Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have not seen the evidence, Senator Macdonald, if these questions came back late last night. But I can assure you and all those opposite that, with the ACCC as the independent regulator of access to this network and all of the associated regulatory issues, that gives us confidence that it is the right model, the right structure. The ACCC will take care to ensure that it is a genuinely competitive regime and that the regulations are not gamed and that will be backed up by an appropriate structure with a wholesale only, open access, fibre-to-the home national broadband network.

I cannot tell you how proud I am of this policy. It puts in place the foundations that countries around the world are still struggling with. You do not need to look further than some of the countries in Europe, which cannot quite grasp the combination of the regulatory regime with industry structure and which will continue to have digital haves and have-nots. Because of the National Broadband Network policy, Australia is the only country in the world that can proceed with confidence, and say, ‘We can close the digital divide.’

Unfortunately, the coalition, for whatever reason, have recently determined they will not support the National Broadband Network. I am flabbergasted by this. I think it shows an appalling sense of political opportunism. It is a political strategy that has well and truly backfired on the coalition, because they decided through this inquiry—and there have been, I think, four interim reports and now a final report—to place all their eggs in the implementation study basket. Many of the extensions to this committee inquiry were on the back of the need for an assessment of the implementation study. The coalition placed all of their eggs in the basket of the implementation study, saying: ‘This will be the ultimate test.’ I can imagine how devastated they were when the implementation study reported back to all—and, as we know, was released by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—that not only was the National Broadband Network financially viable but it was financially viable in a way that delivered affordable and competitive services to the vast majority of users on the network.

We saw a sort of quick twostep by the coalition, as they shuffled around and started talking about a cost-benefit analysis, when the implementation study did not provide them with the political foundation to proceed with opposition to this visionary policy. Now we hear that the cost-benefit analysis is in fact the key. I note with interest that, at our recent hearing, Dr Ergas offered to do a cost-benefit analysis, which is very helpful of him, given that he has probably already done one either for Telstra or indeed for one of his former clients, the Liberal Party.

I do not believe there is genuine opposition to this policy anywhere in Australia. I think we are seeing a contrived opposition on behalf of the coalition and the opposition parties in this place, because they still do not know where to go. I find it incredibly disappointing. I would like to encourage those opposite to consider accurately all the evidence that we have heard, to at least have the good grace and share the insight into the needs of all Australians and join with us in espousing a vision for this country of  a high bandwidth network for all. Play the politics all you like but share the vision, because that is what this country needs the most.

The debates of the previous government were all about raising the bar. Who is best able to deliver a universal high bandwidth network? Suddenly, on the eve of an election in 2010 we have a major difference. One party is arguing for no national broadband network and the government is arguing for not only a national broadband network but one that will deliver a high bandwidth universal service and will close that divide once and for all.