Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure today to be supporting the motion by the member for Wentworth, who has articulated a very clear case. You will note the passion and the ridicule that was inherent in the two speeches we have heard so far from the government, but they are more concerned about trying to kill this in the cradle than they are about scrutiny.

There were always alternatives to spending $43 billion of taxpayers’ money to get high-speed broadband to Australia. The emotional appeals made by the government do not examine the real cost of the roll-out, nor are they capped, nor are the benefits comprehensively examined—especially if you are in that last seven per cent of Australians who may have to wait eight years or even longer before they enjoy some of the benefits of broadband.

This Turnbull motion gives an all-party joint committee the role of overseeing and reporting on aspects of the business of the NBN Co.—its composition, its constitution, its operations its financing and related matters. That is not an unreasonable proposition when you consider that we have embarked, at the government’s instigation, on the largest single infrastructure spend of its type in Australia’s history—spending, I might add, that is out of kilter with anything else going on in comparable countries around the world. As the member for Wentworth illustrated earlier in the main chamber, we will be spending 100 times, per capita, what the United States is outlaying on a similar endeavour. Then the government says that there is no need for scrutiny! What do you take the Australian public for—fools?

It is obvious from this passion and abuse that I spoke of before, that the government is lacking in any argument at all. It simply wants to kill the thing in the cradle. What about this paradigm that we were coming into with the opposition and the Independents—the crossbenchers? What about this new paradigm of clarity, even-handedness and bipartisanship? Why would you be frightened of an all-party committee?

This is a very comprehensive committee. It covers two members of the government and the opposition in each chamber: two government members in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate and, similarly, two opposition members from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate, plus one each of the crossbenchers from both chambers. It is not a talk fest committee; it has the power to call witnesses. One thing I very much like about it is that it has the power to meet in any place that it sees fit. That means that it will go out to those country areas—that seven per cent of Australia that may not, under a Labor government, receive any sort of reasonable telecommunications—and hear what people have to say.

Diverting just slightly, I was on the inquiry into racing on radio. Racing is a big deal in the period from mid-October to mid-November. The ABC closed off its radio racing service without any reference to the people of Australia, especially rural people. Not even its own advisory committee was consulted. As part of the inquiry into that, we went to a little place called Barraba, near Tamworth. It was interesting to sit there and know that the ABC was the only form of connection to a lot of the information that made that race meeting possible. In this modern era of telecommunications, country people have a great need for good-quality communications, whether it is delivered by fibre, copper, wireless or satellite, but under Labor’s plan the last seven per cent can just keep wishing.

The member for Blair was quite derogatory in his comments about OPEL. There is a funny thing about OPEL. In the last term of parliament I had an electorate that was even larger than the one I have now, and OPEL covered every corner of my electorate bar a small place called Didcot. I would have thought that, 3½ years on, the people of Hinkler would have been better served, with everyone in that electorate—whether they are in communities of fewer than 1,000 or in larger communities; whether they are in the heart of Bundaberg, Hervey Bay or Bargara—having access to wireless broadband, but that is not the case. Let me say that we were talking about $2 billion and then, during the interregnum following the campaign, we had five telcos telling us that they could deliver broadband via wireless for $3 billion. Let me take another step. Some years ago, Senator Nash, Senator Joyce and I formed a committee of the National Party to look at ways of getting broadband into the country. We had Baulderstone Hornibrook work with us, and Leighton at another stage. We came up with a plan of fibre arteries into the inland, followed by nodes of wireless, followed in turn in the most remote areas by satellite, and we could do that for $7 billion. ‘Shock, horror!’ they said at the time. ‘The wasteful, profligate National Party wants to spend $7 billion!’ Try $43 billion, six times that number, and still not getting it to the bush!

Why would you not want oversight of this biggest spend in Australia’s political history? You might like to have a look at the pink batts program. We did not have any oversight there to speak of, and of course the green audits did not even really get going. The rorting was so profound so early that even the government had to get rid of it. If you are talking about the BER and, in particular, the school halls program, where we have seen some of the most flagrant overspends, if not rorts, in our country’s educational history, why would you not be sceptical about a $43 billion spend—

See this speech in context