Page 4325 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and you put in “fees” or “charges” or “costs” or “price”, the only thing that comes up is that there is a fee to connect to a new development. There is no charging structure when you get onto the website. It might be somewhere else; perhaps I have not found it. But, again, the question needs to be asked.
Bartholomeusz in his article says:
In fact the reality of the NBN may not meet the expectations. Most of the cost of the NBN will be in bringing the network close to premises and then connecting them. In that sense—where the bulk of the money is spent—it will be mainly a consumer network.
It isn’t yet clear whether NBN Co will “pass” homes and then invite householders to connect. Nor is it clear who will pay for the final connection and the internal cabling needed to make use of the network. Will households be prepared to pay significantly more for broadband in order to download and upload videos faster?
The implementation study—and NBN Co—have said the NBN can be priced (at the wholesale level) at prices comparable to entry level prices for the existing services, or around $30 to $35 a month for a 20 Mbps service.
Now, if the existing retailers just shift their prices a little bit, it will certainly make the NBN even more uncompetitive. What we need to have is the case made. What we need is a case that justifies spending this money and justifies what are assumed to be other benefits.
If you want to have a reasonable debate, let us have it. Let us not just have self-congratulatory motions of this nature, which we get so often from Ms Porter. But I think it blows up in her face because, at the end of the day, it says that the Stanhope government—let us face it, they do not have an infrastructure commissioner, they do not have a proper infrastructure plan—have not considered this, have not done the job, have not followed up on the work of the previous government and have not said how they will do that. They are relying simply on the federal government to cover up for their mistakes.
I now move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute: “notes the failure of the Stanhope Labor Government to provide adequate infrastructure, such as broadband, to Gungahlin residents over the last nine years.”.
The amendment deletes all of Ms Porter’s words and simply inserts:
… notes the failure of the Stanhope Labor Government to provide adequate infrastructure, such as broadband, to Gungahlin residents over the last nine years.
In terms of accuracy and the succinct nature of the amendment, it stands on its own.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video