Mr OAKESHOTT (5:48 PM) —This afternoon we have been asked a question on an amendment to a bill that the National Party and the coalition substantially do not support. The question is: why? The only conclusion that can be drawn is: mischief. That was revealed in the member for Cowper’s comments and the member for Wentworth’s comments, and a range of speeches that have been delivered this afternoon have expressed a continued campaign about the cost of a National Broadband Network rollout. Yet this amendment increases that cost. We are being asked by the coalition to support it. When the members of the coalition raise the issue of the cost of the NBN, how on earth can they look MPs—me, the member for Kennedy and the member for New England—straight in the eye? They are asking us to increase the cost that they are oh so concerned about!

I suspect that when this gets knocked back we will see a reverting to the norm of criticism of the crossbenchers for taking on that hypocrisy and that inconsistency. I would hope that we, as members of this chamber, are focused on outcomes over politics and on delivery over rhetoric. Today I think we negotiated a pretty good outcome as a consequence of this process and the issues that have been raised. We have now locked away a community impact statement that will be part of the policy process on behalf of the seven per cent—those who will not be covered by the fibre-to-the-home or fibre-to-the-premises rollout. Some good work has been achieved today as a consequence of us all coming back. That policy process puts first and foremost those seven per cent who are up the hills and in the valleys, where technology just cannot reach. I think that is a commitment from this House that recognises the principle of equity of service delivery. I hope that is a shared and common view when we walk out of here today.

I say to all regional MPs, regardless of the absurdities of the positions of some people today, that I hope that at the end of today there is a recognition that we have achieved some outcomes for the greater good based around this principle of equity of service delivery. I suspect there will be some reverting to norm. I suspect there will be some local electorate positioning about who has betrayed whom. If so, let’s have that debate, but in the end those who are supposedly concerned about costs have revealed their strategy of mischief today in the way they are using this chamber to achieve policy outcomes that are not in the national interest but in personal-political or party-political interest. That says a lot, and hopefully it is not lost on those in the community who consider today’s debate.