Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the inquiry into the role and potential of the National Broadband Network conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. In doing so, I speak in support of the dissenting report. As the coalition members of the committee stated:

To be meaningful, this inquiry should have been conducted before the decision to spend $43 billion on the NBN, and it should have been structured as a cost-benefit analysis, rather than a shopping list of benefits without any consideration of cost.

There can be no denying that the terms of reference for the inquiry were designed to provide a feelgood, supportive report for the already-in-progress rollout of a national broadband network. Indeed, to criticise the NBN is akin to criticising the construction of a new road: even if you are not going to use it yourself, you are prepared to support it as you aware that, in the long term, it will be of benefit to the wider community.

The coalition support a national broadband network. However, we have major concerns about how NBN Co. is delivering the project. Needless to say, that was not one of the criteria we were asked to consider. While all presenters supported the NBN rollout, several were unable to provide evidence as to what applications would require fibre to the home, FTTH, as opposed to fibre to the node, FTTN. It is worth noting that many applications are already being delivered by existing service providers. Indeed, one submitter proposed that all he really wanted was a telephone line that did not drop out, so perhaps a 100 megabits per second national broadband network in this case is a little bit of overkill.

There has never been any dispute that the rollout of the NBN will deliver benefits in many sectors, particularly health and education. Indeed, the committee was presented with many outstanding examples of future opportunities, although the thought of having your bank manager meeting with you in your living room as an avatar may not be embraced by everyone.

What stood out was the lack of preparation and planning, due largely to the short notice provided by NBN Co., resulting in embarrassingly low take-up rates. Many submitters were critical of the way NBN Co. had selected the trial sites and had failed to give adequate advance notification of the selection of sites to ensure optimal opportunities. They were also critical that NBN Co. had failed to arrange for the provision of education on and promotion of the benefits of a national broadband network.

No-one disputes the fact that Australia will benefit from the provision of high-speed broadband across the nation. However, the coalition does not support the outdated, last-century monopoly telco model being delivered at an exorbitant cost by NBN Co. To genuinely foster innovation we need a competitive, open-access model going forward. This inquiry has highlighted that going forward, even with the NBN Co. model, there must be better advance promotion and engagement with the community. It is not good enough that NBN Co. absolve themselves of all responsibility with the glib line that their role is just to build it. For $43 billion plus, they must also be responsible for take-up by the communities. 'Build it and they will come' is not an acceptable approach.

I record my appreciation to all those organisations and individuals who went to the effort of making a submission to the inquiry, particularly those who welcomed us on our many site inspections. I also place on record my appreciation to the dedicated and hardworking members of the secretariat—in particular, Julia Morris, Andrew McGowan and James Nelson—and, finally, to my parliamentary colleagues, whose company I enjoyed on our interstate fact-finding missions. While we are in furious agreement as to the potential benefits of the NBN, we will stay divided on how it should be delivered.

See this speech in context