Gillard is ripping up Labor’s NBN credibility

96

opinion No matter how hard the Australian Labor Party tries, when it comes to the telecommunications sector it just keeps on shooting itself in the foot — a fact demonstrated starkly by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s appalling comments on the NBN over the past week.

It was hard to ignore the sense of triumphalism in the air last Thursday morning when the Federal Government finally announced its long-awaited National Broadband Network contract with Telstra. The symbolism of the moment, after all, was writ large.

If you watch the video of the event, you can see its careful choreography in action. As support staff open the door to the Prime Minister’s Courtyard at Parliament House, Gillard exits, looking both young but also reserved in a black suit and dark mauve top. She proceeds to the speaking podium.

Behind Gillard file out Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, whose presence is of course essential, but also Finance Minister Penny Wong, who doesn’t give her own speech at the event, but is only present to lend an air of financial credibility to the proceedings. She’s less a shareholder minister of the NBN and more like some kind of trained prudential poodle.

And then come the real big guns.

With what appears to be a quiet exchange of words, the chief executives of Australia’s current and future telecommunications monopolies follow the ministers. Leaving the side of his NBN Co counterperart, Telstra boss David Thodey takes a stand next to Conroy, indicating Telstra’s now submissive attitude towards the Government. For his own part, NBN Co leader Mike Quigley stands on the other side next to Wong, making it clear he will always take a measurable and responsible approach to managing the tens of billions of dollars the Government is ploughing into the NBN.

From here on, events flow smoothly.

Churchill-like, Gillard repeats several times that that she is “determined” that the NBN will go ahead, “determined” to bring super-fast broadband to Australia, and “determined”, it appears, to look as though Labor is capable of sticking with one policy, at least, until the bitter end. Conroy, for his own part, shows off his ‘special occasion’ red Labor tie, reiterating the nation-building aspects of the NBN with his trademark overenthusiastic diction.

Wong looks serenely on — staunchly safeguarding the public purse — while first Thodey and then Quigley step forward to vouchsafe the sacred trust that has been placed in them in maintaining telecommunications services to every Australian … or words to that effect. It’s a publicity extravaganza that glistens with production values only otherwise found in the most high-profile stage events … Andrew Lloyd Webber should take note. But of course, there was a shadowy phantom waiting in the wings.

It should have been enough for Gillard and her supporters to stop here. To justly accept plaudits for a deal which represents — after a decade — a final outcome to the botched deregulation of Australia’s telecommunications sector. The holy grail — the separation of Telstra — is within reach, and better yet, we’re getting universal fibre to boot.

But Gillard just couldn’t help herself. Her gutter instincts rose to the fore and she indulged them, taking the opportunity to stick the boot into the Opposition. “The Opposition is determined to destroy the NBN,” the Prime Minister said. “I anticipate the Opposition will go to the next election saying they’ll dig the cables out of the ground.”

Taken alone, Gillard’s comments might be seen as just an isolated example of a Prime Minister who didn’t quite understand what she was talking about. After all … nobody in their right mind would rip up brand new infrastructure once it had been laid — whether that infrastructure is a road or a fibre cable. You make use of it — or, in the worst case, sell it.

But Gillard blithely ploughed on.

Facing questions on the matter from one brave journalist, who pointed out that Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull had just that very morning stated that a Coalition Government would not dig up the NBN fibre, Gillard reiterated her comments.

The Prime Minister claimed Opposition Leader Abbott had given Turnbull instructions to “destroy” the NBN. “You destroy the NBN by ripping up this agreement, ripping the fibre out of the ground and keeping this nation in the past,” she said.

And then, later in Parliament that same day, Gillard continued (PDF). “If you are in the business of ripping the National Broadband Network out of the ground, then your relentless negativity is costing Australian families,” she told the Coalition. Then later: “They want to rip the NBN out of the ground.” The quote was repeated many times in that session of parliament — and Gillard continues to use the exact same words, again and again. Just this week, at an NBN launch in the Northern Territory, Gillard accused Abbott of wanting to “rip the fibre out of the ground”.

Now there’s just one problem with Gillard’s claim: Both logic and, less importantly, the Coalition itself indicate that it is simply and obviously untrue. There is no reason that a Coalition Government would order fibre-optic cable to be physically torn out of the ground if it took Government. Quite aside from the fact that it would be a monumental waste of money to do so, it would involve a major construction effort.

Nextgen Networks, for example, has already constructed thousands of kilometres of fibre links across Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia as part of the $250 million NBN backhaul project. It would be, as Turnbull has pointed out, “ludicrous” to suggest that that infrastructure should be torn up, just as it would be ludicrous to tear up a major highway once it had been built.

It gets even more ludicrous when you consider the scale which the NBN will have achieved by the time the next election comes around … with several million premises in cities around Australia having received fibre to their front door. To suggest that any politician would want to physically disconnect millions of Australians from their fledgling fibre connection — and with the previous copper network having likely already been removed in many cases — is worse than a bad joke. It’s simply untrue.

Now, opinions vary as to what extent Prime Minister Gillard is or is not a fool in general. However, it is clear, given the ongoing nature of her “rip it up” comments targeted at the Coalition, that these remarks in particular are not coming off the cuff. They are a deliberate strategy designed to take advantage of the NBN’s populism and undermine the Coalition’s broadband credibility.

With a whole department full of broadband experts and a Minister who is speedily becoming a walking encyclopedia on the subject, there is no doubt that our Prime Minister has the resources to understand that no Government, nay, nobody in their right mind, would “rip up” brand new telecommunications infrastructure.

The fact that she is publicly making statements that run contra to that expertise and understanding means she is comfortable misleading the Australian public. To label it as it should be labelled: Gillard’s claims regarding the Coalition’s plans for the NBN are a lie: A lie told deliberately and consciously in public with the aim of attacking her rivals.

The difficulty with this is that you simply cannot use a bald-faced lie to publicly undermine someone else’s credibility. Ultimately, and as the ABC’s word chat disastrously showed Gillard last week, the only credibility you will undermine is your own.

Image credit: NBN Co

96 COMMENTS

  1. A minor factual correction. What Nextgen is building is the “Regional Backhaul Blackspots Program”. Although it will be valuable to the NBN, it’s worthwhile even without it, because it offers price competition on backhaul from locations which haven’t had anyone but Telstra in the past. This is already attracting ISPs to new locations.

    • I quote from DBCDE’s website:

      “As part of the Australian Government’s commitment to deliver a National Broadband Network that will provide superfast broadband to Australian homes and workplaces, it is investing up to $250 million to immediately address backbone blackspots throughout regional Australia.”

      It’s part of the NBN policy, it’s just not being built by NBN Co.

        • Um … how is it not part of the NBN? It was announced at the same time, it’s being built from the same funding … it may not be part of NBN Co, but it is definitely part of the NBN policy.

          • Im with Michael on this one

            The NextGen is a separate program that just delivers national backhaul, it doesn’t have to do anything with the NBN, apart from the government trying to advertise both projects together since they are being built at the same time

            The coalition had the exact same policy as well

            I don’t even know that its being built with the same type of funding as NBNCo is (I believe NextGen is being built directly with government funding, NBN is being built with debt)

            Of course we may be quibling about what the exact term for NBN actually is. Is NBN just building internet for Australia (in which case you could argue that yes, NextGen is part of NBN) or if its specifically related to Labors 93% FTTH/7% wireless, then no it isn’t

          • I will – however – “quibble” with the statement that the NBN is just about “building internet for Australia” – it is far more than that.

          • Yes I tend to agree… this isn’t NBN per se… but as Richard said, it will be NBN valuable…

            So bit rich for the government to claim this one, but… according to some “it’s all wasted taxpayer dollars anyway, so” LOL!

            Surprise, surprise though, deteego finally agrees with MW for the first time (instead of wanting to fight to the death)… As such, obviously, some people’s partiality and other’s impartiality are coming to the fore!

          • @MichealWyres

            “I will – however – “quibble” with the statement that the NBN is just about “building internet for Australia” – it is far more than that.”

            That’s true we already have internet, so it’s not that, so what else is it then?

          • How about an extremely broad and up to date private network for hospitals? There’s one possible use for the NBN that isn’t ‘internet’. I’m sure someone else could think of another.

          • Almost all hosptials (i.e. the ones not in the rural areas, which are not getting fiber anyways) are already linked with fiber internet, so I have no idea what you are getting at

          • Well, deteego, hospitals will now be able to use the NBN to deliver private network video services over a data port on the NTU in the patient’s home. That’s not internet, and it’s not hospital-to-hospital. It is enabled by the NBN. And six minutes from now, the patient will be able to claim the consultation on Medicare.

          • @ Francis,

            It’s far more likely that the NBN doctors will be outsourced to India due to cheaper costs, & of course all of this will be fraudulently claimed against the tax payer funded Medicare system.

            Nothing beats having a home visit from a real doctor, not some $36-50 billion public debt NBN doctor Patel (re: QLD doctor death).

          • @Francis Young

            “hospitals will now be able to use the NBN to deliver private network video services over a data port on the NTU ”

            Here it comes the NBN spin cycle at full speed, tell me Francis why cannot that service be delivered today on the data port of a Billion modem or Optus or Telstra HFC modem?

            It must be that 3D imaging X-Ray machine that comes with every NBN ONT ( I hope they up the capacity of the UPS!) and it’s great, it’s all covered by Medicare.

            For me I look forward in having a on-line HD 1080i video consultation (nothing less will do) with a specialist in Harley St London, all covered by Medicare of course, they will even pay for the camera, but rumors are about it may come with every NBN ONT box.

          • Yes I’m sure people in Melbourne or Sydney, or Brisbane only (iirc) with HFC would love that… but what about the rest alain…****k them eh, you are ok!

          • You still have not explained even taking the HFC footprint into account why such a service is not available today, and why it is not available under ADSL2+, what is it about the service that uniquely requires NBN FTTH?

            To take it a step further if the service is unique to FTTH why all Greenfield housing estates with FTTH and all the TransACT customers in Canberra have not got the service?

            Just another load of BS spin in a increasingly desperate long line of BS spin to try and justify the NBN’s existence.

          • Nothing beats having a home visit from a real doctor, not some $36-50 billion public debt NBN doctor Patel (re: QLD doctor death).

            If I was in a consultation with Dr Patel, I would feel much better about doing it over a video link!

        • God damn. You post everywhere and always in support of the nbn. Grow some and listen to some reason for a change.

    • I think at this point it wouldn’t matter

      Quigley’s perceptive credibility regarding the Alcatal scandal is already questionable (regardless of how innocent he may be), and it was a clever play on the oppositions part to focus on this, because Quigley did end up having to backtrack many of his previous comments regarding the whole affair. It was of course purely political, and unnecessary regarding the NBN (but not regarding the politics, because the Labor government really should have done some basic research at the time of hiring Quigley to see that the company he was CEO of was under investigation for fraud)

      He would obviously be better then Conroy/Gillard, but many people just see him as a lackey working for the government at best, and at worst not that much better then Gillard/Conroy

      Regarding the NBN, most people have at this point already made up their mind. They either are vehemently for it, indifferent to it (i.e. don’t really care) or opposed to it. The people that are indifferent and opposed wouldn’t vote for Labor/Green government in any case

      • deteego says,

        “Quigley’s perceptive credibility regarding the Alcatal scandal is already questionable (regardless of how innocent he may be)”.

        So do the same rules apply to Turnbull, regarding Goldman Sachs, Ute gate etc?

        • So when exactly did Turnbull make a public statement, only to have someone point out that many points in his statement were knowingly false, and force him to issue a revision to his previous statement? Please provide some reference to the false statements that Turnbull made.

          • LOL… and here’s the third in the matching trio of radcons…nothing like racing to Malcolm’s defence…AGAIN!

            Well again, I will attach a URL to YOUR types, who aren’t too impressed…

            http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/05/compassion-for-turnbull-he-just-wants-his-balls-back.html

            So ask them about false statements, because READ MY LIPS, IDGAF, I believe they have both been found not guilty so…

            My question was, before you derailed it with your insecure need to come to the rescue of YOUR party member was, if you guys are going to keep saying things like – “Quigley’s perceptive credibility regarding the Alcatal scandal is already questionable (regardless of how innocent he may be)”.

            Well no matter how innocent Malcolm, Quigley or whoever may be, then the same hang ’em mentality should be across the board, shouldn’t it…?

          • Your waffle and handwaving does not answer the question.

            Quigley was caught making false public statements, over reasonably significant issues such as which territories he was in charge of as CEO. Quigley was forced to retract that statement and re-issue it, admitting that he was actually in charge of the territories where bribes took place. Alcatel was actually found guilty on the bribery issue. There was in investigation and there was evidence, etc.

            No where in your handwaving can you point to anywhere that Goldman Sachs has been found guilty over the HIH affair, and nowhere can you point to Turnbull making false statements with regard to this affair either. The article accuses them as follows:

            From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again.

            So maybe that could perhaps be true (although I think it’s extremely exaggerated) but you have yet to point out any time that Goldman Sachs actually got caught doing anything illegal, so either the entire judicial system is completely corrupt, or Goldman Sachs are very good at making a profit while complying with the letter of the law. Just for comparative purposes, what Alcatel did with respect to the bribery was in fact illegal. You get it? They had to pay fines and penalties. See how that works?

            Well no matter how innocent Malcolm, Quigley or whoever may be, then the same hang ‘em mentality should be across the board, shouldn’t it…?

            How about you engage the brain for just a minute or two and think about the fundamental difference in perceived credibility between a company that gets found guilty and a CEO who can’t even remember what exactly his responsibilities were, as compared with a company that gets looked at by a court and found to have done nothing wrong.

            Are you seriously going to continue pretending there is an equivalence here?

        • Thats the naive conclusion to make

          Their real aim was Labor, not Quigley, he was just the middleman. As I said the point of their exercise was to show Labor’s incompetence in not doing proper research before hiring him, because as I said earlier, at the time Alcatal Lucent was being investigated for fraud, and it was public info that a simple google search would have found

          • And still no mention of your one rule for them and another for us, in relation to guilty Quigley/sucky Labor and innocent Turnbull/sun shines out of the arse Libs…!

      • Most of you ppl that are crying about the NBN You havin nothng bad to say about it because there isnt… o no a couple bucks to put us on top the world for somthing finaly…………

        YOU JUST KEEP going at labor like little stupid kids…What you think liberals are good? There shit
        All this is just political BS Please leave my country so we can at least try and move forward (Thats my vote anyway)

  2. One wonders if she has some written hard evidence ready to release that has Abbott word for word telling Turnbull to pull all the cables up.

    It’s the only reason other than “She’s a complete fucking idiot”, that I can think of for why she would often repeat this stupid line.
    Her handler MUST SURELY be telling her to stop it…

    • Gillard does not take advice from her handlers. Remember the “real Julia” “fake Julia” episode? How about fighting Alan Jones on talk back radio? (re: carbon tax.) All of this against the advice of her PR team. As for Julia talking up “the Libs will rip out the fiber”, she is desperate to shift media focus away from the carbon tax, boat people, banned cattle exports, kevin07 etc.

    • LOL there “The fucking liberals” who knows what they will do to screw us over…

      Maybe she is just getting it out here now so when you idiots vote for liberals they will not go and rip it up.. you know so they have to answer for it now…

    • Agreed Phil. Julia Gillard might have repeated the ‘ripping the cables out of the ground’ exaggeration one too many times, but politics is about excess and her comments need to be seen in that context.

  3. Politically speaking, Gillards main problem always has been is that she is acting like she in opposition when she is supposed to be governing the country

    If you watch her during parliament, the shit she throws at Abbot (sorry to be rude) is really disgusting, what you are seeing on this press conference is really just the surface

    People can hate Abbot and the coalition as much they want for being “negative” and “opposing”, but if you look at the history of politics thats what every opposition does. The reason why it appears “stronger” in Abbot’s case (and its just perception), is that Gillard is playing opposition against Abbot/coalition, completely focusing on it, and making an issue of him being an opposition leader. Although initially effective, such tactics will make Gillard lose the government come next election (if not sooner).

    Likewise regarding policy, oppositions often release their policies last year before an election (they after all, also have to be costed by the Treasury, which the opposition can only do during the caretaker period, which happens when an election is announced). So regarding liberal telecommunications policy, just as Malcolm Turnbull has stated, you will see one in around a years time ;)

    (Note that I am not trying to defend the liberal party here, just putting things into perspective regarding how things politically normally work). Remember that the Labor party announced their final NBN like a month before their election ;)

    • BS…

      The sooner everyone comes to the realisation that they are ALL POLITICIANS regardless of partisan labels, and stop thinking the sun shines out of ones backside, while the others can never do anything right, either/both ways, the sooner rational NBN debate can take place…

      • The NBN is a political construct, it was made as a political fix

        What you are asking for is not possible

        • I agree deteego, of course the NBN is political…

          In fact it is probably as political as work choices and the GST, as there is a line drawn in the sand, by the politicians…

          What I am asking is for those such as you, to keep your imo, obvious political bias (so much so that even Joe who agrees with alain, suggests this is an obvious pro-Coalition website) out of these forums…!

          This is a debate about the worth and value of the NBN, not Labor vs.Coalition.

          The should either stand up or fall, regardless of which political persuasion is pushing it…and this is waht we should be discussing, imo!

  4. Add to this her comments about competition.

    The government and NBNCo are paying would be competitors to the NBN to exit the market. There is no place in an NBN world for the sort of innovation that saw ISPs place DSLAMs in Telstra exchanges. There is legislation to make any new infrastructure capable of 25Mbps be the same as the NBN – no innovation allowed.

    That destroys infrastructure competition, with the obvious flow on effects on consumer choice. Either Gillard doesn’t understand competition (possible) or she is lying, again (more likely).

    • Cabling peoples houses and businesses is a big pussy pimple on the arse of the highly competitive telecommunications market that needs to be popped.

      When the scars heal and the operation is paid off then the NBN can offer Layer 1 services if the government of the day allows it instead of the ACCC and ISPs fighting with Telstra over access and pricing. Companies can innovate all they want at that point.

      • *Cabling peoples houses and businesses is a big pussy pimple on the arse of the highly competitive telecommunications market that needs to be popped.*

        “pussy”, “pimple” and “arse” in the same sentence…

        wow.

  5. I see this is a pro coalition website, no wonder coalition supporters laugh when people claim this site is non biased

      • Joe’s comment doesn’t scan right, he either means it’s a pro Labor website with no wonder coaltion supporters laugh ….., or it’s a pro Coalition website with no wonder Labor supporters laugh….

    • well, the Publisher proudly votes Greens and preferences Liberals…

      interpret that however you want…. (kind of like voting Sex Party and preferencing Fred Nile…)

      • I vote Greens because I have refused to give either major party a primary vote since I turned 18, on the basis of their refugee policies. I consider a policy which includes keeping people locked up behind razor wire just kilometres from where “normal” Australians are living inhumane. My ethics won’t let me vote for such a policy.

        I preference the Liberals because I believe in market competition and small government, and I’m a small business owner pissed off with Labor intervention in every sector they can get their hands on. Plus I’d like to see more employer rights in Australia and less regulations which make it very hard to employ people.

        In short, I’m socially progressive but economically conservative. Voting Greens and preferencing the Liberals is pretty logical :)

        • *I consider a policy which includes keeping people locked up behind razor wire*

          the razor wire is to protect them from the wild dingoes ;)

          *just kilometres from where “normal” Australians are living inhumane.*

          “normal” Australians who have legal status in the country.

          *I preference the Liberals because I believe in market competition and small government, and I’m a small business owner pissed off with Labor intervention in every sector they can get their hands on.*

          yet you support Labor’s extreme version of the NBN!!!

          *In short, I’m socially progressive but economically conservative. Voting Greens and preferencing the Liberals is pretty logical :)*

          but you put social values before economic ones. fair enough.

        • “I preference the Liberals because I believe in market competition and small government, and I’m a small business owner pissed off with Labor intervention in every sector they can get their hands on.”

          The Libs have the spin-machine working on overdrive to have people believe that they are for market competition and small Government; but like all conservative parties they pay lip service to those ideals and do the exact opposite. Ever noticed that Government *never* gets smaller? Or beauracy never decreases?

          “Plus I’d like to see more employer rights in Australia and less regulations which make it very hard to employ people.”

          Regulations don’t make it hard to employ people. Unreasonable expectations of what employees should do or be make it hard to employ people.

          “I consider a policy which includes keeping people locked up behind razor wire just kilometres from where “normal” Australians are living inhumane.”

          So you dislike prisons as well? :-)

          • *Ever noticed that Government *never* gets smaller? Or beauracy never decreases?*

            1. people who believe in “small government” tend *not* to stand for government. there’s a self-selection bias in politics as in other professions. as a general rule, politics tends to attract people who believe in “social engineering” or “proactively intervening to reshape society”.

            2. any Liberal leader in office realises that if he/she leaves behind a “huge surplus”, it will most likely be squandered by the subsequent Labor Government elected into office. so, you might as well have a “modest surplus” instead and spend the “extra money” on your pet projects.

        • As a side note, under Liberal policy there was no barbed wire. When refugees were held on naru, they were free to roam the island.

          At least in my opinion, that is more humane then what is happening currently

        • What they gunna do send them straight back to die?
          Or maybe they can let them straight in and use more money then the NBN would ever cost?
          Or just let them take our jobs?
          or just let them live on the street?

        • I consider a policy which includes keeping people locked up behind razor wire just kilometres from where “normal” Australians are living inhumane.

          Sounds a lot like our local railway station.

      • If your main objective is to stop the Internet Filter and preserve liberties for Australia, the Greens are the most opposed, and the Liberals are mildly opposed. Other minority parties (e.g. LDP) are also pro-liberty and anti-filter but they don’t win much.

        Sure, the Greens want to curtail our liberties in other ways (e.g. Carbon tax) but that’s a lot less harmful than an internet filter. The Carbon tax merely destroys Australia’s industrial competitiveness and quite frankly our industrial competitiveness has been hanging by a thread for decades, now is as good a time as any to finally put it out of its misery and move on to other things.

  6. *when you consider the scale which the NBN will have achieved by the time the next election comes around … with several million premises in cities around Australia having received fibre to their front door.*

    several million premises by 2013?

    pffttt….. dream on.

    • Well we could do a direct progress comparison to OPEL, who had they started back when, would just be getting out of fkn bed in 2013!

      Gee some people and their negativity eh?

      • or you could read the NBN corporate plan.. and apply 50% “enthusiasm” discount.

        • Since one ignored the OPEL hiatus and still wishes to hone in on the NBN CVC pricings, from within the sh*t one minute/gospel the next, corporate plan (and even though NBNCo have said they’ll review the CVC charges anyway) let’s still all claim the sky is falling, oh me oh my, anyway…!

      • @RS

        “Well we could do a direct progress comparison to OPEL”

        Opel was announced by the Liberals just a month or so out from the 2007 election, it was never rolled out, Rudd won that election and Conroy immediately canceled OPEL.

        It was also a private public partnership with the Coalition Government and the Futuris Corporation and Optus, it was also for mainly WiMAX and rolling out more ADSL2+ DSLAM’s, other than those key differences we could have made a make a direct comparison to the NBN.

        • WAA (wrong again alain)… as usual!

          OPEL was announced June 2007 and canned April 2008. Some 10 months later, because they had done SFA…

          • Come on RS tell the full story, OPEL deal was announced June 2007, funding agreement discussions then took place between the OPEL Company and the Howard Government, the funding agreement was signed September 2007, then WiMAX suppliers were evaluated, the election of which Howard lost to Rudd was held in November 2007, after which Conroy cancelled all OPEL contracts.

            Yeah the Coalition had heaps of time to rollout the OPEL infrastructure, they had a whole month!

            LOL

          • Doug I do not post at Whirlpool..hmmm!

            alain said – “Opel was announced by the Liberals just a month or so out from the 2007 election” – WAA (wrong again alain)

            So you now admit you were WAA and say it was June after all…good boy! So 5 months before not 1.

            Then you said – “Rudd won that election and Conroy (((immediately))) canceled OPEL.

            Now you conveniently alter the words, LOL… “to Howard lost to Rudd was held in November 2007 (((after which))) Conroy cancelled all OPEL contracts.

            Yes 5 months after which, which make you WAA.

            Keep trying tiger you’ll fluke one yet!

          • And as usual your knowledge limitations have made you WAA (wrong again alain) –

            RS obviously = “Ravishingly Splendid”. But in comparison to your knowledge RS can also = Really Superior… anyway, everyone (apart from a few political stooges know this anyway, so)…

            Multiple choice questions (for the dummies)

            So alain when was OPEL “actually” announced?
            A) 1 month before the Nov 2007 election
            B) June 2007

            When was OPEL “actually” stopped?
            A) November 2007
            B) April 2008

            So how long did Opel “actually” do SFA for
            A) 1 month
            B) 10 months

            Get to it, tiger!

          • “A) 1 month before the Nov 2007 election”

            I didn’t say 1 month before the election I said a month or so, and it was.

            “when was OPEL “actually” stopped?”

            Explain to me how the Coalition OPEL infrastructure rollout was to take place when the Coalition wasn’t even in Government to oversee it and sign contracts with suppliers to do it and Conroy was the Labor Minister and OPEL was not even Labor policy?

            The Final agreement between the Government and OPEL was signed September 2007, election was November 2007, that’s one month October 2007 in which the Coalition and the OPEL Company had to rollout the infrastructure before Howard lost Government.

          • Better move this down, as I inadvertently didn’t reply to alain…

            But, but, but , WAA (wrong again alain)…

            And WAA, again you didn’t answer a few basic questions, I made so simple that even you could answer…!

            The OPEL agreement was signed off in June, the funding was arranged in September. You know like the tradesman comes around and works and after a while he gets paid for actually doing something… but OPEL did SFA, before, during and after…

            And Conroy said he would honour the Coalition’s contracts “if OPEL fulfilled their contractual obligations”, which they didn’t…. otherwise they would have sued and did they?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEL_Networks

            So A G A I N A L A I N… Man up and answer…boy!

            When was OPEL “actually” announced?
            A) 1 month before the Nov 2007 election
            B) June 2007

            When was OPEL “actually” stopped?
            A) November 2007
            B) April 2008

            So how long did Opel “actually” do SFA for
            A) 1 month
            B) 10 months

            Get to it, tiger!

            Or maybe one of the other political stooges/FUD clones can cut in and embarrass themselves AGAIN…!

          • RS – I think someone might be poisoning your DNS. Your whirlpool posts seem to be ending up at delimiter.com.au.
            Maybe check hosts.txt

          • well, that’s because trolls like RS have successfully killed all intelligent discussion on WP, so they’re trying to replicate their success on delimiter.

          • That’s not fair Tosh, you are asserting there was at some point intelligent discussion on Whirlpool with rational moderation.

            :)

  7. I agree with Renai’s comments in this article.

    Gillard is starting to sound like a broken record. Its what I like to call “Rabid Dog Syndrome” since she is literally foaming at the mouth spouting ridiculous accusations which make her sound nothing more than a complete lunatic.

    She’d be better off just saying what needs to be said and shutting up. She’s digging a grave for her credibility and mindset as a PM with this attitude.

    In a way we’ve seen a complete reversal of attitude of late. Abbott is starting to sound more mature and measured (not quite there yet though) and Gillard is now the “Rowdy Redhead”.

  8. Gillard’s reference to “ripping out the fibre” should not be taking literally. Her choice of words are deliberate and quite smart. People get the message clearly. If Tony Abbott can fool voters with simplistic language such as “Big Tax” and “Turn the boats back” I think Gillard is quite entitled to do the same.

  9. At the ATUG Regional Conference in Canberra on 14-15 July 2010, Mary Jo Fisher gave a keynote speech on behalf of the Coalition where she repeatedly said that, if elected, the Coalition would “trash and rip up” Labor’s NBN. She couldn’t have been more emphatic about it. She didn’t specifically say that would involve digging up cables, but the Coalition can hardly complain if that is how her comments are interpreted.

    • It’s more in the line of Labors NBN policy and the ownership and funding agreements that underpins it being ‘ripped up’, but a lot has happened since July 2010, especially lock in supplier contracts with harsh penalties if the Government no matter who is in power, defaults.

      If the Telstra agreement is ratified by the shareholders in October, it will be even harder, but never underestimate the deviousness of a Government newly elected and in a ‘its time for payback’ mood, ask Conroy the Coalition, Optus and the Futuris Corporation about all of that.

      • two points:

        1. for the life of me, i can’t imagine Tony Abbott carrying to full term a $50bln decade-long Labor pet project which will still be in its infancy in terms of project timeline by the time the Liberals take power in 2013.

        2. as the engineering contractor, a reworked design building fibre nodes would be so much easier to undertake and complete within budget (easy money) compared to trenching all the way to the premise (hard-earned money) although the aggregate contract value will be halved.

  10. But, but, but , WAA (wrong again alain)…

    And WAA, again you didn’t answer a few basic questions, I made so simple that even you could answer…!

    The OPEL agreement was signed off in June, the funding was arranged in September. You know like the tradesman comes around and works and after a while he gets paid for actually doing something… but OPEL did SFA, before, during and after…

    And Conroy said he would honour the Coalition’s contracts “if OPEL fulfilled their contractual obligations”, which they didn’t…. otherwise they would have sued and did they?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEL_Networks

    So A G A I N A L A I N… Man up and answer…boy!

    When was OPEL “actually” announced?
    A) 1 month before the Nov 2007 election
    B) June 2007

    When was OPEL “actually” stopped?
    A) November 2007
    B) April 2008

    So how long did Opel “actually” do SFA for
    A) 1 month
    B) 10 months

    Get to it, tiger!

    Or maybe one of the other political stooges/FUD clones can cut in and embarrass themselves AGAIN…!

  11. “The difficulty with this is that you simply cannot use a bald-faced lie to publicly undermine someone else’s credibility.”

    Wait but the opposition does this on a daily basis so why is it not ok for the prime minister to do this? Bit hypocritical especially when abbot has said he is going to rip it up.

  12. That was a difficult article to wade through, I could barely find a point among all the ad hominem vomit. The thrust of Gillard’s point was quite correct, the Liberals would find some way of destroying the NBN. They might not literally dig up existing laid infrastructure, but they’d find some way of sabotaging its development and redirecting billions in government investment into private hands all while blaming the previous government.

    The Liberals transparent concern is in maintaining the Telstra monopoly for its shareholders, they don’t give a toss about national broadband networks or next generation economies.

  13. Why is it that we continue to plow money into this ridiculous overspend and allow our politicians to say it’s in the nations best interest, when we are now taxing the crap out of people that live in australia to pay for natural disasters and now a carbon tax?

    Surely it’s time someone came to their senses, halved the NBN budget, like the rest of the world, and used the money to pay for repairing the damage of the floods and the ever increasing Australian dollar!

    Exporters have lost 40% of their revenue in the past year due to the appreciation of the dollar, and the floods have destroyed a huge amount of our GDP….

    but we mindlessly continue down this path to global obscurity…
    Oh but we’ll have this awesome high speed network that we can’t pay for because our exporters are out of business and our people are broke.

    Nice work Australia.

  14. So to summarize, on one hand we have JG female redhead version of George Dub Ya Bush (read Puppet making a fool of herself) and, on the other hand we have JG cold calculating and calling Abbot a liar on a day that she announces signing a deal with telstra just to rub it in Abbots face.
    Big deal!
    No news here… Move along…

  15. There’s a difference between literally and metaphorically ripping up the cables? Not really there isn’t.

    Both sides are behaving like children, but so is the author of this article with the “she said / he said” rubbish.

Comments are closed.