
Cornered! is a blog devoted, most of the time anyway, to telecommunications: local and global issues, technology, people and trends from the perspective of someone who's been reporting, analysing and commenting on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition). Sometimes serious, sometimes flippant, sometimes frivolous. Controversial, analytical, informative, amusing, but never boring; a vehicle for examinations of important issues and observations on my encounters and experiences in an industry where polarised views and hyperbole are the norm.
Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL Blog
Technology news and Jobs
Cornered!
Telstra v Coonan: no smoke without fire?
Cornered!
Telstra v Coonan: no smoke without fire? | Telstra v Coonan: no smoke without fire? |
|
| by Stuart Corner | |
| Sunday, 05 August 2007 | |
|
Page 1 of 3
Telstra's accusations against communications minister, Helen Coonan, that the process by which Opel secured close to $1 billion of government funding for broadband infrastructure are not new. Inconsistencies between official statements are not reassuring. Nor is the minister's statement denying any wrongdoing.Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Bryant replied: "That very question was asked of us by a number of the participants. We indicated at the time that the budget was up to $600 million. We indicated that it would always be a matter for government to provide further funds once an assessment stage had been reached and we advised people who wanted some advice on the matter that the best way to approach it would be to put in modular bids...beyond $600 million if they wanted to." Then, in June with the Opel deal common knowledge in Canberra but not publicly announced, the ALP called for an investigation by the Auditor General , saying "It has been suggested that some participants were advised of the possibility of increased funding under Broadband Connect Infrastructure Program weeks before other participants." The resulting report, from the Australian National Audit Office, subsequently cleared DCITA of any breach of probity, but details of this, posted on DCITA's website conflict with the responses given by Bryant to Conroy's questioning. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|










