news In a new blog entry entitled “What can we learn from the UK?”, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher has lambasted the broadband policies of the Gillard Government, unfavourable contrasting them with the approach of the Cameron Government in the UK.

Fletcher starts off in the piece by pointing out the high amounts that Australia is spending to promote deployment of superfast broadband compared to UK and moves on to claim that the Cameron Government’s approach is much more pragmatic, flexible, private-sector oriented and competition-centred. Disapproving of government intervention, except where there is market failure, he is also highly critical of the one-size-fits-all approach of the Labor Government and is all for more tailored approaches with a mix of technologies.

The Cameron Government announced in December 2010 that it will spend £530 million (or A$1.23 billion) to promote the deployment of ‘superfast’ broadband (defined as more than 24 Mbps) in the UK. This amounts to around $20 per citizen of UK, whereas in Australia the cost comes around to $1600 per person, according to Fletcher.

Fletcher points out that the UK approach is to do it in stages, with the first commitment being to provide virtually all homes access to a minimum level of service of 2 Mbps by 2015. After the initial commitment is met, the government plans to promote ‘superfast’ broadband. In contrast, many Australian homes will have to wait well beyond 2015 for the National Broadcast Network (NBN) to reach their doors. Also, the Gillard Government by reaching for a highly ambitious goal of 100 Mbps is being foolhardy without a clear idea of what applications need that kind of speed.

In UK, delivering broadband is primarily a private sector matter. Government intervention is necessary only where there is market failure—in commercially less attractive areas like some rural and inner city areas. British Telecom (using a mix of ADSL, fibre to the node and fibre to the home) has committed that approximately two thirds of UK homes will receive fibre to the node (offering up to 40 Mbps) or fibre to the home (offering up to 100 Mbps) by 2015.

In Australia too, significant parts of the market will require public sector funding, but the Federal Government has taken an approach of pushing aside private sector everywhere — by funding a ubiquitous publicly owned fibre network. The Government is also paying Telstra and Optus to withdraw their extensive existing cable networks from service in spite of the fact that they can be upgraded to deliver 100Mbps.

Another point Fletcher makes is that UK policy, while recognising fibre’s pre-eminence, explicitly rejects picking technologies; it notes that other technologies including wireless and satellite should be part of the mix. In Australia, the Government is also using different technologies — fibre for the majority of the population, coupled with satellite and wireless in rural and regional areas.

Public funding in the UK, where provided, is being put in the hands of the communities and local authorities to use on infrastructure that suits them. A key design approach is to deliver ‘a central digital point’ in communities; in turn the local community will be responsible for extending the network to individual homes. A mixed technology approach will be taken, and local authorities will have a key role. This, Fletcher says, is a more flexible approach and more responsive to local needs instead of Labor’s one-size-fits-all centrally controlled strategy.

Fletcher also brings our notice to a report by UK communications regulator, Ofcom, which estimates that even though 57 percent of the homes were able to receive superfast services, less than four percent of them actually subscribed to it. This is significant as it suggests that consumer demand for superfast broadband is limited.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

blog In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (click here for the full story), Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has made some … interesting claims about Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network project. The newspaper writes:

The broadband network was by far the biggest off-budget initiative ever seen in Australian government, Mr Hockey said … “I mean, it’s multiples of anything that’s ever been off-budget … it detracts from productivity,” he said.

Readers are advised to treat Hockey’s claims with a grain of salt — in a similar vein to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s comments on the NBN earlier this week. Hockey is correct when he says the NBN is largely off-budget. However, if the project goes according to plan and at least breaks even for the Government’s investment, which many believe it is likely to do (given the fact that Telstra and Optus will be migrating their customers wholesale onto the NBN’s fibre infrastructure), this won’t matter.

Projects are put in the Federal Budget because they cost money; while the NBN is a capital investment expected to make money. Hockey’s criticism will become valid when it can be proven that NBN Co is not meeting the objectives laid out in its corporate plan — and I wouldn’t expect that to be possible, even if it happens, for at least another five years.

As far as Hockey’s claim about productivity goes … this is simply factually incorrect. About a billion studies have shown that next-generation broadband infrastructure helps drastically improve productivity through the rapid uptake of new technology in the workplace. It appears that Treasurer Wayne Swan understands this. “If it was up to Joe Hockey, we’d still be talking to each other using two cans and a piece of string,” his office reportedly told AAP — ZDNet.com.au story here. A bit of an exaggeration, but apt ;)

Image credit: Office of Joe Hockey

news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has stepped in to bat for iiNet, in the wake of claims by the Coalition yesterday that National Broadband Network pricing released yesterday by the ISP was too expensive and demonstrated that Labor’s NBN project wouldn’t bring Australians cheaper broadband.

iiNet’s plans released this morning range from $59.90 per month for an entry level service with a bundled telephone line, all the way up to $109.90 for a terabyte package at 100Mbps speeds. In general, the plans are comparable to iiNet’s current ADSL broadband plans provided over Telstra’s copper network. However, they are substantially cheaper than earlier plans released by rival Internode in late July — in some cases up to $80 cheaper for a similar plan.

Fletcher said he had calculated that iiNet’s NBN prices were substantially higher than equivalent ADSL prices. The MP said it wasn’t iiNet’s fault — due to pricing set by fibre wholesaler NBN Co — however, the prices demonstrated Labor claims that the NBN would drive cheaper prices was false.

However, in a statement issued late last night, Conroy claimed Fletcher was barking up the wrong tree and was continuing to attack ISPs. Fletcher had previously made a number of comments about the prices of other ISPs Dodo and Exetel.

“Mr Fletcher is continuing his extraordinary attack on retail service providers – having already attacked Dodo and Exetel – for providing consumers with low, competitive prices and is deliberately attempting to mislead people with calculations that simply do not stack up,” said Conroy.

The Minister said Fletcher’s price comparison saw the Liberal MP comparing the prices of broadband services only available in metropolitan areas (naked DSL) with iiNet’s new NBN services — which are also slated to be available in regional areas. “If Mr Fletcher had done the honest thing and chosen iiNet’s $59.95 plan – one that is still cheaper than the “entry level” naked DSL product he cites – he would have found a product that is $10 per month cheaper, more reliable, and with two times more included data,” said Conroy.

Fletcher was comparing iiNet’s $69.95 naked DSL plan, which comes with 50GB of on-peak and 50GB of off-peak data, while the ISP does offer several non-naked DSL plans which come with 100GB/100GB, 200GB/200GB and even 500GB/500GB of quota.

“Using Mr Fletcher’s own novel and bizarre calculations, this plan would cost only $0.30 per GB,” said Conroy. “Mr Fletcher is amateurishly copying the dishonest tactics of Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull who will say and do anything in an attempt to mislead the Australian public.”

Posting on broadband forum Whirlpool, iiNet regulatory chief Steve Dalby wrote in June 2010 when iiNet first released its initial trial NBN pricing that the National Broadband Network policy was actually about a variety of complex outcomes — not just the cost of broadband. “There was nothing in any of the Minister’s releases about making anything cheaper,” he said at the time. “Just the opposite, most of the debate (Google, [former AAPT chief] Paul Broad and the NBN) was about how it was apparently going to make things more expensive.”

“The NBN is about a lot of things including improving competition, reducing Telstra’s conflicts of interest, broadening the availability of high speed broadband to 90 percent of the population, generating productivity gains and winning votes.”

Asked whether improving competition was about making prices cheaper, Dalby responded: “That is an outcome, yes and one of the reasons the government wants improved competition. But not the only one, and that has never been the driving motivation for NBN. On a like-for-like basis the NBN may very well drive down prices, let’s see.”

opinion/analysis
AS Dalby wrote, the NBN is a complex policy aimed at achieving many outcomes — and I don’t personally believe lower prices has ever been an aim of the NBN, despite what Julia Gillard may or may not have said in parliament. Broadly, the policy aims to improve competition in the broadband market while simultaneously drastically improving services — not to provide cheaper services.

I’ve expressed my opinion to several of the Coalition’s key MPs (including Fletcher) that I believe it is barking up the wrong tree by harping on about prices. I just don’t believe Australia’s predominantly middle class population is that concerned about telecommunications prices. If it was … we wouldn’t have more mobile phones than we have people, and we wouldn’t have multiple Internet connections per person (think iPad, iPhone, mobile broadband dongle, home broadband, work broadband and so on).

The Coalition is wasting its time by continuing to attack the Government on the sideline issue of broadband pricing.

Note: This article initially cited Steve Dalby’s comments as being made yesterday. This is an error. They were in fact made in June 2010. In addition, Conroy initially referred to an iiNet plan with ten times the data quote included; his spokesperson has corrected this as a mistake — he meant two times the quota.

Image credit: Razvan Cimpeanu, royalty free

opinion Last week Malcolm Turnbull outlined a telecommunications policy which could become a credible alternative to Labor’s NBN juggernaut. But for all its surface-level attractiveness, the Liberal MP’s vision is far from complete — and unless the holes are plugged quickly, it will die a quick and painful death.

The extent to which Turnbull has not fleshed out his ideas became evident last week during a wide-ranging interview on Sky News, in which a number of News Ltd commentators had the chance to pinion the Earl of Wentworth on diverse matters. After garnering Turnbull’s thoughts on world economics, internal Liberal Party politics, workplace relations laws and more, his questioners (somewhat reluctantly, it seemed) turned their attention to broadband.

Turnbull was given the chance to expansively put his view forth on Labor’s NBN project; and as per normal, he didn’t disappoint.

The NBN was “enormously expensive”, he said, with the Government spending “tens of billions of dollars more … than they need to”. The NBN would “blow out” in cost, perhaps ranging up to between “$60 and $80″ billion in total. “Not enough” people would benefit from it, and “there is no application or service” which could use the terabit speeds promised.

Eventually, Turnbull said, there would be “a growing horror” at the money being ploughed into the “massively overcapitalised Government monopoly”, which will see prices go up.

Now, as with many people, I don’t always agree with the approach taken by News Ltd journalists, but in this case, the approach taken by The Australian’s economics editor Michael Stutchbury to Turnbull’s rapidly expanding bubble of hot air was extremely appropriate.”How much cheaper do you claim you will be able to do it under your plan, compared to what the Government is saying?” the redoubtable Stutchbury asked Turnbull.

“Well, the approach we will take –” the Shadow Communications Minister began to reply, before his waffle was cut off at the pass. “In terms of cost to the taxpayer. What’s your estimate?” pushed Stutchbury. Turnbull wouldn’t give a concrete estimate, noting only that “relatively small amounts of Government subsidy” would be required.

“You don’t have a number though,” concluded Stutchbury.

From here on in the interview started to resemble an episode of Yes, Minister, with Turnbull switching sides and playing the role of Sir Humphrey Appleby, rather than his usual position on the other side of the desk as the Right Honourable James Hacker. As Stutchbury doggedly pursued the question of cost, Turnbull continued to duck and weave, giving answers such as “yes and no” and retreating again and again into his safety zone of the cost of Labor’s incumbent NBN approach.

To be honest, it wasn’t one of the best performances in Turnbull’s career; although it did demonstrate the formidable depth of understanding which the former Opposition Leader can boast with regards to costing infrastructure projects — an area in which most of his predecessors in the shadow communications portfolio have demonstrated a lack of knowledge bordering on complete ignorance.

Now one problem for Turnbull, of course, is that it may prove well-nigh-on impossible to actually cost the rival NBN policy he unveiled last week in any reasonable manner.

The public investment figure required to build Labor’s NBN has varied constantly over the past several years, as the Government, then the private sector, then NBN Co itself have estimated just how much money will be required to roll out fibre, wireless and satellite infrastructure around the nation. That amount also changed again when NBN Co and Telstra reached tentative agreement on the terms of their wedding; and no doubt it will change again in future as further construction costs become more apparent.

Turnbull can obviously draw on the substantial resources to cost his proposal — party, public and personal — but with much of its framework unclear (such as the terms of any deal with Telstra), any exercise in doing so will necessarily involve a range of potential future costs.

Compared with the over-analysed NBN, this will leave Communications Minister Stephen Conroy with a thousand avenues of attack to shred Turnbull’s grand vision; a task he has already taken up with relish. Last week — prior to the release of Turnbull’s policy — Conroy issued a series of questions which he demanded the Liberal MP answer. Questions such as:

• How much the plan will cost
• Where the money will be found to pay for it
• How Telstra will be recompensed for separating its operations
• Which Government services will be sacrificed in future budgets to pay for the policy

“Until Mr Turnbull answers basic and fundamental questions about his plan to dismantle the NBN, Australians will be in no position to take the Coalition seriously when it comes to delivering faster, better and affordable broadband,” said Conroy.

I agree.

As I wrote last week, Turnbull’s plan is 90 percent win. It avoids the anti-competitive move of shutting down the existing HFC networks, allows for the long-awaited separation of Telstra, will support the bush with wireless and satellite and holds the promise of infrastructure-based competition in the telecommunications sector.

However, the proposal is far from complete, and its biggest Achilles heel is Turnbull’s refusal to answer questions about cost. This difficulty leaves Turnbull doubly exposed to Labor criticism on an issue which has traditionally been a Liberal strength: Fiscal responsibility. As Conroy will no doubt shortly begin pointing out, technically the NBN project won’t cost the Government anything. Over the long-term, it will pay for itself with a modest return to the public, courtesy of its commercial model.

Of course, there are other issues with Turnbull’s policy. The difficulty of bringing Telstra to the table for another set of complex negotiations. The need to repeal or modify the tranche of NBN legislation which Labor has introduced over the past several years. The dismantling of a rapidly growing National Broadband Network Company and the justification to the population of a nation half-fibred up and half-not.

All of these discussions constitute land mines which Turnbull has the potential to personally negotiate. But none of them will progress in any meaningful way until the former Opposition Leader is able to put a hard dollar figure on the value of his policy.

Until Turnbull can inject a really hard concrete figure into the public debate, his attractive policy will remain marginalised. For the Member for Wentworth, it’s time to stop discussing his broadband views in public for now and head back to a small briefing room where several dozen economists can work through the details of what they might cost.

Until he does that, his alternative to Labor’s NBN juggernaut will remain ungrounded, unproven and ultimately, undebatable.

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

The Tasmanian Government has finalised a solution to a contractual impasse which has seen a number of schools in early stage National Broadband Network rollout zones in the state unable to utilise the infrastructure, despite the fibre having been physically connected to their premises.

In mid-June, the Tasmanian Opposition revealed that almost a year after the National Broadband Network was officially switched on in Tasmania, no public school in the early stage release towns of Scottsdale, Midway Point and Smithton had actually been connected to the next-generation fibre Internet the project is providing.

The delay appears to be due to the fact that Internet service to schools is provided through the state whole of government Networking Tasmania contract, which is held by Telstra and is currently being tested in the market. Like other providers, Telstra is currently trialling NBN services in Tasmania.

The lack of NBN connectivity came despite the fact that the Federal Government, in addition to the Tasmanian State Government, have repetitively touted the ability to bring high-speed broadband to schools as a benefit of the NBN, holding demonstrations of the fibre-optic technology in schools in both Tasmania and other early stage release sites such as Armidale over the past year.

Today, Tasmanian Education Minister Nick McKim revealed that state-owned utility and telecommunications service provider Aurora had ridden to the schools’ rescue.

“Within the next six weeks, NBN services will be available to Government schools and polytechnic campuses in Smithton and Scottsdale,” McKim said in a statement, noting that in the longer term, NBN services to other schools will be delivered across the State as the NBN is rolled out.

Aurora will bundle other services as part of its package – such as content filtering of inappropriate material, virus protection and support for department business applications and internal Government systems.

It appears that the Tasmanian Government will attempt to link access to the NBN with a separate initiative funded by the Federal Government and dubbed the Connected – Any Student, Any School (CASAS) project, which comes under the Digital Regions policy. The project, which is being run jointly by the Tasmanian Government as well as Catholic and independent schools, would over time see all Tasmanian schools provided with “cutting edge technologies to take full advantage of the NBN”, according to McKim.

“This exciting project will enable Tasmanian schools across the State to use technologies to offer innovative personalised learning opportunities using practical, hands-on and local, national and global e-learning programs,” he said today. “Further, it will enable all schools and the three organisations the opportunity to share expertise and teaching and training resources across all of Tasmania.”

In terms of the project, McKim said the first phase of the initiative would focus on the setup and provision of “a virtual data centre that features aggregated data from the three education jurisdictions”

“Under the second phase, the Department of Education will utilise the systems and services as part of the new eSchool which will provide online learning opportunities across Tasmanian schools,” he added. “This will include services to rural and remote students who can’t attend a traditional educational facility.”

The third phase, according to the Minister, would cater for increased service delivery across the Kindergarten to Year 12 and Polytechnic areas, allowing for “delivery of post-year 10 curriculum in rural and remote centres which is not currently available and where students currently have to travel and live in major regional centres to continue their education.” Education services to the wider Tasmanian community over the NBN will also be targeted.

Image credit: NBN Co

The Federal Opposition has accused Communications Minister Stephen Conroy of telling “porkies” over the extent to which NBN-connected schools in Tasmania are actually using their new broadband service, more than 12 months after the infrastructure was rolled out in select locations in the state.

In mid-June, the Tasmanian State Government was forced by its own Opposition to concede that no public school in the early stage release towns of Scottsdale, Midway Point and Smithton had actually been connected to the next-generation fibre Internet the project will provide, despite the fact that the physical infrastructure was in place to allow connections to go ahead.

The delay appears to be due to the fact that Internet service to schools is provided through the state whole of government Networking Tasmania contract, which is held by Telstra and is currently being tested in the market. Like other providers, Telstra is currently trialling NBN services in Tasmania.

However, in a statement, the Opposition pointed out that during the launch of the NBN in Kiama in New South Wales last week, Conroy had told assembled media that schools in Tasmania were now using the NBN and “reporting their enthusiasm”.

“The fact is, Senator Conroy’s comments couldn’t be further from the truth,” said Liberal Senator Eric Abetz. “Of the limited number of schools in Tasmania that actually have access to the NBN, only a couple of private schools are willing and able to pay for the expensive NBN connection,” Abetz added. “As far as Government schools are concerned only one, Smithton High, has a limited trial, which is delivering a low speed connection to just a single classroom.”

Conroy has previously answered criticism on the issue by re-affirming the Federal Government’s commitment to bringing the NBN to Austrailan schools, and directing enquiries on the matter to the details of the Networking Tasmania contract.

In June, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

The Federal Government, in addition the Tasmanian State Government, have repetitively touted the ability to bring high-speed broadband to schools as a benefit of the NBN, holding demonstrations of the fibre-optic technology in schools in both Tasmania and other early stage release sites such as Armidale over the past year.

For example, in mid-May, groups of school children in Armidale and Tasmania were filmed in a joint rendition of ‘Waltzing Matilda’ sung over a videoconference link over what appeared to be a NBN link between the two states. School students using next-generation broadband services have also been regularly featured in NBN Co advertisements highlighting the benefits of the NBN to the national education system.

Last week, Abetz accused Conroy of misleading the public.

“Thanks to State Labor’s bungling, none of the other Government Schools in the NBN rollout areas are even able to connect to the service due to State Government contractual obligations with other providers,” the Liberal Senator said.

“This is typical of Labor’s bungling and its over-enthusiastic spin, tell the story sprinkled with half truths, throw in a few porkie-pies and hope the Australian people buy it. Despite Senator Conroy’s comments today, there’s not much “enthusiasm” in Tasmania at all.”

Image credit: Laihiuyeung Ryanne, Creative Commons

blog Looks like not all elements of the media agree with the premise that NBN Co chief Mike Quigley has something to hide with regard to his Alcatel-Lucent days and that the Opposition’s obsession with the issue is on the level. Writing in today’s Financial Review, the newspaper’s chief political correspondent David Crowe sheds light on the farce that was last night’s Senate Estimates hearings:

“There was a definite whiff of McCarthyism in the air … the bribery was real, but nobody suggests Quigley was involved in it. So why keep digging? At some point the exercise stops being a valid line of questioning and turns into a witch-hunt. There’s a good argument that the point has already passed. In any case, it makes sense for the Coalition to stop.”

We couldn’t agree more. It’s time to let this issue lie … before the Coalition MPs and senators involved disgrace their own names any further (Simon Birmingham, we’re thinking of you here), and Australia’s parliament starts earning itself an international reputation that it will become increasingly ashamed of.

Image credit: mullica, Creative Commons

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has described Labor’s plan to invest billions of dollars of equity funding in its flagship National Broadband Network project as “reckless”, noting in his Federal Budget reply speech tonight that the capital could be re-allocated to fund a number of major transport infrastructure and hospital projects.

In the budget papers released on Tuesday night, the Government provided further detail about how it would inject equity funding into the NBN project, allocating $18.2 billion in equity injections to NBN co over the proceeding years up until the 2014-15 financial year. The payments are instalments towards the Government’s total equity contribution to the NBN, which is expected to be $27.5 billion — and about $13 billion will also be spend on the Government’s deal with Telstra.

However, in his Budget reply speech tonight, Abbot said although the Coalition supported better broadband services, it wasn’t “reckless enough to spend upwards of $50 billion on a National Broadband Network without a cost/benefit analysis.”

“That $50 billion could fully fund the construction of the Brisbane rail loop, for instance, the duplication of the Pacific Highway, the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail link, the extension of the M4 to Strathfield, and 20 major new teaching hospitals as well as the $6 billion that the Coalition has proposed to spend on better broadband,” the Opposition Leader stated, referring the unpopular broadband plan his side of politics floated during last year’s Federal Election.

As Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has previously highlighted, Abbott pointed out that broadband speeds of up to 100Mbps were already potentially available to “almost every major business and hospital”, as well as most schools, and, referring to the HFC cable networks offered by Telstra and Optus, through high-speed cable “already running past nearly a third of Australian households”.

The HFC cable networks of Telstra and Optus do run past a large number of premises in major cities like Sydney and Melbourne; however many residents and businesses are unable to get the service connected in practice, due to specific requirements around multi-tenant dwellings such as apartment and office blocks.

“The smart way to improve broadband is not to junk the existing network but to make the most of it,” said Abbott. “It’s to let a competitive market deliver the speeds that people need at an affordable price with government improving infrastructure in the areas where market competition won’t deliver it.”

Abbott also took aim at the Government’s $308.8 million funding reinforcement for a program which is seeing digital set-top boxes installed for pensioners and the disabled as part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to switch Australia over to digital television. A number of electronics retailers, such as Harvey Norman and Kogan Technologies, have stated they believe the amount being spent per household to be above the market rate.

“Government will spend $350 on each pensioner’s set-top box when Gerry Harvey can supply and install them for just $168,” said Abbott. “Perhaps this programme should be called ‘Building the Entertainment Revolution’. Pensioners and self-funded retirees deserve better than this.”

Image credit: Delimiter

blog From the NSW Opposition this morning comes news that it will to create a new centralised IT decision-making body to oversee technology projects and purchasing across the state government, following the upcoming election (which the Opposition is expected to win in a landslide): Writes The Australian:

“NSW opposition financial management spokesman Greg Pearce said the group would comprise key ministers and government executives that provided long-term strategy oversight and monitoring of delivery of major ICT projects, in consultation with IT players.”

My initial reaction to the move is positive. Centralising the governance of technology spend and oversight of major projects is pretty much a no brainer for any government. There are always cost savings to be garnered from signing whole of government purchasing deals with companies like Microsoft, and it’s critically important for the public sector, which has had so many botched IT projects, to make sure large overhauls are kept on track.

We’ve seen good examples in South Australia and in the Federal Government of how centralised IT decision-making bodies can really aid in achieving reform across departments and agencies.

However, in NSW’s case, we have to keep a few things in mind.

Firstly, the State Government already has several peak IT strategy groups … there’s the office of the state CIO, which was recently integrated into the Department of Technology, Services and Administration and had been overseeing the apparently successful People First strategy … as well as the CIO Executive Council, which is made up of tech chiefs from the major departments.

And that’s not even going into any discussion of where the real power in technology projects and purchasing lies in the State Government; with the powerful and largely independent CIOs of the major departments themselves. You wouldn’t expect the CIO of the immense NSW Department of Education and Training to pay that much attention to overarching strategy groups — they report to their own department first, after all.

Thus, the Opposition’s new plan makes all the right noises, but will largely come down to execution rather than ideas. There is tremendous scope to clean up the way the NSW Government does technology. But there is a long and hard road ahead for anybody who wants to embark on that effort; the Opposition will need a series of internal champions (probably new appointments) and strong support from the departmental secretaries as well if it wants to get anywhere.

Image credit: Dane Munro, royalty free

Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, John-Paul Langbroek, is calling on the Federal Government to re-consider the roll-out of the National Broadband Network and to prioritise underground power instead.

From his website, Langbroek stated the NBN needed to be re-evaluated in comparison to a program which could progressively build underground powerlines in cyclone-prone areas, providing infrastructure which – Langbroek claimed – the Coalition had been asking for, for more than seven years. Langbroek’s stand echoed that of Federal Leader of Opposition Tony Abbott who has repeatedly called for the NBN funding to be diverted to the reconstruction efforts. As with Abbott, Langbroek claimed Queenslanders would rather have better electricity than faster Internet.

“You can’t use broadband if you don’t have power,” he said. “The feedback we are getting from people in the north is they would rather have reliable power than broadband”.

Langbroek said the impact of cyclone Yasi had been devastating in North and Far North Queensland, depriving – according to his data – as many as 180,000 people of electricity supply. For this reason, although he acknowledged the costs from deployment of underground power lines would be high, Langbroek said a long-term program would enable areas affected by cyclones to restore more quickly.

“Labor is preparing to spend billions of dollars on a broadband network, but steadfastly refuses to consider a long term program to underground powerlines in cyclone areas,” he said.

Moreover, he added the State Government would now face bills in excess of $500 million from the latest cyclone and that a substantial part of these expenses would go to restoring electricity infrastructure which – he said – wasn’t efficient enough; not only against cyclones but even seasonal weather conditions.

“The reality is that underground power would make the restoration of the system a lot simpler and a lot less dangerous for workers,” he said. “The existing overhead system is not just vulnerable during cyclones, it is vulnerable to summer storms and high winds”.

Langbroek concluded the Coalition had been attacked every time it tried to put forward the deployment of underground power lines, but that time had come for the Labor Government to take the issue more seriously. “It’s time to start planning for the future, not just living for the moment. How many powerlines could have been put underground if the Labor Government had addressed this seven years ago when the LNP first called for action?” he said.

Last week an online poll conducted by research company Your Source appeared to highlight how scrapping or postponing the NBN was Australians’ most preferred means of funding the flood relief program in Queensland.

Image credit: Office of John-Paul Langbroek (Flickr)