linkedin 22 nov 20`5 aat 3 oct 2008 hearing stat dec dated 26 july 2008

Download LinkedIn 22 Nov 20`5 AAT 3 Oct 2008 hearing stat dec dated 26 July 2008

Post on 14-Apr-2017




3 download

Embed Size (px)


  • Transcripts from my two Melbourne Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings(Respondents - ACMA) on 3 October 2oo8 (No Vzoo8/r836) and z=6 Miy zou(No ioro/+6a+) showthat I maintained that both of my Freedotnof l4fortna,tionFOI applications to the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA)

    should 6e provided in the Public Interest and therefore free of charge all of therequestedinformation both Telstra andAUSTEL (nowACMA) withheld during mygovernment endorsed arbitration process. Both of these AAT hearings wereionsidered by Senior AAT Member Mr G D Friedman and it is now apparent that MrFriedman was not aware that the Government solicitors (AGS) and ACMA had basedtheir defence of my claims on totally inaccurate Department of CommunicationsInformation Technology and the Arts (DCITA) COT archival documents, includingthe sanitised, public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994, none of whichincluded the true (and very adverse) findings that AUSTEL had originally reached inrelation to Telstra's dealings with Alan (see Open Letter File Nos 4 to 7).

    On z6 July zoo8, during first AAT hearing (No Vzoo8/r836) I provided Mr G'!.Friedman, Senior AAT Member hearing my case a statutory declaration (which thenbecame a public document) see absent / Falsification Report FileNo/ro (aLo attached at the end ofthis three page Linkedln documents) notes:

    "On z6 August 2oo7, I rarote to Mr Tong Sho.u of the ACA (nouACMA). llie full letter, uhich tu:,o.s prepared on the aduice of aSenator, is attached to rny Sto:ternent of Facts o:nd. Contentions asExhibit (AS 278-b. I hooe not get receioed pennission to identifu theSenortor in relation to these tnolter:s but I ho:ae, hotoetser', prooidedthe Senator's nanne to tny legal aduisot c:nd. roillpass the name ontothe AAT at the appropriate tirne, in confidence. Thot q Senototuould c,ctually iuggest that I fonaard this quote to the Chainnon ofthe Australiai Cotrrrrnunico,tiorts Authority @CA) indicates just houconcented this particular Senator uaq in relation to the uay that aGouertunent Agencg, Iike the ACA (nou ACMA) didnot sddressTelstra's unlanoful behauiour during a Gouerntnent-endotsedarbitrction process that the Regulator hadfacilito,ted. Thefollouing quote is takenfrorn rng lettet to Mr Sho:u:

    "...We suggest that any Regttlotor antd or agent of theFederal/-Croton, toho possessed knouledge of the no,ture ofthese unlano{ul acts oind euents bg Telstra during the AUSTELfscilitated COT olrbitrorion procedure, and specifically-coneeoled

    these octs bg not broailcastirtg to the opptopria:telano e4forcement agencies, uould be acting outside of the low,arnd uould be engaging in prinafacie o,buse of ofice, antdobstruction ofiustice.

    In all th*e resptects, the lano is clear, irprohibits suchconduct."

    z6 September zooS: In my correspondence to Ms Regina Perton, AdministrativeAppeals Tribunal I noted:

  • "I ann sure gou ote ot tare, the T?ade Practices Act directscornpornies to toithdrano faultg goods or sertsices itnrnediatelg uponbecornirlry aiutore of problems related to those good.s and/or seruicesand, ot the sanne tirne, to bring the problems to the notice of theitcustonters ond the Austroliorn public in g eneral. If theg do notfolloro these directions theg ane in breach ofthe T?ade PracticesAct.

    ACMA lcnonrs that, on at least trlto occosiotts, Telstro used theregulator to 'r'ubber stannp' tltoo technical reltorts that Telstra kneuuire rnore than justflolul,ed but uhich toere then prouided to theanbitrator during my arbitro:tion. ACMA has not published theirknouledge of this ma,tten

    On t6th October tgg5 the regulator alloued. Telstra to address one ofthe billirtg issues.;E om my arbitration, outside the legal arena of rngorrbitra;rton. Since tny anbitrotion uas a priuate tnottel" betueenTelstra arnd rne. the regulator did not haue the authority to allouarrbitrrrtion tno:tter:s tobe addressed in such a confidentioJ uag,outside the clrbitro;tiorr- process' thus disallotoing rne mg legal rightunder the Comrnercio,l Arbitro,tion Act 7 g I 4, to challeng e the falsei4fonnation that Telstra kneu u as false ond misleoding ". (AS rroZ)

    On 3 October zoo8, Mr G.D. Friedman, Senior AAT Member hearing my case (NoVzoo8/r886) noted:

    "Let nte just sag, I don't cottsider gou, personallg, to befriuolous oruercfious - far frotn it. Yes. I suppose all thtfi r.ernoinsfor rne tosag, Mr Smith, is that gou obuiouslg o:r.e uery tenacious o;ndpirsistent inpursuing the - not this mo,tter before me,-but theuhole- the uhole qiestion of what gou see as a grol)e injustice, o:nd I 9anonlg appktid people toho houe persistence and the detertnino,rton tosee things through uhen theg belieue it's irnpottant enough".

    During my second AAT hearing GI92AIOI4@d on z6 May zon, Mr G.D. Friedman,Senior AAT Member noted:

    "Mr Srnith still belieues that there are moirty urn,a nstoeredquestions bg the regulatory authorities or bg Tebtra,t-hat herrrishes to pursue antd. he belieues these documents uill shotothot his uihorppiness roith the uay he has been treatedpersonallg also uillfloro to other o:reas such as it utill expose'the practices by Telstra and regulatorg bodies uhich qffectsnot onlg hiln but other people throughout Austrclia,

    Mr Srnith said todag thaf he had concerns about the equiprnentused. in cabling at Cape Bridgewater bolck in the tggos. IIesaid that it s hould - the equiprnent or sorne of the equiptnentshould horue a life ofup to 40 Aeoirs but, infact, because of the

  • terrain c:nd the toet surfaces o:n,d othel. things doun there theu)rlortg equiptnent l,l.:,o.s ttsed".

    During this second AAT hearing in May zorr I again raised the telephone problemsthat had affected my business from before my arbitration in 1993 to 1995, stressingthat the arbitrator had failed to investigate or address most of those problems, whichtherefore allowed them to continue for a further eleven years after the end ofthearbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia's NationalBroadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-zorr and is still continuingin zor5, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my arbitration and bothmy AAT Hearings in zoo8 and zorr, have been proved; this can be confirmed by asimple Internet search for "Australia NBN".


    I, Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater in the State of Victori4

    do hereby solernnly and sincerely declare that: On 21a March 1995, at a Senate Committee

    Hearing into the Tllecommunications (lnterception) Amendment Bill 1994. in Padiament House,Canbeiq I lnt.oau"ed a nu.Gr of documents, including two pages from a transcript ofaninterview conducted by the Australian Federal Policeon 26s September 1994. These two pages

    are attached to my Administrative Appeals Tribunal Statement ofFacts and Contentions as

    Erhibit (As 332).

    Shortly before this Senate Commiflee Hearing I had discussions with AUSTEL'S Cliff Mathiesonregarding flaws I had discovered in t}l Bell Canada lnternational (BCI) 'CaDe Bridqqy/-atgr .(Aldend-um)' Report. During this discussion, Mr Mathieson informed me that AUSTEL had

    i.itt.r, to f"trt-during the fireparation ofthe AUSTEL COT Report into the tests carried out byBCI at both Cape Bridgiwatir and at the Glen Waters Fish Fa,,,, (Victoria). Mr Mathieson also

    told me that none oftl; tests described in the 'cape Bridsewater (Addendum) ReDort' couldpossibly have been conducted at either the times or on the dates included in the report' My

    respon;e to Mr Mathieson was to confirm that nothing had changed and my business was still

    plagued by phone problems. Mr Marhieson the r commented thar he understood my frustration

    witf, the aibitration process but AUSTEL could not become involved, as these were matters for

    the arbitrator and the arbitration consultants. Mr Mathieson appeared to be reluctant to broadcast

    his knowledge that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tesls were flawed, even though he advised me that

    AUSTEL w; fully aware that Telstra were using the known flawed BCI tests in the COTarbitrations. This, together with other information in my statement of Facts and contentigns, is

    further proof that AU-STEL deliberately hid their knowledge ofthe way Telstra had submitted, to

    the arbiiration process, swom witness statements that Telstra knew were flawed.

    It is particularty important to note cliffMathieson's comments that AUSTEL had written to

    Telsira during ihe preparation ofthe AUSTEL COT Report, with particular regard to the BCI,Caoe Bridee-watei (Addendum) Reoort, but ACMA's FOI schedule of documents currently,"der re"l"* by th" AAT d*. not include any mention of this contact in any file notes or letErsexchanged between AUSTEL and Telstra. This is therefore yet another example of material that

    could be sensitive for Telstra, but which ACMA say they cannot find.

    On 26u August 200 I , I wrote Mr Tony Shaw of the ACA (now ACMA). The ful I letter, whichwas prepadd on the advice of a senator, is attached to my statement of Facts and contentions as

    rcxhiUit leSrr8-Uy. I have nor yet received permission !o identiry the Senator in relation to these

    matters but I have, however, piovided the Senator's name to my legal advisor and will pass thename on to the AAT at the atpropriate time, in confidence. That a Senaor would actuallysuggest that I forward this quote to the Chairman ofthe Aushalian Communication Authority(ACA) indicates just how concemed this particular Senator was, in relation to the way that a

    dovernment Agency, like the ACA (now ACMA) did not address Telstra's unlawful behaviourduring a Government-endoned arbitration procss that the Regulator had facilitated' Thefolloiing quote is taken from my letter to Mr Shaw: "...We suggest thet any Re