Page 4324 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
if there is the demand for them? There is the real question: why are we doing this? You only have to go to the front page of the Australian this morning to see that web guru Graeme Wood has joined the attack on the NBN. The article states:
One of Australia’s most successful dotcom entrepreneurs has branded the National Broadband Network a potential “$43 billion hi-tech babysitter”, joining the growing chorus of industry criticism of the federal government’s internet plans.
Now, what Mr Wood said is that the debate has not been had, and he goes on in the article:
Is there any value to society in just delivering entertainment faster … to have more dots on the screens? The public debate hasn’t been had, not just in the terms of GDP impact of broadband, but on the costs (and) benefits to society.
So, let us have the argument. Let us have a discussion on the costs and benefit to society. The article goes on:
“Which part of that $43bn investment is going to provide hi-tech babysitting?” he said. “What are the costs to society if people spend an extra two hours in front of the screen instead of getting out and walking the dog or talking to their neighbour?”
So, Ms Porter, it is well and good to welcome this, and I thank you for highlighting the failure of the Stanhope Labor Government over the last nine years to deliver high speed infrastructure for the people of Gungahlin. But if we are going to have this debate and we are going to spend that amount of money as a country, then let us have a reasonable debate. Let us make sure we get it right. Let us make sure that we know exactly what we will get into.
An article by Andrew Harris, who is an expert in this field and is an independent telecommunications consultant, in the Business Spectator on 9 September says:
The fact remains that the economics of the NBN as it stands are still clearly questionable. But Labor now has the chance to come clean and set a new foundation. It should review its position on how it plans to fund the NBN and how it approaches the network in terms of its commercial and non-commercial elements.
That is a good comment. Let us have a discussion. If there is a public good beyond just having high speed broadband, then let us have the discussion. Let us see if we cannot quantify that amount. If, for instance, the medical communications that can be done—mind you, they can already be done on the existing networks—have some impact that takes the burden off the hospitals, let us quantify it. Let us actually make a decent case for such a thing. I question why Senator Conroy does not make that case. If the case is overwhelming, if the case is supportable and if the case works, then let us have that discussion.
The other thing is: will it actually come to my home or will it pass homes? There are questions here. If you get on the web and onto the national broadband network site
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video