Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is of course in continuation from the sittings a couple of weeks ago. At that time I highlighted, answered and responded to some questions that Senator Ludlam posed in relation to these amendments. The amendments are important to ensure that the competitive aspects of fibre deployment in greenfield sites are maintained. We think it is critical, vital and important that, in regard to those greenfield sites, we see a decent sense of competition and a decent sense of the provision of services to greenfield developers for the deployment of fibre services. These amendments seek to provide a fairer playing field for competitive greenfield operators against NBN Co. The government has set up a framework in which NBN Co. is the provider of last resort—they claim. However, in reality we see a situation where NBN Co. will, as I highlighted in the previous debate, provide to developers a free service that will obviously be extremely attractive. That will leave competitive greenfield operators essentially as an unviable provider of services, because developers will have the choice of paying a private company or getting a service free from NBN Co. That of course is a Hobson's choice; there is no choice at all. In that situation, anybody is sensibly going to go with NBN Co. Therefore all of these small private businesses who have built themselves up over a period of time to be able to deploy fibre in greenfield sites effectively and competitively will be squeezed out of the market, because they will have been seriously undermined by this government.

If we look at some of the evidence that the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network received on this matter we see that competitive greenfield operators, through the Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia, highlighted a range of problems with this bill that these amendments try to redress. We see it very clearly in the GFOA's submission, which highlighted that:

NBN Co is the obvious first choice for Developers because the NBN Co can fund the network build costs that are otherwise paid by Developers to private providers … and that funding is recovered by NBN Co charging RSPs higher operational prices.

…   …   …

Without competition maintained and enshrined in the Bill, NBN Co will have no real constraint on charges nor incentive to be innovative or provide community and utility services without charge.

These amendments clearly seek to maintain competition, provide a sense of innovation and, most importantly, ensure that developers have a choice of fibre provider and have the opportunity in that choice to get fibre deployed quickly in their greenfield site, in the most innovative and efficient way possible and, importantly, in a manner that that meets the requirements of NBN Co. but which is not stifled by NBN Co.

If we look further at the submission of the Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia we see that the GFOA believes:

… that the Minister wants NBN Co to be a monopoly and that he will therefore either set standards and specifications that only suit NBN Co network design and business or be silent and allow NBN Co standards and specifications to become the default standards and specifications as uncertainty overcomes the property development industry. Either way, by Ministerial determination or silence, setting NBN Co standards and specifications for network design, deployment and interconnection will eliminate all competition to NBN Co by GFOA or others interested in investing, building and operating fibre networks on any basis.

The opposition's amendments transparently seek not to undermine what the government is seeking to do in providing fibre to greenfields sites; they seek to strengthen it. They seek to strengthen it by providing more choice to developers, by providing the opportunity for people other than NBN Co. to deliver those services by ensuring that we have a situation wherein NBN Co. cannot go in and gold-plate the standards that are required. Instead, as a result of the opposition's amendments, a situation will be put in place whereby we will actually see ACMA and relevant industry bodies determine what is necessary for compliance with NBN Co. rather than having NBN Co. set its own determination of compliance.

During the debate last time I posed two particular questions to Senator Conroy about the operation of this legislation. They were questions that my colleague Senator Nash had posed and that the minister had thus far been unable to answer. I hope that with the intervening weeks since this debate last took place in the Senate the minister will be able to actually answer those questions. I hope that on this occasion he will front up and actually explain the situation regarding the notions of NBN Co. operating as the provider of last resort.

The important issues Senator Nash highlighted—the questions she asked and that I posed again—related, quite simply, to when the last-resort provision was triggered. Can you tell us, Minister, when is the last-resort provision of NBN Co. to assume responsibility for deploying fibre at these greenfields sites triggered? How long will developers have to wait to see NBN Co. come in and deliver the service for those communities for those new developments? Tell us what the trigger for that provider of last resort is, as well as the expected time frame for that trigger. Then, once it is triggered, how long will it take for NBN Co. to actually deliver the service? How long will people at these sites have to wait to see NBN Co. come in and actually deploy the fibre at those greenfields sites?

These are two fundamental issues. The minister keeps claiming that this does not set up some sort of monopolistic provision for NBN Co. in the greenfields sites. We dispute that. We think our amendments will at least provide for a better competitive framework. In addition to that, we are concerned as to just how the operation of these last-resort provisions will work. Please give us a clear answer on those two matters.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Developers can choose whichever carrier they like to install fibre. But if they do not wish to choose another carrier, NBN Co. has a responsibility to provide a solution. NBN Co. is already the provider of last resort for larger developments greater than 100 lots where it has fibre and for developments in rollout regions where it has indicated that it will be rolling out fibre in the following 12 months.

Telstra plays this role in smaller developments pending NBN Co.'s arrival. In this context, this role relates to providing infrastructure in new developments. If a developer does not wish to use another provider, the developer can go to NBN Co., which must provide infrastructure in areas for which NBN Co. is responsible. The process by which NBN Co. provides infrastructure is set out in detail on NBN Co.'s website. NBN Co. has published a simple flow chart for developers. Basically, developers lodge applications for eligible developments via NBN Co.'s web portal. NBN Co. requires applications to be submitted at least three months before infrastructure needs to be provided to enable the various stages of the process to be completed.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. I just want to be absolutely clear about what the minister is saying. It is within the rights of a developer, at the first available opportunity, to lodge an application for NBN Co. to provide service, as long as they meet the requirements of three months notice et cetera. Is there any requirement for a developer to consider using any other operator before they go and get NBN Co. to roll out the fibre?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is usually referred to as choice. They can choose whomever they want.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that makes it pretty crystal clear! The statements by this government that it is setting NBN Co. up as the provider of last resort are not truthful at all. They are not setting NBN Co. up as the provider of last resort; they are setting up NBN Co. as the default provider of fibre at these greenfields sites. That is what the minister's flippant response about choice means. For a developer who is establishing a new housing development, the choice is, quite literally, to go and lodge an application with NBN Co. and get the fibre rolled out for free or to go to a greenfields operator and pay to have the fibre rolled out. That is the choice the minister wants people to make. There is no requirement for a period of delay for them to consider using a greenfields operator first. They can just go to NBN Co. up-front, first thing, and simply get them to roll out the fibre.

Who on Earth would think that in that type of situation we would see a single greenfields fibre provider around Australia left in business after a few months of operation of that system? Of course everybody is going to take the free option. This government knows a thing or two about offering free options. It offered free pink batts in people's roofs. We saw how that ended: it ended in utter misery for householders, for homeowners and for many, many businesses—who ultimately were put out of business by the very scheme that set up some of those businesses in the first place. This government have no understanding and no credibility when it comes to how the decisions they make impact on the operation of the market. They have no understanding or credibility as to how their decisions impact on private business and private jobs. They are creating this giant new multibillion-dollar government monopoly called the NBN Co. And, in doing so, they are happy to squeeze everybody else out of the market—everybody else. And they do not seem to care about the consequences of that—for developers, for innovation in this space, for the timely delivery of fibre services in this development. They are just flippant about the whole thing. For them, of course, it is all about trying to make the fictitious economic model of the NBN Co. stack up. And we know that they will never manage to make the NBN Co.'s economic or financial modelling stack up; but they are putting in place every possible impediment to private providers, every possible impediment to other businesses, to ensure that the NBN Co. model is underpinned as a true monopoly provider. And we all know what happens with monopoly providers in the end—Senator Conroy has given us many lectures on that in this place in the telecommunications space. In the end, the prices go up, innovation goes out the door, service gets more sluggish—and that, of course, is what Australia's housing developers will face—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that why you voted to privatise a vertically integrated monopoly?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to go back to debating the previous legislation as well, Minister, we are going to be here for a terribly long time.

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

Stop filibustering!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald, for that very apt interjection, which highlights the fact that Senator Conroy, throughout this debate, has been more interested in talking about all of the past decisions, all of the past debates, than he has been in actually talking about and defending his legislation, the proposal that is here before us. We do not hear him stand up here saying that yes, there will be competitive fibre operators in the marketplace competing with NBN Co., because he knows that there will not be, he knows that there cannot be under this model that he is proposing. The challenge is there, Minister: if you want to stand up and try to convince the Senate that your legislation is not going to put businesses out of business, then please do so—feel free to actually give us a compelling argument that you are not going to drive private providers already in the marketplace out of business as a result of what you are proposing.

The opposition have made it crystal clear in our amendments, and in our debates on these amendments, that fundamentally they are about providing a better, competitive framework in the greenfields development space—so that housing developers, when they are putting together a development, have a choice of where they can go to, that there are some benchmark standards, that there is a legislated pricing arrangement in place so that they know they can get somebody in to deploy the fibre and that it will ultimately, of course, be sold through to NBN Co. and operate as part of your grand NBN network. So we are not trying to undermine your goals in relation to dictating fibre as the technology of choice for all Australians—or for 93 per cent of Australian premises. We are not trying to undermine your desire for NBN Co. to be the primary wholesale provider. We are not trying to undermine any of those things—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your nose is growing: Pinocchio Birmingham, we'll call you!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, the invitation is there. When I sit down, I will welcome you standing up and defending this legislation. I will welcome you standing up and actually telling the Senate that you believe that this will not put people out of business. That would a brave thing for you to do, Senator Conroy, because deep down you know that it will put people out of business, that it will see small operators, Australians who have invested in building a company, lose equity in that company; that it will see them ultimately have to shed staff, that it will change the model for the deployment of fibre in greenfields sites in Australia, and in doing so it will truncate it all into the one monopoly provider—your NBN Co. That may be great, for you to try to stack up the business model of NBN Co., but it will be bad for these developers, it will be bad for the households who purchase in those developments. It will probably see people ultimately having to wait longer to get services, it will see them ultimately paying more for those services and it will of course see a lack of innovation in the delivery of those services—all because you want to somehow prop up and underpin the financial case for the NBN. That is not good enough.

That is why the opposition stand behind these amendments. We have, unlike you, listened to the concerns of the greenfields fibre operators. Senator Macdonald, myself and others on the joint standing committee have actually listened to those concerns. We have read their submissions, we have heard from those businesses and we have heard them all say very clearly: 'This legislation is a problem; this legislation is a threat to our business and a threat to our jobs.' And, unlike you, we have actually responded to those concerns. Unlike the government, we have heard the concerns and we have decided that we will actually deliver, in this legislation, something that addresses those concerns and provides at least a skerrick of opportunity—and it will be a skerrick of opportunity, given the multibillions of dollars of taxpayer funds and of government debt you have underpinning the NBN Co. But it will at least provide a skerrick of opportunity for these businesses to be able to survive into the future.

So the challenge is there, Minister. When you come back to your seat, when your rise to your feet—which I hope you will do—tell us: do you think there will be a single greenfields provider left in Australia after this legislation passes and comes fully into effect? Do you think there will be anybody actually out there rolling out fibre, aside from NBN Co. and those who NBN Co. pay to do so? Because, from the answer you gave to my previous question, that it is all about choice, you made it pretty well crystal clear that your choice is a Hobson's choice, that developers in Australia will simply be left with a choice of getting it free from NBN Co. or having to pay a private provider—and the upshot of that, of course, will be that it will be the private providers who go out of business. It is your call, Minister: tell us whether you think there will still be a business there for them; convince me that there will be, somehow—because for the life of me I cannot see it in what you are saying.

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

I would have hoped that the minister might have been paying enough attention to this debate to be in his seat to actually answer some very serious questions that Senator Birmingham has raised. In fact, I am reluctant to do this, but perhaps we should note that there are not a lot of Labor Party people in the chamber on this particular occasion. I am not standing up here to make a speech; I am standing here to actually ask the minister a question. But with his typical arrogance and impoliteness he is not even bothering to show the Senate the courtesy of listening to the questions and answering them. (Quorum formed) Can I just warn members of the Labor Party that they should hang around because, if we are not going to even have the minister sitting in his place listening to the questions we are asking, they can be assured that we may notice if most of the Labor Party people are not in the chamber for this very important debate.

I hope that those people listening to this debate on the radio or on their laptops understand that this involves Australia's biggest ever infrastructure project of $55-plus billion, which the taxpayers, the people listening to this broadcast, will at some stage have to pay for. Everybody, including the minister, knows that it will never make a profit. It will never pay a commercial rate of return on the money the government is spending. Yet we cannot even have in this very important debate a minister who will listen to and answer the questions that are being put to him.

I will now proceed. I see the minister is back in his place. Whether he is listening is another thing. I would like the minister to answer Senator Birmingham's questions. I have a similar question. Perhaps I will frame it in a slightly different way that hopefully the minister will be able to respond to clearly. Minister, is it the fact that the developer in a greenfield site has the option of either waiting for NBN to install the fibre at no cost or alternatively paying a private contractor to put in the infrastructure? Are those the two alternatives? It is my understanding that that is correct, but I seek your response. It is my understanding that that is correct because that is the evidence that was given to the joint committee oversighting the NBN and providing some comment on what is happening. First of all, just clarify that for me. Is that correct? If it is correct, why would any developer pay a private contractor to do something that the developer could get for free from the taxpayer through NBN?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As to what developers charge, that is a matter for developers. I am not in a position to comment on it. Under previous arrangements supported by your previous government Telstra did not charge to install the copper, and NBN will not charge to install.

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

We are going to be here for a long time if the minister deliberately refuses to answer the questions. I did not ask what developers would charge. I do not expect you to know anything about that, Minister. After all, all of the ministers under the present Labor Party government combined have had what I think is a total of about 13 years working in some form of private business. So I would not expect Senator Conroy to be commenting on what contractors charge. That was not my question, as the minister well knows. My question was simply this: is it a fact that a developer of a greenfield site will have the option for NBN Co. to install the infrastructure at no cost to the developer? The other alternative—as I understand it from the evidence given at our committee of inquiry—is that the developer could get a private contractor to install the infrastructure but it would be at a cost. Regardless of what the cost is, it would be at a cost—naturally enough, because private contractors, unlike the union movement and this government, do not work for free. They have got to get enough money to pay their employees, pay their taxes—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apparently the union movement doesn't work for free either!

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

A very good point, Senator Birmingham. We hear stories about unions arranging for work to be done at a highly inflated price and then handing out free credit cards to individual union officials to book up whatever they like on the cost of the contractor. Perhaps there is some veracity in those claims. But that is not the matter I want to talk about today.

I simply ask the question: is it true that the options for a greenfields developer are to get NBN Co. to put in the infrastructure at no cost or to get a private contractor to do it but at a charge? Are those the options, Minister?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A developer has a choice, and I have already answered your previous question.

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

Just in case anyone listening to this debate is not aware, the minister's previous answer was: it is up to the contractor to charge what the contractor charges, and the minister is not there to tell the contractor what he should charge. Minister, that is not an answer. Are you incapable of telling the truth in confirming that they are the two options? I take it, from your inability to answer truthfully to either Senator Birmingham or me on those two alternatives, that those options are correct, that the evidence given to the committee was correct.

I ask the minister then—and I again warn the minister that, if he is not going to listen to my questions—

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

Senator Macdonald, just ask your question, please.

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

It is pointless asking it if the minister is clearly not listening, if his arrogance is such that he will not even listen to the questions, let alone answer them. If the minister is not prepared to do this, perhaps there are other members of the Labor Party who should be in the chamber who might be able to answer on behalf of the minister.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy perhaps.

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

I am sure we would get an answer from Senator Lundy. You are quite right, Senator Birmingham. Many of us think Senator Lundy was unfairly overlooked for this important post of communications minister. I have a lot of disagreements with Senator Lundy, but I have to say that, as far as telecommunications is concerned, Senator Lundy has, for a long, long period of time, had a real interest in the subject. She actually knew something about it. Telstra pulled the wool over Senator Conroy's eyes when he was the shadow minister. He had no idea what he was doing and was desperately searching for a policy. Telstra saw their opportunity, with an inexperienced person who had no idea about telecommunications, to spin him a line. So he went to the 2007 election promising he could give everyone a very-high-speed broadband network around Australia for $4.7 billion. Remember that?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Inflation's high!

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

Yes, inflation is high, Senator Williams. We are now up to $55 billion and rising by the hour. Senator Lundy certainly would not have fallen for that trick, Senator Birmingham. But one knows that this government does not always appoint its personnel on the basis of merit. But I am distracted.

I will ask the minister another question. Because he will not answer, I assume that what I have said is correct—that the developer of a greenfield site can either get NBN Co. to do it to for nothing or can pay a contractor to do the same job at the cost of the greenfield developer. Minister, can you, even with your minimal knowledge of business, explain to me why any greenfield developer would then engage a private contractor to install the infrastructure in a greenfield site, when he could get NBN Co. to do it for free? Why would any greenfield developer get a private contractor to do it?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I have already answered the questions, and Hansard will bear out that I did so, notwithstanding Senator Macdonald's attempt to then go on to verbal what I had to say. But I will repeat it. If Senator Macdonald is not satisfied with this answer, I cannot help him.

Where NBN Co. provides fibre, it will recover the cost on a national basis and over a longer time horizon, just as Telstra has historically done with the copper network. It is up to other providers as to how they charge and recover their costs. If alternative providers want to compete with NBN Co., they can, but it is on the understanding that they have the resources and capacity to do so.

I am not sure I can be any clearer or give you any further answer. You can change your question and ask it in five different ways and you will get the same answer.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister did this when we were last debating this legislation as well. He is pursuing the most misleading of arguments in this regard. He stands here and he says that Telstra provided and rolled out copper for free and that is why it is okay for the NBN Co. to do it with fibre. But there is of course a vastly different value offering at stake here, Minister. You are the one who has proclaimed that fibre is a far better value offering, and of course it is a far better value offering than copper.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last time I checked, you support fibre in greenfields. That's what Mr Turnbull said.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, Minister, we have made it perfectly clear that in the amendments we are proposing to this legislation we are not stopping the provisions for fibre to be provided in greenfields; we simply want the opportunity for it to be provided competitively, and that is the vast difference. You are somehow trying to say that NBN Co. being the provider of free fibre in greenfields premises is perfectly analogous to Telstra having provided free copper in greenfields developments. Transparently it is not, because they are vastly different value offerings. Transparently it is not. We have made clear that we think that, if you are going to have fibre provided in all of the greenfields developments, it should be provided by businesses on a competitive basis.

Do you know what, of course, has happened while Telstra has been providing copper for free in greenfields developments? Private businesses have established, offering a better value offering to developers, offering something that distinguishes them. What is that better value offering? Fibre. That is why we have competitive greenfields fibre operators, Minister. That is why they have sprung up around the country. They have sprung up to fill the void of Telstra simply rolling out copper for free. The developers who want to offer the purchasers of their homes a better value offering have decided to do a deal with competitive greenfields fibre operators and allow them to roll out fibre instead of Telstra simply providing a free copper service.

But your legislation destroys that business model for those people because you substitute the option that currently exists or has previously existed of developers either getting copper for free in a development or paying something to have fibre rolled out with the option of their now getting fibre for free or paying something to have fibre rolled out. Transparently you have destroyed the business model of those people, you have destroyed the offering that is there for them and you are setting them all up now to go out of business. It is little wonder that they have made such impassioned pleas to the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, that they have called for changes to this legislation and that the opposition has heeded those calls by proposing the amendments before the parliament at present.

As if it is not bad enough that you have failed to listen to those concerns of the stakeholders, failed to act on them and brought legislation into this place that will destroy their business model, you now reject opposition attempts to try to rectify your mistakes. You reject our initiative to try to restore something under which those people could keep their businesses going. In rejecting it, you then brush aside any serious questions that the opposition may have and you run misleading arguments by trying to compare it to a system that has now been abandoned of rolling out copper for free—versus rolling out fibre for free.

Your arguments are misleading. You need to acknowledge that. But you also need to answer the questions. Senator Macdonald has validly raised some questions, and I challenged you before, Minister, to say honestly whether you expect any competitive greenfields fibre operators to still be in the marketplace under the conditions your legislation establishes. Do you think there will be one? Do you think there will be any left, given the fact that you are putting in place a business model where developers can either get the fibre rolled out for free or they can pay for it? Like anybody with an ounce of common sense, they will go with the person who is providing it for free. Yes, if there is some technology beyond fibre that comes along, maybe we will then see something that is analogous to your copper story. If there is some technology that greenfields operators can offer that is bigger and better than NBN Co.'s fibre, maybe we will see people go for that—if there actually is a market demand for such things, which is a very big question at present.

But right now there is not. These business models have developed under the framework of offering a higher quality service of fibre compared to the free offering of copper. You are now making the minimum requirement fibre; that is the premise of this legislation. That is fine, but if you are making that the minimum offering you should do so in a manner that ensures you do not cut off the legs of the people who have been out there as the early adopters, the businesspeople who have invested their savings and their money to establish businesses that roll out fibre already in greenfields estates and have been doing so for some period of time. But you are just happy to lop off their legs, pull the rug out from underneath them and establish a new framework in which their business model is destroyed. So the simple question, Minister, is: do you think any of these businesses will survive?

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

It seems that the minister is deliberately refusing to answer legitimate questions put to him. Perhaps we should try and get some more members of the Labor Party in the chamber and see if they might be able to answer the questions if the minister either is incapable or is having a little bit of a sulk and does not want to do it himself. I am reluctant to disturb the business of other senators, but if we cannot get a response from the minister then perhaps we need to try and get Senator Lundy into the chamber to see if she could give an answer.

I will hope that the minister may get rid of whatever behaviour afflicts him at the present time and might be prepared to answer questions, so I will try again with the question of what this whole bill is about. Why would any developer of a greenfields site pay a private contractor to do work that the developer of the greenfields site can get from NBN Co. for free? When I say 'get from NBN Co. for free', that is effectively 'get from the taxpayers for free'. That seems to be the question that the minister is too embarrassed to answer. If the minister were answering the question truthfully, this is how he would do it. Senator Birmingham, you are not getting an answer from the minister, so perhaps I can pretend that I am the minister and give you the answer. 'Yes, Senator Birmingham, it is true. A developer of a greenfield site will have two options. Yes, one of the options is that you can get the infrastructure installed in a greenfield site for free if you get NBN to do it. But if you don't want to do that, if you want to get a private contractor to do it, you can do it but it will be at your cost. You will pay for it.' There is the answer, Senator Birmingham, to those two questions.

The answer to the question, 'Why would any greenfield developer engage a private contractor at his own cost when he can get it from NBN Co. for free?' is that I would doubt that he would do it. Perhaps the only reason a greenfield developer might want to get a private contractor to do it is that NBN Co. is so far behind in its so-called rollout that the rollout of fibre and infrastructure to greenfield sites is, like everything else with the NBN, behind the times. Therefore, the greenfield developer may consider that it is worth paying a private contractor to get it in straightaway and then adding that cost onto the purchaser of the greenfield site. Of course, what does that do? It puts up the cost of living. Whether it is buying a house, if the greenfield is a residential one, or whether it is buying a business park, it puts up the cost.

Heaven knows that in this country at the moment the thing that is concerning most Australians is the increase in the cost of living. Every Australian knows that, come the end of October, there is going to be another impost on their cost of living and that is called 'the carbon tax'. It is the tax that, a year ago, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised she would not be introducing under the government she led. The Prime Minister recognised that most Australians did not want a carbon tax, so every member and every candidate in the lower house of parliament bar one made a pledge to the Australian public that there would be no carbon tax under a government that either Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard might lead. Ms Gillard, the current Prime Minister, the temporary Prime Minister, is the one leading the Labor Party at the moment, as I speak; I have not seen the news, so perhaps she has already been rolled. I know Senator Conroy is one of those who is leading the push.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not looking happy enough.

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

Not that I have had the conversation with Senator Conroy, but I hear around the traps that Senator Conroy would not mind a change in the leadership of the Labor Party. My point is that this carbon tax, which we were promised we would not have, will add to the cost of living for every single Australian. The cost of power, electricity, gas and fuel will go up. Already Australians are struggling with additional costs of living. Yet, here is Senator Conroy playing his part in increasing the cost of living on Australians by allowing this situation to develop in the laying of fibre and infrastructure in a greenfield site. Notwithstanding that I have facetiously given the answer to my colleagues because the minister will not, let me ask the minister: was my answer correct? Minister, if you say, 'No, it wasn't,' can you then explain to us why any greenfield developer would pay for the installation of infrastructure to a private contractor when he can get it free from NBN Co?

I see Senator Ludlam, who is another person with an interest in this area, is in the chamber. If the minister is incapable of answering the question or is continuing his sulks and is not going to answer, perhaps I could ask Senator Ludlam, who is in coalition with the Labor Party—the Greens Party-Labor Party coalition. If Senator Conroy refuses to answer perhaps Senator Ludlam could assist the chamber. If I am wrong in my assumptions in the two questions I have answered, perhaps Senator Ludlam may be able to take the minister's role. I think he would be a lot better. He would know a lot more about it. That is not mindless flattery either, Senator Ludlam. I do not agree with you on much but I do recognise that you have an interest and an understanding of how this works. I may well be wrong with my answer but I do not think so. I think I understood the evidence. If I am wrong perhaps you could tell me, if the minister cannot, whether the two options the greenfield developer has are: NBN for free; private contractor you pay for? If that is the case, why would any greenfield developer go with a private contractor?

Perhaps I can have a third question. Does this mean that those in the private contracting business, those half a dozen people who gave evidence to the inquiry, will go out of business? My question is to the minister. If he is not capable, does not want or is still having some personal problems in giving an answer, then perhaps Senator Ludlam might be able to assist me in confirmation of what his Labor-Greens coalition alliance is doing on this. If we cannot get answers from them, then we might have to look further afield.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have already indicated, you can ask the same question 10 times in a row here today. You asked the same string of questions with Senator Birmingham the last time we were here in the chamber and got the same answer. It is clearly apparent that you are engaged in a filibuster—stamping your feet, refusing to debate and discuss and refusing to bring amendments to vote. You are engaged in a filibuster. When you referred to me filibustering earlier, I took it as a great compliment, coming as it did from probably the best filibusterer on the opposition side. Senator Macdonald, your capacity to generate your own outrage is at times truly a wonder to behold and at other times a comedy to behold.

As I have said, you can ask this question, Senator Birmingham and Senator Macdonald, 10 more times. I have given you the answer. There is no more information I can give you than the answer I have already given to your question. You can speculate. You can make up your own answers. You can have a conversation between yourselves, as you have been doing. But it is apparent to everybody, including those listening, that you are not interested in anything other than wasting the chamber's time as part of your ongoing 'We are opposed to everything' Tony Abbott approach. You can call quorums and you can threaten to call quorums, Senator Macdonald. It just exposes you as a complete and utter waster of the chamber's time.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lest I be accused of filibustering or taking undue time, let me keep it simple for the minister. Does he expect, as a result of his legislation, that some competitive greenfield providers of fibre will go out of business—yes or no?

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

That is a very reasonable and a very brief question from Senator Birmingham. I think that, if the minister is not capable, we really do need Senator Lundy down here to answer this, so I draw your attention to the state of the chamber, Madam Temporary Chairman. (Quorum formed)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we have the arrogance of the minister. He accused us of running a filibuster. I gave him the opportunity with a very short question on my part of just a few words to give us a direct yes or no answer to some of the key points we are trying highlight here. He sat there with his head down ignoring the chamber, ignoring the debate around him, showing the contempt and the arrogance that we expect of this government.

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

As he continues to do.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Kroger; he continues to do so. He lets a little smirk go across his face to let us know that he can hear the comments and that he knows what is being said, but he will not engage in the debate because he knows how wrong—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should try out for TheX Factor. This performance belongs on TV.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you. You can throw all the gratuitous praise, backhanded or otherwise, you like at us. The reality we have here is a government that knows there are problems with its legislation, that knows there will be adverse consequences as a result of this legislation, but is too gutless to admit it. That is the honest thing. I asked the minister whether, as a result of his legislation, businesses would go out of business, whether this bill would put people out of business. He did not have the courage to stand up and give an answer to that. He would not stand up and say, yes or no, this legislation will put private operators out of business. That is the contempt of this government: it will not admit, when it is bleedingly obvious to all, what the consequences of its legislation are. It will not actually tell the parliament and tell the Australian people the honest consequences of its proposals. That is all we are really trying to get out of the minister today. This is not a grand filibuster, whatever the minister may wish to say. We just want to get the government speaking honestly for once to the Australian people. Instead this government loves to speak with a forked tongue. This is what the minister said on 9 December last year:

It has been a consistent feature of the government's policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.

In practice, it does not continue to be the case. The minister can claim all he wants that freedom and choice remain in the market for people to use competing providers, but we have exposed through this debate the reality that there will be no market of competing providers. Providers will not be able to compete with the government's multibillion dollar monopoly enterprise that will roll the fibre out for free on new developments. Ipso, people will go out of business. Senator Conroy just will not front up and be honest enough to tell the parliament that this will be the consequence of his legislation. If he made it clear and said, 'We know that is the case, we know that is what will happen, but that is what we are doing anyway,' we might actually progress this debate. We might get somewhere if Senator Conroy was willing to openly admit the consequences of his legislation that he wants this chamber to vote on.

Sadly, I acknowledge that the amendments the coalition has proposed in response to genuine concerns of stakeholders are unlikely to succeed. Senator Ludlam has already indicated that the Greens will not be supporting these amendments. That is regrettable, but it is a fairly consistent pattern we see nowadays in the chamber where the government and the Greens agree on what they will or will not support and where changes will or will not be made. That is unfortunate, that is their right, but it does impede the opportunity of the committee to make sensible, reasonable improvements to legislation before it. These amendments will not be successful because of that agreement.

We continue this debate acknowledging that but wanting to see from the government an admission of the facts, an admission of how this legislation will work in reality. That is all we ask of you, Senator Conroy. Give us those facts, give us direct answers to direct questions, and we can move on and you will have your legislation. Sadly, we will see the consequences of it, but be upfront in admitting what those consequences are. That would be the reasonable thing to do. That would be the decent thing to do. That would ensure that you got your bill and we get to move on to the next item of business. Those people who have expressed concerns and know the implications of such legislation equally will know that you understand the implications, that you are not bereft of all knowledge in this space. I do not think you are. I think you do understand the implications of this and the only reason you are pursuing the approach you have taken in this legislation is to prop up the business model for the National Broadband Network. That is a business model that currently way out there on the never-never proclaims to deliver return to government and return to taxpayers. We know that is a long, long way away and, if you do not manage to distort the market through legislation like this, it will be even further away. That is another fact that you will not admit in this debate but should admit—that it will be further away for you to meet the business model of the NBN if you do not destroy competition in the Greenfields space.

The invitation is there, Senator Conroy. Stand up and give answers to questions, as Senator Macdonald so ably did before—give answers that acknowledge that these changes will dramatically change the business model for Greenfields operators, that in dramatically changing that business model all of them probably will go out of business, that jobs will be lost, that competition will be lost and that innovation will be lost. Acknowledge those things and acknowledge that you are just doing it to enhance the opportunities of your monopoly broadband provider, NBN Co. Be upfront, say all of those things and we will move on to the next amendment—that will be that. That is the invitation to you, Senator Conroy. Simply be upfront with the Australian people and particularly with these small- and medium-sized businesses that have been built on the hard work of innovators, of people who built a business based on a market opportunity to provide fibre where it was not otherwise being provided, who have embraced the type of technological change and innovation that this country should be encouraging in the private sector, and that you are going to put out of business.

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

I will be very brief. The minister seems determined to carry on this debate. I do not know what his thinking is in trying to filibuster this bill. I can only assume that he has not done the proper deal with the Greens yet. For some reason he is trying to delay the bill. I do not want to be part of that, so I will be very brief and very specific in my question.

Minister, the questions Senator Birmingham and I have been asking all deal with the cost to consumers of the NBN. Is it correct that early NBN prices published by retail service providers indicate that, while the prices for a basic ADSL2 equivalent package are, according to my research, slightly above plans that are currently available to consumers of the internet, the RSPs have factored in significant price premiums to upgrade to faster speeds? Currently, you can get a 12-megabit package for around $50 to $60. I understand that under the NBN you are going to be able to get about the same—no great benefit—for 12 megabits per second. There is no great difference but perhaps a clearer signal. With the $55 billion price for the NBN that taxpayers are putting in, the average Australian consumer will get about the same service of 12 megabits per second from the NBN as they are currently getting through ADSL2. If you want to take advantage of what the minister tells us is the benefit of fibre to the home and upgrade to 100 megabits per second, then you will pay a premium on that of anywhere from $40 extra, making your total bill per month something like close to $100 or, depending on the provider, I have seen published prices taking it up to $150 to $200 per month.

This has always been my very great concern about this whole NBN fiasco: whilst everybody in Australia wants a faster broadband service, can the ordinary Australian afford it? I do not want to labour this point but that is bearing in mind, as I said before, that we are going to have a carbon tax shortly—in spite of the Prime Minister's promise a year ago that there would be no carbon tax, we are going to get it—and everybody acknowledges that it is going to increase the cost of living, so everybody's prices will increase. Yet when you come to look at the broadband service you need, will you not take the service that has done you well to date, ADSL2? Perhaps there will be a little bit sharper focus. Perhaps it will be a little bit clearer. But the speed will be much the same for much the same price, albeit $55 billion of taxpayers' money has been paid for no great service. If you want to increase to 100 megabits per second, then fibre to your home will be very good. But will most Australians be able to afford the extra $40, $50, $60 or $70 on top of the basic price? Will they be able to afford that, bearing in mind that the cost of living is already going to go up in the next few years because of Ms Gillard's carbon tax that she promised we would not be having?

So, with the cost of living already going up, will the average Australian, already under pressure from cost increases, be able to afford this? Minister, that is relevant to this bill because the scenarios that Senator Birmingham and I have been asking you about are really, at the bottom line, all about the cost of the NBN and adding it to it. You are saying, as I understand you, that if NBN put it in for free they are going to recover it later, which I can only assume is an increase of the price that it will charge retail service providers. That is the only assumption that I can make from your answer before. The alternative is that you will get a private contractor to do it at these greenfield sites, which is at an additional cost which will also be added onto the price of the land that you are buying and therefore onto the price of your mortgage, so it will increase your payments. Again, that will put pressure on Australians who are already struggling with cost-of-living increases and who are going to struggle even more with the carbon tax that Ms Gillard promised she would not be introducing. So it is relevant to that, minister. I see you get excited when we talk about the prices but I would be delighted to hear your response to those questions I have put to you about the price and the service that you get for that and why Australians, already under cost pressures, will be prepared to pay that additional cost to get this service that you indicate everyone is just waiting for.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always admired your capacity to find the most tenuous link possible, but I will concede you have found a tenuous link for your questions, so I am happy to respond because there is just a glimmer that this is all relevant to the bill. Unfortunately, some of your base assumptions are wrong and you are not comparing apples with apples; that is probably the short answer. Firstly, prices are forecast to fall under the NBN business plan. That is the first thing, so the question about recovering through increased prices over time is wrong. As for the words 'over time', 'over time' was referring to the length of years to generate the return. The seven per cent return is over time. So your concern that it meant that NBN was putting up prices was unfounded. I will be kind and say it was unfounded.

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

What? The five per cent is over—

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

Senator Macdonald, could you let the minister finish, please.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not a business plan. I talked about the business plan.

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

So the business plan is different from reality?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the business plan is about the stated intentions of NBN Co. and they have forecast that all their prices go down in either nominal terms or real terms over time.

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

So who is asking for CPI plus five per cent then?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are referring to a draft submission for public comment, which the ACCC will consider. I think on the weekend Mr Sims was asked if he considered this to be an ambit claim, to which he politely declined passing comment as it was only a draft and had not actually been submitted by NBN Co.

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

But who is asking for it then?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I have answered your question about prices. Now, as to your deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian public about the prices of NBN Co. and speeds—and I do say deliberate—if you chose to do more research rather than simply parroting what you read in the Australian you would find—

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

This was in a Senate committee report.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, would you please let the minister finish.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a remotely researched attempt by the opposition members! Exetel have already announced publicly—it is on their website if you bother to click on it—that their entry-level prices are about $35 for 12-meg speeds down. That is very, very competitive and in terms of the speeds received it is better than most Australians get today. For $37 or $38, they are offering 25 megabits down and, I think, five up. That is better than any existing copper speed, unless you live in the house next door to the exchange. And it is better than that because those ADSL connections even next door cannot do that sort of uplink speed.

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

This is Exetel.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exetel—you can look them up. They are not fans of mine. They are not fans of yours, apparently. Mr Fletcher decided to attack them because they dared to put out a price that did not agree with your claims about increased prices. In that other place, Mr Fletcher actually attacked them because they dared to offer a very cheap price. You come into this chamber and attack Internode and quote their prices as being too expensive. So, on the one hand, one company is attacked for offering prices that are too cheap—an NBN price—and, on the other hand, you come into this chamber and attack a company known as a premium provider, an excellent provider, Internode, and attack them for being too expensive. You cannot have it both ways—but actually you can. You can get one of you to talk out of one side of your mouth and attack a company. And then there is Dodo, whose chief executive has indicated that they will be offering prices below $40. What happened? Mr Fletcher attacked Dodo. Two companies have proved what a deliberately deceitful campaign is being run by those opposite.

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

Tell me about Dodo. Tell me about them.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Dodo. It is a deliberately deceitful campaign. But what did those opposite do? They went into the chamber and, under parliamentary privilege, attacked two companies—

Senator Kroger interjecting—

Yes, I know, shocking, Senator Kroger. It is almost as shocking as that football result was for you on the weekend. Shocking! They attacked two Australian companies for daring to disprove the deliberately misleading campaign. But then you come in here and cry crocodile tears and criticise it for being too pricy. Let me be clear: Exetel—in the marketplace today and available on NBN fibre today—$35 for 12 down and one up and $37 for 25 down and five up. That is better than anybody can get on a piece of copper in this country today. It is better than anything. So you are not comparing apples with apples when you talk about copper ADSL doing 24 down, if you are lucky, and you live in the house next to the exchange. Never bother to discuss what you can get up. Your claims about pricing are completely unfounded and should be viewed as deliberately misleading. But let the message be very clear: any company that dares to disprove Mr Turnbull or Senator Macdonald's claims that people cannot afford the National Broadband Network will be attacked under parliamentary privilege. They will be attacked and criticised because they have dared to prove that Mr Turnbull's claims—those opposite's claims—are completely, deliberately misleading.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we have from the minister ducking, dodging and weaving around the very direct matter that Senator Macdonald raised about what NBN Co. is doing in reality. Maybe in their business plan they talk about reducing costs over time, but when it comes to dealing with the regulators they are doing something very, very different, Minister. Yes, it was an NBN Co. discussion paper—a discussion paper that went to the ACCC. It proposes allowing price hikes of up to five per cent above inflation on the price of broadband services in Australia. It proposes up to five per cent above inflation. We see them arguing in their discussion paper, which I will quote from:

This commercial flexibility is ... necessary because NBN Co is subject to considerable demand uncertainty.

Demand uncertainty! Wow! And there I was thinking that the minister had always assured us that the demand was very certain, that the projections were of course very clear, that the projections were modest, that the projections were conservative and that we could all have confidence in the business plan of this NBN Co. What do we have NBN Co. saying? Let me quote further from them:

Demand uncertainty remains in relation to issues such as the price payable by end-users for broadband services over time ...

What have Mr Turnbull and the opposition been saying consistently about this? We have been saying consistently that there is no certainty that people want to pay for the very, very high speeds at the far higher prices that NBN Co. will be offering. There is no certainty that people will want or embrace more than the basic service offering in the main from NBN Co. That is what the opposition have been saying consistently in our arguments about whether this is a valid investment and whether this investment is one for which the Australian taxpayers should be paying up to the tune of $30-plus billion in construction costs and many billions of dollars in payments to Telstra and Optus that we now see come with 'stay quiet' clauses, with shut up clauses essentially, that stop Telstra and Optus from actually advocating their own wireless services as competitive alternatives to NBN Co.'s fibre service. So we see the government and NBN Co. operating in a very, very different way from what they say.

Once again, it is case of this government, as I have said before, speaking with a forked tongue on these matters as they do on so many other matters, whether it is the NBN Co. or a raft of other matters such as their assurances on the carbon tax and bringing the budget back into surplus. On all of these matters, they say one thing but in the end they ultimately find themselves doing something very, very different. In this regard the minister claims he wants to maintain competition in terms of fibre deployment on greenfield sites, yet he is asking this parliament to pass legislation that does quite the opposite. He says that NBN Co. is going to bring prices down over time and that the NBN Co. business plan facilitates prices being brought down over time. Yet, when it comes to the crunch of dealing with the competition regulator, NBN Co. goes and seeks precisely the opposite. The chair of the ACCC, Mr Sims, may wish to consider it an ambit claim by NBN Co., but you have to ask, then, what type of culture the minister has established in setting up the NBN Co. such that they are out there making ambit claims, wanting to set themselves up in a manner that allows them to rip off the Australian public and the Australian consumer as much as they possibly can. NBN Co. is stepping into the public domain and saying, 'We would quite like to be able to raise prices by five per cent above inflation. We think that's a perfectly reasonable thing for us to do.' Never mind the fact, as Senator Macdonald rightly highlighted, that at present so many Australians face real cost-of-living pressures. We have seen the prices of housing and basic utilities like electricity, gas and water skyrocket during the duration of this government. All of those people will only face additional pressures under the government's planned carbon tax, and now we have the minister setting up his multimillion dollar, taxpayer funded, debt riddled monopoly of NBN Co., which wants to put prices up by more than five per cent.

When we ask them why they want to put prices up by more than five per cent, or when they are asked by the ACCC to provide evidence to justify why they want to put prices up by more than five per cent, they cite demand uncertainty as the reason they want that approval and that authority to raise prices by more than five per cent above inflation—demand uncertainty! Once again, this government and this minister are speaking about the NBN with forked tongues. Once again, the government is coming in here and proclaiming that its business model is certain, that the billions of dollars that taxpayers are in hock for on this NBN are secure. The reality, though, is a vastly different story. Taxpayers certainly do not face any semblance of security from this NBN Co. They do not have security and they will face enormous debts to the public purse for years and years to come. As you fund the building of this NBN you are forking out many billions of dollars.

But what did we see yesterday in the tabling of the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN, the committee that looked at this legislation that is before us? It has also now provided its first update report on the NBN. We found that the NBN was unable to provide that committee with the most basic of key performance indicators, with the most basic of details about how taxpayers' money is being spent. That committee would dearly have loved to be able to report in a manner which provided details on just how much taxpayer money has been provided to NBN Co. to date. Of the billions of dollars forecast to be given to NBN Co. in the current financial year, how much has already been handed over? How much have they spent? That is detail we would like to have known. We would like to know how much they have spent on their many inflated executive salaries versus how much they have spent on deploying and delivering fibre, wireless and satellite services. But no, we could not get any of those things.

Could we perhaps get some basic information about how much fibre has been deployed by NBN Co.? Could they tell the joint standing committee that in any decent type of KPI? No. We did not have detail of how much fibre had been deployed. How about how many premises have been passed by? How many households and businesses have been passed by? Once again, the government was incapable of telling the standing committee, through NBN Co., how many premises have been passed by, how many of those premises have opted to have a connection to the NBN and how many of them have taken up services.

Every so often, at a time of its own choosing, the government and NBN Co. drip feed titbits of this information. But what we really want for the NBN, and what the Australian public should rightly demand for the NBN, when the government is spending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money—all of which is borrowed, all of which is public debt on this project—is some level of accountability. The people rightly expect some level of transparency.

When the government shut down scrutiny of NBN Co. in regard to the application of FOI laws, when the government refused to allow the longstanding Public Works Committee of this parliament to scrutinise the building of the nation's largest ever public works infrastructure project, what did they say? They said, 'We will give you a special forum to ensure the accountability of the NBN and to ensure transparency.' 'That special forum we will give you,' they said, 'is the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN.' What are we getting out of that? Of course, we are getting sweet little out of that because the government refuses and NBN Co. is unable to provide a series of consistent updates on key performance indicators about what is actually happening. So much for that being the vehicle of transparency and accountability for this project, because the government has failed terribly to provide the information necessary for the committee to act as a vehicle for transparency and accountability. Again we see the government speak with a forked tongue in this regard. They promised that this joint standing committee would be the vehicle for transparency, but they are failing to deliver.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong wants to join in the debate. As finance minister, she should be very, very concerned about Senator Conroy's application of this project. Senator Wong, of course, is the joint shareholder of the NBN.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

South Australians want it.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to raise South Australia, Senator Wong? I will give you a little hint there: South Australia is the one state for which NBN Co. has failed to deliver a contract to deliver the fibre. So South Australia is actually coming last with regard to the NBN. South Australia is not getting the fibre deployment that your government has promised, and what is that going to mean? What that means is we will see—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Temporary Chair: one and a half hours in this chamber and those opposite have not once been relevant to the bill. Not one vote in one and a half hours. Nothing but a shameless filibuster is going on in this chamber right now. I ask you to draw the senator back to the bill.

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

There is no point of order.

Progress reported.