Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in his capacity as minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts. Would the minister advise the House how the government is securing for rural and regional Australians access to telecommunications into the future? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? What is the government’s response to them?

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. I am sure my colleagues will understand if I single out the member for Hinkler for special praise for the role he has played over many years in contributing to the formulation of the government’s broadband policy, released with such fanfare to largely, if not entirely, uncritical acclaim throughout the nation. The member for Hinkler will appreciate that the people in his electorate will benefit from the five exchanges being upgraded to very fast ADSL2+ broadband and from the 25 new wireless broadband sites, WiMAX, which will be built across his electorate, including in the towns of Buxton, Elliott Heads, Gin Gin, Kinkuna, Lakeside and Howard. These are just 25 towns in the electorate of Hinkler, out of 1,361 new WiMAX sites across Australia.

The member for Hinkler asked me if there are any alternative policies that might threaten the broadband roll-out of the coalition government. It may not surprise him to know that the largest threat comes from the Labor Party, not because they have a policy, but because they do not have a policy. The Labor Party are extremely skilled—I have to give them this; in certain circumstances, anyway—at making a splash and attracting attention. But when you strip away the show and look at the substance, the Labor Party have nothing to offer, especially on broadband policy. Three months ago they released a 21-page policy document. If anyone should go to it and look beyond the assertions and the claims and the sound bites, they will find that 19 of the 21 pages are commentary. I refer to the index. The first 19 pages of the document relate to the importance of broadband—well, we all agree with that. ‘Australia’s broadband performance’—we can google that anywhere. ‘International experience’—likewise. ‘The Howard government’s missed opportunities’—don’t miss the opportunities to attack your opponent. So we are left with two pages and, if we take out the additional statement of facts and commentary, we are left with a one-page policy. That is the simple fact. What we do know from this one-page policy is that the Labor Party will spend $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ funds, the policy will not take effect until 2013, and will cover only 75 per cent of the population. Compare that to the government’s policy, which will take effect from 2009, will not cost the taxpayer anything and, moreover, is fully tested and fully creditable.

So the Australian people face a stark contrast on broadband policy: the Labor Party’s policy of one page, which can best be summarised as ‘You pay more to get less’, and the government’s entirely creditable policy. The worst thing is that the Labor Party has abandoned 25 per cent of the Australian population; 25 per cent of the population will not benefit under Labor’s $4.7 billion proposal. I thought the member for Hunter summed it up so very well when he was asked whether there were any gaps in Labor’s broadband policy in his electorate of Hunter. He said this:

Well, those things are yet to be tested; we will roll out fibre to the node right throughout the Hunter region. Obviously, there may be some people excluded from that. We don’t have the technical backing to make those final conclusions.

Well, here is a tip for the people of the Hunter: don’t hold your breath for the member currently representing you to tell you who wins and who loses—which 75 per cent receive broadband and which 25 per cent lose out. To help the member for Hunter and the people of his electorate, we have done a map which shows exactly how the people of the Hunter will benefit from the government’s proposals. I table that map. I challenge the member for Hunter to do likewise for the people of his electorate, showing them the supposed benefits of the Labor Party’s proposal.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Owens interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parramatta is warned!

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summary and in conclusion, the Labor Party’s policy has no credibility. They are like snake oil salesmen—they roll into town with bells and whistles, sell a proposal and then get out of town at the first available opportunity. The Labor Party’s proposal does not stand up to scrutiny, whereas the government’s policy has been acclaimed by one and all, far and wide.