits, such as spillovers from and the social consequences of various policy choices. It is astonishing to the coalition and, particularly, to the residents of Bonner that a government is proposing to spend so much money with so little consideration or analysis—particularly when this is against the backdrop of the waste and inefficiency that has been the hallmark of other Labor projects like the home insulation debacle, the green loans scheme, and the Building the Education Revolution school halls fiasco.

An encouraging example of a broadband project that has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis can be found in my home town of Brisbane, where the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and the Brisbane City Council are working with international technology firm i3 Asia-Pacific to facilitate the rollout of a fibre-optic network that has the potential to deliver broadband faster and more effectively than the NBN. I am looking forward to working with the lord mayor to ensure that this exciting alternative proposal is given the full support that it deserves.

Nevertheless, this government’s NBN is going to be an eight-year, $43-billion project. Surely it deserves a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. It would be morally reprehensible and beyond financial recklessness for this parliament not to pass legislation for this government to allow the Productivity Commission—an independent and expert source of advice on economic and regulatory issues—to make an assessment of this investment. The public deserves to know that their money has been well spent. Our economy cannot afford another BER debacle.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. The detail of this bill is what I would suggest the honourable member for Wentworth should have put in his private member’s motion, to establish the joint select committee on the very same topic. It calls for the delay of the National Broadband Network to, amongst other things, develop a 10-year business plan—and to what end? The member for Wentworth’s list of objectives includes the opposition’s obsession: a consideration of the different options by which broadband services of particular speeds could be made available to all Australians.

The opposition is not set on any telecommunications infrastructure. Quite the opposite: the opposition’s purpose is to do anything they can to kill the project. They are seeking to bury it in a study which will consume all clarity and also the intention of the private member’s motion.

I recently read some newspaper articles reporting on a motion of this House that referred a substantial communications matter to a committee for investigation—somewhat similar to what the member for Wentworth is attempting to do with this bill and his private member’s motion. The newspaper was an issue of the Argus, from Melbourne, of Saturday, 20 November 1920. To find anything comparable to what the member for Wentworth is doing, we need to look back into the depths of history, over half a century ago. The motion called on the Public Works Committee to enquire into the erection of trunk lines between Sydney and Melbourne and, through another motion, between Sydney and Brisbane. In the debate of these motions, as reported, the then Postmaster-General, the Honourable Mr Wise, is said to have been:

… surprised to learn that there was not a trunk line already in existence between Brisbane and Sydney, and that one extended only from Brisbane to Wallangarra, on the border between Queensland and New South Wales.

This was not the only communications matter to have been referred by motion to the committee for investigation. In 1931, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works reported on the establishment of telephone communication between mainland Victoria and Tasmania. In 1929, the same committee had reported on the radical proposal of the establishment of telephone communication between Perth and the eastern states. It may come as no surprise that this report recommended the establishment of telephone communication between Perth and the eastern states even though it would cost the Australian taxpayer back then the grand sum of £69,800, and this was at the start of the Great Depression. It was estimated to give rise to only 50 calls per day. I thank the Brisbane Courier Mail for the report of Friday, 30 August 1929.

While these investigations were supported and the reports were favourable, I can only imagine what the results would have been if the current member for Wentworth had pursued his current tactics back in 1929 and in 1931 when those inquiries were taking place. One can only imagine where we would be if the Public Works Committee had come back, after years of delay, saying what the member has been saying today. If they had said that connecting Perth was too expensive and not justifiable, given apparent demand for the service, or if they had concluded that telephone technology was changing too fast for them to invest prematurely, right there and then, one can just imagine the member for Wentworth objecting and saying that copper wire technology was not good enough and that different regions should have different systems and use different technologies. We can just imagine the member for Wentworth saying, ‘Perth can wait for the telephone. The Great Depression makes contact with WA simply a waste of money.’ I can just imagine him as saying: ‘Now is not the time. Demand is only 50 calls per day. The profit is not sufficient. The business case has not been made.’ One can only imagine where we would be now if the member for Wentworth was able to do then what he is attempting to do now.

We all have access to the parliament’s modern system of governance and accountability of government business entities. It has served several governments and multiple parliaments well for many years, just as it continues to do today. Matters concerning government business entities are questioned through debates on annual reports, auditors reports and budget estimates. In addition, the Senate holds its own studies and conducts its own analysis. They have done several on the NBN already. There is nothing new to see. The motivation for this bill and the private member’s motion can only be seen as totally obstructionist. The tactic is exploratory delay—(Time expired)

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NBN is the single largest infrastructure investment in our nation’s history, yet this government refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis and will not publish any business case. No Australian government has ever been allowed to invest so much money with so little scrutiny or accountability. Given Julia Gillard’s record of rolling out government programs, she should not be allowed to do so now. Senator Conroy claims that the ACCC has carried out an analysis of the NBN and that is enough to argue the government’s case. But this was not a cost-benefit analysis and it has not considered alternative solutions.

Coalition colleagues and government and crossbench members must support Mr Turnbull’s private member’s bill to hold to account Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure project. The shadow minister for communications and broadband has introduced his National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 to ensure the NBN faces rigorous scrutiny. This bill includes a requirement for the production and publication of a detailed 10-year business plan, including key financial and operational indicators. This will force—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Is the NBN the most cost-effective way of providing all Australians with fast broadband? Assessment by the Productivity Commission will provide a wide-ranging, independent inquiry of all the claims and counterclaims and will force balanced submissions from all parties. The commission will also be able to explore positive externalities such as productivity gains from faster broadband and negative externalities such as economic losses and vastly diminished competition in the telecommunications sector.

Without any taxpayer funding, the greenfield fibre operators of Australia have already connected over 300,000 homes and businesses with advanced telephony, broadband and other services. The greenfield fibre operators have invited NBN Co. to discuss how it intends to operate as a fibre-to-the-premises, open-access network provider whilst complying with laws protecting fair competition in the market.

The federal government has given their answer loud and clear, with telecommunications legislation reintroduced into parliament which exempts NBN Co. from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. As well, Telstra will be contractually obligated not to compete with NBN Co. This includes not providing telephone or broadband services across its HFC pay television cables, an existing network that passes almost 30 per cent of the nation’s households and is capable of delivering 100 megabits.

NBN Co. has been nothing but incompetent in its design and deployment. Over-engineering is costing the taxpayer billions. Despite statements to the contrary, there are three fibres to every home. The cost to physically install, terminate and manage this fibre is hugely expensive, as NBN Co. is laying four individual 100 millimetre conduits from the exchange to the fibre distribution housing. This is hundreds of kilometres of excess fibre installed for possible use down the track and four times the amount of conduit required. The optical network terminal will be located inside each premises. At a recent luncheon it was realised that, for NBN Co. to achieve smart grid applications, this terminal must be outside the premises to get connection. Installation of the NBN will not be free to the home, either. It is estimated conservatively that it will cost between $2,000 and $3,000 for contractors to install conduit and fibre to the home, and this cost will fall to the consumer. This will require using approved contractors.

The coalition understands in an information age access to enhanced broadband services is vital to improve the provision of health, education, social inclusion and economic developments around Australia. The coalition is all for advanced technology and new technology, but the casemix must be part fibre, part wireless, part whatever new technologies emerge. We are proponents of a fiscal network that can be adapted and upgraded as technologies improve. Using fibre as a solution for all Australian households, inner city, regional and rural, does not provide the most economic and efficient solution to the problem. Funding a project without a business plan and cost analysis is poor business practice and an irresponsible allocation of taxpayer funds. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to voice my opposition to the Orwellian named National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I do so in full realisation that in my three years as a member of parliament this is the first bill I have ever spoken against. I am also a little disappointed that the member for Wentworth has used this place for a political point-scoring exercise rather than for true cooperative governance. Other members have used the improved private members opportunities to bring about constructive reforms—like the member for Dennison’s , achieved through the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010, a bill that I proudly supported. However, unfortunately, this bill is more of a political muckraker.

Nevertheless, you have got to feel for the member for Wentworth—normally a constructive, cooperative, progressive and technologically savvy member of this House, but that was before he took on the job of opposition spokesperson for communications, aka the NBN wrecker. He claims this bill is not about delay, but we all remember the commission he was given by the opposition leader, the member for Warringah: ‘Go forth, Malcolm, and destroy the NBN.’ Like a thief in the night, the member for Wentworth comes with his wrecking ball, this bill, to destroy and kill the National Broadband Network.

We have a Leader of the Opposition, a self-confessed technophobe, who, when he hears about a broadband approaching, looks to the heavens and reaches for his raincoat. At the moment there are people at home downloading TV shows and movies, but the member for Warringah goes home to his video machine to watch a Weekend at Bernie’sand it is probably a beta video recorder; not even a VHS. No-one expects politicians to be experts at everything, even though some of us probably claim to be from time to time. Not you, of course, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, although I know that you are an expert at many things. But you do not need to understand the technology to understand how important high-speed broadband is for bringing the bush closer to essential services, for increasing productivity, for the economy, for new global business opportunities, for e-health—and the list goes on.

You do not need to be Bill Gates or a tech-head to understand how important this infrastructure is to Australia’s future; you just need to be a good listener. If the member for Wentworth and the Leader of the Opposition would listen, they would understand how valuable this national broadband network is now and into the future. They would appreciate the revolution that high-speed broadband will bring to households, that it will bring to businesses, that it will bring to schools and hospitals—whether the hospital is in Brisbane or Barcaldine or anywhere in the bush in between.

There is no escaping the fact that this is a major, once-in-a-generation infrastructure build. There is no escaping the fact that there is a significant cost involved in delivering this kind of infrastructure, but it is well worth it. There are, of course, significant costs involved because, apart from our east coast, Australia is a very sparsely populated continent. In fact, Australia as a nation is ranked 233 on the population density scale. That is alongside countries like the Western Sahara and Greenland.

But the tyranny of distance did not stop us from delivering road and rail. They were big challenges from two centuries ago. Similarly, when it comes to broadband we have distance in front of us but we can overcome it. It has not stopped Australians from delivering phone lines and neither should it stop us from delivering a world-class, high-speed broadband network.

If anything, Australia’s remoteness compels us to build the National Broadband Network. That is where we will increase productivity. When we look at the changeover in productivity from when the Rudd government came to power, we are looking at productivity of zero. Anyone who understands economics knows that that is no way to build the jobs of the future.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not correct. It is not true.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is. In the quarter that was handed over in 2007 productivity was at zero.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The average over—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the quarter; I am talking about the quarter when it was handed over. I am therefore compelled to oppose this bill. Not only will the NBN finally get the bush and regional Australia connected to business opportunities around the world; residents on the city fringe, like those just outside my electorate who are currently denied broadband access—perhaps in the member for Bonner’s electorate—will have world-class broadband. The NBN will deliver 93 per cent of premises with optical fibre with up to one gigabyte per second, and the remaining seven per cent will be connected with the next generation wireless and satellite technology. I urge those opposite to get on board with this fantastic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to address the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. Let me start by making it clear that this is not about one vision versus nothing; it is about a choice between two different visions facing Australia. The first is the monopolisation and return to a state owned enterprise using the same structure that was the old Telecom Australia. It is extraordinary that in the 21st century we are having put before Australia—as the OECD pointed out only in the last 24 hours—the return to a grand telecommunications state-owned monopoly.

The alternative view is about technology which moves with time. It is about making sure that we are not adopting a single frozen, static form of technology. We know that we have seen an erosion in fixed-line services throughout Australia in the last 18 months, in the last 36 months, in the last five years, and that the pace of that change is gathering exponentially—and what does this mean? It means that the technology of the future is wireless and our vision is, amongst other things, of the world’s best wireless network.

So we have two visions in play here: firstly, the return to a state owned monopoly, which is an extraordinary thing in a Western democracy in the 21st century; and, secondly, a competitive regime such as has been taken on board in Malaysia, for example. We aim to provide incentives to ensure that we have the world’s best wireless technology, which fits with the very fact that every day the proportion of fixed lines in Australian homes and Australian businesses is beginning to collapse. History is already beginning to bypass that which is being proposed by the government at this moment. So that is the set of visions.

This bill in particular is about truth and transparency, and there are two fundamental elements to it. Firstly, there is the notion that we must have a genuine business case. I know about the work of McKinsey. I am from McKinsey, and their work is good work but the constraints they were given in the scoping study were: how would you make something like this work? They were not asked to determine what would be the best model. They were not even asked to determine whether this model could work; they were only given the constraints: what assumptions would you have to make in order for the NBN to function? The assumptions they made were heroic in relation to, firstly, the take-up rate; secondly, the charge-out rate; thirdly, the ongoing costs; and, fourthly, the costs in relation to capital structure. So it is absolutely clear that in terms of truthfulness we must know the genuine business case and be able to compare it with an alternative use of the same amount of capital.

We must also be in a position to put this before the Productivity Commission in order to do just as the government has done today—that is, to ensure that we look at the most efficient way to deliver abatement of greenhouse gases within Australia. That is the principal of ensuring there is truthfulness. And we know, having met just this day with the CEO of the National Electrical and Communications Association, that the likely cost to homeowners will be anywhere between $2,000 and $3,000, or even up to $4,000, for wiring because when the box stops at the door that is not it; the home still has to be wired. In order to maintain parity of speed, it will cost between $2,000 and $3,000, and even $4,000, per home.

This brings me to the last issue. I have lived through the Home Insulation Program and the Green Loans program, and now we have the unfolding cash-for-clunkers program—witness the waste of those programs on a monumental scale. What we are beginning to witness here is the unfolding of a level of waste which will have an additional zero on the level of cost. This will freeze Australia’s telecommunications in a static format at a time when the world is moving to wireless. It is a structure that is frozen. It is a structure that has not been adopted in any other equivalent way. I know that in the United States they are moving increasingly to a wireless and satellite based network. That is the way of the future. There is no competition here in the technology or the provider. This bill is a start down the path to both those.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak against the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 and like the member for Moreton, who has already spoken in this debate, this is the first bill I have ever spoken against in this House. This private member’s bill presented by the member for Wentworth is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to undermine the quantum leap in Australia’s communication network that is the National Broadband Network. This private member’s bill seeks the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN and referral of the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a cost-benefit analysis. The NBN has a clear plan to deliver broadband to 93 per cent of homes through fibre and seven per cent through other methods such as satellite.

A business case for the rollout of the NBN has already been made and verified. McKinsey-KPMG were employed to conduct a thorough, independent cost-benefit analysis of the NBN. As the member for Flinders very recently said in this place, ‘Their work is good work’. The $25 million report, the National Broadband Network implementation study, reached its conclusion that the National Broadband Network can be delivered within the cost envelope proposed by the government. The report covers 11 chapters, looking into such issues as technology, the rollout time lines, competition, markets and funding. McKinsey-KPMG consulted with a range of experts and held extensive industry and stakeholder consultation to conduct this comprehensive analysis.

Why do we need another cost-benefit analysis? The NBN has delivered extensive plans and will continue to update the community on the plans for the rollout of the NBN. NBN Co. is a Commonwealth company and bears a statutory requirement to submit financial reports, directors reports and auditors reports on its operations. NBN Co. is obliged to prepare a corporate plan, at least annually, for the responsible minister and that plan must cover a minimum period of three years. Matters covered by the plan include assumptions about the business environment in which it operates, its investment and financing, strategies for managing financial risk, financial targets and projections from the company. The existing obligations on NBN Co. in terms of developing plans and reporting progress are extensive, and the bill presented by the member for Wentworth will only duplicate the extensive work completed and the future obligations on the NBN.

The member for Wentworth has indicated he will present a further private member’s bill to create a joint select committee drawn from both houses to oversee the rollout of the NBN. This will effectively duplicate the work already undertaken by the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. It was back on 25 June 2008 that the Senate established the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. This select committee has provided four interim reports to the Senate: on 2 December 2008, 12 May 2009, 26 November 2009 and 18 May 2010. Each report involved extensive consultation with stakeholders and the community.

So what is it that the member for Wentworth is trying to delay? The NBN, as I have said, will connect 93 per cent of all Australian premises with fibre-based services, with another seven per cent connected with next generation wireless and satellite technologies with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second. Recent tests held between April and September 2010 show the average home broadband connection in Australia clocked a speed of up to 4.2 megabits per second. For many households though, especially in the outer suburbs, it is way below this figure, very much dependent on how far away you are from your local exchange.

The NBN speed over fibre will be almost 20 times the current speed. The implications of that for home, business and study needs are quite remarkable. Recently there has been a lot of talk of economic reform. The NBN will deliver the massive boost that we need now and in the future to enable small-scale businesses to compete nationally and internationally. This private member’s bill, moved by the member for Wentworth, again highlights a short-sighted obsession with attacking the valuable economic reforms that the Labor government is delivering. The Liberal Party’s opposition to the NBN flies in the face of widespread support for this quantum leap in Australia’s communications network, and I urge the House to reject this private member’s bill.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to fully support the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010, which will require the government to prepare and publish a business case and a cost benefit analysis of the proposed National Broadband Network. The bill will allow for the application of some long overdue rigour and analysis of the assumptions behind the biggest-ever single project expenditure in the nation’s history. It is simply staggering that the government and the minister would be prepared to spend up to $43 billion of taxpayer funds without considering options or trying to quantify the benefits to the community.

The bill comes with impeccable timing, with information from the OECD advising the government to abandon the National Broadband Network government monopoly, because it locks out competition to fibre, and to put the NBN through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, along with all big infrastructure projects. The OECD concerns echo the coalition’s: value for money, appropriateness of the system, the locking out of competitors and competing technologies, what a reasonable rate of return would be on capital and linked inextricably with the likely value of the network once it is established. I am particularly concerned about how my constituency in regional Australia will be affected. While the government now says it will focus on regional Australia, an examination of the detail of the proposed rollout shows the patchiness of the planned coverage with many towns and communities set to miss out on the fibre-optic network. And I would point out that a town like Streaky Bay, with a population in excess of 1,500, is not designated to join to the fibre.

It is worth recapping how we arrived at this place. You may recall a time in 2007 when Australia had a telco, Telstra, which was ready to roll out a new high-speed service to urban Australia at the company’s cost. The coalition government had committed to a wireless network to deliver speeds of 12 megabytes with the taxpayer paying just $958 million. The contracts were signed and OPEL was to match that. The Labor Party was not happy with this deal and promised to build a 12 megabytes fibre-to-the node network to 98 per cent of Australians. In the end that deal collapsed. After 18 torturous months, they then proclaimed—without even blushing—that failure as an outstanding success and committed the government to a $43 billion fibre-to-the-house network for 90 per cent of Australians. Had they learnt anything? Had they consulted industry? Had they commissioned a business case? Was anyone from private industry interested in a financial partnership? Not a bit. This was classic shoot from the hip to defuse a political problem of the day with no plan for implementation. It is worth remembering there are no more potential customers for the $43 billion project than the $10 billion model, and industry could not make the sums stack up on that. So here we are today with the government so committed to its rhetoric, so embarrassed by its failure to deliver on a wide range of policy areas, that it is determined to push ahead with a project that may yet be the biggest waste of public funds ever—even overshadowing the abysmal BER school halls project.

When the government spends money it does not spend its own money; it is spending taxpayers’ money and it is morally bound to make sure the money is being well spent—that the mechanics, building workers, shop assistants and nurses who pay tax are getting value for money and the services they need. The problem with this network is that we simply do not know that, and that is because the government has not been prepared to take due diligence on this project.

If we are to spend $43 billion, either that network will need to supply an adequate return on capital or we will need to accept the investment as taxpayer write-off. We have no real idea what the pricing structure for access is likely to be but we can be sure that the more expensive the service, the lower the take-up—and the lower the take-up the higher the price will be for the service. In effect, this process is self-defeating and it is inevitable. The other alternative I mentioned is simply for the taxpayer to write off the investment. The government has said that sometime after the NBN’s establishment it intends to sell off the network to a private operator. The question then will be: what will it be worth? It can only be worth what someone is prepared to pay and they will only pay an amount determined by the earnings. We cannot responsibly build this network without taking true regard for its worth and benefit. The government should immediately commission a cost-benefit analysis and I fully endorse this bill.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight in support of the National Broadband Network and to defend it from those who seek to destroy it. The NBN is a significant investment in the future infrastructure and technological needs of this nation. The Gillard government is committed to investing in the latest technologies so that all Australians can fully participate in the information revolution. To contrast with this, those opposite take pot shots at the NBN and feign concern about transparency and adequate process. They do this because they know they have no viable alternative. It is far easier for them to attack the NBN than to create an alternative vision that the Leader of the Opposition—by his own admission—does not understand.

My electorate of Canberra embraces the NBN. The people of my electorate understand its potential and I am already fielding questions from them about how and when it will be rolled out in Canberra and what it is going to look like. The impact that this will have on people’s lives is well understood in my electorate. The people of my electorate understand the significance that the NBN will have in improving the delivery of health outcomes. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the efforts of HealthCube, which was founded by two Canberra doctors who believed IT services could be used to improve the outcome of patients in aged care. This service is already on the cutting edge of what can be done with technology. Just imagine what could be done if they had access to the NBN.

The people of my electorate also understand the impact that the NBN would have on education in schools, where students would be able to gain information quickly to collaborate with other schools and students not just down the hall but also around the world. Seniors in my electorate also understand the significance of the NBN. During the election campaign and since then I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of older Australians who have approached me and commended the government on the NBN. They speak to me about the potential of the NBN to connect them to their communities and to their families, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren to allow them to gain information and engage with the world in spite their age and mobility. They speak to me about the ability of the NBN to link them to health care and to provide them with better health outcomes.

These are just some of the innovations and opportunities provided by the NBN, but there are many more. The NBN is not just important for the things that we can think of now; it is important for all the innovations and new ideas we have not thought of yet that will become a reality in the decades to come with just a little bit of imagination. Who would have thought the internet would turn into the powerhouse it is now? I remember that in India 15 years ago there was one service provider and 120 connections. Now look at what has happened. You can do your retail therapy on it. You can Facebook on it. You can do everything. Who would have thought that 15 years ago? Who would have thought when the telephone was introduced to Australia in the 19th century that we would have a global economy dependent on that little bit of copper wire?

The NBN is as much about the next 50 years as it is about the next five. The Gillard government is positioning Australia for the next wave of innovation in technology and communication. My electorate understands this. The people of Canberra understand this. Sadly, the opposition does not. While those opposite might like to say this debate is about transparency, it is in reality about one side having a positive vision for the future and one side trying to destroy that vision.

The NBN has been reviewed by McKinsey and Co. and KPMG. They both endorsed it. They found that it would transform the lives of Australians, that it is achievable and viable and that it would provide a good return on investment. This is an exciting opportunity and development for this country, and I am proud to be part of the government that has developed this vision. I am proud to be able to go back to my electorate of Canberra and talk about the positive change the NBN will bring to all sorts of people across the electorate. I am proud to be able to speak about the advances in the delivery of education and health care and the new jobs that will be made possible by the NBN—including jobs that we cannot even think of at the moment.

I have no doubt that these advances will stand up to the test of history. Then what will those opposite be able to say? How will history judge them? The NBN is too important a project to get bogged down in the standard partisan politics. I accept there is a place for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. However, that is not what this bill is for. This bill seeks to use legitimate parliamentary processes for illegitimate means. The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 is about the member for Wentworth carrying out the mandate given to him by the Leader of the Opposition to destroy the NBN. The Australian people deserve better than that. The people of Canberra deserve better than that. I urge the committee to support the NBN and to reject this bill.

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

I am just gobsmacked at the attitude of the government to the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. I have a great deal of respect for the new member for Canberra, but how can she say that this is all about Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, trying to destroy the bill? Why would a study by the Productivity Commission destroy the bill, unless it is flawed?

Let’s have a quick look at the history of this bill. Before the election before last, Labor promised us a telecommunications system for the whole of this country for $4.7 billion. That was reasonable, I suppose, in the circumstances. We were offering a scheme at $2 billion. When they got into power, it suddenly became $43 billion. How can you get a cost that multiplies nine times and not be a bit suspicious about its integrity? If any reasonable person wanted to have a house built and the builder said, ‘Look, it’s going to cost you nine times that,’ they would say, ‘Jeez, I want to have a look at the figures.’ That is the first thing they would ask for.

Compare that with what we offered: first, OPEL. If OPEL had gone ahead back then, 90 per cent of Australia would now have 12 megabits of wireless coverage. It might not be the flashest, the biggest or the longest network, but how many people in Australia at that stage were getting more than three, two or one megabits, or half a megabit? The answer is 12 per cent. In the interregnum between the last election and when the government was formed, five telecommunications companies told the Independents they could do it for $3 billion—not $43 billion but $3 billion.

When you have variations of that magnitude, isn’t testing the right thing to do? Does the government want the system tested? Oh, no—it cannot be submitted to the government’s own Infrastructure Australia, which they lauded as begin the great testing model for all the big, national projects! Is there a bigger national project than this? ‘Oh, no, we can’t subject it to that.’ In the government’s bill, we find that the Public Works Committee is specifically precluded from examining it. Why would the government cut out Infrastructure Australia and their own Public Works Committee unless they had something to hide, something that was really wrong with this thing?

With what the government has offered, we will get about 93 per cent coverage. There is no mention of the other seven per cent, the people out in the bush. When will we get there? In eight years—assuming it stays on target and the costs do not blow out. Lots of people think the cost will not stop at $43 billion. Some estimate it might get to $60 billion.

What I like about the Turnbull bill is that in clause 5 of the bill you can see some of the things he wants to look at. One of the interesting things is in paragraph (b) to look at different options for broadband services at particular speeds across Australia. Would you not think that was fundamental? And then in paragraph (f) a consideration of what the likely realisable value of the NBN would be if you sell it. The test of whether $43 billion is the right figure is when someone like the Productivity Commission, expert in this field, is able to tell you whether or not you can get $43 billion or better when you want to sell it in five years time. Why would you not want to have that information? Then in paragraph (g) an examination of the design, construction and operating arrangements of the project. I remember them stringing the cables for pay TV and half Australia was up in arms about it. Now we are going to string the fibre-optic cable from telegraph pole to telegraph pole in hot weather, in cyclones, in storms—how long is that fibre-optic cable going to last? That is something else that could be examined under this Productivity Commission inquiry. The government has been caught out. This scheme that the government is putting up is a fraud. The examination bill should be considered.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak against the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 presented by the member for Wentworth. I am pleased to be able to speak in any debate on the National Broadband Network but it is terribly disappointing to be here this evening speaking on a bill which is quite clearly designed to delay the rollout of the NBN and to delay the consequent benefits that will come with an NBN being rolled out into our community. It is once again a delaying and obfuscatory tactic. It is quite at odds with the expectations of ordinary Australians, and certainly Australians with whom I have spoken in my electorate, both during the federal election campaign and since then, who are increasingly frustrated that the NBN will not be progressing as quickly as they had hoped, assuming that the opposition’s tactics displayed this evening remain.

During the election campaign La Trobe residents raised with me reliable, affordable internet access as being a core issue in our area. Those residents are very much aware of the significance of the NBN, in terms of both their children’s educational opportunities and the possibilities for business through efficiency and employment opportunities. Increasingly, they are becoming aware of the prospects for better healthcare delivery and the prospects for saving time, energy and considerable resources in what might otherwise be fairly lengthy travel to their employment or their businesses.

The NBN will allow La Trobe businesses to service effectively their local, interstate and international clients. Residents, and importantly local government representatives in my electorate, are very keenly aware of the need to try to minimise travel time and to minimise traffic congestion each day on major arterials. The NBN would enable more of those residents to tele-work from home and would enable improved workplace flexibility. It is also likely to mean that some of those living in more remote parts of La Trobe—bearing in mind that my electorate spans much of the eastern and south-eastern fringe of Melbourne—will be able to seek job opportunities and stay in their local communities without the need for extensive travel. I am thinking particularly of areas in my electorate such as Upper Beaconsfield, Cockatoo, Emerald, Menzies Creek, Officer and Pakenham on the outer reaches of my electorate who stand to benefit from the availability of optic fibre and substantially faster internet speeds. The frustration of people in those particular suburbs is raised with me quite regularly in relation to the existing standard of their internet services. It is particularly significant that in La Trobe the NBN could enable health services to provide residents in remote locations with specialist advice without those residents needing to travel long distances. I am particularly thinking of elderly residents and those who are transport limited on the outer fringes of my electorate.

The other thing that I know local residents in my electorate are keenly aware of is the prospect of jobs associated with the rollout of the NBN. We have had the Building the Education Revolution once again maligned in the debate this evening in comments from the other side—and I am sure that those who have commented negatively on the Building the Education Revolution also malign the jobs that were created by it. Similarly, in relation to the NBN, we know that its construction is expected to support on average 25,000 jobs each year over the life of the project. Of course, the opposition have not really been effective advocates for job opportunities in my electorate and in other electorates around the country. They still cannot appreciate the value of our nation-building stimulus package in creating and supporting local jobs at a time of financial crisis, so I suppose I should not anticipate that they are going to change their tack this evening. They might be more inclined to at least acknowledge the views of the Australian Local Government Association, which estimated in 2008 that around $3.2 billion and 33,000 jobs had been lost to Australian businesses during a 12-month period due to inadequate broadband infrastructure—but, then again, perhaps even that will not convince them. As so many of us have regularly observed, the opposition are simply intent on wrecking and delaying meaningful reform—and this is yet another example of that.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. With any major project, it is important to understand the need to maintain a sound theoretical approach. Costs, benefits, safety and quality must be paramount, especially in the case of introducing a new technology. It is reasonable for Australians to expect that this occurs not only with the NBN but with all major projects. Listening to the speakers on this bill from the government side, it is not clear that the government understands what this bill is about. The government speakers have focused on the need for high-speed internet and its broad accessibility and adoption. The opposition do not disagree, but we on this side of the chamber know that a successful implementation of any major project depends on thorough analysis.

The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 will require the publication of a 10-year business plan for the NBN and refer the NBN project to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis. This is the largest investment of taxpayers’ dollars in our history. We must ensure that taxpayers receive value for money; to simply guess that they will be receiving good value without the figures in front of us is irresponsible and a dereliction of our duty as their representatives. The largest investment that most private investors make is the family home. As individuals we would quite rightly be critical of someone making such an investment without due diligence, and we would be unsurprised and perhaps unsympathetic if things did not work out as they expected. We must hold ourselves to the same standard as individuals themselves would, or should, with their own hard earned funds. Taxpayers’ funds are not to be experimented with; expenditure on their behalf is not to be rushed.

The NBN is the single largest infrastructure investment in Australia’s history. This extraordinary outlay has been justified on the basis of its contribution to our economic future. But where is the evidence of this future economic contribution? The government has repeatedly justified the enormous cost on the basis of the project’s claimed contribution to our economic growth—and does so without real evidence, without examples and without the analysis behind them to back up its claims. The government cannot point to its own success in the small rollout in Tasmania as an example. If the Tasmanian experience is a microcosm of a nationwide rollout then it is hard to argue that further investigation is not required. This project is full of unanswered questions. It is not clear how the project will be commercially viable and the costs for the consumer are unclear.

We have seen this government’s fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants style of governance many times before. Their failed projects, which were much less extravagant than the NBN, failed partly because they were designed with haste, without due diligence and without proper consultation. The Green Loans scheme has left individual’s dreams in tatters, with their faith in this government irreparably damaged and no tangible evidence of improvement to our environment. The school halls that had to be built right now, whether the schools really wanted them or not, suffered from cost blow-out after cost blow-out. Worst of all was the roof insulation scheme, which resulted in true tragedy for several Australian families.

It seems ludicrous that the government would make the case that cost is one of the prohibitive factors in delivering a proper investigation into the NBN. We are looking at a $43 billion project here. Surely the government would acknowledge that, in a project of this size, there is the potential for costs to blow out. When a cost blow-out of as little as one per cent places a half billion dollar impost on the Australian taxpayer, there is no excuse for lack of proper planning and research. A figure of one per cent of the estimated outlay for the NBN resembles a figure not unlike that committed to the expansion of the Pacific Motorway in my electorate of McPherson, firstly by the Howard government and then matched by the then opposition.

The economic impact of these funds was quantifiable—and easily so. It meant doubling the capacity of the M1 in the south of the electorate right through to the New South Wales border. It would have meant faster and therefore less costly transport as semi-trailers entered Queensland. The impact on the lifestyle of residents may not be as easily quantifiable but it is easily identified, especially by those who sit daily in slow-moving traffic. This is but one example of the opportunity cost of the outlay on a project such as this. The government must justify the opportunity cost of the NBN—not only the already outlayed expenditure but also the possible differential from the budgeted figure. No project of this size should ever occur without oversight. We owe the Australian taxpayer the greatest care with their dollars and I urge the House to support this bill.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of the National Broadband Network is about our future. It is about understanding the great opportunities and the benefits for all areas of the economy as well as for personal and social development. The debate on the NBN and the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 is about a contrast of thinking. As I said in my address-in-reply, mankind is divided between the party of conservatism and the party of innovation and between the past and the future. The NBN is further evidence of this. It is a contrast between believing that a high speed broadband network is crucial for a prosperous future, as the Labor Party does, or that communicating using two Milo tins joined by a piece of string is good enough, which is what the opposition believes.

The German government, led by the conservative CDU Party of Chancellor Angela Merkel—the sister party to the opposition—stated last year that high-speed broadband networks that enabled the rapid exchange of information and knowledge are crucial for economic growth. Angela Merkel was right. The coalition, in opposing the NBN, are plainly wrong. They claim they want transparency and scrutiny, but at every step they have blocked and delayed reforms that will benefit all Australians.

Let us recognise the opposition’s stunts for what they really are: they are causing delay for millions of Australians in getting a fairer deal on broadband and telecommunications services. During election doorknocking in South Morang in my electorate, almost every single person I spoke to raised with me the issues they were having getting access to fast, reliable high-speed broadband. I recall Mr Joe Cilmi, a resident of South Morang. He runs a small business at home dealing with education. Mr Cilmi faces exorbitant prices using a substandard wireless connection while trying to run his business and feed his family. The NBN rollout to South Morang is a huge win for this growing suburb. It will also open up the competitive landscape to retailer service providers that have not been able to extend their broadband services to our area. Let us remember that South Morang is only 26 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD.

Many sectors of the community, including local government, are already making decisions based on NBN’s future. In my own electorate, the City of Whittlesea is using its planning powers to encourage developers and telecommunication carriers to build a fibre-optic network in new estates. The council should be commended for its progressive thinking and planning, because it just does not make sense to build new homes that use all the latest approaches to save energy, technology and water and not be fibre-optic ready.

There are so many other important benefits to the NBN program. For example, it will allow better emergency service and disaster relief systems to be developed and put in place. In my bushfire-prone electorate, this may help save lives if disaster strikes. The government must be commended for its forward-thinking innovation and its understanding of how high speed broadband will be crucial for social and community development in rural and remote Australia as well as for our long-term economic thinking. I stand proud in support of the NBN. I note it is of great benefit to the people of McEwen and other regional Australians across the country.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, 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.