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

We clearly have a tactic being run by the minister present. That tactic is obviously to ignore all questions or comments that come from the opposition. He has made that clear for some period of time now. In the main, we have asked about the viability of greenfield operators; he was not interested in answering those questions. When asked about NBN Co.'s future pricing arrangements and, in particular, their application to the ACCC, he was not interested in answering those questions. So we are just not hearing from the minister in this regard. As I indicated in the earlier debate today, I am realistic now about these amendments. I would like to see the minister speak plainly and honestly to the Senate, to the Australian people, to the stakeholders in the communications industry and particularly to the people whose jobs and businesses are on the line as a result of this legislation about what the impact will be, but he appears to be unwilling to do that in this chamber, unwilling to provide the type of clarity that we think is warranted.

I am not going to keep the Senate going forever on this, because it is obvious that the minister is not going to come to the party in that regard. That is, as I said just prior to question time, symbolic of the approach that the government take and of the overall contempt and arrogance that they demonstrate towards this chamber, indeed to the entire parliament, on so many, many fronts. Most recently, as I highlighted in an MPI speech, they have demonstrated great contempt with the way that the carbon tax bills will be treated in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, especially scrutiny by the committee systems of this parliament, compared with what happened with the GST.

I will turn now to one area of the amendments that I have moved that has not been explored in any great detail and that the government has not particularly addressed to date. Senator Ludlam earlier posed some questions in regard to this, and we had an exchange about it. It is the issue relating to the setting of minimum conditions for the installation of fibre, the process by which those minimum conditions are set and who actually sets those conditions. We see in the bill as it is presented, in clause 372B(2), the requirement that:

A person must not install a line in the project area, or any of the project areas, for a real estate development project, unless:

(a) the line is an optical fibre line; and

(b) the conditions (if any) specified in an instrument under subsection (4) are satisfied.

And in proposed subsection (4) it says:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify conditions for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b).

That appears to give basically all power to the minister in terms of setting such conditions, with no particular restraint, condition or otherwise on the minister's activities in that regard. The opposition has proposed an additional subsection (4A), which states simply:

The Minister must consult the ACMA and relevant industry bodies before making an instrument under subsection (4).

This is reflected in the other relevant proposed subsection, namely 372C(4). We think that that is a pretty reasonable and sensible point to insert to ensure that there is a level of independent consultation that goes on in the development of these guidelines and this legislative instrument that will outline the conditions necessary to satisfy the installation of optical fibre in a real estate development.

The concern—and it has been expressed in numerous places and I have highlighted it here before—is that, without at least some type of independent oversight of the minister's decision-making powers in this regard, we will see a situation where the minister will presumably be acting on the advice, demands and needs of NBN Co. and of NBN Co. exclusively. That of course could provide another means to shut out whatever is left of those greenfields operators who may still manage to find some work under the other parts of this legislation.

So, Minister, I am attempting to bring you back to some of the detail of the legislation, noting that you will not give an answer about any of the other issues that Senator Macdonald or I have raised. Could you at least with these proposed sections outline how you envisage the conditions of such an instrument being developed, who you believe you would be obliged to consult with and why the government thinks that it is unreasonable to require in the legislation some degree of consultation with the relevant statutory body and other relevant stakeholders?