Senator FISHER (2:57 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. The minister’s response tabled in the Senate yesterday fails to comply with the Senate order to produce the enterprise agreement principles signed and agreed with the ACTU and upon which the minister based his earlier reassurance to the Senate that there will not be a wages blow-out in the building of the NBN. Minister, have you ever seen or ever read the enterprise bargaining agreement principles you say have been signed and agreed with the ACTU?

Senator CONROY (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) —Yet again a question based on a false assertion and a false premise—and, even worse, an attempt to imply things that I have said. Let me be very clear about this: the sorts of requests for information that Senator Fisher continues to make are unacceptable on the basis that all the other GBEs, be it Telstra or other GBEs, have never been required in the past to table this sort of information. You want to interfere with the running of the National Broadband Network for one reason and one reason only.

Senator Fisher —Mr President, I rise on a point of order relating to relevance. It was a simple question, Minister, and it needs a simple answer. Have you seen it? Have you read it?

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The minister has one minute and 14 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator CONROY —Those opposite are, every single day, revealing their true agenda. At least Senator Joyce has the courage to admit that he is interested in nothing more than destroying the NBN because he believes it will destroy the government—it is a path to government. Those opposite can keep pretending that they about transparency and they can keep pretending that they are about accountability, but what they are about is seeking to wreck the National Broadband Network. They have one agenda—it was given to them by their leader, Mr Abbott—and that is to go out and wreck the National Broadband Network.

Senator Brandis —Mr President, on a point of order: this spray at the opposition has no bearing whatever on the question. The minister was asked whether he had read a specified document. The point of order was taken by Senator Fisher before and you ruled that the minister had a substantial period of time left. The minister is now three-quarters of the way into his period of answering and he has not come close to the question. He has been neither directly nor indirectly relevant to it, and you should draw him to it.

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but I do—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Just let me finish. There have been a range of interjections that have been thrown about during the answer that is being given by the minister. I did draw the minister’s attention to the fact that he had a minute and 14 seconds remaining, at that stage, to answer the question. I draw the minister’s attention to the question. The minister has 36 seconds remaining.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —The minister advises me that he has finished responding to the question.

Senator Brandis —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. If the minister refuses to answer the question, in these circumstances, you should uphold the point of order and rule that the minister is out of order.

Senator Chris Evans —On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Brandis may be disappointed but the minister gave his answer and sat down. And if you do not like it, well, I am sorry.

The PRESIDENT —The minister’s advice to me was that he had finished answering the question. I cannot take the answer beyond that.

Senator Fisher —Mr President, on a point of order: this minister can usually talk under wet cement—and there is plenty of that being poured around the NBN. The minister has failed to answer the question, and I will put it again.

The PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order, Senator Fisher. Do you have a supplementary question?

Senator FISHER —In that case, Mr President, I do have a supplementary question. Given that noncommittal answer, Minister, how could you and on what basis did you reassure the Senate that the ACTU signed and agreed EBA principles mean that there is no suggestion that there will be a wages blow-out in the build of the NBN?

Senator CONROY (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) —It is a fact that an agreement has been reached, and those opposite are now making a simple assertion. It is not based on any factual basis at all. The NBN are in discussions with the sector. They are well aware of all of the pressures around the build. They are well aware of all of the issues to do with the construction. The good senator is simply making an assertion and trying to wrap it up as a question. An agreement has been signed. That is a factual thing. The rest of her question revolved around a simple assertion of what she believes.

Senator FISHER —Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the CEPU campaign for annual five per cent wage increases for workers building the NBN comply with the ACTU agreed principles? Will you table that document? At double the 2½ per cent wage increase used in the implementation study to underpin the $43 billion NBN, how is a five per cent per annum wages claim anything other than a wages blow-out in the order of 100 per cent?

Senator CONROY (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) —The premise of the question is that a wage claim is a wage blow-out.

Senator Abetz —No, it’s not.

Senator CONROY —That is what she just said, and Hansard will bear me out. That is exactly what she just said.

The PRESIDENT —Order! It does not help to shout across the chamber during question time.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Cameron —Workers want a wage rise—shock, horror! Bring back Work Choices then.

The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Cameron!

Senator Fisher —On a point of order, Mr President: the minister seems hell bent on answering a question I have not asked. My question was: At double the 2½ per cent annual wage increase used in the implementation study to underpin the $43 billion NBN, how is the—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator Fisher —five per cent wage increase anything other than a cost blow-out in the build of some 100 per cent? Will you table—

The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Conroy, you have 46 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator CONROY —You do not get to reword your question after you have already asked it.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Conroy, just address the question.

Senator CONROY —Hansard will bear out exactly what Senator Fisher said. It is there for everyone to see. It is an assertion based on a false premise. It is a claim about something that may happen in the future. So I do not think I have much more to add than that than to wish my good friends on the opposite side a merry Christmas.

Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.