Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to put my questions in this particular debate. Already we have seen the scant regard and courtesy with which this minister, Minister Conroy, holds this place, and I will refer to that in a few moments. This time last year we were debating the ETS and Minister Wong , with carriage and responsibility of that legislation at that time, had the courtesy to sit in this chamber for all of about 56 hours and to answer questions, to engage with senators and to give us the benefit of her input and knowledge. This minister, Minister Conroy, has been spectacular by his absence, and what a tragedy it is.

In my many years in business and running government enterprises I had one overriding principle: the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Senator Ludlam asked why it was we were expressing such concern. The past performance of this government has been a joke, reprehensible. Senator Ludlam asked why we mentioned pink batts. The reason for mentioning pink batts, as has been eloquently put, Senator Ludlam, was the billion dollars of waste without it ever having been the subject of any scrutiny and, regrettably, the four deaths that we know about to date—and all of the other costs that we do not yet know about with pink batts.

I sat through the hearings into the Gillard memorial halls and once again saw the gross incompetence that was visited upon this country as a result of it. Senator Ludlam and his colleagues would know well about the failed Green Loans scheme that cost so many small-business people their livelihoods and for which there has been no restitution from this government. We saw the issue with the allocation of funds for Aboriginal housing in the Northern Territory of some $300-plus million. Before the first roof was on the first building the Northern Territory government had accumulated for itself a figure in excess of $30 million for no action at all. Only this afternoon we heard in Tasmania of the very first school in Smithton linked to this famous new NBN and, unfortunately, it seems as though they are having infrastructure problems because it has not yet met anywhere near its objectives.

I suggest to my good colleagues—Senator Ludlam and his colleagues and Senator Xenophon—before it is too late, before you are party to the next failure, to take a good, long look at the first performance of this NBN, which has in itself failed, along with the other projects that we have seen in the three years.

We return to costs. I look at this document that was forced, kicking and screaming out of government in the last couple of days. It is a project of $50,000 million of borrowed money to be repaid by the Australian taxpayer, and in ‘6.6 Funding’, we have not even three lines but 2½ lines:

6.6  Funding

NBN Co’s funding requirement is driven by the Company’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) and Capex profiles, including working capital.

That is the sum total we are to learn of funding for a $50 billion project. Senator Sterle would not lend 50c to his sons or daughters if that was the best they could come up with in terms of a funding activity.

We were told originally the project was $43 billion. We were then told it was $26 billion. When you add $35½ billion to $13.8 billion of infrastructure spending, it comes to $50 billion. And for those of you with calculators, that is—before we link up a business, before we link up a home—$2,272 for every man woman and child in this country. That is before you start adding debt. That is before you actually link up to this project and to this process.

But what is going to be the cause to increase it? I did some quick figures on that $50 billion and at a six per cent average interest over the next 11 years, because we were told that it would not top out until 2021. That, if you don’t mind, is a cool figure of $1.6 billion per annum at six per cent, which until 2021 would be $17.8 billion added to the bill.