Mr WYATT (12:27 PM) —I rise to oppose the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Bill 2011. I want to commence by quoting two sections of the House of Representatives Practice:

               …              …              …

In respect of this legislation, and in particular the amendments, there is a need to consider it in a proper timeframe. The understanding of all members in this House is paramount in the decisions that we make. The proposed amendments have not been considered in a risk averse process to enable all members to understand the concepts and constructs in each of these amendments and their flow-on effects.

The complexity of the legislation makes it interesting in that the way in which you read the proposed bills and the interrelatedness of the amendments sometimes are confusing. What I would prefer is that we debate these within a proper time frame to allow for an understanding to occur, and for the debate to allow us to consider the amendments in the context of the current legislation, with the flow-on effect for all our constituents because, ultimately, it is the taxpayer who pays and foots the bill for the NBN. The $50 billion is a sizeable sum of money and the process of the management of that money does not fall within the accountability of this parliament; it is exempt from it. On that basis there is a dereliction of responsibility by members of this House if we do not consider each of those amendments in the level of detail required to make an informed decision.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr WYATT —We are not blocking it. We are quite keen to continue having the discussions, but the amendments cannot be placed on a table and then it be expected that the decisions we make, without the implications and understanding of legislation, are consistent with the outcome that is sought. We are not blocking. It is a matter of having some of the debate that we need to have around—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr WYATT —No, Minister. I love the interjections that the Leader of the House makes when there are challenges. But it is good, I am glad that you do debate, because debate is the important part of this parliament. You are leading to the notion that we do need to have the debates around each of the amendments with respect to the bill in its totality. I am sure that the parliamentary leader has a really good understanding of the interrelatedness of each amendment against the legislation, because then I would have some degree of confidence in what he is proposing; however, the majority of members do not. I think the debate has to go to the issue of what we represent for the constituents that we all take care of, because our decisions extract from their pockets. I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is quite happy to extract from the pockets of taxpayers and to exclude the NBN from parliamentary scrutiny!

Let me also say that the complex business arrangements that are required to support the legislation and the amendments need to be considered and discussed, and certainly those elements that we need to debate that are of risk have to be considered. Members of this House need to carefully examine and consider the implications of each amendment as it is applied in the context of the total legislation. To receive them late on Friday does not allow for that type of scrutiny, particularly in the processes that we have in this House. I would expect that bringing us back to debate these—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr WYATT —It does not matter whether I am new, Leader of the House. It is good that I am new because at least I get the chance to read the parliamentary procedures, to watch your behaviour, to learn from you, but also to be responsive in terms of the debates that we must have in this House.

I also want to say that the efficacy with respect to each of the amendments has to be applied because this is a far-reaching piece of reform or significant reform. Too often the creation of structures, particularly monopolies, can be unchallenged by ordinary Australians who experience difficulties. They can be unchallenged by businesses who have difficulty with a monopoly because they really have nowhere to go. For it to be exempted from the FOI also makes it challenging in terms of the decisions that it makes as a corporate body, because in that context it then leaves a high degree of risk in the way taxpayers’ funding is used.

We are not opposed to an effective broadband, but the model of the broadband needs to encompass not just fibre-optic cabling but also the best modelling that will deliver to all Australians at all points across this nation, regardless of where people live and choose to live, to manage businesses and to enjoy the expanse of this country. I do have a concern that remote and some regional areas of Australia will not have access to the broadband in the way in which it is purported to be provided.

The late amendments are a concern because the House has not had the opportunity of looking at the level of detail. On that basis it is important that we consider the context in which we debate each of these amendments, including the opposition’s amendment that will go to the way in which this legislation becomes more effective and efficient. The Senate spent a whole day discussing each of the amendments. We have been brought here today to look at these in a last-minute arrangement.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr WYATT —No, that’s fine, Leader of the House. I do not have a problem with that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms K Livermore)—Order!

Mr WYATT —I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for entering into debate with the Leader of the House but he has got a very effective voice that is very soothing!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister will stop interjecting and the member will ignore the interjections.

Mr Albanese —That’s the first time I have ever been called that!

Mr WYATT —They are very soothing and I am captured by the words that he utters because I find it difficult to ignore them. Faster broadband is wanted by Australians, and we acknowledge that. But what we also acknowledge is that there is a better way of doing it. Certainly these amendments need to be delayed so that we can look at the implications. If it was not taxpayers’ money and it was money from another source I would have no difficulty in supporting amendments that have implications for expenditure.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hasluck has the call and will be heard in silence.

Mr WYATT —I really do love the sound of Minister Albanese’s voice!

Mr Albanese —He’s struggling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he has seven minutes to go.

Mr WYATT —Leader of the House, I do not always take the full time required. I will just make the points that are necessary. These amendments need to be delayed to allow the type of debate that is required and the rigour that is important. The risk management processes have to be examined because there are elements that are important in this construct. I would suggest that the proposed amendments lie on the table to allow considered examination of each, to allow informed debate, or both.

It is interesting that the Leader of the House said that this is trumped up, that it is not sloppy government and that it is a delaying tactic by the opposition, but my concern is that we do the right thing by Australians and that we ensure that the expenditure we are committing to in these amendments and in this legislation does not compound to blow out beyond the $50 million that is referred to. With those points and with my enjoyable interaction with the Leader of the House, I conclude my comments and oppose the tabling of the amendments.