Turnbull requests Labor’s secret NBN docs

49

turnbull

news Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten requesting the Labor leader release cabinet documents from the previous Labor administration relating to the National Broadband Network, despite the fact that Turnbull himself is holding back similar material from the Coalition’s period in power.

In a letter sent to the Opposition Leader over the weekend and seen by Delimiter, Turnbull noted that the Government intended this week to publish the Strategic Review of the NBN which is currently being prepared by NBN Co and its external advisors.

“The Government has made it very clear that we are committed to keeping the Parliament and the Australian public fully informed about the NBN,” wrote Turnbull in the letter. “We believe it is critical that this important project is managed, constructed and operated as transparently as possible. The NBN Co should be at least as accountable as a public listed company.”

For these reasons, Turnbull added, the Strategic Review would be published in full, subject only to limited redactions arising from legal restraints and commercial sensitivities connected with current and prospective agreements and negotiations with third parties.

“Against this background, I’m writing to you to again request that you agree to the release of the financial and technical advice the former Government relied upon in making the decision to shift its policy from a fibre to the node NBN constructed by the private sector and supported by a Government subsidy, to a fibre to the premise NBN entirely funded and constructed by a Government-owned business enterprise,” wrote Turnbull.

Turnbull noted that he was making the request because of the convention that Cabinet documents were confidential to the Government which created them, with access to them by succeeding governments not being granted without the approval of the current parliamentary leader of the appropriate political party.

“I note that some of the advice of the previous Government, such as that from Lazard, has been referred to in the press and that your colleagues have indicated that it was not representative of the totality of advice received,” added Turnbull. “The best and most transparent way to put this matter to rest is to enable all the advice to be made public so that the full context of the previous Government’s decision is made clear.”

Turnbull’s letter comes after the Opposition confirmed several weeks ago that it would not consent to key Labor Cabinet documents relating to the NBN being released.

“This is not the Government that they promised to be. In Opposition Malcolm Turnbull said NBN Co was more secretive than the Kremlin,” said Shadow Communication Minister Jason Clare at the time. “Now he is in Government he is refusing to release the brief he was given when he became a Minister. Previous Ministers have done this and so should he.”

“Cabinet documents are kept confidential by Governments of both persuasions. If Mr Turnbull wants to change that convention, he probably should run it by the Prime Minister.”

It also comes despite the fact that Turnbull himself is withholding significant documents relating to the NBN. The Minister has refused to release his incoming ministerial briefing, known as the ‘Blue Book’, which is currently the subject of a number of Freedom of Information requests.

In addition, The Sydney Morning Herald and ZDNet have published extensive extracts from a pre-election analysis put together by NBN Co relating to the Coalition’s NBN policy. The document, which Labor has described as “devastating” for the Coalition’s Fibre to the Node model, is heavily critical of the policy. It has not been released publicly.

opinion/analysis
I see this situation as a Mexican standoff. The Government won’t release key documents, such as the Blue Book or NBN Co’s evaluation of its policy. The Opposition won’t release key documents, such as the Lazard report or other key NBN documents which went to cabinet.

When is either side going to blink? The Australian public, whose side I am on, would like both sides to be more transparent, regardless of what the other side does. That would appear to be the high road which both sides are refusing to take. But then, that’s hardly surprising, given the state of Australian democracy at the moment.

In other news, why the hell did we elect these people, who seem to believe one of their primary tasks is to criticise the other side for not being transparent, while they won’t be transparent themselves? What a joke. Can’t they see the inherent hypocrisy in their comments?

Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull

49 COMMENTS

  1. I can’t see why Labor would release their historic docs. There should be nothing in it that isn’t defined in the current “faster, cheaper, better” Strategic Review. Labor’s old docs would only be political collateral for the Libs.

    Show us your transparency, Malcom!

  2. There is a difference in the documents though.

    The documents that Turnbull is trying to withhold are subject to FoI Labors documents are not.
    If Labor were to release the documents then I would expect Malcolm to release the Blue Book and ALL Shadow Cabinet documents relating to his alternative NBN plan.

    • “…I would expect Malcolm to release the Blue Book and ALL Shadow Cabinet documents relating to his alternative NBN plan…”

      Oh, +1 for sure. Buckley’s on that though, more’s the pity.

    • Labor’s cabinet papers are about policy that has already been implemented. Releasing them will allow the public to review the planning and execution of the NBN.

      Coalition discussions are about future policy. Releasing them serves no useful function for review purposes.

      • “Coalition discussions are about future policy. Releasing them serves no useful function for review purposes.”

        Whoah there. Not sure that’s entirely accurate. I don’t see why there is a problem with the Government being as transparent as possible. And we’re not actually talking about Cabinet papers here — we’re talking about departmental briefing papers.

    • It is the department that decides whether to release departmental briefings, which is what is underway with the delimiter FOI request.

      By contrast, the Lazard report is external advice provided to the minister. It is not a cabinet document. The Lazard report is equivalent to the independent Strategic Review i.e. it is advice from external parties to the minister.

  3. Turnbull – “I’ll show you mine..”
    Labor – “hahahahaha, love you malcolm, ahaha oh that’s priceless”
    Turnbull – “wait..”
    Labor – “*snigger* we’ll get back to you, man.. ahaha oh god my sides..”
    Turnbull – “look..”

    .. quelle surprise. Turnbull is between a rock and a hard place. The hilarious nature is that’s of his own doing.

    They (Libs) weren’t so much elected in, Renai, as Labor summarily kicked out.

    This is what happens every 2-3 elections. Australia punished politicians for being jerks, not to elect based on merit. If votes occurred based on merit, neither major party would get a foot in.

    So sensible policy is eschewed for payback. This criminal gubment! Hessian sacks! That woman! That man! Get of my lawn! Exclamation Point Number One.

  4. Tony Abbott claimed to lead a “No Surprises” government.

    I have to admit I am not surprised that they are governing in this current manner, NOT surprised at all.

    Wayyyy back when, he appointed Turnbull to “Destroy the NBN”, and he seems to be doing the job as instructed. Nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe that whatever broadband the LNP will eventually deliver will resemble in any meaningful manner a truly ubiquitous broadband experience for the far majority of Australians.

    We are going to regret this mob for decades to come!

    2 and a half years until the next election, let’s see if we can make him a “One-Term Tony”

    • “Nothing I have seen so far leads me to believe that whatever broadband the LNP will eventually deliver will resemble in any meaningful manner a truly ubiquitous broadband experience for the far majority of Australians.”

      Have you read the coalition policy document and background paper?

      • Some time ago, there was lots of flowery language about aspirations and the like. I saw Tony Abbott say that Turnbull’s job was to “Destroy the NBN”. I would have thought that most intelligent people can see that this is what is happening.

        Clearly, some can’t see that…

        • Okay, in a nutshell, here’s how they compare:

          NBN: 93% FTTP, 4% satellite, 3% wireless connecting 8.7 million premises by 2021
          Coalition policy: 54% FTTP, 39% FTTN, 4% satellite, 3% wireless connecting 12.7 million premises by 2019

          NBN capex to FY2021: $4,272 per premise connecting 8.7 million premises for $37.4bn
          Coalition capex to FY2019: $1,605 per premise connecting 12.7 million premises for $20.4bn

          NBN 2021 wholesale price/month: $62
          Coalition 2021 wholesale price/month: $38

          • So you’ve regressed from simply copy/pasting the Coalition’s policy document figures to now fudging even their figures to fluff up FttN…?

            ***You are aware of the Delimiter comments policy relating to demonstrably false information?

            Both plans plan(ned) to cover 100% of residences just the break up of topologies is different. Yet you claim the new govt’s (100%) plan will cover 4 million more homes than the previous (100%) plan?

            And I tend to refer to them as FttP (previous) and FttN (current) plans because the original NBN was for 93% FttP and the current FttN plan is for a base of 22% FttP and 71% FttN… (not 54% FttP – 39% FttN).

            And lastly you returned to the Coalition’s ‘estimated figures of $24 p.m cheaper…?

            I hope Renai hasn’t got his trigger finger ready with sights set strictly on my replies to you and has one eye on your continued demonstrably false comments.

            Perfidious is once again, the best I can call your input here I’m afraid steve…

  5. Cabinet documents are (almost) never released and for good reason. It would be impossible for Cabinet members to make considered decisions if they thought there was a possibility that their confidential discussions would later become public and thus political footballs. Departmental advice (ie the Blue Books) is different, because it should be impartial, frank and factual and therefore not subject to reasonable dispute. No harm in releasing that, partly because the taxpayer is paying for it.

    It has always been this way in the Westminster system, always will. Turnbull knows this, which is why he is demanding it in return for the Blue Book – because he knows Labor won’t release Cabinet documents.

      • FOI release of departmental briefings has always been decided by the department which provided the briefing.

  6. MT why don’t you release the party room documents you used the come with your policy after all that is what you are asking labor to do. Put up or shut up.

  7. “The Government won’t release key documents, such as the Blue Book or NBN Co’s evaluation of its policy. The Opposition won’t release key documents, such as the Lazard report or other key NBN documents which went to cabinet.”

    Renai, I’m not sure of the equivalence here. FOI requests for departmental briefs are determined by the department, not by the minister. So FOI release of the Blue Book is determined by the Department of Communications. And FOI release of NBN Co. documents are determined by NBN Co. Correct me if that’s not the case.
    Did the Department release the Blue Book in previous years 2010, 2007?

    Advice provided by external parties to the minister is a different matter. MT is releasing the advice he has received fom the independent Strategic Review. The equivalent of the the independent Strategic Review in the previous government was the Lazard report, which has not been released. Was a FOI application ever made for the Lazard report?

  8. This is an old issue. The only thing that has changed is Turnbull writing a letter.

    And this letter just happens to come into Delimiter’s possession in time for an article to be published at length on the whole ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’ charade.
    Which of course conveniently occurs at the same time as the Senate Select Committee hearing on the NBN.

    Imo this is nothing more than an exercise in media control by Turnbull, hoping to distract as much as possible from anything newsworthy or potentially uncomfortable that may be revealed. Well sorry, but if the media are worth a pinch of salt they’ll be reporting on an executive from NBNCo (Kieran Cooney) trying to shut down the Senate Committee.

  9. A few questions for you Renai (or anyone else for that matter) if I may – just to help me put things in perspective. (And these are separate to any issues regarding the general desirability of greater transparency and public good.)

    1. Has it been recent standard practice for Cabinet docs to be released on request to the Opposition?
    2. Has it been recent standard practice for blue/red books for the Dept of Communication to be released post election?
    3. Which has been the more common occurrence?

    It just might help me decide if realistic expectations are being applied or if someone is trying to be a smart—- and deliberately creating a perception of a Mexican standoff for political purposes.

      • Thanks for the reply. And it suggests that Turnbull is the one concocting perceptions of a Mexican stand off. Based on what can only be described as unrealistic and/or generally unprecedented expectations. :(

    • My understanding, happy to be corrected with specific evidence of precedents:

      1. Has it been recent standard practice for Cabinet docs to be released on request to the Opposition?
      No. Cabinet documents are never ever released on request to the Opposition. And Cabinet docs are specifically exempt from FOI.

      2. Has it been recent standard practice for blue/red books for the Dept of Communication to be released post election?
      No. It is not standard practice. Decision on receipt of an FOI request is taken by the department on a case by case basis but release of a blue/red book is rare. FOI requests for Treasury blue/red books were rejected at the 2010 election. http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/MediaReleases/2010/FOI-Requests-for-the-Treasury-Incoming-Government. The press release states “In making this judgement in relation to the Blue Book the Treasury noted the strong views of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, that the release of incoming government briefs would contravene the Westminster conventions.”

      3. Which has been the more common occurrence?
      Cabinet documents are never released, although they have been leaked. They are exempt from FOI. Departmental briefings are not automatically released. On FOI application, the decision is made by the department.

      What is more commonly released is external advice to the minister. These are also subject to FOI. If an FOI application had been made for the Lazard report to Minister Stephen Conroy, it is very likely to have succeeded.Now that he is no longer a minister, he is not subject to FOI.

  10. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/11/technology/nbn-wrecking-crew

    Great article by Mark Gregory, describing the primary failures and mistakes made that has resulted in the situation we have today, appropriately apportioning blame to all sides and striking at the heart of the matter.

    Summary:
    1. FTTP (with FTTB where appropriate) is the best solution, and only solution worthy of consideration for Australia’s needs now and in the future.
    2. Both Labor and Liberal are to blame for turning the NBN into a political circus.
    3. Conroy is to blame for not making the NBN FTTP vision irreversible through legislation and contracts.
    4. Turnbull is to blame for not selling the FTTP vision to his Liberal party colleagues.
    5. The rollout should have proceeded to low-cost, high-density, high-return areas first (inner Sydney, Melbourne) where rollout would have been faster and take-up would have been much greater (blame Labor/Greens/Independents).
    6. 18 months to decommission the copper should have been zero (blame Conroy/Telstra/NBN Co).

    • 1. Best? True. Only? False.
      2. True.
      3. False. Long-term contracts would be foolhardy on a project this size. It needs iteration as we learn more and more with each step, as in every major technology project. And legislation can easily be reversed …
      4. That was never going to happen. A political impossibility.
      5. It’s more complex than that. Areas without any broadband at all also needed to be prioritised, for example, as did Tasmania. And much of the early NBN rollout was set up as test cases that would drive knowledge for the rest. The areas chosen were representative of a range of scenarios.
      6. Fuck no.

      Gregory is not a good NBN commentator, in my opinion. Too much the idealist, and not enough the political/technical/construction realist. I’ve had enough of idealists in this debate.

      • I was hoping that others would weigh in, as I like to hear different perspectives on the topic. That invitation is still open, but I’ll address your comments:

        “1. Best? True. Only? False.”
        A simplistic answer. What do you suggest are other solutions worthy of consideration for Australia’s needs now and in the future?

        “3. False. Long-term contracts would be foolhardy on a project this size. It needs iteration as we learn more and more with each step, as in every major technology project. And legislation can easily be reversed …”
        I cautiously agree when it comes to contracts, but I don’t have the unshakeable confidence that you do. As for legislation, you need the support of both Houses of Parliament. That it can be “easily reversed” is false.

        “4. That was never going to happen. A political impossibility.”
        Not impossible at all. Why do you think that? Technology, and what’s best for the country going forward, isn’t a political issue.

        “5. It’s more complex than that. Areas without any broadband at all also needed to be prioritised, for example, as did Tasmania. And much of the early NBN rollout was set up as test cases that would drive knowledge for the rest. The areas chosen were representative of a range of scenarios.”
        I agree that a range of areas was needed for test cases, but I still believe you’re wrong in your conclusion, and that Mark Gregory is right.

        To begin with, are the initial “learning experiences” for less dense areas needed right at the beginning of the rollout, and do they need to form a significant proportion of the early rollout, or can they largely be shifted to latter parts of the project timeframe?

        If you prioritised denser areas, there are several benefits: it would have built ‘hype’, increased revenue, justified the business case, successively paid for further network expansions (therefore, reduced borrowings), provided politically-favourable rollout and take-up numbers, and effectively shielded the project from much of the criticism that has characterised reporting on the project.

        It will not have eliminated the criticism entirely, of course – just changed the form of it. But when the difference is between “huge project failure, terrible rollout and take-up rates, cost blow-outs” and “NBN does not roll out to underserved areas first”, I’d take the latter, especially with the benefit of hindsight. Mark Gregory’s argument is that they should have bitten the bullet and rolled out to the most economically-viable areas first, at the cost of leaving underserved areas in the lurch for a few more years; besides, not even under the original plan were underserved areas necessarily prioritised most, and if you think about it, Gregory’s option is preferable with the benefit of hindsight.

        “6. Fuck no.”
        Why not?

        “Gregory is not a good NBN commentator, in my opinion. Too much the idealist, and not enough the political/technical/construction realist. I’ve had enough of idealists in this debate.”
        On the contrary, I think his point with regards to number 5 shows that he’s very much a realist. Short-term political gain failed the NBN.

        One major point I forgot to add in the summary is:

        7. In-house construction arm should have been built to roll out the NBN instead (contractor model largely failed).

        • I think Renai’s spot-on. on all 6 points. Technical idealism vs political/technical/construction realism. That was the NBN’s problem.

        • “Technology, and what’s best for the country going forward, isn’t a political issue.”

          *rolls on floor laughing, tears in eyes*

          You’re killing me here!!

          • I’m disappointed that your response was without substance. I was under the impression that, as you remind people, this is an evidence-based site.

    • According to leaks reported from the secret report advising the minister, Lazard had estimated it would leave taxpayers up to $31 billion worse off and warned of major risks in the plan, many of which were later realised.
      According to the reported leaks, Lazard found:
      – the project would confront construction problems leading to cost increases for the building phase.
      – the project was so risky that no private investors would stump up the capital.
      – raised concerns about Telstra’s involvement under a multi-billion-dollar deal transferring many risks associated with the project from Telstra’s books to NBN Co, while leaving Telstra with the option of competing against the NBN – yet still receiving funds from it – after 20 years.
      – concluded that taxpayers would own an asset, NBN Co, with a negative net present value – the difference between the cash a project is expected to achieve and its costs – as high as $31bn.
      – said the project had significantly underestimated the cost of its capital, and provided alternative figures
      – concluded that “no investor group other than the government” would provide equity finance to NBN Co while key planks of the business case were plagued by uncertainty.
      – On the Telstra deal, it found inadequate allowance for the cost of the company being relieved of its universal service obligations as part of its involvement.
      – It warned that 30-year estimates of revenues and costs were inherently speculative and the projected customer take-up and average return per user were likely to be proven optimistic in such a competitive industry.
      – warned about the competitive threat posed by wireless internet, which could limit take-up – a major driver of revenue needed to repay the government’s equity contribution to the huge project. It pointed to anecdotal evidence that 20 per cent of premises could ultimately be wireless-only. In doing so, it echoed Labor’s corporate advisers, Greenhill Calliburn, which warned in 2011 that some consumers “may be willing to sacrifice higher-speed transmissions for the convenience of mobile platforms”.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/labor-told-of-31bn-nbn-risk/story-e6frgaif-1226761478500#

      • You have repeated the same points twice slightly rephrased

        -Larger costs
        Speculative based on actual numbers seems inaccurate

        -No private investment
        Uses Government bonds

        -Telstra Competing
        Telstra is not allowed to compete probably due to this report

        -Net Neg worth
        Speculative and assumes larger costs which based on actuals seems inaccurate.

        -Larger cost see first point
        -No private investment see second point
        -Telstra see third point
        -Cost and worth see point 1 and 4

        • Oh, these aren’t my words. These are leaked quotes from the 2011 Gillard-commissioned Lazard report to strategically review the NBN plan. If you have more insights than “the world’s leading independent financial advisory and asset management firm.”, take it up with them. http://www.lazard.com.au/. NBN Co. used Goldman Sachs as adviser but both Lazard and Goldman Sachs conclusions have never been made public…. Transparency…..

          “-Larger costs”
          “Lazard’s calculations concluded that taxpayers would own an asset, NBN Co, with a negative net present value – the difference between the cash a project is expected to achieve and its costs – as high as $31bn.”

          “-No private investment Uses Government bonds”
          Really? NBN Corp Plan: “Debt Funding: it has been assumed that peak Debt Funding equivalent to 31% of total funding required over the period FY2011-FY2021 would be raised; if actual debt raised at the time was lower than projected, then Equity Funding by Government would need to be increased.”
          Should government riak taxpayer money and our credit rating on a venture “so risky that no private investors would stump up the capital.”?
          “Lazard concluded that “no investor group other than the government” would provide equity finance to NBN Co while key planks of the business case were plagued by uncertainty. It also found that the project – once touted by the former Labor government as ideal for “mum and dad investors” – was so risky that no private investors would stump up the capital. The advisers said the project had significantly underestimated the cost of its capital, and provided alternative figures,”

          “-Telstra Competing Telstra is not allowed to compete probably due to this report.”
          Not true. Dec. 2011: “The ACCC have thwarted previous plans by the NBN Co to force Telstra’s hand for a non-compete clause that would stop the Telco marketing it’s wireless broadband plans as a substitute for NBN fibre.”

          • Why are NBNCo’s projections and analyses incorrect but Lazard’s are?

            I would prefer to base my predictions on real data on real cost which can be done as NBNCo is building the NBN and have produced ACTUAL costs. Using data from 3 years ago based on assumptions seems a little silly. Like having someone from 3 years ago saying 4K TV’s will cost $50,000 in 2013 and using that as the basis for 4K TV sales rather than actual prices starting from $3,000 or $4,000.

            The competition from the report was both Fixed and wireless they stopped them competing in the fixed space.

            As has been mentioned many times by Renai wireless is complimentary not competitive with fixed broadband due to the bandwidth limitations and cost.

          • “The competition from the report was both Fixed and wireless they stopped them competing in the fixed space.”

            With wireless accounting for 96% of connection growth and fixed accounting for 4% of total growth, Telstra negotiators couldn’t believe their luck at being handed $11bn.

            “As has been mentioned many times by Renai wireless is complimentary not competitive with fixed broadband due to the bandwidth limitations and cost.”

            “Wireless is complimentary, not competitive with fixed broadband”, yet NBN planned on 13% wireless-only households growing to 16.4%.

            “Wireless is complimentary, not competitive with fixed broadband”, yet there are 11.4m premises but just 6.1 million fixed connections? However there are 6.3m mobile wireless and 19.2m mobile phone internet users.

            “Wireless is complimentary, not competitive with fixed broadband”, yet between 2010 and 2013, fixed connections grew 120,000 while wireless connections grew 2,720,000, even as new premises grew 2,,900,000.

          • I am sorry but if you really want to know if wireless is competitive go live somewhere where many people are forced to use it.

            Because I have and guess what It does not work!

            Not at all!!

            I spent hours waiting for a webpage that never loaded.
            Timeout timeout timeout TIMEOUT!!!!

            There are real life physical limitations to wireless.

            If there are that many more new services on the wireless network I am sure there is a massive spike in downloads to right?

            Nope because people use their fixed connection whenever possible because it is cheaper, more reliable and normally faster.

          • So this is all based on a supposed leaked doc, magically procured by the Murdoch media…?

            Well like you, with such overwhelming facts, how could anyone not be convinced *rolls eyes*…

            So now that those inclined to everything FttN have decided this “leak is factual (well close enough) to quote/comment in relation to it” why do they require it’s official release before showing their’s?

            :/ Amazing

  11. Obviously Turnbull’s inquiry cannot stand on it’s own.
    He needs another inquiry and find the negatives to try and make his plan look good.
    This is not looking good for Turnbull.

    • Yes unfortunately that’s the way the current govt. does business Bruce, as it was very successful for them in opposition.

      You will note too, their trusy messengers here do likewise, as soon as anyone mentions FttN or the current plan or heaven forbid Turnbull criticised, they say, but the NBN Corporate plan said this and Labor said that when in govt….

      It’s actually quite pitiful, IMO

    • Liked this: “The quality of the Telstra CAN is at present unknown” but..
      “NBN Co estimated the costs to maintain Telstra’s CAN as being four to six times as high as those for an FTTP network”

      So NBN Co. can estimate the maintenance costs of a network of unknown quality. Psychic.

      Evidently those same psychic powers were at work in forecasting $2000 million capex per year for new homes and upgrades POST-rollout. The same psychic powers that accurately estimated its rollout figures with 15% accuracy.

      • Glad to see the cherry-pick is still alive and kicking in reverse too…

        But obviously, the upkeep on decades old copper would be significantly more that new fibre, wouldn’t you think?

        In fact, perhaps 4 – 6X is conservative, hence the unknown factor?

        Or perhaps these psychics have simply channeled the same bullshit that the others did with their ridiculous $94B NBN forecast.

        You pick.

Comments are closed.