Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works met this morning and there was almost universal unhappiness with the minister’s letter to the PWC that was received this morning. There was no explanation in the minister’s letter as to why this expediency motion is needed. There was no indication about what the program is actually about. There was no suggestion as to why we should be passing this motion in the House of Representatives today. I am seeking to ask that the House allow this public scrutiny of this particular government program in a timely fashion.

The Regional Backbone Blackspots Program is not of the highest urgency. Taking two months now to examine the intricacies of the program is the responsible course. It is a substantial amount of money, over $200 million. It is an important public work and it should not be undertaken without the proper consideration of the parliament. I believe that the government know this and the members of the Public Works Committee know this. The government know that by doing this they are attempting to subvert normal practice to avoid accountability and to pretend that the National Broadband Network has not been beset by problems. The government announced that the blackspots program would be underway by September this year. It should be noted that this urgency motion moved by the minister coincides with the last sitting day of September, the last day for the government to try to rush this program through.

The government have consistently played politics with the National Broadband Network. They have made numerous mistakes with the policy. Before the 2007 election, the Prime Minister  promised to spend $4.7 billion creating a national broadband network, and to start the network by the end of 2008. I think we all know now that the government have failed to deliver on this promise. The government then wasted 18 months and nearly $20 million on flawed tender processes, which failed to find a private company for the program and were abandoned on 7 April this year. The government then rushed out their alternative, the National Broadband Network mark 2, at a cost of $43,000 million—an immense jump from the $4.7 billion promised before the 2007 election.

The cost blow-out has been immense and demonstrates the many mistakes the government have made with this policy. They have created the National Broadband Network Co. and are paying its CEO and board an astonishing $46,000 a week to run a company that has no customers and provides no services. The motion from the minister today is not the first time the government have avoided scrutiny of their broadband plans. They have refused to submit the entire National Broadband Network to a cost-benefit analysis. The Rudd government have ignored the advice of Secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, who said:

Government spending that does not pass an appropriately defined cost-benefit test necessarily detracts from Australia’s wellbeing.

The Rudd government have broken their own promise in the 2008-09 budget, where they pledged:

Where governments invest in infrastructure assets, it is essential that they seek to achieve maximum economic and social benefits, determined through rigorous cost-benefit analysis …

The government have lost their credibility on broadband. Given this track record, they do not have the standing to be allowed to run an expensive program of over $200 million without scrutiny. The Public Works Committee must be allowed to conduct an inquiry into this program, as is the normal course for other government expenditure of this nature. I do hope the parliament will support this amendment to allow that to happen by 17 November this year.

The amendment I propose today is that the program be referred to the Public Works Committee for report by 17 November. This is a responsible approach. It is not an extensive delay, and the PWC will deal with this in a timely way. If the government adopted this course of action, there could be concurrent documentation so that there would be no delay in rolling out the program.

I am a strong supporter of regional Australia, as this parliament knows. The value of providing improved services to regional communities is certainly great. There is no value, however, in rolling out a system full of inefficiencies and hidden costs. The blackspots program must be given the appropriate scrutiny of the parliament through the Public Works Committee. It is in the best interests of regional Australia for us to do so.

We in the coalition firmly believe in the principle of accountability. The Australian people expect this from their parliament. I invite the government to stand up for these values, to stand up for respecting the process and to see the attempt to rush the blackspots program for what it is: playing politics. We must take a reasonable amount of time, respect the processes of parliamentary committees and ensure that all public works policy is thorough and effective. I have served on the Public Works Committee for a number of terms. The committee plays a very important bipartisan role in ensuring public works are undertaken in the most effective and cost-efficient way. The government cannot be allowed to undermine this.

Finally, I wish to advise the parliament that it is my understanding that the minister’s own department supports the Public Works Committee process. I have that on very good authority. Minister, this is not a delay to the program. The member for Mallee and I can assure you that we will deal with this in a timely way. It will allow proper scrutiny of such huge amounts of government money to be done in a bipartisan way, and we will come back with any sensible suggestions that arise from our examination of this project. I urge you, Minister, and my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this amendment. I encourage you to consider the real issues at stake.

See this speech in context