Page 4337 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is arrived at. So, whilst I have some sympathy with paragraph (6) of Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, I will not be supporting it today. I think it is better to acknowledge that the matter is in fact under some further consideration and will be subject to, no doubt, some robust debate in both the lower and upper houses of the federal parliament—and perhaps it would be incumbent on me then to make another amendment, which I might do in due course, just to rework that one slightly.
So, in moving this amendment, I do so, as I indicated, because I think it is important to work with NBNCo and TransACT. This sort of infrastructure does come at a significant cost, and it is important that we take advantage of some of the federal government funded programs in this area, recognising the importance of delivering this particular project in new subdivisions, most particularly in Gungahlin, since, as we know, there have been a number of issues in that part of the city.
Equally, as we move forward as a nation, the importance of the national broadband network is clear, seemingly, to all or most. It is a pity that, in the context of the most recent federal election campaign, perhaps the importance of this technology to our country was not a matter of bipartisan agreement, but it would appear, with the appointment of Mr Turnbull to the shadow communications portfolio and judging by a number of the statements he has been making that, where he is a tech head and Tony Abbott is clearly not, the federal Liberal Party’s position on this matter will change.
Therefore, it is important that there is a degree of certainty around the future of NBNCo, which I think we now have, and therefore we should be working with them and with TransACT, our local broadband provider, to ensure that high speed cable broadband is made available to new subdivisions. Indeed, where it will be retrofitted throughout our city in the fullness of time, it is important that we, as an Assembly, support that.
For those reasons, I move my amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s amendment and recognise and am happy to note the position of the groups listed in paragraph (5). But I indicate a concern that paragraph (6) does not in fact reflect the current state of the policy debate in the federal parliament and also indicate that it may be necessary for me to move a further amendment, which I will do, once I have sat down and got the chance to write it.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4:53): I will very briefly speak to Mr Barr’s amendment to my amendment. I would like to say that his proposed rewriting of my paragraph (4) is entirely acceptable. I am obviously very supportive of the idea of getting the commonwealth government to pay for broadband in new subdivisions. I think that is an excellent idea. However, if this does eventually become an amendment to get rid of paragraph (6), then, no, I will not agree with that. But the amendment, as currently circulated, seems entirely acceptable.
Mr Barr’s amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s proposed amendment agreed to.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): The question now is that Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video