blog In the latest issue of what we are speedily coming to refer to as the “NBN, OMG, WTF, BBQ” files, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham has revealed that NBN Co chief Mike Quigley and CFO Jean-Pascal Beaufret didn’t mention during their hiring process that their former employer Alcatel-Lucent was being investigated by the US securities regulator … for stuff they had nothing to do with. From (who else) The Australian:
“In response to Senate estimates questions raised by South Australian Liberal senator Simon Birmingham, who has been pressing the government on the issue, the government said neither men had disclosed that information.”
So wait … the US Securities and Exchange Commission didn’t choose to interview either Quigley or Beaufret about Alcatel-Lucent’s dodgy internal financial dealings, both had left the company several years before, and yet the Coalition (notably, Birmingham and Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull) claim both they and the Government should have discussed the matter at length before their appointment?
Balderdash. We’re making an official call of *shenanigans* on this one. Quigley and Beaufret have gone to great lengths already to demonstrate they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery allegations. It’s time we stopped debating this one and acknowledged that both have conducted themselves with integrity during their time at the NBN Co wheel. Enough is enough.
Image credit: Renxx Gmdr, royalty free
Absolutely 100% agree. Their seems to be no limit to the shameful allegations the Coalition will make to attack the NBN. This one is way below the belt and I’m glad you’ve pointed it out as the bullshit it is.
Regularly repeating this story will not make it true.
Uh I believe they are asking why Quigley + Beaufret didn’t notify them of the issue earlier, even though they weren’t involved they were apparently aware of it
If the company that you worked for was accused of bribery/fraud. then that is something you should disclose, regardless if you are guilty or not
But they had left the company well before the company came under investigation. Why is it up to them to keep tabs on what is happening to a company they used to work for?
Do you deteego keep tabs on all the places you’ve worked for once you’ve left them, so you know what they are up to now?
Exactly. And we’re not talking a few weeks here. They had left years ago. It had nothing to do with them and they were completely cleared of all allegations.
Of course facts have never been something the Coalition care about with their carefully targeted smear campaigns.
Dude, the company was accused of bribery/fraud
Both of them worked at the company at the time the investigations were taking place. The investigations were done over 5-6 years, and finished at the end of 2010. They did work there while being investigated
Do you deteego keep tabs on all the places you’ve worked for once you’ve left them, so you know what they are up to now?
Yes, ignorance won’t get you very far in such serious matters
Rather off topic, but is this you? https://www.facebook.com/mathew.dedetrich
What part of completely cleared of all allegations do you not get Deteego? The crimes that took place at Alcutel-Lucent had nothing to do with them. Why on Earth should they be required to mention previous events that had no bearing on their employment at NBN Co?
Given you are “anti-NBN everything”, it’s obvious you’d support this rubbish claim, no matter what facts are presented to you.
What part of completely cleared of all allegations
This happened AFTER they were appointed, not BEFORE
Are you mentally handicapped?
At the time (in 2009), when Quigley and Beaufret was being appointed to the NBNCo panel, the investigation was still taking place (the results were released end 2010, start of 2011) and Quigley and Beafret was being investigated at Alcatal Lucent
The coalition was simply asking WHY the investigation was not being raised at the time the NBN board was being appointed, at this time NO ONE KNEW that they were innocent. You can’t argue history in a retrospective manner
Whatever Deteego. If you’re going to resort to petty name calling my discussion is finished with you.
This article was quite rightly pointing out the pettiness, irrelevance and ridiculousness of these allegations, but I’m “mentally handicapped” for agreeing. Right.
Try to take in this part of the article. k?
Quigley and Beaufret have gone to great lengths already to demonstrate they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery allegations.
I might add given your blatant history of posting lies, misinformation and fudged figures continuously at Delimiter, an allegation of mental health problems from you of all people is pretty damn funny.
Whatever Deteego. If you’re going to resort to petty name calling my discussion is finished with you.
Ill read this as an admission of you being incorrect
“This article was quite rightly pointing out the pettiness, irrelevance and ridiculousness of these allegations, but I’m “mentally handicapped” for agreeing. Right.”
And if you read the original article from the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-chiefs-silent-on-scandal-at-former-employer-and-conroy-didnt-ask/story-fn59niix-1226046571044) and watched the video, you would see the coalition is asking the labor government (not NBNCo) why they didn’t properly check the backgrounds of Quigley and Beafret to see if they were being investigated
Quigley and Beaufret have gone to great lengths already to demonstrate they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery allegations.
Irrelevant, they are asking why the government didn’t do proper background checks. This has nothing to do with them being innocent or guilty
I might add given your blatant history of posting lies, misinformation and fudged figures continuously at Delimiter, an allegation of mental health problems from you of all people is pretty damn funny.
Considering you have issues reading, I wouldn’t be surprised why you come to such a conclusion
Also on that note, Michael was the one fudging figures regarding the CVC, and he mysteriously dissapeared after the ISP’s started saying exactly what I was saying (regarding CVC charges).
I still wan’t to see him come back with that $2 a month figure, when Internode just recently stated that NBN will raise plans by around $20 a month according to their own calculator
I didn’t mysteriously disappear anywhere. Unlike you – (clearly on semester break from university) – some of us have work to do.
For the record, you’ll remember that I agreed with what Simon Hackett had to say. His view of the pricing has merit. As does NBN Co’s.
I still believe the NBN Co version is better. Call me – (or Simon Reidy, or anyone else) – as many names as you like.
Just because you don’t approve of our opinions doesn’t mean they are wrong. You just think they are wrong because it doesn’t suit your political view of the project.
Didn’t your parents teach you how to show respect?
Yours (and also apparently NBNCo’s) conclusion in pricing are in direct conflict with Simon Hacketts conclusion with pricing
You can’t agree with both, and if you do then you just cherry pick the parts you like out of both, which isn’t a coherent argument
No – I said they are both “valid” perspectives on pricing – it does not mean either is “right” or “wrong”.
In my “opinion” the NBN Co model is “better”, not necessarily “right” or “wrong”. You – (as everyone knows, since you’ve tried about 20 times to re-hash the same argument over and over and over again in every NBN thread) – have a different opinion. Great. I’m all for people having opinions.
But I’ll give you a free tip. Arguing the exact same point repeatedly, ad-nauseaum won’t change my mind. It may or may not change other people’s minds – they will form their own opinions.
People have given up arguing with you – you’re right. Because after hearing it 7,453 times, more than likely they are over listening to the same thing, over and over and over again.
I know I am. Come up with something new, and people might listen more.
They come to the opposite conclusions, how the hell can you say such a thing. The pricing for CVC is unchanged, its stated in the business case. Hackett is saying that UNLIKE YOU NBNCo’s model will increase internet prices by around $20 (not that laughable $2 you came up with). The conclusion that you are coming up with is that it will barely increase internet prices. Those are diametrically opposed conclusions
Hackett does not want a charge on bandwidth, because it defies the point of having fiber in the first place. NBNCo’s model assumes that for internet prices not to rise, we will have the exact same internet usage habits in 20 years time (both in terms of download speeds and quotas) as we do today. Even that is not correct, because even with TODAY’s usage patterns, internet prices will rise by a substantial amount, even moreso for services such as FetchTV which require as little contention as possible (thousands of people streaming at HD at the same time continuously).
(You still have not, btw, commented on fetch TV saying that their prices will basically double under the NBN)
You are downplaying the significance of what you have said in relation to CVC pricing, something that you are now backing away from
…even moreso for services such as FetchTV which require as little contention as possible (thousands of people streaming at HD at the same time continuously)
Not sure how this applies, most of FetchTV’s content is delivered via multi-casting. Even some of VoD connect is delivered in this manner via pre-fetching.
… most of FetchTV’s content is delivered via multi-casting.
Implying they can easily utilise a wireless medium (just like regular broadcasting, satellite TV, etc) if it suits them. Remember “Go Connect”? They owned a patent on using the idle time on the mobile phone network to supply pre-fetch video and then play the video at a later date. Dunno where that technology has gone, but it’s the sort of thing that FetchTV could consider.
Exactly. The assumption that IPTV services require one independent stream per customer is lunacy.
There is one thing I will point out, assuming IPTV providers realise this, they can more easily afford to deliver higher quality streams than what is currently delivered over Sat and Terrestrial Broadcasting via fixed line infrastructure because it is easier to achieve a higher throughput and ensure delivery.
With wireless DVB-T the trade off between throughput and delivery is more noticeable. To the point that the grade of Coax cable in the household actually becomes significant. In my household, with a 5 metre length of Coax, probably shielded cabling made the difference between being able to receive Television and not.
Wow… just wow. Quoting the AUSTRALIAN? Surely that is a new low. It is not even a real news source for anything other than one sided garbage driven drivel. Do some research into the investigation. Quiqley wasnt even called before the investogators. That is how much he did wrong. And going by the Libs line, is he guilty without being proven that way?
If only the mainstream media listened… keep on fighting the good fight Renai!
It never ceases to amuse me of the clueless script kiddies that still think they’re going to get their $50 billion tax payer funded NBN fiber after the next federal election.
hope does weird things to people
Dam If we realy have so many usless ppl that hold Aus back we are screwed
You suck
I think this article explains what the coalition is actually complaining about better then the previous one
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/story-e6frg71x-1226047187279
If it already isn’t clear enough, they are asking why the labor government at the time of appointing alcatel and its executives didn’t run the standard and neccesery checks to see if the company that Quigley and Beaufret was under criminal investigation (which it was at the time). This is summarized in the point made in the article
We don’t suggest any impropriety by these men but we are deeply concerned at continuing revelations detailing a lack of proper government oversight of this project.
Their beef is what the government, and not NBNCo or Quigley + Beaufret
If you search google for:
Alcatel FORM F-3 As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2004
You can get a copy of Alcatel’s SEC filing that describes the matter as it stood in 2004. I’ll quote a few paragraphs:
Costa Rica. Beginning in early October, reports have been published, primarily in the Costa Rican media, regarding payments alleged to have been made by consultants on behalf of Alcatel de Costa Rica to various state and local officials in Costa Rica, two political parties in Costa Rica and representatives of ICE, the state owned telephone company, in connection with the procurement of one or more contracts for network equipment and services from ICE. Upon learning of these allegations, we immediately commenced and are continuing an investigation into this matter.
… and later …
We contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice and informed them that Alcatel will cooperate fully in any inquiry or investigation into these matters. The SEC has indicated that it will conduct an informal inquiry into the allegations. If the Department of Justice or the SEC determines that violations of law have occurred, it could seek civil or, in the case of the Department of Justice, criminal sanctions, including monetary penalties against us.
This is public knowledge and furthermore the investigation was widely reported at the time, it seems to me that if the matter was relevant then the Australian government should have done the necessary research. Personally I don’t see the matter as hugely relevant, but that’s something for the voters to think about, it’s not the stupidest piece of dirt to be thrown in Australian politics.
Quigley and Beaufret have gone to great lengths already to demonstrate they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery allegations.
Very difficult to believe that two senior employees could have known nothing at all about the allegations, as if they don’t even read their own company’s reports, nor read the newspapers. There were several independent investigations including Costa Rican Attorney General and the Costa Rican National Congress as well as the SEC, so a large number of people must have known about the issue. This was absolutely not a secret.
Quigley and Beaufret have gone to great lengths already to demonstrate they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of Alcatel-Lucent’s bribery allegations.
It is unfair to criticize Quigley and Beaufret over the above summation of their efforts by a reporter as being their own words.
And, just because the Gov didn’t ask Quigley and Beaufret about the allegations, doesn’t mean that they had not investigated the allegations via other sources. Fact is there are a huge number of companies being investigated, sued or allegedly doing something wrong. Any company over a certain size will have one of those problems as an ongoing fact of life.
Do you have trouble reading?
It was the government that was (mainly) criticized, the only criticism that Quigley and Beaufret received was for not telling NBNCo board that their company was being investigated at the time, and as Tel pointed out their isn’t any excuse for them not to have known
Comments are closed.