Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Why are we here? We are here because the member for Wentworth in his previous guise and those who sat with him in the Howard coalition cabinet failed to come up with an affordable and appropriate telecommunications policy. They left the legacy after privatising Telstra of Telstra owning the fixed line and copper network connecting almost every household, as well as the largest cable network, half of the largest pay-TV network and the largest mobile network. The member for Wentworth talked about OPEL. Before the 2007 election I got Geoscience Australia to provide me with a map of my electorate—which then took in the Lockyer Valley, about 60 per cent of Ipswich and the old Boonah shire—just to see what the coalition’s wonderful plan would look like. I ask them to put red where there were gaps—where broadband would not reach premises. This covered farms, businesses, schools and hospitals. Great swathes of Ipswich were not covered, parts of the Lockyer Valley were not covered, and most of the Boonah shire was not covered. That is the legacy of 18 failed plans.

Let us not kid ourselves about why we are here today. We are here today because the member for Wentworth was looking for a job. He was looking for the job of shadow Treasurer; he is looking for the job of shadow finance minister. He went in to meet with the opposition leader. He was looking for a job and the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘I’ll give you the job to demolish the NBN.’ Even if the cost-benefit analysis of the Productivity Commission report came down, in his public utterances he still would not commit himself to supporting the NBN.

We know it will connect over 1,000 cities and towns. Small towns in my electorate like Kilcoy, Toogoolawah, Lowood, Marburg and Rosewood are connected on the NBN. It is rolling out in Springfield Lakes next year. The NBN is vital infrastructure for this country and for regional and rural areas. The coalition’s legacy and what the coalition put up at the last election failed. The 150 members that sit in the House of Representatives know that the failure of the coalition on telecommunications in the last election was the decisive factor that means they are not sitting on the treasury bench. All through the issue with respect to the NBN they have procrastinated. We have symbolism and semantics. Even the bill and the motion here today are all about the perpetration and perpetuation of procrastination. That is what this is about. They have no intention of supporting the NBN. They have every intention of wrecking the NBN. This private member’s motion, and indeed the bill that the member for Wentworth put into the House of Representatives before, is all about wrecking.

They came up with some plan. It was a $6.3 billion plan. The opposition leader did not have the integrity, grace and fortitude to stand up and say, ‘I own it,’ but let the now member for Casey, who is consigned to the shadow parliamentary secretary position, as the shadow minister, stand there and present it. Scorn was put upon that plan. We know it was just a patched-up attempt to come up with something because, on the first day of the last parliament, we had the shadow Treasurer asking about telecommunications. And he said, ‘I think if we could get broadband across the country it’d be a good thing.’ The coalition has simply failed time and time again.

The member for Wentworth talks about the implementation stuff. He talks about the independent advisers McKinsey and KPMG. We released that study on 6 May this year—eight months of detailed analysis. And guess what? It confirmed that, under a range of realistic hypothetical scenarios, NBN Co. would have a strong and viable business case. That is what it said.

There is no guarantee that, if the Productivity Commission looked at this and came up with a recommendation, those opposite would support it. We have had a $25 million implementation study. Look at the motion put forward by the member for Wentworth. Apart from the first subparagraph, it is all about the methodology, operations and semantics of this committee. Everyone who sits in this place knows that that committee will take months and months and months. There will be submissions. They will take a long time to process.

We know—through what people like Access Economics have said in terms of the benefits of telehealth to Australia—that the National Broadband Network would benefit Australia to the tune of between $2 billion and $4 billion a year. Access Economics have also indicated that Australia could save between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion a year if 10 per cent of the workforce teleworked half the time. This is what the National Broadband Network will do. It will make sure that whether you live in Toorak or Toogoolawah you will have the same access to fast-speed broadband. That is why it is important.

There have been so many occasions when this thing has been looked at. As to the record of those opposite: what about when we introduced our competition and consumer safeguards legislation in 2009? They did not want to debate it until we produced an ACCC report in the original NBN tender process. We did that. Then they would not debate the bill until the implementation study was released. We did that. Next they claimed the NBN legislation was bad for Telstra’s shareholders, and when the chairperson and the CEO came to an agreement with us—guess what? There was no pat on the back from those opposite. They came up with this patchwork system and claimed it was better than ours. But the Independents did not think so, and the public did not think so. Now the coalition oppose the NBN and claim that we need a cost-benefit analysis. Last time, as I mentioned before, when the competition and consumer safeguards were debated, we had what the Americans call a filibuster by those opposite. They put nearly 20 speakers on the list so we could not get to a vote. Now they want another parliamentary committee overseeing the NBN. But we have already seen Senate select committees look at this and produce reports. How many more?

The truth is: those opposite are wreckers, and this reeks of desperation. This is all about them attacking. This is all about them not accepting the outcome of the election. They claim they support regional and rural Australia. Well, I represent a regional and rural seat in South-East Queensland. I represent farmers, I represent small towns, I represent rural hospitals and rural schools, and I can tell you: they want the NBN. That is why the Somerset Regional Council, in my electorate, put forward, along with regional councils like those of Toowoomba and Ipswich and the Scenic Rim and the Lockyer Valley, an implementation proposal so they could get on to the NBN. They wanted it early. I have been there, at the Somerset Region Business Alliance meetings—and that is not exactly a body affiliated with the Australian Labor Party Queensland branch, I can assure you, because the people on the executive of that association in my electorate were there handing out how-to-vote cards for the LNP on election day. But they have said on numerous occasions how important the NBN is for the Somerset region and regional and rural areas in South-East Queensland.

The member for Wentworth is looking for an agenda. He is looking for a solution. He is looking for a job. And that is what this is all about. We talk about Lazarus rising. Well, he is looking for another resurrection—a resurrection from the political graveyard of opposition and irrelevance. He is looking to do that because that is what this bill and this motion are about: wrecking the NBN and trying to resurrect the career of the member for Wentworth.

See this speech in context