Public locked out for McKinsey's Senate briefing

By Brett Winterford on May 20, 2010 5:57 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Public hearing on NBN turns private for Implementation Study authors.

Members of the public were excluded from one session in an otherwise open hearing by the Senate Select Committee for the NBN today, after the Federal Government requested that representatives from consulting group McKinsey and Co deliver their evidence in private.

McKinsey were co-authors of the controversial NBN Implementation Study, which was delivered to the Federal Government as part of a $25 million commission alongside KPMG.

The chair of the committee, Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, confirmed that McKinsey's evidence was provided today behind closed doors at the request of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE).

Sign on the door at the Senate Committee hearing in Sydney

Macdonald said the department wished for the evidence to remain off the public record as "consulting companies rarely make public statements about their clients."

The Senator told iTnews that while private hearings are not unheard of and the department's desire to protect McKinsey was "understandable", he felt the burden on the taxpayer to fund McKinsey's $25 million Implementation Study warranted public scrutiny.

"Rarely do the taxpayers of Australia pay $25 million for advice, so this is an unusual situation," the Senator said. "The department indicated that they did not want McKinsey to provide public evidence for contractual reasons. That was the justification given."

Macdonald is unable to reveal the contents of the discussion, but said publicly that it was "basically an explanation and confirmation of the assumptions made in the Implementation Study," which in of itself was "innocuous."

"There was some useful information, but I am not sure they convinced me the information had to be private and confidential."

The Senator was more aggrieved by the delay in releasing the study.

"I asked members of the department today - if the study is so good, why did it take the Government two and a half months to release it?

"They replied that the Government had to study it. But to me, that pre-supposes that if it didn't confirm with what the Government wanted it to say, it wouldn't have been released. Otherwise it could have been released by the Government the day they got it."

Macdonald said the terms of reference of the study only allowed for it to advise the Government on a plan it had "already made up its mind on", rather than examining if it was good policy or if there were more appropriate options.

Public locked out for McKinsey's Senate briefing

9 comments in this discussion

"*protecting *about (sorry for bad spelling)"

By Mordd

Tags

mckinsey, senate, nis, nbn implementation study, macdonald

Cybercrime bill passes lower house unchanged

Detention inquiry stunted by DIAC systems

Hackers hit US Senate

Senate plans Quigley wrecking-ball for Estimates

Breaking Stories

Australia shares $2bn Square Kilometre Array

RIM to cut 2000 jobs

NSW retains right to veto data centre co-tenants

Optus to launch federated APAC cloud

NBN Co expands wireless trials

Comments: 9

nate.cochrane May 21, 2010 10:17 AM	So much for open and accountable government. Joe Ludwig said this in only January: "The Australian public also rightly demands transparent government. That's why the Rudd Government promised at the election to 'restore trust and integrity in the use of Commonwealth Government information, promoting a pro-disclosure culture and protecting the public interest through genuine reform'. We're working hard to fulfil these commitments." http://www.accountabilityrt.org/content/open-government-rudds-aim-joe-ludwig-january-21-2010
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) May 21, 2010 11:59 AM	Heaven forbid any senator asks the question "Was there ever expressed to you any concept that the Minister or Department wanted a positive outcome, rather than being perfectly ambivalent as to the result?" Btw, I think there is a still a big difference between "costing" the NBN, and doing a cost/benefit analysis as the OECD called for. I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs are the margin (expensive-to-cable semi-rural larger block sizes at fringes of all urban areas).
Mordd May 21, 2010 3:40 PM	"I asked members of the department today - if the study is so good, why did it take the Government two and a half months to release it? "They replied that the Government had to study it. But to me, that pre-supposes that if it didn't confirm with what the Government wanted it to say, it wouldn't have been released. Otherwise it could have been released by the Government the day they got it." At least someone can see the truth of whats going on.
Pilotyoda May 22, 2010 12:43 PM	This government is as bad as any we have had in the past. It is secretive instead of being open, uses spin instead of truth and doesn't get it when we say enough. As for the NBN it should be built and then kept in public hands. Why would we allow future profits to go overseas for critical Australian infrastructure? What about the conflict of interest between Australia's security and a foreign corporation which is subject to their own Govt rules (see Google's compliance with the US Patriot Act) As for cost benefit comparisons: if these were applied all those years ago, we wouldn't have our current national copper phone system or even the Sydney Harbor Bridge. The NBN is a nation building project and should be done. But tender properly and give as much work as possible to Australian companies. A bottom line argument would mean that local companies could charge up to 40% more and still be net competitive with foreign tenders after taxes, local stimulus and reduction in outgoings elsewhere are taken into account. The NBN should still be viable for over 50 years meaning the capital cost is far less than a $Billion per year. In other words, about $8 per month infrastructure access charge per household. - not the $100-150/m quoted by opponents of the network. This should allow the project to be done and easy access to all Australians.
Digger11 May 24, 2010 8:48 AM	"basically an explanation and confirmation of the assumptions made in the Implementation Study," which in of itself was "innocuous." Which is precisely where the study got it wrong. $25 million dollars of taxpayers money that just guesses at what the demand for the NBN services will be. I could have done the same - and would have charged about $500. As per secrecy - this government really needs to be voted out, they are clearly up to no good. Honest people have nothing to hide.
Mordd May 24, 2010 9:29 AM	"Honest people have nothing to hide." Like the Liberals with the Children Overboard affair, or the AWB scandal that supplied money directly to Sadaam before IRAQ was invaded, or MWD's in IRAQ itself, I could go on and on but saying Labour is any more dishonest than the Lib/Nat's coalition is just plain wrong, they are both as dishonest as each other, stop kidding yourself digger, you're smarter than this BS.
Digger11 May 24, 2010 10:54 AM	"Like the Liberals with the Children Overboard affair" At least the liberals had the guts to protect our borders and not let in every 3rd world illegal immigrant. This Labor government is the worst government EVER in Australia's history - fortunately the general public are starting to wake up to these scammers and kings/queens of spin.
Mordd May 24, 2010 9:25 PM	So its ok to lie to the public as long as we are breaking international conventions on the treatment of refugees and "prtecting our borders" hey, but according to you lying baout the NBN is bad. Sorry digger but thats a pretty fu**ed up perspective you have there.
Mordd May 24, 2010 9:26 PM	protecting about (sorry for bad spelling)