1/ The complainant’s side:
• That a lack of installed broadband is prehistoric: technically true.
• That providers’ lack of capacity for a modern household utility is ‘not good enough’: a matter of opinion. Some may feel that it is indeed good enough for Australian homes to be cut off from built-in infrastructure like roads, power, water, sanitation and telecommunications due to a lack of corporate interest.
• That her pre-purchase research indicated that broadband would be available to the house.
• That her post-purchase attempt to connect to broadband was denied due to the provider’s intentional lack of capacity for servicing the installed connection despite previous advice given.
2/ The Minister’s response:
• Fails to address any specific or national concern raised.
• Implies that broadband was not available where and when the house was bought.
• Asks why a house was bought without broadband, rather than why houses can be bought without broadband or why consumers can be misled about broadband availability.
• Portrays access to communication as a personal choice rather than a national value.
• Assumes the complainant is at fault despite no such evidence.
• Asks an irrelevant question “why did you buy”.
• Makes no attempt to indicate a resolution for the telecommunications issue other than by choice of location.
3/ My verdict: Turnbull is at fault and “to move to another home” is implied by his loaded question.