Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

What a complete disaster the mismanagement of the nbn by this government has been. It is not just limited to the multibillion dollar cost blow-out. So desperate has Mr Turnbull's position been to distract from his mismanagement of nbn that in April this year he asked nbn co to cook up this fictitious cost for Labor's nbn, to give him something else to hide behind. This is not just cowardly; this is incredibly appalling governance and completely at odds with the government's oversight guidelines for Commonwealth companies. That is exactly what I asked Senator Cormann to address—the fact that the Commonwealth Government Business Enterprise Governance and Oversight Guidelines requires GBEs to avoid activities that could give rise to questions about their political impartiality.

Clearly, the minister did not answer this question and, clearly, Mr Turnbull's promise that his so-called 'multitechnology mix' version of the nbn would be rolled out faster and cheaper has not happened. In fact, what we have had is an incredible doubling of the cost, an incredible blow-out from some $29.5 billion to the cost now of some $56 billion.

What I am particularly concerned about are the good governance issues surrounding this. Those are particularly what I asked about. Particularly what I am concerned about is how the Senate requested today that the government come clean about whether the inclusion of a political counterfactual, which ministers knew would not replicate the rigour of nbn co's business plan, is consistent with section 1.7 of the Commonwealth GBE guidelines. The guidelines do require GBEs to maintain the highest standards of integrity, accountability and responsibility.

I cannot see how they have done that. In fact, I think they have done the opposite of that, wherein lie the credibility of this government, the integrity of this government and the good governance arrangements of this government and of this Prime Minister. It was under this Prime Minister's watch as Minister for Communications—as he was in April—that this has occurred. After two years as Minister for Communications all that Mr Turnbull has left behind is a version of the nbn best described as 'Malcolm Turnbull's mess'. He has no-one else to blame for this failure but himself.

Of course, he has been obsessed with connecting Australians to the nbn by using 20th century copper. Then he went ahead with his second-rate nbn on the basis of a dodgy policy and some very bad advice. The financial return to taxpayers from the coalition's second-rate nbn has completely crashed. In December 2013 we were assured that the rate of return would be up to 5.3 per cent. Now, it will be 3.5 per cent at best. This has been a complete shemozzle and a complete embarrassment for this Prime Minister, who was the Minister the Communications. It has been a complete mismanagement of nbn and, as I said, not just limited to the multibillion dollar cost blow-out that we have seen and listened to today through Minister Cormann's answer.

Distracting people from that mismanagement has been the key for this government. 'Let's distract them from the mismanagement by cooking up a fictitious cost for Labor's nbn.' This was to give them something to hide behind. That really is what has happened here, and it beggars belief how they would cook the books to cover up their own incompetence instead of actually addressing the multibillion dollar nbn blow-out that they have now put forward.

The irony with all of this is that it is not just a multibillion-dollar blow-out so that we have a better NBN—we still end up with the same second-rate NBN, the same second-rate version, rolling out slower than he promised and costing up to a whopping $26.5 billion more than he promised. That is Mr Turnbull's legacy as Minister for Communications. It has been an absolute disaster and I do not see it getting better under his Prime Ministership. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say that I think that the NBN is a fantastic infrastructure project and I think that the majority of Australians think that it is a great project. What I find extraordinarily disappointing in the questions that were asked today and in the contribution that we just heard from Senator Singh is that, for some strange and wondrous reason, despite the fact that the Labor Party when they were in government were the architects of the original idea of the NBN, they are now in the process of trying to tear it down. I would have thought that two years on from the change of government, with the rollout of the NBN starting to accelerate—we are starting to see some real results out there, with over a million people able to get access to the NBN, with the first satellite going up last week, which covers an area that is very close to my heart: the rural and regional areas of Australia—they would actually be starting to look at some of the more positive aspects of it and they would be starting to prosecute the best and most cost-effective way of delivering the NBN into the future. But, no, no, no; they are still sitting here two years after this government was elected and they are still trying to defend a legacy of the previous Minister for Communications; they are still here trying to defend the indefensible. It is very disappointing because, as I said, I am a great supporter of the NBN. I know that many people who live in South Australia are looking forward to being able to get access to the NBN—and yet it seems that all the opposition want to do here is to drag down what I think is a fabulous infrastructure project.

The issue on which those opposite were questioning today was in relation to a letter sent by the shareholder ministers to the nbn co asking them if they would undertake a comparison of the different technologies that are proposed for the NBN. As we know, when the coalition came into government, it was realised that there was a shortfall in the budget and something needed to be done about making sure that the NBN was affordable and could be delivered on time. For those opposite to stand here today and to make comments like 'cooked up', 'fictitious costs', 'politically motivated', 'counterfactual', 'distorted'—where are the facts? Where is the evidence to substantiate these comments? It is absolutely outrageous.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what the letter says. Read the letter.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest that Senator Carr, who is happily interjecting, because he does not seem to be able to make any other contribution apart from interjections, would have been standing here and criticising the government if they had not undertaken a comparison. I am sure he would have been asking, 'How on earth does the government actually know that the most cost-effective method of delivering the NBN isn't fibre-to-the-premise?' if we had not undertaken an investigation or an analysis of that particular model.

So we need to stop being hypocritical and we need to stop carrying on prosecuting something that is dead and buried now. Let's get on with looking at what is going to be positive for Australians into the future. As I said, I can see this is a great project. I congratulate Senator Conroy for coming up with the idea of the NBN. Just because we do not necessarily agree about how some of the delivery has taken place, and we may still disagree on the methods and the mix of technologies that are about to be rolled out, that does not mean that we do not all think this is a fabulous project. I would ask those opposite to step back from their political carry-on and let all of us work together to deliver this fantastic project for Australia.

I want to briefly make a comment in relation to another question that was asked, in relation to water buybacks. I am really disappointed at the level of scaremongering that is going on in the context of water about where the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder sits, who has primary carriage of the water, what is my delegated responsibility in the water space et cetera. All we are doing by carrying on like this is causing great concern, upset and uncertainty for the irrigators and the communities that live in the Murray-Darling Basin.

So I would ask those opposite to please consider, before you start carrying on with this kind of behaviour, the people who are most likely to be affected by it. I draw to your attention a press release by the National Irrigators' Council, who made the comment that they are 'sick and tired of being used as political pawns as politicians try to whip up fear to wedge each other for electoral gain in marginal Adelaide seats'. Both Minister Joyce and I live in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a first. This should be a good thing. I think we are in a better position than before to know what is possibly in the best interests of not just the basin but the basin communities. I am very much looking forward to working with Minister Joyce to deliver good environmental, economic and social outcomes for the entire Murray-Darling Basin.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments in relation to the question I asked around the Public Service enterprise bargaining that is going on at the moment and the answers provided by Senator Cash, particularly her comments where she said she valued the role of public servants and believes that they should be well paid but that this should be within reasonable community standards. She then went on to make a whole range of statements about 'in the real world where real Australians live'—I think again trying to perpetuate the myth that public servants are not real Australians and do not live in the real world. I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister for Employment that the vast majority of public servants are living on average wages. The vast majority of the Commonwealth's employees earn average wage incomes. These people, these public servants, people who turn up and provide services to the community as part of their work, have been denied a fair pay offer and denied any pay increase for more than two years now. So I do not think it is fair for those statements to be made about real Australians living in the real world only getting a real pay rise if they show real productivity. The Public Service show productivity improvements all the time. It is a constant in the work they do, because they are always asked to do more to implement government policy and agenda, often without any additional resourcing. The fact that under this government the Public Service are now probably being asked to produce a higher amount of work, with 17,700 fewer staff than a couple of years ago, is a testament to the productivity gains that are being made across the service simply as a result of the job cuts that have been viciously pursued by this government.

With the pay offer as it stands, and the bargaining framework that the government has put in place, we all understand the conservative drive to reduce wages, conditions and working standards for ordinary workers. We can see that with the attacks on penalty rates and in other areas, and we are seeing it enforced in the Australian Government Public Sector Workplace Bargaining Policy. It is exactly this policy that is stopping the resolution of bargaining across the APS. We know that the executives within agencies have no ability to resolve these EBAs, the enterprise agreements, with their staff, because of the constraints that have been put on them by this framework. The constraints around the 1½ per cent, the productivity savings and the reduction of conditions being sought by the government are stopping the agencies having any capacity to bargain or to fix any problems that relate to the individual agencies. That is why, after 18 months of bargaining and some two years without a wage increase, we see that 96 per cent of public servants still do not have a new agreement in place.

When you look at those agreements that have gone to a vote, you see that 91 per cent in Immigration and Border Protection, 83 per cent in Human Services and 81 per cent in the Productivity Commission have voted no to the offer. These staff are making a decision that it is actually better to have a wage freeze—or, essentially, a real wage cut—than it is to settle for what the Commonwealth government is offering its employees. I note that in DHS, a big employer where the majority of the staff are at the APS 3 or APS 4 level—primarily because they work in Centrelink or Medicare—the main reasons that people have voted no are (1) the pay offer; (2) that the streamlining of their enterprise agreements, as mandated by the bargaining policy, will cost them some of their entitlements; (3) that they do not think that they will get salary advancement; and (4) that the family-friendly conditions were threatened. These are the reasons that your staff are saying they cannot settle for 1½ per cent, because of all the strings attached.

There are 152,000 public servants who need a pay rise and deserve a pay rise, and this government should prioritise the settling of these agreements now.

Jo Lindgren (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions and give a response. Labor has had no plan, cost analysis, business analysis or risk analysis around the NBN. Unlike the Labor Party, the government stakeholders have a plan that includes good governance and transparency. The coalition's plan is a rigorous one, and it delivers a scheme that is the best value for money. We want to make sure all Australians get the best in a timely manner.

The coalition has asked the GBEs to properly assess all options. This is because we have high standards of accountability and transparency, and there are definitely no conspiracies as suggested by the other side. We know that under Labor there were cost blow-outs. The Financial Review states:

Labor has no credibility in this area … It went from $4.7 billion in 2007, to $42 billion in 2009 and is to cost at least $56 billion today.

Labor's announcement says that 'it will reinvigorate the National Broadband fibre-optic-cable-to-every-home Network', but it does not—let me repeat: it does not—share any details. As we know on this side of the chamber, having no plan means cost blow-outs.

As usual, Labor like to fling mud, but the fact is that Labor's announcements always lack the important details. Their policies are often expensive jokes, and under Labor the NBN rollout was a slow-moving train wreck. Under the coalition, the NBN will be fully complete by 2020. Labor need to explain how they will pay for it and how long they will keep Australians waiting for superfast broadband.

All Australians should have access to high-speed broadband. Under the coalition, every household and business in Australia—a total of about 12 million premises by the time the rollout finishes—will be connected and directly affected. The coalition is committed to delivering fast broadband to all Australians sooner and at least cost to taxpayers. Under Labor, a miserable 51,000 users were on the network two years ago. Today there are more than 570,000 subscribers. The NBN Corporate Plan shows that by the end of June 2016 around one in four premises will have access to the NBN, and by the end of June 2018 around three-quarters of homes and businesses will have access.

Under the coalition, the NBN is now meeting its financial and deployment targets, a far cry from under Labor, when it only met 17 per cent of its deployment forecasts. Labor has a history of mismanagement. The history includes some of the most mismanaged projects in the history of the government. Under the previous government, around $6.5 billion was spent to deliver broadband to two per cent of premises. A government cost-benefit analysis of the NBN found that the coalition government's project would deliver $18 billion of economic benefits to Australia, compared to $2 billion of benefits that were being facilitated through Labor. An analysis of Labor's model shows that it would not be finished until 2026 at the earliest, and as late as 2028. This is disastrous for Australia's competitiveness in the digital economy and would leave millions stranded with very poor or no broadband for more than a decade. This is an unacceptable trade-off.

The coalition government's project remains on track and is to be completed by 2020. The Burdekin cost-benefit analysis found that our approach will deliver $6 billion of extra benefits and around $10 billion lower cost due do its earlier deployment. Under our watch, the company is now acting in a reliable and businesslike manner, delivering fibre to premises on time and on cost.

Labor has announced today that a future Labor government would scrap the multitechnology approach. The NBN rollout under Labor was slow and costly compared to that of the coalition, where the NBN will be fully complete by 2020. The NBN now has end-users to prove it. For the vast majority of households across Australia, the coalition's NBN will provide the same high-speed and high-quality service no matter what underlying broadband technology is used. The Labor Party is also ignoring incredibly valuable HFC networks that currently pass four million homes. A technology infrastructure mix is the best way forward.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The evidence is now in that Mr Turnbull was a failure as a communications minister. What is more, it is clear that he is aware of the fact that he was a failure as a communications minister and that his tenure in that role has been a disaster for our country. We know that Mr Turnbull promised that his second-rate NBN would be built for $29.5 billion. That cost has doubled. It has gone up to $56 billion. Why else would Mr Turnbull seek to get information about costing on the fibre-to-the-premises model from nbn co?

We know that Mr Turnbull previously ruled out fibre to the premises as an option. In fact, in August 2013, Mr Turnbull went so far—and it was seen as quite controversial at the time—as to say that fibre to the premises was 'largely superseded' by the coalition's preferred model. Why would the communications minister and the finance minister write to nbn co to ask them to spend precious taxpayer resources on examining a technology which Mr Turnbull previously said has been largely superseded? We know that his second-rate version of the NBN is rolling out slower than what was promised. As I indicated, it will cost up to a whopping $26.5 billion more than what was promised.

I am interested in a recent article published by the Business Insider on 9 September 2015 which talks about the fact that:

… with the release in August of the 2016 NBN corporate plan and in the light of overseas developments, it is clear that the Coalition’s broadband network will not provide adequate bandwidth, will be no more affordable than Labor’s FTTP network and will take almost as long to roll out.

This is quite a damning assessment. This is not a Labor Party assessment of the government's approach to the NBN. This is from the Business Insider website. The Business Insider looked at affordability and identified that Labor's funding estimates ended up being about $44.9 billion. The article went on to say:

By comparison, the Coalition’s funding estimates … have fluctuated wildly.

Before the 2013 election, the coalition claimed that its technology mix network would cost less than one-third, or 30 per cent, of Labor's FTTP based NBN. It is quite clear that they have not taken into account the cost of repairing and maintaining Telstra's ageing copper network. This was underestimated, as was the cost of retraining and maintaining a workforce with the wider range of skills needed to install and maintain the so-called multitechnology mix network. These costs are unique to the MTN. In the space of two years, the lower-cost deal the coalition spruiked to Australian voters has turned out to be not so affordable after all.

The financial return to taxpayers from the coalition's second-rate NBN has also crashed. We were assured that it would be up to 5.3 per cent; now, it will be 3.5 per cent at best. Mr Turnbull's mismanagement of the NBN is not just limited to the multibillion dollar tax blow-outs. As I said, he is so determined to distract from his mismanagement of the NBN that in April he asked the nbn co to cook up a fictitious cost for Labor's NBN to give them something to hide behind. This is not just cowardly; it is appalling governance, completely at odds with the governance and oversight guidelines for Commonwealth companies.

Malcolm Turnbull promised that his so-called multitechnology mix version of the NBN would be rolled out faster and cheaper. Mr Turnbull has no-one to blame for this failure but himself. Obsessed with connecting Australians to the NBN using 20th century copper, he went ahead with a second-rate NBN on the basis of a dodgy policy and some very bad advice.

Question agreed to.