Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of 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 various coalition senators today.

In my 17½ years in the Senate, I do not think I have ever seen question time reduced by a minister to such a travesty as I saw today. Senator Conroy dived and weaved around questions without making the faintest attempt to answer them. In taking note, I would like to take a reasonably forensic look at some of these questions and the way Senator Conroy did not answer them.

At the start of question time, Senator Wong in one of her answers described the question of the NBN as a ‘complex policy transaction’. If it is such a complex policy transaction, why is advice being provided very, very late in the piece to the government, and why haven’t they thought to make these inquiries before? The government’s inability to quantify the costs and benefits now is surely not an excuse to squander billions of taxpayer dollars. Their refusal to release the business plan must surely increase doubts about the NBN commercial case and thus Labor’s economic competence.

No answer was given to Senator Cormann in reply to the questions that he asked. Senator Brandis then asked what I thought were very original questions: when, who and why? Even though these questions were denigrated by Senator Conroy, he could not answer them or give any degree of detail in the way that Senator Brandis asked. Respected economics writer Ross Gittins, in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, wrote an article that began: ‘I am starting to get a really bad feeling about’ the NBN. This is so across all sections of the economy and across all sections of business. If it is good enough for the cabinet and the government to know what is going on with the NBN, the least they could do is release some information to us in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We are, after all, the elected representatives. But no definite answers can be given.

Senator Birmingham asked: ‘Will the document be released?’ And, finally, at the end of Senator Conroy’s response, we got a one-word answer: ‘No.’ It is regrettable that Senator Conroy treats this chamber with such disrespect that he laughs his way through every question and makes a joke of serious economic questions. This government spent $1 billion to set up the Home Insulation Program, and $1 billion will be needed to remedy it. I am sure we all hope, when we consider that $43 billion will be spent on the National Broadband Network, that a similar amount will not be needed to remedy any mistakes that arise.

The government expects the Senate to vote on this mammoth project with no information. I totally respect Senator Xenophon’s view on this. He was offered a private briefing on the grounds that he would maintain a seven-year silence. It is like something out of Grimm’s fairy tales—seven years silence in return for a policy briefing.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or out of the politburo.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Macdonald correctly remarks that we could also compare it to the politburo. Senator Joyce asked a perfectly pertinent question: if Minister Conroy cannot even answer these basic questions, why should the public and the market trust him? Even his colleagues have lost confidence in him. When these questions are asked, Senator Conroy simply abuses those who asked them. That is no defence.

In an hour of question time, with most questions being asked of Senator Conroy, all we got was a one-word answer to Senator Birmingham. That is not enough for this side of the chamber and it is not enough for the Australian public. We will continue to ask the questions.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I am surprised at one of the comments that Senator Troeth just made. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Troeth; I have worked with her on committees over many years. I regard her as one of the more sensible, rational and reasonable people in the opposition. But Senator Troeth said that the Senate will be asked to vote on the NBN without any information. That is not true. That is an absolutely outrageous distortion. I could use an unparliamentary word but I would be called to order. That is absolutely incorrect, and you know it is incorrect.

Let me very briefly touch upon some of the things I can recall from the previous government, which suggest that you are speaking with forked tongues when you mount those arguments on the NBN. I was around when proposals were put up by the then Howard government to sell Telstra and I can remember the refusal of the Howard government to release information about their proposals to privatise an existing government enterprise. The initial position of the Howard government was to seek approval to sell 100 per cent of Telstra. They said, ‘We’re not actually going to sell 100 per cent; we are actually going to sell maybe 33 or 49 per cent, but give us the power to sell the lot’—in other words, they wanted to bypass proper parliamentary scrutiny by getting approval in advance to sell down Telstra at whatever percentage the government decided. Fortunately the Senate on that occasion took steps to frustrate and stop that process.

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

Frustrate!

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was frustration because you were asking for a blank cheque for the sale of Telstra. And the proof came when you eventually got the ability to sell Telstra 2—the T2 shares. The record shows that the then government privatised the second tranche of Telstra and it went on to the market and thousands upon thousands of Australians lost a lot of money by purchasing shares which subsequently dived in value under the Howard government. The shares dived in value by up to 50 per cent. So the opposition should not lecture us about public accountability and taking proper due diligence on government expenditure.

The Minister representing the Treasurer, the minister in charge of broadband, has made it clear, time and time again, that this is a critical microeconomic reform. The NBN has a three-year corporate plan and is developing its 30-year business plan. The current government is currently dealing with those elements. It is inappropriate, until that process is properly completed, for the sorts of questions that are being put up constantly by the opposition to be put out into the public arena.

You want to destroy the roll-out of this very important project—probably the most significant project in the history of this country in terms of its importance to the population in the future. Your intention is to wreck this, and to do it as early as you can. That is why you are pursuing the course you are on. It is as plain as day: it will become very clear to you, and to the Australian public, just how important this project is when, in proper time, the information is made available.

I can recall being in this parliament in opposition, when I chaired an inquiry. A contract had been let by ANSTO—a government enterprise—but we could never ever get access to that contract after it had been entered into. Not before the contract had been entered into, when there were commercial-in-confidence considerations to be taken into account, but after the contract had been signed by ANSTO and an Argentinean company, INVAP. We asked for the contract in this Senate time and time again. Do you know what we were told? ‘We can’t give it to you.’ Why? It was commercial-in-confidence after the decision. You are now trying to jump before the appropriate time and ask for the same sort of information. That is your approach.

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

I am very pleased to take note of the answers from Senator Conroy today. Never in my time here in the Senate have I seen such ducking and weaving, such ducking and diving and such obfuscation by this minister from the questions put to him. He simply refused to answer, time and again. He is whimsical and he is happy-go-lucky in his approach and yet he refuses again and again to even address questions which are entirely relevant. We were simply asking for dates and times and who had made a decision but he refused, time and again. It is a very disappointing approach. Never in my time in the Senate have I seen such a display as we saw by Senator Conroy today. It is a great shame.

In terms of the NBN and the roll-out, the government refuse, time and again, to reveal the business plan. They have had it for weeks. A crack team of public servants could easily go through those 400 pages and edit or redact certain parts of it for the purpose of making it public. This is in the public interest. This $43 billion national broadband roll-out is the largest single infrastructure development in Australia’s history. It is bigger than any other project undertaken by a government, ever. They are treating the NBN and the public with contempt. This is fast becoming another pink batts fiasco, in my view. In fact, it is so much larger. It is a pink batts fiasco; it is going to be a schools rorts fiasco—

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On steroids.

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

It is on steroids, as Senator Boyce says. The mismanagement and maladministration of this project is going from bad to worse. To think that this government has attempted to bully the Independent senators—the crossbench senators—into a seven-year confidentiality agreement, where they will not disclose information to members of the public, members of their families or anybody else based on a private viewing of that business plan, is a disgrace. It is a national disgrace. It is worse than a joke. I am very pleased that, to date, those senators have not been bullied into going down that track. They are acting in the public interest. To think that the government would even consider a seven-year confidentiality agreement is absolutely appalling.

What evidence do we have either that there was no business plan in the first place or that they are not following the business plan and the project has not been thought through? We have the evidence. We know what has happened in Tasmania. Tasmania was the first state to have the rollout. What happened in Tasmania? We know that in August last year a joint venture agreement was entered into between the federal government, the state government and Aurora Energy, that state’s energy retailer. There was much publicity and much fanfare. They were throwing their arms around making front page stories in all the Tasmanian media and making the news on TV and radio everywhere. They made heroes of themselves: ‘Joint venture to roll out the NBN’. Guess what has happened: it has collapsed. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, has now agreed and admitted to the abandonment of that joint venture. What we want to know in this place is what costs were involved in the joint venture rollout to date, what agreements were made and what terms and conditions were applied to those agreements. We would like to know. The public would like to know.

This has been going on for 14 to 16 months, and now we have been advised that it has been abandoned by Senator Conroy and Premier David Bartlett. Both governments should be dreadfully ashamed as a result of the collapse. Senator Abetz is concerned about that, as are many other Tasmanians. We are not happy. We want to know what the cost of the rollout is in Tasmania, because the minister refuses to answer. He says time and again that it is on time and on budget, but how nonsensical is that, how ridiculous is that, when you do not know what the time lines are and you do not know what the budget is; he simply refuses to reveal it.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trust Senator Conroy!

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

Trust Senator Conroy—absolutely spot on! That is what we are meant to do in this place. We are being treated with contempt and, on behalf of our constituents in Tasmania and across the country, we say enough is enough. We would like the minister to come into this place and simply answer the question honestly and carefully and with respect.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NBN discussion continues and there is no shortage of discussion and debate around this topic. Sometimes it is bit hard over here to get a gig because we usually have so many senators who want to talk on the topic—especially those from Tasmania. Today it is my turn.

All the discussion seems to be about the business plan, and that has been going for days. It does interest me that the government has openly told everyone it has received this business plan and it has given the date and committed publicly to releasing it. The debate in this place seems to be when. Mention of its release was done very publicly, which is in stark contrast to other governments, it having been open with people in this place and the wider community in talking about the production of documents. The Prime Minister has said the business plan will be released next month. We have heard the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy say numerous times that it will be released. People in the other place have said the same thing. But the debate continues to be around clandestine comments of obfuscation. I love using the word ‘obfuscation’ and I love spelling it. I am so pleased that senators have used it—because there is none. The government has been clear on the process and it has released documents throughout. The original report on what was happening with the NBN was publicly given early, on 6 May 2010, to everyone who wanted to read it, to look at the issues and to be involved in the discussion. Realistically, the only way that this program will be successful is if people are engaged in the process. The government has said that from the start.

I repeat, as has everyone else on this side of the chamber, that the business plan will be released. There are concerns about things that are commercial-in-confidence—and how many times do we hear that? I do not want to get into the all too common debate in this place about what happened when we were in opposition and the other side was in government, because we can go back to Federation on that debate. There has always been a debate about when documents can be released, what can be released and to whom. This is part of the ongoing debate. In this case, the NBN business plan will be released. It will be released next month and then this discussion will continue. That is what occurs and that is where we are going.

I clearly remember a previous debate we had in this place about Telstra and telecommunications issues. Mr Deputy President, you were on this side and I was on the other side and we were following each other in the speaking list. I found it interesting because we were enjoying the general contribution. I am pretty sure Senator Boswell was in the chamber at the same time. I said in that debate that what goes on in this place is incredibly important. That is the role of government. The real test, though, the real understanding of what happens in telecommunications in this country, is what happens in the community. People will be watching what happens in the community. So far, we have seen in the initial rollout of the NBN—in places in South Australia, as Senator McEwen has spoken of, and in Tasmania, as a number of Tasmanian senators have spoken of—that people are waiting for this program. They need to be encouraged. They need to know about it. I think in some cases they are confounded by the fact that it is free, and that in some sense has been a bit of trouble with the marketing process, because people cannot believe that they are getting access to the service which they have asked for over many years. There would not be a senator in this place who has not had constituents talking with them at times about the need for access to better telecommunications and access to broadband.

They finally have access to it, and I am really pleased to say that, in the Mundingburra-Aitkenvale area of Townsville in North Queensland in my state, it has had success in that people want to be involved in the program. Over 50 per cent of people have already said they want to be involved, and that will grow, as does any program. I have heard other senators talk about slow uptake, but with any government program it takes time for people to think about it and to actually sign up. But, when they do, they do in large numbers. I am really pleased that my home town of Toowoomba is in the next rollout. They are already talking about it on the Darling Downs, because they have had real problems with technology and access to broadband in the Darling Downs. Toowoomba is going to be a hub of this program and they are waiting for it, as are parts of the Brisbane area. I am pleased to talk on it and I hope this program will continue.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to confirm and agree with my coalition colleagues on the travesty that was made of question time today by Senator Conroy. I must add that I was interested in one of his comments today. He said it would be remiss not to undertake due diligence on the business plan. Well we on this side of the chamber completely agree with him on that. In fact I put out a media release in April 2009 making the point that if anybody else was seeking to borrow so much money with so little detail as this government was to fund this pie in the sky program then the government regulators—ASIC, ASX—at the time would have knocked them out of the market, and yet the government is saying, ‘Take this on faith.’ Nothing has changed since April 2009 in terms of ‘take this on faith’.

Senator Moore suggested that it is somehow the coalition’s problem that we consider that the business plan should be released with some urgency. The urgency here is of the government’s making. We do not, in principle, care when we get to see the business plan, just do not expect us to debate and vote on the legislation until we do. That is the point. And nothing that the minister gave us today assisted in any way to clarify the information.

I was fascinated by his comments about other external advice—a little game, presumably, that Senator Conroy was playing. If he has useful information about how this is going to work, what the detail of it is, what on earth is wrong with sharing it with this chamber—except of course they do not want to share any of it with this chamber because they are frightened of the result?

We all know that the government right now is taking a hit in the telecoms industry sector, in the IT sector and with the general community as to why it will not release it. What is in it? To continue to refuse to simply do a quick black marker exercise on this business plan, and for that matter the three-year corporate plan, and put them out for public discussion and analysis and debate suggests that there is something in there that the government is frightened about, and that would not surprise me. They are currently damaging their great big shiny NBN Co. by being so secretive and obfuscatory. By continuing with this secretive approach to it they are simply feeding the ideas of everyone that there is something there to hide.

They could release it, but they will not. The longer they go on doing that, the more we are going to be of the view that there is something there to hide. And no wonder people are becoming very concerned about what is there and what is not there, given the fact that this all pottered along for well over 18 months without a business plan and without any detail—a thought bubble developed by former Prime Minister Rudd when he was back giving us big ideas.

It is interesting that the very existence of Infrastructure Australia is being questioned because there are no infrastructure projects of significance that they can suggest, and yet the biggest infrastructure project that has ever been undertaken in Australia will not be subject to the criteria that Infrastructure Australia have. It will not be subject to any inquiry by the Productivity Commission. It will not be subject to anything except an analysis by Greenhill Caliburn. The minister will not even answer the question: will you tell us when you get it and will you release it? It is just a travesty. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.