Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. I do so as the relevant shadow minister. I want to congratulate Senator Fisher, the committee and the secretariat of the committee for a very good and comprehensive interim report, and I look forward to the final report. The interim report is a very good examination of all the issues surrounding the quite extraordinary process involved in the national broadband network. I take the opportunity to thank my predecessor as shadow minister, Mr Bruce Billson MP, on his very persuasive advocacy of the need for this committee and his instrumental role in ensuring that the Senate set up this very good committee. I think this committee and the process surrounding it have put the spotlight on the Labor government’s policy and processes. That really is very much needed because this whole NBN process is shrouded in secrecy. I think the committee is proving to be very useful. It has been my pleasure to attend most of the hearings and to hear evidence from across the industry, from consumers, from internet service providers and from the major telcos in relation to this very significant matter.

For me, there are a number of things that really do stand out that are categorised and recorded in the committee’s report. The evidence that has been given before the committee really does expose that the Labor Party’s policy in this area is not much more than a glib one-liner that was presented to the Australian people at the time of the last election to essentially get Labor through the election. They had a very simplistic and quite cynical approach to the very complex issue of broadband services. There was virtually no detail presented to the Australian people and clearly little thought or analysis was done on how we can achieve the desired outcomes—outcomes which we all want but which cannot be achieved by glib one-line policies.

It is also clear that there is enormous criticism throughout the industry of the one-size-fits-all approach adopted by the Labor Party in its policy and, in government, its implementation. I think many would expect that, having got through the election, Labor would revisit this matter and adopt a more sophisticated approach. What the Labor Party has done that has been criticised by the industry is to simply pick a technology—in this case, fibre—and not focus on the outcomes that we all desire and how best to achieve them.

Despite the comments by Senator Lundy and Senator Conroy there is enormous criticism throughout Australia of the Labor Party’s cancellation of the OPEL contract and disbelief in relation to the assertions made that the OPEL consortium could not meet its contractual requirements. Certainly, Optus and Elders categorically reject the assertions by the minister that they could not achieve those outcomes. Indeed, while rural and regional Australia would have had a high-speed broadband service by July next year if that contract had been honoured, with the Labor Party’s NBN process it will be years and years before rural and regional Australians receive any improvement in their service.

The process of the Senate select committee has also identified significant criticism of the Labor Party’s tender process for its national broadband network. Principally, there was focused criticism of the absence of any declaration or guidance in relation to the legislation and regulations that will surround this proposed network. As many have said, the rules are being made up as we go along and will actually be a function of the process itself. Almost everybody who has appeared before the committee has said that the government should have determined the regulatory arrangements first and then everybody would know what they would be bidding towards.

There has also been enormous criticism about the lack of any detail as to exactly what is meant by the government in proclaiming its desire to service 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses with this national broadband network. There has been no detail at all. People in my state of South Australia in particular fear that most of the state is going to miss out—that most of South Australia and Western Australia will be part of the two per cent that Labor has ignored in its policy.

There is a complete lack of detail about the extraordinary amount of money involved—the $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money. The government said at the time of the election that that would be a 50 per cent equity injection. Immediately after the election, that became a possibility of debt—in other words, the government becoming banker to the tender process. It is also apparently open to the government to make this a direct subsidy and just hand over the $4.7 million. Who would know? It has been revealed that there has been no cost-benefit analysis done whatsoever on the extraordinary amount of money, $4.7 billion, that is going into a national broadband network. What benefits will the taxpayer get for the expenditure involved? This is by far the biggest expenditure out of the proposed Building Australia Fund. Every other expenditure out of that fund, we are assured by the government, will have rigorous cost-benefit analysis done. But this expenditure, by far the biggest of them all, will have no such analysis done whatsoever.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that voters were, frankly, deceived at the time of the last election about the timing of the implementation of this promise. Voters were promised that by the middle of this year the tenderer would have been selected—that promise has been broken. Electors were promised that construction would begin by the end of this year. The government has about 29 days to deliver on that promise and clearly that is going to be broken. The government has simply not factored in the processes and complexities of changing the legislative and regulatory arrangements surrounding internet services in this country. That is going to be an extremely difficult and time-consuming process and it is becoming increasingly clear that it will be towards the end of next year before we see any construction beginning on the national broadband network.

It is also quite interesting to note the absence of support for actually having a fibre-to-the-node network to cover 98 per cent of Australian homes and businesses. Nobody says that that is realistic, achievable or makes any sense. That is why the former coalition government’s OPEL contract based on wireless solutions in rural and regional Australia made enormous sense. No-one sees this proposal from Labor as the answer.

There seems to be a clear lack of understanding in the government about the impact on the existing industry structure. Upgrading the existing copper network to a fibre-to-the-node network is going to have a dramatic impact on this industry, particularly on internet service providers who will have millions and millions of dollars of equipment stranded at telephone exchanges. No thought seems to have been given to that consequence.

As Senator Fisher rightly pointed out, there seems to be a complete absence of any priority given to underserved areas in rural and regional Australia. There is growing concern about the consequences of the government’s remarkable policy of abolishing the Communications Fund, something which we remain opposed to. It is a fund that would have been there to provide funds to rural and regional Australians in perpetuity to ensure they get the best possible service. That is going to be swept away by the Labor Party and rendered obsolete. We have seen from this interim report and from the process the committee has undertaken how hopelessly mismanaged this whole process is.

Now we have this extraordinary process where the ACCC, over the Christmas and New Year period, will have six weeks to examine all the bids and determine the regulatory and legislative impacts. The panel is then expected to report, I think, on 24 January and give the government a recommendation. The public will have no knowledge of any of this as there is no commitment at all to put the ACCC’s report or the expert panel’s assessment of each of these bids into the public arena. The process is completely shrouded in secrecy. And now, with the government snubbing its nose at the Auditor-General and his finding that the RFP would have to be altered for the expert panel to be able to consider non-conforming bids, there must be real probity and legal doubts about the whole process itself.

I congratulate the committee and its secretariat; they have done great work. I look forward to the final report and, regrettably, I think it will be years and years before we see the final evolution of Labor’s ill-fated national broadband network.