Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from Senator Fifield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Gillard Government’s secrecy surrounding the business plan of NBN Co. and their continued failure to ensure transparency for their $43 billion National Broadband Network project.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

This motion is about the Gillard government’s secrecy surrounding the business plan and its total bloody-minded and unacceptable insistence on lack of transparency for the National Broadband Network. Let us start with the business case. The Gillard government is refusing to present it to the Australian people so that their elected representatives in this chamber can utilise that business case in their consideration of the legislation that the government wants this chamber and the other place to consider in relation to the National Broadband Network. Today we learn that the government has commissioned an independent think tank to second-guess the business case. And Minister Conroy tells us today that, no, we cannot have anything in relation to the deliberations of the independent think tank.

Why does the government decide to hire corporate advisers to second-guess NBN Co.’s business plan? It is starting to smack of a government that knows not its way. It knows the ends. But, as the member for Wentworth has said, the ends are not necessarily sufficient to justify the means. Yet this government seems to think that it can get away with that method to its National Broadband Network madness. If the ends are to justify the means, this government is making it up as it goes along: ‘Let’s hire an independent think tank—that’ll buy us some more time.’ Is that what the government is proposing to do with the ACCC’s deliberations on the points of interconnectivity? That is about where the new bits will link up to the old bits? Will the government release publicly, as soon as they are completed, the ACCC’s deliberations about points of interconnectivity and, if not, why not? Is the government going to commission an independent think tank to look at those ACCC deliberations in some attempt to buy further time before the sector concerned gets the bad news verifying their concern that there will not be enough points with which to interconnect in order to sustain competition in the sector? Is that where this government is going to go with yet another important piece in the NBN jigsaw puzzle?

The government opposes a cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission, yet the government has decided that the Productivity Commission is the body most able and most suitable to assess ultimately whether or not the NBN should be privatised. At the same time, the government decided that a House of Representatives committee—a government controlled committee—is the appropriate vehicle to examine the NBN. At the very least, the government seemed by that move to be accepting a scintilla of a possibility that the NBN should be subject to some scrutiny right now, but it hived it off to a government controlled House of Representatives committee to do so. The timing of that announcement was interesting. It was announced late yesterday and by that time the government would have received notice of a motion—it was on the Notice Paper yesterday—that was to be moved in this place today by Senators Ludlam and Fisher, me, to set up an inquiry into the National Broadband Network by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. How interesting is that coincidence! It smacks of a government that has recognised, ‘Oh, my gosh, we can’t hold back this entire tide of scrutiny,’ so it sets up a half-baked, government controlled House of Representatives committee that will at least be in some way an antidote to what will one day most likely be a Senate committee set up to inquiry into the ongoing National Broadband Network madness. That is what it continues to appear to be at this stage.

Having conceded that it is appropriate to allow the NBN to be subject to at least some degree of scrutiny by setting up the House of Representatives committee, the government continues to defy each and every attempt by the opposition, the crossbenches and minor parties and the Australian public to have some access to some information that shows there is a method to Minister Conroy’s NBN madness. Minister Conroy defied a Senate order that he produce by yesterday three sets of documents relating to the NBN: the red book, with the blacked-out bits in it so that it can be read; the government’s criteria for choosing every one of the early release sites; and, finally, the ACTU heads of agreement for the so-called enterprise bargaining principles that the minister says will ensure there will not be a wages blow-out in the sector. On the latter, it is interesting, at the very least, that the CEPU has forecast its intention to seek industry-wide wage increases of five per cent per annum over a three-year period. This is telling because it is the CEPU’s membership, plus some others, who will largely be involved in the 25,000-odd jobs that the government says are going to be created in the rollout of the National Broadband Network, not the 400 or so people working for NBN Co. That was the minister’s red herring in an attempt to say there will not be a wages blow-out in the rollout of the NBN.

The wages to be paid to those workers matter most to the cost of the rollout of the NBN. How interesting, then, that what we do know about the implementation study is that, in the budgeted $43 billion spend, the figuring on wage increases in the sectors concerned was some 2½ per cent per year. So the CEPU’s campaign is at best double the figure underpinning the budget in the implementation study for the rollout of the NBN. Is it in conformity with the ACTU agreed enterprise bargaining principles or not? We do not know because Minister Conroy will not give us those enterprise bargaining principles. Given the government’s breach of its promise to female workers to support women in the pay equity test case and given that the government is most likely to be forced to trample on its promise to support low-paid workers in a test case for which it set up provisions in the Fair Work Act, I think that unless the Australian people have seen a copy of the ACTU heads of agreement they are entitled to speculate as to whether or not that heads of agreement shows that the government is also intent on undercutting any campaigns for wage increases in the sectors responsible for rolling out the National Broadband Network.

This government has not got the courage to face up to its promises. This government does not even have the courage to tell the Australian people, and in particular the Australian workers that they pretend to represent, that they do not have the courage of their convictions. In fact, they ain’t got the cash for their convictions. That is what it is all about. And unless and until we see the ACTU heads of agreement why would we not think that they show anything other than the government is going to turn their backs on construction workers as well for fear of otherwise not being able to deliver the National Broadband Network on time and on budget.

Give us some transparency, give us some accountability and give us some means with which to judge that the means will in fact deliver the ends. Thank you very much.

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

It is always amazing to listen to Senator Fisher. She comes in here and she makes up information. She is out there trying to scare the members of the public yet again by scaremongering and trying to oppose things for the sake of opposition.

Once again we hear the call from the opposition to release the business plan for the NBN. Once again we know that it is just a cheap political stunt to cast unfounded aspersions on the project and on the government. As we said previously, the National Broadband Network business plan will be released towards the end of the year. Once we have had time to fully analyse the 400 pages of highly technical information, some of which is still commercial-in-confidence—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are you hiding it from parliament?

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

This continued attack on the NBN is just a diversionary farce to get away from the fact that the opposition have no policies, no vision and, if they are not careful, no future.

The opposition has had 20 broadband policies, none of which they managed to successfully implement. They oppose the NBN not for any public cost-benefit reason but simply because they are too petty to see the government succeed where they have continually failed. The government is not being secretive; it is being prudent.

We are not reckless like Mr Turnbull, who when he was environment minister paid $10 million on unproven technology to electrocharge the atmosphere to milk unseen moisture from the skies. In contrast to the reckless Mr Turnbull, the government’s actions are showing this project—Australia’s most significant infrastructure investment since the Snowy Mountains scheme—the respect that such a significant investment deserves.

We are not going to rush into it. We are not going to be bullied by those on the other side coming out with their bizarre comments just to delay things. The NBN will deliver significant benefits for all Australians, and particularly for those in my home state of Tasmania. Tony Abbott may think that the internet is only good for Facebook and email, but those in rural and remote Australia have the vision to see the profound effect that the NBN will have on meeting their future health and educational needs as well as the profound economic benefits which will result.

I will take a few moments to provide just a few examples of projects in Tasmania that rely on fast broadband and which would benefit from the NBN. Recently, the CSIRO launched its TasICT centre. The TasICT aims to promote employment growth and wealth creation throughout the Tasmanian economy by accelerating growth of its ICT industries. And who was there at that launch? Senator Barnett was at that launch, celebrating the obviously welcome local investment delivered to Tasmania by the CSIRO. Would it not be ironic if Senator Barnett did not welcome it, because one of the factors that led to the CSIRO’s decision to establish the centre in Tasmania was—guess what?—the fact that Tasmania was the first recipient of the NBN rollout. That is a $30 million investment that Tasmania was not likely to have seen without the National Broadband Network.

The Tasmanian government has recently developed an innovative new school to provide flexible learning opportunities for Tasmanians. The Tasmanian eSchool brings together Distance Education Tasmania, the Centre for Extended Learning Opportunities - Online and the Online Campus into a single school from 2011. Assisted with a $4.9 million grant from the Australian government, the Tasmanian eSchool will provide services through cutting edge technology.

Of course, if we provide a connection speed of 100 megabits per second through optic fibre this would allow for a primary or secondary student to log on at home and participate in a virtual classroom. At the moment virtual classrooms are a reality but they are not supported by high-definition video in Tasmania. We need that video to deliver better pedagogical outcomes to distance education students so that they can interact with the teacher through reading and conveying body language and so that the teacher can demonstrate visual concepts with their hands. Such students will also be able to interact with other students and collaborate on projects.

There are a number of reasons why students may need to study at home. They may be very remote and have difficulty with transport or have a disability making it difficult to leave their house. Their parents may be full-time carers and unable to drop them to and from school. While there are many primary and high schools throughout Tasmania, the University of Tasmania has only three campuses. Distance education is provided by UTAS, but it is limited in scope and cannot deliver the quality of face-to-face lectures or tutorials. A family from Dover, St Helens or Strahan wanting to send their child to university has only two options: either they move house or they pay to accommodate their child on campus in a residential college. Alternatively, the child may need to work part-time to pay their rent in a residential college or share house which, of course, can be very disruptive to their studies. Imagine how much that family or student could save if they could have their lecture or tutorial delivered straight into their home?

The benefits to health are just mind-boggling. Many elderly patients in need of specialist treatment find it incredibly disruptive to have to travel long distances to receive that treatment. Imagine if a patient requiring a visual examination by an ophthalmologist could stay at home rather than having to visit the hospital. A high-definition video link could mean the examination could take place without the patient having to leave their home. If their webcam is not up to scratch, the hospital could lend them one—and soon televisions will also be video conference units. Other more basic consultations, including GP consultations, could be provided via this method. For certain consultations, this could alleviate some of the difficulties that remote communities face when trying to secure a GP. With the NBN, patients who have to travel interstate for highly specialised surgery may have the option of receiving the surgery at their local hospital. A high-speed data link could allow the surgeon to deliver the instructions to a less specialised but still qualified surgeon, or instruments could be developed that respond to a surgeon’s instructions remotely.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Of course, those on the other side do not want to hear this, and that is why they continually interject. They do not care about the future of Australia or the people of Australia.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the honourable senator is making a false assertion. She says the opposition does not want to hear this. When I have been interjecting, we are very eager to hear it.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

If those on the other side are eager to hear it, I suggest that they stop interjecting. At the moment, telesurgery is experimental, but the concept has been proven overseas and could become a reality in the near future. The competitiveness of local businesses is also a compelling argument for higher broadband speeds—and I would have thought that that would be of interest to those on the other side, too. If someone wanted to run a data-intensive business such as digital broadcasting or a retail warehouse for downloadable content, they would have difficulty getting the bandwidth without a dedicated link. Imagine if an Australian entrepreneur could run their own multichannel digital broadcasting service from home.

What will the capability of the NBN do to our economy? When the telephone was invented, Alexander Graham Bell imagined that there would be ‘one in each city so great men can talk to one another’. But now most people have a telephone in their pocket. Those on the other side who constantly harp and do not want to pursue a relevant future for Australia should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. The economic potential of the NBN is undreamed of; the mind boggles just at the thought of it.

The opposition have made it clear that they have already made up their minds against the NBN without having read or accepted a briefing on the business case. The opposition talk about transparency. The opposition are as transparent as crystal clear Tasmanian water: we can all see that they are trying to delay, spin and frustrate the project for petty political reasons. They just want to bulldoze the NBN. It is all petty politics with them. If the Liberals and Nationals are serious about ensuring Australians have access to world-class telecommunications infrastructure and the resulting health, economic and educational benefits then they would support the NBN rollout. In fact, if they were really serious they would have done it in their 11 or 12 years in government. But what did they do? They did nothing. They came up with 20 plans but no action. And what are they planning to do in the future. I presume they will continue to do nothing

I know Mr Abbott is not the most technologically literate of men, but when he told Malcolm Turnbull to ‘demolish the NBN’, why did he hand him a pickaxe and a hard hat? Malcolm Turnbull has stated publicly that the opposition will not support the NBN even if a cost-benefit analysis proved the project’s benefits to Australia. That just demonstrates that the coalition oppose this project for opposition’s sake. All their talk about transparency is a ruse; it is nothing but a convenient excuse. The truth is that they would deny Australia the economic potential of this project because they failed to think of it themselves. They hate to see this government taking the lead on broadband, just as we did with other nation-building projects such as compulsory superannuation and Medicare.

There have already been extensive reports written about the NBN, including five Senate committee reports and the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study, and numerous Senate estimates appearances by the NBN Co. CEO, Mike Quigley. The implementation study has already confirmed that the NBN will generate a six to seven per cent return and the government will fully recover its costs, including interest on borrowings—and that is before we even consider the economic and social benefits of the network. There have also been studies into the benefits of broadband by the OECD, Access Economics and IBM. The business plan will be released once commercial-in-confidence material is removed.

If those opposite are so concerned about transparency and due process, let us have a look at what they did in government. In 2007, John Howard’s $10 billion National Water Plan went to the Department of Finance and Administration just days before it was announced. Finance officials were yet to sign off on it before it went through the cabinet. In fact the department secretary, Ian Watt, was asked to ‘run an eye lightly over the costings’ before John Howard’s announcement. That is what happened when you mob were in government, so do not talk to us about accountability and transparency.

The business plan for the NBN will be released in due course, as we have said I do not know how many times on this side of the chamber. In the meantime the opposition have the opportunity to avail themselves of a confidential briefing. If they are not going to take up that option then it just goes to show they are not interested in the information. In their usual arrogant way, they have already made their minds up and no amount of expert opinion is going to sway them.

But it does not really matter what they think. The Australian people know the benefits of this project and the difference it will make to their lives. They certainly know it in Tasmania, where the NBN is already being rolled out and customers are already connected. Tasmanians know what is good for them—just look at the results from the last federal election. If those opposite who are acting like Neolithic primates cannot see the value of optic-fibre broadband then maybe they should spend more time in their electorates talking to ordinary Australians and less time with their heads in the sand. This motion is just more bluster and hot air from an opposition that would not know one end of a laptop from the other.

To reiterate, this is just another delaying tactic from those on the other side. They are just trying to frighten people. First of all, they called for a cost-benefit analysis. Then they introduced a private member’s bill. Then they wanted to set up a joint select committee. They are not even happy when a House of Representatives committee is set up—Senator Fisher was just complaining about that. As we know, they are going to oppose it anyway. Those on the other side are not committed to the future of Australia. They are not committed to innovation. They are certainly not committed to nation-building infrastructure. How can you do a cost-benefit analysis on technology that has not yet been thought of? Those on the other side are simply wreckers, opposing for opposition’s sake. They are trying to scare people by continuing along this line. They asked us question after question after question on the NBN. We keep giving them the answers; we keep telling them what is going to happen. They do not want to hear it. They just want to oppose, to be obstructionist. I suppose that is what you would expect from people in denial. They are yet to accept that they are on that side of the chamber.

If I can just talk about a letter from the NBN Co.—(Time expired)

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

I have been waiting with eager anticipation for Senator Bilyk, Senator Polley, Senator Sherry or another Tasmanian senator to answer the question I have asked them many times before: how much are you charging Tasmanians for use of the NBN, a $100 million construction, in Tasmania? Nobody will answer me. I proffer the answer: nothing. Tasmanians are getting the NBN service for free, for absolutely nothing. With a $43 billion spend, the government is giving the service away for free. How can you possibly get a return on your money when you are not charging? In spite of the fact that they are getting it for free, only about 50 per cent of Tasmanians have so far taken up the offer. Yet the Tasmanian senators will not talk about this at all.

Senator Bilyk suggested to us that, through the NBN, a student in Tasmania would be far better off sitting at home watching this. Quite frankly, Senator Bilyk, they can do that at the moment if they want to, and they could do so long before the NBN came along. But not too many students could afford the $3,000 to $7,000 necessary to connect to it if they were being charged. Senator Bilyk spoke a lot about e-health. We all agree. As Senator Brandis mentioned, we think it is a great idea. Mind you, you can get it now if you are prepared to pay for it. But people are not prepared to pay for it. Evidence given to the select committee quite rightly said that only about 70 to 80 per cent of Australians ever use a computer. Twenty to 30 per cent of Australians are never going to use the NBN, but they are going to pay for it—it is their $43 billion.

Senator Bilyk also spoke about remote communities. We all know the farce of remote communities. Senator Conroy is paying Telstra $11 billion to shut down the copper network. Then, having given them $11 billion for that, he is going to give them more money to keep the copper network going for the seven per cent of Australians who will not get the fibre to the home promised by the Labor Party. What a farce. Senator Conroy is completely out of his depth, as I have said. I do not want to embarrass Senator Lundy—she is here—but she should have been the communications minister. She understands it and she would not have got the government and the Australian nation into the mess that they are currently in.

I remind any listeners that, had the coalition won the 2007 election, fast broadband would be up and operating throughout Australia today. We would not have had to wait for eight years for this service to come out. Senator Bilyk asked: what did the Howard government do? I will tell you, Senator Bilyk: we actually signed a contract with the OPEL consortium to construct a fast broadband service across the nation at a moderate price using a mixture of technologies: wireless, copper, fibre and HFC. Senator Conroy is locking us into a technology which is state of the art now but which, by the time this NBN is completed, will probably be old hat. Do not ask me what will replace it; I do not know. But nobody knew 30 years ago that we would be moving into mobile phones. That is how rapidly technology is changing. Not only did the coalition have a plan but we implemented it. We signed a contract—which the Labor government came in and broke as its first decision.

If the NBN is as good as Senator Bilyk claims it is and Senator Polley is going to tell us it is, can they please tell me why they would not get an authoritative source like the Productivity Commission to do a cost-benefit analysis? If you did, all your arguments would be won. You would not have to rely on Senator Conroy—who clearly has no idea of telecommunications technology—to be your standard-bearer. The Productivity Commission could come out and say, ‘This is wonderful; the benefits to the nation’—be they in communications or elsewhere—‘far outweigh the $43 billion cost.’ It is a no-brainer. Why wouldn’t you do that? The Gillard government has done everything possible to keep the facts from the Australian people. This atrocious ruse of saying, ‘We’re going to release it in a little while,’ clearly shows that the Labor Party and their mates in the Greens are not interested in transparency. If they were, they would have released it yesterday so that the parliament, the place where these things should be debated, could have a look at it, debate it and put Senator Conroy to his proof. All the rhetoric of the Greens on accountability and openness comes to nil when they support the Labor Party in having that information hidden away.

I see Senator Polley reading her notes and getting the lectern ready, so I assume that she is going to speak in this debate after me. Senator Polley is from Tasmania. Here is the opportunity I have been waiting for. I have asked Senator Conroy; I cannot get an answer. Senator Polley, tell me: how much is the NBN selling its fibre-to-the-home—or even -to-the-node—services to Tasmanians? I will challenge you. I will say the answer is nil. I will say that the Labor government is giving it away. So uncertain are they that anyone would take it up at the massive cost likely to be involved that they are giving it away. Please, Senator Polley, when you get up after me tell me that I am wrong. Also tell me I am wrong when I allege—with evidence given by Mr Quigley—that not only will the government give away the service for free but that they will pay the people the $300 or thereabouts to install the connection box at their homes. That does not mean to say people will use it.

The questions go on and on, and in the committee stage of debate on the bill currently before the parliament—I give Senator Conroy notice—I will be asking questions. So, please come prepared. In the committee stage Senator Conroy will not be able to obfuscate like he does at question time. I am asking him: please come along with the answers, because we know if you give genuine honest answers the Australian public will see that this whole NBN proposal is a farce. Great! Everybody wants high-quality, high-speed broadband, but we do not want to pay $43 billion for it. That is $43 billion of wasted taxpayer money.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great delight that once again I get the opportunity to get up in this chamber and speak about the positive aspects of the National Broadband Network. The contribution that Senator Macdonald made, from my point of view—and I think it is the view of those on this side of the chamber—is not worth responding to, because Senator Macdonald is well known for his negativity. He is one of those old warhorses on the opposition side who like to be very negative. Senator Macdonald will oppose for the sake of opposition. He is a wrecker. He is well known in this place.

I do not want to waste the opportunity that I have today to talk, as I have talked before, about the positives of the National Broadband Network. One week later I ask the question: has the opposition moved on? Obviously and absolutely, no. The government is clearly of the view that Australia must maintain and improve its standard of living—its healthcare system, its education system, its economy. These are comparable with any country in the world and we, as a government, want to continue that situation.

There is one thing that Senator Macdonald did get correct. Yes, I am a Tasmanian senator and I can speak about the positive attributes of the National Broadband Network and the effect that it has had in the Tasmanian community. Perhaps Senator Macdonald would like to confer with his colleague Senator Guy Barnett about what he thinks about the National Broadband Network roll-out and the effects that it had in Tasmanian on the federal election outcome. Senator Macdonald ought to consult with his colleagues at the state level. The Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Will Hodgman, does see the benefits to the Tasmanian community in what the National Broadband Network will deliver to the Tasmanian economy, but we have to ensure that it is a national program.

The federal Leader of the Opposition, when he made a fleeting visit to Launceston recently for a state conference of the Liberal Party, committed to not pulling out of the National Broadband Network that has been rolled-out in Tasmania, but we all know that the benefits to Tasmania rely on it being Australia wide. Those opposite—people like Senator Joyce—come into this place time after time and lecture us about rural and regional Australia. Senator Joyce is ‘Backdown Barnaby’ because, once again, Backdown Barnaby has failed to represent the people in rural Australia. People in rural and regional Australia know the benefits that the National Broadband Network will bring to health, education, business, local government and families. All Australians need and deserve the same access to the National Broadband Network. We believe that.

Before the global financial crisis hit Australia this government took the action needed to protect jobs. We invested in Australian families and we invested in jobs to ensure that we kept our economy strong. Those opposite, on each and every occasion, opposed every piece of legislation, just as they are opposing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network. They are doing that even though they know that this is the biggest investment in infrastructure in this country’s history. Those opposite will not acknowledge that. They will oppose for the sake of opposing. They are wreckers and they will continue to wreck because they have nothing to offer.

Today we have heard another range of questions—for instance: what were the criteria for choosing the first three roll-out sites in Tasmania? What is the point of that question other than to continuing to oppose and frustrate the development of the National Broadband Network? I can tell you that Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point have been some of the most broadband-neglected areas in Australia, thanks to the coalition when they were in government. The only things the opposition were able to achieve were a few plans, which delivered nothing for rural and regional Tasmania or for the rest of the country.

The opposition continue to talk about wireless. Wireless systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. That does not mean that a household wi-fi will necessarily be broken into; I am taking about wi-fi used by the public at airports, restaurants and hotels. The wi-fi systems currently in use for regional Tasmania are proposed by the opposition in lieu of the National Broadband Network. Public wi-fi systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. Why would the opposition advocate a system with inherent insecurity? Because they are people who cannot accept—

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

People!

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are people, Senator Sterle, despite what you may think! They are people who are supposed to be in this chamber representing their communities and their states and territories. But all they are about is proving, once again, that they are wreckers. They wreck and oppose for the sake of opposition.

When we talk about the benefits we need to look at what we are doing. We are more than just the Australian community; we are part of the globe. We have to compete internationally. Other countries are leading the way. Australia should not have a second-rate system. We on this side of the chamber are going to ensure that all Australians have the fastest network available to them. The coalition talks about 12 megabytes per second being adequate. Where is it? I think the coalition is up to plan 20 for what it wants to deliver.

The National Broadband Network has already been established in three towns: Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point. As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, when you go around the community—whether you are talking to business people in the health industry, health professionals, educators, local government, small business operators or tourism operators—they are all crying out for the benefits of the National Broadband Network. We have three providers already up and running in Tasmania: iPrimus, Internode and iiNet. Telstra has also now signed on to test its services over the National Broadband Network. Those three providers have very competitive prices. Internode has released its retail prices. Its entry level 25 megabytes per second service is $29.95 per month. At entry level a 100-megabyte per second service is $59.95 per month. The iiNet company is offering a 25 megabyte per second service for $49.95 with an introductory offer of free setup, some in-home wiring and a free BoB for an extra $9.95 per month. Its customers can get a phone service with 15c calls to fixed phones within Australia. The iPrimus company has released its retail prices, which include 25 megabytes per second with a bundled phone, including all calls within Australia, for $89.95. That includes calls to mobile phones. These prices do not look anything like what we are hearing from the other side. These are the facts.

What are Tasmanians saying about the National Broadband Network? Andrew Connor from Digital Tasmania said that scrapping of the NBN at this stage would be a backward move. I have said that before. We know that Darren Alexander, President of TASICT, has said on the public record that it is:

... a once in a lifetime opportunity for Tasmania to be at the forefront of the new digital economy in Australia and this in itself has a myriad of opportunities for business and especially SMEs which is over 96 per cent of Tasmania.

Unlike the opposition, Tasmanians in the next stage of the rollout are eagerly awaiting the NBN. They are the people of Deloraine, George Town, Kingston Beach, Sorell, South Hobart, St Helens and Triabunna. The third stage, the remainder of Tasmania, includes the major cities of Burnie, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart. When I move around the communities with other senators and members we know what the people of Tasmania are saying. We know what the rest of Australia deserves and that is what this government will be delivering. We are delivering on our commitment. We are delivering on our investment. It is the biggest investment in infrastructure in Australian history.

Those on the other side had 12 very long years and did nothing. Now they are in opposition they have taken up the mantle of being oppositionist for the sake of opposition. The Australian people can see through that. The Australian people can see the benefits—they can see them already. Those on the other side would rather we stayed in the Stone Age.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I join this matter of public importance discussion on the business plan of NBN Co. I am absolutely staggered by the arrogance and hypocrisy of those on the other side of this chamber who seek to dictate to us about what good governance is and who suggest that we achieved nothing in government. I would love to hear Senator Bilyk say what she has said in this chamber today outside this place without the protection of parliament. To suggest that those in this place on this side are liars because they choose to disagree with her is just total and utter arrogance.

It is interesting to note that this week we are coming to the third anniversary of a Rudd or Labor government. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on what those on the opposite side of this chamber have achieved in the last three years. Considering Senator Polley’s comments earlier on, I think it will demonstrate a clear difference between both sides of these houses. We have been brought to consider the National Broadband Network—an investment of some $43 billion—before we have seen the business plan. Let me bring to the chamber’s attention the legacy of this government over the last three years and why we believe it is in the interests of the Australian public to see a business plan, given the government’s track record over this time.

When we think about the legacy of the Howard government, when we think about the achievements of that government, it is very easy to recall a vast number of them. It takes not too much imagination to do that. It was the Howard-Costello government that developed this country so that it became an economic powerhouse that withstood the global financial crisis. And it was only through their work in paying back $98 billion worth of debt, leaving a surplus, a gift, for those on the other side of more than $20 billion, that was able to help Australia withstand the global financial crisis. The Howard government was the driver of financial and banking reform. It was the Howard government that established a $10 billion program, long before the current government dealt with it, to deal with the Murray-Darling Basin. It was the Howard government that made a landmark investment in education. It was the Howard government that established an investment fund that made significant reforms to industrial relations, which underpins the strength of the small business community, the main sector of the employees of this country.

When you look at what those on the other side have achieved in the past three years—what have they done? They have achieved an absolute debacle in the rollout of an insulation batts program. They have had a failed Green Loans scheme. They have failed in their ‘Julia Gillard memorial halls’ program, where value for money has not been the critical component. So it was with very good reason we asked to see the business plan for NBN Co., because this government has form. They have form on failed programs. They have form on disgraceful waste and mismanagement. They have form on economic ineptitude. And so it is with good reason and for the protection of Australians’ interests that we are asking to see that business plan.

NBN Co. is one of the largest projects of its kind, and we accept that. There has never been a question about the need to invest in the IT area. There has never been a suggestion not to do that. But what we are concerned about and have repeated many, many times is our concern about the process and the way in which it is being rolled out. This is the nub of the problem with NBN Co. after it was first conceived. Senator after senator on the other side have continued to proclaim the merits of the program, hoping that their mere protestations will obscure the real issues and their obfuscation will avoid any responsibility. No matter how small or big a program is, it should be subject to transparent analysis based on normal business practice, and it is that that we are seeking here. By not releasing the business plan that this project has been based on the government, not us, are sticking their heads in the sand if they do not think the public are wise to their game. And it only begs the question: what are they hiding?

This government does have form. Those on the other side of this chamber and their leaders have form—form that they have clearly demonstrated and finessed over the past three years. The government is hiding something. It is time they stopped pussyfooting around and let the business plan see the light of day.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.