All aboard the slow train called Australia. We don’t have the know-how here to go any faster

The Intertubes have been ablaze at the apparent ‘betrayal’ by the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP. In fact they have been ablaze almost constantly with each successive bout of cerebral flatulence perpetrated by the new coalition government. However, the enraged denizens of our slow-band future need to appreciate that the Hon MP is merely following the footsteps of his political forefathers; he is just the most recent in a proud line of ‘infrastructure deniers’.

In 1903 the early sire of the modern conservatives, the Protectionist Party were denouncing the construction of the Trans-Australian Railway that would connect the eastern states to Western Australia.

The rail connection was a major incentive given to WA to join the Federation in 1901, as at the time the only way to get anywhere from Perth was by a long boat journey. Protectionist Senator James Styles complained to the parliament that the works would draw resources away from NSW and QLD, and that traffic simply did not justify the expense.

It wasn’t until 1911 that an ALP government got the project in motion. When the two sides of the nation were finally connected in 1917, the railway revolutionised internal trade and freight carriage with travel now taking days instead of weeks.

In the 1960’s similar small-mindedness by a coalition government almost saw the end to a modern cultural icon, the Sydney Opera House, and gives another clear illustration of how poorly the coalition understands future value.

Throughout history the conservative coalition has been fixated on the expense, instead of the investment. This compartmentalised thinking is again illustrated by the inability of the government in 2013 to perceive the flow on impacts that the Holden shut-down will have.

Even the great Menzies lacked vision in opposition. When confronted with the Snowy Mountains Scheme in 1948 he declared that it couldn’t, and shouldn’t, be done.  He argued that despite the attacks on Darwin and Sydney the coastal power stations would be safe, that diverting rivers for irrigation during drought was a waste, and Australia had plenty of coal . . . in the unlikely event we ever needed to produce that much power. Most of all, Menzies decried that the price-tag of $400 million, or 4 per cent of GDP (the same percentage of GDP as the NBN) was too high.


Costing benefits

Malcolm Turnbull agreed with ‘Opposition Menzies’ and declared that an FTTP NBN needed a cost-benefit analysis like the Snowy Mountain Scheme. This, like his investment in France Telecom, has the odour-de-rank-hypocrisie; or worse, a complete ignorance of history.

The Snowy scheme didn’t have a cost-benefit analysis, certainly not in the way that modern accountancy firms and corporations run them. The 56-page final report that was tabled in May 1950 has passing similarly to the 7-month, 546-page implementation and feasibility study performed by international auditor KPMG. Despite the NBN study including “a cost-benefit analysis of the macro-economic and social benefits that would result from the implementation of a superfast broadband network”, the main similarity is that the projects are both so new and daring that it is impossible to conduct a precise cost-benefit, as the future benefits are mostly unknown.

Now we have, thanks to even more government largesse, a new report that apparently tells us what Turnbull was claiming all along; that the cost is too high, and traffic simply does not justify the expense.

So what does a cost-benefit-analysis do?  Firstly, it determines if something is a sound investment; secondly, it compares the costs of two options against expected benefits, to establish if the benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much.

In the first case, the original NBN Co laid out the business case that ensured the project paid for itself (so no tax-payer money required) and established a 7 per cent by project completion; in comparison over the past decade residential housing produced 5.3 per cent, and that figure did not include any profits made from privatisation.

In the second case; KPMG looked at super-fast versus slightly fast and ruled in favour of FTTP (aka FTTH). Very public comparisons of two options have almost overwhelmingly confirmed that FTTP delivers the best cost-benefit. Even the OECD stated that fibre-to-home or premises is the better option.

Turnbull’s Strategic Review claims that the 7 per cent is gone, that we don’t need faster broadband after all (50Mbps will do), and the “Labor” project will cost a horrific $73 billion. This means that a full FTTP 1000Mbps NBN would now directly cost the tax-payer around $30 billion. Divvy that up between tax-payers over the 8+ years of the project, and that means about $4.90 per week. Hmmm, coffee and muffin or the nation’s future?

continue

just think... IF the Greens had beena political party in 1949 we wouldnt

HAVE A SNOWY to BRAG ABOUT

John S wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:26am:



and if we didn't have Liberal govts we would never have paid for them meaning we wouldn't be able to afford anything ever again.

John S wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:26am:



you dont think the SNOWY is more important than a rail or opera house.. I take it???

fair enough..

you do know the greens would have opposed the SNOWY dont you...ye gods they flooded a whole town..and god knows how many trees..

cods wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:51am:



No.

The people of NSW did.

John S wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:58am:



b ecause IT NEEDs MAINTAINING..dummy..and if you wan t other roads.built. well its the only way.

why do I PAY RATES>>>I have kerb and guttering.....

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:42am:



Tell my one government that paid for the Trans Australia Railway or the Sydney Opera house that didn't go into debt?

Don't forget that Howard didn't built any infrastructure for Public use. He built the Darwin to Alice Springs railway and sold it as soon as it was finish.

Kat wrote on Dec 20^th, 2013 at 6:45am:


except it actually IS true and demonstrably so.  I'd prove it to you but that would require from you two thinks you lack - intelligence and intellectual honesty.