Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We live in hope! The NBN financial transparency amendment seeks basic financial and deployment information that historically has been publicly provided as part of nbn co's plan, as I said earlier, and as part of the corporate plan. The information sought was actually last published in August 2012 as part of that year's corporate plan.

In opposition and in the early stages of the government, now Prime Minister Turnbull—at the time, Minister Turnbull—promised maximum transparency with nbn co under his watch. Mr Turnbull said:

Maximum transparency is going to be given to this project.

That was a comment that was made to the House of Representatives on 11 February 2014. The then minister said in a separate press conference held on 24 September 2013:

… our commitment is, our focus is, to have a much greater level of transparency and openness.

Then on 11 February 2014:

The bottom line is that as far as the NBN project is concerned, the government's commitment is to be completely transparent.

Earlier, on 15 December 2013:

The main promise, the most important thing we said about the NBN was that we would tell the truth, and we would liberate the management of NBN Co to tell that truth.

Mr Turnbull and Senator Cormann have also stated—and I quote the interim statement of expectations to nbn co on 24 September 2013—after coming to government:

… Government policy provides for increased security and transparency of NBN Co and its activities.

And on 8 April 2014:

The Government requires a high degree of transparency from NBN Co in its communication with the public and Parliament.

But what we have found is that Mr Turnbull has been anything but transparent. He has implemented a secrecy regime so severe that Pyongyang would be proud. The government that Mr Turnbull now leads has consistently refused to provide this parliament and the Australian people with basic financial information about how nbn co intends to spend the $29.5 billion that taxpayers are investing in this project. That is why Labor has been forced to act to amend this bill to ensure that the Australian people know how this government is spending their money.

What is so outrageous, and what has been so outrageous about the activities and action so far, is that the same information that was previously provided and the same information that was readily available under the previous government has now somehow been deemed to be too sensitive to be released, while the rhetoric coming out of the government before the last election campaign was simply that we need more transparency, we need more information and we need more openness. We should not be in a situation where the opposition is forced to try to amend a government bill is simply to be able to get basic information that was previously readily available.

Again, the spirit of this bill and the details of this bill as it is currently presented seem worthwhile and seem worthy of our support, but to make sure we are making the best decisions and we are making the right decisions what we have to also do is make sure that the right level of information is out there. I feel that if the government was prepared to trust the Australian taxpayer and the Australian consumer with a little bit more information and was able to provide them with some of the basic information that they were previously able to obtain in this area, it would result in better policy outcomes and a better public debate. We are not asking for anything that was not already available. We are not asking for anything that Labor was not prepared to divulge when we were in government. We are asking for the exact same information, word for word, that had previously been released and is now not being released.

What makes it so damning is the rhetoric that has come from the government in this space. If the government had gone to an election and said, 'We're not going to give you this information. We're going to treat this like it is an on-water matter. We're not going to give you any kind of information anymore. We're going to shut it down,' then people like myself would have disagreed and we would have had that argument, but the government would not have a leg to stand on. The government does not have a leg to stand on. The government has come repeatedly and said that they are going to be more transparent, they are going to be more open and they are going to give out more information prior to an election. What we have seen from that point after the election onwards is a crab walk away from their previous position.

Greater transparency and greater information will lead to better policy outcomes. That is what this amendment is for. Obviously, when we get the committee stage we will have a chance to discuss it in detail, but that is what this amendment seeks to do.