 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / January 2008Telstra fights rural broadband deal
From http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government over a $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan to see confidential documents about the tender. Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full bench of the court, with new Communications Minister Stephen Conroy as the respondent. The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut short the court action by releasing the documents about the Broadband Connect deal. Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an extra $358 million to the original tender figure of $600 million. "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle that governments should act transparently and be accountable when they spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group managing director, public policy and communications. "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about a selection program supervised by the previous government that cost nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. > From > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html > TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government > over a $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very comprehensively indeed. > The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application > against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan to see confidential documents about the tender. Funny that. > Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full bench of the court, with new Communications Minister > Stephen Conroy as the respondent. GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very comprehensively indeed. > The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut short the court action by releasing the documents > about the Broadband Connect deal. > Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an > extra $358 million to the original tender figure of $600 million. > "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle that governments should act transparently and be > accountable when they spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group managing director, public policy and > communications. Corse you only care about how taxpayers money is spent, eh ? > "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about a selection program supervised by the previous > government that cost nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. Like it or lump it, fuckwit. >> From >> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Like it or lump it, fuckwit. Why shouldn't the Government release the documents? If the Government has contravened the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the tender process), I'd be interested to know. Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? > Rod Speed wrote >>> From >>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html >>> TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government >>> over a $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. >> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very comprehensively indeed. >>> The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application >>> against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan >>> to see confidential documents about the tender. >> Funny that. >>> Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full bench of the >>> court, with new Communications Minister Stephen Conroy as the respondent. >> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very comprehensively indeed. >>> The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut short the >>> court action by releasing the documents about the Broadband Connect deal. >>> Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered >>> Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an extra >>> $358 million to the original tender figure of $600 million. >>> "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle that >>> governments should act transparently and be accountable >>> when they spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group >>> managing director, public policy and communications. >> Corse you only care about how taxpayers money is spent, eh ? >>> "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about >>> a selection program supervised by the previous government that >>> cost nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. >> Like it or lump it, fuckwit. > Why shouldn't the Government release the documents? Because the last thing any govt should be doing is caving in to that sort of legal bullshit exercise. > If the Government has contravened the Financial Management > and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the > tender process), I'd be interested to know. Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. > Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating > to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. >> Rod Speed wrote > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Because the last thing any govt should be doing is caving in > to that sort of legal bullshit exercise. Why shouldn't it? There shouldn't need to be any "legal exercise" at all. And I don't see why it's bullshit. >> If the Government has contravened the Financial Management >> and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the >> tender process), I'd be interested to know. > > Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they > deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. The contract has already been awarded. I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. >> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating >> to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? > > Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they > deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. The contract has already been awarded. I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> From >>>>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html >>>>> TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government >>>>> over a $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. >>>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>>> comprehensively indeed. >>>>> The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application >>>>> against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan >>>>> to see confidential documents about the tender. >>>> Funny that. >>>>> Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full >>>>> bench of the court, with new Communications Minister Stephen >>>>> Conroy as the respondent. >>>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>>> comprehensively indeed. >>>>> The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut >>>>> short the court action by releasing the documents about the >>>>> Broadband Connect deal. >>>>> Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered >>>>> Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an extra >>>>> $358 million to the original tender figure of $600 million. >>>>> "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle that >>>>> governments should act transparently and be accountable >>>>> when they spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group >>>>> managing director, public policy and communications. >>>> Corse you only care about how taxpayers money is spent, eh ? >>>>> "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about >>>>> a selection program supervised by the previous government that >>>>> cost nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. >>>> Like it or lump it, fuckwit. >>> Why shouldn't the Government release the documents? >> Because the last thing any govt should be doing is caving in >> to that sort of legal bullshit exercise. > Why shouldn't it? Because the last thing we need is that stupid yank approach of resorting to the courts when telstra doesnt get the result it was trying to engineer by rorting the tender process by deliberately making a non compliant offer. Telstra should be told that if it chooses not to comply with the tender requirements, that they get to like it or lump it if they lose the tender. > There shouldn't need to be any "legal exercise" at all. There shouldnt be deliberate non compliant tenders either. > And I don't see why it's bullshit. Your problem. >>> If the Government has contravened the Financial Management >>> and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the >>> tender process), I'd be interested to know. >> Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they >> deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. > Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. > The contract has already been awarded. And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. > I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately > made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was > done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking > around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. Your problem. > Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. Wrong. It has to comply with the law too. > The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. There is no such 'luxury'. >>> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating >>> to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? >> Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they >> deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. > Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. > The contract has already been awarded. And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. > I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately > made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was > done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking > around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. Your problem. > Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. Wrong. It has to comply with the law too. > The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. There is no such 'luxury'. >> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > to the courts when telstra doesnt get the result it was trying to engineer > by rorting the tender process by deliberately making a non compliant offer. What we DO need is a way of ensuring the Government has not misused public money. Anyway, they shouldn't need to resort to the courts. It should be made public automatically, or released on request. > Telstra should be told that if it chooses not to comply with the tender > requirements, that they get to like it or lump it if they lose the tender. Fine. I don't give a sh.t about Telstra's tender. I want to know if the Government has misused public money. >> There shouldn't need to be any "legal exercise" at all. > > There shouldnt be deliberate non compliant tenders either. Agreed. But Telstra is a private company any can do what it likes. Alternatively, I could have deliberately submit my shopping list as a tender if I wanted. Neither case would provide the Government with an excuse to break the law. In any case, whatever Telstra did is irrelevant. Telstra's out of the picture financially -- it didn't win the contract. The issue is whether the Government broke the law during the tender process. >> And I don't see why it's bullshit. > > Your problem. If the Government is using Telstra's bullshit tender to justify breaking the law, it's all of our problem. Why do you keep bringing up Telstra's bullshit tender? It's irrelevant to the issue of the government legality. >>>> If the Government has contravened the Financial Management >>>> and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there > has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. I don't care why Telstra is doing it. For all I care, the Rotary Club could be the organization requesting the documentation. >> I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately >> made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was >> done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking >> around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. > > Your problem. Huh? What's my problem? >> Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. > > Wrong. It has to comply with the law too. There's been no suggestion that Telstra hasn't. The issue is whether the Government broke the law. Submitting a bullshit tender is not illegal. >> The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. > > There is no such 'luxury'. Yes there is. The luxury of not having to comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act. >>>> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating >>>> to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there > has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. I don't care why Telstra is doing it. For all I care, the Rotary Club could be the organization requesting the documentation. >> I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately >> made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was >> done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking >> around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. > > Your problem. Huh? What's my problem? >> Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. > > Wrong. It has to comply with the law too. There's been no suggestion that Telstra hasn't. The issue is whether the Government broke the law. Submitting a bullshit tender is not illegal. >> The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. > > There is no such 'luxury'. Yes there is. The luxury of not having to comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act. > Yes there is. The luxury of not having to comply with the Financial > Management and Accountability Act. Demand a Parliamentary Inquiry through your local Member of Parliament if you are so concerned.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Rod Speed wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> From >>>>>>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html >>>>>>> TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government >>>>>>> over a $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. >>>>>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>>>>> comprehensively indeed. >>>>>>> The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application >>>>>>> against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan >>>>>>> to see confidential documents about the tender. >>>>>> Funny that. >>>>>>> Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full >>>>>>> bench of the court, with new Communications Minister Stephen >>>>>>> Conroy as the respondent. >>>>>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>>>>> comprehensively indeed. >>>>>>> The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut >>>>>>> short the court action by releasing the documents about the >>>>>>> Broadband Connect deal. >>>>>>> Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered >>>>>>> Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an extra >>>>>>> $358 million to the original tender figure of $600 million. >>>>>>> "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle >>>>>>> that governments should act transparently and be accountable >>>>>>> when they spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group >>>>>>> managing director, public policy and communications. >>>>>> Corse you only care about how taxpayers money is spent, eh ? >>>>>>> "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about >>>>>>> a selection program supervised by the previous government that >>>>>>> cost nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. >>>>>> Like it or lump it, fuckwit. >>>>> Why shouldn't the Government release the documents? >>>> Because the last thing any govt should be doing >>>> is caving in to that sort of legal bullshit exercise. >>> Why shouldn't it? >> Because the last thing we need is that stupid yank approach of >> resorting to the courts when telstra doesnt get the result it was >> trying to engineer by rorting the tender process by deliberately >> making a non compliant offer. > What we DO need is a way of ensuring the Government has not misused public money. Wrong. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. > Anyway, they shouldn't need to resort to the courts. It > should be made public automatically, or released on request. Wrong again. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >> Telstra should be told that if it chooses not to comply with the tender >> requirements, that they get to like it or lump it if they lose the tender. > Fine. I don't give a sh.t about Telstra's tender. I want > to know if the Government has misused public money. Your problem. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>> There shouldn't need to be any "legal exercise" at all. >> There shouldnt be deliberate non compliant tenders either. > Agreed. But Telstra is a private company any can do what it likes. And it gets to wear the inevitable consequences of non compliant tenders. > Alternatively, I could have deliberately submit my shopping list as a tender if I wanted. > Neither case would provide the Government with an excuse to break the law. Wrong when telstra clearly attempted to f.ck over the tender process and got what it deserved when thats what it tried to do. > In any case, whatever Telstra did is irrelevant. Nope. > Telstra's out of the picture financially -- it didn't win the contract. Its clearly attempting to get the contract cancelled. > The issue is whether the Government broke the law during the tender process. Wrong again. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>> And I don't see why it's bullshit. >> Your problem. > If the Government is using Telstra's bullshit tender > to justify breaking the law, it's all of our problem. No it isnt. > Why do you keep bringing up Telstra's bullshit tender? Because thats the evidence that telstra is attempting to f.ck over the tender process using the courts. > It's irrelevant to the issue of the government legality. Like hell it is. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>>>> If the Government has contravened the Financial Management >>>>> and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the >>>>> tender process), I'd be interested to know. >>>> Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they >>>> deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. >>> Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. >>> The contract has already been awarded. >> And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there >> has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. > I don't care why Telstra is doing it. You should. > For all I care, the Rotary Club could be the organization requesting the documentation. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>> I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately >>> made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was >>> done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking >>> around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. >> Your problem. > Huh? What's my problem? That you'd like to know. >>> Telstra is a private company (though publicly-listed) and can do what it likes. >> Wrong. It has to comply with the law too. > There's been no suggestion that Telstra hasn't. > The issue is whether the Government broke the law. > Submitting a bullshit tender is not illegal. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>> The Government is not entitled to such luxuries. >> There is no such 'luxury'. > Yes there is. No there isnt. > The luxury of not having to comply with the > Financial Management and Accountability Act. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>>>> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating >>>>> to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? >>>> Its stupid to be allowing telstra to f.ck over tenders when they >>>> deliberately went out of their way to make a non compliant offer. >>> Telstra wouldn't be f.cking over tenders. >>> The contract has already been awarded. >> And telstra is engaging in a purely academic exercise to see if there >> has been any problem with the tender process eh ? Yeah, right. > I don't care why Telstra is doing it. You should. > For all I care, the Rotary Club could be the organization requesting the documentation. The last thing we need is to get legal parasites involved in nit picking the detail of how every tender is handled. >>> I don't have a problem with Telstra missing out if it deliberately >>> made a non-compliant offer (or, for that matter, even if it was >>> done accidentally), but if the Government has been f.cking >>> around with tax revenues purely to spite Telstra, I'd like to know. >> Your problem. > Huh? What's my problem? That you'd like to know. >>> From >>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating to the > expenditure of public money remain confidential? I think you're mistaken. It's not "public" money, it's the government's money. Once they've pinched it from us, it belongs to them! Don't be fooled by their claims that they're working for you - it's the other way round! > Horry wrote >>> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.net> wrote >>>> From >>>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ >>>> story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html TELSTRA will continue its >>>> legal battle with the federal Government over a $958 million >>>> broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. >>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>> comprehensively indeed. >>>> The Federal Court last October dismissed Telstra's application >>>> against the then federal communications minister Helen Coonan to >>>> see confidential documents about the tender. >>> Funny that. >>>> Telstra today said it would appeal that decision before the full >>>> bench of the court, with new Communications Minister Stephen >>>> Conroy as the respondent. >>> GREAT way to get the new labor govt to f.ck over telstra very >>> comprehensively indeed. >>>> The company will also write to Senator Conroy asking him to cut >>>> short the court action by releasing the documents about the >>>> Broadband Connect deal. >>>> Telstra claims the former coalition government secretly offered >>>> Opel, a consortium of rival telco Optus and Elders, an extra $358 >>>> million to the original tender figure of $600 million. >>>> "Telstra first took this legal action based on the principle that >>>> governments should act transparently and be accountable when they >>>> spend taxpayers' money," said Phil Burgess, group managing >>>> director, public policy and communications. >>> Corse you only care about how taxpayers money is spent, eh ? >>>> "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about a >>>> selection program supervised by the previous government that cost >>>> nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. >>> Like it or lump it, fuckwit. >> Why shouldn't the Government release the documents? >> If the Government has contravened the Financial Management >> and Accountability Act 1997 (or any other Act relating to the >> tender process), I'd be interested to know. >> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating >> to the expenditure of public money remain confidential? > I think you're mistaken. It's not "public" money, it's the > government's money. Once they've pinched it from us, They didnt pinch it from us, that money is a small part of what the govt got when they flogged off part of telstra. > it belongs to them! Don't be fooled by their claims that > they're working for you - it's the other way round! Yeah, yeah, they all conspire in smoke filled rooms to shaft us all eh ? >> Opel has won the contract, so why should the details relating to the >> expenditure of public money remain confidential? > > I think you're mistaken. I know I'm not. > It's not "public" money, it's the government's > money. In a democractic commonwealth, the two are virtually synonymous. Hence government employees form "the public service" and government departments comprise "the public sector". In any event, I clearly referred to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 in my earlier post. "Public money" is the expression used in that Act, and is defined as follows in section 5: public money means: (a) money in the custody or under the control of the Commonwealth; or (b) money in the custody or under the control of any person acting for or on behalf of the Commonwealth in respect of the custody or control of the money; including such money that is held on trust for, or otherwise for the benefit of, a person other than the Commonwealth. > Once they've pinched it from us, it belongs to them! Don't be > fooled by their claims that they're working for you - it's the other way > round! I'm not "fooled" in the slightest. > "Taxpayers and Telstra shareholders are still in the dark about a > selection program supervised by the previous government that cost > nearly $1 billion dollars of public money," Dr Burgess said. Just as Tel$tra shareholders are still in the dark on Sol's decision to give infrastructure contracts worth squillions without tender to his cronies? Of course, no possibility of corruption in these decisions? Rhetorically speaking. > From > http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067321-2702,00.html > > TELSTRA will continue its legal battle with the federal Government over a > $958 million broadband contract given to the Opel consortium. Just like they fought over the closure date of the CDMA network. How did that one work out for you, Telstra? SignatureKwyj. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.