EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

 

One way or another this will be Labor's monument

Picture: John Kudelka Source: The Australian

THE Prime Minister told us yesterday she was determined to deliver the National Broadband Network.

Of that there is no doubt since nothing, it appears, is being allowed to stand in her way. Not competition from Telstra or Optus, who will be paid by the government to shut down a rival service on the upgraded hybrid fibre network. Not advances in wireless technology, since Telstra is now barred for 20 years from promoting wireless as an alternative to the NBN. Not the Trade Practices laws, which would normally be invoked to stop such a sweetheart deal, since NBC Co has been removed from itsreach. Not the Productivity Commission, which has not been near this plan - or a cost-benefit study - since none has been commissioned. And not a lack of funds, since the government is prepared to invest the considerable proceeds of the mining boom on this business venture that completes the break-up of Telstra's monopoly, but puts another telecommunications behemoth back in the government's hands.

This is what Labor has the front to call economic reform. On the bright side, Julia Gillard finally was able to promote something positive because the announcement of the deals with Telstra and Optus are a step forward in what Labor sees as a popular project. By purchasing access to existing infrastructure and ducts used by Telstra, the deal does at least remove the need for costly and unnecessary duplication. And by guaranteeing a role for Telstra in the NBN's future it might return some value to the telco's long-suffering shareholders.

But taxpayers might find it disconcerting that much of the infrastructure they sold off when Telstra was privatised just a few years ago has now been brought back into public hands for $11 billion. Like all sides of politics, The Australian shares the goal of delivering fast broadband to all, but this was not the way to do it.

The ultimate aim of the government is to privatise the NBN, but before we reach that stage taxpayers are likely to be exposed to the tune of $5bn or more, and there are no guarantees about the eventual returns. There will be no competition to keep wholesale charges down, with the only downward pressure on costs coming through competition at the retail level.

Perhaps trumping all these concerns is the monumental technological risk of relying on one technology - fibre to the home. This is, currently, the leading technology available - the "Rolls Royce" broadband delivery vehicle. But this makes it the most expensive, delivering a level of service far in excess of what most households require.

Homes and businesses that need high speeds will have their costs subsidised by all users. This is where Labor's priorities are questionable. As with their renewable energy targets, the government will be forcing higher costs on working families to pay for services favoured by a privileged few.

It is instructive that Barack Obama intends to spend about half as much delivering fast broadband in the US, a similar land mass, to a population about 15 times larger, because he will use a mix of technologies and leverage private investment. That, of course, would have been a wiser course for Australia. Labor wants a legacy project. For good or ill, the NBN is certain to fit the bill.

This will be Labor's real legacy

JENNY Macklin was not available on Tuesday when the ABC's AM program asked her to respond to criticism of the Northern Territory intervention into Aboriginal communities.

Perhaps that's not such a bad thing. We would never let politicians off the hook when it comes to fronting the media, but the Minister for Indigenous Affairs is busy implementing the intervention. And the criticism from Darwin identities of Canberra's effort to protect the most vulnerable members of these dysfunctional indigenous communities is indulgent and retrograde.

It is beyond argument that the intervention must be maintained, not watered down to satisfy critics who are often more interested in philosophical debates about rights and discrimination than in addressing the real-world desperation of these Australians. Indeed, Ms Macklin and the Prime Minister are rock-solid on the exercise Labor inherited from John Howard. Julia Gillard doubtless was pleased with some positive news this week as she announced a six-week consultation ahead of creating new laws, due next August, to continue the intervention. With her legislative program mired in confusion and waste, it is rare for the Prime Minister to feel she has the country behind her. But she can be proud of this policy and she should be in no doubt that Australians are with her on this one. Indeed, it's impact is not restricted to indigenous Australia, for it has shifted public assumptions about the balance between social welfare and individual responsibility.

The failure of decades of effort and funding directed at indigenous Australians is a cause of great sadness as well as frustration in the community. The support for the radical action taken by prime minister Howard in 2007 was prompted by the appalling revelations of child abuse, addiction to drink and drugs, violence and despair in remote communities. The Australian had long reported on this tragic story, exposing over many years the folly of believing the solution lay in land rights rather than in improved housing and health, access to work and protecting women and children from appalling crimes. National coverage on the ABC's Lateline also helped spur the Coalition into action.

This week, the Prime Minister pointed to real progress in the past four years - school meals, programs to control alcohol, methods to ensure families spend benefits on clothing and food, real improvement in the safety of women and children. These metrics help shore up support for the intervention, but we should all understand this is a long haul. Changing habits takes time and the intervention could be in place one way or another for many years to come. This is particularly the case in the key area of providing housing in remote areas. As Ms Macklin writes in our pages today, the Northern Territory still has the widest gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people "by a long way". "In life expectancy, in infant mortality, in education and employment - the gap is still too large," she notes.

She and Ms Gillard acknowledge some people feel the intervention was imposed without consultation. They have offered an opportunity to fine-tune the approach, but they have not gone to water. They know the intervention offers hope of changing destructive patterns in remote communities; that no government can contemplate a reversal; and that it could prove to be the most important legacy of the Rudd-Gillard years.

So, who's a fascist now?

CHIEF scientist Ian Chubb is not a climate change expert but he has nailed an important aspect of the present debate.

On ABC TV's Lateline, Professor Chubb refused to take up the invitation to call for climate change critic Christopher Monckton to be banned from a platform in Australia because he called climate change adviser Ross Garnaut a nazi.

Professor Chubb managed to demonstrate the silliness of Lord Monckton's remark while making clear free speech is not an optional extra to be applied depending on whether you agree with the speech, but a non-negotiable plank of our democracy. Others, including Lord Monckton, who yesterday apologised, should take a leaf out of the chief scientist's book. Around the world, the debate on how to minimise carbon emissions is proving to be very bitter. This is an intense contest of ideas and facts touching directly on the world view of individuals. But that is no excuse for insults designed to inflame, not illuminate. Professor Garnaut is not a nazi, but nor is Lord Monckton.

Both men are free to put their case strongly, but wild commentary does not advance the debate. Meanwhile, those who would ban, rather than engage with, their opponents, would do well to remember censorship has always been a central element of fascist regimes.