The following post is by Sean Kaye, a senior Australian IT executive. It first appeared on his personal blog, Sean on IT, and is re-published here with his permission. Kaye also blogs at Startups Down Under.
opinion A couple of great quotes can be used to sum up the recent Australian Federal Election. The first one is a classic that Julia Gillard pulled out in her post-election speech last night from Bill Clinton: “The people have spoken, but its going to take a little while to determine what they said.”
But the second quote I like and the basis for this article in relation to the NBN is from that great American thinker, Axl Rose who poetically sang: “Where do we go now?” in the Guns’n’Roses hit, Sweet Child O’ Mine.
Scholars are going to dissect this election result and the campaign leading up to it in great detail for many years to come and good luck to them — they’ll find whatever answers they want to find and call it fact. The truth is, this kind of election result is like a “glitch in the Matrix”. Labor lost support from all but its most ardent constituents: the non-union Left went to the Greens and the swinging centre/right moved to the Liberals. The swing was big enough to bring down the Labor Government, but because of preferences and some oddities in redistribution, who knows what’s going to happen. Again though, let’s leave that behind.
My attention is focused on trying to glean some understanding of what “the people” said about the NBN and how the parliament (both upper and lower house members of all stripes) should now act on this matter if we proceed with a minority government of some description for any length of time. Originally, in my piece about National Broadband policy, I put forward a proposition that we should simply hold off on the government’s massive expenditure until the country could better afford it. I questioned the government’s capability of successfully rolling out this plan, but go back and read it again, I’ve never once questioned whether or not we needed a national broadband strategy – I think we do. I just believe it needs to address the problem affordably for everyone.
Before I start my analysis, let me say that by no means do I think we should take the popular vote and mash it together as some form of issue by issue referendum, but for the sake of this piece, I’m taking some liberties with the mood of the voters to infer a way forward. Effectively, I’m asking for a bit of licence to find some sensible common ground, which is going to be necessary in this minority government situation if we are to have effective government.
Now that the matter has been put to the polls, here’s what I think the outcome should be. First of all, the internet filter is dead — neither the Greens nor the Coalition supported that nor did any of the minor parties, so we’re talking about 65 percent of the population. First up, bury that sucker in the deadpool and let’s never hear from it again — it was ill-conceived, bad policy.
I do think that the majority of Australians want a strong National Broadband Network. I think we can infer that the majority of Australians want this network to close the gap between rural and urban Australians in terms of technology availability. That said, I don’t think the majority of people want the Labor Party’s NBN either.
My solutions are these:
- If you’re going to be a bear, be a grizzly: We may as well aim for Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH). Effectively though, NBN Co needs to rapidly deliver Fibre-to-the-Node (FTTN) and through tax policy and legislation, the last mile should be the responsibility of customers and the private sector
- Continue with the plan to nationalise the Telstra copper network, open up the exchanges and pay them the $11 billion or whatever was agreed in the Heads of Agreement
- We establish some Universal Service Obligations that work for both rural centres and remote regions of the country that commit us to delivering them great broadband services now and into the future
- Instigate an immediate strategy to fibre up every single school, hospital, regional health facility and GP Super Clinic in the country within the next three years
- Deliver a business plan for NBN Co which is publicly available, takes into account the new requirements and is tabled before the end of the year
Before I go into discussing each of those points and my thoughts behind them, I think the issue of NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley and his blatant breaches of the Caretaker Conventions must be looked at. I don’t think there can be any doubt that Quigley breached the Caretaker Conventions on at least two occasions during the campaign: the first time when he announced the increase in bandwidth from 100Mbps to 1Gbps at EXACTLY the time when Labor were scoring points on the Liberals about the technicalities of the NBN. That was a clear foul, yellow card for Mr. Quigley.
The second instance occurred when he derided the Coalition’s Broadband Policy. To me, that was even more flagrant because he openly criticised and chided a policy that he was personally in direct conflict of interest with. In football (soccer) parlance, that was a studs-up tackle from behind and should have been a straight red. So what do we do with Quigley?
He’s done a good job assembling a team of experts and by all accounts, the work they are doing in the planning and architecture phase is world-class. He needs to be addressed because the Caretaker Conventions are very important, as has been highlighted by the result of last night’s election. However, if we’re going to proceed with this plan, we shouldn’t cut our nose off to spite our face. I think before any government is formed, Prime Minister Gillard should publicly reprimand him for his conduct, explain why she’s done so to the people of Australia and Quigley should apologise to the voters for crossing the line. Then he should get back to work with a slightly lower profile.
On to the meat and potatoes of my position and I’m going to tackle the points in a varied order from perhaps what they appear above. First of all, the Howard Government hurt the country’s telecommunications infrastructure with the way it privatised Telstra. That wrong needs to be addressed. Nationalising the core infrastructure makes sense in a country of such small population, but vast geography.
The Universal Service Obligations were largely on the shoulders of Telstra, which was unfair for a publicly traded company to have to bear. NBN Co can now take over a modified version of the USO and all Retail Service Providers will have to have some responsibilities as well to ensure people have basic access like telephones and ‘000’ services.
The next portion needs to be looking at the cost of this network and how we balance delivering great technology while being fiscally responsible. I think we need to deliver a hybrid FTTN and FTTH network in the short term, with a long term view (maybe six to eight years) that we’ll move to a full FTTH. As a priority, the NBN Co and Retail Service Providers should be surveying customers to find out which areas are most likely to have the highest levels of early penetration. We cannot have a system open to patronage and dirty politics — the people who most want and are willing to pay for the network should get it first.
The big cost on this NBN is the last mile and this is where the country needs to be clever about how it gets an outcome. Once the NBN Co becomes available at my nearest node, I should be able to contact any of the Retail Service Providers who wish to service my area. I should then be able to ask them for a connection cost, monthly access fee and a contract length. The cost of the connection is where some creativity needs to happen.
Some suggestions are that the NBN Co was modelling between $3000 and $4000 per household to connect in cost for the NBN. That’s not entirely accurate because it takes into account much of the infrastructure and isn’t the “last mile” cost. If you separate out the “infrastructure” and call that a required government expenditure, then what you are left with is just the last mile. If that were say, $1500 per household then that is a much more reasonable number. That number should also come down as penetration increases — for example, if running fibre to the demarkation point of my building costs $1500, then that’s done, the other sixty-seven tenants in my block of flats won’t have to pay that again because the fibre hits our demarkation point.
This is another point that needs to be better understood. Currently, Telstra’s obligation is to run services to a demarkation point on your property. That might be a switch box on the outside of your house, a comms rack in your block of flats or a telephone pole on the edge of your property. It is then your responsibility for the wiring and cabling of your property and I think this must be maintained for the NBN.
I believe this is where we need to get creative with tax incentives so that customers and the private sector fund the cash elements of the NBN to avoid the government having to borrow the money upfront. Take the issue of the $1500 cost to run from the node to the demarkation point of the property. To ensure flexibility of service provision this fibre needs to be owned by NBN Co. You could have a scenario where if the resident wishes to pick up the cost of this themselves, then it is 100 percent tax deductible in that financial year.
You could have a scenario where maybe the Service Provider pays for the connection on behalf of the customer if they sign-up for a three year contract. You would then allow the Service Provider to write the connection cost off in the same way you would an individual taxpayer, but you’d end up with the Service Providers’ fronting the cash for the connection.
The next piece of the puzzle is a bit complicated and that’s in relation to the work required within a property to “fibre up” the premises. This is going to require tough regulation in my view and good tax policy again. First of all, one need look at strata units. Unless the strata committee approves the on-site expenditure, then you can fibre up to the demarkation point all you like, but it won’t go any further. I have an elegant solution for this: Alter the Universal Service Obligations so that the moment fibre is available to the demarkation point of a property and a resident requests access, within twelve months the strata owners must ensure the completion of the work. Failure to comply would result in penalties that would make it worth complying with. Again, you can make the onsite work 100 percent tax refundable to property owners, tenants and strata companies.
The last part would be the stragglers. I would set a hard retirement date for the copper network in, say, eight years. In the first five years you allow the demand side economics take care of driving adoption — I’m fairly certain this would be successful. In the final three years you begin to impose punitive levies on property owners that do not comply because ultimately the government, through NBN Co, is going to have to wear the full cash cost of providing the last mile coverage. The government must make it so financially unattractive for property owners that they would certainly opt-in — along the lines of what the government does for people on high incomes to ensure they take out private health cover.
I think it is a no brainer that NBN Co needs to get out there right now and start running fibre now to schools, hospitals, GP Super Clinics and any large government health facilities in rural Australia. That’s an infrastructure leap we can afford to take and one we should take. While I believe our roads, hospitals, power grids and water facilities have all been neglected, that’s no reason to ignore our telecommunications infrastructure needs to these key service facilities across the country. This is a cost we just must incur.
The final part of my plan that needs the most work is around rural areas. Having an economic rationalist argument about the value of rural Australia is a moot point — there are plenty of people living in non-urban centres and they are citizens, they’ve spoken and they’ve requested faster broadband access. This is where Quigley and his cohorts need to get creative and use technology well. I think firing off very expensive satellites to establish footprint with an endless supply of government money is the wrong approach.
While the plan of tax incentives and tough policy will get 85 percent of the country in the urban areas over the line, it is not feasible to apply the same strategy in rural Australia. The best answer, let’s commit to providing our fellow citizens in those areas great service, they need to accept that it must be at a reasonable cost and let’s agree a timeline that gets it done within two full terms of office.
For me, there are two things that I’d like to see addressed. First of all, undersea capacity to the US and Asia. I think NBN Co must as part of its mandate undertake to do something about this. Australia is an island and telecommunications connects us to the rest of the world. If we believe it necessary as a people to have our core telecommunications infrastructure owned by the government domestically, then surely it must follow that our global interconnectedness should be owned similarly. I think we can save enough from having the customers and private sector underwrite the cash component of the last mile to wear the cost of proper set of redundant undersea connections to the rest of the world.
The second issue is usage charges. I firmly believe that if our government and we as taxpayers are going to underwrite this great endeavour, then we need to legislate, unequivocally and for all time that uncapped usage is the rule. If we are paying for 100Mbps connectivity to every home, school, hospital and clinic in the country, then the users should be able to use 100Mbps at all times, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. If the Retail Service Providers don’t like it, then they can build their own infrastructure, at their own cost.
My feeling is that this is a better plan. It gets the core infrastructure in place at a cost that should be lower than what Labor are suggesting. It shifts much of the cash burden to the private sector and the retail sector. The tax incentives can be tweaked so that high income earners or largely profitable companies don’t see a full deductible, whereas low income families and small business could avoid the cash components through a rebate scheme. I think we need to codify our resolve to our fellow citizens in rural Australia that we’ve heard their demand for faster broadband and we commit to delivering them the best we can, in a reasonable period of time at a cost we can all accept.
This “glitch in the Matrix” provides us with an opportunity. We have a chance to stop the “government of opposition” and have parties of all stripes work together on an issue to deliver not what is politically expedient or advantageous, but to deliver the people what they want and feel they need. The National Broadband initiative is an opportunity to see if we can manage a more evolved form of government where people can elect the representatives that represent their ideological views, but with the knowledge that the country will be governed in a non-dogmatic way and with greater participation.
Image credit: Enzo Forciniti, royalty free
I worry that “the people who most want and are willing to pay for the network” is not the same as “the people who most NEED and currently CAN’T AFFORD to pay”.
I’m also concerned about a $1500 barrier to entry (NOMA’s aside). Surely the best way to make the network profitable in the least amount of time is to set a low barrier to entry and heavily incentivize the uptake?
I’d had to see NBN access become a luxury item that only cashed up early adopters can afford.
I reckon (based on talking to people with experience) that the rollout for metro areas is going to cost closer to $800/premises. Currently, Telstra charges about $300/premises for a new line, and in many cases, that would not recover the entirety of the cost incurred. Still, it IS a barrier to entry, but consider the cost outright of a mobile phone – it is something that can be recovered over say a 24 month period.
At the end of the day though, the cost in the NBN is not the hardware, it’s the labour, and that’s only going to get more expensive as time goes on. Get the gear out there now, get the homes hooked up now, even if it’s underused for the first few years. Don’t waste money on a stop gap measure which will only last 5 years anyway.
Paul,
I agree and I disagree. One of the things I really hate is the government running around handing out freebies to make up for perceived inequality in society. One of the ways we can more affordably have a high-speed broadband network with fibre to everyone’s door is for the private sector and customer’s to largely underwrite the cash component. If the government doesn’t have to borrow the money to run the last mile, if it can wear the expenditure as tax deductions and write-offs (keeping the “losses” to the top line) then we’re going to have less likelihood of the costs blowing out.
So letting the wealthier members of our society soften the blow with their cash means that we’re all going to get the network we want.
I mention it briefly in the post as well, but there are ways to overcome this “have” versus “have not” scenario. I think for the first two years it should be demand driven so that we get the private sector and wealthier customers driving the spread. Over time that will drive down the cost of adoption and implementation. Then, maybe in year three or four, the government can introduce a scheme where low and middle income earners can get a full rebate for their connection and pass their claim over to the Retail Service Providers. So in that situation, the Retail Service Providers can use their capital to help cover the costs and the government can rebate them directly on behalf of the customer. Again, this is similar to how the medicare rebate scheme works, your private health insurer gets your rebate directly from the government.
That seems like a pretty fair setup to me.
Interesting point of view.
“One of the things I really hate is the government running around handing out freebies to make up for perceived inequality in society.”
There is a lot of this going on in our society. Your taxes subsidise or even outright pay for services to low income people, the unemployed, etc. Surely you don’t think that way about all of it.
“So letting the wealthier members of our society soften the blow with their cash means that we’re all going to get the network we want. ”
The wealthy contribute massively to the government purse through personal taxes and taxes on the business they own, and indirectly through the employment they create which further generates tax revenue and lowers the burden on social services.
Now you want them to step up again and take the hit as early adopters of a national network rollout. And so in a way which concentrates the rollout around where those people and their businesses are located, which helps regions not one bit.
Your proposal is like asking for investors to fund a startup by overpaying for the first shipment instead of buying shares.
Paul,
What I’m describing is called “early adopters” and there are entire theories around it. Here’s a blog post I wrote (http://seanonit.com/2010/05/18/the-technology-curve/) back in May about the Diffusion of Innovation a theory by Everett Rogers. As is the case with most new technology, there is group of Innovators and Early Adopters who often times pay a premium to have access to new technology. Look at when we switched from CRT monitors to Flat Panels, early adopters were paying a high price but as they moved into mainstream, the distribution system improved and stock became more plentiful, Flat Panels reached an inflection point where they become cheaper.
I’m suggesting the same thing here. I do pretty well, I can afford to pay a premium for high-speed broadband and I want to. So why shouldn’t the country take advantage of this? I live in a block of flats, if I’m the first person to get fibre into my flat, it costs more, but everyone else will be cheaper. Not to mention every house or block of flats on my street now has fibre running past it. Nobody is forcing me to make that decision, but if you put a premium product out there that I want and can afford, then that’s the way the market works.
I don’t understand your position. Sounds like you want some kind of bread line for this service where rich and poor alike we all stand together in line waiting while the government machine doles us out our portion of technology. I think my idea is better than that – market dynamics defeated that form of communism for non-essential items.
I disagree with the notion that an infrastructure rollout can be viewed in the same way as the uptake of new consumer electronics. It would be difficult to argue that access to flat panel televisions has the same impact on our economy as access to broadband.
And while I’m familiar with the term “early adopter” I found your post interesting, especially as it contradicts your position here (your post talks of innovators and early adopters having leverage to negotiate steep discounts, yet here you advocate them taking on a higher cost instead).
But now I understand your position. You can afford the proposed services even at a steep entry price. Thats your opinion and you’re welcome to it, I disagree that it makes a valid case for how we should handle this issue nationally. Your way means anyone without a cashed up neighbor willing to pay the higher costs has to wait for the private sector to get around to them, something they’ve done a poor job of to date.
Now that you’re throwing around emotive language like “bread line”, “government machine” and “communism” I’ll just leave our difference of opinion where it stands, because you are now being crystal clear.
In defence of Mike Quigley, I’d like to point out that until Andrew Robb directly attacked the quality of the NBNCo staff during the coalition’s broadband policy launch, Quigley had quite rightly kept his counsel. That was just as unwarranted as Quigley’s alleged overstepping of the caretaker conventions.
Now, the NBN itself. I’ve always been a supporter of the project in principle, and I think that FTTH is the obvious ‘end game’ as far as fixed line infrastructure is concerned. I have been disappointed however in the way in which the ALP has undermined the project through secrecy and an inability to articulate the value of implementing FTTH now, rather than in 8-10 years time.
Regardless of who wins the election, I think the Independent MPs should push for an independent analysis to be conducted by the Productivity Commission – we simply need to be able to place a hard dollar figure on the mooted trans-sectoral benefits that universal broadband coverage will provide. I am confident that the data will back up the business case for a national network, it doesn’t take much of an uptick in GDP to cover the costs involved.
Secondly, I would like to see the NBNCo tasked with coming up with some alternative models for the business to bring the private sector in. Maybe something along the lines of a Build/Own/Operate license for the physical network within metro areas. Bidders would tender to build fibre service areas, to the NBNCo’s specifications, and would be responsible for building and maintaining the physical infrastructure. NBNCo would lease over say a 30 year timeframe, and operate the wholesale services over the top. By licensing exclusive areas, this model would also prevent the HFC rollout farce of overbuild.
Public money could then be focused on investing in the regional/rural areas which are less attractive investments, but need to be done to provide regional/metro parity.
I think this sort of model, if done right, would appeal to the Coalition side of the fence while still delivering closer to the original vision of the NBN, rather than some watered down $6bn handout program to the usual suspects.
Andrew Robb is an elected official and he’s certainly within his purview as Opposition Spokesman for Finance and Debt Reduction to comment on the quality of any aspect of the NBN Co. Mike Quigley is effectively the head of a Crown Corporation who under the Caretaker Conventions isn’t supposed to make comments that favour or damage any of the parties running in the election. If Mike Quigley wants to comment on Opposition policy, run for a seat in the Commons.
“I think we need to codify our resolve to our fellow citizens in rural Australia that we’ve heard their demand for faster broadband and we commit to delivering them the best we can, in a reasonable period of time at a cost we can all accept.”
My rural region needs fibre. The NBN will deliver it. We want more than just weasel words.
Quigley’s comments are no different to what was and is being said by most people who have worked in the industry for decades (Pop over to whirlpool if you doubt that). Perhaps more notice should have been taken by the public, because certainly the liberal party didnt have a clue. I love how people go on about the gov spending “$43 billion” on NBN, when it’s been said, lots of time. that $28 Billion was the gov share.
The liberals (6 billion) plan is pure spending. At the end of it they have nothing of value, but have increased Telstras customer base, and value. Did anyone see a bussiness plan offered showing how that was to be recovered? …..
Compare that to the NBN, 28 billion INVESTED into an assett, which will enrich all Australians. Lets assume there are 10 million residential customers seeking a connection, at 4,000 each (making a total of 40 billion).
7% return of 4000 is $280 a year, or $23 a month.
I already pay telstra more then that each year to provide a copper line so I connect to my ISP (ADSL). In addition to that, my ISP pays money to Telstra as well, to have a DSLAM etc in the Telstra exchange (part of the monthly bill from my ISP, so I don’t directly see it)
So… I can keep my copper, 3mb conection, that drops out several times a day, or I can pay LESS, and get a network just as good for nearly all my fellow Australians.
That amount assumes that only residences are connecting to the NBN.
Companies and Gov Bodies pay HUGE amounts for internet access, where they can get it. They are a high value custoner, and the Relyablity of the NBN, and the fact it has a huge upload as well will be an instant network of choice.
I just don’t get how people say it will cost to much, when it costs less, is better and more relyable.
As for future technology just over the horizon, you are correct, there will be far superior hardware in the future with much greater bandwith then 100meg.
It will use fiber as well :) The same fiber we have already laid.
Wireless is great when you are willing to put up witjh its limitations to get any access to the internet at all. Check your mail, do a google search sure. Anything else, its barely adequate. As a 1st choice? I don’t think so. It will get better, but is not scalable like fiber. In fact the single fiber to your home could run a wireless tower serviceing 1000s of mobile users at todays rates of use.
Paul,
So you are assuming everyone takes up the NBN. Halve the number and double your costing per household and then add some capital repayment and some administration and operational cost, oh and don’t forget the reseller wants to make a buck. Oh, not so cheap after all. I think Sean has some really good ideas here, pity no one in power will take any notice.
@ Heavy User.
Similar to the digital TV revolution the copper network will be disabled in the future, if NBN is built, all customers will join NBN and don’t really have a say in the matter.
It’s not a matter of IF. It’s a matter of WHEN.
Telstra agree’d to migrate all their customers to NBN and practically every ISP is jumping for joy at the sounds of getting their customers on board the NBN as it essentially means less unnecesarry charges for the ISP, which are passed onto the consumer. No ISP thinks it is a bad idea and ‘forced’ is hardly the right word.
Here is a video on Youtube of iiNet iPrimus and Internode singing praise about the NBN, Delimeter even uploaded it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn-UcI6lI
That aside, I don’t see why anyone wouldnt wan to join the NBN.
iiNet’s NBN plans:
http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100820-iinet-unleashes-nbn.pdf
Starts at $29.95 for a NBN plan at 100Mbps with 20GB usage. Phone is a extra $9.95 a month with unlimited calls.
For comparison $39.95 is Telstra’s cheapest broadband plan and it comes with only 2GB usage. Speed is anywhere from 1Kbps to 30Mbps if you are lucky enough to have cable in your area.
Telstra’s cheapest home phone is $20.95 with zero included calls.
So, for absolute basic internet and phone you are looking at $60.9 per month…..
Let’s see what that would get on the NBN
Unlimited calls, 100Mbps, 200GB usage.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
I disagree with a fair bit of it, $3k per person really isnt that much, we pay $50k per person for welfare in the same timespan as the NBN.
We have some of the worst communications networks in the world, it really is time it got a upgrade, and got upgraded fully – I feel FTTN is a half upgrade, and a silly one at that given the main cost is getting the skilled workers in the street, and not digging the cable up the road.
As you mentioned, Telstra charge $300 for a new connection, that is from the curb to your house – not up the street, $3k is starting to look cheap.
If it came to it, I would be more than happy to pay $1500 for my Fiber connection’s installation, however, I just don’t think it’s necesarry.
I’m a little bit over the mis-reporting of the caretaker conventions. Mr Quigley is not a public servant. They don’t apply to him.
And even if they did, his comments wouldn’t necessarily contravene them. The closest parallel to the NBN co that the conventions would apply to is an independent statutory agency, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, or the Fair Work Ombudsman. The heads of these agencies regularly advocate on issues that are important in their opinion, which do not always mesh with the Government’s views.
In addition, the conventions are in essence about avoiding any obligation being placed on an incoming Government. Arguably Quigley can’t actually do this anyway – the NBN co continues to act under it’s original charter without additional direction from Government during the caretaker period.
What are time bombs of Australia democratic society?
The historical hung parliament demonstrated the big gap inequality society between the groups get highest pay by talk fest used mouth work, the groups get lowest pay by hands work?
Voters’ voices do not hear?
Voters’ pains do not ease?
Voters’ cries do not care?
1. Poverty will not be phase out if no fairer resources to share;
2. Illness will not be reducing if no preventive measurement in real action;
3. Agriculture will not be revitalize if urbanization continuing its path;
4. Housing affordability will not be reach for young generation if government continues cashing from young generation debt by eating out the whole cake of education export revenue without plough back;
5. Manufacture industry will shrink smaller and smaller if no new elements there to power up to survive;
6. Employability will not in the sustainable mode for so long as manufacture and agriculture not going to boost.
Ma kee wai
(Member of Inventor Association Queensland since 1993)
What democratic societies should learn lessen from Australia election 2010:
1. What voters crying for reforms not just parliament, but for all department?
Voter’s pains did not link to high income Politicians and Bureaucracy.
The Australia historical hung parliament demonstrated the big gap of inequality society between the small educated elite groups who get highest pay by talk feast used mouth work controlling live essential resources of the country in every social platforms against the biggest less educated groups who get lowest pay by hands work squeezed by discriminative policies that sucking live blood from individual poor/less wealth off?
Voters’ voices do not hear?
Voters’ pains do not ease?
Voters’ cries do not care?
Voter is crying for department reforms over 70 years that resulting a 2010 Hung Parliament?
An iceberg example of voter’s crying:
“……it seem to me there was an unfair to treat me when the merit of “Claim for Disability Support Pension or Sickness Allowance” form in detail clearly defy 15 hours classify the cut off point for acceptance, when comparing to my early assessment completed in June this year that it has the merit less than 8 hours (0-7) work capacity due to my long term medical impairment since an injury occurred in 2005”…….
It was disappointing where the push of Parliament reform that mainly to brink good news to all MPs by the individual MPs during this year historical hung parliament in 70 years, and the reform did not including all Government Departments where it would directly brink good actions to all voters/or people?
Ma kee wai
(Member of Inventor Association Queensland since 1993)
Comments are closed.