Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today’s matter of public importance is the height of irresponsibility. The opposition come in here and say that we are hanging onto their policies, yet they oppose the national broadband network in the Senate. It is shameful opportunism from an utterly irresponsible opposition. For 12 years they did nothing about a national broadband network, but for the past 12 months they have done everything they can to prevent a national broadband network. The opposition are nothing more than spoilers on broadband—arrogant, focused on themselves and their own ideology, contrary to the national interest.

As usual, the opposition are trying to walk both sides of the street on this issue. This mob have taken to opposition like ducks to water, and they have lifted the art of walking both sides of the street to new heights. They claim that they believe that broadband is important infrastructure for the Australian economy, yet for 12 years they did nothing about it. As usual, you need to look at their actions, rather than what they say, to see what they really believe. For the last 12 months the opposition have done absolutely nothing but try to undermine the government’s national broadband network. It is much the same as what they did over the past 12 years: nothing. They did nothing to deal with the serious issue of a national broadband network and Australia’s future related to that network. They have been desperate to obstruct the government’s efforts to implement this very important infrastructure project at every possible opportunity.

We just heard the member for Dunkley say that governments should only step in when markets fail. Well, in terms of the national broadband network, I would challenge him to show me where the markets have succeeded, particularly when we talk about the bush—rural and regional communities.

At every opportunity this opposition has tried to use the parliament to jeopardise the live commercial process that the government has been implementing to select a builder for the national broadband network. It is a proper and considered process in consultation with the community and the sector—a complex process but one that we are determined to see through.

They have established stunt Senate inquiries. They have knowingly pursued lines of questioning in Senate estimates that were designed to jeopardise the integrity of the government’s process, and they have done that at every single opportunity. Today, in a final desperate ploy, they are again trying to undermine the process just as bids are about to be lodged. Their views and actions are, and continue to be, about destroying the program. The view of the opposition is that if you cannot win it then you must destroy it. Those opposite have been happy to do everything in their power to attempt to jeopardise the government’s open and competitive process for rolling out a national broadband network, yet at the same time they claim to support the need for broadband in Australia. But it is only broadband in their image; it is only broadband where they see fit. It is not a truly national broadband network, nor would it deliver.

In reality, the opposition, through their actions, never want to see a national broadband network built in Australia. They do not want to see the Rudd government deliver on its election commitment to bring Australia’s communications infrastructure into the 21st century. They are spoilers—stamping their feet, banging on the table, preferring to burn the house down rather than let anyone else build it.

While the government has taken a long-term approach to delivering a major infrastructure project that is critical for Australia’s future economic prosperity, those opposite have engaged in nothing more than short-term political point scoring—12 years of doing nothing and 12 years of doing everything to prevent something being done. What have we seen in any policy work from the opposition when it comes to broadband? Very little, to the point of nothing. They have merely clung desperately to the failed policies of the past Howard government. They will be tested soon on whether they cling to other policies, such as Work Choices, which was clearly rejected by the community. As opposed to the rejection those opposite received, the community ticked off not only on what we are doing in terms of a national broadband network but also on Work Choices. Those opposite had policies that left rural and regional Australia trailing their metropolitan cousins, that left the nation trailing our international competitors and that left Australia 16th in the OECD in broadband penetration and 10th in the OECD on broadband subscription prices. We like to consider ourselves part of a clever country, part of a country that is at the forefront of technology, but the reality is that we have gone backwards in a very fast way over the past decade. The opposition offer the Australian people nothing but very silly political games.

The fact that today’s MPI has been moved by the Leader of the Nationals demonstrates the hypocrisy of those opposite. The National Party were willing accomplices to the Howard government’s neglect of rural and regional telecommunications, not to mention other areas where they failed the bush dismally. In almost 12 long years in government, those opposite introduced 18 failed broadband policies. No matter what screeches we hear from the opposition about whether it was 18 or just 18 line items, whichever way they want to describe it, over 12 years they had 18 attempts at doing something but achieved nothing—no way forward, no movement—and the evidence is fact: we slipped behind while the rest of the world moved forward. Their legacy was a trail of broadband bandaids and pork barrels, something that has become a hallmark, a trademark, of the coalition in government and that will now be the trademark of the coalition in opposition. They viewed rural and regional Australia as nothing more than a political problem that needed to be bought off with short-term political fixes. They were never prepared to do the hard work of implementing a long-term solution for rural and regional telecommunications beyond one election cycle.

When the issue of fibre to the node first emerged in Australia, those opposite never even tried to make this important new infrastructure available in the bush. They just disregarded it. They were prepared to sell out rural and regional Australia with a two-tiered system—something first-class for people in the cities and something very much second-class for people in the bush. For us, that simply was not good enough. They were happy to accept a fibre-to-the-node network that covered, as stated in their own policy, only the ‘capital cities and major regional centres’ while leaving the bush to a second-class, fixed wireless system, which could be described as expensive and patchy at best, a wireless system which was later shown not to meet required service coverage as set out in the funding agreement with the Commonwealth.

Those supporting this motion should be aware that rural MPs, who understand the communications needs of their constituents, support the government’s actions on rural and regional telecommunications. Former senior National Party and Howard government minister Bruce Scott, whom I acknowledge is in the chair, stated that the decision to terminate the former government’s OPEL contract was ‘sensible’. I agree; it was very sensible. Similarly, former National and now popular Independent Tony Windsor supported the decision, noting that ‘fibre-to-the-node infrastructure is the best option’. And he is right. Support for the decision also came from National MP John Forrest, who was noted as saying, ‘I did not support OPEL getting this contract in the first place.’ These views reflect those of the member for Wide Bay’s own party colleagues, Senators Nash and Joyce, who, in 2005, released a report on behalf of the National Party think tank—there is something to think about—the Page Research Centre. The report recommended that the then government consider a five-year rollout of fibre-optic cable across non-metropolitan areas. These members of parliament, while hypocritical, at least understood that the infrastructure needs of rural and regional Australians could not be fobbed off with some short-term political fix. More needed to be done. They knew that a long-term approach was needed to deliver world-class infrastructure to rural and regional Australia. And we agree with them. We support them. And that is what we are doing: we are talking about a real national broadband network. They knew that a long-term approach was needed to deliver world-class infrastructure out in the bush as well as in the cities. It is time those opposite started listening to their colleagues, to the community and to the sector and started to recognise the importance of a national broadband network for Australia, a job that we are prepared to continue with.

As part of our election commitment, the Rudd government has committed up to $4.7 billion, will consider regulatory changes to facilitate the rollout of a national broadband network and will work in conjunction with the sector. This will be the biggest national investment in broadband infrastructure ever made by an Australian government, certainly a lot more in 12 months than was ever delivered in the 12 years of the Howard government. Tomorrow, the government expects to receive proposals from bidders vying for the right to construct the national broadband network. Yet today, we see the future of that being jeopardised by the opposition, because they are not committed to Australia’s national interests, to Australia’s future, to a real national broadband network. They are only committed to themselves. (Time expired)

See this speech in context