Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7012 concurrently:

(1)    Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 12), insert:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 204 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 10—Productivity Commission to prepare cost-benefit analysis on NBN

Productivity Commission Act 1998

1  After Division 1 of Part 3

Insert:

        (1)    The Commission must prepare a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN proposal and publish it by 31 May 2011.

        (2)    The cost-benefit analysis must include the following matters:

             (a)    an analysis of the availability of broadband services across Australia, identifying those suburbs and regions where current service is of a lesser standard or higher price than the best services available in the capital cities;

             (b)    a consideration of the different options by which broadband services of particular speeds could be made available to all Australians (particularly those in regional and remote areas and those in underserved metropolitan areas) with an estimate of the likely timeframe and cost of each option;

             (c)    a consideration of the economy-wide benefits likely to flow from enhanced broadband services around Australia, the applications likely to be used on such services, and in particular a consideration of the different scale of such benefits depending on the broadband speed available;

             (d)    a full and transparent costing of the proposed NBN project, including any financial and economic projections, models, assumption and sensitivity calculations underpinning the estimates;

             (e)    an examination of the likely pricing structure of NBN services;

              (f)    an examination of reasonable commercial rates of return and cash flows for NBN Co, taking into account NBN Co’s costs of equity and debt and the risk profile of both NBN Co and the market in which it operates;

             (g)    a consideration of what the likely realisable value of NBN Co would be if it were to be privatised after five years, as currently contemplated in the legislation;

             (h)    an examination of the design, construction and operating arrangements of the proposed NBN project, so that direct and indirect outcomes from its construction and operation can be identified and evaluated;

              (i)    an examination of the likely environmental and health impacts of the construction of the NBN;

              (j)    an analysis of the effects of the proposed NBN on competition in the Australian fixed-line broadband market, including its effects on the scope for competition among different technologies for fixed-line and wireless broadband provision;

             (k)    an analysis of the impact of any impact of any exemption from the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in connection to the NBN;

              (l)    benchmarking of the NBN against comparable broadband services available in overseas markets;

            (m)    consideration of potential technological advances and the likely impact on the NBN, including whether future technologies may be superior;

             (n)    consideration of the likely take-up rate for NBN services, having particular regard to international experience;

             (o)    consideration of the national building social and community-specific benefits flowing from the NBN, having particular regard to rural and regional communities.

It is with pleasure that I have moved those amendments. These are the last amendments in the debate on this piece of legislation. Most of the time in the committee stage has been spent on debating amendments related to the structural separation and/or the functional separation of Telstra. Those are reasonable things. It is appropriate that we have looked at those as one of the key objectives of this piece of legislation. Whilst we may disagree with some of the means by which the government is seeking to achieve this key objective, the opposition does support the ultimate aim of that separation and the competitive benefits that it will provide to the telecommunications sector into the future. However, integrated into this bill is fundamentally a structure to support the development of the government’s National Broadband Network. Whether this is a $35.7 billion network, a $43 billion network or a $50 billion network—and we can have those debates—it is a very large amount of money. It is a phenomenally huge amount of money that the government is committing to its NBN and it is committing it with no knowledge whatsoever as to whether it is the best way to deliver fast and affordable broadband services to all Australians at the lowest cost to taxpayers in a manner that promotes competition in the Australian telecommunications sector.

The main amendment seeks to at least test the government’s assumptions. That is the fundamental basis of this amendment and it is, of course, something that the opposition has been calling for from day one of the conception of this NBN by the government. When Senator Conroy found that his NBN mark 1, his fibre-to-the-node $4.7 billion proposal, did not stack up and crafted on the back of an aircraft napkin, in the RAAF VIP with then Prime Minister Rudd, the proposal for his $43 billion fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network, we heard about this idea and we said that what the government needs to do is undertake a full, decent, robust cost-benefit analysis of this gargantuan proposal to ensure that it is the best way to get fast, affordable broadband for all Australians. It has been a long time in the debate since Senator Conroy first announced that $43 billion proposal. However, we still have not seen anything that vaguely resembles a cost-benefit analysis of the government’s proposal. This amendment seeks to achieve that.

This amendment will require the Productivity Commission to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the NBN proposal, examining that proposal thoroughly and considering whether there may be alternatives that could deliver, for Australia and for all Australians, fast affordable broadband at a lower cost. That should be the aim of everyone in this place—to achieve fast affordable broadband at the lowest possible cost.

I do not know what the government are afraid of in having this cost-benefit analysis, aside from the fear that it just may prove them wrong, that it just may prove the ‘NBN bro’—who is much lauded today, although he seems to be all tangled up in wires in his fabulous Financial Review Magazine feature—wrong. It just may prove the NBN bro wrong if we have this decent Productivity Commission analysis. The government do seem to be afraid that it may prove them wrong, because that can be their only real fear in this.

Let us be under absolutely no misapprehension, and let the crossbenches in particular be under no misapprehension: passing this amendment will have absolutely no impact on the passage of this legislation. To Senator Xenophon, to Senator Fielding and to the Greens: I emphasise that this government, having gone this far—if you require a Productivity Commission assessment to be undertaken—is not about to delay its own legislation any further. It will have to accept this legislation, it will have to accept this PC inquiry and it will do so having accepted all of the other undertakings that you have variously obtained from the government. But you will actually then see a thorough, robust cost-benefit analysis undertaken.

Let us also be under no misapprehension here: it will not delay the structural separation of Telstra; it will not delay the construction of the NBN. It will simply ensure that, by 31 May next year, we have a thorough cost-benefit analysis, one that has been comprehensively undertaken, and that we have, for all Australians to see, some analysis of whether this enormous multibillion project is value for money.