Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, to questions without notice asked today relating to superannuation and the Future Fund and to broadband.

We had an extraordinary revelation on the front page of the Australian Financial Review today. What we saw this morning in the Australian Financial Review and what we saw yesterday from Senator Helen Coonan on Insiders was Senator Minchin and Senator Coonan cutting the Treasurer loose. Last week we saw the Treasurer’s quite hysterical performance in trying to attack Labor’s proposal to give this country a national high-speed fibre-optic network which would deliver 12 megabits minimum to 98 per cent of Australians. In a hysterical attack, the Treasurer, Mr Costello, made all sorts of allegations. We saw it all—tomb raiders, bear in the honey pot, all of the hype, colour and movement that Mr Costello displays inside the chamber but not anywhere else where it requires backbone. We saw Senator Minchin and Senator Coonan cut and abandon the Treasurer, Mr Costello.

Senator Minchin refused point-blank to guarantee that future surpluses would be going into the Future Fund. This is a complete repudiation of the Prime Minister’s position, the Treasurer’s position and his own position for the last 18 months—a complete backflip. That is what this government has been reduced to because it has been exposed as not having a plan for the future and not having any idea how to address the needs of the Australian community. It has become so arrogant and so lazy that it just dismisses voices it does not agree with.

We saw that happen today with Senator Coonan. You can always tell when the government are running on empty. You can tell when they know they have been caught out. There were insults, personal insults, from Senator Coonan. There were the two hoary old chestnuts: the ‘unions are running the Labor Party’ and ‘we are paying off Labor Party debt’. We know they are in trouble. This is a government that proudly boast that they have spent $4 billion getting broadband up to speed. They boast that they have 17 schemes—and I read them all out last week—for $4 billion. What have we got to show for it? Rubbish broadband with half of Perth on dial-up, Adelaide struggling, and great swathes of country and regional Australia being forced to rely on second-class services. This government has spent $4 billion on nothing more than National Party photo opportunities, and Senator Macdonald and some of his ilk in the Liberal Party are very jealous about how many photo opportunities the National Party have got.

At the weekend we had Senator Coonan demonstrating again her complete lack of understanding of her portfolio. She announced last week on Lateline and again yesterday, ‘I am personally involved in the negotiations.’ People have asked her: ‘What do you mean by being personally involved? Tell us more.’ Of course there is silence from her and her office. They do not want to confess that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Today we had the claim that we are ahead of South-East Asia and the Pacific. Fantastic! Let us go home and tell our children that we are beating Niue, Nauru and the Solomon Islands. Let us beat our chests a bit more. This government is demonstrating that it really does believe that the Great Wall of China was built by the Emperor Nasi Goreng just to keep the rabbits out. That is what that mob over there believe. They just do not get it. They have lost the plot. They are so arrogant and so out of touch they do not want to get onboard with a productivity-enhancing, health services enhancing and education-enhancing $30 billion improvement in productivity in our own country. They are just economic vandals who have turned their backs on this community. They are allowing Australia to slide into a broadband backwater and we are falling further and further behind. That is why this mob just do not get it. They cannot stand up. It is a pity that Senator Nash and the National Party did not have the backbone. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If anyone could explain to me what Senator Conroy was just rabbiting on about, I would be very grateful. Apart from a bit of rhetoric and some of the old cliches, it was just five minutes of absolute rubbish. Let us have a look at the facts and see where Labor stand on these issues. Those of us in this chamber will well remember when Labor was in charge of telecommunications. Do you remember that we had the analog phone one week and within a few weeks Labor, without any warning to anyone, without any plans for transition, simply said they were going to get rid of the analog network? That of course left everyone in country Australia without access to a mobile phone. That is typical of Labor’s approach not only to telecommunications but across the board. They do not give a damn about people in country Australia. Absolutely nobody believes the Labor Party proposal for their rollout. Sure, it might do something for the capital cities but those of us who live in regional Australia are going to get it in the eye yet again

This is not me suggesting this. All of the serious commentators are also very critical of the Labor Party proposal. I refer you to the comment by ABN AMRO. They said about Labor’s proposal:

The Labor proposal will take industry back 20 years to Government provision, gold-plating and restricted rollout.

They further went on to label the Labor proposal as ‘inefficient’ and they said:

It does not resolve access regulation issues but entrenches them and adds new inefficiencies.

They went on to conclude that the Labor proposal:

... re-establishes a conflict between Government as owner, whose dividends rely on access prices, and as regulator of access.

Most of the serious commentators think that Labor’s proposals are quite ridiculous and unworkable. As to the proposal for the price mentioned by Senator Conroy, we do not know what the actual price is. At one time of the day he said it was $8 billion. A couple of hours later it was $9 billion. Then it was $10 billion. He is all over the ship.

Whatever the price, I think it is clear from international experience and independent costings, and indeed Telstra’s own numbers, that a network servicing 98 per cent of the Australian population with a minimum broadband speed of 12 megabits per second could not be built for $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion. Everyone knows that this rollout will not reach 98 per cent of Australians, and again it will be country people who Labor ignore.

The cost of the rollout depends on landmass. For Singapore, with some 660 square kilometres of landmass—about half the size of Sydney—the fibre rollout cost something like $5 billion. So for half the size of Sydney it cost $5 billion and Senator Conroy is trying to pretend that you can do the whole of Australia for $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion. The fibre rollout in South Korea—and, as senators will know, South Korea is approximately half the size of Victoria—cost the South Korean government some $US40 billion. Labor claim they can cover all of Australia for $7 billion, $8 billion, $9 billion or $10 billion. But in South Korea, half the size of Victoria, it cost some $40 billion.

Telstra, as I recall, was widely reported as having costed a nationwide rollout at something like $30 billion. So where are Labor going to get the other $20 billion or $30 billion from, once they embark upon their crazy scheme? Again, it will come out of the Future Fund—the fund that this government has responsibly put aside for unfunded Public Service superannuation. Labor are going to pinch it from there and put Australia back into the sort of economic and financial management regime that it was under when Labor were in charge. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real pleasure to speak on this issue today and to make a point on the appalling understanding that a number of coalition senators have on this issue. Obviously, Senator Ian Macdonald does not know the difference between fibre-to-the-node and fibre-to-the-home costings, because that explains the differential between some of the figures that he has been bandying about—specifically and deliberately misleading the Senate when comparing the sort of network that Labor is proposing to build and the sorts of prices he was quoting.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy, I think you should withdraw ‘deliberately misleading’.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. But I have made my point, and I would like to make another point. What we have seen today is an amazing example of coalition senators coming in here to embark on a bit of damage control. Over the weekend, Senators Coonan and Minchin both made clear statements to show that there was no flaw in Labor’s plans to use some of the Telstra holdings in the Future Fund for this proposal. In fact, Senator Minchin said that the Future Fund was well ahead of schedule and that future surpluses might not even be required to reach the target of meeting unfunded public sector superannuation liabilities by 2020. So today, what we have heard from Senator Coonan and others in this place is some kind of exercise in damage control, reverting to their original lines of late last week in this debate. But actually it does not work like that. What we have on the record is this very specific statement by Senator Coonan: ‘You might then consider what else you might do with it.’ She was referring, of course, to funds in the Future Fund.

This government cannot have it both ways. We now have enough public statements from them to know that there is no problem, even in their view, with what Labor is doing with the Future Fund. We also know that all of this ridiculous rhetoric and the histrionics from the Treasurer and the pathetic attempt at cranking it back up today by government senators will absolutely not convince anybody that there is a problem with Labor’s plan. We have guaranteed meeting those superannuation liabilities.

This issue is all about the fact that Labor has a vision for this country and the coalition government does not. It has been over 11 years since I was first elected to the Senate, and what we do know is that for 11 years this country has been waiting for a broadband network that will service our future social and economic needs. For the first time, the Australian Labor Party has had the fortitude to put such a vision forward.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a vision that will serve the needs of rural and regional Australia and that will also fill the appalling holes in metropolitan Australia. Without such a vision, this country has no hope of keeping pace with other comparable economies. We have been watching ourselves slide. We have watched $4 billion worth of ad hoc programs to allow Senator Nash and others a ‘smiley’ opportunity in front of the camera, but it has been piecemeal and ad hoc. We have seen $4 billion of taxpayers’ money wasted in this way, making small incremental changes in some areas but not fixing the whole problem, not raising our credentials across the overall economy. How dare this government come in here and say how outrageous it is for us to access taxpayers’ money from the Future Fund to build a proper network, when they have frittered away in such an appalling fashion $4 billion of taxpayers’ money over that time.

I would like to make one more point that shows Senator Coonan’s complete lack of understanding or deliberate attempt to mislead this debate. Labor’s plan is for an open access network. That is a regulatory feature not ever put forward by this government previously because they have chosen to try and negotiate for this type of infrastructure, allowing deals for proprietary networks—cutting a deal for Telstra because they have had an interest in the sale. They have not had the necessary vision to provide for an open access network. That is the key to Labor’s plan—it is an open network, and only Labor has the vision to bring the parties to the table and make this happen.

Senator Coonan has an inability to understand the basic difference regarding the compromised nature of their approach, and now we hear of secret deals, to have some sort of arrangement— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite extraordinary to listen to the opposition today when they talk about this plan as if it is some great, new, grand plan, when all it is is a rehash of Senator Conroy’s plan, which he put out last year and which nobody took any notice of. It is quite difficult to understand why they are taking notice of it this time when they did not last time. What this is really about, as much as broadband speeds, is Labor’s credibility. That is what this is about. It is not about broadband speeds to nearly the same extent.

Let us look at why that is so, because we are talking about an opposition that for years has put forward its point of view that we should never, ever privatise Telstra—not ever. Indeed, we only have to look at what Senator Conroy, the leader of this whole broadband charge, has said. On 9 August 2005 he said:

... the Labor Party will honour the commitment it made to the Australian public at the last election and oppose any move to privatise Telstra.

Obviously Senator Conroy has completely forgotten he said that in 2005, because he has done a complete about-face; he has turned around completely.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s already been privatised.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interestingly, the ex-leader of the ALP, Mr Beazley, on 12 September 2005, also talked about not privatising Telstra.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s happened.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said:

We are not going to let this go without a fight. We understand that it is in the interests of the people of this country that Telstra should not be sold and that it does its job properly in nation building. We will fight for that; we will fight for that until hell freezes over.

The opposition has interjected that it has already happened—absolutely. Of course it has. But it has been very suitable for those on the other side to say, ‘That’s okay, we’ll support the privatisation now because we can get our hands on a big bucket of money to try and win some votes.’

The opposition’s policy has been for years and years not to privatise Telstra and now apparently that was all okay to get their hands on a bucket of money. It is not good enough. On the Future Fund side of things it is also very interesting that now it is okay to apparently steal money out of the Future Fund for any projects that the ALP decide are a really good idea. This is in contrast to the member for Lilley, who said on 15 August 2005:

... we have no guarantee this will be a Future Fund which is a locked box. It will be another pork-barrelling institution. ... If you’re going to have a Future Fund it has to be a locked box.

I wonder what has happened in the last couple of years, because apparently now it does not have to be a locked box anymore. It is absolutely fine for the ALP to get their hands on it, spring the lock, get the money out and use it to buy votes for a plan that Senator Conroy put forward last year that nobody took any notice of. Apparently now, under a new leader, it is worthy of another look.

But what is really appalling about this plan from the ALP is the fact that rural and regional Australians are going to miss out. It would be very interesting to see some more digging around and to ask Senator Conroy: who has done the costings? Where have the costings come from? Who has put the price on how much this is actually going to cost to roll out? Because this is taxpayers’ money we are talking about; it is not coming from some box somewhere. Where has that costing come from? It is very important that we ask that question because again there is no credibility. If we do not know where the costings have come from, there is no credibility.

In terms of where it is going, Senator Conroy throws out 98 per cent of Australia. Once you have a look at maps, you can see how incredibly large that remaining two per cent is. I see that Senator Conroy has not provided us with a single map of where he believes that 98 per cent to be. So we have a plan where we have seen no costings, we have seen no map of where it is going to go to and at the same time it is ripping out $2 billion from the communications fund that this government set up to ensure that rural and regional Australian telecommunications services are up to standard in the future. That has gone.

There is going to be no money left for the bush; it is all going to the cities for a plan that competition will deliver. It will take away all the funding that has been set aside to make sure that rural and regional communities get the services in telecommunications that they deserve. It is not good enough and it is time that Senator Conroy came up with some figures for those costings and the maps so that people around this country, particularly in rural and regional communities, know where they are going to be missing out, because they will be missing out. (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard from Senator Nash for the National Party—a party that had a TV series named after it. It was called Lost. And to prove that, she is actually asking the Labor Party to provide her with a map. I want to deal with the answers given by Senator Abetz. Today is the first anniversary of the introduction of Work Choices. I might also say that it happens to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which led to the establishment of the European Union. But, whereas the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome is something positive to celebrate, the first anniversary of Work Choices is not.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, received his present for the anniversary of Work Choices on the weekend in New South Wales when his Liberal Party in New South Wales suffered a devastating defeat. In an election where the Labor government had been in power for 12 years—one would think that after 12 years in government you might start to be under some threat of losing power due to the simple effluxion of time—what happened in New South Wales? The Liberal Party failed to win one seat back from the Labor Party. They did not take one seat off the Labor government. The only two new seats they won in New South Wales, they won back from Independents—the seats of Pittwater and Manly. Those seats up there on the North Shore, the jewel in the crown area of the Liberal Party’s representation in Sydney, had been held by Independents for a number of years and they finally won them back, but nothing else. Not a single other seat did they win back.

They are actually struggling to retain the seat of Goulburn where they had their star candidate, Pru Goward. She is, I believe, a quality person who could represent the Liberal Party well—the person who was rejected for the safe Liberal seat of Epping. The Liberal Party made her run in Goulburn and she is struggling to retain that seat for the Liberals. Why? She herself admits industrial relations were of major concern. When she was asked about this on Radio National she said: ‘They’—naturally the constituents—‘were telling me that their shift loadings were being cut and their incomes were going down.’ That was her response to what was an issue of concern. Industrial relations, Work Choices, were clearly a major issue in the New South Wales state election held last Saturday.

No matter how much the Prime Minister, Mr Hockey, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, try to dismiss it, it is a fact. It is a major issue. The Labor government under Morris Iemma went out there and campaigned on the issue of industrial relations. They said that they would not hand over any powers to John Howard and the federal government. They supported the retention of the New South Wales industrial relations system and the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. It is a commission that has protected the conditions of millions of New South Wales workers and their families for over 100 years and it continues to do so.

When Senator Abetz gets up here today and tells us all about the great results that he says have been achieved as a result of Work Choices in 12 months, it is all a fiction. In New South Wales the vast majority of workers are regulated by the state industrial relations system, not by Work Choices. They are still under the state system. Prime Minister John Howard and the minister are trying to drag them into the federal system but fortunately a large proportion of workers in New South Wales still work under the state system. They are the ones who are producing the improvements in this economy, not this ramshackle government here.

Last Saturday, you guys were smashed politically in New South Wales and you will continue to be in opposition in New South Wales as long as you continue to support the discredited Work Choices system. The minister talks about delivering jobs for women, but you could not even deliver a safe seat to one of your own stars, for one of your female candidates, Pru Goward. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.