Intertubes fans everywhere will thank Kevin Rudd for his latest policy announcement.
Dennis Shanahan in the Australian is obviously enjoying not having to sweat over Newspolls any more and going back to warning about “risks” of/for Labor.
Rudd has dumped the Telstra sale dogma Labor has clung to for years, and dumped it right now, deliberately.
Err, um, wasn’t Telstra sold already? That is – the legislation was passed. Yes the residual shares have been dumped in the “Future Fund”, but who ever believed that Labor was going to run a renationalisation campaign? It’s risible.
If it is a disaster, it will be equated with Mark Latham’s failed forest policy at the last election.
Oh, really? Yep, the highly paid political columnists are incapable of analysing contemporary political dynamics and resort constantly to reruns of the last campaign.
Voters like the idea of a Future Fund – even if they aren’t sure what it is – and Rudd could be hit by fears of a Whitlamesque spending fever.
Whatevs. Asked any actual punters, Dennis? And who was it who was spending about a million dollars a minute in his last policy launch? That’s right – the desiccated coconut. Whom we’ve got to thank for four interest rate rises, and probably another on the way next month. Way to go with fiscal policy, Mr Howard!
The Future Fund? It’s unnecessary, and future super obligations can be met from current revenue. How it contributes to Costello’s “big picture” intergenerational stuff has never been properly explained. It’s partly a puff for his ego (and the usual Howard government style of rewarding sinecures and brokerage fees for mates) and partly a political dodge to hide the impossibility last year of selling off the remaining Telstra shares.
What’s not to like about high speed broadband, which people almost everywhere else in the OECD take for granted, compared to paying public service pensions? Consumers aren’t dumb, and we know that communications policy and what we get in this country is a dog’s breakfast.
And if anything, it boosts Labor’s economic credentials, by reminding folks about how the government has dropped the ball on the infrastructure we genuinely do need to become internationally competitive…
Being a recent recipient of Broadband (I in an outer metro area and was only connected because we were connected to a nearby sub-exchange – previously I was on ISDN), I applaud the ALP and Rudd on this, and believe it or not, unless you are 4.5km by cable length from an exchange, you have bugger all chance of ADSL.
But alas the tech-Savvy Whirlpool crowd are bagging it.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=706089&p=1
In case you cannot access the Forums, some forums are locked unless you are both a member and post x number of posts, here is the Whirlppol Front Page Story and comments
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm?id=1715&show=all
Still a depressing read, and illustrates how the average 20 something tech-savvy person is a Howard Supporter.
Wow Frank, i’ve looked at Whirlpool before and decided it was like eating glass for a non techie like me.
I have a soft spot for pipenetworks though. Went through high school with the guys who made it
Certainly some innovative ideas put forward…but Conroy sounded like an ad for Murdoch’s ‘MY SPACE’. I’m losing trust in Labor by the day.
I heard Peter Costello on the radio spluttering about Rudd proposing to spend Future Fund money on broadband rollout. Let me see if I get this straight… Rudd is proposing to spend money from a fund from the sale of communications infrastructure on… communications infrastructure.
How that is an irresponsible use of the money I can’t fathom, but then I don’t live in Costello-land, where spending our taxes on school chaplains and Catholic pregnancy counselling is considered totally U.
At the same time as Rudd and Conroy and Tanner had their little ‘Broadband’ conference yesterday, millions of households across Australia received a little note from Telstra and Rupert Murdoch about the need for a National Broadband Strategy. This article by Shanahan is just another part of the same publicity campaign.
If I read things aright, Rudd wants government to have ‘50 per cent ownership’ of the broadband scheme. Oh, great: just when we got Government’s hairy mitts off Telstra, here’s the Ruddster proposing to put his hands back in a national broadband scheme – presumably in cahoots with Murdoch and co.
Shanno writing in The Volkische Beobachter – you’re expecting analysis? Purrrrleeeeeze!!!!!!!
Should that be wireless, fibre to the node, or down our electricity wires Mr Rudd? The new Department of Broadband. Sheesh!
If the politicians’ super was the same as mine, we could afford a lot more than broadband.
12 mbit/s … it’s enough to make you drool. Yet, thanks to recent infastructure developments, that’s the kind of speeds you can get in half the Carribean.
I was recently living in one of the few places in Australia you can get 10 mbit/s, it’s the sort of thing that loads YouTube vids faster than you can watch them. On my current “broadband” connection, I pause the bloody thing, minimize it, and come back in ten minutes.
Rudd has pretty much secured the vote (or at least in my case, second last preference as opposed to the last preference the Libs will get) of every internet user in the country.
Not quite certain Mr TimT what the issue is with Rudd investing in comm infrastructure – ideological? OK – probs with the possibility of Murdoch involvement? but private investment is still private investment whether its Roopey’s money or MacBank. Not that thats automatically a good thing but its what we’re stuck with at present.
The corporate telco world has shown itself stunningly unable to move forward on this issue – be it ‘the fault of the regulators’ (Sol’s world view) OR ‘Telstra are being mean to us’ (the rest of ‘em) OR grossly undercapitalised R&D & infrastructure implementation budgets (all of ‘em).
The White Rabbit & a parade of dull-witted ministers have shown themselved totally unable to implement a workable national legislative and regulatory environment to get the telcos to do anything other than dick about at the edges. & Connan’s recent efforts with the Broadband Guarantees are fine examples of governance as ineptitude. Someone needs to blink and get this moving – Rudd’s at least offering something other than platitudes and incompetence.
So … all of those leftie people who were telling us on this blog that selling Telstra would mean the end of the world, were just plain wrong. Isn’t that refreshing to know.
Bernice,
The main reason we don’t have superfast broadband is because we don’t want to pay for it in large enough numbers. Sure business does, but how many of us as private users(metro) are on their supplier’s fastest plan? I’m certainly not. Answer that and you might see the dilemma for your provider and ultimately the carrier.
Basically everyone wants to piggyback off Telstra on the cheap and naturally Telstra are resisting. We are slowly getting faster broadband, mainly in metro/large city areas, but noone wants to cross subsidise our vast remote areas. Now all of a sudden Rudd wants to fling our collective hard earned from the balcony. To do that he has to make a commercial decision on our behalf as to the best form the infrastructure should take. What chance the ALP with no risk to itself, can manage that huge taxpayer risk, which those in the business are hesitant to make, given the speed of technological advance? Oh they’ll all queue up to help Rudd blow are hard earned on their industry and smile at him taking all the risk off their plates. You bet your Future Fund they will.
It’s not that Rudd is going to invest in infrastructure, it’s that he’s proposing that the government own 50 per cent of the infrastructure.
This was until recently the situation with Telstra, Government owned 50 per cent shares, and was a cause of much of the incompetence that you referred to. Rudd is proposing that we do the same thing with broadband. What will result will probably be another decade or so of bungled infrastructure and missed opportunities.
Really, Tim?
I thought the problem with Telstra was that in privatising hitherto public infrastructure you end up with an inherent, messy contradiction that the infrastructure has to act public, but be private when, you know, you could have just not sold it in the first place, and then it would act public, because it is.
Remember lefties, that’s why we sold Telstra in the first place and while the lefties obfuscated, our collective investment halved. What the bloody hell do you think the same ALP wankers know about investment in telecommunications now then? What’s changed?
It may and it may not – one of the horrible problems with the telco infrastructure is how damn quickly the stuff becomes redundant. Which makes private telcos very very wary about the needed capital investment into a market of Oz’s size where the customer base would struggle to provide enough revenue to balance the books(and/or make obscene profits). Unless of course there’s a cozy relationship with media to provide download content. Telstra 1: Other Telcos – boo suck
I suspect we don’t actually have any choice – if we’re going to move past clicking sticks & into the new golden age of instant Britney rehab moment downloads – governments are going to have to shell out. & could anyone be more incompetent than Coonan?
The problem with Telstra is that the majority shareholder for the past decade were the people who also regulated the corporation. Government was simultaneously supposed to protect Telstra from competition, and ensure competition for the public good.
Agreed – which is also the same problem that the supposedly neutral Future Fund brings with it. Though I dont know that Labor have released any detail as to what corporate model of ownership of the new rollout would be – is it to be an authority? a corporation? a division of Telstra (god forbid)? Or should Labor simply cough up the dough on the basis of it building national interest infrastructure – set up a regulatory environment where the telcos lease capacity according to need. Knowing that it has a very finite life and they’ll have to do it all again in five, ten ,12 years time.
Well, that’s the thing. I heard the whole press conference yesterday but that’s not to say it meant anything to me (I’d rather think about something more intellectually stimulating, like bricks). But I’m pretty sure that Rudd did mention something about 50 per cent ownership, which sounds to me like Telstra all over again.
Yes, but it wouldn’t be a trading corporation but a piece of infrastructure allowing other telcos to use the platform. Can’t see what the issue is, frankly.
Piffle.
Where? When? In your imagination? Please provide links.
I can recall a number of leftie people on this blog saying that the best way to go was to accept that the Telstra privatisation horse had bolted, and go with Tanner’s longstanding proposal to use public funds to provide much needed infrastructure. Which is what Labor has just proposed.
Except that it may give us an opportunity to partially repair the damage caused when selling Telstra began. Which was always going to happen, given the contemporary practice of social democracies to soothe the fevered brow of capital by handing over chunks of public infrastructure at school fete prices in exchange for a modicum of restraint as to market demands for profit making.
Telstra should have been split into two divisions – infrastructure provision and service provision. Sell off service provisions & let it compete with the rest of the swarm, but in a market of Oz’s size, having telcos competing in infrastructure provision was always going to be a no win situation. All they manage, is to install half baked half tested networks without the necessary mass of R&D or users to do it properly. Would a single infrastructure provider be without fault? Unlikely but if its covenant was to ensure best current practice with adequate governmental funding to ensure adequate R&D then its gotta be a whole lot better than the bloody mess we’re in now. We’re not the US – the US local model simply would not work here. There aren’t enough of us, despite Shane’s best efforts to keep SMS usage rates artificially high.
Shorter obs:
Vote for the Coalition for slow private enterprise broadband!
So 98% of Australians will be serviced by this groovy new double-speed broadband.
Who are the other 2% of Australians, and why must they miss out on broadband?
They don’t even rate a mention in this posting.
The other problem aside from the small market Bernice mentioned is the big size of the country, and the large areas that are very sparsely settled, steve, as no doubt you know. If you want to add an extra few hundred million or so to ensure that remote areas in, say, the Northern Territory, get the same services we do in the city, go for it. But 98% at high speeds is a huge improvement on the current state of net access out bush.
Blacks of course.
I think it is a great idea. Somethings are natural monopolies; the market is classically failing to deliver on this one. Telstra won’t do it because they need
monopoly prices to recover their costs, and they are regulated (necessarily) by the Govt. It would be better to have one cable rented to all comers at the same rate.
This will give returns back to the future
(under)fund(ed) as well. The policy is also allowing the Govt to be portrayed as backwards looking – a nice bit
of strategy as well.
I know redundancy is a modern mantra, but I reckon the period of ultra rapid advance is nearly over (I am the only one saying this, so take with a grain of salt). I cite computer chips as an example. For a grand you can edit dvd quality video on
. People are still going OK with five year old computers, this was not true 5 years ago (thanks to MS bloatware) In science we need as much speed as we can get, but at home I reckon when good video telephony and downloading movies in real time works we don’t need more. Take an
a $1000 computer these days. What every day application requires more grunt than this (games
8GIG DVD/ 120 min / 60 secs * 8 bits/byte = 9 000 000 bits/s =9 Mbs which is around the order that this proposal aims for. High Def DVD’s will require around 4 times that. The point is there is an upper limit. The
new targets will certainly allow many more businesses to exploit the internet.
Steve, the other 2% live hundreds of km’s away from hubs, and it costs an astronomical fortune to get this kind of broadband to them.
In places that can’t even get all of the free to air television channels I think it is a bit much to expect the same broadband capacity as the cities.
’tis a pity, but the “how must would this cost when we aren’t allowed to charge 400% for this service” line has to be drawn eventually.
Observa:
The reason why we don’t have faster broadband *right now* is that Telstra are playing the private monopoly game.
Even most righties are prepared to concede that private monopolies are worse than public monopolies.
Well Tony, the next generation of software provision might allow your Pentium III Windows 98 2nd ed to limp along but it sure needs very consistent high speed broadband. Google is already pushing the new model – you dont load software onto your drive – you access it from a site where your files emails etc are also stored. For the corporate world,broadband’s usefulness is without doubt as regards intranet network use but for the home user (& gamer) this is the brave new world. Entirely reliant on 21st century broadband, not a patched up version of 20th century dial-up. Something our political masters in Canberra seem not to have noticed….
HELP!
Some lunar right-wing religious nutcase has taken over the Labor party and abandoned its sensible ‘ small target’ strategy!
And it gets worse!
The same lunar rightwing nutcase, Kevin Rudd is a big fan of red fascist – Golden Shield – China who run one of the worst police states in the world!
Fuck help all of us. We’re rudded.
The worst of communism and the worst of capitalism.
Hegemon, Kim, those “other 2%” of people pay Australian tax, are subject to Australian law, and have all the obligations and rights which come with Australian citizenship.
Why do they deserve a casual brush-off? If a public benefit is going to be provided with public funds, why should some miss out?
Well, under your fantastic logic every population centre, big or small, should have an art gallery. And a symphony orchestra. Can we also add an aquatics centre to that list. An oncology ward. Recycling plant….
The fact is that maybe 2% of Australians live in such remote places that it is just not viable. Or maybe the budget just does not stretch that far for now. If you choose to live in a remote location, there are a few things you have to suck back. Like being last in line for new broadband.
As a public/private investment this looks like a good one for a future government to be involved in. Sitting on Telstra shares for a future fund to pay for public servants super is such a noble endeavour.
But hey, mandarins might be sitting at home , retired ,enjoying instant downloads of their latest bowls game…or speaking to fellow communist party members about the latest revolutionary win… knowing the gov owns half of a very lucrative investment in communications. Diversification of the old portfolio and a moving picture at home that once was a boring computer screen. Wow it’s win/win! for them.
Just quietly, i will be a happy little vegemite, too.
Meanwhile Senator Ron Boswell says there is no need for a broadband upgrade.
“We’ve got adequate broadband for the people out there,” he said.
[LINK]
From the same link Bernice …..
“Federal Treasurer Peter Costello is continuing his attack on the Opposition’s $4.7 billion high-speed Internet plan.”
And it’s all very well to spend 5-6 billion on a hornet jet defense investment as a ‘fill in’. Do the Libs/nats, Boswell included , realise how ridiculous they sound? Only a few pilots get to play with that toy. We are talking about possible super speed internet downloads for almost everyone here.
Granted Robert, Telstra may be acting like a private monopolist with its largely copper network, but we all need to bear in mind wireless and other wires threatening that
http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/news/default.asp?archive=yes&file=6-december-2005.txt
This is the huge downside risk that Rudd and Labor want taxpayers to take on again. What on earth do local politicians and bureaucrats know about successfully running telecommunications, banks, airlines or wheat boards in a globalised world anymore? If private investors get it wrong like Ansetts did, there’s plenty more Virgin investors to take up the slack. What the hell, it’s only scarce tax resources eh? Plenty more where that came from. This is just middle class bloody welfare touted up as important infrastructure for the needy masses.
And $3 billion and counting for our little adventure in Iraq.
These lot are worse than pathetic.
They’re being judged for that Adrian right now in the polls, but wise forward thinkers like yourself should see this for what it is and besides if the Iraq venture was another govt sponsored enterprise gone wrong, what more does that say?
“This is just middle class bloody welfare touted up as important infrastructure for the needy masses.” Observa quoth
No, its the economy, _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Steve,
If that is the case, I demand the following:
Wide open spaces, national parks, the ability to consider a 5min drive as ‘the other side of town’, clean air, less noise… etc.
Oh, and if they could throw in a few cheap houses too.
Putting aside the issue of whence the money comes, surely $4.7 billion is a fart in the bath that will have less than marginal impact in a country the size of Orstraya. This plan STILL does not take the fibre to one’s front-door, which means you might be able to download War and Peace from LA in 0.000000001 seconds, but it takes 12 months to get from your street corner to your bedroom puter.
Still, yes it an idea that is WAY overdue. If anybody knows of a rally or demo insisting
Please call me and I’ll be there!
Mind you, I’m not saying private entrepreneurs don’t have their government moments too adrian.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21427102-1702,00.html
John, The $4.7 bill is just the Government’s stake, to be at least equalled by the industry (they say).
And others, the 2 per cent in remote and regional will get “improved” broadband, probably through WiMax technology.
Finally, this network could be extended to make it to the premises – but probably not yet.
And Conroy’s office are saying that the actual speed would be up to 20 mbps in urban areas. The 12 mbps figure is a minumum for the 98 per cent of Australians.
For more on latest developments and what I think (for what it is worth) see today’s Crikey.
Margaret
Thanks for that. I’ll check out Crikey. I am very positive towards this policy; it is just given how disgustingly rich (if there can ever be such a thing
) the Australian government is, surely we can start thinking of BIG “nation-building” projects and investments, rather than treating Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull as Centrelink “customers” and rewarding them each election with a big fat check for breeding!
Poor old Gough Whitlam must weep at every economic announcement in the 21st century. He must think “what I could have done with all that loot!
As predicted,
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21427711-5005361,00.html
Note that Labor’s plan is for the WHOLE of Australia, not just the bush.
Yes, one is called nation building, one is called pork-barrelling.
Kim stated – “The Future Fund? It’s unnecessary, and future super obligations can be met from current revenue.”
That is at the best optimistic and at the worst completely ignoring the impending train wreck in unfunded superanuation liabilities for the Federal Government. The Future Fund actually is Nation Building because it is financial infrastructure to support future expenditure. It is visionary in the same way that the Hawk/Keating inspired superannuatiuon system we now have is – we have the best retirement incomes policy in the world – please don’t stuff it up.
Taking money from the Future fund for anything other than funding the superannuation liability is short sighted.
This type of proposal is indicative of the risks of a Federal ALP government – they can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar for their pet projects. The current mob are bad but the ALP will be even worse fiscal managers.
As for the broad band proposal – let the market create the infrastructure. Billions of government money is already committed to communications infrastructure – any more is just pouring good money after bad. Allowing the goverment to run this process will mean we end up with a camel when we wanted a horse.
Razor
Didn’t Whitlam do something really despicable like steal all the pension money salted away for OAP?
What’s “Broadband”?
Robert Merkel …. to Observa:
Yes ….. and after the Ansett “collapse”. the de-telecommunication of Australia, the crash of our health care system, etc., ad nauseum …… you can add PRIVATE duopolies and PRIVATE oligopolies to that list ….. in fact, if you want real overall inefficiency, just Privatize!
There are heaps of ways of encouraging free enterprise, of rewarding hard work and cleverness, of encouraging REAL competition ….. but deliberately mismanaging a large organization so that it becomes – surprise, surprise – “inefficient” and has to be broken-up/sold-off is a bloody stupid way of doing so.
Throughout all the present discussions of Australian telecommunications, that scary boogey-man is hauled out “You wouldn’t want a return to the bad old days of the P.M.G., would you?” Well, I certainly would …. and I’m no Luddite!!!
For the technology that was available at the time and despite the persistent use of management systems left over from the 19th-century British Empire, the PostMaster-General’s department was relatively efficient and becoming more so ….. had P.M.G. continued and developed without interference from greedy and short-sighted boofheads, I would now be sending this post over the world’s fastest and cheapest successor to “broadband” !
Like Steve at the Pub, I think that the Future Fund is sensible policy, since it is simply a way of partly paying in advance for the future (unfunded part) of public service pensions. This is a way of shifting some of the higher tax burden associated with population ageing from our children or Generation Z (or whatever we’re up to) to current taxpayers (i.e. including the public servants who are going to be future pension recipients). This is generally regarded as a sensible way of preparing for future population ageing.
However, I understand that the more important rationale for having the Future Fund is to provide a reason for the Commonwealth Government to issue bonds – since with zero commonwealth public debt there would not otherwise be a reason to issue bonds. Commonwealth bonds are useful things for the financial market in order to set benchmarks (or other complex stuff).
Having said this, I assume that there will still be a significant amount of money in the Future Fund, so why Costello is getting so excited is a bit hard to fathom.
In addition, the newspaper reports suggest that there will be another sizeable surplus this year, so it would be relatively straightforward to top up the Fund or use some of the surplus to pay for the broadband rollout. But since governments can simply add more money to the Future Fund from current or near future surpluses, unlike Steve at the Pub, I see no reason to get excited.
One obvious question is why Rudd made the announcement now and proposes to use the Future Fund rather than make the announcement later and use some of whatever extravagantly wasteful goodies the Government will be throwing around before the next election.
Possibly, they want to keep a set of positive announcements coming during the year, and since they don’t know now what extravagances are coming they think that bird in the Future Fund is worth two in the budget – if you catch my meaning.
John Greenfield: “Didn’t Whitlam do something really despicable like steal all the pension money salted away for OAP?” – Happily, no! The National Welfare Fund was abolished by the dreaded Hawke/Keating junta in 1985. However, there was no actual pension money salted away in this Fund as it was purely an accounting device within the Commonwealth government – tax revenue came into the Commonwealth government and each year the Treasury simply transferred amounts from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into the Welfare Fund equal to the amount that was paid out in pensions and benefits. Even when it was set up in the 1940s the NWF wasn’t in any sense a real fund, it was simply a way of increasing support for the massive increases in taxes necessary to pay for WWII.
Hawke and Keating abolished the Fund because it didn’t actually do anything.
Graham,
“Throughout all the present discussions of Australian telecommunications, that scary boogey-man is hauled out “You wouldn’t want a return to the bad old days of the P.M.G., would you?â€? Well, I certainly would …. and I’m no Luddite!!!”
If only, If only
But like Pandora’s Box we are now left with the pain and suffering.
I would say that most of us who have worked in the industry since the days of the PMG’s dept. would feel the same.
I have been a Technician since 1968 and have seen substantial changes but the worst aspect of the changes has been the move from a “Service Driven” industry of the 60’s and 70’s to the “Profit Driven” industry of today.
But unfortunately ideology has been the problem throughout the history of the industry in Australia
I think the hyperbolometer on the Trez-bot got jammed about a week and a half ago.
Doesn’t anyone get a frisson of excitement when Kev says “nation building”?
The new improved “Bulshitorometer” that Costello got for Christmas is in warp mode.
You got to feel for the guy. He can see the next ten years of his life staring him in the face – being the butt of Swan and Rudd jokes from the other side of the chamber.
Only then, if he has the ticker to stay the journey will he get to be PM.
Stay tuned for more OMG! OMG! we are all going to die rhetoric.
SATP: Those “other 2%� of people pay Australian tax, are subject to Australian law, and have all the obligations and rights which come with Australian citizenship.
Why do they deserve a casual brush-off? If a public benefit is going to be provided with public funds, why should some miss out?
Why do I get the feeling that this noble-mindedness would not be extended to a much bigger minority, namely gay men and lesbians…
(Sorry not on-topic, but I couldn’t resist.)
isnt the so called future fund just the 17% left of the privatised telstra, and some of the proceeds from T3?
so how exactly do you ‘bank’ into the future, on some ageing private telco’s share price anyway?? (and surely some future conservative Govt will just cash in the shares when a private equity mob comes-a-calling in 2018? (hello qantas ))
the private telstra weren’t prepared to upgrade the network themselves – so how much would their shares have been worth in 2010, let alone 2020?
it seems v.smart to use the current FF dividends to fund some decent communications infrastructure for the whole nation AND upgrade the Telstra network at the same time – ie. the very company in which we hold shares all these shares in, in the Future Fund, durr….a very roundabout way to get to where we should have been 10 years ago – ie. a public owned Telstra rolling out decent infrastructure.
Costello & Howard have already blown 83% of the old future fund – it was called Telstra – the 100% Govt owned company. And what have they built with it? Sweet FA.
btw – how much are those crapola fighter planes costing us again??? – $6 billion – for a bunch of fighter planes that aint’ even as good as our *cough* regional neighbour’s planes. Where was the front page hysteria over spending six frigging billion on second best yankee military technology??
telstra, optus, packer, murdoch and the fin. press are already saying “YES Please Mr Rudd”, as are 20 million citizens (less the parliamentarty liberal party, naturally)
tanner just needs to cut through Costello’s blithering and blathering.
I would humbly suggest that it is the height of child-like naivete to imagine that a future government, of whatever stripe, finding itself in constrained budgetary circumstances, will not find a compelling excuse to to dip into a convenient $100 billion honeypot. Short of having our politicians take monastic vows, I don’t see how it can be avoided.
In this light, I rather suspect that Costello’s spittle-laden fury has less to do with the sanctity of the Future Fund, and more to do with being politically gazumped. I would place a modest wager on the theory that he was planning a similar proposal to be the centrepiece of the budget, and banking on it heavily as a tide-turner.
Lindsay:
It is too late to close the Pandora’s Box and resurrect the P.M.G. What is amazing is that so many younger people assume that having smaller mobiles with niftier ringtones in 2007 somehow represents progress …. when we could have has all that and a lot more – as well as real service a couple of decades earlier if it had not been for the corporatization and privatization lunacies.
Despite all the nice laws and prayers, a private de-facto monopoly will control all Australian postal and telecom services within the next decade; regardless of which political party gets in, that is inevitable.
Everyone:
L-O-L.
Okay. Hands up all those who really truly believed that the Future Fund would be used to fund the retirement of all those public servants. Yeah, Right. Of course,
Does anyone else think that Costello is looking more than a little unhinged of late? Who reckons that he’s trying to build his profile just in case there’s an option of a leadership spill in the wake of the budget next month?
Connan Speaks:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21431398-5005361,00.html
And what have YOU done Minister to address the issue ??
Costello knows that the interest rate rise which was almost guaranteed when the Australian Dollar rose sharply today will be the end of his good economic manager joke. I would love to see the budget handed down by someone other than Costello.
Jokes about hands in honey jars will really go down well following another interest rise wich appears almost certain now. Another case of throw mud and eat the consequences.
It was Labor supporters who first mooted the idea of a FF and when critics suggested it might be raided to pay for daft election promises they were laughed at. It has already happened.
Rudd is an idea-spinning politician, without legs to stand on, who is riding a wave of ignorant, populist support. Silly industry policy, more handouts to auto producers, dumb policies on Iraq, reregulation of labour markets that have yielded lowest unemployment in 31 years.
And I’ll bet Kim thinks he is cute. She is older now and no longer salivates at the thought of Paul Keating getting all worked up over cranky, neurotic old Gustav Mahler.
And broadband supplied by a croaky bunch of labour politicians to make us internationally competitive. I think the ALP should also provide us with a decent oaked chardonnay and surfing beaches without bluebottles.
Huh?
No, I don’t think Ruddy is particularly cute.
And again, how is it “raiding” when telecommunication shares are sold off to provide telecommunications infrastructure? Surely you can do better than Cossie’s
talkingyelling points, Harry!A lot more than a little.
I reckon he’s realised that he’ll never be PM. If Howard loses, he won’t stick it out in opposition. He’ll petulantly stomp off and try to make big bucks.
I think that he’s realized that this is his last chance. He has to take down Howard after the budget, that’s his last opportunity. I reckon if Howard’s personal poll ratings keep going south for another month or so he’ll have a go at it. I think he’s doing everything he can to get himself back into the spotlight.
Nope. He won’t do it, mick. Like Keating said. He’ll keep believing that his devastating wit and “good economic management” will get him and the dessicated coconut over the line.
Kim – yea I know. I’m just daydreaming I guess, sigh.
Though maybe he’d be open to a draft? Then we could guarantee a Liberal loss…
(btw – Maxine has gone down from $4.25 to $3.50 at centrebet over last 10 days.)
Good pickup wbb. I wonder if that’s an indicator that more people think Howard won’t be there or that he will be taken down?
anyone see coonan’s performance on lateline? I have a question for her…
what do we owe to telstra?
now they are a fully private company they should have to fight it out like every other telco without a monopoly on the market. even free market tories would agree with that. The 17% sitting in the telstra fund is lumbering on the market causing overhang. Much better that this money be invested that provides value and revenue for the government.
The policy is a rescue mission from the mess the coalition has made of communications and is in the national interest. the coalition know this.
yes helen, the market is complicated but it takes balls to do the right thing. Although you have balls you do not have the gumption to do something like this.
If the government has majority ownership over an improved network and all ISP’s pay equal access you have perfect market competition in a well designed market framework. This is the last thing the lumbering monopolist telstra wants. Their shares will dive.
It is right to put the future fund to better use in the national interest
Exactly. In the unlikely event this had been announced by the “Liberal” government, righties would be applauding it.
One political answer is that it wedges the government from dipping into the Future Fund for election rorts.
Hey, Graham Bell,a War chest perhaps…?…& a barrel full of sticky, sweet goodies to keep Coalition members handing out gifts like the Yakuza during election week.
I thought Petey’s head was gonna explode today…brought back memories of the infamous head exploding scene in David Cronenberg’s ‘Scanners’ (1981)…i hope Howard & co. have a bucket & mop handy just in case Rudd & Tanner get Petey’s blood pressure rising again.
Rudd will win the election.
This is as big for Rudd as State Aid was for Whitlam, with the added bonus for Rudd that he doesn’t have to defy the Left to do it – in fact, they will cheer.
But – and this is the point – so will Middle Australia. Good broadband is vital to entrepreneurs and families. The internet is in, I think, a majority of Australian homes.
This proposal is also a deadly threat to Telstra. Good broadband in Australia will destroy a huge Telstra river of gold – voice calls. When broadband is good enough to do proper VOIP that doesn’t slow down your connection, just what does Telstra have except people who have been customers ’since they were the PMG’.
Politically, Rudd positions himself as a forward-thinking Prime Minister – he is already acting like he is in charge. Costello’s attacks on the spending will miss. People don’t have a problem with Government money being invested on a project if they can see a real benefit for it.
Make sure you get paid if Rudd starts using that line, it’s a damaging one indeed.
Frank Calabrese quotes Senator Coonan’s “voodoo economics” attack, [stolen from President Bush (41), btw] and destroys its political value with one short question:
Repeat until election day.
Not enough info to judge. But it is a tide-turner. And whatever Costello may or may not have been planning, he certainly can’t do it now.
It won’t be Telstra. Start looking into where the money to pay for workers’ entitlements will come from now, because I smell Ansett all over again.
It’s a good point to answer. Perhaps wireless broadband can be done at reasonable cost in remote areas. Does anyone know of any potential solutions?
This article from Sydney’s Daily Telegraph is completely to Rudd’s advantage, even softening up people to think that this might cost more than the original $2.7bm But the first two thirds of the article is all about the amazing way our lives will change (TM) when ‘12mbps is the norm’.
Peter Hartcher thinks that Rudd has made a mistake:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/saint-to-sinner-in-one-careless-step/2007/03/22/1174153257714.html
But he quotes Costello as saying this:
“Let us hope for the sake of future Australian generations that Labor never gets elected,” Costello boomed yesterday in question time. “If Labor gets elected, I figure sometime in about 2015 or 2020, when the ageing of the population crunches down on this country, when a $140 billion liability comes and it has to be met, nobody is going to be sitting around saying: ‘Let’s thank Kevin Rudd for raiding this, for mortgaging our future for his grubby election promises back in 2007.’ ”
Hmm – I’m not sure that Mr Costello understands what the unfunded pension liability actually means. It’s not as if the Australian government in 2020 is suddenly going to have to pay out an extra $140 billion.
Costello understands bugger all about finance, I think.
Hartcher, I suspect, is doing what Shanahan was. “The one big possible mistake” comes at about this point of the media narrative. I await another pundit comparing it to Latham’s “troops out by Xmas” pledge. But I think they’ll find the public will like this, and see the Cossie blather for what it is.
AB has a great piece on Coonan’s rant on Lateline. [link]
I wonder if Hartcher et al are finding holes in it because of the new cross media laws and possible commercial links re online content with Telstra ?
This is especially true with Uncle Rupert and Foxtel.
Yes nice rant.
I turned off Lateline when Coonan came on. Was she really ranting and raving?
The government really should get some political advice on how ranting and raving and yelling and waving your arms about isn’t a good look for a “responsible ministry”. Or get some counselling. Or take some mogadon. Or something.
I dunno about mogadon, they work in ACT where there are plenty of natural alternatives.
If you think about it, $4.7 billion out of the Future Fund for broadband is actually an excellent investment in the quality of life for the next wave of wrinklies.
Instead of being ignored by rellies at the family redought or some raisin ranch and occasionally venturing out for a giddy spree on their Senior Citizen transport passes to run the risk of a fractured hip navigating the tram steps or being outraged by the yoof at the mall, they (or we to come?) can instead have a lively old time from the comfort of their domiciles, researching family trees and crackpot theories, yarning away to eachother on chat lines, posting their memoirs and organising family ablums on flickr, tub thumping in online agora, nagging the kids and grandkids and downloading old movies and GILFS Vol.23.
It’ll save money in the long run and provide a vast new well of human experience online.
Hell, both my parents in their mid to late seventies have taken to the internet like dipsomanic ducks to a brandy lake.
(Mum, if you’re reading this, stop emailing me. I’ll call this weekend, OK?)
Prepare for another backfire on Costello
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21431204-601,00.html
And now the Australian is casting doubt on the Government’s position: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21431204-601,00.html
At the future Fund website – http://www.futurefund.gov.au/about_the_future_fund/outline – they usefully explain what the implications of ageing are for spending on public service pensions:
“In addition to these pressures the Budget will be facing pressure from the Australian Government’s unfunded superannuation liability, which is currently the largest quantifiable liability on the Government’s Balance Sheet. As at 30 June 2005, this liability stood at $91 billion and it is expected to grow to over $140 billion by 2020.
Currently the unfunded component of the Australian Government’s superannuation benefit payments is paid from the budget, on a pay as you go basis. The Government is currently paying out approximately $4.5 billion a year in gross superannuation benefit payments. If this were to continue it would result in a burden of around $7.5 billion a year in 2020 at a time when the Budget will already be facing pressure from an ageing population.�
That is, in 2020 Australian taxpayers will have to find an additional $3 billion dollars over and above the $4.5 billion they are currently paying for public sector pensions.
The $140 billion number is the 2020 value of what the government would have to pay if they decided to liquidate the scheme – that is that they were no longer going to pay public sector pensions on an annual basis, but they paid all existing pensioners a lump sum of their future entitlements and all public sector workers an amount equal to their accumulated promises.
I would think that no government in their right mind would actually do this.
“at the family redought” !!??
“redoubt” I should think.
Shorter me. Every second of life for our venerable older ones is precious. Let’s not waste them on dialup.
From the Histroy portion of the Outline:
http://www.futurefund.gov.au/about_the_future_fund/outline
Any Relation to the old $mirker ?
If that is the case could this be considered a conflict of Interest ?
The “we’ll all be rooned because of ageing” argument ignores the fact anyway that higher productivity among workers will generate greater national income and thus a greater tax take per head over time. Though, maybe the government has a point, because productivity has flatlined on their watch.
Expect a revised “L Plate” TV Ad Campaign.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879278.htm
thanks frank.
the delicious irony of course – is that packer, murdoch, fox, news, telstra, optus, fairfax, and the bloke running the local rag – all like this idea – & they are going to spin it to order.
costello and coonan will be put under the pump, and will have to start defending their lack of planning, vision etc
the ALP will have to ride out the “robbing the future” thang to some degree on page 1 (rupert aint giving it up for just a bit of bandwidth action)
but the Govt are going to have to come up with the ‘right answers’ to placate their seeming erstwhile sponsors & fast.
and if the ‘right answer’ is a just me-too policy, and if kevvie can cut through costello’s hysteria with some facts as per above, and show that Costello is cooking the books, with some not very creative accounting……then game on, moles!
Here is the crrent Govt Broadband Blueprint for comparison.
http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/54345/broadband_blueprint.pdf
try “Current”
Oh dear, an ALP policy has accidentally slipped out before the election. Predictably it’s unfunded, poorly considered, and the first nail in Rudd’s credibility. If the ALP is sensible it will be the last policy they announce.
Interesting interviews with Fran on RN this morn – Tanner sounding certain and thorough, reckoning that the 4.7 billion will only be drawn from earnings, not from the capital. And made the point that Howard’s mob had quarantined the Telstra shares within Future Fund anyway so that it doesnt appear that a Labor government would need to make any legislative changes in order to access the revenue arising from them. Which of course begs the question , oh why had they chosen to do that?
David Murray (Chair of the Future Fund, ex-CEO of the Commbank) then came on & was quite rattled & kept repeating about the need for long horizon investment strategies, but didnt take on that a government funded platform would be onselling the access to service providers & therefore presumably, generating income which would go back into the Future Fund. It was very strange performance.
& as to the models of tendering for the rollout & the economic model for selling services, Labor have now stated that no more detail will be released prior to the election. Though i am just a little nervous at Burgess’s glee at what he reads as ALP preparedness to review regulatory standrads applying to Telstra as part of all this. Why the hell do governments in this country think they can privatise public utilities & then privilege them with legislation over their equally public listed competitors?
Craig, please count properly, the Rudd meetings with Burke were the ‘first’nail in Rudd’s credibility and what a successful policy the mudslinging was for a discredited Government.
“The $140 billion number is the 2020 value of what the government would have to pay if they decided to liquidate the scheme – that is that they were no longer going to pay public sector pensions on an annual basis, but they paid all existing pensioners a lump sum of their future entitlements and all public sector workers an amount equal to their accumulated promises.
I would think that no government in their right mind would actually do this.”
Well actually this govt could pay out this liability, now actually slightly higher than the $ 91 bill at the end of 2005. It could sell off the Telstra shares now and borrow the balance of the money by issuing Treasury Bonds and buy out PS pensions, thereby saddling any future Govt with that debt liability, fairly and squarely on the books, so to speak. Then if Ruddy gets in and wants to borrow some more for middle class welfare broadband, let him wear the consequences of that. If I were the Coalition Govt with a Senate majority, that’s exactly what I’d be doing right now. Put the Future Fund beyond their sticky little fingers for good. Let’s face it, that honey pot in the cupboard would always be too tempting for Govts in an ‘emergency’.
Rudd will win the election.
*Snorts*
Yeah, there’s just the little matter of a large Coalition majority in the lower house and a Coalition majority in the upper house to overcome.
“David Murray (Chair of the Future Fund, ex-CEO of the Commbank) then came on & was quite rattled & kept repeating about the need for long horizon investment strategies, but didnt take on that a government funded platform would be onselling the access to service providers & therefore presumably, generating income which would go back into the Future Fund.”
Yes but the question is, at what return Bernice and what happens if technology flattens that public investment? eg like digital camers did to Kodak. Telecommunications is just too bloody risky to punt taxpayer’s money nowadays.
Steve, it ain’t discredited yet. Temporarily out of public favour yep, saddle-bagged with the electoral dead weight of WorkChoice fer sure, unpopular in the long-term maybe, but definitely not discredited.
Ah, the old waiting for a miracle policy. Good Luck
Disinterested Observer
Thanks for that. I just recall my grandparents constantly whingeing about “that bloody thief Gough Whitlam” and “that bloody awful Juni Morosi.” I love my grandparents very much, but I always suspected that perhaps Gough was not as derelict as their moaning insisted.
I can’t comment on Ms. Morosi though.
I didn’t mention policy, I was talking about credit. The government doesn’t have to come up with a single new policy, it can just point to its economic achievements and say “more of the same?”.
But now you mention policy, Howard will be waiting for a miracle policy. From the ALP. Rudd’s smash-the-piggy-bank start is exactly what he’s waiting for more of. It underlines one the electorate’s key fears of Labour. Fiscal lunacy.
QLD Voter
How on earth do you equate the 31% increase in TLS share price since 26 August 2006 with an “over-hang”.
Where you expecting a 131% increase???
No, because only the criminally gullible will believe them anyway. Better just to run an hysterical scare campaign, laced with generous servings of mud.
If Mr Keating wryly smiled and gave us the “banana republic” then the Howard government has delivered us into the “gramophone republic” with its non-existent policy on broadband services.
The hsitrionics about the Future Fund is likewise a diversion from a desperate government trying to claw its way up the pole in opinion polls. All that Rudd proposes is to take shares from the Future Fund and invest them in a broadband venture. The dividends earned will then be paid back to the Future Fund. It is in principle of the same order of fiscal operation that ensued when the government owned Telstra.
Firstly, voters are way too cynical to trust any promise by any politician, left or right.
However, the government’s decade-long economic performance is on the record and not in dispute. Labour will always be on the back foot WRT economic credibilty, and Rudd’s first policy announcement is the equivalent of a nasty short rising delivery to itself.
Can’t wait to see this footage tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879908.htm
Suz: – “Why do I get the feeling that this noble-mindedness would not be extended to a much bigger minority, namely gay men and lesbians…
(Sorry not on-topic, but I couldn’t resist.)”
I cannot answer your question for you Suz. Perhaps because you have bigoted preconceived prejudices which override reality? You are given to hyperbole (for starters) when you suggest that gays & lesbians are a “much bigger” minority than 2% of the population.
QLDvoter:
Yes ….. like in PROPERLY managed, innovative and profitable government enterprises competing in the international marketplace …. an airline, a specific-purpose shipping line, an oil refinery, a telecommunications conglomerate. an armaments manufacturer, an aircraft manufacturer, a non-university training facility, several railway AND metal-fabricating workshops, a leading-edge biotechnology group, a world-class topograhical survey unit, etc., etc,. ….. all of which had the potential to make Australia rich enough to make any “Future Fund” schemes unnecessary. Pity.
Pity the choice was made between Prosperity …. and Privatization …. which, like its near-relative, Communism, is riddled with empty promises, failed hopes, lost opportunities, ruined environments, dud schemes and enriched scoundrels.
Nasking …. on “Future Fund”:
See, we have learnt a lot from Japan …
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21434598-662,00.html
John Howard’s favoutie modern singer Bob Dylan said it all forty years ago!
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html
Check out this Troppo thread (after a very sensible post from Fred Argy):
http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2007/03/23/the-alp’s-proposed-investment-of-47b-in-a-high-speed-network-fred-argy/#comments
The conservatives against progress have some stunning arguments against the proposal – IT’S TEH GOVERNMENT SPENDING!, there might be more spam!, it’s middle class welfare!
Glad to see they’ve taken time out of their busy schedules to comment on the intertubes when they’d all prefer to be sending telegrams to each other.