Mobile Black Spot Program

The Hon. T.T. NGO (14:33): I have a supplementary question.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Can the minister tell the chamber about further concerns raised by the federal Liberal government about the Mobile Black Spot Program?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his very, very important supplementary question arising out of the original answer on the Mobile Black Spot Program. It was unfortunate that I had to come in here yesterday and explain how the federal Liberals have let South Australia down, but also how the process was utterly non-transparent and unfathomable in terms of understanding how it worked. That was yesterday in question time.

After question time yesterday it was brought to my attention that yesterday the Productivity Commission released a report on the telecommunications industry, and it made some pointed comments about the federal Liberal government's Mobile Black Spot Program. One of the recommendations from the Productivity Commission report states:

Before proceeding to the next round of funding under the Mobile Black Spot Programme, the Australian Government should implement the Australian National Audit Office’s recommendations relating to that program. It should also: target the program only to areas where funding is highly likely to yield significant additional coverage; revise its infrastructure-sharing requirements to be consistent with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s findings in the ongoing Domestic Mobile Roaming Declaration Inquiry; and prioritise areas for funding based on community input—rather than nominations from Members of Parliament.

The report from the Productivity Commission went on:

…the Commission is concerned that there is a risk that Australian Government funding is directed at expanding mobile coverage in locations for political reasons rather than to locations where overall community wellbeing might be better served.

'For political reasons', Mr President. I sympathise with the Hon. Terry Stephens; he has obviously been put up by his factional leader, the member for Barker, Tony Pasin, to come in here and ask questions without a thought for how that would impact on the Hon. Terry Stephens looking a bit silly for having asked such a question.

As I said, we have asked the federal government to follow through with these recommendations to make sure it is a fair and transparent system and not, as the Productivity Commission says, talking about the risk that it is directed for political reasons rather than where community wellbeing might be better served—a very, very pointed criticism.

We found that Barnaby Joyce's seat of New England, the Deputy Prime Minister's seat, got more than 28 base stations in one seat alone, in the one seat, in round 1, and five more in round 2. That is 33 base stations in the seat of New England alone, compared to 31 for South Australia over two rounds. There is more in the one marginal Liberal seat than in the whole of South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am outraged, as members opposite seem to be getting outraged now with their own federal Liberal government. It is actually outrageous. As if this were not confused enough, adding to the confusion is the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Terry Stephens doing what their factional controller in the federal parliament demands of them.

The member for Barker himself has added to the confusion. On Friday of last week, Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, told ABC radio, and I quote, 'Round 3 doesn't require a contribution from the state government.' So, in relation to the Hon. David Ridgway's question from yesterday regarding how much the state government is going to put into round 3, well, his factional overlord said, 'Nothing.' He said that round 3 does not require a single cent from us. That is embarrassing for the Hon. David Ridgway.

Adding confusion upon confusion, the federal government's own website, the communication department's website, says, about round 3:

The Australian Government has committed an additional $60 million to a third round of funding. As part of this commitment, the Australian Government has announced a number of priority locations which may receive funding for a mobile base station under round 3. A competitive process to allocate round 3 funding is expected to commence in 2017.

However, again, last week Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, absolutely guaranteed that Kalangadoo and Kybybolite would be funded. He guaranteed that before the last federal election; he broke that promise. He doubled down on his guarantee again last week on ABC radio, notwithstanding that the federal government's own website says that it is going to be a competitive process. Those two things cannot both be true at the same time, that he is actually guaranteeing sites in these captain's calls—the ones that the National Audit Office, the ones that the Productivity Commission has blasted—and then, at the same time, saying that there is a competitive process.

The whole thing is literally a dog's breakfast. On one hand we have a whole government department or Tony Pasin, the member for Barker. Someone is not getting their story completely straight or telling the truth, and I just feel sorry for the members opposite who are the poor suckers who have to wheel out the questions they are given on this topic in this chamber.