http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-chiefs-silent-on-scandal-at-former-employer-and-conroy-didnt-ask/story-fn59niix-1226046571044

THE top two executives at the National Broadband Network did not raise an ongoing corruption investigation into their former employer before taking jobs to run the $36 billion project - and the government never asked about it.

When former Alcatel-Lucent executives Mike Quigley and Jean-Pascal Beaufret were appointed to the NBN Co by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in mid-2009, the US Securities and Exchange Commission was several years into a five-year probe into bribery allegations against the French telco giant.

But the federal government has now admitted it had no idea Alcatel-Lucent was the subject of a major US government investigation, and that Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret did not raise it, although both later denied any involvement or knowledge of the scandal. In December, Alcatel-Lucent was fined $US137 million after the SEC accused it of paying more than $US8m in bribes between 2001 and 2006 to government officials in Latin America and Asia to win business.

Mr Beaufret, now chief financial officer of NBN Co, had been chief financial officer at Alcatel and then Alcatel-Lucent between 2001 and 2007. Mr Quigley, executive chairman of NBN Co, was appointed president and chief operating officer of Alcatel in 2005.

Both Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret said they had no involvement in the matters subject to the SEC's complaints and were not interviewed in relation to the SEC investigation.

In response to Senate estimates questions raised by South Australian Liberal senator Simon Birmingham, who has been pressing the government on the issue, the government said neither men had disclosed that information.

"Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret did not declare the investigation at the time of appointment to NBN Co as neither were questioned as part of the investigation," the government said in a statement.

Asked whether the federal government believed it should have inquired about the investigation before appointing the men, a spokeswoman for Senator Conroy said Mr Quigley "has been clear" that neither he or Mr Beaufret had "any involvement in the matters" raised by the SEC.

"In fact, the actions of a number of individual Alcatel-Lucent employees detailed in the SEC's statement fell outside the accountability and jurisdiction of both Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret," she said.

The SEC has alleged Alcatel "lacked sufficient internal controls" to prevent bribes being paid and "improperly recorded the payments in its books" during the 2001-06 period.

In response to questioning, the federal government said Mr Beaufret as chief financial officer was in charge of NBN Co's internal controls and financial governance.

When questioned as to how it was comfortable with Mr Beaufret's past as chief financial officer of Alcatel, the government said Mr Beaufret was appointed to NBN Co "due to his skills, previous experiences" and "ability to perform the duties of CFO to a high standard".

In his role as NBN Co chief, Mr Quigley was paid $1.86m for the 2009-10 financial year. Mr Beaufret's salary was not disclosed.

Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret's past connection to Alcatel-Lucent has stirred controversy, with NBN Co in June last year awarding a tender to Alcatel-Lucent for supply of NBN electronic components.

The French-based multinational will be paid $70m to fulfill the first part of the contract but that figure could reach $1.5bn if Alcatel-Lucent can meet supply demands.

"Neither Mr Quigley nor Mr Beaufret played any part in the decision making process at NBN Co which led to Alcatel-Lucent being selected as a supplier to the company," a spokeswoman for Senator Conroy said.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull said it was "remarkable" that Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret had not raised the bribery allegations.

"It is remarkable that Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret apparently did not consider a bribery scandal involving their previous employer was a matter they should raise with their future employer," Mr Turnbull said. "Exactly what roles did Senator Conroy and former prime minister (Kevin) Rudd play in this utter failure of due process?"

Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated

But seems to be silent on this matter

On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!!

When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!!

What say you!!?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!?

well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they??

I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely?

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!? well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they?? I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely?

cods

part of the hiring process would be a background check

a background check involves a police check at the very least

on the initial discussion you would have to answer very specific questions in regards to whether you are under ANY investigations

in addition - if you are under any investigation a simple phone call around the industry will soon flush it out

this is like a child molester applying for a job and no-one bothered to ask the question or bothered doing a police check

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:36pm:

cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!? well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they?? I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely? cods part of the hiring process would be a background check a background check involves a police check at the very least on the initial discussion you would have to answer very specific questions in regards to whether you are under ANY investigations in addition - if you are under any investigation a simple phone call around the industry will soon flush it out this is like a child molester applying for a job and no-one bothered to ask the question or bothered doing a policy check

Police check shows criminal record - NOT current investigations. And they weren't personally investigated, you fool.

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:36pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!? well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they?? I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely? cods part of the hiring process would be a background check a background check involves a police check at the very least on the initial discussion you would have to answer very specific questions in regards to whether you are under ANY investigations in addition - if you are under any investigation a simple phone call around the industry will soon flush it out this is like a child molester applying for a job and no-one bothered to ask the question or bothered doing a policy check Police check shows criminal record - NOT current investigations. And they weren't personally investigated, you fool. ;D

read my TOTAL answer

I was explaining what may be part of a background check

hiring a top executive requires even more rigorous checking which they did not do

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

read my TOTAL answer I was explaining what may be part of a background check hiring a top executive requires even more rigorous checking which they did not do

I don't quite understand though - have these guys been charged? Are they guilty? No? Oh... another flame? okay :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:43pm: read my TOTAL answer I was explaining what may be part of a background check hiring a top executive requires even more rigorous checking which they did not do I don't quite understand though - have these guys been charged? Are they guilty? No? Oh... another flame? okay :)

did I use the word "charged" in the heading of this thread?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:45pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:43pm: read my TOTAL answer I was explaining what may be part of a background check hiring a top executive requires even more rigorous checking which they did not do I don't quite understand though - have these guys been charged? Are they guilty? No? Oh... another flame? okay :) did I use the word "charged" in the heading of this thread?

so then they aren't guilty of any crime.  Let's move on.

??? Seriously Maqqa, you are hilarious!  Simply hilarious.  Just not a comedian.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:36pm:

cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!? well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they?? I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely? cods part of the hiring process would be a background check a background check involves a police check at the very least on the initial discussion you would have to answer very specific questions in regards to whether you are under ANY investigations in addition - if you are under any investigation a simple phone call around the industry will soon flush it out this is like a child molester applying for a job and no-one bothered to ask the question or bothered doing a police check

they werent under investigation though just because they worked for the company doesnt mean they were involved in anything macca I think thats drawing a long bow to be honest.

PM defends NBN against 'smear'
Lauren Wilson
January 03, 2011



IN her first press conference of the year, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dismissed the Coalition's bid to link the Alcatel-Lucent bribery scandal to the National Broadband Network, saying it is an unfounded "personal smear" against two respected businessmen.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has called on the government to disclose any information it had that Alcatel-Lucent, the company providing key advice to the NBN, was being investigated for allegedly paying bribes to foreign government officials.

NBN Co, the company building the $35.9 billion wholesale fibre network, employs two former senior Alcatel executives: NBN chief executive Mike Quigley and chief financial officer Jean-Pascal Beaufret.





Quote:

"Neither Mike Quigley nor Jean-Pascal Beaufret had any involvement in the matters which were the subject of the recent US Securities and Exchange Commission announcement relating to Alcatel-Lucent," a statement from NBN Co said. "In fact the actions of a number of individual Alcatel-Lucent employees detailed in the SEC's statement fell outside the accountability and jurisdiction of both Mr Quigley and Mr Beaufret." The SEC did not attempt to interview Mr Quigley or Mr Beaufret, and neither was named in the SEC complaint. Ms Gillard said the Opposition was "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to try to destroy the NBN.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/pm-defends-nbn-against-smear/story-e6frgaif-1225980647708






END OF STORY

Gillard also said she wasn't going to bring in the Carbon Tax - so what's your point!?

And Howard was vindicated in the AWB issue but you lefties continue to pursue it

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 6:48pm:

Gillard also said she wasn't going to bring in the Carbon Tax - so what's your point!? And Howard was vindicated in the AWB issue but you lefties continue to pursue it

Howard sold our nation's sovereingty to the USA when he bent over and signed the so called US-Australia free trade agreement

Oh the Good old days of Howard cirminality

Here we see the Puppet receiving his medals by one fo the world's supreme intellectual and honest commander in chief

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r330165_1487746.jpg

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 5:00pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:53pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:45pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:43pm: read my TOTAL answer I was explaining what may be part of a background check hiring a top executive requires even more rigorous checking which they did not do I don't quite understand though - have these guys been charged? Are they guilty? No? Oh... another flame? okay :) did I use the word "charged" in the heading of this thread? so then they aren't guilty of any crime.  Let's move on. ??? Seriously Maqqa, you are hilarious!  Simply hilarious.  Just not a comedian.

BUT HE MAY BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE SOON, YEH?!!?  :-? :-? :-? ;)

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:36pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 4:13pm: Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!? well its all over my head as you would guess but if they were not involved or even called to answer questions.. they shouldnt be tarnished should they?? I wouldnt think so otherwise that would leave every employee exposed surely? cods part of the hiring process would be a background check a background check involves a police check at the very least on the initial discussion you would have to answer very specific questions in regards to whether you are under ANY investigations in addition - if you are under any investigation a simple phone call around the industry will soon flush it out this is like a child molester applying for a job and no-one bothered to ask the question or bothered doing a police check they werent under investigation though just because they worked for the company doesnt mean they were involved in anything macca I think thats drawing a long bow to be honest.

THIS BLOKE HAS A LONG SHLONG OBVIOUSLY!  ;D

Go to the link and read the statements from SEC


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/michael-quigley-and-us-court-records-at-odds/story-fn6tcs23-1226054988789

A HOST of public claims made by National Broadband Network chief Michael Quigley about French Telco giant Alcatel-Lucent, of which he was formerly president, are different from allegations made in court documents filed by US authorities and a telco stung by Alcatel's corruption.

Mr Quigley, who spent 36 years with Alcatel and was the group's global president and chief operating officer in 2005 and 2006, has said that as soon as Alcatel's executive committee became aware of corrupt activities associated with the group it launched an investigation and "took immediate steps to inform and co-operate with all authorities".

In legal documents filed in a Florida court, the US corporate watchdog, the US Securities and Exchange Commission, says Alcatel kept paying bribes to sham consultants for more than 18 months after executive members became aware of the payments.

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".

corruption, greed, deceipt, ineptness - the left

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/i-got-it-wrong-michael-quigley-tells-mps/story-fn6tcs23-1226057092055

NATIONAL Broadband Network chief Michael Quigley has admitted making more incorrect claims about his past as one of the top executives of French telecommunications giant Alcatel, which was involved in widespread corruption across the globe.

In 2009, when Mr Quigley was appointed to the $1.8 million-a-year job of running Australia's biggest infrastructure project, the federal government was unaware that Alcatel was then the subject of a five-year US government investigation.



For those who don't understand French it's called LYING

Maqqa wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/i-got-it-wrong-michael-quigley-tells-mps/story-fn6tcs23-1226057092055 NATIONAL Broadband Network chief Michael Quigley has admitted making more incorrect claims about his past as one of the top executives of French telecommunications giant Alcatel, which was involved in widespread corruption across the globe. In 2009, when Mr Quigley was appointed to the $1.8 million-a-year job of running Australia's biggest infrastructure project, the federal government was unaware that Alcatel was then the subject of a five-year US government investigation. For those who don't understand French it's called LYING

well done macca.... at least someone is taking notice...

its like the Worlds Most wanted working in security in the Qlds Premiers office.. what the HELL?

we should be shocked this is going on shouldnt we.? but we are getting used to it...

I note defenders of this bloke such as alevine and buzz are quiet on this matter

Maqqa wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

Laborites love to bring up the AWB issue even though it was fully investigated But seems to be silent on this matter On the THIRD highlighted point - it's called a background check!!!! When you hire chiefs for a $50B project - the least you can do is a BACKGROUND CHECK!! What say you!!?

Background check is simply a basic procedure, so how on earth did the ALP overlook that.
And if the NBN is even close to $50b then thatd be a win, most likely it will cost around $80b, going by the rorts etc that the BER allowed.

And NO leftard makes ANY appearance.

smacking gutless ostriches, you sicken me

And then there will be gillard's carbon dioxide tax to impose on top of the $80 b!

Why is anyone surprised? We've had a drug user and drug dealer appointed as the DG of NSW Education. How comical. A person who could sit in on an interview and judge a person's fitness for the job of a school teacher yet if it were him being interviewed his record would prevent him from gaining a job as a teacher. Makes sense.

macca I wish you would get rid of the joker... he was used by someone else on here... hes very very annoying

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull launched directly into a precise and highly targeted personality attack on NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley, who appeared before yesterday morning's Sydney meeting of the Federal Parliament's joint committee on the National Broadband Network (NBN).

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 (SEC).

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

Quigley had said that he had no jurisdiction over Costa Rica, whose government was said to have been plied with bribes for contracts, due to information he had been given from a former colleague. However, he found out later that he did in fact have jurisdiction over the country. Quigley also adjusted what he'd said about which organisation had brought the issues to light.

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 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. Turnbull's attempting to undermine and ultimately destroy Quigley's personal credibility as the man responsible for implementing Labor's flagship NBN policy.

As Quigley has repeatedly stated, 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 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 his 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 that, 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.

When Quigley was appointed to the role in 2009, ZDNet Australia conducted an investigation of his background, speaking to telco executives and industry experts but could not find anyone to say a bad word against him.

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 borne that disappointment humbly, and has been content to work in lesser roles.

Quigley is also a survivor of life-threatening illnesses that 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.

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.

It is completely legitimate to debate the merits of the NBN policy; 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.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/stop-playing-the-bribery-card-turnbull-339315180.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-reputation-at-stake-as-coalition-seizes-stick-to-beat-nbn-20110520-1ewmz.html

A SEVEN-YEAR corruption investigation winding its way through the United States courts is haunting the head of NBN Co, who last week apologised for not knowing Costa Rica fell under his responsibility as the former head of Alcatel North America.

Mike Quigley has found himself facing questions about bribes paid to Costa Ricans by an Alcatel subsidiary, for which it has since been fined $US137 million by US authorities.

Quigley was Alcatel's president for the Americas from 2001 to 2003 and was appointed global chief operating officer in 2005. Some of the bribes were paid during that period.

US authorities allege Alcatel's old decentralised structure made the company prone to corruption when seeking contracts through third parties.

Since Alcatel sent investigators to Costa Rica in 2004, it has sacked several staff, paid that substantial fine and restructured its corruption-prone business model.

A criminal case between the US Justice Department and Alcatel-Lucent is to be heard on June 1. The civil case was settled on December 28 with the imposition of the fine.

The chief financial officer of NBN Co, Jean-Pascal Beaufret, also worked at Alcatel and has been accused over inconsistencies between key dates listed on his LinkedIn profile and the NBN Co website detailing when he was Alcatel's chief financial officer, and what appeared in Alcatel's annual reports.