Turnbull policy 1000x of Conroy’s in 2007

[NPSF3000Participant]

Here’s my concerns with Renai’s statement that:

“As I’ve said many times, there is a thousand times more detail in Turnbull’s plan today than Conroy had in November 2007 …”

1) The time comparison is pointless. Turnbull isn’t in 2007, he’s in late 2012… the benchmarks have changed.

2) The idea that it’s Turnbull’s policy vs Conroy’s policy is also pointless. This is a matter of LNP vs ALP.

With those out of the way, let’s examine the actual policy.

From his own articles ALP had:

1) A specific budget [$4.7Bn], and stated where it was coming from [e.g. Future Fund].

2) A minimum access speed [12Mbps], and a minimum coverage[98%].

3) Identified the technology to be used [FTTN].

4) Identified key regulatory reform [open access network].

Where have the Coalition detailed the above? Where have the Coalition detailed their ‘plan’ 1000 fold more?

Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly now by other commentaries, the ALP apparently had this document out:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/partypol/E2KM6/upload_binary/e2km65.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22library/partypol/E2KM6%22

Which goes into far more detail – particularly about the why – and is clearly written down & researched policy that they commit to. Again, where is this from either the LNP or Turnbull? Let alone in ’1000 times’ more detail?

Please, show me where I’m wrong.

[Tinman_auParticipant]

Even updating their policy doco to 2012 would be a start:

http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Broadband%20and%20Telecommunications%20Policy.pdf

[ZokParticipant]

You are right, of course. We should not confuse a running commentary (as eloquent as it is, coming from Mr Turnbull) for policy, nor quantity of information for quality.

The signal-to-noise ratio in Opposition’s communications-related statements is way too low at the moment; overproduction of inconsistent argumentation is just a form of dog-whistling from which everyone can get something positive (as long as they are eager to look for the positive and ignore any contradictions.) Describing Turnbull’s statements as a ‘policy’ having ‘merit’ is like sprinkling chocolate on offal and calling it a ‘gourmet dessert’.

An actual policy must contain answers to these questions:

- What are we trying to achieve, and why? (Including precisely defined objectives and requirements.)

- How are we going to achieve it, and pay for it? (Doesn’t have to be as precisely defined as the “what and why”, but all elements of “how” need to be consistently addressed, without contradictions, and they must clearly satisfy the requirements and lead to fulfilment of the objectives.)

The policy does not need to be extremely detailed or verbose. Quite to the contrary: a clear, concise and unambiguous political statement is much more valuable in a democracy, where general public needs to be able to vote on proposed policies in an informed and considered way.

The policy must also not be a private project of one man, as capable as our current shadow minister is. It needs to have obvious and overwhelming support of the Liberal party, particularly its leader and other key members of the shadow cabinet.

None of these conditions have been met so far. I don’t know if Liberals have a serious broadband policy in the works behind the scenes, but judging by what is publicly available and by observing the Opposition statements on this topic in the last few years, my impression is that if a policy framework exists at all it is along the lines of “neutralising NBN as an issue by confusing the electorate while not actually committing to anything in particular, so as to keep the party’s options open.” And that, in my opinion, is a horribly irresponsible position to hold for a major party in a democracy.

[Tinman_auParticipant]

I just want to see something in writing, preferably signed (or at least signed off by) Tony Abbott.

The currently have too much “plausible deniability” going on this, with Tony, Joe, Malcolm and others seeming to have different ideas about everything. And as Tony is leader, and he is on record as saying if he hasn’t signed it, then it’s not a “promise”, we currently can’t view what Malcolm wants as anything but an “aspiration” that’s easily avoided if it’s inconvenient for Tony.

[Author]

Posts