Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was a done deal, I imagine done behind closed doors. Certainly there was no consultation with the industry. Notwithstanding all of that, we and the developers now know what is happening. We have to play with the cards dealt us. In my electorate of Maranoa developers in the Surat coal basin have been desperately ringing my office wondering what on earth they can do—how can they go to their banks and raise debt to roll out these new infrastructure projects, including housing? There is a desperate shortage of housing. In the last six months rents in my home town of Roma have gone from $250 per week for a three- or four-bedroom home to $600 per week, with three-monthly reviews—and those rents are still going up. Of course part of the problem with new housing developments is the failure of the govern­ment to give certainty when it comes to the rollout of optic fibre cable and the pits and pipes that are associated with rolling out communications technology into new developments. We have come to expect that from this Labor government. They talk about big projects, but just look at the project they implemented in response to the GFC. Do you remember the BER school halls project? Here we are in 2011 and they are still building school halls in my electorate. They are winding back costs all the time because they have blown the budget and, as well, costs have increased over this time because of the inflationary effect.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis of this whole project? There needs to be rigour; there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis done on this $50 billion investment. After all, it is ultimately going to be taxpayers' money—my money, your money, the money of the people in the departments here in Canberra, the money of hardworking Australians—that will be put at risk. They deserve to know what a cost-benefit analysis of this project would show. We should be developing the nation's backhaul and replacing old technology. That is a given; we agree on this side that that is sensible. We should be replacing it from the inside to the outside of Australia. The member for Grey would well know that there are microwave links in his electorate, as there are in my electorate, and that some communities today are still serviced with single-channel radio systems for basic clear voice signals. Yet we hear from this government that maybe these communities will get satellite technology for clear voice signals for telephones. The government say that this project will be complete by 2020, but these people will still be on single-channel radio systems and microwave links for communications—and for the internet, in some cases—with the main backhaul network covering this nation.

We should be investing out there. Of course, the coalition's policy would have covered that. Had we been elected and had the Independents who sit behind us here supported Tony Abbott for Prime Minister, we would be doing those sorts of things now because we had money to invest in partnerships in communities where the market fails. That is where taxpayers' money should be going. Where the market does not fail it is for businesses to compete against other businesses to roll out this infrast­ructure. But no, not with this government. They are getting rid of what was once a monopoly and are now creating a government owned monopoly.

Before it is too late, we should have this whole project referred to the Productivity Commission for a clear cost-benefit analysis. That is what the Australian taxpayers deserve. The very least that this government could do would be to refer it to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission would be an honest broker and bring forward not the coalition's or the government's but its cost-benefit analysis of this $50 billion project.

As I said a moment ago, we can look at those areas where markets fail to build new infrastructure, such as in the outback of my electorate, in rural areas or even in outer metropolitan areas. I know that the outer areas of Melbourne—when you get up into some of the smaller communities in the hills—they are a long way from the main backhaul networks of Australia. We on this side of House agree that people do need access to affordable high-speed internet. It has loosely been called broadband, but I like to talk about high-speed internet. I am not a technical guru, but it is high-speed internet. Whether it is in those outer metropolitan areas, in the outback of my electorate, in the electorate of the member for Grey—

See this speech in context