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

Under standing order 74(5), I ask that Senator Fifield remain in the chamber given the notice I gave him earlier today. Pursuant to standing order 74(5)(a), I ask Senator Fifield, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, why, after more than 30 days, answers have not been provided by Minister Turnbull for the following questions on notice from the February 2014 environment and communications Senate estimates. Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 151, 200, 201, 202, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 220, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327 and 328.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Urquhart. I can inform the Senate that answers to those questions will be provided in the near future. The communications portfolio is working to ensure that senators are given the most accurate information possible. However, I do feel duty-bound to point out that I think Senator Urquhart may have a relatively short memory; I appreciate she has not been in this place for a very long time. Senator Conroy, as former minister for communications, often provided answers to questions from the previous communications estimates hearings well after the next round of estimates hearings had begun. I can assure Senator Urquhart that that sort of disrespect to the accountability mechanisms of this place will not be occurring.

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

I move that in accordance with standing order 74(5) (b):

The Senate take note of the explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, as to why these 55 questions on notice have not been answered within the time frame of 30 days set by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

In doing so, I note that not one of the 446 questions on notice from Senate estimates in the communications portfolio have been answered—not one from the portfolio area called communications, from Minister Turnbull, who speaks so much about transparency, so much about open government, so much about providing the facts to the community about this portfolio area, so much about better communication. Minister Turnbull needs to be judged by his own standards. Minister Turnbull has not run around saying his mission is pay back for any tardiness showed by the former government in answering questions; he has instead clearly said his mission is to be open. This is a minister who promised time and again for greater transparency, promised to open the books on the National Broadband Network, promised to be consultative and engage with stakeholders. Yet this parliament cannot get even get answers to simple questions within a reasonable time frame. Mr Turnbull needs to decide, and indeed his colleagues need to decide, to what standard should Minister Turnbull be judged—the standard he set for himself or the standard of the Minister for the Environment, Minister Hunt, who despite destroying much of what is good in environmental policy has actually found the time to answer most of the questions on notice in the environment portfolio, the other area of responsibility for the relevant Senate committee.

I acknowledge that 446 is a lot of questions for any department to handle, particularly a small department like the Department of Communications. I also acknowledge that there were a lot of corporate questions asked by the opposition as well. But the questions I placed on notice go to the heart of this government's policy—or lack thereof—in communications. There is no need to hold all of the answers back.

Minister Hunt's department, with the vast changes they were undergoing, were able, in dribs and drabs, to provide many answers. It is not ideal to receive answers to a few questions one day and a few the next, but it is much better than not receiving any at all. Why is Minister Turnbull's department—which is not being made to go through changes as significant as those at the Department of the Environment—incapable of meeting the reporting date for even one question? It shows a contempt for the Senate estimates process and a contempt for this place—this from a minister who promised to be more open and accountable than previous ministers.

I will not use the Senate's time to outline every one of the 55 questions on notice that have not been answered, but I will highlight a few, because it is important to put on record the importance of these questions for communications policy in this country—and it is important that Minister Turnbull provides answers to these questions before Senate estimates starts in just ten days' time. Question No. 80 goes to the very heart of Minister Turnbull's claim that he would be more transparent. I asked for the monthly ready-for-service reports that used to be published on the NBN Co website. These are still collated by the department. They used to be made public. Why can they not be provided? It seems simple. I guess not.

I also asked why there is more information on Telstra's website about plans to upgrade copper exchanges than there is on NBN Co's website about its future plans. Again, it is a simple question: justify what is and what is not on NBN Co's website. The government does not control Telstra, so the question is one of simple analysis—a simple comparison of transparency between NBN Co's website and Telstra's.

Question Nos 62 to 67 seek detail about the conduct of the independent cost-benefit analysis and review of regulation. This review is due to report by the middle of June and the Senate is entitled to answers to questions about what directions have been given to the panel of experts, what resources are available to them and how their recommendations will be used to shape the rollout of the Turnbull broadband network.

Question Nos 68 and 70 seek details on how much information the government has about current network coverage, which is important in assessing the funding in the budget for new communications infrastructure. Question Nos 71 to 95 seek further detail about the current state of the NBN and the strategic review, as well as statements made about both.

It is Minister Turnbull's NBN now. It is up to Minister Turnbull to outline where it is at and what the plans are for the future. In my home state of Tasmania, people are getting frustrated about a range of NBN issues that have nothing to do with the former government and everything to do with this government. People need information to be able to make decisions—and the 'Minister for Transparency', as he was going to be, is doing a fantastic job of not giving it to them.

Question Nos 202 and 203 refer to progress with e-government, which has since been identified by the National Commission of Audit as a way to achieve genuine improvements in government efficiency but on which there appears to be no action. Probably the longest policy those opposite took to their three-word-slogan election was the one on e-government, yet they are unable to answer two simple questions about progress in making it happen. E-government will no doubt be a large part of the red tape reduction agenda, but this government is too caught up in itself to answer two small questions on progress in this area. I guess 'red tape reduction' is just another three-word slogan.

Then there is question No. 220. No wonder they did not want to answer this question before the budget was announced. The various parts of the question were introduced with the comment:

In relation to Australia Network, presumably the provision of Australia Network's service is intertwined with Radio Australia and other parts of the ABC, that there are resources, including staff, which are shared.

The first component of the question, then, was:

What would the impact be on jobs and resources at the ABC if Australia Network was taken off the ABC or shut down?

The second part of the question was:

How many jobs only involved in Australia Network would be cut?

The third part of the question was:

What would be the impact on Radio Australia, and what would be the impact on all other parts of the ABC?

The final part of the question was:

What would be the impact of this on each state?

One wonders if we will ever get an answer to this question—much less in the next ten days.

Their horror budget moved to strip our ABC of the Australia Network and give it, no doubt, to one of their mates in the corporate media—the corporate media that is well-known currently for the ridiculous street punch-up between Mr James Packer and Mr David Gyngell, the corporate media that is still on trial in England for phone tapping, and the corporate media part of which actually wrote about the huge impact on families and low-income earners of this government's twisted priorities budget. It is no wonder that this question has not been answered.

This is a government that spoke ad nauseum about transparency before the election but is proving to be the most secretive and the most deceitful in living memory. It is not good enough that no questions on notice—not one—have been answered by Minister Turnbull. He should be ashamed of this fact and he should move to rectify the situation immediately.

Question agreed to.