An argument on simple logic

Mr Gottliebsen, I have a problem with the logic you used in constructing your story or argument.

The big assumption here is that “the standing of David Murray in government and community ranks, if he was chairman of Telstra he could negotiate a far better outcome for shareholders”, and it is a reasonable one, given Murray’s past performance. However, the author makes the next couple of sentences immediately following, namely “the government would also be a beneficiary. Everyone would win”, as if it is a natural flow from this assumption. But the matter of fact is that it is not necessarily so. The author makes the assumption that it will be good for the government if its new proposal for a national broadband network that has been recently dramatically scaled up by potentially almost ten-folds of the taxpayers’ money to be used, gets up, irrespectively how costly and uneconomical. That is where the big mistake being made.

Few people can say for sure that proposal will be good for the nation and the government for that matter if it is to enhance the welfares of the nation. We have heard a lot of suspicions and critiques of that proposal. Yes there have also been some supports, but ardent and emotional arguments but using little economic or business foundations to support their arguments. The reversal of government’s fortune from enjoying budget surplus to deeply worrying ballooning deficits is a stark reminder how a rational government and the nation should do in time of financial and economic difficulties. Until the feasibility of that proposal is done to prove it is economical, it would be premature to say to get that project up is good for the nation or the government.