Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Minister, is the industry wrong when they say that your government’s national broadband network could cost up to $25 billion? Minister, if so, why?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before calling Senator Conroy, I remind Senator Birmingham: you must address your questions through the chair and not directly to the minister.

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

I do not intend to speculate on the total cost of the network. What I will say is that the federal government is committed to facilitating the build of a high-speed national broadband network. As part of its election commitment, as you have already heard today, $4.7 billion has been committed by this government to delivering a high-speed national broadband network. Let me be clear: there have been figures kicked around, from $8 billion to $10 billion to $12 billion to $15 billion to $21 billion and, just recently, $25 billion. There is an active debate taking place out there in the telecommunications industry, because there is a robust desire to win the contract. What you are seeing is healthy debate in the industry. I am sure you welcome the regulatory debate that we invited. We said, ‘Put your submissions in on the regulatory framework.’ And you are seeing a very healthy and robust debate. We are seeing a healthy and robust debate about what technology should be employed and about what the total cost should end up being. But let me be clear about this: $4.7 billion is the limit that the government will be committing. So you can point to figures—and it went from $15 billion to $25 billion in less than a week, from the same spokespeople from the same company. So, I anticipate that there is going to be a robust debate. I welcome the fact that there is a robust debate taking place. But I am not going to be drawn into commentary on the individual players in the industry speculating about what the actual final cost will be.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Through you, Mr President: I refer to comments made by Mr Rudd, when opposition leader, on 21 March last year when he said:

In terms of the shape of the joint venture, our broad approach, at this stage, is that we’ll be looking at 50 per cent public equity.

I ask the minister if that is still the government’s position, given that he has acknowledged that it could in fact be up to $25 billion in costs. And, if it is still the government’s position, where does it intend to find the $12½ billion necessary?

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

Senator Birmingham then made an attempt to seriously verbal my last answer, but I will put that aside. Let me be clear: in the RFP—which Senator Birmingham and I discussed at length at Senate estimates, and which I even offered to read out to Senator Birmingham so that he would be fully informed, rather than just being handed some questions—it states quite clearly that the Rudd government’s preference is for an equity partnership. It quite clearly states what our preference is; that is set out in the RFP. You can read it. I can get you the page number, I am sure, very quickly, so that you can have that information. $4.7 billion is the cap—no more. It does not matter what the final cost is. It does not matter what technology is picked—ADSL2+, VDSL, VDSL2+; it does not matter. (Time expired)