Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I begin my contribution by acknowledging the contributions of the members for Greenway and Braddon. They spoke with such passion in this debate, which should not be surprising to any of us, because the member for Greenway and the member for Braddon represent people for whom this debate is of critical importance.

This is the equivalent of earlier debates about sewerage. I remember my father, quite infamously, declaring in this place—maybe in his maiden speech—that he would be happy to leave this place known as the guy that gave his people the right to pull the chain. I think that some people at the time found that pretty humorous. But it was true when he was elected and it was still true when I was elected that people in my electorate did not have the right to pull the chain. I am sure that is true also of the member for Braddon’s people and no doubt at some point, maybe earlier, was true of the people who lived in the member for Greenway’s electorate.

We contrast that with some of those who sit on the other side. The member for Greenway made the point that the member for Bradfield, who is railing so hard, has people in his electorate who have access to the best internet speeds in the country. So why could they be expected to understand that the people we represent need this technology? We do not have the privilege of always having it now, unlike those he represents. To be empowered, to keep apace, to come properly into the 21st century and to be competitive in the 21st century is absolutely crucial for the children of the people we represent in electorates like mine and in the electorates of the member for Greenway and the member for Braddon and many others on this side.

The first question here is: why are those opposite opposing the National Broadband Network? I think we have partly answered it, although it remains absolutely inexplicable why the member for Cowper would come into this place and so enthusiastically argue that his people, the people who live in Coffs Harbour and surrounds, should not have access to the best broadband speeds available. He should come back in here and explain himself. On the question of why those opposite are opposing this: is it because it is not needed? I think we have covered that. Of course all Australians should have the right to access the best technology available and to be internationally competitive? Is it because it is old technology? Of course it is not. Is it because the country cannot afford it—a trillion dollar economy? Of course that is nonsense. Is it because consumers do not want it? I should think not. Is it anticompetitive? No, it is just the opposite. This is transforming what is almost a monopoly telecommunications industry into a competitive one for the first time in the history of this nation. The really sad thing about this debate is that those opposite oppose this idea because it is not theirs. They oppose this very constructive and forward-looking idea because it is not theirs. No other possible explanation can be found.

I have spoken about electorates. I am very glad the member for Cunningham has joined me, because she can relate to this very well. People in my electorate want the National Broadband Network. There can be no mistake about that. The debate in my electorate, and indeed in the Hunter region, is about how quickly we will have the National Broadband Network rolled out to us. We are in there fighting. We are in there saying, ‘The regions should be done first.’ Those closest to the city have an advantage already. Why not bring competitiveness to the regions by looking at us first? Indeed the Hunter chapter of Regional Development Australia has applied for a grant from the Commonwealth government in order to appoint a person to work full time for six months to look at what we in the Hunter can do to ensure that we are rolled out earlier rather than later. James Vidler, an academic from the University of Newcastle, is doing a fantastic job building the case. He is not just talking about the benefits that will roll out to consumers, because it is true that every consumer across the country will receive the same benefit. He is talking about us as a region with the capacity to provide the necessary skills to roll out the cables and do that other work, about selling our capacity to do this thing without putting pressure on either the local economy or the national economy.

While those opposite, at least in the case of those who do not have electorates like the member for Bradfield, are sitting there arguing why their people should be denied 100 megabits per second, those of us on this side, for example, from the Hunter—the member for Newcastle, the member for Shortland and the member for Charlton are joining with me—will be having a planning meeting next week for all the members from the Hunter region—all the Labor members, that is. The member for Paterson, unsurprisingly, has not shown much interest. He still believes that Hunter residents should cop second-rate wireless technology instead. We know for a fact that, if you want 50 megabits per second or more, it must be delivered by fibre-optic cable. So we are having a meeting next week to talk more about where we are and how we are going to build our case to be earlier rather than later in the rollout of the NBN.

Again, it is inexplicable that the member for Cowper and others who sit on that side of the House would be in here arguing that we should be rejecting the NBN proposal. I know that the opposition are trying to say: ‘We’re not necessarily against it. We think it’s alright. It’s just that, you know, we haven’t really had a proper cost-benefit analysis.’ The member for Greenway very cleverly waved around their policy of five or six pages, which I found pretty extraordinary. I like the way that the member for Windsor put it on AM, I think, on Monday morning when he talked about projects like the Snowy River scheme and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. If cost-benefit analyses had been done on those projects, there is no doubt in my mind that they would not have stacked up. Every time I drive up and down the F3 freeway between Sydney and my home in the Hunter, I am constantly reminded of the mistake made when the bulk of that freeway was not made six lanes. Of course, the people who designed and constructed that highway would not have envisaged, or even dreamed, that four lanes would not be sufficient to carry traffic between Newcastle and the Hunter and beyond. In the same way that the member for Greenway pointed out that Jefferson and others could not have dreamed of what we would be doing with technology today I cannot even dream about what I or my teenage children will be doing with technology in 10, 20 or 30 years time.

There is no doubt that, for a while, they would have thought of making the F3 freeway six lanes. I have not checked that but I am sure that would be the case. There would have been a debate and someone would no doubt have come to the conclusion that six lanes was too expensive and that, on a cost-benefit analysis, it simply did not stack up. We have to ask ourselves now what the economic cost is on a daily basis of the traffic jams and accidents caused by the decision to go with four lanes rather than six. I am not criticising those who planned or made those decisions, but it is a perfect analogy. It is an example of how wrong we can get it if we rely only on a limited time basis, cost-benefit analysis.

I ask those on the other side to reflect on that and to think about the benefits that will flow from the NBN that cannot even be measured in a cost-benefit analysis. How do you measure a grade 6 kid who is performing but who would have been underperforming if it were not for the assistance delivered to him by the National Broadband Network? How do you measure the additional happiness, if you like, of someone in an aged-care home who has a sense of security brought by having telemedicine access in her small unit? These things cannot be measured. I say to those opposite: get out of the way and let the government proceed with what is one of the most important investments—((Time expired)

See this speech in context