Mr WINDSOR (5:02 PM) —There are a number of things I would like to comment on. I think this piece of technology—the National Broadband Network—is potentially the greatest piece of regional infrastructure that we will see this century. I am appalled that members of the National Party are trivialising this debate in the way that they are. I will ask the member for Cowper a question in a moment and I would like an answer to it—and I think the general public would like an answer. This is the one piece of infrastructure that actually negates distance as being a disadvantage. It is the one piece of infrastructure that creates enormous opportunities for country Australians. When you closely look at the sorts of benefits that will accrue to the nation and to country people in particular there are some incredible opportunities. A lot of those opportunities have not been invented yet, but the ones that have and the way they can be extended into country Australia is quite incredible. I cannot believe that any member who represents or purports to represent the country areas of this nation would actually find arguments to vote against it.

I have respect for the member for Wentworth, because I think he has long-term views in terms of some of the very important issues that confront this nation. Regrettably, his current leader does not. But I believe the member for Wentworth does have views. There were discussions earlier on—the member for Wentworth would be well aware of this—in relation to a benefit-cost analysis; or, as some people call it, a cost-benefit analysis. When I was at university it was a ‘benefit-cost’ but now, apparently, it is ‘cost-benefit’.

I am delighted to see the member for Sturt here after that physical engagement that we had earlier. I thought it was very touching. Your invitation to join with you in the formation of a new government, member for Sturt, I gave great consideration to but came up with the argument that, seeing you were very rarely in the building and that you would in a sense have the balance of power, it would be a highly irresponsible thing for me to do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for New England should return to the issue under debate, please.

Mr WINDSOR —The only way that the member for Sturt could have been engaged with us was via broadband technology, I think, because he would be out of the building.

The member for Wentworth made some key points early on about a cost-benefit analysis. I spoke to Malcolm about this on a number of occasions—the potential for country Australia. If there are 300,000 or 400,000 aged-care people who are able to maintain residence in their homes for one, two, three and four years, which is what they would like to do—which they are quite capable of doing under this in-home, real-time monitoring not only of their health condition but their whereabouts; instant contact with their loved ones et cetera—what would that save the nation? What would be the social costs of those things?

When you talk to people who want to do economic modelling on some of this stuff as to the all-up cost of this and the savings that would be accrued, it is very difficult for them to come up with numbers, because some of the technology has not been identified yet. But it is very clear that the major recipients, whether it be through health—country people trying to engage with specialists; we have this issue in the country that we cannot find enough doctors and allied professionals—would be country people. This is the one piece of technology that can overcome that.

There are issues for doctors in small towns. If backup can be provided through some of these technologies, it will give these doctors the confidence that they can take an accident victim and that they can deal with it. So there are enormous benefits in some of this technology.

My question to the member for Cowper is: if I support this amendment, will you support the National Broadband Network—yes or no? (Time expired)