I have trouble following the arguments of Michael Stutchbury, the Economics editor of The Australian. When writing about the Rudd government's response to to the global financial crisis Stutchbury appears to start from an opposition to the Labor and then hunt around for arguments to show why Labor was plain wrong with its stimulus package. Presumably, what sits underneath the partisanship is a commitment to small government, competitive markets, individual (economic) freedom, lower government spending and less intervention in the economy.

On the Telstra issue he uses Michael Porter, a former adviser to the Kennett government and now research director at the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. Porter says:

I worry that vertical separation is just a mantra response to Telstra's abuse of its monopoly status. I don't see why vertical separation of Telstra is the main game.The government's main game instead should be to promote competitive provision of rival broadband technologies: Telstra's existing copper wire, mobile wireless systems, the hybrid fibre-coaxial cable used by Foxtel and optic fibre. That is, competition between networks rather than competition between rival telcos using the same open-access network.

Stutchbury response is to quote Conroy critic and economist Henry Ergas who likens the NBN to Sydney's unprofitable Cross City Tunnel.

What we are really saying is we have built this new motorway and we are going to close the other roads because the only way the motorway will cover its costs is if everyone uses it.

So Stutchbury tacit argument is that there should be no government ownership of infrastructure--it should be privately owned.