Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I want to address Senator Ludlam’s proposed amendments before the chamber. Before I do that, though, I want to, as the previous speaker has done, address some general remarks. I note in passing that the arrogance of this government can no better be exemplified than by the absence of the minister from this very crucial debate on telecommunications in our country. That is no reflection on Senator Lundy, who I have indicated on many occasions would, in my view, make a far better minister for broadband and telecommunications than the incumbent.

I suspect that one of the reasons the current minister is not in the chamber is that he is running around the parliament shoring up his numbers to make sure he continues as minister—and well he should be worried. As each day passes, more and more people are questioning the sense of the Labor Party’s National Broadband Network proposal. As more and more scrutiny is directed towards Senator Conroy’s NBN, more and more people are concerned as to whether this network will be accessible and whether it will be affordable. But the fact that the minister cannot even bring himself to be present during this crucial debate is symptomatic of the arrogance not only of the minister but of the whole Gillard government. The arrogance of the Rudd and then Gillard government was clearly commented upon by electors at the election held in August when voters around Australia tossed out, for the first time in 80 years, a first-term government. It was only by some of the manipulation and backroom dealing for which the Labor Party is so renowned that Ms Gillard was able to cling onto the power and trappings of Prime Minister by making deals first of all with the Greens and then with a couple of Independents.

No-one was surprised that Ms Gillard would be able to negotiate a deal with the Greens because we know the Greens are always open to any proposition that might advance their ultra-left-wing view on the world, the view that says: ‘We will tell you what’s better for you. You as individuals in Australia don’t have any rights. How dare you think you might be able to make a decision on which form of broadband you require. We, the government—we, Big Brother—will tell you what is good for you.’ That is the philosophy of the old communist countries, you might recall, back in history where communism and communist dictators never thought individuals could make up their minds. They always thought that they, the government—that is, the Communist Party—knew what was best for everybody, so they had repressive regimes which told everybody that the government would decide what was best for people, what was best for individuals and their families. That is the same attitude, I have to say, that the Greens and their allies on the left of the Labor Party have: ‘Don’t leave it to the choice of individuals on what should be happening. We, the Greens, will tell all Australians what is best for them.’ That has been the approach in this whole debate about telecommunications.

Senator Conroy indicated that this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010, has nothing to do with the NBN, in spite of it being clearly demonstrated that the NBN, the National Broadband Network, is mentioned 62 times in the bill. More importantly, contrary to what Senator Conroy said, if this bill does not go through, there is every likelihood that the whole NBN proposal will collapse because perhaps Telstra will have a rethink, perhaps Telstra will reject the $11 billion bribe that has been offered to it and perhaps Telstra will continue to build, as it has been doing for many years now, an alternative network made up of fibre, its existing copper and its HFC network. Perhaps Optus will say, ‘We could make a very, very fast broadband service to a lot of Australians out of our HFC service and we could probably do it at a cost of less than $43 billion to the taxpayer.’ In fact, I am quite certain that Optus and Telstra would be able to provide a very, very fast broadband service to, admittedly, a smaller group of Australians—not 100 per cent of Australians but a smaller group—at a cost that would be a 10th, a 20th, a 40th, I would guess, of what the taxpayers are going to have to fund for this particular passion, almost this ideology, of Senator Conroy.

I did indicate to Senator Conroy that I wanted some matters clarified in the committee stage of the bill, but his arrogance is clearly demonstrated when he is not even here to participate in the debate. The minister currently at the table, Senator Feeney, is a different one to the one who was here when I started my speech just eight minutes ago. With no disrespect to Senator Feeney, I have to say that at least Senator Lundy—who I thought was going to take this bill through in Senator Conroy’s absence—is, in my view, an expert on the subject. She is not always right, and we disagree on a lot of things, but she does understand it. I keep saying I think she would make a far better minister than the current one. I note that Senator Lundy is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship, yet here she was, I thought, taking through this very important bill. She has now left, perhaps to go and gather her numbers to try and get rid of Senator Conroy as the minister. Now we have here Senator Feeney—a lovely fellow, getting to be quite an expert in his ministerial field in defence, and very keen and enthusiastic in that area. But, Senator Feeney, I am somewhat surprised to think that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, who has been so passionate about this, is not to be seen anywhere. Don’t tell me he is out doing another deal with the Greens and the Independents. Here he is—you are relieved, Senator Feeney. Senator Conroy, thank you for coming in. Oh, it was only a fleeting appearance.