Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great delight that once again I get the opportunity to get up in this chamber and speak about the positive aspects of the National Broadband Network. The contribution that Senator Macdonald made, from my point of view—and I think it is the view of those on this side of the chamber—is not worth responding to, because Senator Macdonald is well known for his negativity. He is one of those old warhorses on the opposition side who like to be very negative. Senator Macdonald will oppose for the sake of opposition. He is a wrecker. He is well known in this place.

I do not want to waste the opportunity that I have today to talk, as I have talked before, about the positives of the National Broadband Network. One week later I ask the question: has the opposition moved on? Obviously and absolutely, no. The government is clearly of the view that Australia must maintain and improve its standard of living—its healthcare system, its education system, its economy. These are comparable with any country in the world and we, as a government, want to continue that situation.

There is one thing that Senator Macdonald did get correct. Yes, I am a Tasmanian senator and I can speak about the positive attributes of the National Broadband Network and the effect that it has had in the Tasmanian community. Perhaps Senator Macdonald would like to confer with his colleague Senator Guy Barnett about what he thinks about the National Broadband Network roll-out and the effects that it had in Tasmanian on the federal election outcome. Senator Macdonald ought to consult with his colleagues at the state level. The Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Will Hodgman, does see the benefits to the Tasmanian community in what the National Broadband Network will deliver to the Tasmanian economy, but we have to ensure that it is a national program.

The federal Leader of the Opposition, when he made a fleeting visit to Launceston recently for a state conference of the Liberal Party, committed to not pulling out of the National Broadband Network that has been rolled-out in Tasmania, but we all know that the benefits to Tasmania rely on it being Australia wide. Those opposite—people like Senator Joyce—come into this place time after time and lecture us about rural and regional Australia. Senator Joyce is ‘Backdown Barnaby’ because, once again, Backdown Barnaby has failed to represent the people in rural Australia. People in rural and regional Australia know the benefits that the National Broadband Network will bring to health, education, business, local government and families. All Australians need and deserve the same access to the National Broadband Network. We believe that.

Before the global financial crisis hit Australia this government took the action needed to protect jobs. We invested in Australian families and we invested in jobs to ensure that we kept our economy strong. Those opposite, on each and every occasion, opposed every piece of legislation, just as they are opposing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network. They are doing that even though they know that this is the biggest investment in infrastructure in this country’s history. Those opposite will not acknowledge that. They will oppose for the sake of opposing. They are wreckers and they will continue to wreck because they have nothing to offer.

Today we have heard another range of questions—for instance: what were the criteria for choosing the first three roll-out sites in Tasmania? What is the point of that question other than to continuing to oppose and frustrate the development of the National Broadband Network? I can tell you that Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point have been some of the most broadband-neglected areas in Australia, thanks to the coalition when they were in government. The only things the opposition were able to achieve were a few plans, which delivered nothing for rural and regional Tasmania or for the rest of the country.

The opposition continue to talk about wireless. Wireless systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. That does not mean that a household wi-fi will necessarily be broken into; I am taking about wi-fi used by the public at airports, restaurants and hotels. The wi-fi systems currently in use for regional Tasmania are proposed by the opposition in lieu of the National Broadband Network. Public wi-fi systems are inherently less secure than wired systems. Why would the opposition advocate a system with inherent insecurity? Because they are people who cannot accept—