Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

The minister's explanation is quite remarkable. He didn't admit that the responses to questions on notice had been in his office for weeks. We don't know that. He has not tabled the responses. He did explain that we had received a large number of responses but not why we haven't received these final nine. I think the minister mentioned eight, but there are actually nine. He didn't mention what is so special about these final nine that there has been a delaying, delaying and delaying of the minister's response. It is completely unacceptable.

It's bad enough that the Australian people struggle to get information on the NBN, and it's bad enough that they struggle to get basic internet connection from the NBN. Not only can they not get a proper connection; but they cannot get any advice or questions answered. We put detailed questions on one of the largest infrastructure projects in this country's history and I'm really concerned that we're faced with a government playing political games. We on the NBN committee hear all the time when we're out there talking to people that the only way to get a basic answer from NBN Co is to go to a politician or the media. That's what people on the streets are saying, that's what the media are reporting and that's what the talkback shows are all saying. We hear all the time that NBN Co will tell you the bare minimum of information, if anything, which is often nothing at all, unless you go to the media. It seems to whip up some sort of a frenzy when the complaints end up in the media and miraculously a solution is often found. A solution is often found for people who go to the media and raise issues about the NBN. Those who don't want to go public—a lot of people aren't confident about doing that; they don't want to be seen as complaining—get left behind in this process.

The standing orders of the Senate clearly state that answers to questions on notice should be provided within 30 days. Everyone understands—I think we all do here—the workload of ministers and departments, but we haven't left it for 30 days; we've left it for longer. This has been a problem all year with Minister Fifield. Time and time again, it has been 60 to 70 days before we've received a response to questions on notice at all. It's a real concern. What it relates to is the transparency around NBN Co's operations and the clear politicisation of the rollout of the NBN by this government.

In May this year, the night before the communications and arts budget estimates, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee distributed 108 responses to the questions on notice. Of those 108 responses, 107 related to the NBN Co. By the morning, when the Department of Communications and the Arts were due to appear, 17 questions relating to NBN Co were still outstanding. It's been over two months since those were placed on notice. At that stage, when we had the hearings, the then chair of the committee, Senator Reynolds, and I expressed our disappointment to the minister and to the secretary of the department about the lack of response and the time frame that it took to get that response. At the time, the secretary of the department gave us a commitment to double down their efforts next time. Well, the doubling down doesn't seem to have amounted to very much at all.

Of the questions placed on notice after the first spillover hearing in June, and a few weeks later in July, 58 were received only last week—weeks and weeks after they were due. As I've just told the minister, eight are still outstanding from the spillover and one is overdue from mid-July. There were also six answers to questions placed on notice in June where NBN Co have essentially said answering the question is too hard. Minister, what is it about these questions that is so hard to answer? What is it that you don't want the Australian people to know? After answering these questions, perhaps the minister could then provide the Senate information on when the office received the responses from the department. Was it at the same time as those questions answered last week?

If we look at the questions that remain unanswered, questions on notice 298 and 359 relate to the cost of the commissioned research. What is it that NBN Co and Minister Fifield don't want the Australian people to know? What is it they don't want them to know? Why is the cost of these reports so difficult to disclose? Across the two questions, I asked about the cost of research reports released over the past couple of years. This is a standard question that all sides of politics ask of government agencies and departments from time to time. It's nothing unusual. The people of Australia have a right to know what NBN Co is spending on research and the purpose of that research. I won't read the names of all 20 reports but some of interest to colleagues include The nbn GranTechie Report, where a new wave of silver surfers are closing the generational gap; the nbn Silver Economy Report, which revealed that the silver economy is set to boom; the nbn Digital Parenting Report, where we found out that school is back and parents are embracing the future; and the nbn Digital Dream Report, where Australians' top life goals were revealed once and for all. The front page of this report has a woman with a huge smile holding a golf club in an alleyway and wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with 'Keep calm and carpe diem'. The Aussie app-etite: connected devices building the future home report revealed that homes in Australia will have three times the number of connected devices in 2020. What a revelation! On sport, NBN Co commissioned the nbn Future of Sport Report, where it was revealed that the lines between sport and entertainment have blurred beyond recognition. This is just a sample of some of the research reports that NBN Co has conducted to market their product to consumers. That's fine, but let's be transparent about it—and why won't they release the costs of these reports?

NBN Co has a fixed pool of funds to conduct its activities and roll out the network. Surely a dollar spent on these reports is one dollar less that can be spent on rolling out fibre. Are these reports really worth it? We don't know because we don't know what the cost is. Some, no doubt, are worth it, but the only response to recent questions on notice about research reports that I've received was to question on notice 356. In this question I asked:

What was the cost of the Lifestylepreneur Report commissioned by NBN Co?

The lifestylepreneur report revealed that Launceston in Tasmania is one of the nation's top entrepreneurial hotspots. It is interesting that the media release associated with the report didn't mention once—not once!—that Launceston is the first city in the country where gigabyte services are being offered. Not once did it mention that. The release didn't mention that fibre to the premises has been rolled out to nearly all of Launceston. NBN Co's response about the cost of this report was:

nbn has a publicly available advertising and marketing budget within which it operates in order to generate revenue and ensure a return on investment to taxpayers. Within that budget, nbn runs a number of consumer campaigns and research insights are commissioned as part of these campaigns to make sure people are aware of the benefits of the nbn network in an aim to drive activations. The details of the individual costs of these research reports are commercial-in-confidence as nbn works with numerous/multiple research vendors.

'Commercial-in-confidence,' they say—how can that be so? What is NBN trying to hide? Why are they trying to hide? What's going on? We can't find out from the minister; we can't find out from NBN. It's a payment for a report. That's what it is. And, if this is the response to this research question, why have questions on notice 298 and 359 not been answered? Surely the answers will be the same non-answer, or are you prepared to disclose the costs of some reports and not others? It is truly bizarre.

While I'm talking about Tasmania, I'll move to question on notice 365, which is also outstanding. Question 365 sought information about the new node that NBN Co is installing at the Burnie hospital on the North West Coast. NBN Co has declared the area ready for service, but when the cardiology clinic attempted to connect to the NBN it was discovered that the node servicing the consulting rooms at the Burnie hospital was 1.7 kilometres down the road. After the issue was taken to the media and a question was asked of Minister Fifield in question time, NBN Co then—not before, but then—provided some assistance to the clinic. They decided that they would install a new node 500 metres from the front door. So the question is: why 500 metres? They won't tell us. They won't disclose why.

My question on notice 365 sought a basic range of information about this new node, and it was in six parts. They are: how many premises are to be serviced by the new node? What is the longest distance from the new node to a premises to be serviced by that node? What is the average distance from the new node for premises to be serviced by that node? What is the difference in cost between a revised FTTN service and a new FTTP service for the Burnie hospital site? What is the difference in cost between a revised FTTN service and a new FTTP service for the other premises to be serviced by the new node? And what is the difference in reliability of a fibre-to-the-premises connection and a fibre-to-the-node connection at 400 or 500 metres from the Burnie hospital site?

The thing with this new node is that the clinic required basic upload speeds of 10 megabits per second. The Turnbull NBN only has a minimum expected upload speed of five megabits per second. Despite going to the effort of building a new node, NBN Co were unable to guarantee the basic upload speed that was required by this clinic to enable them to do their work. And so it came that the clinic found a different fibre provider that could guarantee a basic upload speed that would enable the clinic to connect to its main server in Launceston. Launceston is the city I mentioned earlier where fibre to the premises is everywhere. NBN Co commissioned lifestyle reports about its benefits.

It's interesting that NBN Co are now silent on question on notice 365. My question is: is it embarrassed by the situation? What will it do now with this node, how many premises will be serviced by it and how reliable will their service actually be? It's also interesting that NBN Co has answered question on notice 364, which was lodged at the same time as question 365. In this response, NBN Co revealed that the node near the Burnie hospital is the first node in the country set for installation in an area that has been declared ready for service. NBN Co explained that it is rare to deploy a node or a micronode into an area that is already ready for service. No doubt. Countless others across the country will be very interested to hear that NBN Co is now, on occasion, going to install new nodes where the distance from a current node is too great. I suggest that those with deep concerns and a strong case go to the media, because we know NBN Co is listening.

Given the unreliability of a fibre-to-the-node service, in a response to a question from Senator O'Neill NBN Co revealed that six per cent of fibre-to-the-node consumers cannot achieve download speeds of 25 megabits per second and 35 per cent cannot achieve 50 megabits per second. So it's no wonder the clinic had to go to a private provider to get the service they needed.

Question on notice 342 asked about the costs of a fibre-to-the-node rollout. NBN Co were asked four very simple questions relating to the construction of the nodes, connection of power to the nodes, active electronics within the nodes and connection of fibre backhaul to the nodes. These are basic questions about the component costs of building fibre to the node. So why is the government sitting on this information? Is it because they're embarrassed by fibre to the node? We all remember that the Minister for Regional Communications, Senator Nash, has referred previously to fibre to the node as the 19th century solution. Or is it that the costs are more than they budgeted? Is that what it is? Unless they answer, all we can do is speculate. We have no idea. So the government need to reveal these costs. The minister needs to do that.

I want to move away from fibre to the node. Question 328 asked for a simple state-by-state breakdown of the deployment of fibre-to-the-curb technology. Fibre to the curb is NBN's new golden child, with one million premises set to receive fibre all the way to the pit on the nature strip. NBN Co pushing fibre deeper into the network improves reliability, improves upgradability and improves speed. It costs slightly more but it will deliver a better product for customers and will require less maintenance and less work to upgrade it in the future. Of course, FTTC is not Labor's preferred option. We have always wanted a fibre-to-the-premises rollout. But, after the efforts of Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Fifield, the Australian people just want the best that they can get. Like everything under the government's multimix technology mess, it's completely luck of the draw as to what your community will be allocated. Question 328 was a simple question. NBN Co did not provide an answer to this question. But, wow, talk about an unsatisfactory response! The response included a broken link to NBN Co's website and it said that it was too hard to add up the premises by state. How is it too hard? NBN Co have this information at their fingertips. Is it too hard, or is it simply that they do not want to provide it? After all, it will show that Tasmania is set for zero premises under fibre to the curb.

Despite the rollout on the west coast presenting a perfect opportunity, construction on the west coast's fibre-to-the-node rollout has not commenced, and the response to question on notice 368, part 2, confirms delays in the ready-for-service date of around three months, from the middle of next year to the second half of next year. It is such a debacle that the responses to parts 1(a) and 1(b) of the question demonstrate that NBN Co either don't know or won't disclose whether the detailed design work is complete for this region. In just the past few months, since the announcement in June this year, I've been asking numerous questions of NBN Co, including: will the west coast of Tasmania also be included in the fibre-to-the-curb rollout? For months I have had nonanswers from NBN Co and a request that I lodge the questions through the estimates process. Fine! That's what I did. And I still get an ambiguous response.

Last week, after the response to question on notice 368 was received, my colleague the member for Braddon, Justine Keay, and I issued a statement to the Tasmanian press calling on the Prime Minister to direct NBN Co to clear up this ambiguity and roll out FTTC in Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan on the west coast. These communities were slated to have fibre to the premises under the original NBN, and then Prime Minister Turnbull, as communications minister, broke his promise to complete the fibre-to-the-premises rollout in Tasmania and turfed these west coast communities onto satellite. But, after a concerted community campaign, Labor promised to roll out fibre to the premises to these communities, and those opposite promised to roll out fibre to the node in Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan through the NBN Co's Technology Choice Program. The minister should really go and check the weather on the west coast this week: rain, rain, snow, rain. What does copper hate? Rain. The copper on the west coast is already significantly degraded. The region is one of the wettest in the country, yet they want to replace copper with new copper. It is ridiculous!

Do you know what else is ridiculous? During Ms Keay's radio interview last Thursday, the NBN Co's Corporate Affairs Manager for Tasmania, Russell Kelly, tweeted that the west coast would receive a fibre-to-the-node rollout. There was no explanation and no further information. He subsequently went on radio and said that there were no delays and construction would start soon. That evening I emailed Mr Kelly with some basic questions, in particular how a change from a mid-2018 ready-for-service date to a second half of 2018 ready-for-service date is not actually a delay. Guess what? I haven't had a response.