We already have a major economic problem. We live in a country that has had no productivity growth for eight years. And neither of the major political parties at this election has yet shown us any clear plan for any transformative reforms.

One of the few policy hopes for Australia? All three of our major political parties are now committed to delivering a national internet policy.

At best, this can liberate Australia from its inbuilt disadvantage, the remoteness of our continent, the tyranny of distance. At the very least, we could reasonably hope to keep pace with the countries at the forefront.

The political parties' offerings attack the problem in distinctly different ways, guided by ideology.

The Liberals' would be low-cost, technologically minimal, and trusting in the private sector to deliver.

It's defined by two statistics. The Liberals would invest $6 billion in public funds and promise speeds of at least 12 megabits per second. That is, it's cheap but it's slow.

It's a speed that can cater to most people's present home needs, but it's technologically and economically limiting.

It's low-risk to the public purse, but high-risk to national innovation and productivity. It depends heavily on wireless technology.

The independent telecoms consultant Paul Budde said the Liberals' plan ''will simply take us back to 2007 - in fact, perhaps even a bit further back than that'' and keep Australia ''on the bottom rung of the international broadband ladder''.

Labor's plan is an extension of a ''nation-building'' philosophy, where the state is prepared to build national infrastructure.

Labor's plan is defined by two corresponding statistics. Labor would invest up to $42 billion and promise speeds of at least 100 megabits a second.

So it's expensive and fast. Because it would provide fibre-optic cable to the home, it is world's best practice. The physics of fibre optic mean that it is infinitely upgradeable as technology advances.

For these reasons, a leading US technologist and one of the creators of the internet, Larry Smarr, likened Labor's plan to the 1956 decision by president Dwight Eisenhower to build the publicly funded interstate highway system.

''My great hope is that Australia will show the way for the US,'' Smarr said.

So the choice is between a cheap plodding present and an expensive expansive future. This is one very clear difference between the parties.