The faceless government pen pushers
Published by?Lyn Fattorini?
22-12-21
I have discussed some of Telstra’s illegal activity before and during Alan’s arbitration and the appointment of an ungraded arbitrator. Now let’s look at AUSTEL, the Australian government’s telecommunications regulator (now called ACMA).
This fully government-funded department was tasked with policing a government-owned business. The Australian government was preparing to privatise Telstra and so it was in the government’s financial interest to hide the extent of Telstra’s network neglect. So, what does one expect? A totally impartial and transparent investigation of complaints against that SOE? Let’s see…
AUSTEL was the Australian telecommunications watchdog; however, many senior AUSTEL positions were held by ex-Telstra employees. And then there’s the board… but I’ll come back to that.
With the assistance of the first four COT cases, AUSTEL’s senior management uncovered that Telstra was using known-faulty exchange equipment that other counties had removed or were removing. The government should have been warned. This did not happen.
AUSTEL conducted its own formal investigation into the COT complaints prior to the arbitrations. The draft copy of AUSTEL’s report lays bare the copious prevalent issues in Telstra’s network and details well the extent of the ongoing financial damage for affected businesses. (See https://www.absentjustice.com/download.php...) This report was supplied to Telstra (only).
However, two April 1994 letters from Telstra’s group general manager to AUSTEL’s chair show AUSTEL was far from independent and could be manipulated to alter its official findings at Telstra’s request. For example, Telstra says:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.”
But the next day:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of ‘some hundreds’ of COT-type customers.” (See https://www.absentjustice.com/download.php... File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:
领英推荐
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
AUSTEL’s sanitised formal version minimised the extent of Telstra’s issues and was officially submitted to all parties, including the arbitrator, before the first four arbitrations began.
According to the Telecommunications Act 1991, AUSTEL was duty-bound, under Section 342 of the Act, to provide the Minister for Communications with all its findings. But AUSTEL withheld its true findings from relevant ministers and the arbitrations: this denied these COTs a proper assessment.
Alan says, “We knew AUSTEL had made reference in a draft report that Telstra was suffering from major exchange problems. This was discussed with the COTs during a two-day lockup period in AUSTEL’s offices in April 1994. It was only after AUSTEL submitted its formal COT cases’ report to the government that we realised the reporting had been sanitised. During this lockup period, 12 COT cases were searched going out of AUSTEL’s government offices at lunchtime and at night: that is how serious AUSTEL was in concealing what had been uncovered. During this time, we learned AUSTEL had gleaned its adverse information from Telstra’s daily logbook entries made in each telephone exchange.
“We requested the arbitrator source these logbooks under discovery and, in my case, I also tried to source the local logbook through the Commonwealth Ombudsman via the FOI Act and that office demanded to know why it was not being supplied.
“The logbooks would have won each case’s claims of ongoing telephone problems, but they were never provided. This one AUSTEL draft report alone would have won the COTs’ cases.”
That Telstra (the defendant) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings in its formal report is disturbing: that formal report was accepted as true. Any researchers now looking at historical network issues are led to this falsified report. The 120,000 customers – ordinary Australians experiencing COT-type problems – are never referred to in later investigations (e.g., the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts’ report, which used AUSTEL’s report to determine the validity of the COT claims. (See https://www.absentjustice.com/download.php...)
Further, the original COT arbitration agreement stipulated Telstra would carry out the AUSTEL-designed Service Verification Tests (SVTs) to the COT businesses going through arbitration. The results of the SVTs of each COT business were to be provided to the arbitrator so he could determine whether the phone and faxing problems had been fixed. It would be pointless for the arbitrator to hand down a final award if SVTs showed problems still existed.
Yet AUSTEL allowed Telstra to limit the Bell Canada International (BCI) testing process and bypass the COT cases’ roadside junction boxes (CAN) where they connect to the network. This covert decision was made because, by the time of the 1993 negotiations, AUSTEL realised how bad the copper wiring feeding these junction boxes actually was. AUSTEL allowed Telstra to pay for this testing process! How can a testing process be adequate and transparent when the process is funded by the defendant? The arbitration technical consultants should have been the umpire of the tests, not the defendants. (See https://www.absentjustice.com/.../taking-on.../chapter-2/)
I note above that ex-Telstra staff held senior positions in government-funded AUSTEL, but the setup is trickier than that. Other regulators, such as the commissioner of the Trade Practices Commission (now ACCC), were/are also on the AUSTEL (now ACMA) board. So, if a complaint is raised with ACCC about ACMA, ACCC cannot investigate as it is on the board. That deliberate (?) conflict of interest provides protection.
Alan says, “AUSTEL (ACMA) is untouchable in Australia and this is one reason the COT cases are where they are today.”
[LF^]