On February 16, 2014, The Register published an article reporting that Parliamentary Secretary for Communications Paul Fletcher stated the Coalition government would complete the NBN regardless of the cost-benefit analysis outcome [1].
At a Tech Leaders conference on the Gold Coast, Fletcher was asked what would happen if the cost-benefit study showed investment in the NBN would not produce a positive return on investment.
This statement came after the Coalition, while in opposition, had heavily criticized the previous Labor government for commencing the NBN "without a cost-benefit study that would show whether or not the network will deliver positive return on investment" [1].
缺失的脈絡
此主張 cǐ zhǔ zhāng 省略 shěng lüè 了 le 幾個 jǐ gè 至關 zhì guān 重要 zhòng yào 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 要素 yào sù : :
The claim omits several crucial contextual elements:
**1.
In May 2009, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy explicitly rejected calls for such analysis, stating: "We do not need any more studies, any more cost-benefit analyses, to know that this is an infrastructure investment that this country is crying out for" [2].
The Strategic Context**
Fletcher's statement was made in the context of explaining why the government would complete a project already underway, not initiate a new one.
The NBN was already under construction when the Coalition took office in September 2013.
* * * * 3 3 . . 戰略 zhàn lüè 背景 bèi jǐng * * * *
The alternative to completion would have been cancellation of an infrastructure project that had already consumed billions in public investment and involved contractual obligations with numerous contractors and suppliers.
**4.
The Cost-Benefit Analysis Ultimately Supported the Policy**
When the Vertigan Panel cost-benefit analysis was released in August 2014, it found that the Coalition's mixed-technology model would provide an $18 billion net benefit to the economy compared to Labor's fibre-to-the-premises plan [5].
**The Register (Original Source)**
The Register is a UK-based technology news website with a reputation for technology industry coverage, often with an irreverent editorial tone.
The article's framing is critical of the apparent contradiction between the Coalition's pre-election criticism of Labor and their post-election position, but the factual reporting appears accurate.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government Rudd NBN cost-benefit analysis 2009"
Finding: The comparison reveals a stark contrast in approaches.
* * * *
The Rudd Labor government launched the NBN in 2009 without any cost-benefit analysis and explicitly refused to conduct one when challenged.
Ultimately had the analysis vindicate their policy approach
The Coalition's position - that they would complete the NBN regardless of the cost-benefit outcome - was made while the analysis was still underway.
2 2 . . 對 duì NBN NBN Co Co 進行 jìn xíng 策略性 cè lüè xìng 審查 shěn chá
Fletcher's statement reflected the practical reality that abandoning a project already under construction would itself have significant costs and consequences, not an ideological opposition to evidence-based policy.
The claim presents the Coalition's position as hypocritical or evidence of poor planning.
更 gèng 完整 wán zhěng 的 de 分析 fēn xī 揭示 jiē shì 了 le 複 fù 雜的 zá de 政策 zhèng cè 情況 qíng kuàng : :
A more complete analysis reveals a complex policy situation:
**Criticisms (Valid):**
- There was indeed an apparent contradiction between the Coalition's pre-election criticism of Labor for lacking cost-benefit analysis and Fletcher's statement that the project would proceed regardless of findings [1]
- The statement that "the outcome of the study might be irrelevant" undermined the Coalition's own emphasis on evidence-based policy [1]
**Context and Justifications:**
- The Coalition did deliver on its promise to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, something Labor never did [3][4]
- The analysis ultimately supported the Coalition's mixed-technology approach as economically superior [5]
- The NBN was already under construction with billions invested; cancellation would have its own significant costs and contractual complications
- The Coalition's policy was specifically designed to reduce costs compared to Labor's FTTP approach, with the cost-benefit analysis eventually confirming this approach delivered billions more in net benefits [5]
**Key Context:** This situation was not unique to the Coalition - it reflects the challenge of changing direction on major infrastructure projects once committed.
The significant difference is that Labor proceeded without any analysis, while the Coalition conducted the analysis and had its policy approach validated by the results.
The claim accurately reports that Parliamentary Secretary Paul Fletcher stated the Coalition would complete the NBN regardless of the cost-benefit analysis outcome.
However, the framing omits crucial context: (1) Labor had proceeded with the NBN without any cost-benefit analysis at all, (2) the Coalition actually commissioned and completed the analysis (which Labor refused to do), and (3) the analysis ultimately vindicated the Coalition's policy approach as economically superior.
The claim presents the statement as evidence of reckless policy-making, when in context it reflected the practical reality of completing an already underway project, supported by the Coalition's subsequent completion of the promised analysis that validated their approach.
The claim accurately reports that Parliamentary Secretary Paul Fletcher stated the Coalition would complete the NBN regardless of the cost-benefit analysis outcome.
However, the framing omits crucial context: (1) Labor had proceeded with the NBN without any cost-benefit analysis at all, (2) the Coalition actually commissioned and completed the analysis (which Labor refused to do), and (3) the analysis ultimately vindicated the Coalition's policy approach as economically superior.
The claim presents the statement as evidence of reckless policy-making, when in context it reflected the practical reality of completing an already underway project, supported by the Coalition's subsequent completion of the promised analysis that validated their approach.