Nationals Leader grossly inaccurate on NBN

128

news The Federal Leader of the Nationals, Warren Truss, has again made a number of major factually incorrect public statements with respect to Labor’s National Broadband Network project, in an extended interview on the topic riddled with mis-statements about the project and his own party’s rival policies.

Last week, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Prime Minister Julia Gillard attended an event in Townsville in North Queensland where the pair announced a major NBN satellite contract and highlighted details of the NBN’s rollout in areas such as Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton. Truss, whose own electorate of Wide Bay is in Queensland, appeared on Channel Ten’s Meet the Press program over the weekend, and fielded several questions regarding Coalition policy with regard to the NBN and broadband access in general.

In one answer, Truss referred to the previous Howard Government’s OPEL contract signed in November 2007. The project, as part of a deal signed between Optus, Elders and the Government, was to have seen a combination of WiMax, ADSL2+ and fibre backbone infrastructure deployed to rural areas to fix broadband blackspots. However, the project, unlike the NBN, did not include a satellite component, with the Howard Government instead preferring a separate subsidy approach to rural satellite provision, which saw regional Australians directly provided with funds to offset the costs of buying satellite services from existing providers.

However, Truss erroneously claimed the project did contain a satellite component.

“Had the Coalition been elected in 2007, those satellite services would already be in place, the wireless services would already be in place under the Optus contract,” Truss told the Meet the Press interviewers. “So we had committed to provide those services — they would have been in place … we were very much a part of putting in place the Optus contract, which would have delivered, and would have delivered by now, wireless and satellite services to people who live in regional Australia,” Truss added.

Truss’s inaccurate claim is not the first time a member of the Coalition had claimed that the OPEL contract — cancelled by Minister Conroy after the then-Rudd Government took power in November 2007 — contained a satellite component. Earlier this year, the Coalition’s regional telecommunications spokesperson Luke Hartsuyker issued a brief media release, stating: “The OPEL contract included a mixture of technologies, including satellite.”

Truss’s comments also contained a number of other inaccuracies. For example, Truss erroneously claimed that Prime Minister Gillard had rolled back support for fibre to the home infrastructure in “the suburbs of large provincial cities like Townsville and Rockhampton and Mackay,” which were, he said, “now only going to get wireless”. “She had promised them that they were to get fibre optic cable to the home,” Truss added.

However, in fact, Townsville is one of the first release sites for the NBN fibre in Australia, with a number of residents already connected to the infrastructure and the majority of the city scheduled to receive the NBN’s fibre over the next few years, according to NBN Co’s coverage maps. Mackay and Rockhampton are also slated to be broadly covered with fibre under the NBN, over the next three years.

Truss also made several other inaccurate statements with respect to the NBN. “So in reality, Labor’s promise to provide fibre optic services to 95% of the Australian population is in tatters,” he said. “The NBN is way behind schedule, it’s way ahead of cost, and it’s not going to deliver fibre optic services to anything like the number of Australians which Labor promised.” In fact, Labor’s NBN policy will see 93 percent of Australia covered with fibre, not 95 percent, and there is currently no reason to believe, unless the Coalition wins a Federal Election and changes national telecommunications policy, that the rollout will not eventually reach its goals.

Several aspects of Truss’s claims are unclear. While NBN Co has acknowledged that its rollout is behind schedule due to factors such as the company’s complex negotiations with Telstra, it is yet unclear whether the project has blown out in terms of its cost.

Truss refused to directly answer a repeated question from Meet the Press interviewers on whether the Coalition would stick with the NBN plan.

In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald several weeks ago, Turnbull stated that a Coalition Government would proceed with the NBN project. “No, the Coalition will not cancel or roll back the NBN,” he said. “The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas.” The comments echo comments Turnbull made earlier last month, when the Liberal MP publicly gave what he described as a “solemn undertaking” to the Australian people that a Coalition Government would “complete the job of NBN Co”, instead of ripping up the network or abandoning Labor’s NBN policy altogether.

Truss said the Coalition supported wireless and satellite services for regional communities, and “of course we won’t be tearing out existing infrastructure”, he said. “We remain committed to providing the highest standard of broadband services to people who live in regional Australia. And that will remain our commitment upon election to office.”

Coalition telecommunications policy broadly focuses on fibre to the node-style broadband, which only requires rolling out fibre to neighbourhood cabinets and using Telstra’s copper network for the rest of the distance to residences and business premises. In addition, it also focuses on continuing to use the HFC cable networks operated by Telstra and Optus, separating Telstra’s wholesale and retail operations, and using technologies such as wireless and satellite to cover regional areas of Australia.

History of misleading comments
The comments by Truss over the weekend represent the third time in six months that the Nationals Leader has made major factually inaccurate statements regarding the NBN.

In May, Truss was quoted in an article published in the Noosa News stating that not a single person in the Wide Bay electorate or Noosa areas would be able to connect to the NBN until at least the latter part of this decade. “The people of Wide Bay bear their share of the liability for the NBN, but no one is getting any benefits,” he said. The comments by the Nationals Leader echo — word for word — a media release he issued in March this year, in which he alleged that the NBN had proven to be “nothing but a cruel hoax” and a “monumental debacle”.

However, Truss was factually incorrect in his statement that no residents in the Wide Bay electorate will receive access to the NBN before the later years of this decade.

In mid-2011, NBN Co started providing access to an interim satellite service nationwide (including to Truss’s electorate of Wide Bay). The service, which delivers speeds of up to 6Mbps over Optus and IPstar satellite infrastructure, is already providing improved broadband service to some 213 homes and businesses in Wide Bay, according to a media release issued by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

In addition, a number of communities in the Wide Bay electorate are also slated to receive access to either fibre broadband or fixed wireless broadband over the next few years. NBN Co’s wireless service is currently slated to deliver guaranteed speeds of up to 12Mbps to premises in a number of communities in Wide Bay, with the entire nation-wide rollout to be completed by 2015. Speeds of up to 25Mbps are eventually expected to be provided over the infrastructure. In addition, NBN Co is also planning to launch its own satellites in 2015, which are slated to deliver speeds of up to 12Mbps across Australia.

It is not clear at the moment when fibre components of the NBN will be rolled out to core communities in Wide Bay, with Truss being correct that much of the electorate missed out on the NBN’s three-year rollout plans announced several months ago.

Truss’s about the NBN represent only the latest time which a high-profile member of the Coalition has made a factually inaccurate claim about the project over the past several years.

In June, for example, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey inaccurately claimed that 4G mobile broadband had the potential to be “far superior” to the fibre technology of the NBN. In mid-May, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott misrepresented the cost of connecting to the NBN, in comments which the Government claimed represented a deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian public on the issue. Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull similarly made a number of factually incorrect statements on the NBN throughout March, and in January Abbott got quite a few facts about the NBN wrong in a radio interview.

In addition, over the past several years, there have been a number of misleading articles published by various local newspapers about the NBN. In December, the Australian Press Council expressed concern about the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Federal Government’s National Broadband Network project, backing a local critic’s complaint that three articles in a short period of time had contained “inaccurate or misleading assertions” about the NBN. Similarly, in March this year, another News Ltd publication, The Australian, published a correction to a story after it inaccurately alleged that a school in South Australia would have to pay $200,000 to connect to the NBN; in fact, the school will receive NBN access as part of the normal rollout.

In a statement issued this afternoon, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said Truss should “stop misleading the Australian people when it comes to the NBN”. Truss’s office has not yet responded to a request for comment on the issue.

opinion/analysis
I would like to see someone (perhaps Labor) initiate legal action in order to stop senior Coalition figures from making blatantly inaccurate statements with respect to the NBN. It doesn’t get much more black and white than this. Truss is claiming that fibre isn’t being rolled out in some cities in Queensland, when residents in those cities are already receiving services over the fibre, and also claiming that the OPEL policy included a satellite component, when in fact it did not.

What needs to be done to stop these politicians blatantly misleading the Australian public on the NBN? Legal action? Parliamentary censure? A report published by an independent adjudicator such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission? I don’t know. But something needs to be done. If you are a CEO or another major public figure such as a sportsperson, you can’t get away with blatantly misleading the Australian public. Why is it that these politicians can get away with it, with no consequences?

Image credit: Bidgee, Creative Commons

128 COMMENTS

  1. It’s really hard to not want to stereotype this halfwit with the “country bumpkin” image when he wanders around blathering utter rubbish about shit he obviously either knows nothing about or is bald face lying about.

    Astoundingly poor representation of the rural sector.

    • The NBN will only help reduce the number of ‘country bumpkin’ thru knowledge and education. :) Thats why they need it even more!

      • Whats the point of this article? Politicans being wrong on technical issues and statistics … and backflipping on policy, …hey that never happens.

        • No, it’s about them lying. Being wrong on a technical issue is when you do it once. When you are corrected and continue to deliberately be wrong to suit your agenda it is lying.

        • “Whats the point of this article?”

          To make people aware of the national leader’s inaccuracies regarding the NBN.

          “Politicans being wrong on technical issues”

          If a politician is unsure about ” technical issues” they know nothing about the best option is to educate themselves or if they are lazy simply keep their mouths shut, not claim lies as facts.

          • As Federal Leader of the Nationals, Mr. Truss would have staff who research what he is going to do and say. They would present a fairly balanced brief for and leave it to him to make what he wants of it. He DOES know the truth, the man is deliberately lying.

            Unfortunately its his electorate that suffers his dogmatic stupidity and they keep voting him back in, go figure.

  2. “Why is it that these politicians can get away with it, with no consequences?”
    +∞

        • But it’s never been this bad, usually they’ll run around sayin our stuf is better, their stuff is bad for us all blah blah blah but the coalition has stooped to outright lies across multiple police areas!

          • And the Murdoch media in particular has become more partisan and less concerned about preserving the credibility of its brand. The expectation of quality policy delivery are very unevenly applied.

  3. I would like to see someone (perhaps Labor) initiate legal action in order to stop senior Coalition figures from making blatantly inaccurate statements with respect to the NBN. It doesn’t get much more black and white than this.

    +1 million

    I’ve been wondering why the government doesn’t sue the crap out of the Liberal Party for the outright lies they’ve been spreading about the NBN and the Carbon Price – the dishonesty from Tony Abbot and gand of idiots is just beyond belief and the worst part is the main stream media wont call them out on it!!!!

    eg the liberal party has been caught distributing flyers to small businesses claiming all their price rises are solely due to the “Carbon Tax” as uncovered in the Brumby’s bakery scandal but nothing is being done about it afaik and the NBN is no different (just minus the fraudulent flyers)!!

      • It’s a backflip. Ie., they changed their mind on something they chose to do or not do.
        You could say, you like pink flowers, but next month, say you like purple flowers. You didn’t lie at the time. You just changed your mind.

        It’s not like Howard, under oath, swore to God and the Queen, and said the moon is really square.

      • @yesman, the infinite difference is that Howard said “no GST” and was elected. He then decided he did want a GST but first put it to the people at the next election as his policy platform. He was elected again, and only then introduced the GST for which he now had a mandate.

        Warren Truss should be ashamed of himself for this performance. Regional voters slammed the coalition in 2010 over broadband – as the LIberal Party’s Peter Reith ably argued in his post mortem of that poll. It should have been a walk-in, but became a hung result over broadband, and even then Tony Abbott refused to give the elected cross-benchers the fibre their constituents had demanded. This gave us the Green-Labor-Independent minority government we now enjoy.

        Unless the Nationals wake up and stick it to the LIberals on this policy failure, regional voters will vote in even greater numbers for independents in 2013. Warren Truss is doing no service to his supporters or electoral prospects by playing this petty sniping game against the only infrastructure project that Labor actually got right.

        In fact, many coalition supporters have this year been writing to their parties informing them that they will not donate to a sinking ship, and to adopt the NBN in order to avoid another hung result in 2013.

      • Tony Abbott “If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax”

  4. Where did this dummy get the 95% figure from?

    Also once again since Truss is whining about the NBN being “behind schedule” and complaining that only 93% will be covered with fibre rather than 95% is it safe to assume he is in favor of a FttH network covering 95% of premises in Australia and if so will we get such a network under a coaltion government???

  5. “I would like to see someone (perhaps Labor) initiate legal action in order to stop senior Coalition figures from making blatantly inaccurate statements with respect to the NBN”

    No please. I understand the sentiment and sympathise completely but if Labor sues the Coalition we are then going to see the Coalition sue Labor over something else. The Court system will be so tied up with political parties suing each other that it will be impossible fore the Courts to get anything else done.

    There is a very simple answer to this problem and it will be a lot quicker than any other solution. Vote against the purveyors of misinformation at the next election and influence as many people as you can to do the same. Wouldn’t hurt to let you local member and any aspirants know what you are doing and why as early as possible. If enough people did it, it could even become an election issue. Now wouldn’t that be fun. :-)

    • Legal action isn’t the answer. But diverting all NBN rollout priorities away from the seats of each turkey who misrepresents the project might work.

      • “But diverting all NBN rollout priorities away from the seats of each turkey who misrepresents the project might work.”

        Certainly sounds like something Gillard and Conroy would try. Unfortunately for them, many others in the Labour party are actually quite decent people who believe that governing is about whats good for the people, so this is one idiotic idea that probably wont get a run.

        • Why would Gillard or Conroy try this, what actual non biased evidence do you have for such a claim?

          • “Why would Gillard or Conroy try this,”

            Yeah, you’re probably right, even Gillard wouldn’t be stupid enough to punish an opposition members constituents (including the ones that voted for Labour) just to give that opposition member a smack because he/she says something they don’t like. It would be completely petty and childish.

          • It might persuade those in the “turkey’s” electorate who favour the NBN to make their views known to their local member in the hope he would inform himself of the facts.

            This would not apply in Tony Abbott’s electorate as he is incapable of understanding “peak speeds”.

  6. Part of the “Liberal” right truly believe an underclass is the normal requirement that’s why! Just like their mentors in the U.S.A!

  7. Whenever Malcolm Turnbull tries to pretend the Coalition is upgrading its broadband policy for the twentieth century (forget C21), it pays to re-visit Kerry O’Brien’s interview with Tony Abbott when it was first announced. http://goo.gl/v1bZR

    Leadership and vision at its best.

    • It was silly of me to expect to listen to Tony Abboy try to justify his telecommunications policy in that video rather than just attack Labor relentlessly. to his credit, he finally got the dollar value of the network right at 4:33, which was correct at the time, but now he just yells $50billion.

      The following video is now my religion.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WQvtq6Hn6g

  8. What makes me MUCH angrier than dopes like Truss is this:

    ‘Truss refused to directly answer a repeated question from Meet the Press interviewers on whether the Coalition would stick with the NBN plan.’

    This is disgusting. The media only cover anti-NBN sentiment as a rule. They DON’T cover the rebuttals to it in any great detail or with any outrage for the outright lying. And THEN when SOMEONE in the mainstream media finally asks the dope a question….he just brushes it aside!

    Seriously people, I’m trying to figure out how to fight this properly and strongly. I agree legal proceedings is a minefield, but what else will the Coalition and their diehards listen to??

    • I’ve no idea if this is feasible whatsoever, but what is the likelihood or even relevance of say a class action suit by businesses/consumers who would be negatively affected by the Coalition rhetoric AND by the non-building of the NBN?

      I’ve no idea, I’m not legally inclined. But seriously, it seems like this is the only thing that will actually cause a pause in the Coalition propaganda machine on the NBN.

      • The problem to start with is that it has become acceptable for politicians to stretch the truth. The main stream media is largely to blame. Yet, it is hardly surprising that the large businesses which make up the media will be more comfortable with a coalition government and there more likely to give its politicians an easier run.

        Compare how John Howard was able repeatedly break promises to the constant reminders of Julia Gillard’s lie about the carbon tax.

        The problem with the NBN is that few of the lies and distortions are challenged by the media because of unwillingness to do so or simply because of their ignorance of the subject.

        Perhaps, the ACCC or the communication ombudsman, should be made to investigate complains by the public with regards to clearly misleading or false claims by politicians.

    • Panic, the day reckoning for the NBN draws close, the next election to be precise. When the voters take back control from a government out of control.

  9. It’s worth remembering that NBN Co is a registered company going about legitimate business providing essential infrastructure for the country in the 21st Century.
    They’re not even directly funded from Federal budgets – so paring the NBN back won’t be that easy
    And for these 19th Century thinkers to undermine this work with lies and propaganda to achieve their own ends is absolutely disgraceful.
    We need the NBN and voting for anyone else but the Noalition will be the only way to ensure it happens. Who that is is up to you…

  10. You can always count on a one eyed view of the NBN here. Fact, the NBN is behind schedule and over budget. Way behind its own timetable. And a majority of the NBN users signed up are not even using fibre!!!!!!!

    IT people really live in their own sheltered world. Who else could argue “They’re not even directly funded from Federal budgets” Yes it is mate, the taxpayer is paying for it. The Government fiddled the books and did not put it into the budget figures. It is (ahem) off balance sheet!

    • Bad case of brain cell envy. Don’t get pissed at every oportunity and you might find you can think more than whether your team will when and how good a four and twenty would be right now.

    • @lone gunman, if it is off the balance sheet, then it is not funded by your tax revenue.

      NBNCo is a government owned company that is borrowing funds to construct infrastructure which generates wholesale revenue to repay the borrowings. It does not “cost the taxpayer” unless the project fails to deliver those revenues and needs a bail-out. How likely is this? Let’s look at the facts.

      In order to secure good interest rates in the early part of the project, the government acts a guarantor for the loans. The forecast rate of wholesale revenue was based on 50% taking up the slowest services. As of April, we see that 82% are taking up faster rates, and 37% are taking up the top speed, all of this in regional Australia (Kiama, Armidale, Willunga, etc). This proves that the business model is sound and that the government guarantee is safe.

      EIght months of delay have largely been due to coalition blocking of enabling legislation, which prevented a Telstra-NBNCo contract being finalised. (The ACCC finally delivered its agreement on 28 February, and that contract was signed on 7 March 2012.) In fact only the fibre component was really delayed. Backhaul, networks, 6Mbps satellites and contracts for NBN satellites, wireless and wholesale billing systems all ploughed ahead. In fact, all of the NBN wireless and two NBN satellites will be completed in 2015. Meanwhile, parliament also assigned NBNCo provider-of-last-resort obligations for 100+ housing estates, many of which are already operating.

      None of this is costing the taxpayer anything. It is the coalition which plans to spend at least $16.7 billion (according to the last analysis of coalition plans), on-budget, to deliver a service that will be largely owned by Telstra. And that will cost taxpayers to build, hurt the economy, and burden households with higher charges for inferior service.

      So, snipe all you want, @lone gunman, but that is the alternative.

      • “NBNCo is a government owned company that is borrowing funds to construct infrastructure”

        just a clarification – the government is borrowing the money, not nbnco. the government is then injecting that money into nbnco as equity. as far as i know the government hasnt actually borrowed anything yet for nbnco, its using existing fundng sources.

        • @raymond

          ” as far as i know the government hasnt actually borrowed anything yet for nbnco, its using existing fundng sources.”

          Spot on. They’re using the BAF at the moment. They’ll be issuing Infrastructure bonds from early 2014 I believe…..

          • i believe the govt would like to get the infrastructure bonds issued earlier than that if it is possible, tho how achievable that idea is i dont know.

    • Wow….you must be really bored. Or really easily entertained lone gunmen. You come to an evidence based forum…..and you blabber on about “one-eyed views” with no evidence.

      Seriously, you know nobody listens to that stuff here. So you’re either bored, a troll, or both?

  11. “the lone gunmen” is typical of everything wrong with those swallowing the LNP line at present. Intentionally ignorant of both the current facts and the consequences of their future actions, deliberately pedalling distortion.

    Just look at QLD pre and post elections. Mr Newman has a mandate of a size rarely seen, and he’s using it to decimate the people who voted for him. Many of the swinging voters who gave him that mandate now want it back (along with their jobs and a chance to pay their mortages/rent).

    • And Bazza in NSW, stripping away compo for firstly Police, now all NSW employees and also sacking 100’s of public service employees… yes those who would have voted for him not knowing the consequences beforehand.

      And the NBN critics have the nerve to deride Rudd for changing his mind to a better NBN, than the pre-election policy?

      I don’t like being political but the runs are now on the board.

  12. The problem is the main complaint avenues actually have exception in place for “political” statements. Although I fail to see how a bold face lie is a political statement which is what some of the recent statement have been.

    For example political advertising is exempt from advertising standards so now amount of complaints would get the ads pulled.

    There is one thing that would solve most of the problem and that is to restrict parliamentary privilege to the floor of parliament. This would stop polis going to the press to slander each other and members of the public or business because suddenly they will be personally liable for what stay then and there not maybe in 3 years time if the public believes their opponents lies more than theirs.

    Do we need a TIO or ACCC specificity for “news” organizations? Maybe, I can see some benefit and not just in regards to politics I’ve lost count of the number of scams TT and ACA have promoted scams disguised as news, and the newspapers are just as guilty on the this front. The big thing that needs to be changed is retractions need to be the same size and place as the original article if you print a lie as a front page feature that might sell you a few more papers I guess you will be selling less when you have to dedicate that front page to apologizing for lying a few days latter.

  13. “For example political advertising is exempt from advertising standards so now amount of complaints would get the ads pulled.”

    I think Political advertising is covered by the Electoral Act . So called advertising standards are in the main covered by industry codes of practice except in the case of deceptive advertising when the ACCC can step in. What the Coalition has done is not advertising however. Their misleading statements have all been comments.

    “There is one thing that would solve most of the problem and that is to restrict parliamentary privilege to the floor of parliament. ”

    Privilege is already restricted to activities within Parliament including Committees. Outside though they can be sued the same as anyone else.

    “Do we need a TIO or ACCC specificity for “news” organizations?”

    We already have the press council which is a bit like the TIO. Parliament is already examining regulation of the press to address some of the self regulation problems.

    I do agree with your idea about retractions but would add that if they have run promos they should be required to run the same number and visibility promos for the retraction.

    • Let’s not not get too carried away with the joys of having a government edifice charged with keeping stuff we don’t like out of the media.

      Any direct or latent censorship scheme can be neatly turned around by another flavour of future government to silence the people opposed to THEIR politics.

      It always cuts both ways eventually as the pendulum swings from one side to the other.

      • Cuts both ways tho, if the news media at large is forced by regulation to report the news In a factual unbiased manner and make opinion peices clear they aren’t news then how is that censorship?

        Renai does it here on delimiter without being forced to and his readership is even more loyal because of it!

        Frankly if the news media suddenly swung to be irrationally left wing I’d have a problem with that too because not being balanced means you are just a propaganda outlet masquerading as a news organization!

        • My thought exactly Djos.

          If there is an independent regulator whose purpose is to check complaints and analyse reporting methods of various media, then it swings both ways- if the government is manipulating, it should notify and act just as if the media were manipulating.

          • @seven, you may be missing the point that it is the government who will be appointing any ‘independent’ regulator.

            You know the first rule of politics – never appoint a committee (or a regulator) unless you know what the outcome is going to be. Australia is littered with ‘independent’ bodies who quite coincidentally come up with decisions that are pleasing to the people who created their well-paid jobs.

            There is absolutely no reason to think that some future overlord of media content would be any different.

          • @socrates

            And then we have good ones- IPART, ACCC.

            What’s your point? If government DON’T appoint them, who will??

            WHY is any independent regulator who is setup by government AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be political??? There are plenty of regulators who are, but there are plenty who aren’t. It is entirely dependent on who is appointed and who appoints them, for what purpose.

  14. Its a bit of a worry that pollies make misleading statements about subjects that we actually know something about , then I think of the other things that they hold forth on where I do not know the facts and have little knowledge….now I wonder if that is all bs also!!!!

  15. I don’t get it (honestly). The leader of a party almost exclusively representing the bush, fighting a scheme that spends billions in ‘the bush’ and connects those of us in more remote areas to world class infrastructure, education, health, communication and delivers to rural business a level playing field with businesses in America and Europe.
    I just don’t get it?
    Do those who represent us want us to live in the 20th century for ever?

  16. My father always told me the only jobs you can keep by lying everyday is being a politician or a weather reporter. :(

    • I can think of plenty more.

      Used car salesman.
      Energy salesman.
      Telco salesman,

      I see a recuring theme here. I never did well at sales when younger unless I believed in a product. I couldn’t be a professional liar.

        • Some journos, perhaps. But never on Delimiter (except when you upset somebody’s carefully nurtured political prejudices…).

          And perhaps we should add the most professionally profuse liars of all to that list: the lawyers.

          • I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Journo who is more scrupulous about posting both sides of the story than Renai.
            What many Lib fans (in this case short for “fanatics) forget is that looking at it from both sides doesn’t mean you have to agree with obvious inaccuracies and out and out lies (from either side). I don’t agree with everything Renai posts, but I DO trust it to be factual and accurate. That says it all in my book as I can’t say that for any other journalism source that I can think of right now (except maybe Jon Stewart in the US)…:)

  17. A slight digression
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-carbon-millstone-around-gillards-neck/story-e6frezz0-1226427720071

    An opinion piece admittedly, however on the DT
    Admitting The NBN is extremely popular
    “Then there is the NBN. Labor wants to replace the old copper wire network of 100 years ago with fibre optic cable, drastically cutting download times and opening up new opportunities for e-health, e-learning and industries we haven’t even developed yet.

    Most of us support the NBN (57 per cent in favour, 22 per cent opposed), but Abbott wants to put it on hold and is likely to either scrap it or pare it back significantly.”

    Just hope the Carbon Tax becomes a non event

  18. Wow, NBN supporters are in support of Labor’s push to censor the mainstream media and curb free speech.

    Who woulda thunk that?!

    • @Michael……ahhhhh, what??

      I’m not a Labor supporter. I’m an NBN supporter.

      I support an independent regulator that ensures the media report truthfully, free from government OR commercial bias.

      How is that censorship and curbing free speech???

      • +1 I don’t want either side lying and I want News orgs that dont out their owners own biases into their papers regardless if they are right or left leaning! I want genuine balance and fair reporting.

      • Yeah, so the same demographic that supports a government telco monopoly also supports creation of a government-formed agency run by political appointees to arbitrate and decide “the truth”.

        doesn’t surprise me.

        • What exactly is wrong with a government-sponsored monopoly ? The previous system worked well until the Coalition sold it for a Surplus that served no point except grandstanding.

          Telstra / Telecom / PMG worked very well. It should never have been sold without being diversified of its fixed-line assets. We’re in this mess and having to replace it all because the incumbent that was created wont do it. If they were still under government control, they’d be doing the work now.

          Whats so hard to understand for you?

          • Okay, so the same demographic that supports the return to a state telco monopoly and supports creation of a government-formed agency run by political appointees to arbitrate and decide “the truth”. . . .

            . . .also thinks the bad old days of Telecom Aust with ridiculously high local, long distance and international call charges and zero competition “worked very well”, and the subsequent privatisation coupled with competition reforms to drive efficiency and lower prices was just “political grandstanding”.

            good. at least the quackery is consistent.

          • @Michael

            I fear you need to do some critical thinking of your own Michael, rather than criticising the thinking of others. You seem to assume an awful lot about “us” and “our” attitudes, which has no basis in fact.

            Do you believe the media are publishing unbiased information, on any number of Coalition policies, not just the NBN? Do you believe they publish unbiased information on any number of Labor policies, not just the NBN?

          • what have I assumed? what has “no basis in fact”? do you not support the NBN state monopoly? do you not support a “regulator of truth and speech”? did MasterT not say “Telecom/PMG worked very well”?

          • @Michael

            “what have I assumed? what has “no basis in fact”? do you not support the NBN state monopoly? do you not support a “regulator of truth and speech”? did MasterT not say “Telecom/PMG worked very well”?”

            I support the NBN. For the NBN to work, it MUST be a state monopoly. Tell me, would you prefer to have a PRIVATE monopoly…..like Telstra???

            I support an INDEPENDENT regulator of Media reporting techniques. NOT a “regulator” of truth and speech. That is ridiculous and Orwellian and not in anybody’s interest. You just assume I do so, because you disagree ideologically with me. Not factually. Stop twisting my words.

            Telecom/PMG DID work very well FOR THE TIME. I’ve heard any NUMBER of conservatives here and on other forums wishing for the “good old days” of PMG/Telecom. They provided a decent service at, what was at the time, a decent price- telecommunications being VERY expensive up until the early 90’s for ANY country and company. It is NOT decent now, but neither are the private services we have.

            Think outside of rhetoric. Look at ideas CRITICALLY, not ideologically.

          • “I support the NBN. For the NBN to work, it MUST be a state monopoly.”

            What you mean to say is you support Labor’s NBN. Just because Labor’s NBN is specifically designed to rebuild a state monopoly doesn’t mean every conceivable NBN “must be a state monopoly”.

            “I support an INDEPENDENT regulator of Media reporting techniques.”

            In practical terms, there is no escaping that this is effectively a push for government censorship and regulation of speech.

            Basically, you don’t like what you’re reading in newspapers, so you want the government to step in and stop private news organisations from publishing and communicating with its voluntary paying readership. Nobody’s forcing you to read newspapers. (Also, nobody’s stopping you from starting your own newspaper.) But you’re not happy with just abstaining from reading yourself, you want the State to use its force to prevent private newspapers from engaging in a private conversation with its private readership. If that isn’t Orwellian and totalitarian, l don’t know what is.

            If your personal interests are directly hurt by others’ public expression, there are already plenty of legal avenues to seek court injunctions and monetary damages. Any major move to regulate the media beyond these legal avenues is simply an attempt to extend the sphere of curbs on free speech from legitimate matters of personal injury to illegitimate matters such as barring the public from criticising government policies and expressing different opinions.

            “I’ve heard any NUMBER of conservatives here and on other forums wishing for the “good old days” of PMG/Telecom.”

            Really? So the “conservatives” who privatised Telecom and introduced competition reforms as recommended by National Competition Council to bring about market choice and lower prices are privately hankering for the “good old days of Telecom”? How bizarre.

            “telecommunications being VERY expensive up until the early 90′s for ANY country and company.”

            You mean before these countries (including Australia) privatised their respective state telco monopolies and introduced competition reforms and market choice leading to falling prices?

            Funny that.

            And Labor wants to do what??!. . . (rebuild a state monopoly?)

          • @Michael

            “What you mean to say is you support Labor’s NBN. Just because Labor’s NBN is specifically designed to rebuild a state monopoly doesn’t mean every conceivable NBN “must be a state monopoly”.”

            Again, you twist my words. I don’t care WHO builds it. If we were ruled by Democrats or Republicans as a Republic or the Coalition (not that they would in that case), but they were offering the NBN in its’ current form, I would vote for them. I support the IDEA, NOT the party.

            To BE an NBN it MUST be a state monopoly. The NBN is the NATIONAL Broadband Network. An FTTN solution to 40% of premises, the Coalition plan, is NOT a NATIONAL Broadband Network and is therefore invalidly cited as such. The NBN works because of its’ ability to allow the vast, VAST majority of Australians to have EXACTLY the same service for EXACTLY the same price. And for those that don’t, they get a HUGE increase in current connectivity, with further fibre rollouts to follow. Do you not believe ALL Australians should have access to fast, reliable, cheap broadband as an essential service, as recently defined by the OECD? Do you believe the Coalition plan will provide this?

            “Basically, you don’t like what you’re reading in newspapers, so you want the government to step in and stop private news organisations from publishing and communicating with its voluntary paying readership. Nobody’s forcing you to read newspapers. (Also, nobody’s stopping you from starting your own newspaper.) But you’re not happy with just abstaining from reading yourself, you want the State to use its force to prevent private newspapers from engaging in a private conversation with its private readership. If that isn’t Orwellian and totalitarian, l don’t know what is.”

            Again you twist my words to suit your ideology. I rarely read ANY newspapers. I get my news from around 2 dozen online AND print sources. I’ve rarely paid for newspapers when I have read them, as my workplace has a subscription to GIVE OUT 500 copies to the public……so yes, they OBVIOUSLY only want to reach their “paying subscribers”. Your belief that these newspapers are only out to provide news for subscription readers is JUST as ridiculous as you believe my idea of truthful press is- They provide news ONLY readers want to see. They ARE censoring news, so that it conforms to what their readers want. Hence, the bias we are seeing from mainstream news in general on the NBN and several other ideas. And if they can get it into the hands of normal NON-readers, perhaps they can convert their thinking and sell MORE newspapers? Newspapers are motivated by profit- selling more newspapers produces more profit- writing news people WANT to here, rather than what is ACTUALLY happening sells more newspapers.

            “Really? So the “conservatives” who privatised Telecom and introduced competition reforms as recommended by National Competition Council to bring about market choice and lower prices are privately hankering for the “good old days of Telecom”? How bizarre.”

            I can find the quotes if you wish? They were, in one sentence, both deriding the the NBN as both a “socialist monstrosity” AND wishing for “the good old days of PMG/Telecom”. I don’t make things up. I don’t need to. Facts provide my evidence to back up what I say.

            “You mean before these countries (including Australia) privatised their respective state telco monopolies and introduced competition reforms and market choice leading to falling prices?”

            Falling prices AND failing infrastructure. Maintenance on the copper CAN has less than HALF the number of workers assigned to it now, as opposed to under Telecom…..so yes, we get much cheaper prices….because much less money is spent to maximise profit.

            I am not a socialist. I believe in Capitalism in most forms. But, for essential services, such as water, power, gas and internet, in a country as Geographically challenging as ours, there is real, positive benefit for ALL Australians when the government steps in and regulates these services to ensure equity for ALL on BASIC services.

            You have not answered my previous questions either:

            Do you believe the media are publishing unbiased information, on any number of Coalition policies, not just the NBN? Do you believe they publish unbiased information on any number of Labor policies, not just the NBN?

          • Let’s say there’s a newspaper X that publishes “lies” on a regular basis. Readers read X either because they consciously choose to read editorials with certain ideological slants, or they don’t realise what they are reading is totally biased.

            So, basically, NBN supporters want the Gubmint to regulate political preferences or human stupidity.

            LoL.

          • “So, basically, NBN supporters want the Gubmint to regulate political preferences or human stupidity.”

            You can only respond to straw men?

            Truth in media does not regulate political preferences and no one said political preferences should be regulated.

            No one said that people who read these things and believed them were stupid, besides you. Not everyone researches or has a large base of knowledge of what they read in the media. Since there is a code of ethics they are meant to follow many assume they follow it. A code of ethics with no enforcement seem to be pretty futile. If they cannot self regulate it is the norm for that regulation to handed to an external regulator.

          • @Michael

            Well done. You just successfully proved that any newspaper that prints lies on a regular basis, such as the ones we’ve mentioned printing Coalition…mistruths, print it so that those who subscribe to the lies’ ideology will continue to read.

            Thankyou. You have proven my point. Both about ideologically stuck Coalition voters, who read media lies because it suits their way of thinking AND that media companies pander to readers beliefs, not truth. That is not journalism. That is propaganda.

          • The circularity in logic is hilarious.

            According to NBN supporters, “politicians tell lies and are dishonest”, yet we should subject the free press to greater political interference and control.

            Lol’z

          • Learn to read. l said “main points of contention” (e.g. NBN pricing, project returns, budgeting, etc).

          • Michael

            “Learn to read. l said “main points of contention” (e.g. NBN pricing, project returns, budgeting, etc).”

            Seriously, is this the best you can come up with? The whole point of the article was about telling lies and misrepresenting. And your post begins the poor example of a silly bet between two CEO’s, as an example of opinions not being ‘lies”. The next sentence, I was referring to, begins with “similarly, ..

            So, not only can I read, I can also discuss things in a coherent manner. A skill you seem to be somewhat lacking.

          • Do you support the existing Telstra infrastructure monopoly?
            Do you support the right to lie and slander with impunity?

          • Nice non-sequitor. What do anti-defamation laws have to do with politicians telling lies?

            Here’s an idea, instead of just criticizing other’s ideas, why not present your own? What would you do to stop politicians outright lying? Or do you think it’s OK that they’re allowed to get away with it?

          • Lol. . . there are already plenty of criminal and civil laws and penalties regulating fraud, defamation, identity theft, misleading conduct… you’re pushing for the criminalisation of general dishonesty?

            be careful what you wish for ;) three quarters of the population or more would end up in jail

            You guys are a hoot and a belly laugh.

          • Yes, that’s the whole point isn’t it? Dishonesty is already criminalized in so many other situations, such as when you’re the leader of a public company. So why is it OK for the leaders of the country to lie with impunity?

          • When Macquarie Telecom’s CEO asserted that there was a bubble in data centre builds and current capacity being built will end up going pear-shaped, NextDC’s CEO did not threaten to sue Macquarie Telecoms CEO, or accuse him of “lying” or “misleading the public”. Bear in mind, both are listed companies. Instead, Mr S. challenged Pat Studehope to a $1 mln bet (proceeds going to charity) on the future success of NextDC.

            Similarly, the main points of contention between Lib and Lab on the NBN are not “factual matters” that can be resolved by referencing Encyclopaedia Britannica. They revolve around differences of opinion on business outcomes.

            You can bet your life the number crunchers at NextDC have internal spreadsheets forecasting positive returns on their data centre builds. Does that mean Mr Pat S. is irrational in arriving at differing conclusions? Of course, not. Assumptions are assumptions. If differing forecasts or viewpoints didn’t exist, there’d be no need for a “market”.

          • Michael

            “Similarly, the main points of contention between Lib and Lab on the NBN are not “factual matters” that can be resolved by referencing Encyclopaedia Britannica. They revolve around differences of opinion on business outcomes.’

            You are trying to reduce coalition members deliberately misrepresenting, lying, telling half truths, to differences of opinion. Two of the examples used in this article are clear cases of factual matters.

            “Had the Coalition been elected in 2007, those satellite services would already be in place, the wireless services would already be in place under the Optus contract,”

            This is lie, not a matter of opinion. No new satellite services would be in place or if you prefer, limited existing services were and still are in place (at a very high cost)

            Truss erroneously claimed that Prime Minister Gillard had rolled back support for fibre to the home infrastructure in “the suburbs of large provincial cities like Townsville and Rockhampton and Mackay,”

            This is lie not a matter of opinion. Fact: The PM is not in charge of the NBN and, if she were, no rollback of support for fibre ever took place.

            Facts are not about referencing, they are about stating what has been or is taking place in the real world, not in your head.

            So please, try not to insult people’s intelligence with ridiculous suggestions.

          • Yes they exist but Politicians are protected by parlimentary privilage and papers are protected by their “anonymous sources” that they don’t have to disclose. If they are careful how they word it they can print whatever they like and they are not able to be prosecuted by those laws.

            Anyway, why another new alias Tosh? Or is it just all liberal dogma that makes you all sound like the same person?

          • Yes the same face, same bullshit but different name every few days, is what gives us all a good “belly laugh”!

          • I don’t see a problem. Not like anyone spends their time lying to others… oh, you mean the likes of you? I see.

          • “good. at least the quackery is consistent.”

            Indeed. Please post more comments. I think it’s important that we have a good understanding of what type of people are opposed to the NBN.

          • With regards to a state monopoly.

            Those who believe, often despite evidence to the contrary, that private enterprise always does it better, miss some very important points.

            There is no one-fit-all solution to all problem.
            The raison d’etre of any business is maximising of profit, without which it cannot survive as an entity.
            Essential services should not exclusively be limited to those who can afford it and should be adequately self-funded, so that infrastructure and maintenance costs are covered.
            The state does not need to maximise profits for it survival.
            The state can cover less profitable area. Private enterprise seldom does so, unless regulated to do so.

            Lastly, the idea that private entreprise increases competition can only be true when the market has no dominant player (e.g. Telstra) or it doesn’t comprise very few large players who always manage to offer goes around the same price (e.g. petrol, supermarkets, cars).

            The NBN does provide a universal wholesale product, priced to provide self-funded, not maximising profits, type of return and most importantly it will not be competing with its retailers.

        • Hey my voting record is 10 to 2 the coalitions way so dont accuse me of being a Labor patsy – fact is the current mainstream media is so far in the coalitions camp that they can do no wrong – News should be news, not 90%+ biased right wing opinion as it currently is in the MSM!

          How would you like it if Gina was a hard core lefty, bought fairfax outright and then turfed the editorial interference commitment and turned Fairfax into a Left Wing mouth peice? Frankly I’d hate that as much as I hate the UnOz being a Right wing mouthpeice!!

          I and many other critical thinking folk want news not colored with other ppls opinions, I have no objection to opinion pieces being published but they need to be labelled as such and not passed of as genuine news as currently happens!!

    • “Wow, NBN supporters are in support of Labor’s push to censor the mainstream media and curb free speech.”

      …and your source for this allegation is?

      There are a lot of people who would like to see the MSM mo0re accountable for publishing inaccurate and misleading news stories. Those people probably support many different and varied causes but what cause they support has nothing to do with their beef with MSM lazy reporting record.

    • Wow the Coalition sheep oppose the NBN, for no reason other than they are told to…

      Who woulda thunk that?

  19. Issue is the public tend to believe what’s blurted out of these politicians mouths regardless of how stupid it might be. I am all for accountability and perhaps some new laws should be introduced to ensure politicians stop talking shit & when making promises they are kept!

    • @Jason

      Problem with “Forcing politicians to keep promises” is….they can’t.

      Politically climates changes, according to economies, national security and many other situations. If policies CAN’T change from what was promised, it may become irresponsible and reckless in times of crisis to continue these policies.

      Problem is, we’re NOT in crisis. We have a reasonably stable, slow growing economy. The NBN is good stimulus AND won’t cost us money overall.

      I’m all for something to stop politicians spouting BS, but forcing them to keep promises would be very dangerous.

  20. I love the way Renai’s articles have an “opinion/analysis” section. I don’t think I’ve ever read a single Renai article that isn’t full of “opinion/analysis” the whole way through.

    Agree that the Coalition loves spreading misinformation about the NBN, by the way. But it still reads like a Labor press release.

  21. An overview of the comments on this site, shows two things.

    Most of those who support the NBN do so for technical and social reasons.
    Nearly, all of those who oppose the NBN do so for political reasons.

    The challenge for coalition supporters is that they cannot suggest a better network and they cannot allow anyone to think that Labor is doing something right. They could suggest improvements to the way the NBN is going about its business but this would, however, show tacit support for the project. This is why they talk about wastage, financial mismanagement, delays, overservicing and the next election.

    And this is also why their political masters have to lie, distort and undermine. They haven’t really got anything better to offer.

    Finally, it is OK to have an opinion or analysis. So long that it demonstrate a well argued and substantiated position. In fact, this is often better than the ‘he said, she said” type of reporting.

  22. “Finally, it is OK to have an opinion or analysis. So long that it demonstrate a well argued and substantiated position. In fact, this is often better than the ‘he said, she said” type of reporting.”

    I would agree. Provided that the reporter owns the opinion or analysis and is open to criticism on their stance. A good example of this is Delimiter and that prodigious reporter there Renai LeMay.

    • I heard that Renai chap is an arrogant bastard — I wouldn’t trust him. In fact, I’ve filed quite a few complaints with his editor over the years about his slack efforts :)

Comments are closed.