Mr HARTSUYKER (2:44 PM) —I am pleased to rise and speak in relation to these amendments, because it is a very important issue with regard to regional and rural Australia that we have high-quality broadband services, and there is certainly great concern as to whether this project is being delivered in the most effective way. As the previous speaker has said, we are agreed that high-speed broadband is very much an objective that we should be attempting to deliver. Where we differ is on the way that is to occur. The coalition certainly believe that there are more efficient and effective ways that we can deliver high-speed broadband, that it is vital that we attempt to maximise the return on funds for the taxpayer and that it is right for government to get involved in the area where there is market failure. The problem that we have as an opposition is that, at $50 billion, this project is the largest project in Australia of its type. It is the largest project undertaken by government. As such, we believe that funds can be more effectively and efficiently expended than is currently being done through the proposals put forward by the government.

I think it is absolutely essential, given the many priorities in regional and rural Australia, that we ensure that we get value for money from taxpayers’ funds. And certainly the huge scale of this project and the large amount of duplication of existing services are of great concern from the perspective that taxpayers’ funds are being used to provide competition to such things as the HFC network, which could deliver the objective of 100 megabits a second without the need for replacement by fibre—that we are actually duplicating an existing technology.

We are also concerned particularly in relation to the creation of a statutory monopoly. We believe that competition is the way to deliver the best quality services at the lowest price. The dependence of this project on intervention by the government in contravention of the principles of competition law is certainly very concerning. Who is going to pay for this? Certainly the taxpayer is going to pay by virtue of the fact that this project is a very expensive way to deliver high-speed broadband, but also the consumer will pay because we are not maximising competition in the marketplace. There will be competition at a retail level, quite certainly—of that we are sure—but the issue is that there will not be competition from a range of different technologies.

When you look around the world at other countries such as Singapore and South Korea—South Korea being a country which is oft cited by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—they have in their plans for their communications nationally the extensive use of competition and the extensive use of alternative types of service delivery to achieve the best outcomes for consumers. We believe that the massive expense of this project cannot be justified.

The coalition had a plan through the OPEL network to deliver high-speed broadband to regional and rural areas. That would have been completed by 30 June 2009. That would have basically filled the gaps. It is the appropriate role for government to allow the market to provide for communications needs where markets are working, but where there is market failure it is appropriate for the government to step in. That was the coalition’s approach: to use a range of technologies and to step in where there was market failure, as opposed to creating a $50 billion white elephant, massively taxpayer funded, massively supported, but also supported through a restraint on competition—and that is a great concern. At what cost to Australians? Not only are they subsidising this through their tax dollars but they will be paying more for broadband as result of a reduction in competition.

I will be moving an amendment shortly to ensure uniform wholesale pricing across technologies, to ensure that the wholesale price that will be operating no matter where you are will be the same regardless of what technology you use, whether that be satellite, wireless or the fibre-optic system. Still, I reiterate that I have concerns in relation to the massive costs. I have concerns in relation to the fact that we are effectively impeding competition, which goes against the grain of competition law in this country. These are very important amendments before the House this afternoon, and I certainly welcome the ongoing debate.