Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senators Barnett and Humphries today, relating to the National Broadband Network.

I particularly draw attention to Senator Conroy’s shameless defence of his government’s lack of accountability on the question of the National Broadband Network. I think every Australian taxpayer, no matter what their needs with respect to broadband and no matter what their location in this country, ought to be deeply concerned about this government’s approach towards this massive new infrastructure, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, which has not defined well the extent of its coverage, the cost structure that it is going to face or the extent of the take-up that it requires in order to meet its expectations and which represents an enormous risk to the Australian taxpayer and to the Australian community.

In the course of his answers today, Senator Conroy described seeking further information about the National Broadband Network—for example, a cost-benefit analysis of the network’s value to the Australian people—as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Here we have the largest investment ever made by an Australian government in infrastructure by a long shot and a basic preliminary analysis of that project is rejected by this government. Only a little while ago, the government’s own Infrastructure Australia recommended:

In order to demonstrate that the Benefit Cost Analysis is indeed robust, full transparency of the assumptions, parameters and values which are used in each Benefit Cost Analysis is required.

What do we hear from this government? We hear: ‘We don’t need that. It’s too expensive. It’ll take too long. It’ll hold things up.’ But, of course, none of those things are true. What we know about this National Broadband Network should fill all of us with a great deal of dread—not because it is not an ambitious, grand plan. Grand plans are fine, as long as you have the wherewithal to back up the assumptions that you make about what this grand plan is going to achieve.

This minister has a touch of the Rex Connors about him. He has a determination to make this thing happen that seems to know no obstacle and a desire to push aside the critics and plough ahead with what he wants to do without fully explaining to the Australian people how he is going to get there. For example, we have heroic assumptions about the level of take-up of this new scheme. The scheme requires take-up of somewhere between 70 and 90 per cent of available consumers. That is an enormously large level of take-up to make this all work, when countries like the United States have achieved 25 per cent of consumers taking up their options. Even in South Korea, only 40 per cent of customers have taken up similar products.

The level of investment here seems to be out of kilter with the hard facts about both need and expectation of take-up. It is worth looking at what is going on in the United States at the moment, for example. The United States is also investing federal taxpayers’ dollars in broadband initiatives, but it is investing a total of only $7 billion—across the entire United States of America. On a per capita basis, Australia is investing 100 times more in broadband than the United States, the home of the internet. Is that wise? Is that justified? Can the minister explain why the government is making such a tangibly larger, more risky investment in these circumstances than even the United States of America is making? No, he cannot, because he does not believe that these things need to be done. We are told that in due course information will be laid on the table about the National Broadband Network—not a cost-benefit analysis or the kind of careful work before projects begin recommended by Infrastructure Australia, but in due course some facts and figures will be placed on the table, no doubt at the point beyond which it will be impossible to return.

I think we should all be fearful about this exercise. I think we need to be asking questions and demanding answers and requiring the government to justify, point by point, the basis of this new national scheme. We need to know how much it will cost Australians to get access to voice and broadband services, what the revenues of the business will be, how it will be commercially justifiable when, for example, it avoids entirely the use of wireless, which is the fastest-growing internet element in Australia at the moment, how it justifies the heroic assumptions it makes about take-up and how it is that the Australian community can come out of this with a decent investment and not lose a great deal of money in the process. That is what we are asking for here and, if the government cannot supply it, we have to ask why.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Humphries, with regard to your comment about the minister being determined to make this happen, I just say that he is determined to make it happen and I think it is appropriate that he is determined to make the NBN happen. It is what Australians want.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At what cost?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not actually hear the interjection, but Senator Barnett interjects. If Senator Barnett had been a bit more online with his state colleagues in Tasmania he would have realised that it was an important issue to voters in the federal election and maybe the Liberal Party would not have lost a senator but gained someone in the House of Representatives instead of ending up with the absolutely abysmal outcome that they ended up with. We are running the pilot in Tasmania, and it is important that this pilot is being run in Tasmania—where Tasmanians want it. The other side did nothing and I think it to cost them dearly in Tasmania in the federal election.

This is a 40-year investment. The other side did nothing for 12 years. In fact, over the past 14 years, how many plans have they had? There were 18 in the 12 years they were in government and now we are up to 20. Those on that side have had 20 plans as to what they would do with regard to the NBN. They have no concept of keeping up with the technological age. The NBN is key to Australians having fast and effective communications. As I said, we are committed and determined to make it happen. The rollout of fibre-to-the-premise will deliver speeds of up to 100 megabytes—50 times faster than most people experience today. Just imagine what that could do in the areas of education and health and in everybody’s life. But, no, they are opposing this process because that is what they do on that side: they just oppose for opposition’s sake. Even though it is the second time they are in opposition, they have not quite got the hang of the fact that they are in opposition. Some of them are still trying to come to grips with that. The majority of people on that side just stand up and say no, no, no. They are the party of the nos. It is completely disingenuous for them to behave like that.

What they also try to do is distort the costings that we have. Their alleged costings are based on a 40-year project. This is a long-term project. Members of their own side have said that it is a long-term project. Even with their costings it works out to be 13c a day per household, which I do not think many Australians have too many problems with. I know that not too many Tasmanians do. I have not had anyone in Tasmania complain to me or my office about it. As I said, if Senator Barnett and the opposition had really known what the people wanted, especially in Tasmania, they would have been supporting this program and backing it. It has cost them dearly.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Especially in Denison.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take that interjection because in Denison the Liberal vote went down. I would not be worrying too much about Denison, where their vote went down.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate team did very well in Denison.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, all our people did well in Tasmania, Senator Abetz. They put in a tremendous effort and they are backing this project. They know it is good for Tasmania, they know it is good for the people, they know it is good for business and they know it is good for e-health. We will continue to make sure that we let people in Tasmania know that your side are not backing it, even though, as I said at the beginning of my contribution today, your Liberal colleagues in Tasmania are. So I presume there is a bit of a divide there, and that in itself will be interesting to watch.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone’s not listening.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So who is not listening? That is right, Senator Sterle. I wonder who is not listening. I think the state Liberal Party have been listening, but the federal Liberal Party in Tasmania just think they know it all. They do not mind what is good for the people of Tasmania. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour to stand in this place and respond to the answers from Senator Conroy and also to respond to Senator Bilyk. She referred to the costs of the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania, but nobody knows the exact costs. We have been asking on the record, in Senate estimates last week and again today, and the minister refuses to answer. Senator Bilyk stands in here and talks about the costs of the NBN in Tasmania, and she does not even know the answer herself. This is a disgrace.

For months and months we have been trying to get this information out of Minister Conroy and we have confirmed on the public record today that a $37 million contract has been signed for stage 1 of the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania. The minister has refused to advise the Senate of the total cost of the rollout in Tasmania to date, and there is a very big difference. Obviously there is the award of a contract for $37 million. He will not say who it is with. I assume it is with Aurora, but he refuses to say. He has also put on the public record today that there are a number of other contracts that are about to be signed or perhaps were signed in the last few days. He is clearly not on top of his brief. He confirmed that in his answers today. He does not know. He said he does not know, but does he really know? I would like to know and the public would like to know the exact status of the rollout in Tasmania and the total cost. Is it not fair for the taxpayer to know? I would like the minister and the government to come clean.

What we do know—he revealed this in budget estimates last week—is that Tasmania has the lowest connection rate in Australia, at 50 per cent. There are 262 homes that have an active connection, and Senator Conroy says to himself and to the public that that is a good rate to date—goodness gracious me! What could be lower and more appalling than those sorts of sign-up rates to date? We also know that the cost to the ISP is nil. So what sort of commercial arrangement do we have here? And those rates for the ISPs go through to 30 June next year. We all want better, faster, more affordable broadband. Despite what Senator Bilyk and others might say about what is happening in Tasmania and around this country, we want better. But the way this government is going about it—the mismanagement and maladministration—is something to be ashamed of.

In terms of the battery backup, we need to clear it up and fix it very swiftly. The government have done a backflip in the last couple of days. They have now confirmed that the cost of the battery backup will be paid for by the NBN Co. The minister answered that today. That is one thing he answered—that is good news. What he did not reveal is whether he agreed with what the McKinsey-KPMG report says about the cost of the battery back-up, that it:

… would cost an additional $90-$150 million each year.

That is a lot of money each year for taxpayers. The minister would not agree on the record today whether he supported or rejected those figures. So the question I then asked is: will Tasmanians who have already paid for their battery backup be reimbursed?

I have had communication with a John Salmon at Midway Point. He is very disappointed and upset with the dozens of phone calls he has had to make to try and get signed up in Tasmania. The delays that have occurred for him and his family have been extreme, and he is not a happy pumpkin. He says that he was told it would be $90 for a battery backup. What about the Tasmanians and those elsewhere around Australia who have already paid for a battery backup? Will the minister reimburse that money? Will the government ensure that that is reimbursed? We do not know.

It is a bit of a shemozzle because they do not have a business plan, and that was confirmed on the record today. I asked when the business plan would be available and whether he would make it available, and Senator Conroy indicated that he hoped that it would be. We will hold him to that, and we want a copy of that business plan as a matter of urgency because we know they have not been acting in accordance with one. Why won’t they release the cost-benefit analysis? I want to know about the joint venture with the Tasmanian government. When will that be consummated? What sort of equity is held between NBN Co. in Tasmania and the federal and state governments? We need these answers, and we need them as a matter of urgency. I thank the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition seem very confused about what they are trying to get answers to today. A number of questions were asked of Minister Conroy, which he answered, and even Senator Barnett in his contribution talked about the number of things they learnt today from the minister’s answers to questions. But Senator Barnett then went on to say, ‘But I want to know about all these other things’—things he did not actually ask the minister today. So I suggest that if there are specific things which Senator Barnett or others wish to ask the minister they should in fact ask him and then not complain when the minister does not answer questions which have not been asked.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have—last week in Senate estimates.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I thought the motion that we were debating today was about taking note of answers to questions asked today. You cannot have it both ways, Senator Barnett. You simply cannot come in and say, ‘The minister didn’t answer questions I didn’t ask.’ We have a process at question time here where you get to ask a question and the minister only gets four minutes to answer it. You then ask other questions, or interject by asking other questions, and complain if the minister cannot answer everything in four minutes—indeed, he cannot.

I think Senator Humphries, again, also made quite a confused contribution today. In fact, much of what Senator Humphries said I can agree with. He actually talked about this being the largest investment by a long shot in internet infrastructure—and indeed it is. It is something the previous government, the Howard government, mucked around on—could not come to a policy position on—over 12 years. All that time we watched our education facilities, our health facilities and our businesses start to lag behind where they would have been if a proper investment had been made when it should have been in those 12 years. They never had a policy. In fact, that is probably not true—I withdraw that. They had many, many policies. I understand they had 20 or so policies over the 12-year period. But, even though they had that many policies, they never actually struck a blow. They never struck a blow to implement any of them and they never struck a blow to improve the internet infrastructure of this country—something that our educational communities, our health communities, our businesses and individuals are absolutely crying out for. The opposition had no vision when they were in government and they have no vision now.

Senator Humphries made this criticism: Minister Conroy has a determination to make this happen. Well, I can agree with that. Minister Conroy has an absolute determination to make this happen, and that is something we on this side, this government, are absolutely proud of. It is a shame that those on that side of the chamber did not have any determination when they were in government—if they had, we might have a half-decent broadband system now. But they did not. They had no determination. So I do not see it as any criticism whatsoever to say that Minister Conroy has an absolute determination to make this happen.

Then, true to form—and this is what the Liberal coalition always falls back to—there were the words that Senator Humphries used. He said that we should all be fearful about this exercise. We should be fearful about a fast internet! We should be fearful about this government actually doing something to improve the internet! That is just so typical of the opposition. When they do not have a reasonable argument, when they cannot do or say anything that has vision or is going to actually benefit this country, they turn around and say that Australians should be fearful. We should be fearful! And there it was again today, about the internet—fearful about fast internet! They say we should be fearful about all sorts of things: we should be fearful about climate change, we should be fearful about doing anything about climate change, we should be fearful of immigrants—we should be fearful of all those things! But now the coalition says we should be fearful of fast internet as well—good Lord! All the opposition want to do is say no, so they say we should be fearful about things.

The Australian people deserve a lot better from their opposition—from an opposition that claims that one day they may be seen realistically as an alternate government. Instead of having policies which they never implement or policies that they have no intention of implementing or that will never work, they should sit down and try to develop some vision for this country and try to catch up with what this government is doing about making this place a great place to learn, a great place to do business and a great place to use a fast internet system.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are only two ways in which fear is permeating the debate about the National Broadband Network. The first way is that Labor backbenchers have been so fearful that they, as Senator Cameron says, are in a zombie like stance, unable to say what they really think and unable to tell the truth about the National Broadband Network. The second way in which fear is being used by the Labor Party to permeate this debate is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with Labor’s National Broadband Network plan is, they say, a National Broadband Network sceptic. They attempt to silence through fear. Well, not so. The coalition says, ‘Australians deserve access to faster and cheaper broadband, but not Labor’s way.’

Back to the zombie backbenchers. Senator Bilyk was criticising previous speakers in this debate for not knowing what their constituents want. If Senator Bilyk knows her party’s policy on the National Broadband Network, she is not doing all that well in explaining it. Let’s see what happens with the policy zombies in that respect. Senator Bilyk said—and I would hope that Hansard does not correct this—that the Labor Party’s policy was to roll out ‘speeds of up to 100 megabytes’ to 93 per cent of Australians. If she actually knew the policy that she is supposed to be spruiking with no dissent from her position in the backbench, it is actually to deliver speeds of up to 100 megabits to 93 per cent of Australia—megabits versus megabytes. It might sound like a typo, but there is actually an eightfold difference between megabits and megabytes. Labor has promised 100 megabits and—guess what?—eight bits make up a byte. Bits are smaller than bytes. If Senator Bilyk thinks that her party’s policy is to deliver 100 megabytes, then she had better tell the minister that he is about to spend eightfold more than $43 billion on the National Broadband Network. That is when I start to quake in fear. I hope that the Hansard reflects what Senator Bilyk said: ‘-ytes’ not ‘-its’.

In terms of the National Broadband Network itself, Senator Conroy’s earlier comments to the Senate in the context of the water infrastructure are pertinent:

The government is determined that the investment ... will result in value for money: fit-for-purpose projects which best provide for a viable and sustainable future ... Comprehensive due diligence assessment of business cases is necessary and involves rigorous analysis against technical, socioeconomic and environmental data.

There are a couple of things about that. Firstly, Senator Conroy said to the Senate today that in due course, once the government has received NBN Co.’s business case, it will release ‘a raft’ of information about the National Broadband Network. A raft of information is not the same as the business case. A raft of information from this government is likely to be riddled with holes. Minister Conroy will release information that he is happy for us to see and that he wants the public to think about but he will not reveal the truth, because the government is in the business of not being accountable and of hiding the truth. If Minister Conroy were to do as he said to the Senate the government was determined to do with water infrastructure spending, he would ensure that the National Broadband Network would deliver value for money. Tell that to the Tasmanians who have demonstrated by turning away rather than taking it up—the 10 per cent of Tasmanians who have taken up the National Broadband Network in Tasmania.

Question agreed to.