Turnbull demands NBN audit

110

turnbull1

news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called for the Federal Government to “immediately” commit to auditing the National Broadband Network rollout following reports that NBN contractors have stopped work in Ballarat, in news that represents the latest blow to the project’s already delayed rollout schedule.

This morning the Financial Review reported that a legal dispute between NBN construction contractor Transfield and one of its sub-contractors had resulted in work in Ballarat stopping, with an associated legal dispute dating back to May. The news represents only the latest delay to the NBN rollout, which is already substantially behind due to a combination of factors including prolonged negotiations over access to Telstra’s infrastructure and disputes with contractors in locations such as the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

“Anthony Albanese must immediately commit to an audit of the NBN rollout following reports that construction has stopped in Ballarat,” Turnbull said in a statement released yesterday. “Labor cannot continue to say this project is running on time and on budget when contractors are losing money and subcontractors are walking away from work.”

“The Coalition is committed to completing the National Broadband Network but will ensure the network is finished sooner, is cheaper for taxpayers and is therefore more affordable to consumers.
Labor’s fibre rollout has reached only two per cent of households after four years. On current construction performance, Labor’s NBN will increase wholesale user charges threefold by 2021 and take up to 20 years to complete.”

Turnbull said Labor was yet to re-sign one of its key contractors, Silcar, for the company’s rollout in NSW, Queensland and the ACT, despite there being a June 30 deadline for finalising arrangements between the pair. “In Western Australia and South Australia, prime contractor Service Stream has commenced a trading halt and subcontractors are ripping out work already completed,” said Turnbull.

There are also other questions currently being asked about NBN Co’s progress in its rollout. Several weeks ago, NBN Co confirmed it had met its revised targets for the rollout of its fibre network to the end of June, revealing that at the end of last month it had connected a total of 207,500 premises; a figure in the middle of its target range of between 190,000 and 220,000.

However, in the media release announcing the results, NBN Co itself called the figures into question. NBN Co stipulated in its statement that it was using what it described as “the accepted industry definition of ‘Premises Passed’”, consisting of premises passed by an active telecommunciations network. However, the company also noted that this measure included “those complex premises” that would receive services over the NBN outside of “standard order lead times”. This means that of the premises passed by the NBN, not all will immediately be able to order NBN services from retail ISPs.

NBN Co is taking steps to bring its rollout up to speed. The company announced yesterday that it had awarded SA Power Networks a three-year contract to rollout fibre in an area covering about 300,000 premises in Adelaide and regional South Australia. Up to 400 staff will be working on the contract at its peak. Syntheo, a joint partnership between Lend Lease and Service Stream, is also undertaking construction work in South Australia, and has been doing so since November 2011.

“SA Power Networks, formerly known as ETSA Utilities, built the NBN first release site in Willunga, 47 kilometres from Adelaide near the McLaren Vale,” said NBN Co yesterday. “At the start of June, 63.4 per cent of eligible residents in Willunga were active on the NBN. The average take-up for fibre locations active for more than six months is more than 30 per cent.”

The Coalition itself has already promised to conduct a number of reviews into the NBN if it takes power in the upcoming Federal Election.

Firstly, the Coalition would conduct a rigorous review into NBN Co’s current commercial progress; a document that would also contain options to meet the Coalition’s different policy objectives. Secondly, the Coalition would conduct an independent audit into how “Labor’s costly NBN was designed with no cost-benefit analysis or any consideration of other options”. Lastly, a Coalition Government would conduct an independent review into the long-term structure and regulation of telecommunications in Australia.

opinion/analysis
Look, I have to say that I agree with Turnbull in this case. It’s time the NBN had a comprehensive audit. This kind of thing won’t slow down the rollout, but it is time we got a decent look at the actual state of the project, four years down the track. There are enough worrying signs coming out of NBN Co right now that any government auditor would be seeing little red flags waving at them.

This needn’t be a negative thing for NBN Co. Audits every four years or so for major government projects are very normal and to be expected. In addition, with new political leadership for the project, and a new chief executive eventually, it would be good for all involved in steering the project, no matter who they are, to be able to get a comprehensive viewpoint on the NBN rollout. This will make making the imminent round of decisions about it much easier. Decisions based on evidence are always more sound than those made without it ;)

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

110 COMMENTS

  1. Yes the government should commit to an audit after the election I see no need to to do it before then I do not believe that is would be possible to do in the short period before the election in any case.

    While an audit would undoubtedly have positives and negatives Malcolm wants all the negatives out there to use for political advantage as anyone here can tell you there could be 10 positives for every negative and it would be portrayed as a failure for the single negative. So while it may be useful after the election when the pressure is off and we can look at the results rationally I don’t believe that the Australian media in the lead up to an election would look at the result rationally or fairly.

  2. You might be able to take Malcolm’s call for an audit seriously, but when he includes gems like this:

    “is cheaper for taxpayers and is therefore more affordable to consumers.”

    you know that once again he is playing pure politics and continuing to be loose with the truth.

  3. Yep, I can agree that an audit is probably a wise move, but…not in the politically charged arena we are currently in.

    There are already too many entities playing games with NBN figures.

    What I want to know is why isn’t Telstra being held to account for part their dilapidated infrastructure is contributing to delays. And…why is Telstra still refusing to allowing pit and pipe remediation to re start using the asbestos accredited contractors that have been stood down whilst the whole workforce is trained.

    • I have always suspected Telstra is playing their own long term game, to have the NBN collapse or morph into the LBN would be extremely advantageous to them and a long term disaster for Australia

  4. I’d be happy for an audit to take place. In fact, I’d be quite insistent….if it wasn’t politically motivated.

    If Labor were to commit to a independent fully disclosed audit now, I’d applaud them. But they won’t, because at this stage it only helps Turnbull. If they did it after the election, which would be more likely, that would be perfectly reasonable. As long as it was independent.

    Why do I keep harping on independent? Because the Coalition are UNlikely to use an independent source for THEIR audit should the circumstance come about. And for that reason, I’m not surprised Labor hasn’t been willing to do so themselves. Disappointed, but not surprised.

    The NBN is too highly political for any sort of audit to happen before the election. Maybe, one way or another, we’ll see the true progress after the election.

  5. So the rollout is being delayed because of disputes between major contractors and their subbies.

    How much spare capacity is there amongst alternative companies that are capable of doing this work? If the answer is “not much” then an audit might makes us better informed but is hardly likely to speed up the rollout

  6. Liberals already lost my vote first time they opened their mouth on their version of NBN, What a Joke offering an out dated service of which I already have a faster cable connection to their proposed NBN, Fibre to the node blows everyone knows it, Cheap ass quick fix that will be even more expensive to upgrade later on. The right way is the expensive way fibre to the premises which labor is doing!
    Also Liberals first attempt at going against NBN they didn’t even have a clue what they were on about, Saying how we don’t need fibre when wireless will be just as good, yeah good one idiots, What do you think the wireless base stations are plugged into hey? It’s plugged into a wired cable/fibre backbone morons!

  7. The NBN co is already being audited, to prepare their next years financial report, due out in September sometime.

    You can find the audit report on page 112-13 of last years report, with a similar report with the coming years report.
    http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco/documents/nbnco-annual-report-2012.pdf

    The liberals do have form for unethically misrepresenting something as an audit which isn’t an audit.
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/lib-policy-costings-exposed-by-ruling-20111130-1o773.html

    Actually, MT seems to want a review of operations rather than an audit, which has an exact legal definition under the auditing standards. The 5th report by the parliamentary joint committee was something that it seems that he wants, but which didn’t give the result that he wanted.

    The next years rolling business plan would also supply the information that he claims to need, it should be released once the 30 June comparatives have been included. The last one was released in August, so that also should provide the information you need.

    So Renai, don’t just jump on the demand the audit bandwagon without realising that it’s already happening.
    I think MT is just trying to distract you from the progressing rollout.

    • It seems both sides of politics can play games when it comes to the subject of audits.

      “COMMUNICATIONS Minister Stephen Conroy has admitted making a false claim about the National Broadband Network as he tried to defend the project over allegations it faces massive cost blowouts.

      Senator Conroy told ABC Radio this morning that the Coalition was a “fact-free zone” but wrongly claimed the NBN’s corporate plan was audited by the Auditor-General as he attempted to justify its price tag.”

      http://www.news.com.au/business/nbn-costs-could-top-90-billion-report/story-e6frfm1i-1226614710571

      • You left out these bits:

        “The policy was costed every year by the auditor-general’s office, which determined the price tag was $37.4 billion.”

        “Senator Conroy told Sky News this afternoon he had made mistake and mis-spoke, meaning to say the annual report and not the corporate plan.”

        “An Australian National Audit Office spokesman confirmed the office had not audited the corporate plan.

        “We audit the financial statements so the expenditures of NBN are properly recorded,” he said.”

        So…the policy (the input to the plan) is audited every year (by the auditor general), and the annual report (measuring the output of the plan) is audited (by the auditor general), and the financial statements of expenditures (managing the cost of the plan) are audited (by the auditor general)…

        And the 2010 Corp Plan was audited by Greenhill Caliburn ( http://www.dpmc.gov.au/foi/ips/disclosure_logs/dpmc/docs/2011-12/foi-2011-090.pdf ) who found “the Corporate Plan has been completed to high professional standards, providing the level of detail and analytical framework that would be expected from a large listed public entity evaluating an investment opportunity of scale”.

        What do you think a further audit of the Corp Plan by the auditor general would achieve exactly?

        • The annual report is a report of what has happened during the year. The corporate plan is a report on their projections for the lifetime of the project.

          They are very different documents.

          But I do not see how it is possible to audit a corporate plan as it is all based upon assumptions instead of facts. The assumptions can be reviewed but a sensitivity analysis would be much better and informative as there are no true facts when forecasting figures 20 years into the future.

          N.B. Tinman, Greenhill Caliburn conducted a review of the corporate plan, not an audit. They were very careful in their language.

          • Yeah, I agree. I guess a review is about as close as you can get to an audit for a corp plan.

            I also find it slightly amusing that the Coalition is actually calling for more “red tape” in this case, they must only want it reduced for their corporate friends.

    • Excellent points, Lachlan. I would have thought any major infrastructure project would have routine periodic reporting and essentially constant ‘audit’ data collection to supply such reports. Your points demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case.

      Renai, after reviewing the information supplied by the documents mentioned by Lachlan, what further detail do you require that these don’t provide? In all seriousness, do these cover the depth and scope required, or does there remain a compelling argument for somesort of further audit, and why?

  8. When we look back at this in years to come no matter what else is suffered or lost or eventually gained by this monster of an idea, the proponents, architects and flag bearers for the NBN will be long gone, their hands all clean their minds all at rest having done their part to create history….. don’t you just hate politics.

  9. Everybody working for NBN knows their jobs are on the line if they don’t deliver measurable results very quickly. I doubt if an auditor would find waste and idleness there. Unless of course the auditors are politically directed to do what they are paid to do, which will be to justify the Liberals plan to kill the project regardless of its merits.

  10. reading all that has been said on nbn i have this to say if we go to the libs idea i can see this is going to take us back to the 1940 it will be like the train system and will cost us millions to rectfy with diferent systems add hoc like the railways with diferent track widths

  11. What I find interesting is that the Libs constantly harp on about less red tape and government interference in business, yet every time the is a dispute between a sub-contractor and contractor on any number of projects they want the federal gov to get involved.

  12. I think an audit/review would be a great undertaking for a new CEO to get a good feel for where every thing is at…the sooner they pick one, the sooner they can get on with it.

  13. What i find interesting, is the MSM goes on about how the sub-contractors demand more money from the contractors or they decide to stop working, supposedly NBNCo doesn’t pay contractors enough, yada yada yada.

    However, Turnbull says he will do a FTTN network at a substantially cheaper cost (supposedly), that suggests that his NBNCo will also be paying a crappy amount to contractors and sub-contractors will still be complaining about how they don’t get enough money and will stop work.

    • Not going to happen with Labor, Conroy avoided a CBA on the NBN like the plague, never commission that sort of independent in depth review unless you are sure of the outcome, he was unsure.

      One of the best things that could come out of a change of Government is a full review of this outrageously expensive Government debt and drawn down on equity folly that must be doing wonders to our gaping Budget deficit.

      • One of the best things that could come out of a change of Government is a full review of this outrageously expensive Government debt and drawn down on equity folly that must be doing wonders to our gaping Budget deficit.

        Do you have some kind of memory disorder?

        We’ve discussed the “Government debt and drawn down on equity folly that must be doing wonders to our gaping Budget deficit.” thing before, remember?

          • Fibroid, as his enigmatic best.

            Still waiting for my clarification. You know “no doubt” and “may well be”.

          • “Yes we did and….?”

            wow, even when called out about being wrong, you’ll stick to the party line. Now that’s dedication…

          • ‘even when called out about being wrong,’

            I know you love to keep it vague , but I have no idea what particular topic you assert I was called out about?

          • “but I have no idea what particular topic you assert I was called out about?”

            Most of them

          • Still waiting for some answers from you which should dispel not only confusion but also the vagueness which you evidently deplore.

          • “I know you love to keep it vague , but I have no idea what particular topic you assert I was called out about?

            I copied the specific issues up near the top of this thread, but as a reminder:

            Government debt and drawn down on equity folly that must be doing wonders to our gaping Budget deficit.

            It’s not a “drawn down on equity”, they are raising funds from Government Bonds (funds that NBNCo will pay back, not the Gov). The NBN is not a budget item, so it doesn’t add or subtract to it.

            Also, return of 7.1%. (they’ll get $30.4b + $2.15b back….it’ll be $32.55b returned to the government, because NBNCo will be paying the other investors back the rest).

        • The Snowy Mountains & Sydney Harbour Bridge both had one done before the feasibility study was completed.

          • I cannot find the link to where I read about snowy mountains yet, but I have dug up the link where I read about the studies done on the initial works on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/pm-in-another-fine-gold-plated-mess/story-fn7078da-1226448720507

            Apologies it is paywalled.

            To take one section which I hope is not too much as a sample to highlight the relevant area:

            “The contrast with the Harbour Bridge could not be starker. Although the decision to build the bridge was taken in 1922, planning began even prior to the turn of the century. A royal commission in 1891 examined alternative options, and far more detailed assessments were made in 1900. So as to ensure “the utmost vigilance with public moneys”, NSW’s parliament referred the issue in 1907-08 to parallel royal commissions – one on the overall “improvement of the city of Sydney and its suburbs”, the other specifically on connecting the city’s north and south – “with commissioners sufficiently expert to examine the proposals exhaustively”. In detailed public evidence, the commissioners heard from leading Australian and international experts, allowing them to “balance social costs and benefits, and physical costs in their analyses.” “

          • Thanks Michael…

            I googled the headline and found the article here…

            http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/henryergas/index.php/theaustralian/comments/pm_in_another_fine_gold_plated_mess/

            You did notice the big word “opinion” at the top of the page and the figures within are IMO more akin to the NBN Corp Plan than a CBA (I didn’t see anything really written about the B)…

            And you are aware of Mr Ergas’ associations etc?

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/economist-henry-ergas-feels-the-pinch-in-consultation/story-e6frg90f-1225774266638

            http://www.electricity-week.com.au/erisk7/article/495065/energy_economist_charles_rivers_partner_henry_ergas_big_liberal_party_donor/

            http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/10/concept-economics-goes-bust-appoints-administrators/

          • Yes but the studies still exits.

            I cited the article mainly as it was a good reference to the original works, as for the rest of the content it is up to you as to whether you agree with it or not. I personally like him as he is never afraid to publish his references and background modelling.

            “And you are aware of Mr Ergas’ associations etc?’

            Yes, he is a right wing free market advocate.

            But lol at quoting a crikey source whien making that argument.

            As I said above, he is good at collating different sources into one piece then presenting that information. The reference list is also very nice. It is a good starting point for doing your own research.

          • “Yes but the studies still exist”… ok where are they?

            Michael seriously… your claims of CBA’s being done are based upon…

            a) Info you didn’t supply (yes I asked nicely/genuinely)…
            b) A pay-walled “opinion piece” (with handpicked copy/pasted paragraph) written by an ultra conservative, politically motivated, bean counter and it’s from the Australian (is this where I lol too, just as you did?).

            FYI – since it eluded you, unlike yourself… I intentionally supplied 3 links, from a vast cross section (yes The Australian through to Crikey)… to demonstrate a number of views of Mr Ergas, but alas :/

            Yes he’s good all right, so good he went of business.

            If you have some ‘actual proof’ of CBA’s being performed, I would genuinely love to see it, cheers.

          • Another nail in Egras’ coffin. His analysis predicted NBN plans would about $200. Well that was more than a little wrong.

          • Jesus mate.

            3 Royal Commissions into the implementation of the bridge.

            If that is not some form of a CBA (oh wow it went by another name 120 years ago), then you would be hard pressed to find something more rigorous.

            http://www.abc.net.au/tv/constructingaustralia/thebridge/century.htm\

            http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/currentstudents/ug/projects/mcdaid/webpage_files/Page396.htm

            Some of the top results from google.

            N.B. You always like to attack your perceived bias in any argument that you cannot find a flaw in. If what he has written is truly as biased as you claim then it should be easy to counter the arguments he puts forward. It just seems like you are avoiding his arguments because you cannot counter them when you do that.

          • “3 Royal Commissions into the implementation of the bridge.”

            “If that is not some form of a CBA (oh wow it went by another name 120 years ago), then you would be hard pressed to find something more rigorous.”

            I’d love to know, how you explain the similarities between a CBA and a Royal commission.

            Furthermore, the benefits of a bridge would be much simpler to ascertain that the benefits of a communication network.

          • @ Observer…

            Interestingly you asked our friend Michael, who couldn’t supply his claimed CBA, which he then tried to desperately morph via the strawman into Royal Commission, this question…

            ‘I’d love to know, how you explain the similarities between a CBA and a Royal commission.’

            Instead of answering you, he tries to turn it around and asks us, over and over, to prove his desperate ploy wrong…FFS.

            He said a RC is a CBA, he should as you ask, prove it?

            Regardless…

            A Royal Commission is NOT a Cost Benefit Analysis… period.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_benefit_analysis

            I challenge him to find where it is says anywhere a Royal Commission is also referred to as a CBA or vice versa a CBA is also referred to as a RC. If he can I will categorically apologise and admit I was wrong… and if not I expect him to do likewise…

          • From your links.

            “In Commonwealth realms and other monarchies a Royal Commission is a major ad-hoc formal public inquiry into a defined issue.”

            “Cost benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes called benefit–cost analysis (BCA), is a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision or government policy (hereafter, “project”)”

            And you are trying to argue that a RC cannot ecompass a CBA given the correct terms of reference. Good luck with that.

          • Indeed Alex.

            He also did not reply to my comment about the difference in scope between a bridge and a national communication network.

            It is interesting that all those who come here to push the Coalition’s views are very good at asking questions of others but seldom reply to those that are put to them. This indicates that their aim is mostly to stir rather than have a meaningful debate.

          • “He also did not reply to my comment about the difference in scope between a bridge and a national communication network.

            It is interesting that all those who come here to push the Coalition’s views are very good at asking questions of others but seldom reply to those that are put to them. This indicates that their aim is mostly to stir rather than have a meaningful debate.”

            I agree with it, therefore did not feel the need to comment on it as it was not relevant to the main topic, was one done at all which is different to was one necessary.

            But as it is obvious you and Alex are not interested in proper debate.

          • ROFL..

            A RC into a defined issue IS NOT a CBA… Ffs

            How desperate are you?

            Either supply the “CBA” ( note the quotation marks) you said we’re done, or I await your admission of error.

          • Indeed observer.

            And even after me highlighting it and you mentioning it again, he still hasn’t answered. *rolls eyes *

          • As you are incapable of understanding it despite so many posts.

            A RC is defined by its terms of reference.

            If the terms of reference are to evaluate the various alternatives to span the gap between the two points and produce a recommendations as to the best method to do so, how is that different to a CBA? The RC will look at different alternatives and proposals, evaluate them based upon their their value and produce a set of recommendations.

            A CBA will evaluate the different costs and benefits of achieving a set goal (spanning the two points that the bridge connects) and then produce a recommendation based upon its criteria.

            The major differences is the legislative power given to a RC and the transperancy requirements. So in a sense it will always be superior to a CBA.

            You obviously disagree.

            I will restate it for you two Alex & Observer;

            How is it different?
            Why can a RC not do the work of a CBA?

            You strongly disagree with my view and have to have a reason, can you explain it beyond the childish answer of:
            It’s different because they have different names.

          • “As you are incapable of understanding it despite so many posts.

            can you explain it beyond the childish answer of:”

            Proper debate involves civility? Patronising is not civil.

            As for your point. I have not disagreed, I have asked you and you can’t answer in a convincing way. That’s your problem for one of two reasons: Either you have a poor case to begin with, or you aren’t a good communicator. This is not, as you would like to believe, that those who don’t agree with you are not smart enough to understand your superb explanation.

            “So in a sense it will always be superior to a CBA.”

            says Michael. So, you have gone from they are the same to, now, RC is always superior. If this is so why doesn’t the coalition ask for a RC? Why go for second best, or is that limited to the type of network they prefer?

          • My searches have turned up nothing pre 2008 Michael, I’d appreciate the links you referenced (I’m guessing it must have been a Hansard or something?).

            No government built public infrastructure unless a CBA shows it “commercially viable”, what could go wrong, eh?!

          • You have to be flexible with the terminology as it is over 100 years ago so the bureaucratic jargon of the day would have been very different.

            There is ample references to the multiple Royal Commissions used to conduct a CBA into whether a bridge or a tunnel should be built and how the history of the bridge progressed from there.

            Just one more detailed link than the oblique references from above but many more can be found by googling the bridges history.

            http://www.abc.net.au/tv/constructingaustralia/thebridge/century.htm

          • @ Michael…

            You claimed CBA’s were done but couldn’t supply them and instead supplied an opinion piece from a very questionable source… hardly compelling. Then, when I supplied info questioning your star witnesses impartiality, all you did was single out one of my three actual sources?

            So now according to you, there aren’t actual CBA’s per se`, because the terminology CBA wasn’t around back then? As such, Royal Commissions and any document, plan, report or bawdy limerick, as long as they mention the Harbour bridge or SRS, should be viewed as CBA’s?

            Seriously?

            You do realise, going by your own terminology, the NBN Corp/Biz plans would be CBA’s?

            Anyway…

            IMO, the problem with journalistic Economists talking about CBA’s is, they interpret CBA’s as “cost benefits”, rather than the “costs weighed against the benefits”. Being so, they will inevitably choose the cheapest option.

          • God.

            All you do is harp on and on about the reliability of the piece, if you want to call it bullshit then do so and point to where it lied.

            I only supplied it as it was the origin piece that I read that mentioned the Royal commissions so unless you are claiming that he lied about their existence what is your point? That is the sole use of it.

            But I suppose it is easier to aim for the player instead of the ball if you dont have any skills.

            Your comparison to the corporate plan shows how you miss the point yet again.

            The Royal commission was asked to assess the different alternatives. The corporate plan is how they plan on implementing their chosen alternative.

            They might have been similar if the royal commission had been restricted to considering a road/ rail bridge with 5 lanes each way and no other options.

          • @Michael

            There was a “Royal Commission” on the NBN- it was the RFP tender in 2007. FTTN was shown to be infeasible by 8 submissions and the tender board.

          • @ Michael.

            “All I do is harp on about the reliability of the piece?”

            No I harped on about you being unable to supply the CBA’s you said existed as well as the complete lack of reliability in relation to the opinion piece you tried to pass off as proof of CBA’s?

            Why did I?

            Obviously, because you didn’t supply the CBA’s and your piece is unreliable…sorry if the truth hurts.

            I also note with your inability to supply actual evidence, the emergence of the straw man :/ CBA has now morphed into Royal Commission… so please!

            But of course with no evidence in sight, according to you it’s all my fault as I am playing the man not the ball… because I don’t have skill (I guess the irony/hypocrisy of such accusations has eluded you)?

            Regardless, as you wish – I call complete and utter bullshit on your claims – The Snowy Mountains & Sydney Harbour Bridge both had one (a CBA) done before the feasibility study was completed.

          • @ Alex

            I’m sorry that your mind is too small to accept any variation outside your neat and tidy world. You have not explained how there is any difference between a Royal Commission into different alternatives to build the bridge presenting its recommendations as a report and a cost benefit analysis.

            All you have ever done was attack me and the reference piece I presented. You did not follow it any further and instead followed the author showing you had a much stronger interest in launching an attack on him than actually debating the topic.

            You have never presented one argument why the Royal Commission’s report is significantly different to a CBA given its terms of reference.

            Yes a Royal Commission has stronger investigative powers and disclosure requirements but they will just help it.

            But I suppose your old name NBNAlex suited you as you are just demonstrating that you have little experience going out into the real world beyond your computer desk where you actually have to adapt to changes and shock, horror, things were different 120 years ago.

            I love it, you got so focused on that one term that you cannot accept any other review or analysis covering the same ground. This whole NBN saga must have really poisoned the minds of a lot of you guys.

          • Lol Michael…

            Attacked you where? I attacked your bullshit and you had and still have, no answer. It is bullshit… period.

            So having seen you here… http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/12/nbn-cos-quigley-to-retire/#comment-616655

            …argue like a spoilt child in relation to “””” quotation marks”””” …there’s absolutely no chance in you accepting big picture facts here, is there?

            As such, I have no interest in further lowering myself to your level of aimless, adolescent argumentative pedantics. I’ll stick to the facts and leave you again to try to justify your factless BS with further baseless childish, nit-picking.

            In closing, as you did previously when i was corresponding with you and I threw my hands in the air at your ridiculous antics, I can see the strange chest beating, victory reply now. So go your hardest tiger I have adults who want serious discussion to correspond with.

          • “As such, I have no interest in further lowering myself to your level of aimless, adolescent argumentative pedantics. I’ll stick to the facts and leave you again to try to justify your factless BS with further baseless childish, nit-picking.”

            The irony.

          • It’s good to see your Right-Wing reality distortion field is working well!

            *facepalm*

          • The challenge is open to you as well djos.

            What is the essential difference between a Royal Commission when has been tasked to investigate the alterate options to span the headlands, or a CBA for the different options to span the headlands? I personally think that a Royal Commission can be more thorough and thats why I mistook them initially, but everyone else argues the other way;
            So what is the differences that I am missing?

            Not Alex, Tinman, nor Seven_tech has answered it.
            Can you?

          • As to your question about the difference between a Royal Commission and a CBA, it all depends on the term of reference for the RC, unfortunately, the article you linked doesn’t mention what the ToR was for the “Coat-hanger”, it could have been something as simple as “Would it be easier to go via bridge than ferry?”

          • I agree. There is surprisingly little information on that Royal Commission beyond reports that it was setup to investigate the different options to connect the points and that asses a number of different proposals including cantilevel and arch bridges as well as a tunnel. But a true comparison does come back to the terms of reference.

            But yeah Pauls article was written 2-3 years into the construction period. This was a long time prior to construction starting. Also from what I can tell since records are sketchy, the Royal Commission (s) lasted a number of years.

          • “I agree with it, therefore did not feel the need to comment on it as it was not relevant to the main topic, was one done at all which is different to was one necessary.”

            Michael, I have an amazing news for you: Agreeing can actually be a comment. Maybe you’re right, it was obvious that you agreed. Silly me, I should have used my telepathic skills.

            As for not being relevant. It was. You are the one that used these RC as evidence that a CBA had been done on a major project. So, suggesting that a CBA for a bridge would much easier to perform was indeed a relevant point.

            “But as it is obvious you and Alex are not interested in proper debate.”

            Here you go again, telling people was is proper, first about science, now about debating. And what is “proper” debate Michael? Please do tell.

            I think you will find that the first paragraph of this post is actually a reply to you. This is part of debating Michael. People say something and you reply to their point.

            I look forward to your reply on what constitute a “proper” debate

          • As a question;

            Why do you expect a reply to a statement?

            It is normal if it was a question but you phrased it as a statement. So why did you expect a reply?

            If it was a question shouldnt it have been asked? Or should i have been “telephathic”?

          • Stop being pedantic Michael, answer the question:

            What constitutes proper debate?

            I’ll give you my take on debate. You don’t to be right all the time and at all cost.

          • If you can actually argue as to why I am wrong then please do so. If you look above, tinman did and I agreed with him as he understood my argument.

            You and Alex never did.

            Proper debate is civility & rationality & a lack of hyprocrisy.

            The main reason I asked if you could explain the differences is because I was never successful in explaining myself is a fashion that you could understand. So the simplest method is asking if you can explain in a fashion that I can understand.

            Again you were not interested.

            So one last time,

            Why do you believe that a RC cannot conduct a CBA?

          • “Proper debate is civility, rationality, a lack of hyprocrisy.”

            Thank you for that. I don’t see where hypocrisy has been exhibited in this case. As for rationality, keep working at it.

            “The main reason I asked if you could explain the differences is because I was never successful in explaining myself is a fashion that you could understand. So the simplest method is asking if you can explain in a fashion that I can understand.

            Again you were not interested.”

            Not only does this sounds patronising it also a very convoluted rationalisation. You made a statement and I asked you how the two could be similar. I could not see. So, I wanted your explanation. Your response, I can’t tell you, so you tell me. Are you serious? I don’t need to tell you. This is your idea not mine. I can’t see how they could be, so I am asking to tell how they could be. You can’t tell me. Case close. Move on.

          • Here is an earlier explanation of the differences.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/16/turnbull-demands-nbn-audit/#comment-617489

            “You made a statement and I asked you how the two could be similar. I could not see.”

            As I said, if you still cannot follow after I have already done my best at explaining it, then I will ask you, why you think that they cannot be equivalent. If I can understand your logic then I will better able to explain my position. Its not condescension, its empathy trying to understand the other point of view.

            N.B. There has been no hyprocrisy but still, I felt it was important to mention it.

          • “I will ask you, why you think that they cannot be equivalent”

            I have no said they could not be. I have only ask you why you thought they were.

            “if you still cannot follow after I have already done my best at explaining it”

            Obviously, your best wasn’t good enough.

            “You have not once given an explanation for your side of the debate.”

            As I have said, I can ask a question to try and understand your point. I wasn’t not debating you, just asking, therefore do not need to have a side in the debate. All I am debating you about his your insistence that because you cannot successfully backup or justify your claim, you are asking me to give evidence of an opposing view which I have not.

            Incidentally, you have answered my question that is RC were always superior to a CBA, why isn’t the coalition demanding. Possible answer: because a RC would not be the appropriate mechanism.

          • @ Observer… This is both comical and pitiful…IMO.

            Obviously the thought of admitting error is just too much for poor Michael. As I pointed out here, a RC is not a CBA and vice versa. PERIOD…

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/16/turnbull-demands-nbn-audit/#comment-617537

            I love the way he introduced strawman after strawman and argued the strawmen… very creative (and apparently necessary) when one is aimlessly arguing against the facts…

            *** He couldn’t supply the CBA because there isn’t one…!***

            So enter the strawman 1… “well you have to be flexible with the terminology”. A clear admission that there wasn’t an actual CBA but aha, he found a RC, close enough to massage and relentlessly argue, to try to save the ego.

            Of course when you asked him ‘I’d love to know, how you explain the similarities between a CBA and a Royal commission.’… he didn’t answer and now (because you left off the question mark) argues he thought it was a statement…OMFG

            But even after being told it was a question, he still didn’t answer. What he did was…

            Introduce the next strawman (as already myth busted by Tinman ) – *IF* the terms of reference are to evaluate the various alternatives to span the gap between the two points and produce a recommendations as to the best method to do so, how is that different to a CBA?’

            IF??? He invented his own terms of reference to suit his argument and then of course argued over these non-existent, make believe ToR and pondered the question of CBA/RC being one and the same, over and over… seriously?

            To recap what we all actually know (sans straw man and all bullshit aside) – There was a Royal Commission in 1880 (ToR unknown). Someone said, hey let’s build a bridge and they did. There wasn’t an actual CBA. Amen…

            And how about those quotation marks too eh Observer *shrugs*?

          • Your replies grow more and more comical.

            The best part is below.

            “Of course when you asked him ‘I’d love to know, how you explain the similarities between a CBA and a Royal commission.’… he didn’t answer and now (because you left off the question mark) argues he thought it was a statement…OMFG”

            My response wasn’t in reply to that, and I had already replied to that. But never let the truth or facts get in the way of some good abuse.

            http://delimiter.com.au/2013/07/16/turnbull-demands-nbn-audit/#comment-617533

          • Provide the CBA’s you said were done or own up to having lied… for what ever your odd reasons.

            Otherwise begone child.

          • Interesting response,

            You are shown to have deliberately have misquoted someone and then abused them based on that.

            But instead of admitting it as you demand, you just continue to dig,

            I’ll make sure to visit you in china.

          • Renai, I know you are busy but a little more application of your rules around posting facts and rational thoughts might prevent ppl like myself from getting pi$$ed off and no longer contributing.

            It’s one thing to debate the merits of the 2 plans, but making up outrageous rubbish comparing CBA’s to RC’s etc and parroting obvious political talking points from your favorite party or right wing think tank is just absurd on a technical site such as this IMO.

          • I have been sick for quite a few weeks and also hard at work with Delimiter 2.0, so I had let the comments become a little lax. I will be enforcing the rules more strictly from this week on, however.

          • Yeah, I’d be curious enough to read them as well, if for no other reason, to see how (or even if) they quantified “social good”!

  14. O the theater of politics. Thumping the table, demanding an audit forthwith. The project is in tatters, something needs to be done. What is the government trying to hide? Another wrecking ball through our shattered economy. Labor can’t get anything right. We need captain Tony and his right hand man Malcolm to the rescue.

    Now, this is the language to sell ads, I mean newspapers and TV programs. This should appeal to the mass media.

  15. Agreed, I see no reason not to have an audit, other than cost of course. From what I have seen government type orgs always pay a premium for this sort of thing.

    Perhaps the Coalition or Mal himself could offer to foot part of the bill. :-P

    But seriously an audit would probably be useful.

    I’d like to know what the issues are that are affecting the rollout. Are mostly all contractor/subcontractor issues or is there actually an issue of management beyond the norm.

    • I agree, something needs to be done more urgently and totally independently than waiting for normal NBN Co reporting cycles to come around.

      I also get tired of the relentless Labor and NBN Co spin used to explain rollout delays, contractual problems, fudging of target completions etc.

      • Oh I am not overly concerned regarding the urgency. Indeed as far as I am concerned any audit should definitely wait until after the election. A few extra months on a project of this size and length is not a significant impact.

        However it certainly should be independent, and ideally open to FoI requests, if not generally available.

        As for spin, I pretty much discount anything that comes directly from either party until such time as it is verified elsewhere. If more people did that instead of blindly following the party line, we might not have to deal with quite as much spin.

        • As for spin, I pretty much discount anything that comes directly from either party until such time as it is verified elsewhere. If more people did that instead of blindly following the party line, we might not have to deal with quite as much spin.

          Ain’t that the truth…

  16. Also agree, I think they need an audit it being independant or else wise.
    The roll-out in WA is a bit of a shame at the moment so I’d like to know what is going on and going to be done about it.
    Good article once again Renai.

  17. I’d expect this would go the same way as the “pink batts” review. Take quite some time to finish, by then everyone has forgotten the issue and moved on, then the review shows the problem to be nowhere near as bad as the media and opposition made out.

  18. Turnbull’s antics remind me of a classic section of Douglas Adam’s genius work from the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy where the two “Philosophers” burst in on the the two Programmers talking to Deep Thought:

    A sudden commotion destroyed the moment: the door flew open and
    two angry men wearing the coarse faded-blue robes and belts of the
    Cruxwan University burst into the room, thrusting aside the ineffectual
    flunkies who tried to bar their way. “We demand admission!” shouted
    the younger of the two men elbowing a pretty young secretary in the
    throat.

    “Come on,” shouted the older one, “you can’t keep us out!” He pushed
    a junior programmer back through the door.

    “We demand that you can’t keep us out!” bawled the younger one,
    though he was now firmly inside the room and no further attempts were
    being made to stop him.

    “Who are you?” said Lunkwill, rising angrily from his seat. “What do
    you want?”

    “I am Majikthise!” announced the older one.

    “And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!” shouted the younger one.

    Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. “It’s alright,” he explained angrily,
    “you don’t need to demand that.”

    “Alright!” bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. “I am Vroom-
    fondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand
    is solid facts!”

    “No we don’t!” exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. “That is precisely
    what we don’t demand!”

    Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, “We don’t demand
    solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand
    that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!”

    “But who the devil are you?” exclaimed an outraged Fook.

    “We,” said Majikthise, “are Philosophers.”

    “Though we may not be,” said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at
    the programmers.

    “Yes we are,” insisted Majikthise. “We are quite definitely here as repre-
    sentatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries
    and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want
    it off now!”

    “What’s the problem?” said Lunkwill.

    “I’ll tell you what the problem is mate,” said Majikthise, “demarcation,
    that’s the problem!”

    “We demand,” yelled Vroomfondel, “that demarcation may or may not
    be the problem!”

    “You just let the machines get on with the adding up,” warned Majik-
    thise, “and we’ll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much.
    You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest
    for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your
    working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and
    we’re straight out of a job aren’t we? I mean what’s the use of our sit-
    ting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if
    this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next
    morning?”

    “That’s right!” shouted Vroomfondel, “we demand rigidly defined areas
    of doubt and uncertainty!”

    Turnbulls plan provides for lots of “doubt and uncertainty”. :-D

  19. The required CBA’s – Cost Benefit, we argue as did Conroy that the Benefits over the next 29 years + cannot be realistically determined.
    The LBN is providing a Broadband service, end of story.
    The NBN which I still consider was misnamed, it should have been the National Communications Network is far more than just Broadband. The NTU looks at 2.5Gb in the current iteration with 10 and 40 Gb in the pipeline. The NTU has 4 Ports which can be used for multicasting, security, separate business broadband, plus telephone ports.

    Now NBNCo is apparently evaluating providing an unmetered Government Service on Port 4 for Health, education etc. That way Auntie Nellie who is computer illiterate can interact with a simple to use purpose built device for health monitoring without needing a broadband service as long as the NTY is mounted – even just a phone service.

    A great opportunity to design and develop that home health monitoring technology, possibly integrating with 3/4G when away from home. Possibilities

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/7/17/technology/nbn-co-looks-provide-unmetered-nbn-access-govt-agencies

    • ‘The required CBA’s – Cost Benefit, we argue as did Conroy that the Benefits over the next 29 years + cannot be realistically determined.
      The LBN is providing a Broadband service, end of story.’

      No it’s not the end of the story, the Productivity Commission wanted to do a CBA:

      “Stephen Conroy has accused the Productivity Commission of being out of touch with reality, after it called for further analysis of the $36 billion national broadband network.

      Last week the commission said the network may breach some competition rules and this warranted further investigation of its social benefits. But yesterday Senator Conroy dismissed the view as narrow-minded.”

      http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/conroy-slams-call-for-cost-benefit-study-of-broadband-20111213-1ot7f.html

      But Conroy new what was best for his political baby, as I mentioned above you never commission a CBA unless you are sure of the outcome, the outcome of a CBA on the NBN wasn’t looking too good, especially this bit “may breach some competition rules and this warranted further investigation of its social benefits” so the simple solution is don’t have any further analysis then accuse the independent commission that wanted to do one as being ‘narrow minded’ – nice.

      • So who’s governing the country…? Hint, not the PC.

        Facts, FYI (to ignore or childishly argue over) – initially MT said that regardless of any finding of NBN benefits from any possible CBA, the Coalition wouldn’t support the current NBN anyway…so, please.

        But keep that relentless, shameful political flag flying, whilst the rest of discuss the best comms for Australia.

        BTW – pretty pointless doing a CBA on a FttN network, as even you admitted (then tap danced around…lol) it would be obsolete before finished eh?

      • Fibroid.
        Neat deflection and misinterprentation
        “The LBN is providing a Broadband service, end of story.’

        No it’s not the end of the story, the Productivity Commission wanted to do a CBA:”

        Actually what was written was
        “The LBN is providing a Broadband service, end of story
        The NBN ……….. is far more than just Broadband”
        From whence I started to expand on why that is so, in the process indicating applications and National Benefits that the PC on past performance of such “expert commissions” – think CSIRAC etc. will be unlikely to have the required expertise to even ask the right questions or evaluate the submissions from the vested interests

      • No it’s not the end of the story, the Productivity Commission wanted to do a CBA

        What would you like to see a CBA cover on the NBN, (as in “terms of reference”)?

  20. I have stated an explanation. I have stated multiple explanations.

    You have not once given an explanation for your side of the debate. I asked, you said you don’t need to. If you want to go down the path of debating, there are two sides where both state their case, you have not done so. You have just claimed that my point is incorrect without anything to back it up.

    You have no reasoning to back up you claim that my logic is wrong.

    And in abscence of some;

    Good night.

    N.B.

    “says Michael. So, you have gone from they are the same to”

    Good on you to misquote. I never said the same. I said equivalent, can be used for or similar.

  21. My apologies, after so many posts it was an implied response given how you kept entering the debate. If I am wrong please correct me.

    As for the LNP approach and why they didnt push for a RC, it is two completely different era’s, I do not pretend to kow the political landscape 120 years ago (unless you can enlighten me). If they cannot even get a simple CBA done on the project from opposition why would they even try for a larget enquiry (e.g. a RC)?

  22. Michael

    You keep digging yourself into an increasingly bigger hole.

    Now, were into “implied responses” instead of a question.

    “As for the LNP approach and why they didnt push for a RC, it is two completely different era’s”

    Does it make these RC, irrelevant? Just asking.

    “(unless you can enlighten me)”

    I do like challenges but there is a limit.

    ” If they cannot even get a simple CBA done on the project from opposition why would they even try for a larget enquiry (e.g. a RC)?”

    Another example of the way your brain works. They are not trying for anything. They have been asking for something. So, asking for a RC, would not be any harder. Especially, if it is meant to be better. But wait… now, it is a different era.

    • All you want to do is try to corner people into a hole with loaded questions.

      Before I even answer your questions, why do you think the political climates of the 1880s and 2008 are similar?

      “But wait… now, it is a different era.”

      Going from the obvious sarcasm,

      Please justify.

      • Michael

        I suggest you re-read all your posts on this minute topic and you will find that you are all over the place.

        I am not trying to corner anyone into a hole. I was merely trying to point to how you dug yourself into that hole. All I did was ask you to explain the difference between two processes, not to debate you but to see where you were coming from. This, somehow, led you try to rationalise your first declaration, in reply to someone saying they did not recall a CBA being done for a national project, which was that there had been, in fact, several.

        When, it became evident that these were not CBA, but RT. You, then, after having tried, without much success, to explain away the similarity, you wanted people to explain what you could not do yourself. In other words, you wanted people to come with arguments either to convince themselves,or, alternatively, come up with reasons why they did not agree with your earlier attempt to justify you original statement.

        Finally, after all this, you state “You are trying to isolate it to a defined list of reasons, when it is politics.”

        Again, this is rather puzzling, given all your attempts to rationalise your earlier statement. What should we make of this. Take your statement and just accept it because it is politics?

        I think it would be beneficial for all concerned if you could see that there is no point continuing this discussion, as it is going nowhere.

        • Well I was referring to your additional questions (statements) that you keep expecting to be answered. e.g. Why didnt LNP ask for a RC. (RT is RC im assuming).

          I have provided no less than 3 explanations of my position on how a RC can be similar to a CBA.

          How did you manage to mix up the two topics?

          • This getting boring. As I have said, move on. Obviously, nobody cares about as much as you do to continue this futile debate.

            Until the next topic , have a lovely weekend.

          • +1 Observer.

            Renai has already told us (Michael and I) to break it up… and since there isn’t even a sniff of a CBA to back claims of a CBA being done…

            All is clear…

    • The entire point is if there is not enough political support, which history states there was in 1880s to form the RC then you could. Although granted I have not heard of RC being used to asses projects viability at all, just to find out what went wrong.

      As far as the NBN, the ALP just laid out the plans with targets selected as a fait acompli.

      Everything is so different i cant even begin to list them all,

      The single biggest one, is that the government of the day already had a view on the project wheras back then they did not have any preferences.

      You are trying to isolate it to a defined list of reasons, when it is politics. Politics is never simple and when you add 120 year generational gap I wouldn’t even begin to be able to claim to understand it. I will leave it at, it was different back then.

Comments are closed.