KIERAN GILBERT:
Joining me this morning on the program is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury. David good morning.
DAVID BRADBURY:
Good morning Kieran.
GILBERT:
Also joining us on the program this morning from Melbourne is Shadow front bencher for Small Business Bruce Billson, good morning. Bruce, what do you make of Stephen Conroy's argument that the Coalition plan just doesn't have enough capacity for the future?
BRUCE BILLSON:
Yeah, it's interesting isn't it. I sat through that interview and thought that if you could sell bluster then the Government's budget deficit would disappear overnight. There is Senator Conroy talking about blistering speeds and what the NBN might do, then trying to bring it back to base rates of cost which have nothing to do with the speeds he's spruiking about. Of course, he forgot to mention some four years after Labor promised to revolutionise broadband, you've got 41 households benefitting from a herculean investment. Malcolm's speech yesterday about the Coalition broadband strategy was a good speech, it realised that broadband is delivered over a network of networks, being able to upgrade them as applications and consumer demand seeks greater performance in greater capacity is a hallmark of our plan. Also, there is affordability. The point being that the digital divide is more about the dollar divide, households without the ready cash to spend handsomely on broadband and other comms technology are the ones least accessing that capability at the moment so price matters, and price is something that the Government and certainly Senator Conroy seems reluctant to talk about, and they continue to roll out a project that is more expensive than some options that are available now.
GILBERT:
Okay, David I suppose the other point that Malcolm Turnbull made was about download speeds, that his alternative could provide 24 megabits per second capacity as opposed to the 100 megabits per second capacity of the NBN, isn't that just a more realistic speed? I mean how many households will actually want much more than that?
BRADBURY:
Well I think Kieran that the first point to make is that Malcolm, what he did yesterday in his speech, was redefine his job description because we all know that when he was given the job, Tony Abbott said that he was to demolish the NBN. What he acknowledged yesterday is that they won't be demolishing the NBN and in fact they'll be retaining parts of the system currently in place. But what it was was an attempt to come up with a more credible policy at least than the Coalition took the last election and we know what a shemozzle that was. But the bottom line remains that I think Stephen Conroy made the point very clearly. He made the point that this would be a bit like building the Sydney Harbour Bridge in the 1920's with only one lane. I tell you, everywhere I go around the place when people are stuck in traffic, they lament the fact that politicians didn't take the long term decisions that were needed by building infrastructure for the future, and that is exactly what we intend to do with the National Broadband Network. It's about building in the capacity in to the network that will allow our economy to grow in to the future. We know from the report that Google released earlier this week that the Australian economy and its future prospects are inextricably linked to our ability to access the sort of capacity that we're building in to the National Broadband Network. Now, this will be seen as a visionary project once it's been implemented, and in fact I think by the next election you'll see that the Coalition will have to recalibrate their policy again, back flip even further, because they know that more and more Australians will start to experience the benefits of high speed broadband.
GILBERT:
Bruce Billson what about this idea of future proofing the technology as David was articulating then?
BILLSON:
He had a dose of analogy overreach there David. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a nice, cheesy example. As Malcolm outlined yesterday, the fibre rolled out already and the fibre being rolled out at the moment provides a key back bone, to use David's analogy of what Senator Conroy and the Labor Government wants to have a multi-lane highway in every cul-de-sac in Bankstown. It's just ridiculous. The proposition that Malcolm outlined was fibre to the nodes, utilising existing investment and infrastructure that's already there, adding further investment in infrastructure where that's needed in under serviced areas. It gives consumers the power to choose whether they want a multi-lane highway as their driveway or whether they'd want something that's fit for purpose for their particular means and priced accordingly.
GILBERT:
Okay let's put that to David. David, what about that? You upgrade where you need to. Fibre to the node and the argument about the HFC cable that it's already in place and people can upgrade where they need to down the track, it's a more modest spend but with capacity to grow.
BRADBURY:
Well if we want to limit our aspirations as a country to that and if Bruce doesn't think that people in communities like Bankstown and other suburbs in Western Sydney should have access to the technology that people have in other parts of the country then I refute that whole heartedly. I think that one of the great opportunities that comes with the National Broadband Network is the opportunity for people all around this country to be able to change the way they do what they currently do. To ease congestion on our roads by having people engage in productive economic activity from home, people working from home, small business in communities like mine who actually currently don't have access to high speed internet because the same infrastructure that Malcolm and Bruce want to rely upon, the old out of date, dated technology, dated infrastructure of the copper wires won't even deliver high speed internet today yet that is the very infrastructure upon the Coalitions plan seeks to rely.
GILBERT:
We've got to go to a break I think you've both had a pretty good say on that. After the break, we're going to look at the issue of the first boat load of Asylum Seekers to Christmas Island under the Malaysia deal, stay with us.
*BREAK*
GILBERT:
Welcome back to the program. This morning from Melbourne is Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson, and from Sydney the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer David Bradbury. David, today I'm told the first boatload is expected on Christmas Island around 11-11:30, this is the first boatload under the Malaysia deal, the Asylum Seeker swap. It's going to be a tough ask for Immigration Officials to tell these people when they arrive, 'sorry you're not staying, turn around and move on.'
BRADBURY:
I think we can all appreciate that that is not going to be an easy thing to do. But, this isn't a policy that was designed to look tough it is in fact a policy that we are committed to implementing. The reason we're committed to implementing this policy is that we want there to be a very clear message not just sent to the people that have arrived but more particularly to those people that might be waiting in parts of our region and contemplating spending thousands of dollars, paying a people smuggler to hop on to one of these leaky vessels and to make the decision to make that very dangerous voyage across the water towards Australia...
GILBERT:
It's fraud isn't it? This whole scenario because the Prime Minister hasn't ruled out force being used, but it's not hard to imagine that some of these people will kick up a stink when they're told what the reality is going to be.
BRADBURY:
I would expect that that is a real likelihood. But, the same would apply if you were turning boats around in the middle of the ocean and that was something as far as I understand is still Coalition policy. I think this is much less dangerous than that and certainly would expose the Australian personnel involved to much less risk than that. Clearly, this is not something that's easy. But, neither was establishing the bilateral arrangements with Malaysia to put this proposal in place so we're committed to making it happen.
GILBERT:
Okay let's get Bruce's thoughts on this particularly. Bruce I want to ask you about the fact that Malaysian Police Officers on the ground as well as Christmas Island will watch how this is going to work and apparently the Malaysians want this to start sooner, to get this happening ASAP, people could be deported as early as this Sunday.
BILLSON:
It'll be interesting to see what will happen in the coming days. There will be a great deal of interest in how the Government handles this. Not only interest from our own policy makers and our own citizens but I'm sure the people smugglers will be very interested as well. They heard back on the 7th of May that any boat that arrived after that would be subject to the Malaysian solution, well that hasn't been the case. The agreement will be endorsed by the UNHCR, well that hasn't been the case. The issue about a 72 hour turnaround, well that hasn't been the case either. So, the people smugglers sitting there wondering what's really going on and they're left with plenty to sell prospective Asylum Seekers because of the wiggle room and the uncertainty surrounding the Government's policy...
BRADBURY:
Are you trying to encourage them Bruce?
BILLSON:
I think it'll be interesting to see how this process works out and whether in fact the Government can implement this policy. There is health and security checks that I understand will be handled on Christmas Island involving the Malaysian interest as well, I wonder how that will go. If not everybody on board the vessel is handled in the same way I'm sure people will note that as well.
GILBERT:
Okay let's move on. I want to ask you about a couple of other issues gentlemen. The Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey said last night on the ABC that the Department of Climate Change could be axed under a Coalition Government. Bruce he said that the Department of Climate Change was essentially loose with its numbers and that if the Coalition wins they would look at potentially shutting down the Department of Climate Change. How would you roll out your own policy without the Department and many of the public servants working in that area?
BILLSON:
I think 'look at' and 'not having one' are two separate ideas. It's perhaps an overreach on what Joe was actually saying. He was pointing to example after example where supposed economic analysis coming out of that Department had proven to be incorrect based on inaccurate assumptions or couldn't be validated alongside what Treasury and others were saying would be the impact of certain policies. So I think Joe's point was quite valid that the Department of Climate Change should stick to its knitting and leave the economic analysis and debate surrounding the economic impact to those agencies within the Commonwealth and others which have that core competency and can be relied upon to use those numbers correctly.
GILBERT:
We've got that comment now from Joe Hockey, let's play it for you.
*AUDIO*
JOE HOCKEY:
It's the same Department of Climate Change that has been party to Treasury modelling where they've modelled the impact of their own carbon tax at $20 a tonne instead of $23 a tonne. The Department of Climate Change will be pretty high up the list for very close scrutiny.
HOST:
You mean you'll be thinking of disbanding it?
HOCKEY:
Yep.
*END AUDIO*
GILBERT:
So David Bradbury, what do you make of Bruce's comments and also Joe Hockey's comments that the Department should stick to its area of expertise.
BRADBURY:
Well I think Bruce should pull his head in. Talking about the Department of Climate Change sticking to knitting, what an outrageous slur upon public servants, the people who commit their daily life to trying to contribute to the public service of this nation. In terms of Joe Hockey's comments, he was actually referring to Treasury modelling. So if the new approach of the Coalition is if you don't agree with the advice that you're receiving from the bureaucracy you shut down the Department, then what is going to be next, the Treasury? The Treasury for example has given consistent advice to this Government and previous Governments that the best way to tackle climate change is by pricing carbon. Now, that will be the advice that a future Coalition Government if they even get in will receive, what are they going to do? Shut down the Treasury because they're not getting the advice that they want? What a joke!
GILBERT:
Okay let's hear Bruce's response to that.
BILLSON:
I just heard David with some confected outrage and Labor is always good at that. Joe's point was that the economic analysis and some of the conclusions that have emanated out of that Department have been proven to be unreliable. That's a simple, factual statement. The Government refers to Department of Climate Change's economic conclusions when it suits them, it skates off over to Treasury when that suits them, basically they have a policy looking for evidence to back it up. Joe's point and my point is that at a time when important advice needs to be provided, you should get that advice from those best placed to provide it. If it's economic analysis, my sense is the Department of Climate Change should be providing advice about climate change, and economic advice should be provided by the economic portfolios.
BRADBURY:
So if you don't like the advice you shut them down?
GILBERT:
Okay well let's move on. Last issue I want to touch on is the high-speed rail report. Anthony Albanese the Infrastructure Minister is going to release that today, what are your thoughts David? Is this viable, we've only got a couple of minutes left so a minute or so each on this one, do you think this is a viable thing in the short term, high speed rail?
BRADBURY:
I think people will very warmly welcome this interim report which will be handed down, but I think we all acknowledge that there is a lot more work that will need to be done. I think most people would very clearly see that there are benefits that would flow from a high speed rail network across the East Coast. In easy congestion, freeing up capacity at airports and reducing carbon pollution. I think the question will be its viability as an economic proposition, but that's something that we as a Government will work through in the coming year and we're now determined to progress this interim report to something more substantial upon which Government will make future decisions.
GILBERT:
Yeah this initial report, Bruce, says that the project could run to as much as $100 billion. The Government hasn't committed to any spend at all just yet, it's just a feasibility, what do you think about the idea? Is there scope to get the private sector in on it as well?
BILLSON:
Look I think there should be and I'd be very keen to see the actual report. The previous Howard Government initiated a scoping study on this work and we made an election commitment to do a detailed feasibility, but what I'm keen to see is how they identify the use of what I call the NIC, the National Infrastructure Corridor, where one of the uses might be high speed rail. But then, it's availability for water, gas and other applications, then how the land use surrounding it is embraced in the economic model. Regional centres may well have an enormous boost to opportunities available to them; population settlement may also be a factor. It would be comprehensive piece of work, and those are the sorts of analysis I'm looking for in this study where you might see a range of uses and a range of financing parties to deliver a range of benefits and that is what I'm hoping the work canvasses.
GILBERT:
Bruce Billson and David Bradbury, great to talk this morning.