Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments made by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy at the National Press Club when launching his first attempt at the National Broadband Network in 2007. He said: ‘We’re not proposing fibre to the home at this time’ because it is a ‘more expensive proposition’ and ‘there’s no point building something that people can’t afford to use.’ Why has the government suddenly decided that struggling families can now afford to pay upwards of $100 per month to access telephone and broadband services under the National Broadband Network, when less than three years ago even the minister said it was ‘expensive’ and ‘something people can’t afford to use’?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I am prepared to send to the member some information about the track record of our National Broadband Network policy from 2007 to 2010, when the government determined, after advice and study, that it would move to a fibre-to-the-home model. I will also make sure that we send him the information that shows, from the Tasmanian example, what prices can be achieved through the National Broadband Network. The government has moved to this model because we did not want this country to end up with inferior technology to that of other countries around the world. We did not want this country in five or 10 years time to be exporting jobs that Australian families need to countries overseas because they have got better technology. And we did not want Australian consumers of broadband services in this country, whether they be businesses or households, to pay such high prices in world terms. We have very high broadband prices. Look at the OECD data and it will tell you Australians are paying top dollar for broadband. We can make a difference to that through the construction of the National Broadband Network and price competition.

I understand that the member who asked the question was not here for all of this history, but I would put to him some very simple propositions. Do you want families in your electorate to have jobs? If you do, tick the National Broadband Network. Do you want families in your electorate to have the benefit of more competition, better broadband products and lower prices? Then tick the National Broadband Network. Do you want to see services like health and education delivered to constituents in your electorate—services, for example, like the ones we will support through Medicare so that people can have consultations online using the power of the National Broadband Network? Give it a tick. Do you want the GDP advantages that have been modelled and stated by organisations like the OECD? Well, give the National Broadband Network a tick.

It is about competition. It is about competitiveness. It is about productivity. It is about the services of the future. It is about jobs. That is the vision of the National Broadband Network. That is why we are doing it. I would say to the member who asked the question: please do not quickly succumb to the Leader of the Opposition’s counsel to you to be a wrecker and demolisher of every positive proposition you see. I am sure you came to this place wanting to make a contribution in the national interest. I look forward to seeing you do so by supporting the National Broadband Network.