Opposition questions for communications minister Stephen Conroy, Senate Estimates Committee hearing

Stuart Corner
Tuesday, 27 May 2008 06:32

IT Policy - Government Tech Policy

See the item "Conroy gags himself over National Broadband RFP for context in which these questions were asked

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE
* Was the Minister's decision to extend the deadline for broadband proposals by 12 weeks after proponents receive relevant information about existing network infrastructure; largely prompted by inquiries made into the adequacy of the July 25 submission date by the National Audit Office?

* Is it merely a coincidence that the extension was announced on the very day the auditor general responded to the shadow minister's submission in which he raised concerns about the tender process deadline?

* Did the National Audit Office advise the Department that the submission date was inadequate? If so did the department pass this information onto the minister and recommend that he extend the deadline?

* Is it fair to say the minister extended the deadline purely to protect himself from a damning finding from the auditor general?

* Did the minister, his staff or the department know that the auditor general was likely to respond to the shadow minister's submission about the tender process on the same day or the day after he put out a media release announcing the extra time?

* Does the department and the Minister accept that the public was misled by comments from the minister that he was prepared to accept "non-complying" bids?

* Is the Department and the Minister aware that the RFP documents, without a new addendum prevent the minister from formally considering "non-complying bids" despite his public comments to the contrary?

* Is the Minister still prepared to accept "non-complying" bids and if so does he intend to amend the RFP documents to make this perfectly clear?

* Why did the Department and the Minister leave it so late to introduce the NBN legislation? Do you concede this was reckless in light of the necessity now to extend the process?
 
QUESTIONS NOT ASKED
* Do you concede that Telstra, which holds the vast majority of this network information, is at a distinct advantage over its rivals because of this serious shortcoming in your process?

* Why did you formally call for proposals, fully aware that necessary information was not available to prospective bidders?

* Do you honestly believe, that even if they now had all the information they need to develop and cost proposals, that they have an adequate amount of time to submit credible bids?

* On May 9 Minister I understand you pulled out of a meeting with key members of the G9 consortium; is that right?

* Did you pull out of this meeting because of advice from your probity officer? What was that advice?

* When did you last meet with any representative from Telstra or any other prospective bidder?

* Minister your office described the so called gag order in the RFP documents as quite common; are you aware of legal opinion that this provision is in fact quite uncommon?

Are you aware of speculation that members of your panel have told third parties that the NBN is basically a done deal and Telstra is a shoo-in? Would you be concerned if this was the case?

* Why haven't the ACCC, the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia or a consumer representative been given any roles whatsoever in the NBN process?

* In a response to a question from last estimates The Department says it has done only basic costing work no real costings re NBN, that is extraordinary and how do arrive at the $4.7 billion figure and $10 billion for overall network?

* Are you aware of reports that claim the figure you have mentioned in relation to a fibre NBN are grossly under the mark; and are those a concern?

* Does the Government still intend to use the $2 billion Communications Fund and the proceeds of the T3 sales to fund the NBN project?

* It is the intention to roll that money into the Building Australia Fund, is that right?

* While Infrastructure Australia has been assigned no role by you, how can the money be drawn from this fund when the Budget papers make it perfectly clear that project spending will be subject to "rigorous evaluation" by Infrastructure Australia?

* You have not assigned them a role and the Infrastructure Minister has previously stated that they have no role to play whatsoever, because this project is underway; so are they playing a role or not?

* You have stated that you are willing to accept non-complying bids, if that's the case, why go to the trouble of releasing formal RFP documents and not just put out press release saying you will accept any proposals, bring them on?

* Why have conditions on proponents such as bonds and gags, if you will accept proposals that are non-complying?

* Would be fair to say the RFP proposal is designed to provide a veneer or credibility and a hint of due process, when in fact these documents aren't worth much more than the paper they are written on?

* A clause in the RFP states the documents do not amount to a process contract; what exactly does that mean? Is this a contract or isn't it?

* Would it be fair to say you are trying impose binding obligations on proponents, but at the same time saying there are no obligations on the Government?

* What are the obligations on the Government, other than the necessity of ticking a political box by the end of this year?

* Are you prepared to consider a time extension for bidders, considering your mishandling of the information exchange; these delays are surely your fault not the fault of the bidders who have been disadvantaged?

* What is the next step if you don't receive a credible bid, because there is some concern that if Telstra for example is the only bidder you will award them the project regardless of the suitability of their proposal?

* It's fair to say that Telstra is in the box seat isn't it?

* In relation to the network's regulatory regime, how is that going to work?

* Do you think it is fair to expect proponents to bid and potentially put billions of dollars on the line before they know what the access and pricing regime will look like?

* At the last estimates when asked what the $4.7 billion will be spent on you replied "the network", since then are you any clearer on what the money will buy?

* Will you give a commitment that underserved regions will be the first to benefit from any network roll out?

Logically any proponent would be keen to roll out in areas that are most economically viable first, ie large population centres; is that a fair statement?

* You say you will favourably consider proposals that will address underserved areas first; rather than just pay lip service to this why don't you make that a condition of the project?

* Minister can you name another Government procurement that has been subject to such a vague and contradictory process, with such tight timeframes attached?

* Why are you in such a rush; when most in the industry as well as analysts have described your project timelines as "unrealistic"?

* Do you plan on compensating any telcos that have existing infrastructure or services rendered obsolete as a result of the construction of this new network?

* A Government intervention that displaces private sector investment would surely warrant compensation for those displaced wouldn't it? If you do not compensate, legal remedy would be a likely path for those affected, would it not?

* Can you just explain why you didn't set the all important regulatory framework and ensure all necessary information was available to bidders and clearly define the problem you are seeking to address, before you called for bids?

* Is it true to say that any back of the envelope costings you may have done and even the envisaged make-up of the network is based on Telstra's earlier proposal?

* Has any cost benefit analysis been done whatsoever?

* Is it true the ABG is aimed at assisting those areas of the market that are not commercially viable ie the remaining 2 percent? If so does that mean the other 98 percent is commercially viable? If so why would you even contemplate spending $4.7 billion of public many on that area of the market?

* No funding for NBN was allocated in the Communications Budget. For such a 'nation building project', which isn't likely to be completed within the next five years, and considering rapidly changing online requirements, a goal speed of 12Mbps would seem quite underwhelming wouldn't it, considering those types of speeds are already achievable in many sectors of the market today?

* What makes you so certain that network structure and capacity that you go with today, won't be rendered obsolete by the time the project is completed?

* How can you say and I quote that this process is designed "to maximise competitive tension".