Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Why does the government claim that the NBN is costing $35.7 billion when it is clear from the summary of the NBN business case that the real cost of this project is in fact $49.5 billion, representing a $6.5 billion blow-out on the government’s previously stated worst-case scenario?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is regrettable that the good senator has not had the opportunity to speak to the shadow minister on this issue and instead has read some of the articles that have appeared in the newspapers. I think the senator is trying to add together the figure for capital expenditure and the figure for operational expenditure. That is a definitional ‘apples and oranges’ problem. I think the senator will find that even Mr Turnbull is no longer pressing this issue. It is unfortunate that he did not give you a call before question time to let you know that was no longer the line.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s because he voted for Abbott!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just going to say that that might have something to do with the events of a year ago. The reality is that, if you read the business case summary which was released, it is quite clear what the capital expenditure amount is. As you know, it is substantially less than the implementation study previously concluded. That is very good news, because the business case tells us, in the information that the government has received, that this project can be rolled out more cheaply and to more homes than was previously thought.

If you were interested in the transformational technology that broadband is, you would actually welcome that, but what we have from the opposition is this mindless opposition to anything of substance, including on this issue. Extraordinarily, we saw today the opposition, who say they want scrutiny, filibustering and playing procedural games so as to avoid debating the bill.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the government was forced into an embarrassing backdown in relation to the release of the summary of the NBN business case, what happens if the independent review that the minister for finance has commissioned of the NBN business case by Greenhill Caliburn concludes that the business case does not stack up and that the NBN is simply not viable?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is very clear about the importance of this project, because we understand that broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st century. This is the roads, rails and ports of this century. We also understand the importance—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order in relation to the requirement to be directly relevant. I asked the minister very specifically what would happen if the independent review she commissioned found that the business case was no good. The minister is giving me some sort of a generic statement about the merits of the NBN. That was not the question. It was a very specific question: what would happen if the independent review she commissioned found that the business case was no good? What is she going to do about it?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President, one of the challenges Senator Cormann has in asking a question like that is that it is hypothetical—it asks: what would happen—and he confirmed that with his point of order. Clearly it is a hypothetical question. It should in ordinary circumstances be ruled out of order. The point of it is of little value to the opposition, but the minister in answering the question can answer that part of the question that is capable of being answered, from a senator from the other side who is clearly out of his depth when asking a question of a hypothetical nature, as he has done.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister had one minute in which to answer the supplementary question and has 38 seconds remaining. I cannot tell the minister how to answer the question but I can draw the minister’s attention to the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying when I was interrupted by Senator Cormann, and as I have previously said, it is common practice for governments when making decisions on complex policy to commission advice. That is common practice. I would have thought that the fact that the government is taking a responsible and diligent approach to this issue would have been something that the opposition—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least we do not have to commission advice to know the difference between capex and opex.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Considering the NBN business case states that the $27.1 billion in acquired government equity is simply based on NBN Co.’s current plan, is it not true that, if this project is not viable, it will be taxpayers who will be forced to shoulder the burden of this significant expense?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not accept the premise of the question. We have a very clear view about the financial viability of this project, and that is a view based on the studies undertaken, the expert panel, the implementation study and the business case which has been received and, of course, the consideration the government will give this. It has been quite clearly indicated by the government that we believe this project is clearly financially viable. There has been a lot of discussion in this place and elsewhere about the fact that there is an internal rate of return above the long-term bond rate. This project stacks up. The reality is that the opposition are not interested in whether the project stacks up. They are not interested in whether this is good policy. They are only interested in opposing it—that is all; just opposition. (Time expired)