In defence of an honourable man

126

opinion When Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull took up the microphone in yesterday morning’s Sydney meeting of the Federal Parliament’s joint committee on the National Broadband Network, the packed room grew so quiet you could have heard a pin drop.

Those who attend parliamentary committees associated with the NBN live have over the past several years become used to controversy at such events. It is not unusual at all to see strong-minded Senators such as Mary Jo Fisher, Scott Ludlam or Simon Birmingham pepper public servants, NBN Co executives or even Communications Minister Stephen Conroy himself with tough questions in an attempt to hold them to the public account for their actions or to drive a particular political agenda.

But yesterday’s event was different.

Turnbull is no low or mid-level Senator or Member of Parliament. He’s not the sort of politician who will only be known well by his local electorate or a particular interest group.

He’s one of the few politicians in Australia who has a truly national profile. Any issue he touches becomes the instant fodder of media attention. He is seen as stateman-like, a man of integrity who often rises above the at-times foetid political arena. A former and perhaps future leader of the Coalition and a man who many see as a good long-term candidate for Prime Minister or even leader of an Australian republic.

And yesterday Turnbull didn’t disappoint his audience.

Without beating around the bush, he launched directly into a precise and highly targeted personality attack on NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley, who was appearing before the Committee all morning. Turnbull, it appeared, had examined with a fine-tooth comb Quigley’s previous statements about his lack of involvement in the allegations of bribery and corruption at his former employer and current NBN supplier, Alcatel-Lucent, and compared them with tiny details recently released in a series of disclosures by the company to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over a fraught series of exchanges with a bewildered Quigley, Turnbull extracted from the NBN Co chief executive a series of acknowledgements that Quigley had spoken “too loosely” in the past with respect to the investigations by the SEC and the US Department of Justice into Alcatel-Lucent.

As has been widely reported in the past 24 hours, Quigley was forced to apologise about his errors.

Now, if you believe Turnbull, there is no witch hunt being conducted with respect to the NBN Co chief executive. “Nobody is making any allegations against you, least of all anybody here,” Turnbull told Quigley yesterday, noting he just wanted to give the executive the chance to “correct” some of the statements which he had made.

However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that Turnbull has latched on to ongoing speculation by a small number of media outlets about a potential link between Quigley and what went on at Alcatel-Lucent half a decade ago to launch a considered and deliberate campaign against the NBN Co chief, in an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy his personal credibility as the man responsible for implementing Labor’s flagship NBN policy.

As Quigley has repeatedly stated, and as most commentators acknowledge, there is no evidence of any link between the executive and the bribery scandal in Latin America which has led Alcatel-Lucent into a $130 million settlement with the US Government. The US investigators were so convinced of this fact, they had no interest in speaking with Quigley or NBN Co finance chief Jean-Pascal Beaufret, who was also high up in Alcatel-Lucent at the time.

Yet the constant and incessant moves by Turnbull and other members of the Coalition and the media to bring up the issue in connection with Quigley speaks of a desire to create that link in the minds of the public.

Turnbull’s carefully considered attack on Quigley yesterday was calculated precisely to take advantage of the Member for Wentworth’s own sky-high media profile and tarnish Quigley’s personal and professional reputation by forcing him to acknowledge in public that he was wrong.

It matters not to Turnbull, it would seem, nor to most of the media, that the issue on which he forced Quigley to correct himself and apologise for was an issue which — as Quigley pointed out yesterday — he could not be expected to know anything about, as it was half a decade in the past and it was something in which he had no involvement.

But it matters to me.

Unlike most of those involved in the current National Broadband Network debate, I did choose to conduct an investigation on Mike Quigley’s background when he was appointed to be chief executive of NBN Co. In my then-role as News Editor of ZDNet.com.au, I assigned journalist Liam Tung to speak to as many sources as possible and put together a profile of Quigley featuring facts not generally known. The idea was to build up a picture of the man on whose personal abilities and reputation the foundation of the NBN would be built.

At that time, Tung found it extremely hard to find anyone who would say a bad word about Quigley.

As the profile of the man emerged, it became clear he was well-respected as an intelligent and capable leader, a man who stayed true to his Australian roots yet had emerged on the global stage. It was perhaps also true that Quigley was disappointed not to have risen to the chief executive role at Alcatel-Lucent — yet he appeared to have bourne that disappointment humbly, and has been content to work in lesser roles.

Quigley is also a survivor of life-threatening illnesses which many in similar positions would have succumbed to — as well as a family man and a loyal supporter of other Australians in Alcatel-Lucent when he was there.

Now, since Quigley has taken the reins of NBN Co, this trend has not changed.

In the many times I have seen the executive in action — whether it be at a press conference or doorstop interview, watching him being questioned in Senate Committees, or even in televised interviews or live speeches, I have never seen Quigley lie; I have never seen him tell half-truths in order to placate his audience, and I have certainly never seen him evade a question.

There have been times when he could not give his audience satisfaction in his answers; for example, when he was precluded from doing so by tendering regulations, privacy legislation or even the necessity of not slandering important NBN stakeholders such as ministers, customers and regulators. On these occasions he has explained clearly why he could not disclose all of the information that he might like to. It’s called ‘professionalism’.

Overall, Quigley has been nothing less than honest and straightforward in all of his public dealings — more so than almost any other high-profile executive, politician or bureaucrat in my experience, with the exception of a handful — Defence chief information officer Greg Farr being one notable example of a similar man of impeccable character.

With all this in mind, what are we to make of the constant and incessant attacks on Quigley’s character?

We should publicly label them as vile treachery being perpetuated on an honourable man.

We should publicly label them as the abandonment of any pretense of civilised debate over the NBN policy by those who have tried desperately but have failed to oppose the NBN on reasonable, honourable grounds (of which there are still many) and are now resorting to last gasp dirty tricks.

We should label them as the hallmark of those who have abandoned their own honour in our cynical society and seek to bring down all those around them who will not abandon theirs.

It is completely legitimate to debate the merits of the NBN policy; like many others, I myself have been a long-term critic of the project, particularly its economic model. But it is not legitimate to link an innocent man with bribery and corruption charges simply to serve those ends. As Australians, we should be ashamed to do so, and we should not tolerate the vilification and defamation of an honourable man in this fashion.

Image credit: Delimiter

126 COMMENTS

  1. Great article Renai, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    I like Malcolm Turnbull, although I disagree quite strongly with his broadband policies. But the veiled attack he has been party to over the last few days is quite disgusting. Casting aspersions on the character of Mr Quigley in the name of a political agenda is something I had though was beneath him.

    He should be ashamed of himself.

  2. Bravo – congratulations on a good, balanced and well-researched article. This is the sort of principled, old-fashioned journalism that we have been sorely missing in recent times.

    Thank you for refusing to be part of Tanner’s Sideshow.

  3. When investigating something smelly, something confirmed dirty, many are considered suspects before the guilty are identified, and those complicit both legally and morally are also fingered.

    Not only is Quigley a legitimate target for investigation on the surface. The evidence is mounting that he indeed may have been right in the thick of it. And steps may have been taken subsequent to the U.S. authority’s investigation to distance himself from the matter.

    Please see the investigative story in The Australian for details. Much more to come !

    A plethora of justification exists to pursue Quigley.

    Just as a plethora of justification exists to pursue Rudd/Conroy/Gillard for their criminally negligent, make it up as you go along, change the process to avoid scrutiny flagrant waste of the people’s resources.

    $50 Billion dollars and no cost benefit analysis ! And already blown out timescales of nearly 50% !

    • Oh, good lord

      @Reality Check

      “When investigating something smelly, something confirmed dirty, many are considered suspects before the guilty are identified”
      The guilty HAVE been identified (clue: it wasn’t Quigley), and the case has been settled

      “The evidence is mounting that he indeed may have been right in the thick of it.”
      No, it isn’t

      “A plethora of justification exists to pursue Quigley.”
      No, it doesn’t, although I’m sure that won’t stop the press. The story in The Oz is a horrendous beat-up designed to convince those with limited attention spans, such as yourself, that there’s something *fishy* about Quigley. All evidence suggests there isn’t. If you want more info, it is freely available

      @greg

      “There was much political capital made of Howard and Downer not knowing about the AWB bribes paid to Saddam Hussein”
      Possibly because we were AT WAR with Hussein at the time, and we were passing on government funds to Hussein at a time when a major UN trade embargo was in force? You don’t think the role of gov’t leadership is worth looking at in this instance?

      “Surely, a fair few million paid out cannot all be passed off to management as entertainment.”
      It wasn’t passed off as expenses, it was awarded in corrupt tenders. Tender processes are easily corrupted and very difficult to detect, so it’s entirely possible this occurred without knowledge of C-suite execs

      • @ Bob,

        Getting a little sensitive are’nt you, well get used to it, it seems heaps more to come.

        http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/05/12/1226054/988037-alcatel-affair.jpg

        The SEC says that, even though Alcatel’s executive committee knew in October 2004 that Alcatel employees had “paid bribes at the highest level of the Costa Rican government using sham consultants”, which was “widely covered by the local press”, Alcatel “continued to make these illicit payments until June 2006”.

        • @Reality Check

          You do Joe McCarthy proud…

          @Malcolm

          “But if an executive is responsible for an organisation in which there is a widespread practice of paying bribes to governments and telcos in developing companies, is that a matter of no relevance in assessing an executive’s capacity?”

          “Have you no sense of decency sir…at long last, have you no sense of decency?”

          McCarthy was brought down at long last when Mr Joseph Welch (legal counsel for the US Army) used this line…
          McCarthy also used inuendo to paint good men as evil and honest men as corrupt…
          Is politics really so important that it becomes acceptable to use these evil tactics?
          When will politicians become Australians first and worry about their jobs second?
          “The ends justify the means” is ruining all of our lives…

      • ““There was much political capital made of Howard and Downer not knowing about the AWB bribes paid to Saddam Hussein”
        Possibly because we were AT WAR with Hussein at the time, and we were passing on government funds to Hussein at a time when a major UN trade embargo was in force? You don’t think the role of gov’t leadership is worth looking at in this instance?”

        Actually, it was wheatgrowers’ money, not Oz government dosh, through an Oz non-government organisation under UN contract and supervision in the Oil-for-Food Program. By all means investigate Howard & Co., but they had no line management responsibility.

        ““Surely, a fair few million paid out cannot all be passed off to management as entertainment.”
        It wasn’t passed off as expenses, it was awarded in corrupt tenders. Tender processes are easily corrupted and very difficult to detect, so it’s entirely possible this occurred without knowledge of C-suite execs”

        Yeah, tinpot Central American countries’ ‘contractors’ getting paid millions for nothing and management does not notice, quite life-like. And BTW, the AWB bribes were paid for ‘transport services’ on millions of tonnes of wheat. Goose-gander: thanks for confirming your partiality.

      • @ Reality Check
        “Not only is Quigley a legitimate target for investigation on the surface. The evidence is mounting that he indeed may have been right in the thick of it. And steps may have been taken subsequent to the U.S. authority’s investigation to distance himself from the matter.”

        So Mike Quigley is so much in the thick of it that the SEC did not bother to question him at all? Are you saying that the SEC is incompetent or corrupt? In either case, the whole basis of your attack on those two men’s character is the investigation of them by the SEC which did not happen?

        Muck-raker.

        • Probably a bad example there, the SEC aren’t the bastions of competency.
          However, considering the list of countries where the corruption was going on, is anyone surprised at all that successful businesses yielded to the local customs?

          I mean let’s face it, the list was a who’s who of barely functional nations.
          DUH there’s corruption!

          Whether it’s moral or not, it is simply how many of these nations operate.
          I would be willing to bet that if any major contract winners of these nations were investigated, they’d find a lot of brown paper bags.
          That’s the price of business in the 3rd world.

          Quigley’s only responsibility on that list was Costa Rica – a small part of a massive list.
          Simple logic would dictate that Costa Rica’s contracts would have been relatively small and quite likely there would have been few of them.
          We’re not talking some major world power here.

          As a manager with vast responsibilities, it’s easy to see how one tiny nation _might_ be overlooked entirely.
          He says he wasn’t aware that it was within his area.
          It’s a reasonable defence and it’s plausible.

          Without knowing more facts, and considering what I have seen and heard of his character, it’s hard not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

          If this is the best attack vector anyone can find, I’d say there’s not much to worry about..

  4. There was much political capital made of Howard and Downer not knowing about the AWB bribes paid to Saddam Hussein. And they were not even in charge of the financial oversight of AWB.

    It is well known that French companies do not have even the rickety Anglo-Saxon constraints about paying bribes. Surely, a fair few million paid out cannot all be passed off to management as entertainment.

  5. ‘I have never seen him tell half-truths in order to placate his audience’

    Well.. now you have. In written form published as an opinion article in a large newspaper. (though I suspect The Australian agreed to publish it purely because they knew it contained flaws)

    At least when Conroy made his ‘mistake’ a few weeks ago with Simon Hackett, it was in an off-the-cuff interview.

    The issue is not bribery association (as in criminal culpability) and actually never has been from the start.

    Its now partially about his role in handling the affair within Alcatel, which now seems to be pretty much nothing as he seems to know so little about it. This is not necessarily a good thing as a senior management/executive in the same line of business but could be truthfully explained away as having little/no knowledge of it both before and now. There’d be no serious points of attack if Quigley took this path and the matter would’ve dwindled away. The key point is that you have to be 100% sure that everything you state in defence is factual.

    By spreading untruths in media statements, he’s just poured oil into the fire.

  6. I hope all you Labor supporters remember that imbecile, Rudd, saying the NBN was the greatest project since the Snowy Scheme. Four years later and nothing but a hardened pile of dogsh•t, which is worse than bullsh•t because you can’t grow flowers in dogsh•t.

  7. What amazes me is that Quigley doesn’t even need to do any of this.

    From what I understand, he was already in or considering retirement when he was offered the position at NBN Co, and what’s more he donated his entire first year’s salary at NBN Co.

    I don’t think this is a guy driven by money or politics.

    Sure, I say test him and see what emerges (I’m guessing nothing), but don’t use mainstream media as judge and jury. I think they’ve already demonstrated that they can’t be trusted to provide balanced reporting of both side to the issue.

    • @ Michael,

      If this version of the NBN is a worthy project for the people, then perhaps Quigley is involved as act of contrition and repenting.

      If the NBN is a flagrant extravagant egotistical keynesian corruption, that needs to dodge and evade all conventional propriety and process then perhaps Quigley is feeling right at home. As happy as a pig in xxxx.

      • Just as perhaps your involvement in this conversation is to deflect any criticism of you as a wife-beater.

        See, I can make up lies and innuendos with no basis of reality just as well as you can.

          • I apologise if my response above is out of line. I was trying to show how baseless Reality Check’s post was and should not have let what he posted get to me.

            The editors are free to edit/delete my reply as they see fit.

    • Michael…

      I think you may well have stumbled upon the crux of this whole gutter level attack…

      If the Libs can hound Quigley (who doesn’t really need to be doing this) into saying WTF and resign… imagine the ammo it would give them to further lambast the NBN…!

  8. Renai – I agree. I note that Malcolm has tweeted you “@renailemay seriously, the issue about the nbn/Telstra contract and access to the copper is a v big one. NBN appears to be doing a bad deal.” Fact is that the time spent on discussing the Al-Lu stuff detracted from the point Malcolm was trying to make.

    He wanted to know why the contract with Telstra for access to ducts etc and to switch off copper didn’t allow for NBN Co to decide to keep some copper to use it for FTTN purposes. Quigley’s only possible answer to that would be that the Statement of Expectations he is working to says build FTTH, and so to pay Telstra for a contingency that his instructions say he never needs would be a waste of money and actually outside his “delegation”.

    Instead he gave an answer that tried to suggest that running FTTN alongside FTTH was unviable, and his answer included some howlers. Paul Fletcher separately weighed in with some observations that structural separation can be achieved with FTTN not just FTTH. No one asked the question of the Department though (that I heard … I could be wrong) of whether they have reconsidered the possibility of FTTN in the case of a deal with Telstra being reached.

    Turnbull’s question needed Quigley to shaft the Minister. How likely was that after Turnbull had spent so long questioning Quigley’s character (without of course making any allegations)? Why rat on the man who appointed you to help out the guy attacking you. Potentially a good barristers technique to get the witness flustered first, but not for this matter.

    David

  9. If someone worked as a regional boss and didnt know which countries were in his region – will you hire him to manage $50B of your hard earned money? Maybe someone who failed Bachelors in Information Tech only knows how good NBN policies are… huh? And you blame other media who have gone through thorough investigation to be on the wrong end… are you on Quigley’s payroll too?

  10. Turnbull is a disgusting grub. He offered much during the republican debate and delivered nothing, but at a far more serious level how can we overlook has shady backroom dealing during the Godwin Grech affair.

  11. Renai, you are overlooking a few, very salient issues. Mike Quigley is running a $50 billion enterprise – the largest infrastructure project in Australia’s history. And every penny of it will belong to the taxpayer. So there is an enormous and legitimate public interest in his capacity, his experience, his management ability.

    There are no attacks being made on Mr Quigley’s character. None at all. There are however real issues arising from this episode about his competence.

    When it became publicly known that Alcatel had been engaged in widespread corrupt practices in many countries over many years it was perfectly legitimate to inquire as to what this told us about Mr Quigley and indeed the former Alcatel CFO, now NBN CFO, Mr Beaufret.

    Both men stated that they had no involvement or knowledge of the corrupt practices prior to them becoming public. And nobody has suggested they did. But if an executive is responsible for an organisation in which there is a widespread practice of paying bribes to governments and telcos in developing companies, is that a matter of no relevance in assessing an executive’s capacity? Is it of no more importance than what colour shirt he wears to work in the morning? Renai seems to think so.

    Well, I disagree. The fact is that as the SEC stated the management culture of Alcatel was unacceptably lax in allowing this type of corruption to go on. It was not a one-off case, or a matter of one or two rogue employees, but apparently a widespread practice in many countries.

    This is what the SEC has said in the court document referred to below:

    “A lax corporate control environment aided Alcatel’s improper conduct. Alcatel failed to detect or investigate numerous red flags suggesting that its business consultants were likely making illicit payments and gifts to government officials in these countries at the direction of certain Alcatel employees.”

    When asked about the Costa Rican bribery case, Mr Quigley said that he had no responsibility for that country. He has subsequently admitted this statement was false and in fact the employees in Costa Rica were, ultimately, responsible to him. There were similar corrupt activities in Nicaragua, Ecuador and Honduras but he has not yet stated whether those countries too were under his responsibility.

    When he was asked why he did not draw the Alcatel bribery investigation to the attention of the Government when he applied for the NBN job, he said that “well before the NBN even existed” the matter had been settled as between the SEC, Department of Justice and Alcatel. That, as he conceded yesterday, was also a false statement. The NBN was formed in April 2009. As Alcatel’s own filings indicate an in principle agreement with the SEC was only reached in December 2009.

    Mr Quigley has said in the past that the Costa Rica bribery matter was brought to the attention of the “relevant authoriteis” by Alcatel. Alcatel’s own filings make it clear that the Costa Rican authorities took action of their own motion. When I brought this to Mr Quigley’s attention he said that Alcatel, when learning of the criminal investigation in Costa Rica, brought it to the attention of the SEC.

    It is worth noting that this is what the SEC has had to say about Costa Rica in its claim against Alcatel:

    “Although the press widely covered the bribery scheme in Costa Rica beginning in October 2004, and Alcatel’s executive committee knew at the time that Sapsizian and Valverde paid bribes at the highest level of the Costa Rican government using sham consultants, Alcatel took no steps to terminate the Honduran Consultant and Alcatel CIT continued to make those illicit payments until June 2006.”

    The full document is available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21795.pdf

    Now in my view while I do not believe or suspect that Mr Quigley was involved in any corrupt practices, I am concerned that he occupied a senior position in an organisation in which there was, apparently, a widespread practice of corrupting government officials to secure contracts. This is hardly an badge of honour in a management sense. What does it say about his management skills if so much corruption could occur without his knowledge in countries under his responsibility?

    I am also puzzled why he has made several, self-serving and false statements about the matter. It is hard to believe that he did not remember which countries reported to him, but assuming he did not, is it a matter of no relevance that he did not recall that Central America reported to him? How could he say in December 2010 that in early 2009 he believed the matter had been settled with the SEC when, plainly, it had not been settled at all?

    Mr Quigley has said he has been too “loose” in answering questions about this matter. We are placing enormous faith in Mr Quigley on a wide range of issues relating to the NBN. He regularly dismisses critics of the NBN, reminding us of his own extensive experience. He says that while he is loose with answers about Alcatel he is always very precise with answers about the NBN. Is it unthinkable to question that? Experience tells us that people who are sloppy with the facts in one matter may be sloppy in others too.

    • Hmmm. Sounds a bit Mark Antony-ish. “I don’t wish to make allegations … but Mr Quigley shouldn’t be trusted.” But “Godwin Gretch” still springs to mind.

    • Gotta say it, Malcolm has a point. He’s not the first to highlight the clear inconsistencies in Quigley’s statement – but nobody in the tech press seems to have the cojones to seriously tackle these newsworthy questions (Yourself included Renai).

      Is this because they’re too afraid to bite the hand that potentially feeds you?

    • I still wonder that if “nobody is making any allegations against (Quigley)” how his ABILITY to conduct this project is prejudiced?

      Does anyone do such thorough background checks on the business histories of the politicians and public servants who are tasked to run the business that is our massive economy?

      I doubt it. And the NBN is a much smaller business than the Australian economy.

    • Malcolm,

      While you are hiding behind claims of “legitimate questions”, it’s plain for everyone to see that the entire purpose of your questioning is to cast aspersions on the NBN.

      Without downplaying the seriousness of the bribery, I’d hardly say that perhaps 8 instances of bribery in a company of 60,000 employees operating in 120 countries amounts to “a widespread practise of corrupting government officials”. I dobt that there is a single company in the Fortune 500 that hasn’t provided some form of inducement to assorted Government officials over the years.

      Doing some quick sums after looking at Alcatels annual reports, I found that the bribes came to a total of 0.017% of revenue over the four year period for the Alcatel Americas region. I challenge any CFO or CEO to claim that they would catch such a relatively small “discrepancy”.

      You also say, of the fact it occurred while he was involved in company management, “This is hardly an badge of honour in a management sense”. As has been brought up elsewhere, you were a Partner at investment bank Goldman-Sachs during a period when the SEC made several settlements totalling many millions of dollars for assorted fraudulent and illegal activities. Do you consider this a failure of the Goldman-Sachs management team, and therefore yourself? If not, how is this any different?

      How about you get back to the topic of the NBN and leave the veiled personal attacks where they belong. You’re better than that.

    • Malcolm,

      firstly let me say that I appreciate your reply.

      Secondly, I don’t disagree with your points on paper — it was legitimate to raise these questions about Quigley when certain elements of the media first raised them.

      However, in journalist terms, it is a beat-up for you and certain elements of the media to incessantly repeat the same concerns about Quigley on a national stage.

      Quigley was primarily responsible for the United States, which is a huge market for Alcatel-Lucent. I’ve been to Costa Rica. It’s tiny, it’s riddled with corruption like most third-world countries and it is far from legitimate to suggest that Quigley should have had some daily oversight of it from the US, or that the corrupt culture there extended into the US operations.

      It would be like suggesting that you personally were part of a questionable management culture because an OzeMail reseller in Perth was on the shonk.

      I’m not saying that these questions shouldn’t have been raised in the first place. They should have been. But over the past year Quigley has done his utmost to answer them as honestly and transparently as is possible, and I would ask that you recognise that fact, and recognise, even if you disagree with the NBN policy as a whole, that he personally is a man of integrity and passion, and is doing a solid job of governing NBN Co well, in what is perhaps the most fraught executive position in Australia — with the possible exception of Telstra CEO.

      One last thing — if you continue these personal attacks on Quigley, it will cause me to lose respect for you personally, which would be a shame, as I also consider you to be an honourable man.

      Cheers,

      Renai

      PS: Why don’t you have a go at Conroy instead? Plenty of ammunition there — and the punters would be on your side ;)

      • Now that’s hilarious. A journalist pontificating on who is honourable and who isn’t. Given that journalists are on the totem pole somewhere between car salesmen & gypsy peddlers.

      • “One last thing — if you continue these personal attacks on Quigley, it will cause me to lose respect for you personally, which would be a shame, as I also consider you to be an honourable man.”

        Disagreement in this case doesn’t equate to a personal attack. There are legitimate questions that need to be asked.

        Quigley has proven to be dishonest on the matter, so is that not reason enough to investigate further?

        • Actually Quigley hasn’t been proven to be dishonest about the matter … he has been proven to know virtually nothing about it — which is fitting, because he wasn’t involved in it.

          • @ Renai,

            Now how should delicately put this, Your factually wrong, Quigley according to the record is lying, please see following extract.

            The SEC says that, even though Alcatel’s EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KNEW in October 2004 that Alcatel employees had “paid bribes at the highest level of the Costa Rican government using sham consultants”, which was “widely covered by the local press”, Alcatel “continued to make these illicit payments until June 2006″.

            I’d be careful if I were you Renai, your now also looking like a sycophant.

            Your remark about Turnbull taking aim at Conroy may have some merit, but if so shouldnt you be enjoying taking down such as easy and deserving target also.

          • My, my Reality Check. I don’t know what alternate reality you are living in, but what a cold, hard, dark, nasty place it must be. No one is ever totally correct. Least of all you. Well……you may be in your reality.

            Drop the baggage and come back to the real world we all live in. It can be a wonderful experience to live in. Less vitriol in your comments and we’ll enjoy your contributions much, much more.

    • “Experience tells us that people who are sloppy with the facts in one matter may be sloppy in others too.”

      Wow Malcolm – something about a pot and kettle comes to mind. You’ve been pretty ‘loose’ yourself on the capabilities of wireless to serve the future needs of the Australian people. If you can look me in the eye and tell me that wireless is the future of broadband in this country and not FTTP then you’re either a liar or an idiot.

      The Australian people not only deserve better from thei government but their opposition as well. You’re giving us nothing. I hoped one day to vote for a Coalition led by yourself but you’re throwing away all of the credibility you had by doing Abbott’s dirty work. And that’s what it is dirty politics.

    • Malcolm, you were involved in a government that allowed the AWB to deal with a dictator who we were at war with.
      You also tried to slander Rudd with some fabricated emails.
      Now, I think you’re a decent man at heart. I’ve said before that I respect you.

      But here’s the thing. How can I now not take your own logic in attacking this man, and use it against you?
      Why, should you ever take leadership of the Liberal party should I not hold these two facts against your character and competence?

      If you can come up with a reasonable defence for that, then I’d like you to apply that same defence to Quigley and do the honourable thing.
      Back off.
      Play the ball, not the man.

      • PS, from what I have seen, your amendments to the NBN legislation have all been quite good – especially in a future that does include the NBN.

    • @malcolm

      “The fact is that as the SEC stated the management culture of Alcatel was unacceptably lax in allowing this type of corruption to go on. It was not a one-off case, or a matter of one or two rogue employees, but apparently a widespread practice in many countries”

      You mean like the culture at Goldman Sachs (who was charged with a massive fraud by the SEC), or the HIH scandal here in Oz? Yup, anyone who had any managerial role with these companies isn’t fit to lead a band, let alone a company (or a government?).
      Is that your point Malcolm?

    • @Malcolm,

      I for one am in agreement with Renai. By all means seek clarity on why particular choices were made or directions have been taken by NBN Co. That’s your job in opposition. However, the personal attacks on Quigley do indeed cheapen and possibly more importantly, distract from the debate.

      I’m not a liberal voter, but I generally have time for much of what you say, but today isn’t one of those times. I expect better of you, maybe not of other politicians, which is probably why it’s so disappointing to see you taking the approach you’ve taken.

      Personally, I hope it backfires and makes you look spiteful in the eyes of the public. That’s how it’s reading to me – like a cheap gossip magazine.

  12. Perhaps Mike Quigley is as guilty at Alcatel as Malcolm Turnbull was at Goldman Sachs?

    What do they say about glass houses and stones… and of course mud…?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/turnbull-done-with-hih/story-e6frg8zx-1111117505383

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/24/1095961858566.html

    To coin a phrase…

    “Renai, we are overlooking a few, very salient issues. Malcolm Turnbull wants to run a $300B p.a enterprise (KNOWN AS AUSTRALIA). And every penny of it will belong to the taxpayer. So there is an enormous and legitimate public interest in his capacity, his experience, his management ability”.

    • Correct. I’m glad someone brought up Goldman Sachs – one of the most criminal organisation on the planet.

  13. “Experience tells us that people who are sloppy with the facts in one matter may be sloppy in others too”

    So are we to assume that Joe Hockey no longer has your support as shadow treasurer?

    “Now in my view while I do not believe or suspect that Mr Quigley was involved in any corrupt practices, I am concerned …in countries under his responsibility?”

    So instead of attacking the Mr Quigley, who you believe has done nothing wrong, shouldn’t you be attacking the govt for hiring someone who you believe is unsuitable for the role?

  14. Ive never seen such an appalling campaign of vilification on a mans Character in all my born days, (and i have many of them.) The media, and in particular the UnOz, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
    There is no better man to run the NBN than Quigley. The attacks from those in opposition, are just using Quigley as a scapegoat to attack the NBN.. Its disgraceful ..Those in Glass Houses should beware. .

  15. Never mind all this crap, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me – a simple “user” – what exactly is the benefit of this network we are spending so much money on ? Can someone help please ?

    • @Ken

      A very simple way to look at this NBN project is to look back at Telecom Australia & to the Fiber Optic trials it was developing before its privatization. Were it not privatized. We would likely already have begun the construction of this infrastructure over the last 20 years & a new big project to do it would not be required.

      20 years ago the still government run Telecom Australia saw end to end fiber as a long term goal for the nations communications infrastructure for many reasons.
      No one complained back then because they were going to do it with their existing budget over a few decades. 20 years later we are playing expensive catch up as a result of privatizing Telstra something most will not argue was a mistake in the long run.

    • Thank you Paul, I read that, but simply because people living in the sticks can’t get reliable internet does not explain why we need to spend billions on it. That also would not pass any cost benefit analysis. I ask again, what is the real benefit ?

      • Standardisation across the country
        Speed
        Reliability
        Future Proof
        Enabler of technology/software
        Ease of use
        Cut down of red tape for end user
        Reliability

        Are just a few things that come to mind that the NBN will provide.

        • A lot of those things sound like what I used to hear from our corporate IT department, and none of them ever delivered the promised benefits there either.

          Standardisation across the country – so what. What is the financial benefit ?
          Speed – Speed is fine at the moment. The very large corporation I worked for had no speed issues.
          Reliability – I have had Optus internet at home for 13-14 years now and it has NEVER dropped out.
          Future Proof – How can you say that ? Who knows what lies ahead. It could be obsolete tomorrow.
          Enabler of technology/software – Can’t comment on that, but it sounds like a self serving IT comment.
          Ease of use – It’s easy now. What’s the problem ?
          Cut down of red tape for end user – What red tape ? There is none.

          Sorry, not one of those points would make it to a first draft of a corporate cost benefit analysis.

          • “Standardisation across the country – so what. What is the financial benefit?” It’s cheaper to build one then multiple types and have to upgrade later

            “Speed – Speed is fine at the moment. The very large corporation I worked for had no speed issues.” Good for your very large company. Do some research, our need for increased bandwidth is and has been exploding for years and will continue to do so

            “Reliability – I have had Optus internet at home for 13-14 years now and it has NEVER dropped out.”
            Again do some research, you’re the exception not the rule.

            “Future Proof – How can you say that ? Who knows what lies ahead. It could be obsolete tomorrow.”
            Do some research. You know of something that moves faster than the speed of light? That’s what fibre is.

            “Can’t comment on that, but it sounds like a self serving IT comment.”
            Trolling

            “Ease of use – It’s easy now. What’s the problem ?”
            Do some research, competition in the country is a mess, copper is falling apart and not everyone has access to ADSL. Pair gain etc etc

            “Cut down of red tape for end user – What red tape ? There is none.”
            Do some research. When Telstra was sold as a private integrated monopoly telecommunications policy, regulation and competiton was boned in this country.

            I’m done replying, you’re just trolling. If you’re truly interested in understanding why Australia needs updated communications infrastructure you’ll pull your finger out and go look for some answers. They’re very easy to find.

          • So in the absence of any facts to support a cost/benefit you conclude that I am trolling. Why is it that IT people (and I am sure you are one) think that money is no barrier to the pursuit of their dreams – so long as it is someone else’s money.
            I am not trolling here, I would simply like one of you IT guys to give me just one example of how the Australian public (who are paying for this) will reap a real benefit.

          • No more productivity losses for businesses while they wait three weeks for broadband to be connected.

            Allowing rural residents to do moat knowledge worker jobs (eg call centre, software development, graphics design, medical support) from the comfort of their own homes and not have to move to the cities to find employment.

            Eliminating constant and costly arbitration between telcos and Telstra’s wholesale arm over pricing

            Of course, I also think the model is overkill; there were better, more elegant options put there. But like many brute force solutions, it will work in the long run.

          • You’re not paying anything you insufferable tool. It’s funded entirely through subscriber revenue. It doesn’t even affect the budget. Just shut your idiot trap and let intelligent people do the hard work.

          • Like I’ve said gave you some dot points that give you a snippet of ideas that this will bring. How old are you ken? Are you part of the generation that gets confused by computers?
            Us IT people as you say, were using things like facebook and youtube well before they became main stream, if it wasn’t for people like us pushing the boundaries we’d still be banging rocks together

          • I am 65 years old and I was working with computers when you were still using clearasil. So, despite your condescending comment, I am not “confused by computers”. I have also been around corporate life long enough to ignore that “you couldn’t possibly understand” argument that IT people resort to when they run out of facts.

          • Ken, suggest you do your own research, like watching the ABC 4 Corners episode on iView regarding the NBN. I didn’t see it all myself, but it converted a die-hard Liberal voting co-worker from being totally against the NBN to being very supportive. Enough so that he said it had become more important than most other “issues” the parties are currently squabbling over. There was obviously a convincing argument in there that turned his opinion 180 degrees. Perhaps it’ll be the same for you, perhaps it won’t. But until you’ve done your own research, with an open mind, instead of trying to put the onus on people here to change your mind, it’s hard to consider your alleged bewilderment at why the NBN should exist genuine.

          • “Sorry, not one of those points would make it to a first draft of a corporate cost benefit analysis.”

            Whaaat? I’m sorry I thought you wanted it in simple consumer terms that you’d understand not a technical analysis of why we need it.

            I gave you some quick dot points, that I could think of off the top of my head.

            Also as Anon has said, you sound like you actually are trolling now.

          • @ Ken… you clearly ask a question for which you do NOT want, nor are you equipped and for which you already have a preconceived answer (albeit a backward answer, imo) for…

            So…!

          • I know it is hard to believe, I almost can’t believe it myself, but it has not dropped out – ever.

          • “no red tape”

            *cough* let’s see you change providers, Kenny boy. Then let’s see how you like them three week wait/telstra bureaucracy minefield exchange connection apples.

          • See this really is why a great 3/4G FTTN makes far more sense. Changing providers doesn’t even mean disconnection from one before you pick up the next.

          • Unless your wireless modem is sim locked.

            But they wouldn’t do that would they …

      • “simply because people living in the sticks can’t get reliable internet does not explain why we need to spend billions on it… I ask again, what is the real benefit?”

        You seem to have a limited idea of what the problem is with Australia’s communication systems. And it is also a loaded question because it would take hours upon hours to explain every single reason why this needs to be done.

        My suggestion would be to do a litle research and look a few places like the whirlpool forum.

        Reading some of the stories of people who have issues with their telephone and internet services is a good start. Many of these problems have come out of Telstra being a private monopoly. The failure of companies to invest in new telecommunications infrastructure.

        Next i’d look at the infrastructure side itself. The copper network is well and truly outdated. Countries around the world and going FTTP and the longer we wait, the further we fall behind.

        There is little argument that Australia needs improved fixed line infrastructure however due to qualities unique to Australia and our market, no private company will invest in upgrading the entire country which is why the Government needs to step in. There has been systemic market failure to deliver telecommunications infrastructure. If Government hadn’t put the copper in the ground no private company would have touched it outside of metro areas.

        • Like anything, the real benefit comes in time.
          What’s the real benefit of the 100bn NSW and VIC have budgeted for their roads over the next 10 years?
          Aren’t there enough of the damn things?

          Did you know, that in London there was a time when they were debating the real benefit of a sewer system?
          It went on for 8 long years before finally getting funded.
          This, in a time when cholera was rife. Though they didn’t at the time know what caused it.

          Anyhow, they’re still using those tunnels.
          Costs often appear to outweigh benefits.

          The fibre should last naturally until I’m in a retirement home. I’m close to 30.
          If somehow it isn’t exploited to it’s every last drop by then, and hasn’t paid for itself over and over and over, I’ll eat my hat.

          • It’s funny how you talk about the London sewer system tunnels still being in action today.

            This is exactly my argument with the copper!

            What people simply choose to ignore is that the copper is more than good enough in the last half mile, in many cases, in many places, to deliver more capacity than the core network can switch anyway.

            Fantastic that you’re going to have a new network with the ability to push 300 or more teribits to each home from the local FDF.

            But what’s the point if you don’t have a core network that’s capable of pushing any more than an average of 12/1 for the next decade and a half for 45% of the population?

            http://home.bowenvale.co.nz/wp/res-sub-avc.gif

          • are you kidding me? have you noticed how the maintenance cost of the copper net has ballooned over the past decade, to the point where it is a not inconsiderable yearly spend? a new network that DOESNT rely on pushing electrons about (using photons instead as it happens) loses all the maintenance issues arising from poor/corroding jointage, flooding and water ingress issues – sure you will still have idiots that dont dial before they dig but on all other faces the upkeep costs we currently wear are significantly cut down.

            a bunch of sewers with inert brickwork is a different kettle of fish to the copper, with different mainenance requirements and issues. that and the increase in poo volume isnt quite the same as increases in data volumes….

            yes copper is ‘more than enough’ – today, but we are talking about a minim lifetime of 30Y for fibre. will it be adequate then? i hardly think so. and in any case; it is only ‘more than enough’ today assuming it has the kind of maintenance expenditure on it to keep it in tip top condition. from all accounts it neither has enough maintenance expenditures nor is it in tip top condition. so there are distinct financial and technical reasons why continuing to piss money away on the copper has been regarded a losing excercise even if the most common connection for the near future is a 21/1 link (guaranteed! unlike copper DSL ‘best effort up to xmbits’).

            As an aside; for Malcolms arguments, attacking Quigleys credibility while you continue to harp on your 50bn figure smacks of pot-kettle-black and ‘people in glass houses…’ etc etc etc. I do understand where you are coming from with the Conservative mindset of lets not spend more than necessary. i still have queries about it. if the network DOES get built for Labors mooted cost at 26 bn plus ~10 bn wouldnt that mean that Labor are, by your lights, being good economic managers and bringing it in ~14bn under your cost?

            In any case I have serious misgivings about that lovely round ’50’ bn figure that gets bandied about at every opportunity, and the manner in which it has been caclulated. Yes Labor sitting on figures doesnt help but at the same time twisting the known figures about to add up to 50 doesnt either. Neither side is guiltless of muddying the debate in this and for all the fact that i would much prefer a Turnbull Liberal party it doesnt reflect well on you when you engage in nearly the same sort of muddying of the waters as you accuse your opponents of.

          • Actually I would argue (as someone on a 20Mbps plan who is lucky to get 5.5) that copper isn’t good enough…now!

          • fair call! i’ll amend that to ‘good enough’ for some, provided you are one of the some within~2km of an exchange. for the rest of you and particularly rural and regional, it doesnt cut the mustard. didnt really want to get into speeds as i was pointing out its lifetime issues, but you are right they certainly do exist. while there are some who can get by on 1.5-5mbits and that is ‘good enough’ for them there are plenty who want better speeds than that; both in the upload and download directions.

  16. I would like to dicuss this Ken, but its a huge subject, and i dont want stray from the subject of Quigleys vilification at hand..

  17. I would like to discuss this Ken, but its a huge subject, and i dont want stray from the subject of Quigleys vilification at hand..

    • Fair enough. I wasn’t trolling by the way, I honestly cannot understand how this cost can be justified, and I haven’t heard a single succinct explanation yet.

      • “Fair enough. I wasn’t trolling by the way, I honestly cannot understand how this cost can be justified, and I haven’t heard a single succinct explanation yet.”

        Because it isn’t a single succint problem. There are so many complexities at work that if you’re looking for 1+1=2 answer then you’re asking the wrong question. There are literally hundreds of equations which would make up a response to “why do we need to build the NBN for $36b?”

    • *http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/*

      that RUBBISH website is only worth reading for the incisive guest comments that DEMOLISH the so-called “arguments” presented or “myths debunked”.

      kudos to the webmaster for not censoring the comments section ;)

      • @toshP300.

        http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/ A rubbish site… according to YOU…!

        Nice contradiction too… you laud one site for NOT censoring comments and you lauded here, for previously censoring MY comments…

        So what you actually want is a site where you can safely post your anti-NBN tripe and where those like me are unable to “easily “debunk your BS…!

        Oh here it is, http://www.Liberal.org.au stop looking… Of but of course you knew, it’s your home page!

    • Keep pushing for your Wireless and FTTN buddies .. Doesnt NZ have its own problems?
      Quigley is by far the best choice we could ever have. Dare you to find one better.
      You know aswell as i do, Quigley is being vilified purely because he is head of the NBN, which the UnOz and Political entities are desperately trying to destroy.
      .

      • Keep telling yourself that crap. Davies made some very valid comments today about developer confidence in the NBN and as for Hackett… pissing him off is smart?!

        As for wireless and copper based fttn… if all you’re going to do with the ftth is use it to deliver wireless and or node speeds, why bother?!

        I’m sure your average Aussie battler would be really impressed to understand they’re paying more for services just so a bunch of elitist telco knobs could have the coolest looking technology in their data centers rather than stuff that they would actually find useful such as great data performance on their iPad.

        • Your not paying for it from NZ are you? So stay there and let us make our own choices over here..

          • To right I’m paying! Do you really not see that what Australia is doing will have a global impact?

            Do you really not see the massive impact it could have on the .us and other markets that are currently looking at exactly the same issues?

            Do you really not see that the approach being taken by gov.au is having significant global influence?

            But as for your ‘stay at home attitude’… sure, tell your banks to bugger off and then we can have a more friendly chat.

  18. @ M Turnbull.

    No matter how hard you try to justify your tactics, nothing can conceal that your actions are motivated by an attempt to destroy the NBN and as a result, hopefully the Labor Govt.
    In support of this I would ask, what questions were asked of Sol Trujillo regarding his involvement in the corrupt practices at QWest during the merger? How much did Trujillo personally benefit from such practices, including the alteration to valuations and various payments. Yes he was cleared, but surely that would have had some relevance as to both his ability and character as head of Aust’s dominant Telco. (which was still govt owned at the time of his appointment.)
    And what of his involvement with Graviton ? Was Sol questioned on those matters by the govt? Was he grilled by you or your party members during Parliamentary committees as to his involvement ??
    Did he make statements that were incorrect or untimely?
    This clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy and ulterior motives your attacks on Mr Quigley’s professional reputation and your continued attempts at justify them with altruistic rhetoric reeks of self serving opportunism and cynicism, both of your own character and towards the general public.

    Important ………………………………………..

    I would also point out that anyone who had done any research into Alcatel and the corruption case would be aware that there was just one office (located in Switzerland) that approved the payments to lobbyists in every country in which Alcatel conducted business. In this business model it was this single office that had reporting responsibility on these issues at an executive level. To suggest that because there were various/numerous countries implicated in the corruption and which fell under Mr Quigley’s responsibilities further compounds a burden or indication of professional competence (as Mr Turnbull has tried to do) is nothing more than a furphy, and misleading FUD.

    So please, do the research yourself. The popular media has far too many agendas of a personal, economic, and or political agenda for anyone to make to half arsed judgements using them as a valid reference.

  19. Renai LeMay is becoming the NBN’s equivalent of climate alarmist Tim Flannery – a blowhard opportunist taking advantage of a gullible government with an eye on the public teat. This NBN is a financial disaster for Australia. If only a future government could pursue its promoters for financial damages when the true extent of the waste becomes known.

    • .au has so much cash and resources that the dollars don’t really matter… it’s the outstanding lack of 1’s and 0’s that are being, or not delivered, that is the real issue!

    • Renai has had good things to say about Turnbull, when deserved. It just so happens that in this muckraking attack of his, it isn’t deserved, at all. It is purely politically motivated.

      • I don’t understand how asking questions about the involvement of a company and personal, who have been involved in global corruption is simply political muck raking?

        I agree that MT has a political agenda, but driven out of what? Is he keen to see great outcomes in this part of the world or just in it to get in the big chair?

        As I understood it, Australia is an advocate of global free trade, but what sort of influence has taken part to win these big deals for Alcatel in Australia? That seems to be the issue to me?

        I confess I didn’t know anything about this whole space until I got an email from NBNCo directly about Mr Q and Alcatel.

        But now I’m wondering what sort of business practices have lead to the govt appointing and ex head of Alcatel and then massive contracts being awarded to the company.

        NBNCo stured up this mess more than the Oz, a news paper I hardly even bother to read, but I sure as hell read every press release NBNCo put out.

  20. truth in journalism? innocent until proven guilty? careful Renai, your site might be branded leftist….

    • Well I tend to vote Greens and preference Liberals these days, so I don’t know what that makes me. I’m a stone’s throw away from Turnbull’s own electorate — instead, I have Peter Garrett :(

      • LOL.Careful there Renai! Your column’s neutrality might find itself hurled into the same pond as the rising monster called Net Neutrality. Keep it objective.
        :D
        BTW, sympathies *snicker*

        • I have been persuaded over the years of the advantages of full disclosure rather than attempts to follow the ideal of objectivity — although I will always give all sides their fair say on Delimiter :)

  21. Whatever respect I had for Malcolm Turnbull has evaporated with his attack on this hard-working, honourable man, Mike Quigley. If, as a result of these attacks, Mike loses his job, it will not only be a great loss for Australia and the NBN, but it will be an unforgivable abomination that will be remembered by many for a long time. Turnbull is intelligent and capable but he has proved himself to be less than honourable.

    • Indeed…

      As I said to Michael (above), it seems apparent that the opposition are hoping Mr. Quigley will throw his hands up, say WTF and resign, thus giving them the ultimate all round ammo…

      Can you imagine their BS then? NBN head quits in disgrace…disgraceful!

      I hope Mr. Quigley uses this as motivation… Illegitimi non carborundum…!

  22. *We should publicly label them as vile treachery being perpetuated on an honourable man.*

    Definition of TREACHERY
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treachery

    1: violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : treason
    2: an act of perfidy or treason

    sorry, i’m totally lost.

    Saint Quigley has accepted a political appointment as CEO of a Labor “broadband pork-barrelling” project. Saint Quigley has also publicly criticised Coalition broadband policy and defended Labor’s NBN on its supposed merits. in this plain, unambiguous context, there’re no ties of allegiance, faith or loyalty between Saint Quigley and the Mr Turnbull or, more broadly, the Coalition.

    hence, what treachery???

  23. The only reason the clueless script kiddies want their $50 billion taxpayer funded fiber is for 3D porn & illegal movie downloads. Far better to spend the taxpayer dollars on schools & hospitals.

    • Wow, excellent stereotype-per-line in that post! Very efficient – and great parody of a moron. You had me convinced!

      • Do not insult my comrade! As he is clearly a socialist, his entire comment was obviously a joke.

  24. These questions have all been answered multiple times. The problem, it seems, is that people have already made up their minds before they even ask the question and so they never listen to the answers anyway.

  25. I respect Mr Turnbull’s intelligence too much to bag what he is currently doing. I see him as currently between a rock and a very hard place. His actions to date show a skilled man of law wiggling in all directions to do his job, follow the directives of his work place Manager, remain respectful whilst drinking from the most poisioned chalice in the nation. As to Mr Quigley, he too is fairly much in the same place and drinking from the same chalice, all because he believes in the vision that is the NBN. Both men of honour (I didn’t say they were perfect) are being stoned and defended by Australians. So it comes to the place where we are really nasty with ourselves due only to politics? Sad indeed.

    @ Malcolm
    Mate, be careful. As has started here with people bringing up the same questioning as you have with others, on your past connections, down that path you are creating, you may just create a well trod pathway to every Executive and Politician’s professional torment. All will be guilty by association with whoever you do a transaction with in your lifetime. Such is the Information age we live in that not much is going to be able to be hidden from those who really want to know. Do you really want to focus the sunshine that much through a magnifying glass, that it is so intense, that all under it are burned out of making any contribution to a living society? Not a good ending in which anyone wins.

    No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. Very close to the mark is good enough. And for those that say it isn’t, drown in your self delusions and go back to your padded room.
    Final word from this politically tired Technician, it comes from a respected man that lived long ago who said some wise things. Jesus of Nazereth advised “Let them who is without any error, cast the first stone.” And before you decry me, yes, I have an opinion, I make errors (and know and admit it) and that is why I believe in progressive negotiation to find complex solutions to complex problems and not childish posturing, which is what this whole NBN subject has become.

    • Quigley has accepted a political appointment to a very important and highly-paid, taxpayer-funded public role. of course, he should be subjected to every public scrutiny.

      if Malcolm, in his previous capacity as a private executive working on a private transaction, can be dragged through a Royal Commission, there’s no reason why Quigley, as a public servant, can’t be subject to the same level of scrutiny. it comes with the territory.

      if you’ve responded to all questions and queries posed with total honesty, what have you got to be afraid of? NBNco is not some private club or watering hole for retiring, ex-Alcatel or Cisco executives. working in a “public corporation” demands the highest level of probity, especially when you’re paid more than any senior bureaucrat would make in many lifetimes.

      in fact, the reason why people occupying powerful, high-profile positions in private corporations or public life receive such high reward and compensation is partly because of the high level of scrutiny they’re subjected to and the “restrictions” it imposes on their behaviour.

      so, let’s not get too precious. and ferchrissakes, stop trying to canonise him – there’re already plenty of question marks over his current performance and competence:

      http://ozftth.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-nbn-has-gone-wrong.html

      • Q. When is an innocent man, not an innocent man…?

        A. When a posse of mindless rednecks on a blind crusade (carrying a noose, of course) says…

        I see their leader again posted a URL to “one man’s opinion” as his factual info…LOL

        Hmm, how do we know that isn’t you, oh ye of “low aura, who admits to being totally lost”, here with the men?

      • Who is trying to canonise anyone? If you read carefully you will see I think both men are actually very good hard working people. You should not tar and feather anyone just because their proximity to other’s in their workplace, that have carried out questionable acts. If everyone who desires to assist in something that shows vision, but the Community whips up a frenzy of FUD and seeks to destroy their careers in turn, you will soon see anyone of intelligence avoiding community issues and only the fools will get involved. Haven’t we enough of them currently in Canberra and has not this started to become a norm in Australia?
        As I said before, I am over this stupidity that is now the NBN arguament. The previous Governments stuffed up big time not seeing the disaster they created with Telstra. Everyone has been frustrated by the 10 Ton Gorrilla Telstra and it’s then head, a really obnoxious “Sol” really showed how childishly nasty Corporate Leadership can be. Labor saw a way around him and his 10 Ton Gorilla and took a chance.
        FTTN is cheaper as it uses partially what is there already. But that it becomes too expensive is due to three factors. The Constitution that states a fair compensation has to be paid. Past stupidity of a Government that did not think their policies through to their natural conclusion. The big final one is elephant, TELSTRA. I know you would want to maximise your profit if you owned the CAN and someone else really wanted to buy it from you. Can any one blame Telstra Executives for this? No. So really the fact that FTTN is too expensive comes down to a previous Governments tragic lack of foresight in the blind pursuit of political docterine.
        Thus we come to FTTH. Yes, it is really expensive to build. But much cheaper to actually maintain. We know why copper does not measure up to today’s demands, as after all, the hard numbers in the sums tell us why. Much the same with wireless. Copper is expensive and already we see some are snatching it out of the ground and stealing it. Fibre really doesn’t have much resale value so why bother stealing it. Good thing is the Fibre is like rail tracks. You can move to faster methods as they come along, but you can still use the same rails that you have already pain to lay. Big saving! Slower at first with cheaper carriage electronics. As more bandwidth is required, slip in then the more expensive higher bandwith electronics and with the same fibre, and at a low cost, you have resolved the bottleneck or need for speed.
        But is Labor doing much better in creating a change to the communications landscape? They are much the same as the other mob and refusing to think things through to their logical conclusion. Another mess in the making? You betcha! Why is the Coalition so heavily protecting Telstra? Telstra Shareholders, who would blame them if Telstra cost them their savings. After all, they sold it to Australia saying “it’s a good investment”. That could backlash next election. A simple truth about Politicians that most Australian’s know. They lie!
        We know we have a problem with communications in Australia. Lets not become a Nation of Luddites because we refuse to budge left or right politically. Vested Corporate interests are playing the Australian public like a violin and setting families and friends into “foam at the mouth” tantrums at each other on this. Over what? Whether we will technologically stand still or technologically progress. It’s time to move on just as we did from the telegraph and Morse Code.
        Now, the Politicians should step back, allow the Industry to negotiate, communicate, come up with a range of models and solutions that work from where we are, to where we need to be without creating another debarcle that we are suffering now. That is when we move to the Parliament (not Government) to decide how we will progress. Not this cart before the horse argumentative clap trap that is currently the NBN and dividing this actually fairly well to do, dare I say, rich Nation.
        This is so logical that it is boring. Yet look at us being whipped up into hysterics over it. Are we really that foolish? I guess we are. Embarrased yet everyone? I am.

          • I apologize Renai. I wrote in in a hurry in my lunch break and I had to get back to work. A lot to say and a short time to type it out. I just don’t know what is wrong with normally intelligent people in this day. The two sides of the whole NBN fiasco are dumb. Where is the moderate well thought out solution we are most definitely capable of. Private Enterprise is NOT going to fibre the Nation. They didn’t do it with copper in the last century. They just wanted it after the people of Australia built it and we gave it to them. What did we get? A damn good shafting from them for the effort. I don’t want that experience again and I’d say I am not the only one.
            Now we need to renew the communications again for a new century and instead of doing it we are nitpicking and some are contemplating their navel in utter fascination. Just get the fibre in the ground and while we are doing it, work out the details! We know a Govt. monopoly is not good. Neither is a private one as we have all just experienced. So this time, warts and all, split it into two sides of a coin. Fibre belongs to nation, traffic and product can be best served by private enterprise. One and other other should be able to keep each other in check or one of them is useless. Political ideology does not build Data/Communications Networks. people do.
            I should now crawl back into my hole, shut up and die in embarrassment at the idiocy of our elected representatives.

        • *I think both men are actually very good hard working people.*

          you’re entitled to that opinion. i agree Quigley and Turnbull must both be hard-working people given the success they’ve achieved. as to “very good” or questions about their moral character, i’m not in a position to judge because i don’t know them personally.

          *If everyone who desires to assist in something that shows vision, but the Community whips up a frenzy of FUD and seeks to destroy their careers in turn*

          if you’re saying that ongoing public criticism of the NBN is just “FUD” – then, i reject that statement outright. if you’re saying some politicians or journalists are spreading “FUD” about Quigley with respect to the bribery allegations – then, i can’t rule out this possibility because i haven’t read every published article or public statement on this subject. frankly, i’m disinterested. i find his support for Labor’s political project more troubling and disturbing than his career history. why? because the NBN affects me directly as a taxpayer and broadband consumer.

          while it’s generally not morally-acceptable to attempt to falsely-smear or damage someone’s reputation based upon unfounded allegations, it is appropriate and entirely fair game for any member of the public to question:

          (i) the Federal Government’s manner of handling of the appointments of senior executives of NBNco;

          (ii) the honesty and probity of these senior executives, in terms of the veracity of statements supplied in response to any queries put to them at any stage of their current employment at NBNco, stretching back to the “job interviews”.

          Quigley and Bousquet are not holy prophets sent down from heaven to deliver us to a promised fibre future. they’re highly-paid employees of a public corporation backed by taxpayer largesse.

          *you will soon see anyone of intelligence avoiding community issues and only the fools will get involved. Haven’t we enough of them currently in Canberra and has not this started to become a norm in Australia?*

          that is largely an issue of pay and remuneration. if you’re a smart cookie, the opportunities available to you in terms of financial rewards and career development are far superior in the private sector than in the public sector.

          public roles in a public corporation rightfully demand public scrutiny. why do you think the senior executives of NBNco are paid so handsomely? partly to attract private sector expertise into a public corporation and, in part, to compensate them for the heightened level of scrutiny they’re subject to and the personal performance expected from them.

          *But that it becomes too expensive is due to three factors. The Constitution that states a fair compensation has to be paid. The big final one is elephant, TELSTRA. I know you would want to maximise your profit if you owned the CAN and someone else really wanted to buy it from you.*

          (i) FTTN would cost less than half the final price tag for FTTP because you avoid re-laying the most expensive last-mile;

          (ii) the “compensation” paid to Telstra to build FTTN is not an issue:

          (a) when you build FTTN, the “compensation” paid to Telstra (be it an outright purchase or long-term leasing agreement) is capitalised on NBNco’s balance sheet as an asset. this is because you’re still utilising the “last-mile” and it has a “value-in-use”.

          (a) under Labor’s FTTP, compensation still has to be paid to Telstra. however, under this scenario, this “compensation” is capitalised as a liability on NBNco’s balance sheet because you’re purchasing or leasing an asset for the sole purpose of shutting it down as opposed to using it to generate revenue by investing in it.

          (iii) the profitability of the CAN has declined substantially over time thanks to the ACCC pushing down access charges. this has actually made it cheaper for NBNco to acquire Telstra’s CAN and write it off immediately.

          *Thus we come to FTTH. Yes, it is really expensive to build. But much cheaper to actually maintain.*

          the fact that a brand new fibre network may incur lower maintenance expenses is trivial. this is because the massive capital servicing costs of FTTP vs FTTN totally swamp any savings in network maintenance.

          *We know why copper does not measure up to today’s demands, as after all, the hard numbers in the sums tell us why.*

          which “kind” of copper? local loop unbundled or sub-loop unbundled xDSL? whose demands? residential or corporate? which hard numbers? what sums?

          *Copper is expensive and already we see some are snatching it out of the ground and stealing it. Fibre really doesn’t have much resale value so why bother stealing it.*

          so, you’re saying we should rip copper lines out of the trenches and ducts before thieves do? interesting.

          *Good thing is the Fibre is like rail tracks.*

          they both lose money and are a strain on the public purse?

          *You can move to faster methods as they come along, but you can still use the same rails that you have already lay. Big saving*

          you just described the wonderful economics of implementing FTTN to upgrade speeds on last-mile copper! *bravo!*

          *They are refusing to think things through to their logical conclusion. Another mess in the making? You betcha!*

          i totally agree. Labor’s only thinking things through to the next election with this fibre mess they’re creating.

          *Now, the Politicians should step back, allow the Industry to negotiate, communicate, come up with a range of models and solutions that work from where we are, to where we need to be without creating another debarcle that we are suffering now.*

          too late for that… Labor’s already gone full steam ahead with its plans to re-nationalise the fixed-line network in Australia. (in fact, we’re the only country in the world with the… err, “audacity”… to do so.) in a nutshell:

          (i) not only is Labor planning on taking over the entire fibre sector, and legislatively preventing anyone else from laying new fibre without charging the extortionate rates NBNco plans to levy;

          (ii) Labor’s also planning on shutting down the copper network so that you won’t have an alternative to using super-expensive fibre.

          crazy, huh? i guess we do lead the world in one arena: political stupidity!

          • Here it comes … the inevitable challenge (one vote, must still be galling).

            Particularly as many people I know and/or correspond with, like me, say, I would never vote for Abbott, but Turnbull’s ok. Even more galling to think, with that in mind, we have a hung parliament… Anyway…

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/malcolm-turnbulls-attack-on-climate-policy-angers-coalition-mps/story-e6frg6xf-1226059034118

            I like to use the Australian, purposely…!

            But after all of this and to use his very own guidelines (and to get back on topic, somewhat)… can we trust the Opposition leadership and possible Prime Ministership to a man with such Quigley-like similarities (what’s good for the goose, so to speak). We aren’t just taking about the head of a $3B p.a. company, we are talking about the leadership and face of our $300B p.a nation…

            So whatever rules the NBN naysayers apply to Quigley, surely even greater scrutiny of probity, should apply to potential PM’s?

            http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/turnbull-done-with-hih/story-e6frg8zx-1111117505383

            Once again I use Malcolm’s own words to Renai (with the appropriate name changes etc) right back at him…

            “Renai, we are overlooking a few, very salient issues. Malcolm Turnbull wants to run a $300B p.a enterprise (KNOWN AS AUSTRALIA). And every penny of it will belong to the taxpayer. So there is an enormous and legitimate public interest in his capacity, his experience, his management ability”.{END}.

            Up until this episode… continued (rather hypocritical) episode, I would have said certainly he has the credentials and I have even said previously, that I would consider voting for him and hoping his tech side takes over from his colleagues ideologies…and he forges ahead with the NBN (mostly as is)! But now???

            However conversely, someone who believes in Australia enough to want to (and may) make us a Republic, because he wants us to stand on our own two feet, surely once standing, won’t pull the comms rug from beneath us!

  26. Many countries are going or will be switching to FTTP and here for political reasons the NBN is being vilified indirectly. If the NBN gets derailed due to the irrational attacks on it Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull will bear the responsibility for destroying a much needed program.

    Quigley seems like a decent man unlike Turnbull who has sold out his principals long ago, we liked Malcolm once but now he has sold out he can go to hell for mine.

    • “If the NBN gets derailed due to the irrational attacks on it Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull will bear the responsibility for destroying a much needed program. ”

      Unlikely given the Coalition do not hold the balance of power in the Lower House or the Senate, and those that hold the balance of power the Independents and the Greens have supported the rollout so far, if you mean it is derailed because the Coalition win the next election then that’s how a democracy works.

      The Coalition OPEL rollout was ‘derailed’ by the new Rudd Labor Government, the FTTN Labor proposal that they had as their election policy when Rudd won was ‘derailed’ by Labor itself after they got into Government.

      We have all survived all of that, we will no doubt survive Coalition NBN Mark 2 if it happens.

    • I think if you stripped away all the excuses we give to justify political donations, it IS a form of corruption in the purest meaning of the word.

Comments are closed.