Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludlam for his contribution. As I have said in this place before in relation to Senator Conroy and his approach to the NBN, Senator Conroy really took a theological approach rather than a technological approach to the NBN. I do not contend that Senator Ludlam is a follower of Senator Conroy. I think Senator Ludlam reaches his own conclusions, but Senator Conroy very much has a theological approach to the issues around the NBN.

We on this side of the chamber on coming into government sought to take what has been acknowledged by some who have contributed to this debate a technology-agnostic approach to the NBN—the objective being to see the NBN rolled out as quickly as possible and at lowest cost, and charging nbn co with the capacity to choose the technological solution that would see that happen. That has been our approach and obviously it is a very different approach to that of the previous government and Senator Conroy.

The essence of the amendment moved by Senator Conroy is that there is not adequate transparency in relation to the NBN and that, by implication, there was great transparency under Labor and sunlight reached wherever it did. Transparency was an illusion under Senator Conroy. There were plenty of pins on rollout maps and lots of very pretty maps on websites with really nice colours. The only problem is that they bore absolutely no resemblance to reality. It was the illusion of transparency.

When then Minister Turnbull took over the project, he told nbn co to provide the government with the unvarnished truth, and that unvarnished truth was not particularly pretty. Nbn co were told not to tell the government what they thought the government wanted to hear. I have a sneaking suspicion—and I hear it from some who were in nbn co at the time of Senator Conroy's stewardship—that that really was the culture in the organisation: 'For goodness sake, don’t convey information that will not be well received by the minister and the government of the day.'

There is an unprecedented amount of information available about the NBN rollout today, including weekly progress reports, quarterly financial updates and a detailed and regularly updated three-year rollout plan which extends to 2018 and, which was released for the first time towards the end of last year. There is the corporate plan which covers the next three years. There is the annual report. There is the statement of intent. There is an unprecedented amount of information available, and it really is in dramatic contrast to the period of Senator Conroy's stewardship.

Something I plead guilty to, for which I get into trouble on this side of the chamber, is a degree of fondness for Senator Conroy. I know it is a radical thing, and I am often chided for it. But I must confess that I do get a little tired of Senator Conroy moving amendments to completely unrelated pieces of legislation, which he is doing in this case. No doubt this will not be the last time that we will see Senator Conroy do this and will not be the last time we see him do it in relation to the NBN. This is essentially an attempt at a legislative stunt.

In Senator Conroy's proposed amendment, he talks about forecasts going out to 2022. The difference between 2022 and the never-never can be negligible. What technology based company would propose forecasts that go out to that period of time? Another concern with the amendments foreshadowed is you have to be very careful when it comes to an organisation like nbn co, which enters multimillion dollar contracts with a range of different organisations that there is no information which could be to the commercial disadvantage of nbn co. It would not be remotely responsible for the government to entertain the amendments that could be to the commercial detriment of nbn co. This amendment has just been circulated. The government will not be supporting it. There is unprecedented information around the NBN.

I should just touch on a point raised by Senator Ludlam in relation to the ownership of nbn co. It is important to remind the chamber that there are certain legislative steps that would need to be gone through for the issue of ownership of nbn co to be examined. Our focus is fairly and squarely on rolling out the NBN. That is what we want to do—get it to Australians as quickly as we possibly can.

There have been a number of false claims over recent weeks and recent months by the shadow minister, Mr Clare. One is those is that Mr Clare said, in a press release:

… Malcolm Turnbull bought back the old copper network … that John Howard sold last century. As part of the same deal he also bought the old HFC network that Optus planned to decommission years ago.

Wrong. Wrong. The fact is that the coalition government did not pay a single dollar more for the copper or HFC assets that were acquired. In June 2011, it was the former Labor government which oversaw binding deals with Telstra for $9 billion and with Optus for $800 million to stop using those networks. So the previous government was paying money to Telstra and Optus to not have something available. The underlying intention was to pay the telcos to migrate their fixed-line customers across to the NBN and stamp out competition, which would have been detrimental to the economics of the rollout. Despite paying these companies to stop using their networks, Labor did not negotiate any rights for nbn co to access or acquire this infrastructure. So the truth in relation to that is the exact opposite of what Mr Clare claimed. I would not be surprised if those opposite have Mr Clare's press release of mid-December with them, to go through and repeat some of its falsehoods.

I have posed to this chamber before—and I will do it again—the question that is often put to me in public forums, and that is: are you more likely to have faith in a technology based plan or program that was devised by Senator Conroy or one that was devised by Mr Turnbull? I have not, it is fair to say, had many people putting up their hand and saying, 'Senator Conroy.' That is a very rare occurrence. But there is no doubt that, under this government, the NBN will be rolled out six to eight years sooner than otherwise would have been the case and at a cost that is billions and billions of dollars less.

We are not taking a theological approach here. We are taking a remorselessly practical approach to the rollout of the NBN because what matters to us and what we know matters to the public is seeing the NBN rolled out as quickly as possible and at the least cost to them. The debate here is not about the desirability of an NBN; the debate here is about who is best placed to successfully roll out the NBN and who is best placed to do it at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. I would contend that that is much, much more likely to happen under the Turnbull plan than under the Conroy plan.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Labor amendment (1) on sheet 7844 be agreed to.

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015, as amended, agreed to; Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2015 agreed to.

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 reported with amendments; Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2015 reported without amendments; report adopted.