Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to Greens amendment (1) to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 and, in particular, the clause that ‘the availability of accessible and affordable carriage services that enhance the welfare of Australians’ be added to the object of the legislation. Before any National Broadband Network can deliver accessible and affordable carriage services and broadband, the Australian people deserve some reassurance that those carriage services will be subject to some transparency and accountability in the process of the build and, in particular, in the passage of the legislation to enable the ultimate build. As the opposition has said repeatedly in this place and the other place, transparency and accountability are conspicuous in their absence. That is an understatement when considering the National Broadband Network.

The government has attempted, thus far successfully, to curry favour with the Independents in the lower house and my Independent colleagues in the Senate. With respect to my Independent colleagues in the Senate, in my view they have curried that favour with a couple of sops. I regret that I think these sops, given the fullness of time, my Independent colleagues in the Senate may live to regret. They may live to rue the day that they signed off on the bottom line they voted on, be that today or as long as it takes for the chamber to deal with this legislation. They may rue the day that they signed off on the bottom line on the basis of those sops offered by government. The lead-in to the sops was the rejection, as I understand it, by the other place of the member for Wentworth’s motion to establish a joint parliamentary committee to inquire into the National Broadband Network. The joint parliamentary committee proposed by member for Wentworth could have commenced work tomorrow. He proposed that it be equally laden with government members and opposition members and that it have, in addition to those parliamentary members, independent representation, as is appropriate.

I will go in a moment to the second of the two sops offered to and accepted by the Independent senators—that is, the government’s proposition that there be established a joint parliamentary committee, and contrast that with what would and could have been the member for Wentworth’s proposal for a joint parliamentary committee to properly and impartially assess the ongoing rollout of the National Broadband Network. I will also take the liberty of contrasting it with what could have been—had the government not so thwarted business in the Senate today—Senate consideration of what was on the Notice Paper, namely a joint motion by Senator Ludlam and me to refer the ongoing rollout of the National Broadband Network to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications for ongoing inquiry. The sop of a government proposed joint parliamentary committee is a very sorry sop when contrasted with what could have been the member for Wentworth’s proposed joint parliamentary committee and what could have been Senate consideration of a proposal that the Senate environment and communications committee consider the National Broadband Network on an ongoing basis.

First of all I want to go to the supposed business case and the business case summary—the summary, the sop—which has been accepted by the Independents and about which my colleagues have spoken at some length. I have a couple of observations in respect of that summary. The first one arises from a letter sent today from the Alliance for Affordable Broadband, an open letter to Mike Quigley, CEO of NBN Co. I know some of my colleagues, in particular Senator Ronaldson, have referred to this letter already today. That alliance, which from our experience in ongoing Senate committee inquiries comprises some nine to 10 highly respected and totally senior operators in the broadband sector, says that they have had a look at the business case summary released yesterday. It says, ‘We have some immediate take-outs and several questions, Mr Quigley, which we hope you can answer.’

They say that the summary appears to raise more questions than it answers. They say that in their view the summary shows that the costs are actually higher than they are expected to be. The price of the basic package will not decrease over time and will likely increase. The project is only viable if it is a monopoly in the last mile and in backhaul, facing no competitive pressure as to price or innovation or efficiency. The letter goes on to say ‘We still do not have fundamental information and facts to support the government’s assertion about the business case. We do not have much confidence that the rest of the business case that has not been released will provide any of this information or facts.’ The best bit—the most tragic bit—is their assessment that no investor or lender would lend money to open a milk bar based on a document with this little detail.

Interestingly, there is enough that is entirely consistent with the observations made by the member for Wentworth yesterday on his blog about the 36-page summary—the summary sop—accepted by the Independents. The member for Wentworth said on his blog:

… beyond a few scraps of information and other warm words this is a thoroughly inadequate document. It is a sop thrown to the independent Senators in the hope that they will give the Government their vote. Real accountability, real transparency requires a thorough and complete business case, not 36 pages of reassurance devoid of financial detail.

We have this 36-page sop, this 36-page apology for a 400-page business case which the minister will not even fess up to reading because most likely he has not. He will also not fess up to reading the supposed ACTU agreed enterprise bargaining principles upon which he bases his reassurance that there will be no wages blow-out in the build of the NBN. He fails to give that reassurance that he has read it because again most likely he has not. Indeed until we see that document, we do not even know whether it exists other than on the minister’s own say-so. So the minister offers a 36-page sop for a 400-page document which he will not even fess up to reading. Do you know that in this 36-page sop, which is supposed to describe the financial underpinnings of the business case, the 400-page document, you have to get to page 28 of those 36 pages before you see a frigging dollar sign for a $43 billion infrastructure investment? The government has bought off the Independents with a 36-page sop. You have to get to page 28 of those 36—that is, seven-ninths of the document—before you see a jolly dollar sign. Cheap, cheap, cheap—not.

Leaving the business case summary sop, let us go to Senator Xenophon’s agreement with the government and in particular Senator Xenophon’s reference to the government’s agreement to an:

… ongoing oversight of the NBN roll-out by a new Joint Parliamentary Committee, chaired by a Lower House Independent—

I am reading from Senator Nick Xenophon’s press release. He goes on:

to report every six months during the rollout of the NBN … Every member and senator will have the right to participate.

I have been provided with a copy of the Prime Minister’s letter of 23 November to Senator Xenophon. It says:

I am writing after our discussions yesterday to confirm the package of measures that we have agreed with you to facilitate the package through parliament of the consumer safeguards bill.

I am going to refer to the paragraph in that letter where the Prime Minister discusses this joint parliamentary committee. She says:

First the government agrees that there is a valuable and ongoing role for parliamentary scrutiny to properly scrutinise the implementation of policies. With this in mind and in the interests of accountability and transparency—

Thank you very much—

the government will move to establish a joint committee on the National Broadband Network to provide progress reports every six months. The composition of this committee will mirror the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

Of course, if you have a look at the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, you will see that that is a wholly government dominated committee. It has 16 members—10 from the House of Representatives and six senators. Nine of those members are government, six are opposition and one is Independent. The committee is also—which should concern members in this place—dominated by House of Representatives members. What a cheap sop—in particular to the Independents. So it is a committee that is very clearly government dominated and House of Representatives dominated.

Prime Minister Gillard then goes on to say in her letter:

The Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network will report on rollout progress, report against the final business plan, assess risk management processes and look at other matters the committee determines are relevant to its deliberations.

What do you reckon they might be from a government dominated committee? Do you reckon that a government dominated committee would agree to look at things that were the subject of Senator Ludlam’s and my joint motion to refer the NBN on an ongoing basis to a Senate inquiry? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will agree to look at the cost of establishing and operating the NBN and the impact of the project on government finances? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will look at the impact on competition in the telecommunications market? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will look at alternative or emerging telecommunications technologies and the degree to which the NBN will be future proof—a point referred to by the alliance in their letter to Mr Quigley? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will look at any practical issues likely to arise during construction of the NBN, including workforce—well, Senator Conroy will not—property access and property connection issues and aerial versus underground construction? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will look at experience gained at, and principles or lessons extracted from, current release sites including cost, pricing and performance? Do you reckon a government dominated committee will look at documents, information and advice provided to the government but not made public? I hardly think so.

Even better, the Prime Minister says to Senator Xenophon that this joint parliamentary committee will not start its work until July next year. What about the taxpayers’ money to be expended up until then? This parliamentary committee will not start its job until 1 July next year. Until then its work is supposed to be done in this way—maybe:

The committee will draw on any relevant material from the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, due to report back by August 2011.

Again, have a look at the membership of that standing committee: four government, three opposition and one non-aligned member. It is government dominated and House of Representatives dominated. It is a do-nothing committee, other than what is favourable to the government.

But the best bit about the Prime Minister’s letter to Senator Xenophon, sealing the sop and sealing the deal, is:

The committee would be able to call witnesses including MPs and senators about the performance of the NBN or any other matters of local interest.

This joint parliamentary committee will become a politicians’ plaything—and a government dominated politicians’ plaything at that. How interesting it is to contrast that proposition with the repeated refusal by ministers of this government to accept repeated invitations to front the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee on the inquiry into the botched, bungled and tragic Home Insulation Program. The Prime Minister refused when Deputy Prime Minister; then Prime Minister Rudd refused; Senator Arbib refused; Minister Combet refused; and Environment Minister Garrett—as he then was—refused. Contrast that with the hypocrisy of this Prime Minister now offering a politicians’ plaything. It is a disgrace.