How Labour lost the first broadband race
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
WHEN A federal election is called, senior bureaucrats draw up hefty documents
known as ''incoming government briefs'' for both sides of politics. The idea is
to present the winning party with the advice it needs to hit the ground running.
In December 2007, the Communications Department handed Stephen Conroy a brief
which identified Labor's plan for a national broadband network as its top priority.
Kevin Rudd won the election as the man with the plan to spend $4.7 billion of
government funds working with the private sector to build a communications
network providing high speed internet access to 98 per cent of the population.
The brief outlined a competitive assessment process to solicit private sector
bids, but flagged some of the risks to be managed.
It advised the cost of the plan was likely to be ''very significant''; it would
require using Telstra's networks; and extending the network to Australia's most
remote homes and businesses could be ''extremely problematic, even with a major
capital contribution by the government''.
With the benefit of hindsight there were clear warning signs for the government
of the need to hasten slowly.
But a report by the Australian National Audit Office this week shows a rush to
get the network's first sod turned contributed to the failure of its 2008
''request for proposals'' process seeking bids from the private sector to build
the network.
This exercise failed to elicit any bids representing value for money, prompting
the government to scrap the exercise in early 2009 and move on to its even more
ambitious Plan B of building a fibre-to-the-premises network over the next eight
years.
The Auditor-General stops short of directly criticising Senator Conroy.
Instead it chastises the Communications Department, saying it should have
provided earlier and more detailed advice on two key risks: a successful bidder
might have to compensate Telstra; and that it would not be commercial to upgrade
a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network to faster fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP)
technology.
Still, the report is littered with observations about the trade-off between
speed and risk in any major procurement exercise.
The original request for proposals process got under way soon after that
incoming government brief was presented to Sentor Conroy.
At that time, the report notes, the government was advised a two-stage process
of first seeking expressions of interest and then running a formal tender would
have a number of benefits.
But the government decided on a faster, single-stage procurement process.
''The alternative, adopting a multi-stage process, would have been the more
conventional approach for conducting tender processes of this size, nature and
risk, particularly when seeking innovative solutions,'' the ANAO notes.
By April 2008, as the request for proposals was being finalised, the
government's external advisers raised concerns the document should provide more
detailed guidance to bidders. But the department said the timeframe would not
permit including such details.
''The request for proposals document met the requirements of the Commonwealth
procurement guidelines and was signed off by all specialist advisers. However,
there was insufficient time to fully address specialist advisers' concerns that
a lack of detail in the request for proposals put at risk attracting binding
offers,'' the report says.
The request was issued in early April. Three weeks later the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission surprised the department by advising of
significant problems in upgrading a FTTN network to FTTP technology.
In September, the Department sought legal advice on how much compensation a
successful bidder might have to pay Telstra for using its facilities to operate
the broadband network.
The advice was it could run to billions of dollars, an estimate which made it
highly unlikely a non-Telstra proposal would be viable.
''The ANAO considers that it would have been prudent for the department to have
sought earlier legal advice on the compensation issues.''
The report shows that the government had started working on alternative ways of
delivering its broadband election promises before the November 2008 deadline for
bidders to lodge their proposals under the original plan.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
bringyagrogalong
Labor in the 1988 NSW State Election as he thought "Barrie Unsworth
was the best deal Premier that New South Wales had ever had."
What is it with Liberal leaders and their love of the Labor Party.
First there was Brendan Nelson who was a member of the Labor Party
for
over 20 years before he resigned in 1994. In fact, on 25
November
1993, he told journalist and medical writer Steve Dow that
Labor
governments generally were better for Australia.
Then there was Malcolm Turnbull who wanted to become Kim Beazley's
shadow finance minister during the second term of the Howard
Government. Mr Turnbull approached at least six
senior ALP figures,
including former Prime Minister Bob Hawke,
actively seeking their
endorsement to join the ALP.
And now we have Tony Abbott saying that he votes Labor in State
elections
I wonder what other revelations will surface? He probably also went
cap in hand looking for a Labor seat but was told to piss-off like
Turnbull was.
After all, Labor does have standards.
Rod Speed
> WHEN A federal election is called, senior bureaucrats draw up hefty documents known as ''incoming government briefs''
> for both sides of politics.
That isnt universal.
> The idea is to present the winning party with the advice it needs to hit the ground running.
They only bother to do that when its likely there will be change of govt.
> In December 2007, the Communications Department handed Stephen Conroy a brief which identified Labor's plan for a
> national broadband network as its top priority.
No bureaucrat EVER gets to decide prioritys.
> Kevin Rudd won the election as the man with the plan to spend $4.7
> billion of government funds working with the private sector to build a communications network providing high speed
> internet access to 98 per cent of the population.
> The brief outlined a competitive assessment process to solicit
> private sector bids, but flagged some of the risks to be managed.
> It advised the cost of the plan was likely to be ''very significant''; it would require using Telstra's networks;
Hardy rocket science with FTTN.
> and extending the network to Australia's most remote homes and businesses
There was a reason for the original 96%, fuckwit.
> could be ''extremely problematic, even with a major capital contribution by the government''.
Irrelevant.
> With the benefit of hindsight there were clear warning signs for the government of the need to hasten slowly.
The speed is completely irrelevant.
> But a report by the Australian National Audit Office this week shows a rush to get the network's first sod turned
> contributed to the failure of its 2008 ''request for proposals'' process seeking bids from the private sector to build
> the network.
Like hell it does.
> This exercise failed to elicit any bids representing value for money,
Because Telstra chose to not make any compliant offer.
> prompting the government to scrap the exercise in early 2009 and move on to its even more ambitious Plan B of
> building a fibre-to-the-premises network over the next eight years.
Must be one of those rocket scientist fuckwits.
> The Auditor-General stops short of directly criticising Senator Conroy.
Because nothing was up to him, fuckwit.
> Instead it chastises the Communications Department, saying it should have provided earlier and more detailed advice on
> two key risks: a successful bidder might have to compensate Telstra;
That was always obvious.
> and that it would not be commercial to upgrade a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network to faster fibre-to-the-premises
> (FTTP) technology.
Irrelevant to what the govt chose to do when the tender process failed.
> Still, the report is littered with observations about the trade-off
> between speed and risk in any major procurement exercise.
None of which is any news to anyone.
> The original request for proposals process got under way soon after
> that incoming government brief was presented to Sentor Conroy.
Because that was an election committment by the govt.
> At that time, the report notes, the government was advised a
> two-stage process of first seeking expressions of interest and then running a formal tender would have a number of
> benefits.
And wouldnt have made any difference to the result given Telstra's intransigence.
> But the government decided on a faster, single-stage procurement process.
Its always the govt choice, fuckwit.
> ''The alternative, adopting a multi-stage process, would have been the more conventional approach for conducting
> tender processes of this size, nature and risk, particularly when seeking innovative solutions,'' the ANAO notes.
Bare faced lie.
> By April 2008, as the request for proposals was being finalised, the government's external advisers raised concerns
> the document should provide more detailed guidance to bidders.
Irrelevant given Telstra's intransigence which is all that mattered.
> But the department said the timeframe would not permit including such details.
They're right.
> ''The request for proposals document met the requirements of the Commonwealth procurement guidelines and was signed
> off by all specialist advisers. However, there was insufficient time to fully address specialist advisers' concerns
> that a lack of detail in the request for proposals put at risk attracting binding offers,'' the report says.
Irrelevant given Telstra's intransigence which is all that mattered.
> The request was issued in early April. Three weeks later the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission surprised
> the department by advising of significant problems in upgrading a FTTN network to FTTP technology.
Like hell it did.
> In September, the Department sought legal advice on how much compensation a successful bidder might have to pay
> Telstra for using its facilities to operate the broadband network.
> The advice was it could run to billions of dollars, an estimate which
> made it highly unlikely a non-Telstra proposal would be viable.
No news to anyone.
> ''The ANAO considers that it would have been prudent for the department to have sought earlier legal advice on the
> compensation issues.''
It was no news to anyone.
> The report shows that the government had started working on alternative ways of delivering its broadband election
> promises before the November 2008 deadline for bidders to lodge their proposals under the original plan.
Hardly surprising given Telstra's obvious intransigence.