Disappointing: Turnbull hasn’t fleshed out his NBN plan

131

opinion In one of the greatest disappointments of Australia’s telecommunications debate this year, Malcolm Turnbull has done virtually nothing to flesh out the details or address criticisms of his rival draft National Broadband Network policy since it was unveiled in August.

On Monday last week, I, and many other Australians, had the chance to catch Turnbull in scintillating form live on national television on the ABC’s excellent Q&A program.

All of the Member for Wentworth’s strengths were on display for the occasion. His humour — poking lightly at “lean as a whippet” Tony Abbott and describing Paul Keating as “the Kim Kardashian of politics”; his charisma — charming the audience with his deflections of the difference between official Coalition policy and his own views and making self-referential jokes to his leather jacket fetish — and his classical liberalism; turning the Qantas’ grounding debacle into an argument for the free markets.

“The obligation of a front bencher in the Westminster System, when addressed with a question like the one you just asked me, is to squirm uncomfortably for a few minutes,” Turnbull told host Tony Jones at one point, to general laughter.

This virtuoso performance — which won the hearts of the audience — culminated in a passionate plea by one audience member to return to leading the Coalition once more; because Turnbull was the leader he wanted to vote for as Prime Minister. “I’ll take that as a compliment or a come on, if not a comment,” Turnbull replied.

After watching and highly enjoying the cut and thrust of Turnbull’s engagement in the Q&A debate, I was reminded once again why Turnbull is one of Australia’s finest political leaders — passionate, authentic, highly educated, erudite and charming. However, one little issue niggled around in the back of my mind once the program had finished. Why, I wondered had Turnbull neglected to take the opportunity offered by the Q&A audience to push an angle — any angle at all — from the portfolio which he purports to hold, that of Communications?

On the night, we heard nothing from the Shadow Communications Minister about the National Broadband Network. Nothing about the digital economy. Nothing about Labor’s Internet filter project. Nothing about fibre to the node, spectrum allocation, broadband pricing, HFC competition in Korea. Nothing at all. And I realised that this has become a bit of a trend with Turnbull recently.

Appearing on Seven’s Sunrise show on the fifth of November, Turnbull discussed politics, climate change and gay marriage. Appearing on ABC News 24 several days later, he discussed the carbon price and the Australia Network tender. The subjects on ABC Radio National several days later were the same. And on Meet the Press on 13 November, again, it was the carbon tax, the Government’s media inquiry, and even problem gambling.

Nowhere in all of these media appearances over the past month was the subject of the NBN discussed.

Now normally this wouldn’t be a problem. Over three-year term in Opposition, Shadow Ministers always get a bit tired of opposition for opposition’s sake. There are quiet periods where they discuss other matters. They must sometimes leave their portfolio issues by the wayside as they pump the broader party line (recently, for Turnbull, the carbon tax). And sometimes, as with the NBN over the past month, there haven’t been that many issues to discuss.

However, what I am disturbed about at the moment is that Turnbull is not using the opportunity offered him by the media at the moment to advance the Coalition’s alternative NBN policy.

In August, the Shadow Communications Minister unveiled a significant new approach from the Coalition in the portfolio. Should it take Government in the 2013 election, he suggested, the Coalition would focus on upgrading Australia’s existing HFC cable networks, separating Telstra, investing in fibre to the node technology and conducting analysis into the future of the existing NBN.
As I wrote at the time, that policy represents a solid liberal alternative to Labor’s big-spending NBN project, and Turnbull had gotten most of the policy planks right.

However, as I also wrote at the time, it faced some significant obstacles. Explaining to the population why a half-complete NBN project should be substantially modified. Bringing Telstra to the table yet again for another mammoth negotiation exercise. And, of course, Turnbull’s own divided loyalties and ambitions beyond the Communications portfolio.

As it happens, I’m not the only one who foresaw these difficulties for Turnbull’s policy. The exact same problems were detailed in a report by Citigroup published last week, which demonstrated just how elongated some of the dates associated with Turnbull’s policy could be. Completing a cost/benefit analysis by 2014? Completing negotiations with Telstra by the start of 2016? Implementing Telstra’s separation by the end of 2018?

Frankly, by that stage, the existing NBN project would already have been almost completed.

After my initial burst of enthusiasm for Turnbull’s plan, the Shadow Communications Minister’s behaviour over the succeeding months — in which he has done virtually nothing to address its criticism or expound its merits in public — has done much to sour me on it. Watching Turnbull in action in that period, I often find it hard to believe that he has the energy and determination to see his rival proposal through, should he be appointed Communications Minister in a Coalition Government.

What lies at the heart of this issue is one problem: Turnbull is, frankly, not humble enough to settle for the task of reforming Australia’s telecommunications sector over the better part of the next decade.

Unlike Conroy, he is a man with a much greater vision and ambition than that. He has very diverse policy interests, a widespread popularity and a charisma which constantly leads onlookers to describe him as “a statesman”. Turnbull, it is apparent to everyone, is destined for greater things than debating National Broadband Network policy over and over again.

And yet, I wonder if there is a question the Member for Wentworth might ask himself. That question might be something like: What is it that Australia needs most right now? Is it a stable, well-argued and coherent Coalition telecommunications policy which could be enacted from 2013 with a stable and determined Communications Minister?

Or does Australia need a former Opposition Leader, who constantly seems on the verge of greater things, debating almost anything but the policy he has envisioned in his own Shadow Ministry?

I know which one of the two I would prefer.

131 COMMENTS

  1. Honestly, Renai LeMay , your extreme bias in your blog is really giving me the shits. Integrity means reporting objectively and basing your opinions on the merit of any policy, not what YOU would like done to your postcode. Also your lack of knowledge or experience in the Telecoms industry makes the majority of your views in your articles pedestrian

      • An opinion peice is potentially biased based on opinion?

        Oh please – if you want unashamed boldface biased bullshit presented as a pretty bow, go read The Australia.

        I for one welcome this LeMayo (heh) with his actual comment with an actual position. Makes a refreshing change. ;)

        • I find it highly ironic that sumyngguy appears to be slamming Renai on his journalistic ethics by insinuating that he is biased. Yet, he doesn’t list a single example or instance of this supposed bias, he just makes an overall generalization. He then has the gaul to criticize Renai’s supposed “lack of knowledge”, but is unable to say what it is that Renai was mistaken with…
          This is the very definition of a troll…

    • hahahahaha no one is forcing you to read Renai’s stuff. Besides, this particular article is an Opinion piece. It is Renai’s view which is based on what he knows. He can write what ever he wants, how ever he wants in an opinion piece.

    • Bias??? From someone who says we should let the big T build the FTTN and screw us consumers with high prices because guess what? It has the infrastructure monopoly. Ohh and it retails and wholesales at the same time, and favours it’s retail arm over other access seekers.

      You saying Renai “lack of knowledge or experience”, from your comments so far, it looks like you’re the one who lacks everything.

      • Althrough I have been telling over Sumguy here for his assumptions, he has made a few valid points.

        So, if you’re going to try and counter his arguments you do well to check your assumptions. Your assumption here is that the FTTN policy that is finally placed on the table by Mr Turnbull will not address the issues that lead up to the current problem with have with Telstra taking advantage of their monopoly position, to which the most obvious and often suggested solution is Structural Separation.

        • Well the most obvious problems with Telstra structural separation is it doesn’t have to be completed until 2018, that’s a hell of a lot of Government changing probable Communications turmoil in the meantime within that timeline and also the minor matter of ACCC approval.

  2. The current liberal NBN policy risks the biggest things the NBN promises- the level playing field. They are set to renegotiate the agreement with Telstra (an agreement that is borderline in giving too much to Telstra already) which is likely to give way to Telstra on key points like control of access.

    The single biggest issue with telecommunications competition in Australia is Telstra’s restrictions (price & otherwise) on access to things they promised to give access to, like ducts, TEBA & ULL. The most important outcome of the NBN is removing Telstra’s ability to unfairly control these sorts of key components.

  3. Not sure why you make the claim he is destined for greater things?

    Turnbull is a very intelligent guy, but his stint at the wheel as opposition leader was just atrocious.

    To refresh your memory, try googling Godwin Grech, and also Turnbull’s standing in the polls when dumped. He had a 60% disapproval rating!

    Dennis Shanahan, Peter Hartcher, Glenn Milne, Phil Coorey, Michelle Grattan, journalists from every major outlet (The Oz, Age and SMH) from all sides of the political fence were publishing articles lambasting his political performance.

    I’m surprised that your memory is so short Renai. The guy is a fantastic lawyer and investment banker, but he didn’t seem to have the political nous to cut it when given the chance.

    • To refresh your memory, he was in opposition to Kevin Rudd who had toppled Australia’s second longest serving prime minister. The honeymoon period from 07 is long gone, and I think Turnbull’s popularity could be extremely valuable against Gillard.

      • Agreed, as a non partisan progressive, I could live with Turnbull as Prime Minister.. the idea of Tony Abbott leading this country makes me want to leave!

  4. The Coalition dont have any broadband policy because Abbott wont spend the money necessary to create one. So the outcome of a Coalition government will be to get screwed by Telstra FTTN with high port prices and high AGVC prices – which are much higher than the NBNCo prices.

    Telstra FTTN = higher prices, lower speeds and less coverage

    • Abbott doesn tunderstand that new fangled internet thingy. Can hardly expect him to know what the best policy outcome is going to be. The Libs have proven over their previous 13 year reign that the dont do comms well. They had more starts than Phar Lap in trying new policies, and failed in all of them. They had no vision, and continue to show they still have no vision. They learned absolutely zero from their previous failures. This is borne out well in Turnbull now trying to propose a policy that is largely based on a plan from 2005. Yes, 6 years old. Thats some forward thinking right there for you!

      • Well the Coalition could certainly learn from the 2007 election in which the Rudd Labor Government won, what you do is you go into the election telling voters this is our published Communications Policy for you to vote on then wait till you are elected then change your policy totally to something else.

    • “So the outcome of a Coalition government will be to get screwed by Telstra FTTN with high port prices and high AGVC prices – which are much higher than the NBNCo prices.”

      Who says it is going to be an all Telstra FTTN?

      “Telstra FTTN = higher prices, lower speeds and less coverage”

      Telstra pricing today and in the future is overseen by the ACCC, as is NBN Co pricing, I have not read that the Coalition is disbanding the ACCC post 2013 have you?

  5. If Turnbull expects to be taken seriously, he should be getting his CBA done BEFORE the election. That is when it will actually be valuable to voters. Turnbull must come to the election with a costed policy that addresses the 2 main things that will affect voters, and that he has been deriding the NBN on. Those 2 things are the actual cost of the build of his proposal (which of course cant be decided until a CBA has been done), and how much custoemrs will pay on his version of the NBN. We are seeing that the current NBN is providing equivalent or better pricing to current ADSL2 plans, with a lot more benfits, contrary to what Turnbull tried to tell us. He needs to explain how his plan will provide a better option to the current NBN, given that the reasons he has been using to criticise the NBN keep getting shot down. Its making his largely FTTN model (he has picked his winner despite what the Productivity Commission might say) look less and less attractive every day. I will be able to get an NBN FTTH connection at much cheaper rates than I pay on copper today. Why would I want FTTN?

    • I actually raised this with Malcolm during the fiesty Twitter debate between himself and Mark Pesce – which steadily grew to include myself and a number of other people. He responded:

      https://twitter.com/#!/TurnbullMalcolm/status/130215975902642176

      “we will do one as soon as we get into Gvt. Can’t get PC to do one otherwise”

      …as if the Productivity Commission was the only organisation in Australia with the ability to do a CBA. He complains bitterly – (with some justification) – that the government won’t do one, then hides behind a weak generalisation to not do one himself.

      • Labor has been in power since 2007, so they have had access to the Productivity Commission all that time to produce a NBN CBA.

        To call Turnbull weak because he has not produced a CBA because he is not the Communications Minister with access to that Commission is rich., so does that make Conroy as weak or weaker?

        • Of course, you missed the point.

          The point is the Productivity Commission is not the only organisation in existence that can perform a cost benefits analysis, and if Malcolm had any REAL balls over this, he’d get one done and “prove” his point.

          Hiding behind “only the government can use the Productivity Commission, wah wah wah wah” is weak as piss.

          • @Micheal Wyres

            No I didn’t miss the point at all because as you well know the Productivity Commission is:

            “the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues. Its role, expressed simply, is to help governments make better policies in the long term interest of the Australian community….”

            http://www.pc.gov.au/

            Their assessment of the Labor NBN or the Coalition NBN is what counts, yes the Coalition could get a CBA elsewhere but within hours of release they would be immediately accused of getting their Liberal mates to do the report.

            The point is Labor has been in power since 2007 and could have asked the commission to prepare a NBN CBA, but of course you only commission reports when you are 100% sure of the outcome.

            This doesn’t indicate to Labor this would happen.

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/communications-minister-responds-to-productivity-commission-concerns-about-nbn/story-fn59niix-1226175631234

          • Honestly, which part of “the PC is not the only organisation in Australia that can perform a CBA” are you too stupid to understand?

            I won’t pander to your trolling any further on this subject.

          • You do realize that if the Liberal government was to get a 3rd party to do the assessment, they would have to spend millions of the parties own funds when doing so?

            When you are in opposition, you do not have as much funding (nor access to the PC, as Alain pointed out) its not realistic, at all, for the opposition to spend so much money making such a comprehensive report (as it will be), especially since the report can be deemed inept due to what ends up happening with NBNCo

            All of these people (including yourself Michael), that are zealots of the NBN, are expecting an opposition party to do something that has historically never been done. If the Labor party was in the same position, you would not be saying the same thing, in fact you would be saying the opposite. Simply put, the opposition party does not have the funds, nor access to government departments, to do such a policy review, until the government enters caretaker mode (and that gives them access to Treasury, not the PC)

          • So what? What’s wrong with showing a little leadership?

            You can’t jump up and down like a whiny little bitch about how Conroy won’t do one – (which he probably should/undoubtedly could) – and then find excuses for not doing one yourself?

            It’s hypocritical.

          • Actually you can because

            1. Conroy has access to the PC
            2. Conroy has the funding to do such a report with a 3rd party (which they did with KPMG and the business plan, which iirc cost 30 million dollars)

            The coalition government, because they are in opposition, has neither access to #1 or #2, so unless you are proposing the Liberal opposition to blow their budget to “show some leadership”, I would recommend you get a reality (and history) check before sprouting such uneducated gospels

            There are valid criticisms of the oppositions position in telecommunications, but this definitely is not one of them. NBN zealots however will go to any length necessary to find something wrong with the Liberal position.

          • Clearly, you don’t know what “the PC is not the only organisation in Australia that can perform a CBA” means either.

            As for funding, you seem to think that the Coalition has no access to any kind of funding.

            Seriously, pull your head out of the sand and enjoy the astro-turf.

          • They don’t have access to that funding, just as Labor doesn’t have access to that funding if they are in opposition

            Please show me an example, in history, when either party, when in opposition, has spent that mucih on a report (which will inevitably end up being redundant for reasons stated earlier)

            As I said earlier, this is just tripe, and you don’t know what you are talking about. You are barking up the wrong street regarding this criticism, try another one

          • @Micheal Wyres

            There is one key point that you have deliberately skirted around, why doesn’t Conroy commission a CBA from the Productivity Commission?

            If he doesn’t and he has not indicated he ever will how is Turnbull not doing one using Coalition funds deemed worse? – of course the answer is being a one-eyed pro-NBN supporter no matter what Labor does it always has to be the much lesser evil of anything the Coalition does.

          • I haven’t skirted it at all – (clearly you’ve been skimming my posts again) – and yes, Conroy should…

            …but we are talking about Turnbull doing one or not…don’t change the subject…

          • @Micheal Wyres

            Turnbull commissions a CBA if and when he gets into power as Comms Minister, that’s more than acceptable surely because it will still be 6 years in front of any Labor CBA post their election win in 2007 by 2013.

          • I’m sorry Michael, but the only excuse is the one that you are pulling out of your rear end as an expalanation of why a party in opposition should spends millions of their funding in commisioning a report which will b most likely deemed useless because of a change in circumstances

            If you haven’t gotten the hint already, a CBA has already been commissioned. It is now pointless, because that CBA took into account NBN having to compete against Telstra (since doing a deal with Telstra wasn’t considered at that point in time)

            Case in point, even IF, the Liberals had the money, it would still be an incredibly stupid idea, and will remain a poor excuse for NBN proponents to throw around

            Again, I would like you to cite an example, in history, of a political party in opposition spending the same relative amount of money commissioning such a report 2 years prior to an announced election

          • What a complete load of horseshit…

            (a) — either the “Turnbull Plan” is the duck’s guts and will catapult Australia into a magnificent technological future. If that is the case, the Lib’s – (given their vehement demands for a CBA on the NBN) – should have have no problem demonstrating that by doing one of their own. It would be money well spent.

            (b) — or Turnbull knows that it doesn’t stack up, and doesn’t need/want the scrutiny to upset his little apple cart. He complained that Citi didn’t consult him on their report – what’s the problem? A completely independent report – (like what he wants on the NBN) – that he didn’t have to pay for, an he still complains.

            The only thing this whole thread proves is that the rules for accessing the Productivity Commission needs to be reviewed.

            If Malcolm wants some credibility on this, he needs to stop trying to avoid taking the actions that he himself demands of the NBN policy. He could afford it himself, for crying out loud.

            If they are so confident they are getting into government, lets organise a deal for the money to be paid back once they ascend to the throne.

          • @Micheal Wyres

            So when you read the Labor Party CBA on their Communications Policy in 2005 what did it say?

          • Im sorry michael, but right now you are sounding like a desperate teenager trying to prove a point which you really shouldn’t be doing.

            While you are at it, why don’t you claim that Malcom should do a backdoor deal with the Labor government just for the CBA that the liberal opposition wants to be done.

            Or hell, lets go one step further and suggest coercion

            Your logic is the same maniacy of the NBN proponents that want 100% fiber everywhere. Yes its theoretically possible, just as pigs can fly, but it would realistically never, ever, ever, happen

          • @ Micheal Wyres
            Absolutely correct!! Turnbull is spinning a big load of horseshit. Its all about political pointscroing and grandstanding, and not about determining the best solution for voters. If he were really serious about looking after the voters he would do his precious CBA BEFORE the election.
            All this obfuscation about Labor not doing it is horseshit too. Rightly or wrongly, Conroy never promised one, so trying to hold him to account on it is just stupid. Turnbull on the other hand has promised one from the outset, but it clearly a CBA on his terms and on his timeframe, which is not a true independent CBA at all. Its pointless doing it the way he is suggesting.
            I still await alain and deteegos presentation of CBAs from FTTH rollouts in the rest of the world. If they are so easy, and so prolific, asTurnbull insinuates, its odd they are taking so long to produce them. The other real kicker though is why they havent answered why Turnbull cant hire one of these experts to produce a CBA right now. They tick all the boxes. They have experiences costing such projects, they are independent of Australian politics. Why cant one of those experts be used? Where are all these FTTH CBAs?
            (*waits for the tired old schoolyard *point* look over there reply, instead of anything of substance that addresses the actual question.*)

          • @deteEGO

            You can say it as many times as you like, but just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. I have an opinion. Like it or lump it. I don’t presume to demand that my opinion is correct, as you might demand that yours is considered correct by all who listen, and demand that everyone who listens shares it.

            I happen to believe that you have an ill-informed underdeveloped knowledge of this field. That may or may not be correct, but it is still my opinion. It is other people’s opinions that you have always shown to have a lot of problem with.

            Get over it. Trying to denigrate my opinion with a personal slur is the REAL sign of lack of maturity.

            Further, if Malcolm can’t stand a little criticism of his plan from people actually in the industry, that’s just a load of bad luck.

          • Just like your pathetic embarrassment on your so called ‘physics’ of fiber technology, you are wrong. This is not an opinion, you simply do not know what you are talking about, playing the punter and spreading stuff off the top of your head and basically sprouting nonsense because you Turnbull happens to hold a position contrary to what you strongly believe in

            In the history of Australian politics, there has never been an opposition able to commission a report to the Productivity Commission

            EVER

            Making it even more impossible (if such a thing exists), is the Labor government steadfastly refuses to do a CBA, so there is no bipartisan support for the matter. Having oppositions trying to implement their policies when they are not actually in government is a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources, hence its not done

            You are the one that needs to remotely prove that what you are saying (either forcing the Labor government to do a PC or Liberal opposition pulling enough funds out of their magic hats to do their own) is feasible. Of course, the answer is its not, it historically has never been done and it never will be.

            The reality is, Turnbull is not, remotely, in any position, able to conduct a CBA until Liberals form government (unless someone is feeling generous and wants to hand him 30 or so million dollars)

            @Truth
            http://203.180.140.4/iicp/chousakenkyu/seika/pdf/2006-05.pdf
            There is a CBA commissioned by the private telecommunications company in japan, NTT. That is just one example, of course how complex a CBA depends on how many factors are put into it

          • @ deteego
            “There is a CBA commissioned by the private telecommunications company in japan, NTT. ”
            You will find thats only half a CBA. When it came down to it, they found it was too hard to do a full CBA. I am looking for full CBAs, you know, the type Turnbull is talking about!
            The thing that is seriously funny about what you quoted was that it is a CBA commissioned by a private telco. They didnt need a PC to do it. Why cant Turnbull use the same “experts” NTT used to produce his CBA? He said to Conroy he should use an independent body SUCH AS the PC. It would seem the crwod NTT used would fit the bill.

            Your claim that Turnbull cant afford a CBA is rubbish too. If he really wanted, to he could get it done, just as the opposition does with any other prepare, they hire consultants, and pay to have it done. Hell, they coud hire Henry Ergas, becuase he said it will only take 3 days to do!
            “A full cost-benefit analysis of the Government’s $43 billion National Broadband Network (NBN) would take just three days to complete, according to economic consultants.” http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/348897/nbn_cost-benefit_analysis_would_take_just_three_days_economist_/
            Ergas also says in that article that KPMG is also qualified to do a CBA. The question remains. Why does it HAVE TO be done by the PC AFTER the election?

            “That is just one example, of course how complex a CBA depends on how many factors are put into it” OK. So thats one example of half a CBA. You shold have no trouble providing links to actual complete ones, and who prepared them?

          • There is nothing stopping him from getting a CBA done from a personal company, but as I said it costs money, and for a reference the business plan done by KPMG cost 30 million dollars. IT likely cost NTT a lot of money to do CBA’s as well, its just that they wouldn’t publish the cost (since they are a private company, and it was done internally)

            In any case, the best organization to do a CBA is the PC, since they are bipartisan (its really easy to commission a CBA from a company to say what you want it to say). Tunrbull simply put cannot do this

            You are honestly barking up the wrong alley with this, its starting to get tiresome

          • “There is nothing stopping him from getting a CBA done from a personal company, but as I said it costs money” Yep, no one denies it costs money. The fact remains though that Oppositions cost other policies before they get into govt which costs money. Why is this one any different? The oppostions bank balance isnt $0 until they get into office. Thats a ridiculous assertion.

            “In any case, the best organization to do a CBA is the PC, since they are bipartisan (its really easy to commission a CBA from a company to say what you want it to say). ” Turnbull can set the terms of reference for the PC to get the answers he wants too. The PC is not the best organization, as they dont have specific skills in communications. They have a much broader range of areas they need to look at, and their employee base reflects that. Even Turnbull said someone SUCH AS the PC, not sdpecifically the PC. He recognises there are others that can do it, well until he is asked to do his own that is! ROFL
            The best organization would be one who specialises in comms and is not involved in Australian politics. i.e. one of the overseas expert that other companies have used, you know, the ones that are doing all those othercomplete CBAs around the world. How are the links to those coming along by the way?

            Bottom line is if Turnbull were truly serious about it, he could make it happen.

            “You are honestly barking up the wrong alley with this, its starting to get tiresome” Its only getting tiresome because the question is too awkward for you to provide a believable answer. I cant help that.

          • “Yep, no one denies it costs money. The fact remains though that Oppositions cost other policies before they get into govt which costs money. Why is this one any different? The oppostions bank balance isnt $0 until they get into office. Thats a ridiculous assertion.”

            Yes, and this happens when the government enters caretaker mode, which is 6 months before an announced election, because it is at this point in time the opposition has access to both funding and government departments such as the PC, Treasury etc etc

          • I know I will be accused of trolling here…

            But many moons ago at ZD Michael, our friend here argued for hours that the upper house (Senate) was the place where the numbers to form government come from…

            It didn’t matter how many posters, including me explained it to him, with URLS etc (and regardless of how nicely and respectful they did so too) he snapped back and tried to turn it all around, as he has done here at you…

            He has never rescinded that claim or even admitted, that like everyone does at times, he simply made a mistake.

            I think it’s sad for anyone to believe that they and their blind political beliefs are infallible.

          • No, wrong again. You said:

            “this happens when the government enters caretaker mode, which is 6 months before an announced election”

            What if Gillard goes off to see the GG tomorrow and calls an election for 4 weeks from now? How do we get that 6 months you’re talking about?

            Dig that hole deeper pal!

          • Also you can just as easily tell Conroy to show “some leadership” and do a CBA on his own policy, and the Labor party have no legitimate excuse against that (since they are in government). In fact the only reason the Labor party gave for not doing the CBA is that coalition would use the CBA against the NBN

          • Yes another expensive document for you guys to simply refer to as “‘bogus”, jsut as one of your FUD brothers did yesterday… Riiiiggght!

          • @ deteego
            Perhaps you should go and visit the Wizard of Oz and see if you can get a brain for those strawmen you keep putting up.
            Who has been saying fibre should go to 100%? And more importantly, what has that got to do with Turnbull not providing a decent policy or a CBA?
            What has backdoor deal conspiracy theories got to do with anything? More strawmen. Malcolm doesnt need the PC to do a CBA. As pointed out before, there are many more experts in the field avaialble. Indeed, there are many more experts who specifically deal with comms and would be better qualified than the PC to do the CBA. Why isnt Turnbull availing himself of their services as opposed to hiding behind the “cant do it till in govt claims”. They seem to be able to analyse and cost other policies before elections. Why is comms suddenly any different?
            Michaels logic makes perfect sense, and the fact that the best that can be presented against it is obfuscation and strawmen shows that its is a tad awkward for even the most strident Lib supporters to justify.

          • Turnbull doesn’t ever need to do a CBA because as you stated elsewhere a Labor CBA is a moot point because it never is going to happen, so in that case that’s two moot points we don’t have ever have to worry about.

          • “Turnbull doesn’t ever need to do a CBA”

            He does if he does not want to be considered a hypocrite…

          • The PC is bipartisan, thats why. Its also a government agency specifically designed for government policies. You are just dancing around the bushes now

          • “Honestly, which part of “the PC is not the only organisation in Australia that can perform a CBA” are you too stupid to understand?” Its amazing isnt it!
            Analysts like Henry Ergas, who is more than friendly to the Libs cause, offered to do a CBA long ago, after his intial effort was soundly disproven. Why cant the Libs engage him to provide them with the answers they want,….er… I mean… do a CBA ;)

          • A CBA was done by Henry Argas, it however is now redundant because the original NBN

            1. Had speeds only up to 100mbit
            2. No deal with Telstra

            Which proves my point earlier, doing a CBA at this point in time is stupid because things change, making the CBA redundant (and forcing you to do another one), which just equates to a waste of money

            Plus when the CBA by Henry argas was released, many NBN proponents immediately dismissed the report as the Liberal party just paying someone to support their position (exact same thing that people say with regards to Labor and KPMG). Whole point of the PC is its meant to be (theoretically) bipartisan

          • @The Truth

            “Analysts like Henry Ergas, who is more than friendly to the Libs cause, offered to do a CBA long ago”

            You have answered you own question and also reinforced the point I as making to Wyres above, if anyone other than the Productivity Commission did a coalition CBA it would be howled down as irrelevant because it would be accused as being done by Liberal sympathizers.

            The Labor Party could get one from the Productivity Commission also but the outcome might not be as friendly as they hope ,as per my link on the PC statement about the NBN above.

            Labor solution? – don’t ask for one – problem solved

          • Interesting that I have been asking all along if we can find anyone who is not politically motivated to do so, who can actually mount rational opposition to the NBN.

            Fast forward to today and are the usual supects here, are now really showing those true colours…

            We know boys, it’s not the NBN you hate it’s the political stripes of it’s originator…

          • “You have answered you own question and also reinforced the point I as making to Wyres above, if anyone other than the Productivity Commission did a coalition CBA it would be howled down as irrelevant because it would be accused as being done by Liberal sympathizers.” No I have done nothing of the sort, you are still missing the point. The PC arent going to provide a definitve answer that no-one will question. The outcome will be what Turnbull wants it to be. You said it yourself.
            “but of course you only commission reports when you are 100% sure of the outcome.”
            This is the whole issue with a CBA by anyone on this sort of politcal project. IOts a waste of time because its never going to provide an answer that will satisfy people. Show me anywhere in the world that have successfully produced a full CBA for a fibre to the home project? There are plenty of examples of countries that have tried and found it too hard, or didnt try at all. I am curious though, seeing as you hold out so much faith in it, which countries CBA can we look at for guidance? Further to that, what is stopping Turnbull from hiring their experts analysts to do his CBA? These guys would be the best credentialled for this type of project, AND arent tainted by Australian political allegiance. I await numerous examples, and the explanation as to why Turnbull isnt getting experts on the job….. this should be good ;)

          • NBN is in reality a non issue.

            It was all about a hung parliament and the three country bumpkin independents who wants to screw us over and put Australia into massive debt just so their electorates can get fibre broadband which even today surpasses even that of technology leaders in europe, USA and Asia. Do you realise how ludicrus it is to be rollout of fibre optic (premium) high speed services to the bush?

            Wth any luck, the Liberal will win the next election, I dont consider myself a political and have no allegiences, my view is that the Australia is just wasting money and time on a policy that has no economic feasibility. That you cannot do what Labor wants in any rational or economical way.

            Malcolm is as ive stated previously in a position where he has no choice but the dance to the tune. He cannot offer a reasonable alternative, eg. FTTN alliance with Telstra, or reinvent OPEL. No, the ante has been upped to $43Bn, and NBNCo and Labor put enough money into the PR campaign to convince people that it is viable and is now ingrained into the consciousness. However, if you step outside these geekvirgin blogs set up by what seems to be mostly nerds from Whirlpool who have no lives and devote most of their time to sitting behind a PC, then sure it seems like there is a lot of support for the NBN, but in reality, people want things like roads, hospitals and transport, and that $43Bn could go a long way in achieving these more practical goals.

            So, the main problem here is that it is not that the public support the NBN and its $43Bn white elephant ideal, it is that any policy that does not match up to fibre can be easily shot down as being ‘inferior’ despite not being so, and being the ‘right’ technology and avoid the disaster scenario, but it is not strategic to do so, so Malcolm has sought an even handed response and proposed a solution that would cost significantly less without looking inferior and make a compromise.

            But there are 2 outcomes. If Labor wins, the NBN will die anyway because it would never be built, it cannot be done, the NBN gets canned but Labor has time in power to recover. Or, Liberals win, and they will can Labors NBN policy, and put in a cheap OPEL-esque solution.

            It all comes down to engineering, knowing your facts, putting aside geek fantasies and political selfishness, it is looking at the practicalities and economics of it, fibre to the bush, haha joke. Just give it time, Im right.

          • @someyngguy, thanks for the frank admission (although it was abundantly clear)…

            It’s not about the NBN at all, for you, it’s about the politics…

            Sad… but in your case, true!

    • @Truth

      “If Turnbull expects to be taken seriously, he should be getting his CBA done BEFORE the election.”

      You mean just like the Labor CBA on the NBN, you know the one we are still waiting on while the NBN is being rolled out anyway, or do you mean like the NBN Co Business Plan (still not a CBA) that was published AFTER the 2010 election, or do you mean like the draft NBN SAU yet to be approved by the ACCC which states the NBN rollout faces ‘demand uncertainty’?

      “We are seeing that the current NBN is providing equivalent or better pricing to current ADSL2 plans, with a lot more benfits, contrary to what Turnbull tried to tell us.”

      No we are not, depends how hard you want to look, perhaps you can tell me all about ‘voice only ‘ plans under the NBN?

      ” He needs to explain how his plan will provide a better option to the current NBN,”

      Well he really doesn’t have to do that until early 2013, not only that they change their minds after the election like Labor did in 2007, why do you care about Coalition policy in 2011, are you going to the polling booth this Saturday?

      • “You mean just like the Labor…..”
        Way to miss the point. Its not about what Labor has or hasnt done, and its not about what I think should be done (which varies greatly from what you think I think). The simple fact is that Turnbull has whinged since he became minster about the govt not doing a CBA to determine the most cost effective solution for voters, and yet Turnbull is doing exactly what he is lambasting Labor about. He should be doing his CBA to develop his policy, and therefore the voters can be fully informed BEFORE they vote. This is the whole point of doing a CBA after all. Sadly, the double standards and hypocrisy of Turnbulls actions are lost on some here. They are quick to point the finger at Labor, and happy to excuse their beloved Liberal Party and its minister. This is of course ignoring the fact that Turnbulls CBA is going to be pointless because he has already picked his winning technlogy, and wont allow FTTH to be the major part of the solution, even if the Productivity Commission says it should be. It is also ignoring the fact that Turnbull could get many expert or consultants to do a CBA for him. It doesnt have to be done by the PC. Labor have offered up the PC services if Turnbull needs them though. Funny how he shooses not to avail himself of any of those services for his all important CBA. Why is that do you think? Afraid of an awkward answer?

        “No we are not, depends how hard you want to look” HAHHA. Yes, point taken. I was looking with my eyes open. Others here donrt seem to be able to manage that.

        “perhaps you can tell me all about ‘voice only ‘ plans under the NBN?” Nope, I cant because they havent been released yet. Thats that whole eyes open thing I was just talking about. I can tell you though that both NBN Co and Telstra have said repeatedly that voice only plans will be provided at whoelsale pricing that should not cause retail prices to rise.

        e.g.From as recently as about 2 weeks ago
        “In other words, that’s what the type of services a retailer would have to provide now. I should add there is a special circumstance in which some people get a pensioner discount, which means their prices are even below that $22, which is a bottom price. We have allowed for that in the deal that we have done with Telstra. So prices, voice prices, voice-only prices should not increase.” http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3346024.htm

        Keep clinging to that voice only straw, but I think you will find that as with the other arguments the anti-NBNers raise, it will soon be proven irrelevant as well.

        ”Well he really doesn’t have to do that until early 2013, not only that they change their minds after the election like Labor did in 2007, why do you care about Coalition policy in 2011″
        Its funny isnt it how you hold one party up to certain standards and compeltely forget them when it comes to the other. As I showed about, the Labor party had their policy out 18 months before it went to an election. This gave plenty of time for analysis and commentary. The Libs put theirs out barely a week before the election to avoid the same scrutiny. You are more than happy for that situation to repeat, which is quite amazing given the level of accountability you expect from the Labor Party. Bottom line is Turnbull has said the CBA is the be-all and end all. He should be following through and actually doing one so voters can make an informed decision, not just vote on a vague promise of some vapour ware infrastructure.

        • @Truth

          “Way to miss the point. Its not about what Labor has or hasnt done”

          Well it is actually, if you moan about the Coalition not doing a CBA how come it’s a lesser evil for Labor not to have done a CBA even when they have been in power for four years with full access to the Productivity Commission?

          “The simple fact is that Turnbull has whinged since he became minster about the govt not doing a CBA to determine the most cost effective solution for voters,”

          Correct.

          ” and yet Turnbull is doing exactly what he is lambasting Labor about.”

          No he is not ‘doing exactly’ that, if it was assuming a Coalition win in 2013 and it was now 2017 then he commissioned a Coalition CBA, that in terms of timeline is ‘doing exactly what he is lambasting Labor about’.

          Labor got to power in 2007 we are still waiting on a CBA in 2011, they have no intention of producing a CBA so what we do as a diversion is concentrate on the Coalition instead and hope no one notices the Labor stuff, even though the Coalitions first chance of being in power is two years away.

          You need to take the pro-NBN rose coloured glasses off, and stop equating what the Coalition is doing re a CBA as being exactly what Labor is/has been doing, it doesn’t even come close.

          ” He should be doing his CBA to develop his policy,”

          No he shouldn’t, unless you say the Labor NBN Policy is well and truly underdeveloped without a CBA?

          “and therefore the voters can be fully informed BEFORE they vote.”

          Oh you mean like the 2007 election when Labor changed their minds completely on BB Policy after they won or do you mean the NBN Co Business Plan that came out after the 2010 election, so all those voters were fully informed BEFORE they voted?

          ” This is of course ignoring the fact that Turnbulls CBA is going to be pointless because he has already picked his winning technlogy,”

          You mean like Labor and 93% FTTH?

          ” and wont allow FTTH to be the major part of the solution, even if the Productivity Commission says it should be.”

          How do you know he will ignore Productivity Commission findings?

          . “Labor have offered up the PC services if Turnbull needs them though.”

          Where have they done this?

          “Funny how he shooses not to avail himself of any of those services for his all important CBA. Why is that do you think? Afraid of an awkward answer?”

          Funny how Labor doesn’t avail themselves either, afraid of awkward answer? – well we know the answer to that already because they already got one or two awkward responses from the Productivity Commission.

          “e.g.From as recently as about 2 weeks ago
          “In other words, that’s what the type of services a retailer would have to provide now. I should add there is a special circumstance in which some people get a pensioner discount, which means their prices are even below that $22, which is a bottom price. We have allowed for that in the deal that we have done with Telstra. So prices, voice prices, voice-only prices should not increase.”

          Yes but everyone can get Telstra Homeline Budget at RETAIL $22.95 not just a pensioner, I am not sure what he means by ‘the deal that we have done with Telstra,’ Telstra ( BigPond) will be only one of many ISP’s offering NBN BB/Voice Plans, interesting how a ‘Telstra only voice product’ would work in that cheapest price scenario – do you know how it works exactly as a product mix from non Telstra ISP’s?

          “Keep clinging to that voice only straw”

          It’s not a straw, it’s only stating the situation as it is today, if a voice only retail product hung off the UNI-V port is marketed by all ISP’s for $22.95 or less that’s fine.

          “Its funny isnt it how you hold one party up to certain standards and compeltely forget them when it comes to the other. As I showed about, the Labor party had their policy out 18 months before it went to an election”

          Which election, the 2007 one where Labor changed their minds after the election or the 2010 one where the NBN Co Business Plan with all the crucial plan costings came out after the election?

          • ” if a voice only retail product hung off the UNI-V port is marketed by all ISP’s for $22.95 or less that’s fine.”

            I rang Telstra this afternoon after talking to iPrimus this morning about their UNI-V $24.95 plan (yes, definitely UNI-V, made sure it wasn’t VOIP be questioning them in many ways. Normal existing phone plugged into the phone port and no BB required)

            Well, I talked to Telstra about the concerns of my “elderly pensioner mother who lives in Bacus Marsh”. When the person couldn’t answer my questions they put me through to the NBN department. Apparently my “mother” will be getting a letter of offer from Telstra in 1 and a half weeks to be moved onto fibre. She will not need to have broadband and she can just use her existing phone and plug it in the UNI-V port. When I raised concerns on pricing, her being a pensioner on homeline budget, he said he couldn’t give me exact prices as they were still in negotiation but was sure they would be pretty much the same cost for her.

          • @Noddy

            “I rang Telstra this afternoon after talking to iPrimus this morning about their UNI-V $24.95 plan (yes, definitely UNI-V, made sure it wasn’t VOIP be questioning them in many ways. Normal existing phone plugged into the phone port and no BB required”

            Sorry Noddy I am going to have to drive the proverbial truck through that:

            ‘Note: Voice only plan currently not available without an iPrimus Broadband service on the NBN Network’

            http://www.iprimus.com.au/PrimusWeb/HomeSolutions/FibretotheHome/

            ” When I raised concerns on pricing, her being a pensioner on homeline budget, he said he couldn’t give me exact prices as they were still in negotiation but was sure they would be pretty much the same cost for her.”

            So until he says they will be ‘exactly the same cost’ to her it is still a open question is it not?

          • Yes, it would be nice to know how they are offering it as a comercial product when Internode and Telstra are still haven’t finalised their own plans. Maybe they are just making a massive guess and will wear any errors until the contract period is up and they can adjust the pricing. Shouldn’t be too expensive at this stage of the game.

            Well then, looks like the person I talked to at iPrimus was a lying &$%*. I never spotted that Note. I did make it perfectly clear many times that no BB was needed and asked numerous times if the plan was available stand alone and that it was connected to fibre and not VOIP, etc. I wanted to be damn sure that they weren’t twisting the truth. Looks like they just flat out lied.

            Oh, I agree the question is still open on the price. After being spun BS by the iPrimus rep how could I give credit to the Telstra rep saying they will be equivalent. Seems though it is getting close to a time where the plans will start appearing. Will just have to wait and see.

          • @Noddy

            The other point that makes me suspect that it is VoIP is that if you look at the Primus NBN Broadband and NBN Broadband/voice bundle pages both state required hardware is a Wireless N 4-port router, both NBN BB and UNI-V voice do not require a router, unless you need WI-Fi but that is optional per need of residence.

            Now knowing you cannot buy the Primus NBN voice plan without a Primus NBN data plan means you also have to have the required router hardware, it states required not optional.

          • I might try another call to iPrimus and see what a different person has to say about it. If I get the same person I will have to have an accidental hang up. I’d recognise them, pretty distinctive accent.

            Personally I hate the lengths sales people go nowdays to make a sale. After being verbally abused by an energy salesman because I wouldn’t fill out a new customer application that he was pretending was for a refund because the meter was read incorrectly. There have been dodgy salesmen over the years but recently… I just wonder what has become of peoples morals. I lost track of how many people from the government called around to fit my free roofing insulation. I love the one who tried to convince me his hawkers license showed that he was a government employee.

          • Well to be fair it’s very early days for any call centre staff to be completely across NBN Plans which are new in selected pilot areas only and selected residences on a ISP basis within that.

            I would be very surprised if any ISP call centre would know yet what a ‘UNI-V port voice plan’ means yet alone offer any advice as to whether their ISP sells it or not.

            Router/UNI-V port, that’s the same thing isn’t it?

            It’s the sort of confusion the NBN Co could get a lot of flack on if both the public and call centre staff do not have the right information on the difference between VoIP and UNI-V voice as far hardware connection is concerned.

          • Yes, I am surprised the UNI-V prices were not released as the same time as the data prices. Maybe there is still heated dicussion between Telcos, ACCC and NBN Co and it’s just not possible to fix a price yet. The other cost is, I cannot remember the exact term, I will use class instead. UNI-V you needed Class 1 CVC and data Class 4. I guess you know that though,

          • “Well it is actually” Its not, but clearly you are unable or unwilling to see what.

            “Labor got to power in 2007 we are still waiting on a CBA in 2011, they have no intention of producing a CBA ” Correct. They arent going to do one. They were never going to do one, so how can you still be waiting on something they never said they were going to do. Its makes about as much sense as waiting for a bus when there was no bus service promised in your area.Pretty dumb right?
            Turnbull on the other hand has promised one to determine the best solution, but he has already picked the best solution. He is pushing FTTN. This is what he criticised Labor for. Policies should be developed BEFORE going to an election. Voters need to know what they are voting on. Turnbull is not doing this either. He is just saying trust me, and developing the policy AFTER the voters vote. The Libs clearly havent learned fromt he last election where NBN cost them power – this is based on their own study by Peter Reith
            “A landmark report handed down yesterday into the Coalition’s loss in the 2010 Federal Election has highlighted a failure to adequately respond to Labor’s flagship National Broadband Network plan as a key reason for losing valuable votes, especially in the sensitive Tasmanian electorate, which is receiving the network before the rest of the nation.” http://technologyspectator.com.au/nbn-buzz/nbn-contributed-2010-coalition-election-loss-report

            “No he shouldn’t, unless you say the Labor NBN Policy is well and truly underdeveloped without a CBA?”
            Of course he should. Turnbull uis the one that has been shouting from the rooftops that the CBA will provide all the answers, and yet he is unwilling to do a CBA to develop his policy, and thus incorporate all those answers. You dont see the stupidity and hypocrisy of that??? Seriously????

            “Oh you mean like the 2007 election when Labor changed their minds completely “. They didnt. That has already been soundly disproven. Please stop trolling.

            “You mean like Labor and 93% FTTH?” Yep. you forget that your beloved Turnbull has roundly criticised Labor for doing that, even though you acknowledge now he is doing the same thing by picking FTTN BEFORE the PC has done thir study.

            “How do you know he will ignore Productivity Commission findings?” As you acknowledged, he has already picked his winners for one, and secondly, do you real;y seriously believe that if the PC comes back and says FTTH is the way to go that Turnbull will run with that given how much time and effort he has put into saying its the wrong solution?? You cant truly believe he would do that?

            “Funny how Labor doesn’t avail themselves either, afraid of awkward answer? – well we know the answer to that already because they already got one or two awkward responses from the Productivity Commission.” *Sigh* Do you have any other answer than “lok at what Labor did?” Its tired, and it doesnt actually answer any of the questions raised. The PC have given awkward responses to Turnbull too, like saying the cheapest alternative is not always best. Bottom line is its useless to keep pointing at Labor and saying look at what they did or didnt do. That horse has bolted now. If Labor wins the next election, the CBA will largely be a moot point. The only reason it continues to be an issue is because of Turnbulls hypocritcal whinging about the lack of a CBA and the whinging of a few die hard Liberal supporters. Simple fact is that is Turnbull expects to be taken seriously, he needs to step up and be true to his word, and make the CBA a useful tool, and not just a political point scoring exercise that is of no value to voters.

            “I am not sure what he means by….” You dont know what a clear statement form NBN CO means, and yet you are happy to state that pricing for voice services is going to be more expensive. Thats just tooo funny!! You dont see the irony and hypocrisy in what you are saying? “Um, I dont know what they are saying, but they are wrong!!” ROFL!!!!!

            It seriously is a waste of time trying to have a reasonable debate with you when your only answer is always *point* but look what Labor did. Its pointless looking backwards, though it seems standard fair for the Libs too though. Probably why they are offering up a 2005 solution in 2011/12/13 ROFL!!

          • IMO… a NBN CBA is one of those things which divide even learned men (let alone the obvious political puppets here)…and even these learned men’s, political traditions…!

            For example… Rod Sims the new ACCC supremo, is IIRC, a believer that an NBN CBA is achievable.

            Whereas his predecessor, Graeme Samuel said he didn’t think an NBN CBA possible.

            So two gentlemen (ironically Sims more akin to Labor and Samuel more akin to the Libs) who held the same position, have completely differing views…and views which basically contradict their supposed political backgrounds…so.

          • @The Truth

            ” Correct. They arent going to do one. They were never going to do one, so how can you still be waiting on something they never said they were going to do”

            So that makes it all ok does it, as long as you say you are not going to do one it in itself justifies why you are not going to do one.

            “Turnbull on the other hand has promised one to determine the best solution, but he has already picked the best solution.”

            What he said is he needs access to Productivity Commission to do one, also I asked you previously when you said ‘Labor offered him access to the PC’ where that was stated, I am still waiting on your answer.

            ” He is pushing FTTN. This is what he criticised Labor for. Policies should be developed BEFORE going to an election. Voters need to know what they are voting on. Turnbull is not doing this either. He is just saying trust me, and developing the policy AFTER the voters vote.”

            You mean like Labor did in 2007 and the nexct election is two years away, Turnbull has plenty of time to develop his policy before then, why do you care in 2011, are you voting in the next six months?

            “The Libs clearly havent learned fromt he last election where NBN cost them power – this is based on their own study by Peter Reith”

            Yes I have studied that report, it stated the NBN MIGHT have made a difference to the vote of those electorates, and you also need to look at the other concerns of voters in those two electorates that were safe Labor seats anyway on what influenced their vote before making sweeping conclusions because you have a biased agenda to push that two small electorates in Tasmania dictate voter intention on the NBN across all of Australia.

            “No he shouldn’t, unless you say the Labor NBN Policy is well and truly underdeveloped without a CBA?”

            So you are not willing to say the Labor NBN is undeveloped because it does not have a CBA but the Coalition one is because they also don’t have one yet.

            ….. and then you have the gall to talk about hypocrisy?

            “They didnt. That has already been soundly disproven. Please stop trolling.”

            Where has it been soundly disproved, Labor went into the election promising a National RFP which would have been a private/public infrastructure deal which could have lead to a FTTN outcome, this is what the voters voted on, after the election that policy was tossed out and they decided they would build a 100% taxpayer fed FTTH, on top of all that you have the ball faced gall to say stop trolling!

            Unbelievable!

            “As you acknowledged, he has already picked his winners for one, and secondly, do you real;y seriously believe that if the PC comes back and says FTTH is the way to go that Turnbull will run with that given how much time and effort he has put into saying its the wrong solution?? You cant truly believe he would do that?”

            So you making those assumptions based on what? at least he has stated he will put it to the Productivity Commission which is more than Labor has ever done, but of course that’s ok.

            “*Sigh* Do you have any other answer than “lok at what Labor did?” Its tired, and it doesnt actually answer any of the questions raised. ”

            No it makes all rather awkward, sorry about that, you and others rant on about Turnbull not doing a CBA which in timeline terms is the equivalent of reading a Labor CBA in 2005, funny I missed that document, perhaps you could find the link to it, it must be on the Labor website somewhere surely?

            “Bottom line is its useless to keep pointing at Labor and saying look at what they did or didnt do”

            No it isn’t useless just because it makes you very uncomfortable and you don’t want to talk about ti.

            “That horse has bolted now. If Labor wins the next election, the CBA will largely be a moot point.”

            Yes it’s funny how a Labor CBA is a ‘moot point’ but a Coalition CBA is not and never can be a moot point.

            “I am not sure what he means by….” You dont know what a clear statement form NBN CO means, and yet you are happy to state that pricing for voice services is going to be more expensive. Thats just tooo funny!! You dont see the irony and hypocrisy in what you are saying? “Um, I dont know what they are saying, but they are wrong!!” ROFL!!!!!”

            That doesn’t make any sense, could you do re-do that, I don’t know what you are on about at all.

            ” Its pointless looking backwards,”

            Backwards? Labor is in power today and is rolling out their version of their BB Policy NOW, WTF are you on about?

          • “So that makes it all ok does it:” Its irrelevant, because Conroy never promised a CBA like Turnbull is, and , more importantly, its history! The NBN is happening regardless. You need to get over your backwards looking and provide some sort of substantive argument if you wan to be taken seriously.

            “What he said is he needs access to Productivity Commission to do one” Which is complete crap. The PC are not the only ones qualified to do a CBA on this project. Turnbull know this. In the past he has even acknowledged it e.g.
            ‘“But it should at least do the responsible thing and have its assumptions tested by an independent body such as the Productivity Commission.”’ http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/403638/nbn_less_competitive_than_chinese_broadband_market_turnbull/ The key words you need to look are “independent body SUCH AS”. He doesnt say it MUST BE the PC. Turnbull is happy for some independent body other than the PC to do a costing for Labor and yet, for him, it MUST BE the PC. Why????? Other indeependent bodies are capable of doing it. They could do it before the electionOther independent bodies would charge whoever commissioned the report, so who pays is irrelevant. Its more hypocrisy and double standards from Turnbull. It proves conclusively that his CBA is nothing more than a political stunt for him to do a bit of grandstanding.

            “I am still waiting on your answer.” Hahaha. Yeah, somethig else for you to ignore! It was actually access to the treasury for tax costings I was thinkng of, but there is no reason Trunbull couldnt utilise those same resources. Remember, it only has to be someone “such as” the PC right?

            “”So I’m prepared to make available to Mr Abbott officials from Treasury to work with him in coming weeks to cost whatever he says he wants to do in tax so that we can see what it means and the billions of dollars it would cost.” http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-using-treasury-as-weapon-abbott-20110626-1glag.html
            So now, speaking of providing evidence, how are you coming along with evidence of all the other CBAs that have been done around the world?

            “Turnbull has plenty of time to develop his policy before then,” Yep, plenty of time for a CBA to be done, so his policy is properly costed and actually valuable to voters. No excuses, if a CBA realy is important.

            “Yes I have studied that report, it stated the NBN MIGHT have made a difference to the vote of thoseelectorates,” You talk more crap than Turnbull! The report ACTUALLY says that the NBN was a major reinforcement for the people of Braddon and Bass (as well as previously mentioned Tasmanina generally). ‘

            “So you making those assumptions based on what? at least he has stated he will put it to the Productivity Commission which is more than Labor has ever done, but of course that’s ok.” On what he has actually said about FTTN making up a large protion of the infrastructure. You really need to keep up. You are also missing happily ignoring the fact that the PC claim is just a stunt, and he has sucked you in hook line and sinker. Why cant he get his CBA done by an independent body SUCH AS the PC, BEFORE the election?

            ” Where has it been soundly disproved “Did you even read what was posted? Labors NBN policy was available to voters 18 months before the last election. Plenty of time for them to consider it and for it to be analysed. And it turned out to be the thing that landed them in power. Certainly more effective than releasing your policy 2 weeks before the election!

            “No it makes all rather awkward, sorry about that,” Its doesnt make it awkward at all, because its completely irrelevant. All you are doing is obfuscating in lieu of actually providing answers to the actual questions, and building strawmen. It adds nothing to the discussion about Turnbulls policy development. You can cry waaaaa look what he did, all you want, but its not doing your caswe any favours. Quite the opposite in fact.

            “Yes it’s funny how a Labor CBA is a ‘moot point’ but a Coalition CBA is not and never can be a moot point.” You dont seem to have a good grasp of what is history and what is present day do you? Labor never promised a CBA. Turnbull has. Turnbull has to prove himself before the next election to get voted for. The best way to do that is to provide actual substance to what he is proposing. Crying waaaaaaa! look what Labor did isnt cutting it as Dr No is increasingly finding. Voters are saying that they have heard enough of the No campaign and its time to walk the walk going forward, and the Libs as stumbling, not walking.

            “That doesn’t make any sense,” It makes perfect sense. Read it again. I cant help you with your comprehension problems.

            “Backwards? Labor is in power today and is rolling out their version of their BB Policy NOW, WTF are you on about?” Yes, all you do is look backwards. All your answers are about what happened, or didnt happen years ago! You keep failing to address the questions actually asked, instead pointing backwards and going waaaaaaaaa! The question needs to be WTF are you on about, because you clearly cant address the current issue.

          • @The Truth

            “You need to get over your backwards looking and provide some sort of substantive argument if you wan to be taken seriously.”

            You are the last person to make judgement calls on being taken seriously or not, your point is superfluous.

            “It proves conclusively that his CBA is nothing more than a political stunt for him to do a bit of grandstanding.”

            It proves nothing of the sort, he is two years away from being in Government, a CBA now would be useless anyway

            ” It was actually access to the treasury for tax costings I was thinkng of, but there is no reason Trunbull couldnt utilise those same resources.”

            Oh it’s time for the frantic back pedal to come out is it? – you said Labor offered Turnbull access to the Productivity Commission to do a CBA, when I called you called out on it we find that you got it wrong it is now ‘Treasury on tax costings’ then with some manic ‘hahahaha’ added for good measure pretend it is all is the same thing.

            Treasury doesn’t do Cost Benefit Analysis assessments on a Opposition Parties Communications Infrastructure rollout plans, there is no offer from Labor.

            Why don’t you say ‘I got it wrong’ and leave at that?

            “So now, speaking of providing evidence, how are you coming along with evidence of all the other CBAs that have been done around the world?”

            Sorry you are confusing me with someone else, I have never mentioned CBA’s ‘that have been done around the world’.

            ‘The report ACTUALLY says that the NBN was a major reinforcement for the people of Braddon and Bass (as well as previously mentioned Tasmanina generally)’

            I said the report stated that it MIGHT have made a difference to their vote, that’s what the report said.

            “If we had negated NBN and offered, in a timely way, a decent Tasmanian package, Bass might have been a win instead of a loss,” the report states.”

            Here read the discussion in Delimiter in July on that Reith report, it has all been flogged to death before.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/19/nbn-helped-coalition-lose-2010-election/

            My comments about it in that discussion still stand.

            ” Where has it been soundly disproved “

            I said the 2007 election after which the NBN FTTH was chosen, I have kept saying the 2007 election is where Labor changed their minds and even explained the before and after why, you now decide that’s all too hard to dispute because you cannot and have jumped to the 2010 election as if it’s all the same thing I have been referring to all along, desperate stuff when backed into a corner, no prize though.

            “because its completely irrelevant.”

            Yes bringing up the lead up to the Labor NBN rollout is all rather embarrassing I know, but just saying it’s irrelevant over and over because it is all embarrassing doesn’t really cut it..

            “You dont seem to have a good grasp of what is history and what is present day do you? Labor never promised a CBA. Turnbull has.”

            Yes he stated he needs access to the Productivity Commission and it’s not post 2013 election yet and…? oh and that’s not the same Department as Treasury and doing tax costings in case you are confused again with all those ‘Government Department names’ stuff.

            ” Turnbull has to prove himself before the next election to get voted for.”

            He does?

            ” The best way to do that is to provide actual substance to what he is proposing. ”

            Well there was not much substance at the 2010 election including no CBA and it resulted in a hung Parliament, so you reckon if Turnbull says Wi-Fi , broadband and router in one sentence next time without blinking he will romp it in?

            “That doesn’t make any sense,” It makes perfect sense. Read it again. I cant help you with your comprehension problems.”

            I cannot respond to it then, it’s incomprehensible.

          • “a CBA now would be useless anyway ” HAHAHAHA!!! Keep deluding yourself. A CBA now would show Turnbull is serious. A CBA after the election shows he is not.

            “Oh it’s time for the frantic back pedal to come out is it?”

            What the…. No back pedal at all, just a correction. At least I am man enough to make corrections when I am wrong. The question still remains, why cant Turnbull as for the use of govt resources if he is serious about a CBA? Gillard has already offered once? Why wouldnt she do it again? That is of course, if Turnbull is really serious about a CBA.

            “Sorry you are confusing me with someone else, I have never mentioned CBA’s ‘that have been done around the world’.” ROFL!!! Talk abouut backpedalling. I have asked that question several times now, and you keep avoiding it and giving the same tired old waaaaaa look at what Labor did answer. The fact that you are unwilling to address others points shows just how close minded you are. Sad really.

            “Why don’t you say ‘I got it wrong’ and leave at that?” I posted my correction. The point still stands though. Speaking of admitting you are wrong, its funny how you have ignored what Turnbull actually thinks about the CBA, i.e. someone SUCH AS the PC should do it. If someone other than the PC can do it, why is Turnbull waiting? Why are you arguing that only the PC can do it?

            “I said the report stated that it MIGHT have made a difference to their vote, that’s what the report said”. The point you keep dancing away from is that the NBN was a major issue for them. Surely Turnbull should have learnt a lesson from this failure of policy, and be pulling out all stops to have the best possible policy this time around? A CBA before the election would create a very compelling policy. Nothing stopping him doing one,…. if he were serious about it.

            “you now decide that’s all too hard to dispute because you cannot and have jumped to the 2010 election as if it’s all the same thing I have been referring to all along, desperate stuff when backed into a corner, no prize though.” Hahaha. Why not look back to the 1966 election? ROFL. This looking backwards argument strategy is getting you nowhere in a hurry. Seriously, your claim was that the policy was changed and it wasnt what people voted on. People got to vote on it in the last election, and it put Labor in power. Time to accept reality and get over it.

            “Yes he stated he needs access to the Productivity Commission ” You do definitely have a problem with comprehension. I have quoted where he said an independent body SUCH AS the PC is capable of doing the CBA. Its a direct quote. Why do YOU say he needs access to the PC when Turnbull says its not necessary?

            “He does?” Wow!! Are you truly that naive? Of course he does. If he wants to get elected, he has to convince voters why and why his policy is better. He isnt doing it so far.

            “Well there was not much substance at the 2010 election including no CBA and it resulted in a hung Parliament, ” Correct. Had the Libs actually had a decent costed policy, based on their promised CBA, then they probably would have won seeing as the NBN was a major factor in the voting preferences of Tassy voters (as per Reiths report) and it would have had a chance of swaying the independents .

            Instead this was the typical reactionfrom the independents
            “IN A blow to the Coalition, key independent Tony Windsor has backed Labor’s $43 billion national broadband network, criticising the opposition’s cheaper alternative as a ”retrograde policy” that would create a digital backwater in rural Australia.” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/windsor-backs-labor-on-broadband-20100904-14vd4.html#ixzz1dvqL3mEw

            “so you reckon if Turnbull says Wi-Fi , broadband and router in one sentence next time without blinking he will romp it in?” Of course not. DOnt try and build yet another strawman. I have said several times now, all Trunbull needs for a compelling case is a properly costed and analysed policy. He promised to do a CBA to determine the most cost effective solution. Why wouldnt he do that BEFORE the election, and take that “most cost effective” solution to the people with his CBA to wave around as proof? Seems like common sense to me, and most others. Sadly some here dont seem to have a good grasp on common sense.

  6. I think the weekend stoush over CitiGroup’s report highlights just how broad Turnbull’s lack of solid broadband policies are.

    If your only response to a costs analysis is “go away or I shall taunt you a second time..” rather than an actual statement on cost, etc, then it’s pretty clear there’s at best a “guestimate” propping it up.

    And it makes a mockery of the demands for costs, etc by Turnbull and co over the NBN.

    Turnbull can’t price his policy, because it relies on a set of regulation changes that aren’t even tabled and requires negotiations with Telstra, whom will not bend over. It will fight for effective control. Which leaves us right where we are. And that’s not a good place.

    Which means the ACCC are relinquished to making inane comments about supermarkets instead, because it has no balls left to fight the incumbent (no, really, look over there! supermarkets!! sorry – what’s a “Telstra”?).

    Telstra have already won that fight, the ACCC has stopped caring. No one will benefit (apart from one-eyed shareholders) in that department.

    Regulatory and Policy changes would be next to impossible to achieve in the first term. Where they to regain control. And that’s at even odds at best right now. The last few months have seen polls representing the results of the Lib’s constant whinging and lack of policy. People start to ask questions.

    • “Which leaves us right where we are. And that’s not a good place.”

      It doesnt actually. It sets us back avery long way. Where we are right now is on the cusp of an FTTH future. We wont have that under the Libs, and we will have even less if the Libs fail, because there will be at least another 5 years wasted, before we even start the process again with a new Labour govt. The Libs have a spectacularly bad record on comms policies. Nothing to date has shown that is improving at all.

      “The last few months have seen polls representing the results of the Lib’s constant whinging and lack of policy. People start to ask questions.” Yep. Saying No for the sake of it and blocking at every opportunity wears thin. Its time to put up or shut up. Sadly it looks like the Libs are not going to do either.

  7. Newsflash. Turnbull loves the NBN.
    He just wanted the spotlight, so he told Tony he could destroy it.

    It’s a power play and Tony doesn’t get it yet.
    1) get spotlight
    2) get noticed as an intellectual alpha playing second fiddle to a dunce.
    3) coup

  8. I personally would like to see more detail from both parties. And not details of their implementation. I prefer the FTTH as being a better long term proposition. But what troubles me the most is what happens to whatever network is put in place in the future. That would requirement agreement by both parties or legislation to protect the networks future.

    Options:
    1. The NBN is completed as a government project. Fine, the people involved seem dedicated to try to do their best and try and get a good outcome. But what of the future once it is completed?
    a) The network is kept by the government and slowly turns into the pig it did before it was privatise. Bloated costs, layer upon layer of management, no drive to try and reduce costs to make prices drop over time. NBN Co turns from a group of people who seem pretty motivated to make something great (regardless of if you think they are going about it the right way, they do and they give a damn) to the level of something like.. centrelink. Another government enterprise that gives the otherwise unemployable a job.
    b) It is sold off, in total of in sections, however it’s divided up to companies. Most companies, especially those who could afford to buy the network aren’t in business to reduce costs to customers. They have one goal, Extract the most amount of money for the least cost to make the CEOs bonus as big as possible (and the shareholders make money as a consequence). It is effectively just an introduction of the old monopoly. If they sell it off to multiple companies those companies while still enjoy a monopoly, be it they own the backhaul or they own the NBN of a state. Another consequence would be return to cherry picking. With FTTH it may not be as bad as upgrades would be easier for fringe areas. But convincing a change from FTTN to FTTH may be too much for areas of small population density.

    2. That the coalition come up with something that manages to involve the private sector but somehow provides an incentive or pressure to service non prime locations. Some plan that creates reasons to minimises cost and tries to make prices drop over time. Some reason to upgrade the network over time.
    No idea what it is or if there is such a way to do this.

    So many are concentrating on the implementation, political ideaology. What I haven’t heard of a way to stop the thing turning into a hideous mess in 10 or so years time. The only way I can see that being safeguard is some pretty tough legislation to protect Australia’s infrastructure in the future.

    • The solution is quite simple.

      * Telstra to build a $4.7Bn FTTN network after it settles at a good wholesale price with ACC

      * Private – Govt consortium to build a regional wireless and braodband network to cost around $5Bn

      * total coverage 93%

      * Done in 3-5yrs

      Sounds like a good deal.

      • Could have, and perhaps SHOULD HAVE, happened years ago…

        BUT….

        “Telstra pulled out of negotiations with the ACCC”, because they wanted their cake and to eat it too…

        And, private/government consortium you say? So throw non returnable tax payer money, ideologically at private enterprise because we aint commies here BOY…!

        FFS, why the f*** do you think we are here in this position we are nownow? Because this all FAILED previously…It isn’t some commie conspiracy, sorry to disappoint you…!

        Dream on…!

      • Brilliant!

        Then all you’d have to do is spend 40Bn+ replacing that out of date FTTN with FTTH, while upgrading all the wireless & satellite.

          • Unless your using dial-up and a 8086 for your main pc, I’ll assume you’ve heard of this ‘progress’ thingy?

            Look up Nielsen’s law, figure a baseline for today’s speeds, find out how long FTTN will last. It’s not pretty.

          • HFC was rolled out in 1994, what did the famous baseline say about how long that would last?

          • Was that even taken into consideration at rollout? I can’t remember HFC being used for BB til after it was put in place for cable television.

          • Yes it was 1997 it was first used for BB, I was referring to when the actual infrastructure rollout started as you well know, your point is what?

          • “HFC was rolled out in 1994, what did the famous baseline say about how long that would last?”

            My point was they wouldn’t have calculated how long it would last based on a broadband speed vs time calculation because it wasn’t envisioned for broadband use when it rolled out.

            We can’t even calculate it now because it doesn’t povide a fixed speed. Since it is shared bandwidth it all depends on the number of users. If you want to pick a figure and say, assuming each user can get 100MB/s bandwidth there will be a date that the required bandwidth will pass what can be delivered. No, I don’t know the date off the tip of my head, around 2017? I am at work and haven’t got time to search for the data.

          • “HFC was rolled out in 1994, what did the famous baseline say about how long that would last?”

            What famous baseline? Did you even bother to read what I posted?

            But as an exercise in logic.

            In 1991 we’ll assume the baseline is about 10Kbps.

            We’ll assume the max speed of HFC is 100Mbps.

            Therefor you’d get a life expectancy of around 23 years an expiration 2014.

            Of course, the numbers are very rough, and as Australia has proven it’s easy to milk something for years after it’s below par. Hell we only got ‘quickflix’ streaming a day or two ago!

            http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html

          • “Sorry I missed your point, tell me, how long will FTTN last?”

            You seem to miss a lot of things. Not surprising really. FTTN will not last very long, any money spent on this now would be a colossal waste.

          • “What makes FTTN out of date?”

            Please pay attention. FTTN still uses copper, it is redundant. It has been made redundant by a vastly superior and more reliable medium called fibre.

          • So overseas countries using it today and who are still rolling it out to 100’s of thousands of residences are going to be in serious trouble with ‘no internet’ when?

  9. At least Turnbull isn’t waving around his ipad telling us all that we can do everything we want via wirless internet.

    I seem to remember a reporter on 1 web site challenged Turnbull to working for a month solely via wireless, and to set up a blog reporting how ti all went.

    Now I’m starting to wonder if Turnbull has his doubts about coalition policies for the NBN, just as he has doubts about their carbon tax policies too.

  10. Reality: Its not really possible until before the election, when there is more clarity regarding what is happening with NBN

    Labor completely changed their policy just a month before the election, so Malcolm Turnbull has plenty of time

    • “so Malcolm Turnbull has plenty of time”
      ROFL! Yeah, he might wait until a day or 2 before the election like his predecessor did, so that no-one has time to point out how terrible the policy is!
      As said so many time before, the Libs have an attrocious record on comms policy, and there is no indication that has changed in the least.

      • “ROFL! Yeah, he might wait until a day or 2 before the election like his predecessor did, so that no-one has time to point out how terrible the policy is!”

        You mean the Labor party?

        The Liberal Policy was available long before the Labor one, its Labor that completely changed their mind so soon before the election

    • I understand that there would be things that need changing. Better ideas, new opportunities, etc, as the election draws closer. But they say how terrible the current labour plan is and how much better the liberals alternative is. Why not put a draft proposal out there? Surely to say their alternative is better they must have some hard data. It would also help pin point the failings of the current plan.

      • Because its not feasible to do so, and if you understood the political process you would know why

        When you are in opposition, to make any sought of policy requires some sought of analysis, and that analysis costs $$$. The opposition party has no access to treasury (or other government departments) in order to do such an analysis until the government enters caretaker mode (i.e. an election is called). So this means the best that the opposition can do, unless it wants to spend millions of its parties money, is to do back of the envelope type discussions, which is exactly what has been happening

        Furthermore their policy is completely reliant on CBA and what ends up turning out from the whole NBN debacle. The Liberal policy would be completely different if ACCC ended up accepting Telstra’s SSAU then if ACCC rejected it (and continued to do so)

        All of the people crying about Liberal party being too slow in releasing their policy are either crying crocodile tears (people that would never vote for their liberal party and/or don’t support their agenda to a more free market driven approach) or are completely unrealistic of how the political process goes. These are usually the same type of people that paint Tony Abbot as being negative, and saying “no” all the time (even though every opposition, including Labor, has done the same thing)

        • OK, I will await the Liberals plan when it comes out. BTW, I am a swinging voter. I vote for the least disgusting party at the time of the election.

          • @Noddy

            Perhaps a new political party needs to be started, the ‘Least Disgusting Party’ the LDP, has nice ring to it.

            :)

  11. ” You mean the Labor party?
    The Liberal Policy was available long before the Labor one, its Labor that completely changed their mind so soon before the election ”

    Nope. Definitely the Libs. Tony Smith and Andrew Robb stood up and announced their policy on the 10th Aug 2010, and the election was 21st Aug 2010. There was so little technical detail that it was impossible to do any sort of detailed analysis before the election. It was an embarrassment, and you could see it on the ministers faces, and its why Abbott didnt appear at such a major policy annoncement. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/liberal-partys-broadband-policy-is-a-whole-heap-of-nothing/
    It lost them the chance to govern, and it serves them right. The sad thing though is they have learned nothing, and history is repeating.

    Labors NBN policy was announced in April 2009, which is obviously about 18 months prior to the election. Plenty of time for analysis, and plenty of time for voters to be aware of what the policy was about. It out them in power. Speaks volumes in itself.

    Nice try to defend your beloved Liberal party though ;)

    • Yes it is interesting that for a party that had a mediocre Comms Policy as you assert the outcome of that 2010 election was that both Labor and the Coalition got a equal number of seats, leading to a hung Parliament.

      Labor governs under the grace and favour of the Independents.

      • “Labor governs under the grace and favour of the Independents.”

        Voters cast their votes based on many levels other than just comms policy.
        The NBN is what swayed the Independents to support Labor though. HAd the Libs been able to put forward a decent policy, they may well have won power. It proves the point of Libs weakness in comms perfectly.

        • The NBN was amongst many measures that got the Independents vote in negotiations with Gillard, it still doesn’t detract from how the electorate itself voted in 2010, which was 50-50 on the line where no major Party could govern in their own right, just looking at in a simplistic manner and assuming people vote for no other reason than Comms Policy for the purposes of this discussion, as many didn’t want the Labor NBN as wanted it.

          • I don’t because you can never know why people voted, the point is it nulls out any assertion that the 2010 Labor win is ringing endorsement of their NBN policy from the electorate as each party won the same number of seats.

            Others have asserted that it is ringing endorsement of Labor NBN because the Independents put the Labor NBN in the list of many of why they backed Gillard, but all of that horse trading came well AFTER the election.

            It’s not as if the Independents said to their electorates before polling day 2010 if there is a hung Parliament outcome we are going to back Labor, if they did the outcome in those electorates might have been totally different.

          • Which is actually most likely the case, considering the pathetic polling that both Windsor and Oakshott are getting in their electorates

          • Polls are polls… they change at a whim…

            Again I bring to your attention (but once again please ignore) March/April 2011, so just over 6 months ago, the federal polls had Gillard/Labor leading comfortably and Abbott at rock bottom lows…

            Regardless, no matter how low these independents are polling, they were voted in…!

            Since this seems to irk you, would you prefer another system, say communist…?

          • @alain…

            Salami asked you “how do you know this” in relation to your to your claims…

            “as many didn’t want the Labor NBN as wanted it”.

            Your answer was and I quote ” I don’t because you can never know why people voted”.

            So why say it , if you don’t actually know?

          • Please keep in mind in my above comment, although I could have, I did NOT do an alain and say…

            So that’s a no then, you don’t know… good, I thought so… !

            ;-)

      • “Labor governs under the grace and favour of the Independents.”

        As would the Liberals.

        In fact had they managed to not alienate virtually every independent (Bob Katter not withstanding, as if that was ever in any doubt) and somehow cobbled a government together, they too would be a minority government.

        I know you come from the Telstra school of government, which is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women but that’s not the alternative outcome.

        The Liberal Party would have faced many hurdles achieving any kind of policy changes.

        We would be in a far less viable position, not somehow, magically, a better one.

  12. The electorate did not vote “50-50” in 2010, Alain. The outcome of the distribution of the seats in the House of Representatives is 50-50, but only because of the unrepresentative nature of the Australian electoral system for the lower house.

    This is how the electorate voted:

    Liberals + Nationals: 5,408,630 votes
    Labor + Greens: 6,170,361 votes
    Independents: 312,496

    In all fairness, the current government is much more representative of the electorate’s wishes than a potential Coalition government would have been (had they managed to get the support of the independents), contrary to Abbott’s wingeing about the lack of “mandate”.

    • Its the number of seats, not the number of votes, that happens, in which case neither party had a clear mandate (and when Abbot says that the Labor party has no mandate, he refers to the Carbon Tax)

      • Err the government… or the opposition for that matter, currently have the numbers (or mandate) to allow or disallow legislation, pending how the Greens and Independents vote.

        It’s up to the Greens and Independents who they side with… and for whatever the reason… be it as Zorro said, that Labor received more votes, the NBN, or whatever, they (even having been traditionally from the conservative side of politics) have side with Gillard and Co.

        That’s our democratic, Westminster system… as currently stands in the state of a hung parliament.

        Again, just like in relation to Zorros figures you say our system is seats not votes (which is correct, of course, well done)… but please don’t accept half the system which suits and sob about the other half which you still smart over…

        That’s the system.

    • @Zorro

      It is interesting you group the Greens + Labor together ‘to get the numbers up’ as if it is one party like the Liberal and Nationals which market itself as the Coalition Party so tightly that if there is a Coalition win you have a mix of Liberal and National Ministers.

      I didn’t notice Bob Brown or any Green MP being appointed a Minister in the Gillard Government, but the Independent Oakshott is the chairman of the NBN Committee.

      • Thats another point, the greens and labor do not form a joint government. Although most votes from the greens go to Labor, some do not (and go to independents or Liberal). On the other hand, Nationals and Liberal party are a joint party, preferences get distributed between them, and hence why they are called the “coalition”

        • I grouped them together because they are together; without the Greens’ support in both houses of parliament, the government would not be able to govern. Just because the Greens didn’t insist on having a minister or two in the government doesn’t mean that they are not in a coalition.

          In other countries with more proportional electoral systems (e.g. Germany, NZ…) things like this happen all the time. There are no “hung parliaments”; major parties rarely get more than half the MPs (and why should they, if they only get 40% of the vote?) so they have to negotiate coalition arrangements with smaller parties.)

          THE Coalition in Australia, being the permanent alliance between the urban Liberals and rural-socialist Nationals, is quite an unusual arrangement by global liberal-democratic standards. Merging the two parties into one makes perfect sense in such a case, like what they did in QLD.

          Anyway, all that is irrelevant; the point is that even though we have the Labor government because of the independents’ support, it is a government representative of the majority of the people voting in the last elections. Labor’s TPP vote was higher than the Coalitions, and that’s all there is to it. A deal with the independents which would have resulted in a Coalition government would have been legal but quite undemocratic and illegitimate, representing less than 50% of the voters. End of story.

          • @Zorro

            “Just because the Greens didn’t insist on having a minister or two in the government doesn’t mean that they are not in a coalition.”

            I am sure Bob Brown and Julia Gillard would be horrified at that glib assessment of the state of their Parties, of course it is total rubbish, there is no way you can roll them into the same political allegiance category as the Coalition Liberal and Nationals partnership that has been going for 41 years.

          • Of course not…

            They are their own identities and neither will bend over and grab their ankles like the poor old Nats have to.

          • Oh dear Beta. No need to be nasty because alain can’t see the Forrest because of the network trees. *snicker*

Comments are closed.