Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister confirm that on 28 April 2015 the former Minister for Communications and the Minister the Finance wrote to nbn co and requested it include in its corporate plan a distorted version of Labor's NBN plan as a so-called counterfactual to the government's policy? On what basis was this request made?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the shareholder ministers did not write to nbn co seeking anything that was distorted. The government asked nbn co to analyse a switch to an all fibre-to-the-premises rollout. The government expects that nbn co should periodically consider the best mix of technologies to roll out fast broadband as quickly as possible and at least cost. Nbn co agreed to the request and included the results of its independent analysis in its 2016 corporate plan. Nbn co has confirmed that the technology mix in its 2016 corporate plan is the most cost- and time-efficient means of completing the network. The company found that switching to an all fibre-to-the-premises rollout would mean that the network would not be completed until 2026, but possibly as late 2028, with a peak funding requirement of between $74 billion and $84 billion. This contrasts with the multitechnology mixed model, which will see the network completed by 2020, with the base case estimate for peak funding at $49 billion. Nbn co's consideration of an all fibre-to-the-premises scenario provides a point of comparison against which to evaluate the mixed technology approach. It is important for all policy decisions regarding the NBN to be informed by the rollout experience, technology developments and market knowledge which the company can draw upon, having now rolled out the network, under the coalition's watch, to more than one million premises, which is, indeed, good news.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you also confirm that the ministers specified in their letter that nbn co should cost the policy based on the government's own distorted version of Labor's plan, known as scenario 1.5, and include other additional, inflated assumptions? On what basis was this request made?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have already explained, the government, as expressed through the shareholder ministers—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the then shareholder ministers—one of whom is here with me and who is doing a fantastic job as Minister for Finance and as a shareholder minister for the NBN—thought it was very good and very prudent for nbn co to make sure that they always do a comparison as to what is the most cost-effective way of rolling out the NBN, comparing different technological approaches. I would have thought that that was good practice and good governance, and it is something with which I completely agree.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question. Minister, isn't it the case that the only reason the former Minister for Communications requested this counterfactual was to provide a political fig leaf, given the NBN has blown out by as much as $26.5 billion under his watch?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot see how asking nbn co to periodically compare their approach, their technological mix, with an alternative scenario to ensure that they are delivering the scheme in the best and most cost-effective way is anything other than good practice and good process on a project of this magnitude. I know a little bit about projects of significant magnitude, having previously had carriage of the NDIS—which is a very important project, as is the NBN.

On this side of the chamber we just want to make sure that taxpayers get good value for money. We want to make sure that taxpayers get that which they want as soon as is possible in the best possible fashion. I think that is unremarkable. (Time expired)