Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I just said it. Listen to me and you will learn. The biography went on:

The truth, however, was that the explosive growth in wireless as dependent on fixed-line technology, and price sensitive consumers were going to be careful to avoid heavy use of data over 4G mobile networks that would be far more expensive per megabyte.

That is the point. When you lose wireless it costs you more. So what you arguing for on behalf of your constituents is for them to pay more rather than get a better service delivered through fixed-line and optic fibre to their home. There would be a mix of wireless and there would be a mix of satellite. So that was argument No. 1.

Then we have the Nationals in this debate. This bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, will break down the notion that you would have uniform pricing. And you as a National Party member can come into this place and not bat an eyelid that it will break it down and make it more expensive in the regions than it is in the cities. When I think of the fact that you are sitting on the sideline and not saying a single word about that, I am reminded of that saying: 'Thank God for the starch in your shirts, because your spines are not holding you up.' You are not defending your constituency whatsoever.

When you speak in this debate and fail to point out that fact to your own constituents, you are letting them down, you are being a sell-out and you are being the best doormat that the Liberal Party could have in letting them get away with this. It is astounding. Then you come in here with an argument saying, 'Oh, we should just go wireless. Wireless would be way better.' What you need in your regions is better broadband. Wireless will fix some of it for those areas that are hard to fibre up, but, like what we were saying when we were in government, your main aim should be 93 per cent fibre to the premises. Everything else is a sad joke, and you are going to have to play catch-up at some point.

That was not the first mistake that Malcolm Turnbull made. The other mistake that he made—and again I say this for the benefit of our great friends in the National Party, because they use this argument as well—was that he tried to criticise the need for the two satellites that we had commissioned when we were in government. It was planned to launch them in 2015, delivering fast broadband to about 200,000 homes in the most remote communities, Member for Mallee. Mr Turnbull tried to bag us out for that and then realised that, because of the huge demand out in the regions, this was actually a good idea. He then tried to argue that we had not planned properly for this satellite service because it was oversubscribed. There was a reason that it was oversubscribed. When people in the regions heard—and I know this from talking with people in the regions—about the speeds that they could get for download and upload compared to what they were getting, they were flocking to use it. They were flocking to use a satellite service that had been bagged out by the coalition.

How in their minds they could bag out a satellite service that would deliver better broadband for their constituents is astounding—but it does not surprise me, when the Nationals fail to come in here and stand up for the regions on broadband. Their big fixation in this debate is mobile phone towers. That is the extent of telecommunications reform and improvement in infrastructure from the Nationals' perspective. No wonder the Liberals walk all over you, when you do not have the intellectual grunt to be able to step up and put the argument forward for your regions. It is Labor that is arguing for the regions not only to get access to the infrastructure but also to make sure that the wholesale price is uniform and that you are not penalised by virtue of the fact that you live in the regions.

See this speech in context