Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

This bill we are debating is part of the government's NBN fiasco. Consistent with its modus operandi it seeks to minimise or remove competition and to put the government in control—government knows best irrespective of the additional cost, irrespective of the inefficiency or the waste. This government has a scary disregard for the value of taxpayers' money. Of course we know that. We well remember that, in relation to the NBN, the government did not conduct even as much as a cost-benefit analysis. We well remember that the minister, Senator Conroy, and the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, designed the NBN policy on the back of an envelope in an aircraft. They came up with 'sort of an appropriate figure that we should put to it'. To make it sound scientific they did not want to come up with a round figure so they came up with a figure of $43 billion. There was no science to it. It was back-of-an-envelope type stuff. Of course, ever since, they have been playing catch-up, trying to come up with some sort of justification for that very inappropriate way to deal with taxpayers' dollars.

In this bill the government equally has made no attempt whatsoever to maximise value for money with the arrangements that it is proposing to put in place to bring fibre to greenfield sites. The coalition supports the principle of encouraging fibre to greenfield sites, of course. I am referring here to the dissenting report that was put forward in June by the member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, as part of the advisory report on the Telecommunications Legisla­tion Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, where he noted:

While it costs more to install fibre than copper in a new development, the incremental cost is much less than the cost of installing fibre in brownfields sites. The Government’s stated policy is that in developments of 100 homes or less Telstra will install copper. The Coalition members believe this approach risks wasteful duplication with copper presumably being overbuilt within a few years if it is within the fibre footprint. On any view connecting greenfields developments to fibre must be a key priority given the cost advantage over brownbuild fibre overbuilds referred to above.

We agree with the principle of encouraging fibre onto greenfield sites. However, it is important to do it right, and that is where this government has significant difficulties—it does not think things through. It takes a very ideological approach to government and has a complete disregard for the value of taxpayers' dollars. It does not come to this with a view to making sure that we stretch the value of the dollar as far as possible and that we maximise the efficiency, the impact and, ultimately, the affordability for con­sumers. That is not the approach of this government. This is a government which is focused on putting government at the centre of all things, irrespective of whether that is the appropriate way to go. We are really concerned that this bill would further destroy broadband competition, because it would make it preferential to use the NBN. It would make it artificially cheaper for developers to use the NBN, rather than existing fibre installers, to lay fibre on greenfield estates. It would give NBN a competitive advantage in the marketplace, yet again, when there is no proper justification for doing so.

Labor is actually doing the opposite of what it promised. Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, said in December last year that he would preserve the role of private fibre installers and operators. Instead he has structured this bill in a way which would further entrench his monopoly, NBN Co., which is very clearly not in the national interest. For the benefit of the Senate and for senators who might be considering their position on this bill, I will quote what Senator Conroy said in December 2010:

It has been a consistent feature of the government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.

…   …   …

Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments—for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.

That is exactly the opposite of what the government is now doing with this legislation. Why is the government so intent, through the power of legislation, to give its monopoly provider every single additional advantage in the marketplace that it possibly can? It is not appropriate, but that is the modus operandi of this government.

This bill and the way the arrangements have been put together demonstrate that the government has not learnt from the mistakes it has made on NBN policy more generally. The NBN is of course a government owned company which was created to build the network. It is going to cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It will have monopoly powers. The government thinks that this company should do everything. It should be in control of the whole shooting match—the whole shebang. Of course, that makes it way too expensive. It is bad for competition and it is largely unnecessary, as the private sector can do the job faster, more efficiently and cheaper, as long as the parliament and the government have set the appropriate ground rules for all of that to happen. But, no, this government thinks government has to be in charge of everything. This government does not believe in the benefits of competition. This government does not believe in the benefits, efficiency and value for money that can come from having the private sector compete appropriately with each other—and with NBN Co., for example.

I will go to the dissenting report by the member for Wentworth on behalf of coalition members of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, because it raises a series of very important issues. It makes the point that the arrangements in this legislation are:

… unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic for property developers.

In evidence to the inquiry, the Housing Industry Association made the observation that:

… the legislation needs to make it very clear who is responsible for the delivery and that there are certain obligations on the provider to do that in a very timely way, otherwise it will delay development. I appreciate that there are negotia­tions in the feasibility and planning arrangements, but there needs to be that level of certainty for developers so they know who is going to do it, who is going to pay for it and when it can be done. It should not take more than a couple of phone calls and a meeting to sort out it being put into the critical path of the development, otherwise those projects will be delayed whilst certain things are waiting for a provider to provide that infrastructure.

This bill will put in place significant additional burdens that are completely unnecessary.

The other observation made in this report is that this bill is a 'missed opportunity to impose competitive and cost discipline on NBN Co.' As presently drafted, the bill does not allow us to take advantage of the existence of competitive greenfield opera­tors, which would impose effective compet­itive and cost discipline on NBN Co. I recommend the report to Senator Farrell, the minister at the table, if he is still thinking about how he is going to vote on this legislation. He should have a very close look at the report by the member for Wentworth. It is very good reading; I think he would learn a bit.

It would be way better if we had a regime where developers had a viable option to use competitive greenfield operators to build out fibre networks in their developments, because that would mean they could build the network more cheaply, quickly and conveniently. That would:

… produce a more efficient outcome if it meant that infrastructure in new developments were built at lower cost than if it were done by NBN Co under a monopoly.

It is very simple. If NBN Co. can provide the service at the lowest cost then clearly it should be providing the service. But the market should be free to test whether there is a cheaper, quicker, more efficient way to do it. Why does the government not want us to have the cheapest, most efficient way of bringing fibre to greenfield developments? Why does it want to inflate the cost? Why does it want that additional cost to be passed through the whole economy? This, of course, is on top of the carbon tax and all the other taxes. This is a government that does not mind imposing additional cost-of-living pressures on people across Australia. The approach of this government, whether with NBN Co. or with anything else they touch and stuff up, is to spend too much, to borrow—