• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Opinion, Telecommunications - Written by on Thursday, September 13, 2012 16:01 - 52 Comments

    NBN irony as Turnbull takes the high ground

    opinion Last week Malcolm Turnbull gave what is generally acknowledged to be a landmark and admirable speech calling for truth, leadership and responsibility to boost the quality of debate in Australia’s rapidly deteriorating political sphere. Now if only the Liberal MP would practice a little of the same when it comes to the National Broadband Network.

    One of the factors which contributes to Malcolm Turnbull’s enduring popularity with the Australian electorate is the fact that he’s not afraid to bring an educated perspective to the national political debate. I’ve been following the Member for Wentworth closely since he was appointed to lead the Communications portfolio for the Coalition in November 2010, and I’ve never failed to be impressed by the breadth of Turnbull’s thinking, as well as its depth, and the gravitas with which he delivers his carefully considered ideas.

    In an age where the chief catchcry of Tony Abbott’s Coalition has been the bottom-feeding phrase “stop the boats”, and where virtually any other issue of any significance has been linked to that other great evil, “the carbon tax”, Turnbull never fails to deliver a breath of fresh air whenever he speaks. Unlike so many of his colleagues, Turnbull’s thinking is complex and nuanced, in both the breadth and depth of his subjects. The former Opposition Leader is able to switch seamlessly from the topics of philanthropy and liberalism to Australia’s complex relationship with China; from gay marriage to the evolution of modern art as tracked by famed critic Robert Hughes.

    To watch Turnbull in action is to watch an informed mind flexing its muscles at full capacity; his thoughts are always delivered in an erudite manner, with panache, and often with little self-referential jabs at the nature of political life which tend to incite wry smiles from his charmed audience. It’s such a different experience to the bruised and battered feeling you get after speaking with the strictly ‘on-message’ parliamentarians typical of our political society: You know the ones I mean — the ones who can’t think for themselves, but only repeat the same tired party lines ad nauseum. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy used to be a prime example of the species; but recently he has evolved along much more positive lines.

    Turnbull’s delivery of the George Winton Lecture to the University of Western Australia last week was no exception to this stellar record. Turnbull’s topic: Traditional republican ideals, and Australia’s flawed political ecosystem.

    From that most famous of republics, Rome, to another tragically flawed state, America, Turnbull tracked the history of political virtues which revolutionaries and politicians across the ages have fought and sometimes died for. Turnbull quoted Thomas Jefferson, no less, with a quote which would appear to apply as accurately to modern day Australia as it did when the US founding fathers penned the Declaration of Independence: “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” It’s a philosophy which Labor, with its Orwellian Internet filtering and data retention schemes, appears not to believe in.

    Inevitably, of course, Turnbull’s mind turned towards Australia’s own flawed democracy. As he’s pretty fearless about putting his ideas forward, the Liberal MP turned his relentless gaze on not just one side of politics in his analysis, but all. It wasn’t solely the Labor Federal Government which came under Turnbull’s scrutiny in his speech, but also the Coalition and the Greens. Not individual parties; but Australia’s entire political class. And Turnbull’s comments were scathing about what he described as “a deteriorating political discourse”.

    “There is almost nothing more important to good government and our nation’s future than the quality, honesty and clarity of political discourse: how we explain policy challenges and trade-offs, and educate voters about the constraints we have to work within … how we express our position, our basis for reaching it and why it differs from that of our opponents if this is the case … how we communicate changes in policy and their implications,” Turnbull told his audience. “Yet paradoxically, there is almost nowhere else in our national life where the incentives to be untruthful or to purposefully mislead are so great, and the adverse consequences of such behaviour so modest.”

    “Blatant misrepresentations, exaggerations or outright lies in politics”, Turnbull said, should easily be revealed, not only by the watchful fourth estate, but by rival parties and MPs, commercial interests and other stakeholders and even the public itself, which, through social media, perhaps has a greater ability to have its say about political policy than ever before.

    However, Turnbull said, such safeguards were not functioning. ” … many, if not most Australians, believe it is not working effectively in our political system,” he said. “Important issues are being overlooked, barely discussed and where they are, routinely misrepresented. I am not suggesting politicians are innately less accurate or truthful than anyone else. But rather that the system is not constraining, in fact it is all too often rewarding, spin, exaggeration, misstatements.”

    “Most Australians believe we need an honest, informed policy debate. Yet I don’t see many people who believe we have that. Instead, we all hear again and again that Australians are ashamed of the parliament, that they see it as nothing more than a forum for abuse, catcalling and spin.”

    Turnbull reserved especial censure for the media, whose numbers, he said, were “dwindling fast”, leading to a “diminishing” capacity to hold powerful figures to account.

    “The truth is that the foundations of journalism, of reporting, have been for many years the newspapers, especially the big metropolitan papers,” said Turnbull. “They have had the revenues and the space to cover the field and they created the agenda from which television and radio selected the handful of stories and issues they would follow up. But the arrival of the Internet has changed all that. Around the developed world, newspapers are in dramatic decline.”

    “And while newspapers are shrinking think tanks seem to be expanding – wouldn’t it be great if some of those public intellects actually held politicians like me to account, pointing out where we had exaggerated or misled. Public fact checking would raise the quality of debate.”

    At the end of the day, Turnbull said, the public would decide and judge politicians, based on moral values.

    “In case you think my call for a change of attitude and practice to truth in politics is just idealism – let me make a practical political point. It seems to me that we don’t simply have a financial deficit, we have a deficit of trust. We can argue for hours which side and which politicians, which journalists indeed, have contributed most to it. But it affects all of us and all of our institutions. The politicians and parties that can demonstrate they can be trusted, that they will not insult the people with weasel words and spin, that they will not promise more than they can deliver, that they will not dishonestly misrepresent either their own or their opponents‟ policies – those politicians and parties will, I submit to you, deserve and receive electoral success.”

    Now, on the one hand, Turnbull’s comments resonated strongly with me. I agreed very strongly with his opinion about the need to improve Australia’s political debate; it’s an issue I feel passionately about.

    However, on the other hand, as someone who’s followed Turnbull’s exploits day in, day out over the past 18 months, it’s hard not to be flabberghasted at the colossal case of hypocrisy evident in his words. Quite frankly, when it comes to the Communications portfolio, and especially the National Broadband Network, the Member Wentworth has certainly not practiced what he last week preached.

    Where was the responsibility, for example, in Turnbull’s relentless pursuit of NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley throughout late 2010 and mid 2011, on the issue of his former employment with Alcatel-Lucent? At various stages Turnbull used the full force of his media profile to attempt a character assassination of Quigley, who was clearly bewildered by the vitriol repeatedly thrown his way. Given that there was never any evidence put forward of wrongdoing by Quigley in his past, and that the NBN Co CEO remains one of the most transparent and above board executives in Australia’s telecommunications sector, Turnbull’s approach came across as nothing short of spiteful.

    Where has the truth been, in another example, in Turnbull’s ongoing claims that the Coalition will “complete” the NBN Co objective, but in a more cost-effective way than it is currently being deployed? Given that the Coalition’s rival NBN policy would see the project drastically modified into a completely different fibre to the node rollout style — a style for which Turnbull has consistently declined to release detailed financial modelling for — it’s not hard to see why some have seen this line of reasoning by Turnbull as extremely disingenuous. There is also the oft-missed point that the NBN will not “cost” Australia anything — in fact, it is slated to make a modest profit for the Government, delivering massively improved telecommunications services along the way.

    And there have been a number of other comments made by the Shadow Communications Minister over the past 18 months which have displayed a questionable regard for the truth. Turnbull’s continual misstatements on the cost of building and accessing the NBN, for example, or his technically dubious claims regarding satellite capacity to serve rural areas; these are just several of the claims which Turnbull has made about the NBN over the past 18 months which have sometimes been demonstrably inaccurate and sometimes merely grossly deceptive.

    To continue, where was the leadership in Turnbull’s recent refusal to comment on the Federal Government’s highly controversial data retention and surveillance scheme, which has the backbench of Turnbull’s own party up in arms due to its blatant attack on Australia’s civil liberties and rampant antagonism of traditional liberal (and, dare I mention it, republican) ideals? Alternatively, where was Turnbull’s sense for leadership when he decided to invest financially in France Telecom, placing the Liberal MP in a conflict of interest situation due to the company’s extensive Australian interests?

    Then we come to the media.

    In his delivery of the George Winton Lecture last week, Turnbull lamented the decline of newspapers and their fact-checking capabilities. But in recent months the Shadow Communications Minister has earned a sizable reputation of his own for attacking journalists for doing just that — fact-checking his statements. In late July the Liberal MP accused the ABC of creating “relentless propaganda” to support the NBN, in a stance which Turnbull described as “embarrassing”. And just weeks later it was the turn of independent media outlets like yours truly to come under fire, with Turnbull slamming what he said were “specialist technology journalists … fanning a pro-NBN zealotry among tech-savvy citizens”.

    When Delimiter recruited the efforts of its readers in a comprehensive fact-checking exercise on Turnbull’s comments in July — exactly the sort of process Turnbull exhorted the press to in his speech last week — the Liberal MP completely ignored the effort, and has consistently declined to respond to a list of key questions Delimiter subsequently sent the Shadow Communications Minister about the Coalition’s rival NBN policy.

    Speaking of that Coalition policy, where is the transparency in the fact that Turnbull has consistently declined to publish its full details, despite the fact that the Liberal MP has publicly stated that it has been finalised and even costed? Is it not true that withholding Coalition policy documents until the even of the Federal Election would do much to accelerate the deterioration of Australia’s political discourse? How does it serve the development of a better discourse when Turnbull selectively ignores those aspects of the debate in his portfolio which he doesn’t feel comfortable addressing?

    Personally, I want to believe Turnbull when he espouses the republican views he spoke of last week. And my instinct tells me that Turnbull believes what he says. Consequently, I am at a loss to explain why his personal actions in the Communications portfolio run so contrary to his stated ideals. Is it just political expediency which guides the Member for Wentworth’s actions with respect to the NBN? Is he a complex enough thinker that his mind is able to hold, and believe, several contradictory positions at the same time, without needing to deal consciously with the inconsistency? Is his approach just tactical, compared with the strategic thinking he displayed in the George Winton Lecture?

    History tells us that Thomas Jefferson also held conflicting public and private ideals. Jefferson is acknowledged as the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and was publicly opposed to the widespread slavery practiced by white property owners in his day. And yet Jefferson also personally owned hundreds of slaves and is believed to have fathered children with one of them. It’s puzzling; perhaps there is an element of humanity about this, or maybe just an element of convenience. Perhaps, in considering his own republican views, Turnbull might do well to consider that hubris is also an ideal which to which republican leaders have historically subscribed.

    Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. Sydney
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “History tells us that Thomas Jefferson also held conflicting public and private ideals. Jefferson is acknowledged as the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and was publicly opposed to the widespread slavery practiced by white property owners in his day. And yet Jefferson also personally owned hundreds of slaves and is believed to have fathered children on one of them.”

      Love it… Turnbull wants to deny Australia a proper fibre to the premises broadband network, but invests his own personal cash into them overseas.

      • Richard
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Malcolm takes a similar approach to St Augustine: “Lord, make me good — but not yet.” http://goo.gl/qGXTv

      • Woolfe
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

        I’m of the opinion he doesn’t want to deny us, but he has to tow the party line.

        And the party line is anything the government does must be opposed and rejected no matter its actual merit.

    2. Marcus
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      breath of Turnbull’s thinking

      should be breadth

    3. Hubert Cumberdale
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Epic. Will read again.

    4. Marcus
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      *pure out of my arse speculation*
      I reckon it’s coming.. he started the ball rolling by conceding the financial stats are actually up to scratch. We wont concede more until his bid for the Lib leadership is been played.

    5. Grey Wind
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Consequently, I am at a loss to explain why his personal actions in the Communications portfolio run so contrary to his stated ideals. ”

      One factor at play here. His name is Tony Abbott.

      • Grey Wind
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Let me elaborate – his “stated ideals” arent his ideals. they are Tony Abbott’s ideals.

        Also Renai thanks for the excellent article – well done =)

        • Markie Linhart
          Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

          I second that emotion…

    6. Marcus
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink | Reply


    7. NPSF3000
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He’s like that nice guy who turns out to be a [Let’s just say ‘bad dude’ –edited by Renai] etc.

      He’ s great to talk to, has excellent ideas, and appears to be a decent bloke all round…. but when you look into his actions there’s some unfathomable elements to his reasoning that simply appear contradictory and fundamentally ‘wrong’ to the rest of us.

      Such a shame.

    8. Richard
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Excellent article. We don’t need more think tanks. We need more delimiters or a more widely circulated Delimiter.

    9. CMOTDibbler
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s not Turnbull’s decision on when to release detailed policy. That’s going to be up to the leader and the party.

      Turnbull said he would complete the NBN objective not the NBNCo objective. They are different things. Practice what you preach, Renai. The NBNCo objective is to build the network solution specified by the government. What is the NBN objective? Where is it written?

      Have you considered the possibility that Turnbull believes his policy to switch the NBNCo to FTTN in brownfield areas is the right thing to do? He loses no credibility just because we/you disagree with him on this. He gains some credibility imo for sharing as much information with us as he has this far out from an election. At least we know what his solution entails: satellite and wireless as with the government’s NBN, greenfield FTTP as with the government’s NBN, brownfield FTTP where contracts cannot be renegotiated and brownfield FTTN in other areas. All this to be built by the NBNCo. That’s quite a lot of information.

      • NBNAccuracy
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

        “Have you considered the possibility that Turnbull believes his policy to switch the NBNCo to FTTN in brownfield areas is the right thing to do?”

        Everyone seems to have consider this. The problem? To know if it is the right thing to do the cost of FTTN and subsequent FTTH upgrade. The period of time that FTTN would be adequate before this upgrade and the reasoning behind believing in that period of time. If it is different to what major companies such as Google, Cisco, etc predict. That 80Mb will be obsolete by 2016, why is it different?

        ” He loses no credibility just because we/you disagree with him on this.”

        These are all questions put to Mr Turnbull and they are ignored. That is the cause of loss of credibility. The unwillingness to put enough information forward to effectively judge their alternative policy. Given best guess his policy is bad. He needs to answer the questions to show why it isn’t.

      • Dean
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Actually, he said the Coalition would “complete the job of NBN Co”(1).

        But basically what you’re saying is he’s promised to do the absolute minimum and *mumble* something about FTTN *mumble*.

        How much FTTN? To what percentage of premises? At what cost? He hasn’t actually told us anything.

        (1): http://delimiter.com.au/2012/06/05/coalition-will-complete-nbn-objective-says-turnbull/

        • CMOTDibbler
          Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

          I stand corrected. Turnbull will not complete the job of the NBNCo. Apologies.

      • Francis Young
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

        The NBN objective is and always was twofold: delivering ubiquitous broadband of at least 12 Mbps and the separation of Telstra’s retail and infrastructure arms.

        The failed attempts to design an implementation cost-effectively using wireless (OPEL) and NBN Mark I (FTTN) established that 90% of premises could be fibred for the cost of FTTN, so this was the starting point for the NBNCo objective. McKinsey/KPMG proved by May 2010 that by the end of the ten year rollout, FTTP would reach 93% of premises more cheaply than wireless. Hence the NBNCo implementation.

        But then, you knew all this, CMOTDibbler.

        So does Malcolm Turnbull, and many thanks to Renai for the comprehensive exposition of his latest inconsistency between word and action.

        • CMOTDibbler
          Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

          iirc the objective of the NBN mkI was to deliver at least 12Mbps to 98% of premises. There was no mention of separation of Telstra. That was one of the issues Telstra had with the RFP process.

          I don’t know of any updated objectives, just the FTTP/satellite/wireless solution.

          In any case, it has been shown that Turnbull said he would complete the job of the NBNCo. That is not what he is proposing. He is proposing to change the job of the NBNCo.

          • SMEMatt
            Posted 14/09/2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink | Reply

            The FTTP Wireless Satellite make up come from the implementation study to determine how best to to achieve the stated aim and still make a return.

      • Hubert Cumberdale
        Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

        “Turnbull said he would complete the NBN objective not the NBNCo objective. They are different things.”

        yeah and that IS the problem.

        “Have you considered the possibility that Turnbull believes his policy to switch the NBNCo to FTTN in brownfield areas is the right thing to do? He loses no credibility just because we/you disagree with him on this.”

        He does lose credibility considering his overseas investments. He’s criticising the government for making the same investment and telling us FttN is the way to go instead. That is pure, blatant and unquestionable hypocrisy. Credibility -100.

      • Mud Guts
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink | Reply

        Ah, but he does lose credibility when he refuses to divulge information about the Coalition’s NBN aka the Atomic Banana.

        It’s like a doctor claiming to have a cure for cancer, but not providing information because he/she wants people to wait a little while.

        Mr Turnbull it’s time to either shit or get off the toilet.

    10. JasonK
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This piece, Renai, is magnificent! I enjoyed every paragraph.

      If only the mass-populace had an understanding of the hypocrisy, and often outright deceipt the Shadow Communications Minister has shown over recent times…

    11. Elijah B.
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Wouldn’t it be great if some of those public intellects actually held politicians like me to account, pointing out where we had exaggerated or misled. Public fact checking would raise the quality of debate.” – Malcolm.

      A number of people have been trying to do that, old son, but you haven’t been very reachable or forthcoming. One of the expected results of such accountability and public fact checking would be that you listen to correction of facts, take them on board, and change your mind about things where you are wrong. I’m still waiting for this to happen. A person who can’t admit to being wrong is in fetters.

    12. Observer
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It is always a case of rhetoric vs actions. Given this hypothetical nature of rhetoric, we can only trust actions.

      Great article Renai. You thoroughly summed up Malcom Turnbull’s contradictions.

      I do not, however, share your views about his intellect. Too often a strong command of language, eloquently delivered, can mistakenly be confused with intellect. So that when well spoken bullshit is betrayed by contradictory behaviour, it reflects poorly on the social skills and intelligence of the orator.

      There are three possibilities as to why his actions do not match his deeds:

      He is arrogant enough to believe that no one will notice.
      He doesn’t really believe what he has been saying.
      He is not capable of self evaluation.

      • damien
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

        +1, well Observed.

    13. Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m hoping Turnbull might have a go at the leadership soon. Then.we’re likely going to see less toeing the party Lind on the NBN.

      However we’re also possibly likely to see the opposite- a hardened campaign against the NBN with more ‘informed’ Coalition MP’s spriuking the vast cost-savings of FTTN (no more foot in mouth about wireless from One line wonders like Hockey). A concentrated offensive on the NBN. It is much dependant on how NBNCo performs over the next 6-9 months I think.

      Excellent article Renai. I doubt Turnbull will respond, because he can’t really respond without actually going into some of those questions you put together over a month ago…..but you can always hope…

      • Mud Guts
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink | Reply

        I think Tony Abbott’s days as leader are ending. More and more his inability to tell the truth and his true ill tempered character are being revealed.

        Is this really the man we want as a Prime Minister?

        He might be capable as a politician, but his character is badly flawed and he’s not what I want as my Prime Minister.

        • Posted 14/09/2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink | Reply


        • Richard
          Posted 14/09/2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

          To those who reckon Tony Abbot will never be Prime Minister, please read a little bit of history, especially about Paul Keating and John Howard.
          Both of these people were excellent head-kickers during their respective time in opposition, but both became Prime Minister.
          So, that proves that Tony Abbot could well become Prime Minister (although he would, of necessity, soften his style somewhat to meet the new role he’s playing).

          • NBNAccuracy
            Posted 14/09/2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

            They had a number of brain cells greater than one however.

          • Tinman_au
            Posted 17/09/2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink | Reply

            They were both intelligent and articulate, Tony is all slogan…

    14. Markie Linhart
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “…but he has to tow the party line…”

      And tow it he does :-)

      • socrates
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

        And we should all see just how he toes that party line.

        He’s not a politician, a merchant banker and a very cunning lawyer for nothing…

    15. Dave
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So Renai you’re Ulysses and Turnbull is the Siren ? Where is a mast ? My blog for a mast……and rope etc

      • Posted 13/09/2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

        I do know of women who refer to Turnbull as “the Silver Fox”, but I assure you, I am not persuaded by his swansong ;)

        • Dave
          Posted 13/09/2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

          temptation exists on its own, there is little need for persuasion.

        • Richard
          Posted 14/09/2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

          Swan song? Are you suggesting his political career is about to end?

          Methinks you meant siren song!

    16. Iain
      Posted 13/09/2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve been waiting for this article, thanks Renai.

      I don’t give Malcolm Turnbull the same credit you do: many/most politicians are, I’m sure, able to speak passionately and intelligently on a wide variety of topics.

      Just try asking them a contentious question on the portfolio they are responsible for though, and watch them scurry away like rats.

    17. James Q
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 12:35 am | Permalink | Reply

      I had a good laugh reading through his speech.

      It’s almost like he’s two people. One of them is outraged at the quality of political discussion in this country. One of them must destroy Labor’s NBN advantage at all costs.

      Neither is aware of the other.

    18. Tailgator
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 12:46 am | Permalink | Reply

      Grats on a good article. But …. 18 pars of man love before you stick the knife in? That was a bit hard to stomach. ;-)

    19. Rob
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 6:17 am | Permalink | Reply

      It wouldn’t surprise me Turnbull is making his leadership move now. He’s probably the one digging the dirt on Abbott being a thug punching the wall in an SRC meeting. Though it’s all hardly surprising. Abbott, Hockey and Pyne, they resemble a group of high school bullies.

    20. Posted 14/09/2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink | Reply

      Another round of asking Malcolm on Twitter last night as towards releasing his policy so we can compare his plan with the current NBN plan.

      Completely ignored the questions again, while being condescending towards another user.

      Becoming unhinged.

    21. raymond
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink | Reply

      its amusing how people think the man is wonderful, just because he can talk well and intelligently? wake up, hes just a hypocritical politician that will do and say whatever he needs to in public to look good and what he does in private is totally different.

      do you really want a man like this running the country? someone who will just excise their own morals and ideals and replace them with someone elses, regardless of the cost to the country?

      whats incredibly scary is that you could put him in the ALP and hed get along fine opposing and destroying the LNP. hes like a robot that implicitly obeys its master without qualm or question.

      • Paul Thompson
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink | Reply

        It is probably easy for Malcolm to look good when you consider the quality of politicians around him.

        I wonder if he really is the obedient attack robot that you say he is. Several years ago his leader gave a directive to ‘destroy the NBN’. Since then we have steadily moved to a point where the Coalition party is much closer to the Labor party policy (although still inferior).
        We have also moved to a point where Turnbull is agreeing with costings etc.

        To me this seems like a pretty sharp turnaround from destroying the NBN. I wonder how much influence Turnbull had in this shift? Has he been making every effort to push against Abbott to get to this point?

        • Dave
          Posted 14/09/2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

          You might be right about Turnbull’s influence, on the other hand the Coalition might be being to realise a lot of people want it (NBN) and they want it now.

    22. Paul Thompson
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      Words are nice, Mr Turnbull, but the only thing which counts are actions. In regards to the NBN debate, you have so far failed to live up to your lofty sentiments.

      Australia is desperate for a good potential leader. Align your actions to your words and you might fill that need.

    23. Ferretzor
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “wouldn’t it be great if some of those public intellects actually held politicians like me to account, pointing out where we had exaggerated or misled. Public fact checking would raise the quality of debate.”

      I hope you are blushing Renai, you got a bff.

      • Posted 14/09/2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink | Reply


      • Observer
        Posted 14/09/2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Wouldn’t it be nice if when held to account, he did not call those who did “NBN zealots”

        • PeterA
          Posted 14/09/2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

          Maybe this was Turnbulls apology to Renai?

    24. Randy Andy Pandy Bolt
      Posted 14/09/2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Turnbull is such a wanker that he can no longer tell the center spread from the XXX rated brown paper cover.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights