Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s refusal to subject the National Broadband Network to appropriate parliamentary and economic scrutiny including an independent cost-benefit analysis.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Broadband Network is the largest investment of taxpayers’ money in infrastructure in our nation’s history. It has been subject to no financial scrutiny and, remarkably, the government continues to refuse to submit it to a cost-benefit analysis. In question time, the minister insulted the intelligence of this House and insulted the Australian people by pretending to suggest—or attempting to suggest—that Infrastructure Australia somehow or other endorsed his government’s haphazard, reckless approach to the National Broadband Network. In fact, the reverse is the case. In October last year, Infrastructure Australia published a paper on how to make better decisions for investing in infrastructure. This is what they said:

… all initiatives proposed to Infrastructure Australia … should include a thorough and detailed economic cost-benefit analysis. …

… In order to demonstrate that the Benefit Cost Analysis is indeed robust, full transparency of the assumptions, parameters and values which are used in each … Analysis is required.

And then Infrastructure Australia went on to describe that in some considerable detail.

If this project is going to make the outstanding contribution to productivity, to our national economy, that the government claim it will, they have nothing to fear from submitting it to the Productivity Commission. There will be no delay in the construction of the test sites, no delay at all, no interruption at all. There will be, however, real accountability and real, rigorous analysis of the kind that the government have repeatedly said they are committed to but in respect of this, the biggest infrastructure project in our history, they have refused to undertake.

There is so much that we do not know about this project. We do not know how much it will cost Australians to get access to voice or broadband services over it. We do not know what its costs or revenues will be. We do not know whether it will be commercially viable as a business. One broking firm suggested that it would have a net present value of minus $9 billion. Let us hope that is overly gloomy, but it is not a very promising prognosis. We do not know whether it will ever achieve the heroic take-up rates that McKinsey assumed in its implementation study—rates without precedent anywhere else in the world. And we do not know what positive or negative economic or social spillovers the construction of the NBN will bring with it.

The fact is that everybody in this House, I am sure, is committed to the availability of fast broadband at affordable prices across Australia. We all recognise that there are areas where that is not the case, in particular in regional and remote Australia. Only this week I met with two mayors from shires in the electorate of Maranoa, the shires of Barcoo and Diamantina. The NBN is not going to give them fast broadband—they have apparently been left out—and yet, when you think of an appropriate destination for Commonwealth funds, an appropriate destination for Commonwealth investment in this area, surely those remote regions are the ones that should be prioritised. But they apparently are not going to be.

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, has frankly acknowledged that he has no idea what applications typical households would use over the 100-megabit-per-second connection that he is promising, a vastly greater amount of broadband connectivity than there is any use for at the household level today. This is an important point because, if we are building, at vast taxpayer expense, capacity for which there is not an application or a need, what we are doing is making an enormous overinvestment. Nobody argues that there is nowhere in Australia where there is adequate broadband. No-one is saying that broadband is inadequate everywhere. The argument has always been that there are areas where it is inadequate and areas where it is not available. A more prudent approach would be to deal with those areas of underservice and then, as time progresses and if demand progresses and if other technologies are not overtaking fixed line connectivity, greater connectivity can be built. ‘Build it and they will come’ is a proven recipe for losing billions of dollars and, in this case, losing it without any study or any analysis.

I note that earlier this year the Federal Communications Commission of the United States published a national broadband plan. It targets as the minimum broadband speed that should be available across America download speeds of at least four megabits per second. From our side of the House, we believe that the target in Australia should be not less than 12 megabits per second, but in the United States, the home of the internet, they are talking about four megabits per second. Senator Conroy is talking about 100. Why are we so confident that he is right and the Americans are wrong, as he keeps on contending? In that same report, which I would commend to honourable members, at page 17, the FCC observes that speeds of less than eight megabits per second are sufficient to deal with most uses, including two-way videoconferencing. Again, where is the need, the applications, that will consume 100 megabits per second to the household?

We have heard the Prime Minister give lectures as recently as last night and again today in the House about the perils of what she describes as ‘economic Hansonism’, and yet here we are with a government that is proposing to overthrow 20 years of telecommunications reform and 20 years of competition policy by creating a new government owned monopoly over fixed line communications in complete contravention of the existing competition laws. So far in breach of the existing competition laws are these arrangements, arrangements that will prevent any competition at the fixed line basis with the NBN, that the government is proposing that the parliament pass a law to exempt the creation of this massive government owned monopoly from the scrutiny of the ACCC.

The lack of scrutiny to this point of the NBN has been remarkable and, I am afraid to say, unique, anywhere in the world. The scale of this investment is without any precedent, not just in our own history. The United States is spending $7 billion of federal government money to support broadband initiatives. On a per capita basis, we are spending 100 times more. Why are we so confident that we are so right and the Americans, in the home of the internet, are so wrong?

The government has claimed from time to time that the McKinsey-KPMG implementation study, which Senator Conroy is proud to tell us repeatedly that he paid $25 million for, really is all you need. Yet McKinsey at least had the candour to say that they were not asked to examine alternative options, they were not asked to examine the merits of the policy; it was given to them as a fait accompli and they were simply asked to advise on its implementation.

We know that Infrastructure Australia, the expert body that the Rudd government set up, has not been allowed to review the project, even though its whole mission is to identify, prioritise and rigorously assess infrastructure projects of national importance. We know that until a couple of weeks ago the NBN, embarking on a $43 billion project, had not even delivered a business plan to its board, much less to its shareholder, the Commonwealth government. So for substantially more money than it would cost to buy all of Telstra this government has committed to building a new telecommunications monopoly from scratch before even receiving a business case from the management it has tasked to do so. I remind the House again of what the Treasury secretary, Dr Ken Henry, said last year:

Government spending that does not pass an appropriately designed cost-benefit analysis necessarily detracts from Australia’s well-being.

That lack of rigour and scrutiny in this project is why on Monday I introduced a private member’s bill, the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010. It requires the publication of a 10-year business case for the NBN and, equally importantly, refers the NBN to the Productivity Commission for a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

There is so little known about this project. There has never been so much money spent with so little scrutiny. But what little we do know, the fragments of information we have, should give all of us great cause for concern. We know the take-up rates in Tasmania have been poor, even though NBN Co. have entirely subsidised the wholesale cost of the line and is paying internet service providers $300 for every customer they sign up. They left early customers unaware of whether they would have to buy and install a battery back-up to ensure their phone line would work during a power blackout. It was only after pressure from the media that NBN Co revealed they would provide a battery back-up. Some customers in the early rollout sites have reported they have had to wait up to three months for the NBN to connect them to the network.

In Singapore, we learned the authorities have fined a partnership headed by Alcatel-Lucent S$5 million for failing to achieve on-time delivery of equipment to a broadband network in Singapore. In Australia, our NBN Co has also selected Alcatel-Lucent for its rollout and is apparently unable to confirm or deny whether similar delays are likely to be the case here.

When the government rejects calls for a proper cost-benefit analysis it often points to a study done by Access Economics in March 2009 on the economy-wide impacts of a high-speed broadband network. This study has very little relevance to the NBN. It is not a cost-benefit analysis. It was commissioned by Telstra in support of its proposal to build a 12 megabytes per second fibre-to-the-node network to 90 per cent of the Australian population costing $12.64 billion over 11 years. It concluded that there was a net benefit to GDP of $9½ billion, as against a reference case which conservatively and unrealistically assumed:

… technology and bandwidth would continue to increase but at a noticeably greatly reduced rate than trends seen over the past few years.

We only have to look at what is happening in the wireless space to see that the increase in bandwidth is going at an accelerating pace.

It is worthy to reflect on this: if the GDP benefit—the net benefit—from a 12 megabytes per second network costing $12.6 billion is $9½ billion, how could there be a positive GDP benefit from a $43 billion fibre-to-the-home rollout to 93 per cent of the population at 100 megabytes per second unless there was a massive and proportionate increase in productivity by increasing the speed—the connectivity—from 12 to 100 megabytes per second? This defies both common sense and experience. From a household point of view, there are few applications that will not run satisfactorily on 12 megabytes per second. Plainly, there are diminishing returns from increasing levels of bandwidth, and that is reflected in the universal experience in the telecom sector that people will not pay a premium, if any, for an increase in bandwidth.

So, even if one were to accept this Access Economics report at face value, it should give us very serious cause to reflect whether there is any prospect of there being a net benefit to our economy from this project. Everything we learn about this project gives us cause for concern. Everything we know about good government and prudence tells us that a cost-benefit analysis is required. We have a minister who misled the House by suggesting Infrastructure Australia approved of this project and yet failed to draw to the House’s attention—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member cannot say that.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wentworth did not use the word deliberately. The member for Wentworth has the call for the last few seconds.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one thing that is absolutely clear is that Infrastructure Australia requires a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and that is why this project will never go near Infrastructure Australia. (Time expired)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his contribution. We are happy to debate the National Broadband Network and the importance of the National Broadband Network to our future economy, because this debate goes to the heart of which side of this House has a plan for our future economy, has a plan for building productivity, has a plan for the jobs of the future, has a plan for ensuring that regional Australia is able to participate fully in the economy and has a plan for the National Broadband Network, which will do nothing less than transform our economy and the way it functions. It will transform transport and help deal with urban congestion. It will transform education and the way that education services can be delivered. It will transform health through the provision of e-health services. This is not just about downloads. This is about uploads. This is about what services can be provided.

To be fair to the member for Wentworth, he is fulfilling his brief. When he was appointed to the position by his opponent, the current Leader of the Opposition, the current Leader of the Opposition said:

And who better to hold the Government to account here than Malcolm Turnbull … who has the technical expertise and the business experience to entirely demolish the Government on this issue.

In order to demolish the NBN, they have put up a number of myths. Today we have the greatest myth of them all. They say that there has been no economic analysis. Alan Kohler wrote of the member for Wentworth in the Business Spectator in September:

Yesterday he was repeating the ridiculous line that the government has undertaken $43 billion of expenditure without a detailed business plan or cost benefit study, which has been the opposition’s line throughout the campaign. But what do they call the $25 million, 546-page, implementation study by McKinsey and Co and KPMG, released publicly on May 6?

That study was comprehensive, with a comprehensive financial analysis. It found there was a strong and viable business case for the NBN. It found that there was a sufficient rate of return to cover the cost of funds and positive returns to the taxpayer by year 6. It found that the cost estimate is conservative and can be reduced.

The member opposite knows that in the next few weeks the NBN’s long-term business plan will be complete. He also knows that we will reach the halfway mark for the construction of regional backhaul links—the infrastructure that we need to roll out the information highway right across the country.

He again raises Infrastructure Australia. All I can do is point to a document which has been published and tabled in this parliament, the May 2009 report titled National infrastructure priorities: infrastructure for an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future, a comprehensive document produced by Infrastructure Australia under its chairman Sir Robert Eddington. The report, when discussing Australia’s national infrastructure priorities, goes through seven. The first is a national broadband network—developing a more extensive, globally competitive broadband system. Indeed on page 13 of that report Infrastructure Australia recommended—and this was certainly taken up by the government—an investment from the Building Australia Fund to develop the National Broadband Network. They identified this as one of the seven priorities because they understood what an enabler of future infrastructure it was. But it is not just them. A member of this House wrote:

Equally importantly, there would be continuing ferment of innovations. With multiple service providers able to deliver services over the new network, there would be new ideas emerging all the time, including many attractive choices which are not available today.

That is a very insightful analysis from the shadow shadow minister for communications, the member for Bradfield, published in his book—a direct quote from his book Wired Brown Land.

The opposition also say the parliament has not had time to scrutinise this. What do they think the Senate inquiry on NBN did all that time? It was extended five times and produced five reports. We have seen Senate committees on NBN-related bills and a discussion paper on regulatory reform and we have debated this issue constantly in parliament since prior to the 2007 election. That 2007 election was when we went to the Australian people with a plan for national broadband, because we said that the 18 plans, failed and abandoned one after the other by the coalition government, were simply not good enough. And the Australian people agreed with us and they elected Labor to office, just as the independent members had the National Broadband Network very much front and centre when they determined to ensure that Julia Gillard was in a position to become Prime Minister after the 21 August election.

This government is working hard to get the policy settings right for a competitive modern economy. Just last week we introduced into the parliament the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010, again providing for structural separation—a job that should have happened when Telstra was privatised. But those opposite—in spite of the fact that some who are now opposite recognise that this is important, and I note the member for Wentworth seems to be hedging his bets and hopefully supporting this legislation—have been gradually crabwalking across to reality on the importance of structural separation. There will be an opportunity to do what should have been done many years ago.

The fact is that the National Broadband Network is absolutely critical to our future productivity. ICT is the number one way of improving productivity for the service industry and the manufacturing sector. This NBN will support 25,000 jobs a year, on average. It will provide great choice and lower prices for consumers because of the way it is structured, providing a wholesale network and then allowing a multiplicity of retailers to build on the basis of that wholesale network. It will deliver health consultations and specialist advice in real time, and an example of this is our $392 million plan to give rural and regional Australia access to online specialist consultations. It will allow businesses in regional communities to effectively service their local and international customers. It will be vital in the delivery of smart infrastructure, and during the election campaign I announced on behalf of the government at the Infrastructure Partnerships Australia conference in Melbourne that we would regard smart infrastructure as a necessary component of future infrastructure investment.

Take urban congestion. Our investment in the Kwinana Freeway in Perth, with the installation of advanced technologies like variable speed limits and real time lane management systems, will optimise traffic flows, improve road safety and reduce emissions. This is vital, and that is why before the election I referred the smart infrastructure reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, chaired by Ms Sharon Bird, the member for Cunningham. Or take smart energy meters, that give you an informed choice of energy source, price tariff, emissions intensity or just-in-time hot water heating. This technology will transform innovation. Associate Professor Robert Malaney, of UNSW, recently said:

If 90% of homes are connected to the NBN it will cause a paradigm shift with new ideas and innovations, things we haven’t even thought about yet.

The fact is that those opposite have had 19 failed broadband plans. They said to wait for the ACCC advice, they said to wait for the implementation study, they said to wait for the government response to the implementation study and they filibustered the very bill on competition reform that was going to ensure a faster, cheaper and more efficient rollout of the NBN. It is six months since the implementation study was released and the coalition simply have not moved on beyond their policy of seeking to demolish the NBN. The member for Wentworth refuses to say whether he would back the NBN in, regardless of anything any study said that would delay the system.

We know that from time to time those opposite deny that there is a problem. The member for Wentworth has said:

The NBN is an answer to a problem that has not even been identified …

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the problem?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem is that we are ranked 50th for broadband speeds, and we do not have one city in the top 100 in the world for broadband speeds. Located where we are, in this region, where Korea and Hong Kong and Singapore and many of our competitors are rolling out fibre to the home, located in a region where information technology is so important for competition, I do not think that is good enough. That is the problem. We are falling behind the region. New Zealand are rolling out fibre to the home—and I say if it is good enough for New Zealand, it is good enough for us. Only last week a broadband quality survey found Australia fell from 18th to 21st in the world broadband rankings. We are going backwards at an enormous rate. The fact is, it simply is not good enough.

Those opposite have rolled out a number of statements about Tasmania. Here is what Stephen Love, from Galloways Pharmacy in Scottsdale, has had to say:

I’ve taken a 100 mbit speed offer, that’s actually very close to the cost of my previous ADSL2+ connection. The NBN will provide huge potential, for lots of new applications, especially in health, which is of interest to me, being a pharmacist.

That is what Stephen Love has had to say. Yet those opposite continue to be critical. The implementation study said an annual take-up rate of between six and 12 per cent was what was needed to be viable, and yet we have had an 11 per cent take-up rate in three months. Again, those opposite know full well that one contract has to be finished with a provider before anyone can go onto a new contract. They know that full well, but they come in here and ask juvenile questions which could have come from the member for Bradfield when I was on the University of Sydney SRC with him, when he was a supporter of Belinda Neal. I was right then, and I am right today. It is a student council type of strategy to wreck the National Broadband Network. The fact is that this is a vital resource for Australia. Ben Grubb, from the Sydney Morning Herald, has said this:

Is the federal government duping us to get us on to its national broadband network by decommissioning Telstra’s copper network? I think they are and I think it is for our own good.

Accept it: It’s coming and it’s a free connection!

The replacement of the outdated copper network with the fibre-to-the-home network, the communications technology for the 21st century, is something about which we are very proud.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. It is a debate about appropriate technology for the future but it is also a debate about accountability. The public have a right to know that taxpayers’ funds are being used appropriately and responsibly. This government is refusing the Australian people that fundamental right in regard to the National Broadband Network. The NBN is the largest taxpayer-funded investment in Australia’s history. It is essential that the government provide taxpayers with complete transparency to ensure that they are getting value for money.

Regrettably, we all know what happens when Labor tries to spend money. We had $2.4 billion wasted on the pink batts disaster, a further $8 billion wasted on the school hall rip-off, a $1.2 billion blowout in the laptops for schools program and another $850 million wasted on solar homes. The amount of waste and mismanagement in Labor’s first term is unprecedented in Australian history. In fact, it makes Whitlam seem like an amateur. The blowouts and mismanagement of taxpayers’ money in Labor’s first term demonstrate why the NBN needs proper scrutiny and why the project should be subject to rigorous parliamentary oversight. Instead of submitting to an independent cost-benefit analysis, the government is choosing to make wild claims about the kinds of services that faster broadband will offer. As Kevin Morgan wrote today in the Australian:

It’s all starting to sound too good to be true and as such seems to have more in common with a giant Ponzi scheme than responsible and prudent policy. Like the promoters of any Ponzi scheme the government tells taxpayers: ‘Trust us. You don’t need to know the detail of the scheme or have a look at the books, just agree to put your money in because the dividends from the NBN down the track will be vast’.

So what has the government got to hide? Unless the government allows the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into the NBN, parliament could reasonably assume that the government believes its own project is not commercially viable. Minister Conroy cites cost as a reason not to hold a Productivity Commission investigation into a project costing $43 billion. It is the largest project in Australia’s history and we cannot afford to do a study. Also, Minister Conroy uses time as an excuse. I guarantee that a Productivity Commission inquiry will not delay the project by one minute. All of the evidence suggests that the rollout will be unviable and that is why the government does not want to conduct a productivity study.

Today we learned that the Tasmanian broadband company Exetel have only signed 18 customers to their new NBN special offer of free connection and zero sign-up costs. You would have to ask how many people have actually signed up for the 100 megabit service with Exetel. It is not exactly selling like hot cakes because they have secured a grand total of three customers. The CEO of Exetel, John Linton, could not explain to the media why the NBN is proving so unpopular in Tasmania.

NBN Co. have spent millions of dollars advertising the service available and we should expect that the small towns chosen would jump at the chance to be the first people to sign up to this new service. But when it comes to Exetel, 18 customers have signed up in the space of five months—fewer than four customers a month. If I were a company executive I would be a bit concerned about the results of this test marketing exercise. I would be a little less than encouraged, I might say. I think any prudent investor, after having a test marketing exercise that has yielded such low connection rates, would be having a very careful look at this project.

These figures are exactly why the Tasmanian government is going to force the public to receive a connection unless they expressly choose to opt out. You cannot actually get customers in the market so you force them to join in. Tasmanian government modelling estimated that only between 16 to 25 per cent of premises passed by the rollout would take up the connection on a voluntary basis. So the government will start making connection mandatory unless customers opt out.

If the opt-out model is implemented in mainland states and territories the project could blow out costs by at least $3 billion, according to the McKinsey implementation study. Yet, the minister said that these facts are wrong despite the implementation study saying that if they are not installed on a demand-driven basis and instead are installed on an opt-out basis, the costs would blow out by $3 billion. This is because the government will be connecting additional homes that do not require the service.

The implementation study also recommended that the government offer incentives to retail service providers in order to sign up customers. According to the study, the incentives could run to $3 billion, or $300 per customer that the telcos sign up. The government is so worried about the project and its viability that it wants people to be forced onto the network at taxpayers’ expense. Labor is also destroying any potential competition to the NBN by preventing broadband services being provided down the HFC cable networks owned by Telstra and Optus. The government is ensuring that broadband wholesale prices will be free from competitive pressures. As Michael Porter from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia referred to in the Australian Financial Review:

… it means a new state monopoly surrounded by victims of political euthanasia such as cable broadband.

Mr Porter goes on to say:

There is no physical or economic reason for denying the long-term use of the HFC cable for broadband purposes.

At last night’s dinner, the Prime Minister told the Australian Industry Group that the government was committed to competitive markets, yet the government refuses to consider a competitive approach with regard to allowing the HFC network to compete with the National Broadband Network. This is a cross-city tunnel approach to infrastructure. Just as the New South Wales government closed the roads to eliminate competition and force drivers onto the cross-city tunnel—a financial disaster, I might say—the Gillard government proposes to close the HFC network to people who might want to use that as an alternative to the NBN.

Why should we not have competition between carriers? Will it not result in a better outcome for consumers? Will it not result in cheaper prices? Will it not result in an excellent use of resources? Today, the Business Council of Australia called for a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the NBN and, subject to its outcomes:

… alternative options for meeting the objectives of the government may need to be considered.

These comments were backed up by Reserve Bank of Australia board member Roger Corbett:

Laying cables in and between the major cities is one thing, but the cost of laying cable to secondary areas is enormous. Is it justifiable? So I am all for an independent assessment, and I ask is laying cable the most effective way of delivering these services in these areas, or is there a better way?

The government does not want that question considered. If there are better ways for improving broadband services to regional areas then surely the government should examine them before it goes ahead with spending $43 billion of taxpayers’ money and potentially producing a massive capital loss for taxpayers. Mr Porter from CEDA also said:

We need soundly financed broadband evolution, not centralised revolution. We need to fix blackholes, improve satellites, expand backhaul competition to mobile towers and towns, and so forth.

The coalition agree with these assessments, which is why we believe the NBN must be analysed by the Productivity Commission. The commission is well placed to deliver an assessment on the economic and social costs and benefits which would be delivered under this program. Every regional member of parliament should be supportive of the coalition’s bill that would require the Productivity Commission to complete an independent analysis. Equally important to identifying black spots in regional areas is the National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill’s provision that the commission release:

… an analysis of the availability of broadband services across Australia, identifying those suburbs and regions where current service is of a lesser standard or a higher price than the best services available in … capital cities.

This is very much an argument about transparency. This is very much an argument about ensuring that Australian taxpayers’ dollars are invested for maximum benefit to the community. It is very much an argument about appropriate technologies for differing circumstances. There is great concern that the government is hiding behind a veil of secrecy. We saw Minister Conroy ducking and weaving at Senate estimates, unable to give clear and concise answers to reasonable questions, the sorts of questions the Australian public has a right to have answers to. It is absolutely essential we have a Productivity Commission inquiry into this investment. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected while we deliver appropriate technology.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just remind the member for Cowper what this matter of public importance is really all about; it is about obstructionism, negativism and hypocrisy. If those opposite are so enamoured with the Productivity Commission, they might have had a cost-benefit analysis done of the Adelaide to Darwin railway. They did not. They might have had a Productivity Commission cost-benefit analysis done on the privatisation of Telstra when they flogged it off, but they did not. We know about the results of that too.

If the member for Wentworth was so keen on it, he might have had a cost-benefit analysis done of his $10 billion water plan. What happened to that? Of course, if he did have such interest in a cost-benefit analysis by the Productivity Commission, he might have had one done of the OPEL regional broadband plan. The member for Wentworth should not come in here and pretend to be interested in advancing broadband and telecommunications in Australia. That is just nonsense. The member for Wentworth is about destroying the NBN because that is the mandate that was given to him by the leader of his party, who does not understand ‘techo stuff’, as he so rightly said. We know what he is all about, so do not pretend otherwise.

What are we really talking about with the NBN? I think it is really important that we remember this: it is about connecting 93 per cent of premises in Australia with optical fibre, delivering speeds of up to one gigabit per second—that is, 1,000 times faster than many people experience today—and the seven per cent of remaining premises will receive next generation wireless and satellite technology, providing speeds of 12 megabits per second or more. That is what we are talking about. Why do we need it? It was put succinctly by Rupert Murdoch, who said that the reason we need it is that internet delivery and broadband in Australia is a disgrace. I find it quite ironic that one of his stable is in the commentariat business of promoting opposition to the NBN, namely through the Australian. I find that pretty interesting, but no doubt he still regards it as a disgrace.

When we look comparatively internationally, why do we need it? Those opposite might not like to hear this: Australia is ranked 17th out of 31 developed countries on broadband penetration; Australia is the fifth most expensive amongst 30 developed countries on broadband prices; Australia is 50th in terms of broadband speeds; Australia is equal last on deployment of optic fibre broadband; and Australia is 29th out of 50 countries on average connection speed at 2.6 megabits per second. No Australian city is in the top 100 cities for average internet connection speed. Australia is last in the OECD for fibre penetration for broadband. They are the facts. That is the existing situation. That is why we need the National Broadband Network.

While we are doing this, part and parcel of some of the economic benefits that we will receive through the National Broadband Network include that, on average, 25,000 jobs will be supported every year over the life of the eight-year project, peaking at 37,000 jobs. Even the Australian Local Government Association stated in its 2007-08 State of the regions report that $3.2 billion and 33,000 jobs were lost to Australian businesses in 12 months due to the inadequate broadband infrastructure. That is the assessment of others of the potential of this for the future of our nation.

What have those opposite provided? We have been reminded that we are up to their 19th broadband plan, that it made up of the old technologies and it has been rejected time and again. I found it very interesting to look at some of the commentary on the opposition’s broadband plan at the last election. It was that good that they dumped their opposition spokesperson. He is floating around up the backblocks somewhere, having been rewarded for his contribution—something he never believed in because he was unable to explain it; nor was their finance spokesperson or their leader able to explain it. I think that has very serious consequences for the credibility of the policies of those opposite. They do not have a credible policy but they are prepared to knock the policy that belongs here. Some industry executives said that it ‘harked back to an earlier era’ and that it ‘lacked vision’ and was ‘muddy and unclear’. I notice that the iPrimus CEO, Ravi Bhatia, referring to the policy of those opposite, said, ‘What policy?’ That is what those opposite were left with, yet they come in here and lecture us about providing infrastructure for the nation into the future.

The NBN plan itself has public and on-the-record support from prominent ISPs in Australia including iiNet, Internode, iPrimus, Macquarie Telecom, Adam Internet and Dodo. They are just some of the ISPs—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fletcher interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will get your turn later, mate. Just settle. The Australian Internet Industry Association issued a statement supporting the NBN, outlining the problems of the alternatives based on wireless networks that those opposite have thrown up and criticising the comparative speed of broadband in Australia. I quote:

It is not a ‘nice to have’; it is an essential part of the modern economy.

Indeed, it went on to say:

In the past decade Australia’s internet use has grown by a staggering 12,000%. That rate is accelerating. Yet despite this, we are now ranked 50th in the world in terms of our average broadband speeds.

On 21 September Telstra announced they were signing on to be a provider of services under the NBN, launching a trial in—guess where?—Tasmania to test the compatibility of its broadband service and digital products with the NBN.

I notice that, after the drawn result in the election, those who were charged with making a decision to support one of the major parties to form government essentially supported the Gillard Labor government based on the NBN. Tony Windsor, the member for New England, said—and I think it is very accurate:

… you do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre.

My good friend the member for Kennedy was similarly reported as agreeing that:

The national grid and NBN and are a good thing for this country, a great thing for this country.

Others have given their support. Google and Intel have spoken out in strong support of the NBN. Indeed, Intel’s managing director, Phil Cronin, said the government and industry should stop debating the need for the NBN. He said:

It’s now time to move beyond debate … the NBN has the potential to deliver significant long term benefits to consumers and small businesses alike.

Microsoft have also added their support to the NBN project, saying:

This infrastructure will be critical in the years ahead and essential for reducing costs in health and education service delivery. It will also contribute to overcoming the tyranny of distance that exists in rural and regional Australia.

I also note, in the little time left available to me, the point made by Alan Noble, Engineering Director of Google Australia, in relation to the NBN:

The national broadband network will be the digital equivalent of the trans-Australian railway linking small towns and large, bringing new life and new opportunities to our economy and our communities.

… so too will a super-fast broadband network bring a freight train of innovation to our shores.

I suggest to the member for Wentworth and those opposite that, rather than playing games, rather than being hypocritical, rather than being negative and rather than carrying out a mandate to destroy the NBN, they join the fibre future and support the NBN.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to the member for Braddon, on this side of the House we are being obstructionist and negativist to ask questions about the detail of the National Broadband Network as planned. The question is: how bad does an idea have to be before it is okay to ask some sensible questions about it? Let us be clear: we are not against broadband; very far from it. What we are against is an ill thought through, ill conceived, extravagant, badly planned venture that does not have substance and detail behind it. If that plan is before the Australian people, we say that before it is executed there ought to be a rigorous cost-benefit study conducted.

I want to make three points in the brief time available: firstly, that the history of Labor’s broadband policymaking has been acutely political rather than focused on good policy; secondly, that Labor has made a very poor case for the plan it has put before the Australian people; and, thirdly, that therefore we need a cost-benefit study to make a sensible assessment of whether the nation ought to spend $43 billion on this plan.

Labor’s policymaking has been acutely political since Labor announced in March 2007 a plan to spend $4.7 billion of public money to build a 12-megabit-per-second fibre-to-the-node network to serve 98 per cent of the population. That was a plan that was cobbled together based upon details of a proposal that Telstra made to Prime Minister Howard in 2005, subsequently released to the stock exchange, which in a footnote said that Telstra, as an offer to the government, would be prepared to build a 12-megabit-per-second network nationally in exchange for a subsidy of $4.7 billion together with complete relief from the access requirements so that the network would become an effective monopoly. The Howard government rejected that proposal as unacceptable on competition terms. But Labor were keen to jump on it in early 2007—desperate for a policy. They did not worry about the fact that the details of the Telstra proposal involved a mix of technologies—cable, copper, satellite, wireless. No, apparently it was all going to be fibre-to-the node nationally for $4.7 billion.

When they got into government the first thing they did was junk the well-developed, well-planned Broadband Connect policy which would by now be serving hundreds of thousands of people in rural Australia with broadband were it not for the fact that Senator Conroy cancelled it after repeating time after time during the 2007 campaign that he would honour the OPEL contract—one of the many shabby moments in Labor’s disgraceful political exercise when it comes to the politics of broadband.

The best moment is when we get to April 2009 when Labour realised it had a huge problem because it could not execute the policy it promised to the people in November 2007. What therefore did it do? It decided in a purely political gesture to say, ‘Let’s double our bets and we will now go forward with a fibre-to-the-home proposal and we will dazzle them with talk of $43 billion.’ There was no detail behind it. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, himself has admitted that the plan was approved in a two-hour flight between Melbourne and Brisbane in a discussion between him and Mr Rudd, the then Prime Minister—you might remember him. All of the details substantiating that plan could be written on the back of a beer coaster. What a disgrace. The essence of this plan which is before the Australian people is pure politics and no substance.

My second point is that Labor has made an appallingly poor case for this plan. Why is it proposing to trash a perfectly good copper network rather than use it as the basis for building something new? Why will the National Broadband Network overbuild the HFC networks which serve nearly one-third of Australian households and which can readily deliver 100 megabits per second and in Melbourne already do? Why is Labor proposing something which would be illegal under the Trade Practices Act as it stands today? The only basis upon which its plan can be delivered involves one company in an industry, Telstra, agreeing to exit so that the other company coming into this industry, NBN, has the field free and clear for it to establish a monopoly. That would be illegal under the Trade Practices Act and the only way it can happen is because of the grubby amendment that Stephen Conroy has put before the House in the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 that we are considering this week.

Where are the productivity benefits that are promised? We hear about telemedicine. We never hear an explanation of why that requires fibre connected to 10 million homes. There are 1,300 hospitals in Australia. By all means, have fibre to 1,300 hospitals so we can do the direct scanning from the bush hospital into the city, but you are never going to have people having a CAT scanner in their kitchen. It makes no sense at all to fibre up every home on the basis of telemedicine. And where is the evidence that we are going to get millions of people taking this service when we know that fixed line broadband take-up has stalled in the last couple of years and most of the take-up now, most of the growth now, is in wireless? Unless we get the take-up that is unrealistically expected by Labor, this plan is going to be a financial disaster. And why has broadband policy been outsourced to Mike Quigley and the management team of NBN Co? It seems to now be making decisions that it will own the wireless network, it will own the satellites and it will operate them, even though the McKinsey $25 million study expressly recommended against that.

That brings me to my third point: why do we need a cost-benefit analysis study? Because we know the work has not been done. We heard again some verbal gymnastics from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport earlier on attempting to insinuate that there had been a cost-benefit study. Let me again, for the record, quote from pages i and ii of the implementation study:

Explicitly it does not undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the macroeconomic and social benefits that would result from the implementation of a super fast broadband network.

Minister, let us not come into the House with that misleading claim any more. There has been no cost-benefit study and we critically need one. We need to make an assessment of whether this is a sensible use of public money. If you want to make the case that this venture is going to generate an attractive return, then you need to have a business case. The one that has been produced so far in the implementation study is weak in the extreme. It is based upon unrealistic assumptions and, in any event, Mr Quigley as the Chief Executive of NBN Co. keeps walking away from it saying, ‘Well, that is not my business case; that is the implementation study.’

But the second question is: if we are to believe the claim that there are benefits to the nation which exceed the costs of building this network, if we are to believe the claim that there will be benefits in terms of productivity, medicine and education, then let us see the evidence. Let us see the systematic and careful quantification of those benefits. How many hospitals? How many scans? How many students will be educated? What will be the cost savings? Let us see those details in considering this bill, which calls for the highly respected Productivity Commission to conduct just such an inquiry.

Let us ask the question: why is it that Labor have been running so fast from agreeing to a perfectly sensible proposal? What have they got to hide? Is it just possibly the deep-seated fear that something that was dreamt up on a two-hour flight from Melbourne to Brisbane—all of the details of which could be written on the back of a beer coaster—would not stand up to detailed scrutiny? In fact, spending $43 billion on a broadband network to overbuild a large amount of existing broadband infrastructure is not the best use of scarce public funds as compared to all of the other many good claims on the public purse—schools, roads, hospitals, all of the other things that governments are called upon to do. Would it not be more sensible to leave it to the private sector to build most of this network, as they have over many years, and focus government intervention on the areas where the private sector will not build? The Australian people have a right to a detailed and sensible analysis of the costs and benefits of this network, and that is what we are calling for in this bill.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so happy to be following the member for Bradfield in this debate. The member for Bradfield would know a lot about broadband compared to some of the regional members of this House because, if we look at the electoral divisions ranked by proportion of households with a broadband internet connection, with one being the worst and 150 being the best, his electorate is the best. 64.2 per cent of his electorate has a broadband internet connection. Let us have a look at one of their other speakers, the member for Cowper. His electorate is 20th worst. Yet they come into this place and say they are not opposed to broadband. If you are not opposed to broadband, support it and let us get on with the job.

I was also really interested in the member for Bradfield’s comments that we have made a poor case for the NBN. I will let the electorate be the judge of that, and they were the judge of that. We went to the election saying, ‘If you vote for us, you get the NBN; if you vote for them, you don’t.’ And guess what? They voted for us. I am very happy that my constituents in Greenway were able to have that choice with Riverstone being the site of the first Sydney metro rollout. They voted for it and I do not need to be lectured by anyone about what case has been made when the people have decided.

We heard about Labor’s NBN plan being cobbled together. If you want to see something that was cobbled together, the Liberal Party’s broadband and telecommunications policy is a complete embarrassment. Of all the laughs I got during the campaign, this gave me the most. This was an absolute special. I prefer to call it the dial-up policy actually. It is a very good dial-up policy. I would be absolutely embarrassed to have gone to the election with this.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They got rid of him.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did indeed get rid of him. It says:

The Coalition will cancel Labor’s reckless and expensive National Broadband Network.

There it is in black and white. Not only was that taken to the election, if you go to the Liberal Party website today you will see that it is still their policy. It is right under the little bit that says, ‘We are about less talk and more action.’ I don’t think so. They say there is no argument against having broadband, yet here they want to cancel the National Broadband Network. They say they want a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not to support it, but they have already decided they will not support it. If anyone needed an example of why this is not about transparency but simply about fulfilling this bubble-and-squeak dial-up policy, there it is.

I was also really interested to hear the comments about why we need 100 megabits per second. I could not think 30 years ago of why I would need the internet. I do not think Alexander Graham Bell wanted an iPhone. What we are talking about are services and applications that have not even been invented yet. It is not about the download; it is all about the upload. We are not only taking our country into the future but also making us at least comparable with the rest of the world. I refer to the report of the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, which will let us compare one hundred megabits per second to the dial-up policy of the opposition. To download a simple webpage at 56 kilobits per second takes 23 seconds; at 100 megabits per second it takes 0.01 seconds. To download a movie at 56 kilobits per second takes a week; at 100 megabits per second it takes five minutes. Do not think we are alone here. Let’s have a look at the 100-megabits-per-second countries listed in the report: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Korea, New Zealand and Portugal. Singapore has a target of one gigabit per second and we are arguing about 100 megabits per second.

It comes as no surprise then that what we are seeing from the opposition is simply a continuation of the Leader of the Opposition’s misunderstandings about what is needed. When the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed on The 7.30 Report he said:

Well, Kerry, I take your point: that if you want to drag me into a technical discussion here, I’m not gonna be very successful at it …

Too right they are not going to be very successful at it. What we are talking about here are services and applications that are not only going to drag Australia into the future and drag Australia up to be comparable with the rest of the world, but also transform people’s lives. I find it incredible that people opposite, particularly regional members—

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Jensen interjecting

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’ll keep. Regional members who come in here and say they support broadband but do not support the National Broadband Network have some of the worst penetration rates in the country. They have people needing to travel thousands of kilometres for things like breast cancer treatments. We have already seen not only the promise but the actual reality of what e-health can deliver—the treatment of chronic disease in people’s homes in real time. These things can only be delivered on a ubiquitous fibre-to-the-home broadband network. The member for Bradfield said, ‘I don’t know why we need every house connected.’ Well he is welcome to pick the woman who does not get treatment. He is welcome to pick the child who does not get the NBN to their home. He is welcome to do that. On this side we are all about equality of opportunity, which is why only Labor is truly capable of delivering this NBN.

In terms of what the NBN is capable of delivering, everyone else gets it. I talked about Riverstone being the site of the first Sydney metro rollout. I went and visited Riverstone High School with the minister during the election campaign and I was touched to receive an email from a year 12 student, Michael Benz, who took it upon himself to analyse the policy the Liberals took to the election. What an intelligent person we have here. He said:

The NBN is a far superior proposition. It links all Australians to a superior connection with higher speed and lower latency. In the debate yesterday the opposition stated that Australians have no need for 100 megabit per second connections, but as Senator Conroy correctly stated the opposition clearly has no imagination for what this technology will do for all Australians.

What a smart guy. He is going to go very far.

And don’t just take it from me; I am happy to quote a variety of commentators about why this needs to go on without further delay. I am even happy to quote Harold Mitchell. As he said in the Herald on 1 October:

We now have an opposition with a ferocious commitment to ‘‘make broadband a battlefield’’ and Malcolm Turnbull has been appointed to ‘‘demolish’’ Julia Gillard’s broadband plans.

               …            …            …

The latest round in this sorry affair is that the opposition is calling for a cost-benefit study. The taxpayer has already shelled out $25 million for the implementation study …  We don’t need to waste any more time or money. We just need to get on with it.

I could not agree more. I also draw to the attention of the House to Senate estimates last week where, under questioning about the McKinsey report, we had departmental officials talk about the report and talk about the analysis that has been done. A Mr Murphy said the amount of analysis through the McKinsey report and other analyses of NBN far exceed probably the analysis on other infrastructure projects. So it is far from this being something that has not been analysed and has not been subjected to scrutiny. I put to this place that if you have had 18 goes and you could not get it right and you have all the commentary and everyone else in Australia ‘getting it’, then you should get on board and support this. I am totally in agreement with their ‘less talk, more action’ so let us have more action on this.

I was very interested to read this in yesterday’s Australian: ‘NBN a conspiracy against taxpayers, warns Turnbull’. Yes, it is a conspiracy right up there with the imaginary man on the moon and who shot JFK! I can see how the member for Wentworth would think this is a conspiracy as it is a conspiracy of universal high-speed broadband for all Australians, not just those in Vaucluse and Mosman. It is a conspiracy of targeting pilot education programs for children in households where their parents and their parents’ parents have never had a job. It is a conspiracy of in-home monitoring for sufferers of chronic illness. So if all that is a conspiracy then I am very happy to be signed up to it. I will end by saying that the shadow minister came in and said he had seen nothing like this anywhere else in the world, so nothing like this had gone on. I agree with him, because I have worked on projects like this in Cambodia, China, Singapore and Malaysia and I know that never has there been so much wrecking by such a weak opposition.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both the member for Braddon and the member for Greenway have said that the last federal election was partly won by Labor using the National Broadband Network to gain the key votes of the Independents. Indeed, both the member for New England and the member for Lyne listed broadband high on their agenda. We know now that the NBN is apparently going to be rolled out from the outside in. But the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, has yet to be honest with the Australian people about the financial implications for the NBN of Labor’s negotiations with the Independents. He must do so now.

The NBN will be a $43 billion government owned telco monopoly that will fail to deliver on the capabilities it has proposed. The NBN is proposed to be more than just a high-speed broadband network. The scheme is supposed to deliver a range of new technology options such as smart grid capability and open-access internet protocol TV. Despite the massive cost to taxpayers, it will fail to deliver on these key capabilities. The government is rolling in a lemon. In effect, the minister is insisting that there should be a freeway onramp to every home, even if the householder only wants to drive the kids to school and go to the shops. And the minister insists that households pay for this onramp. Yet we see the reality: only 10 per cent take-up in the portion of the NBN currently rolled out.

This project is the largest single infrastructure investment in our nation’s history and the government refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis and has not published any business case. It also refuses to allow the NBN’s works to be subject to the Public Works Committee of parliament. Any government, Liberal or Labor, has never been allowed to invest so much money with so little scrutiny or accountability. So why should the Gillard government be allowed to do so now?

The cost of the scheme is of great concern, effectively $5,000 for every home in Australia. In terms of interest alone, this will be $350 to $400 per annum per household, assuming 100 per cent take-up, and we see from the initial rollout that the take-up is only about 10 per cent. Worse still, this is just the cost of servicing the loan, never mind depreciation, providing service and making a profit. In reality, the current commercial price of a fibre-to-the-home connection is less than $2,000, both internationally and indeed within Australia right now. Why the Australian taxpayer should pay more than 250 per cent above the odds is beyond me.

So why is it so much more expensive? Well, it comes down to the inefficient design of the network architecture. Within the NBN, there are in effect three fibres for every home. One could argue ‘do it once, do it right’ and the cost of the extra fibre is insignificant in the scheme of things. However, the cost to physically install, terminate and manage the fibre is the expensive part. It would appear there is a basic misunderstanding of access network design and the fundamental physics of the transmission of data using fibre. Today we can already transmit 10 gigabits per second on a single fibre, with 40 and 100 gigabits per second coming soon.

So why do we need to have three fibres for every home, with two of those fibres completely redundant? Senator Conroy says that there has been an ACCC analysis carried out on the NBN and that that is enough to argue the government’s case. But this wasn’t a cost-benefit analysis and didn’t consider alternative solutions. Like the government’s climate change committee or ‘committee for predetermined outcomes’, this analysis was simply advice on how the government could implement a policy it had already decided upon. This advice was deliberately limited. The shadow minister for communications and broadband has introduced a bill in this place to ensure that the NBN faces rigorous scrutiny. The National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill will refer the NBN to the Productivity Commission and bring the government to account over this $43 billion black hole.

The production and publication of a detailed 10-year business plan including key financial and operational indicators will force a true and transparent analysis of the project, expose its economic and technological deficiency and also ask a crucial question that Labor has yet to ask of the NBN: ‘Is this the most cost-effective way of providing all Australians with fast broadband?’ This analysis will not delay the NBN rollout and will provide advice that makes the network more efficient and more cost effective. Throwing away money on this network will not, as the government say, foster a ‘modern and more competitive economy’, rather it will grow our national stimulus debt exponentially and will ensure generations to come are burdened by repayments on this fibre dinosaur. This government have wasted our money in the past and, if we let them, they will do it again.

You would hope, given the massive cost to the taxpayer, that as much of the technology would be sourced inside Australia to retain as much of the $43 billion as possible. We were promised the NBN would create tens of thousands of new jobs in Australia. The Treasurer last week in question time said:

Building the National Broadband Network will create something like 25,000 jobs per year.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said of the NBN:

It will drive job creation—the jobs of the new century, the jobs of the future.

Both obviously neglected to inform themselves of the facts. A number of media outlets have highlighted Australian companies which have been sidelined in their dealings with NBN Co. Their preference to deal with international organisations has already cost Australian jobs. The fibre-optic cable proposed to be used in the network is to be sourced from Corning, meaning it will be manufactured predominantly in Mexico. Why use a technology which is designed and manufactured overseas when there are Australian manufacturers of fibre-optic cable, which are both better designed and cheaper?

The decision to go to Alcatel for the gigabit passive optical network directly cost 50 jobs at NEC, who were designing their solution here in Australia for the global market. The operational support systems/business support systems solution vendor, while still to be decided, is most likely to go to an overseas organisation to the detriment of local company, Clarity. This firm already has their solution installed in a number of carriers within Australia, and they are winning bids overseas. A decision such as this could mean Clarity pack up in Australia and head off overseas.

Members of the Gillard government continually rise in this place to lambaste the opposition as critics of fast broadband infrastructure and information technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalition understand that in an information age access to efficient communications services is vital to improve the provision of health, education, social inclusion and economic developments. We are proponents of a network that can be adapted and upgraded as technologies improve.

One size does not fit all. Using fibre as the solution for all Australian households—inner city, regional and rural—does not provide the most economical and efficient solution to the problem. Funding a project without a business plan and cost-benefit analysis is poor business practice and an irresponsible allocation of taxpayer funds. The coalition supports fibre as the backbone of any broadband project but fibre is not the magic elixir to solve all our communication problems. Again, the government flaunts its $43 billion fibre solution as the only solution that every Australian wants.

But we must accept that Australians are taking up wireless broadband at a rate that far outstrips fixed-line broadband, which is now fairly static. Consumers are sending the government clear messages, but they are being ignored at every turn. In this light it is difficult to see a business case for the NBN. Not only is the project financially irresponsible it creates risk around competition and efficiency in the telecommunications market.

I call on my coalition colleagues, government and crossbench members to support this private member’s bill and motion in both houses so as to hold to account Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure project. This is clearly a policy that needs to be fixed. It is far too important to be left in the hands of incompetent bureaucrats and government ministers, especially those of the Rudd-Gillard government infamy.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution by acknowledging the contributions of the members for Greenway and Braddon. They spoke with such passion in this debate, which should not be surprising to any of us, because the member for Greenway and the member for Braddon represent people for whom this debate is of critical importance.

This is the equivalent of earlier debates about sewerage. I remember my father, quite infamously, declaring in this place—maybe in his maiden speech—that he would be happy to leave this place known as the guy that gave his people the right to pull the chain. I think that some people at the time found that pretty humorous. But it was true when he was elected and it was still true when I was elected that people in my electorate did not have the right to pull the chain. I am sure that is true also of the member for Braddon’s people and no doubt at some point, maybe earlier, was true of the people who lived in the member for Greenway’s electorate.

We contrast that with some of those who sit on the other side. The member for Greenway made the point that the member for Bradfield, who is railing so hard, has people in his electorate who have access to the best internet speeds in the country. So why could they be expected to understand that the people we represent need this technology? We do not have the privilege of always having it now, unlike those he represents. To be empowered, to keep apace, to come properly into the 21st century and to be competitive in the 21st century is absolutely crucial for the children of the people we represent in electorates like mine and in the electorates of the member for Greenway and the member for Braddon and many others on this side.

The first question here is: why are those opposite opposing the National Broadband Network? I think we have partly answered it, although it remains absolutely inexplicable why the member for Cowper would come into this place and so enthusiastically argue that his people, the people who live in Coffs Harbour and surrounds, should not have access to the best broadband speeds available. He should come back in here and explain himself. On the question of why those opposite are opposing this: is it because it is not needed? I think we have covered that. Of course all Australians should have the right to access the best technology available and to be internationally competitive? Is it because it is old technology? Of course it is not. Is it because the country cannot afford it—a trillion dollar economy? Of course that is nonsense. Is it because consumers do not want it? I should think not. Is it anticompetitive? No, it is just the opposite. This is transforming what is almost a monopoly telecommunications industry into a competitive one for the first time in the history of this nation. The really sad thing about this debate is that those opposite oppose this idea because it is not theirs. They oppose this very constructive and forward-looking idea because it is not theirs. No other possible explanation can be found.

I have spoken about electorates. I am very glad the member for Cunningham has joined me, because she can relate to this very well. People in my electorate want the National Broadband Network. There can be no mistake about that. The debate in my electorate, and indeed in the Hunter region, is about how quickly we will have the National Broadband Network rolled out to us. We are in there fighting. We are in there saying, ‘The regions should be done first.’ Those closest to the city have an advantage already. Why not bring competitiveness to the regions by looking at us first? Indeed the Hunter chapter of Regional Development Australia has applied for a grant from the Commonwealth government in order to appoint a person to work full time for six months to look at what we in the Hunter can do to ensure that we are rolled out earlier rather than later. James Vidler, an academic from the University of Newcastle, is doing a fantastic job building the case. He is not just talking about the benefits that will roll out to consumers, because it is true that every consumer across the country will receive the same benefit. He is talking about us as a region with the capacity to provide the necessary skills to roll out the cables and do that other work, about selling our capacity to do this thing without putting pressure on either the local economy or the national economy.

While those opposite, at least in the case of those who do not have electorates like the member for Bradfield, are sitting there arguing why their people should be denied 100 megabits per second, those of us on this side, for example, from the Hunter—the member for Newcastle, the member for Shortland and the member for Charlton are joining with me—will be having a planning meeting next week for all the members from the Hunter region—all the Labor members, that is. The member for Paterson, unsurprisingly, has not shown much interest. He still believes that Hunter residents should cop second-rate wireless technology instead. We know for a fact that, if you want 50 megabits per second or more, it must be delivered by fibre-optic cable. So we are having a meeting next week to talk more about where we are and how we are going to build our case to be earlier rather than later in the rollout of the NBN.

Again, it is inexplicable that the member for Cowper and others who sit on that side of the House would be in here arguing that we should be rejecting the NBN proposal. I know that the opposition are trying to say: ‘We’re not necessarily against it. We think it’s alright. It’s just that, you know, we haven’t really had a proper cost-benefit analysis.’ The member for Greenway very cleverly waved around their policy of five or six pages, which I found pretty extraordinary. I like the way that the member for Windsor put it on AM, I think, on Monday morning when he talked about projects like the Snowy River scheme and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. If cost-benefit analyses had been done on those projects, there is no doubt in my mind that they would not have stacked up. Every time I drive up and down the F3 freeway between Sydney and my home in the Hunter, I am constantly reminded of the mistake made when the bulk of that freeway was not made six lanes. Of course, the people who designed and constructed that highway would not have envisaged, or even dreamed, that four lanes would not be sufficient to carry traffic between Newcastle and the Hunter and beyond. In the same way that the member for Greenway pointed out that Jefferson and others could not have dreamed of what we would be doing with technology today I cannot even dream about what I or my teenage children will be doing with technology in 10, 20 or 30 years time.

There is no doubt that, for a while, they would have thought of making the F3 freeway six lanes. I have not checked that but I am sure that would be the case. There would have been a debate and someone would no doubt have come to the conclusion that six lanes was too expensive and that, on a cost-benefit analysis, it simply did not stack up. We have to ask ourselves now what the economic cost is on a daily basis of the traffic jams and accidents caused by the decision to go with four lanes rather than six. I am not criticising those who planned or made those decisions, but it is a perfect analogy. It is an example of how wrong we can get it if we rely only on a limited time basis, cost-benefit analysis.

I ask those on the other side to reflect on that and to think about the benefits that will flow from the NBN that cannot even be measured in a cost-benefit analysis. How do you measure a grade 6 kid who is performing but who would have been underperforming if it were not for the assistance delivered to him by the National Broadband Network? How do you measure the additional happiness, if you like, of someone in an aged-care home who has a sense of security brought by having telemedicine access in her small unit? These things cannot be measured. I say to those opposite: get out of the way and let the government proceed with what is one of the most important investments—((Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.