Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the question of relative broadband penetration levels in different electorates and the conclusions we can draw from this for some of the pressing policy issues that are presently before the parliament. A member opposite has repeatedly advised the House that the electorate which has the highest broadband penetration of all 150 electorates is my electorate of Bradfield. That is correct. Research provided by the Parliamentary Library, drawing upon Australian Bureau of Statistics data, says that the percentage of subscribers with broadband in the electorate of Bradfield is slightly over 75 per cent. It is certainly correct that the percentage of broadband in electorates ranges from that level down to the much lower levels of 51 per cent and 33 per cent at the lower end of the spectrum.

The question is: what policy conclusions ought we draw from this and what is the sensible way to proceed? Let me explain some of the facts in relation to broadband penetration in my seat of Bradfield. There is very good broadband infrastructure in many parts of the electorate. Many parts of the electorate are fortunate to be served not just by the Telstra copper network but also by the Optus hybrid fibre co-ax network, and in some areas there is also the Telstra cable network. So some parts of the electorate are fortunate enough to be served by three different networks. Other parts of the electorate receive quite poor service: I regularly receive complaints from constituents in North Turramurra that it is not possible for them to get broadband at acceptable speeds. I would argue that the conclusion we can draw from these facts, and from the data about penetration by electorate across the country, is that a policy which proposes that we spend $43 billion to tear down existing networks in every electorate across Australia, regardless of the level of service already provided in that electorate, is a policy that does not make sense and is not a wise use of public money.

We have seen in the case of the Building the Education Revolution policy of the Labor Party that the design of that policy has led to the perverse outcome that private schools and Catholic schools have received better value for money from the allocation of public money because of the way that the scheme has been set up. That seems a very odd thing for the Labor Party to have delivered as a policy outcome. Their approach on broadband seems equally odd. It seems curious in the extreme, looking at it purely from an equity point of view, that it should be proposed that the same amount of money should be spent in electorates which are already well served as in electorates that are less well served, but that is the implication of the Labor government policy to spend $43 billion on removing the existing networks and building a brand new network.

There are plenty of other reasons why Labor’s policy is not a good one, but I suggest that the argument which proceeds from the fact that some electorates have better broadband service today than others is not a good argument in favour of spending $43 billion to replace broadband infrastructure everywhere. A vastly better policy approach would be to target public sector spending in areas of need. I will stand up and say I would like to see improved infrastructure in North Turramurra and in other areas of my electorate which have deficient service, as I would like to see increased spending in areas of market failure everywhere, which is the policy of the Liberal Party when it comes to broadband. The notion that because the electorate of Bradfield, along with a number of other Liberal electorates, has good broadband penetration and other electorates do not is not somehow an argument in favour of this policy. Spending $43 billion ubiquitously is not a wise use of public money. It is not a compelling or persuasive argument.

See this speech in context