Questions on Notice:
Communications: Casualties of Telstra
(Question No. 82)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 February 2002:
(1)Why did the Minister's office take from 14 June 2000 until 14 November 2000 to initially respond to a freedom of information (FOI) request by Kenneth Ivory, in relation to `Casualties of Telstra' (COT) related matters.
(2)What action is the Minister going to take to rectify the fact that the department's delay has, whether intentionally or inadvertently, resulted in Mr Ivory not having FOI documents and not being in a position to present his case in January 2001 to the Supreme Court of Queensland.
(3)Is the Minister aware that this FOI delay potentially had the same effect as in the five COT cases listed in Schedule A and Schedule B of the Senate working paper of 1997, whose matters also related to breaches of FOI by Telstra.
(4)What action will the Minister take to have Telstra, or the relevant department, settle Mr Ivory's damages immediately.
(5)Why were Mr Ivory's (Solar-Mesh) COT-related matters not settled prior to the Telstra `T2' float, under the same terms and conditions as the five COT cases listed in Schedule A of the Senate committee's working paper of 1997.
(6)Will Mr Ivory's damages claim immediately be resolved, under no less than the same terms and conditions as the five resolved COT cases listed in Schedule A that were settled just before the T2 float; if not, why not.
(7)(a) How many people with COT-related issues has Telstra had arrested, or attempted to have arrested, under a mental health warrant, peace and good behaviour warrant or criminal warrant.
(8)Was the purpose of that action to assist Telstra to assassinate the character of the COTs and to conceal the truth about systemic faults, to comply with Freehill, Hollingdale and Page's `COT case strategy', dated 10 September 1993.
(9)How many of these COT-related matters have already been settled.
(10)Against how many people with COT-related issues has Telstra and/or its lawyers prevailed on federal or state police to falsify police records to assassinate those people's character and reputation to assist in concealing the truth about Telstra's defective network, by use of corporate thuggery and neglect of duty of care.
(11)Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in having police records and/or mental health reports falsified to cause injury to COT-related people; if so, who were they.
(12)What are the names of the police officers, medical practitioners, or others (and/or their agents) involved in having COTs defamed, intimidated, harassed or wrongfully arrested and who have been obtaining either mental health warrants, bogus psychiatric reports or bogus psychologists assessments made, based solely on information from Telstra or its agents, or who were involved in apprehension warrants being wrongfully obtained against COTs.
(13)(a) Were any persons from within or associated with the Minister's office involved in the actions described in (12); if so, who were they; and (b) were any of these warrants ever condoned by the Minister.
(14)Were any Telstra employees (and/or their agents) involved in wrongfully obtaining warrants; if so, who were they.
(15)Did Telstra's former chairman, Mr David Hoare, have any conflict of interest.
(16)What other directorships has Mr David Hoare held from 1990 to date.
(17)Did any conflict of interest occur when Mr Stephen Mead, while seconded from Mallesons Stephen Jaques to Telstra, became in January 1996 a partner in Mallesons Stephen Jaques, while remaining on secondment to Telstra.
(18)On what specific date did Mr Stephen Mead cease being a seconded employee of Telstra.
(19)Is there any outstanding Telstra documentation that has not been provided under FOI and discovery processes; if so: (a) why has there been a delay in providing that information; and (b) when can Mr Ivory expect to receive that outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has previously been claimed or not.
(20)Are there any outstanding documents under FOI and non-party disclosure in the Minister's offices; if so, when can Mr Ivory expect to receive this outstanding information, whether professional legal privilege has been previously claimed or not.
(21)Did Telstra employee, Mr Armstrong, attempt to have Mr Ivory sign a Telstra deed of settlement in January or February 2001, to walk away from his claims against Telstra and Mr Mead.
(22)Was the Minister aware that Telstra was attempting to have Mr Ivory commit illegal and unauthorised acts had he signed the settlement deed.
(23)Has the Minister condoned unconscionable conduct by Telstra's authorised officer in his attempt to silence Mr Ivory's claims while Mr Ivory was unrepresented.
(24)Why did Telstra refuse to pay for Mr Ivory to seek independent legal representation to advise Mr Ivory of Telstra's proposed settlement deed terms that Telstra tried to force Mr Ivory into signing without time or money to seek advice before Telstra withdrew the settlement offer.
(25)What action will be taken under administrative law to prevent such mismanagement of Telstra continuing to unjustly sabotage Mr Ivory's life and livelihood.
(26)(a) Why did Telstra take from 11 May 1994 until 1 June 1994 to test Mr Ivory's 1800 prefix complaint.
(27)(a) Is it Telstra's policy that, when any line/number fault is reported it is logged into Telstra's fault reporting system; (b) is it correct that a standard set of remote tests are immediately conducted in the first instance; and (c) if the fault cannot be rectified or found remotely, is a field technician dispatched to attend the premises; if so, why was this process not followed with Mr Ivory's 1800 fault complaint.
(28)Why did Telstra only test the 1800 fault reported by Mr Ivory after the fault had been rectified at the exchange on the 31 May 1994.
(29)Did Telstra fabricate and falsify its records and documentation to conceal the 1800 prefix systemic fault.
(30)How many 1800 subscribers did Telstra have in September 1993.
(31)Why has Telstra withheld `as obviously irrelevant' information consistent with the possibility of proving innocence.
Senator Alston —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1)The reasons for delay in responding to Mr Ivory's Freedom of Information Request (FOI) request in relation to `Casualties of Telstra' (COT) related matters fell into two parts:
(i)delay caused by the management of his correspondence through the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts' Parliamentary Correspondence Management System (PCMS); and
(ii)other delays in identifying the documents covered by the request, including attempts to clarify the scope of the request, responding to related correspondence concerning litigation, and consulting with a third party regarding personal information.
(2)I am unable to comment on Mr Ivory's legal action in the Supreme Court of Queensland. In relation to PCMS related delays, all FOI requests are now allocated to the Legal Group in PCMS for action to ensure that requests that originate in this way are promptly assessed.
(3)I am not able to comment on the potential effects of the FOI delay in relation to Mr Ivory.
(4)Telstra has been a corporation subject to Australia's corporations law (now the Corporations Act 2001) since 1991.
Consistent with the arrangement for Government Business Enterprises, Telstra's Board and management are responsible for the day to day running of Telstra's operations. The Government's role is mainly to establish the legislative framework within which all telecommunications service providers (including Telstra) must operate. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts does not have specific legislative power to direct Telstra to settle compensation claims. Nor would it be appropriate to do so. Mr Ivory has no damages claim against the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
(5) to (12) Neither I nor the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts hold the information requested by Mr Ivory.
Mr Ivory has a number of options to obtain information, if it exists, from Telstra, including asking Telstra for the information, legal action through the courts or seeking information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
Should Mr Ivory have evidence of unlawful activities, he should bring this to the attention of the police. If he has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter. If Mr Ivory believes he is entitled to receive compensation or damages under statute law or common law, he can take legal action through the courts.
(13)(a) No persons from within or associated with my office were involved in the actions described in Question 12. (b) Given the response to 13(a) this question is not applicable.
(14) to (19) See answer to question (5).
(20)I am not aware of any outstanding documents.
(21)See answer to question (5).
(22)No. Should Mr Ivory have evidence of unlawful activities, he should bring this to the attention of the police. If he has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter.
(23)No.
(24) to (31) See answer to question (5).
Question on Notice:
Telstra: Claims
(Question No. 199)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 20 March 2002:
(1)Was Mr John Armstrong a fully authorised officer of Telstra's board in October 2000; if so, in that authorised capacity, was Mr Armstrong able to swear an affidavit for and on behalf of Telstra's Board of Directors and able to bind the corporation and its directors to that which he swore.
(2)(a) Did Telstra's Mr Ted Benjamin inform the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee during estimates hearings on 23 June 1995 (p.245, Hansard transcript) that all outstanding claims against Telstra in relation to `Casualties of Telstra' matters were in the hands of two arbitrators; and (b) is it a fact that Mr Ivory's 1800 777 592 prefix fault complaints were not at the time, and have not been, before those arbitrators.
Senator Alston —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, is as follows:
(1)I am not aware of Mr Armstrong's relationship with the Telstra Board. Any question concerning Mr Armstrong would be a matter for the Telstra Board and Telstra Management.
(2)(a)The Hansard transcript states Mr Benjamin informed the Committee “All the claims outstanding are in the hands of the two arbitrators who are adjudicating on these matters. They are all now being progressed at the pace that two arbitrators deem appropriate in the circumstances”.
(b)Neither I nor the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts holds information concerning what matters were before the arbitrators on 23 June 1995.
Mr Ivory has a number of options to obtain information, if it exists, from Telstra, including asking Telstra for the information, legal action through the courts or seeking information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
Question on Notice:
Telstra: Legal Costs
(Question No. 115)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 February 2002:
(1)Will the Minister provide a detailed and itemised schedule of individual and total payments made to Mallesons Stephen Jaques (MSJ) by Telecom/Telstra during each of the following financial years:
(a)1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991;
(b)1 July 1991 to 30 June 1992;
(c)1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993;
(d)1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994;
(e)1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995;
(f)1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996;
(g)1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997;
(h)1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998;
(i)1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999;
(j)1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000;
(k)1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001; and
(l)1 July 2001 to 31 January 2002.
(2)Will the Minister provide a detailed and itemised schedule of individual and total payments made to MSJ either directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth of Australia during each of the following financial years:
(a)1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991;
(b)1 July 1991 to 30 June 1992;
(c)1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993;
(d)1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994;
Question on Notice:
Telstra: 1800 Prefix
(Question No. 107)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 February 2002:
(1)Why did the testing procedures fail to detect inherent data faults with the Telstra 1800 prefix `conditioning' from and/or prior to 1 September 1993.
(2)Why have the `008-1800' subscribers still not been advised of the conditioning faults.
(3)Is it a fact that the above conditioning faults were the result of exchanges not being conditioned by 1 September 1993, and one of those not conditioned was Salisbury ARE in Brisbane (Mr Ivory's 1800 prefix exchange) thus preventing incoming 1800 calls to all Telstra subscribers who were reliant on the Salisbury exchange.
(4)Is it a fact that exchanges that were not conditioned by 1 September 1993 and/or by 20 September 1993 would have then not been conditioned except in response to a customer complaint that callers could not get through; if not, can evidence to the contrary be provided.
(5)Please advise, with documented evidence, the specific date of the initial complaint that was lodged by Mr Ivory, on 11 May 1994, in relation to the Solar-Mesh 1800 777 592 service, and what date it was finally conditioned to rectify the initial 1800 prefix fault.
(6)From 1 September 1993, was there also a problem with the DMS accepting 1800 numbers for trunking in some exchanges.
(7)If the above referred to `DMS 1800 accepting faults' existed, could it have adversely affected incoming (Australia Wide) Telstra subscribers' calls after the initial conditioning fault had been rectified, and/or from day one for the few 1800 services that were lucky enough not to have suffered damage from a conditioning fault.
(8)Did 10-digit number faults occur pertaining to numbers beginning with `1'.
(9)If 10-digit number faults occurred on numbers beginning with `1', would Telstra subscribers' customers have been prevented from receiving calls when 1800 prefixes were dialled.
(10)During the 10-digit number faults and during the conditioning fault periods, could Telstra subscriber's freecall customers still have received incoming 008 dialled calls if customers knew to dial 008 in front of the number instead of dialling the new 1800 prefix.
(11)(a) Is it correct that Telstra `number length difficulties' caused further faults with 1800 numbers from 1 September 1993 in relation to the CPE problems; (b) did these faults still exist on 16 March 1995; and (c) would the ANP have escalated these systemic fault difficulties.
(12)(a) Is it a fact that Telstra has 1800 `cyclic storage problems' with ARF common register and KS failure that prevented proper digit transfer (eg. 1800 123 456 will be changed to 1800 123 418, i.e. The first two digits will be reinserted after the 8th digit); (b) was this cyclic storage problem another 1800 prefix systemic fault; if so, did Telstra have difficulties with having sufficient maintenance staff trained to be able to attend the faulty exchanges for rectification; (c) would this fault have occurred not just when dialling 1800 code prefix numbers but also where more than 8 digits are dialled (eg. 100, 1800, ANP 1818 etc.); and (d) was this another very major fault covered up by Telstra.
(13)If the cyclic storage fault existed, could it have adversely affected incoming Australia Wide 1800 customer calls.
(14)Is it a fact that Telstra also had another 1800 prefix systemic fault called a `no progress fault' whereby the switching of 1800 calls takes a longer switching time than 008 calls, leaving customers to believe that their calls had failed.
(15)If the above referred to `no progress fault' existed, would it have adversely affected incoming Australia Wide 1800 customer calls.
(16)Is it a fact that Telstra also had another 1800 prefix fault, called a `congestion tone fault' route fault for 18 codes not graded to sufficient capacity, causing 1800 customers to have insufficient answering capacity to receive incoming 1800 code prefix calls.
(17)If the `congestion tone fault' existed, could it have also adversely affected incoming Australia Wide 1800 customer calls.
(18)Between 1 December 1994 and 31 December 1994, over its entire 008-1800 network, did Telstra calls received total 27 565 289; if so, how many of those calls were 008 dialled calls and how many were 1800 dialled calls.
(19)How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 August 1993 and 31 August 1993.
(20)How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 September 1993 and 30 September 1993.
(21)How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 October 1993 and 31 October 1993.
(22)How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 November 1993 and 30 November 1993.
(23)How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 December 1993 and 31 December 1993.
(24)(a) How many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 January 1994 and 31 May 1994; and (b) how many total Telstra network 008 / 1800 dialled calls were recorded between and including 1 June 1994 and 21 December 1994.
(25)(a) Did Telecom/Telstra do any print, radio or television advertising to advise its 008-1800 subscribers and to also advise its 1800 subscribers customers and/or to advise the general public of the defective limitations adversely affecting 1800 prefix subscribers' businesses; (b) if no such advertising was published nationally to the public by Telstra, could it have adversely restricted nationally the number of incoming 1800 customer calls being received by Telstra's subscribers from their potential customers and/or from the general public who were not informed by Telstra (the then trusted fully Commonwealth-owned carrier), which was still promoting the use of 1800 prefix numbers nationally; (c) did Telstra keep concealing from its 1800 subscribers and from the public that Telstra's 1800 prefix network was not fit for use from the 1 September 1993 change-over commencement date; if so, why was a large pool of Telstra's subscribers not informed of their daily accruing potential damage; if not, why not; and (d) were these potential liabilities fully disclosed in the T1 and T2 public offer documents; if not, why not.
(26)(a) What action will the Commonwealth be taking to ensure that the Telstra Board informs all of its investor/shareholders of their right to pursue Telstra for any failure to disclose all of its potential liabilities from the T1 and T2 public offer documents; (b) (i) was Mr David Hoare, then Chairman of Telstra, also the chairman of Telstra's share sale legal advisory law firm, (ii) was Mr Stephen Mead, a partner of the law firm also a Telstra employee, and (iii) did this represent a conflict of interest; (c) was the above conflict of interest revealed in Telstra's public offer documents; if not, why not; and (d) were the above systemic faults in Telstra's 1800 network and computer software disclosed in the Telstra public offer documents; if not, why not.
(27)(a) As the Minister responsible for the T1 and T2 share sell-off by the Commonwealth, why did the Minister not ensure to have disclosed in the T1 and T2 offer documents the fact that Telstra's then Chairman, Mr David Hoare, was at the same time Chairman of Telstra's legal advisory firm, Mallesons Stephen Jaques; (b) as the Minister responsible for the T1 and T2 share sell-off by the Commonwealth, why did the Minister not ensure to have disclosed in the T1 and T2 offer documents the fact that Telstra's then in-house Counsel, Mr Stephen Mead, was at the same time a partner of Telstra's legal advisory firm, Mallesons Stephen Jaques; and (c) as the Minister responsible for the T1 and T2 share sell-off by the Commonwealth, why did the Minister not ensure to have disclosed in the T1 and T2 offer documents the fact that the Commonwealth's legal advisory firm, Freehill Hollingdale and Page, was also on a Telstra retainer in relation to the concealment of the potential liabilities to the COTs (Casualties of Telecom/Telstra) in other COT related matters, including the few COT cases settled just before the T2 sale.
(28)(a) Is the Minister aware that Mr Stephen Mead was a good friend of a Mr Simon Dudley Williams who, along with the firm (Spruson and Ferguson), were, since before Mr Ivory's 11 May 1994 1800 conditioning fault complaint to Telstra, being sued by Mr Ivory's company for professional negligence; and (b) was the Minister aware that Mr Mead and Mr Hoare's law firm partnership of Mallesons Stephen Jaques was acting for Mr Ivory's multinational competitors, Boral Cyclone—Azon Cyclone Hardware, at the same time Mr Mead's friend (Mr Williams) of Spruson and Ferguson was acting for Boral Cyclone.
(29)(a) Is it a fact that the 1800 universal exchanges could have only been conditioned in blocks of 10 000 number ranges; (b) was it possible for any single 10 000 lot 1800 number ranges to have been missed completely in the 1 September 1993 conditioning; (c) is it a fact that the 1800 universal exchange conditioning defects could have accidentally allowed a single number to have been completely missed in the 1 September 1993 conditioning of the 1800 prefixes; and (d) is it a fact that Telstra would have been reliant on receiving a customer complaint to enable it to rectify any numbers that were not conditioned.
(30)(a) Is the Minister aware: (i) that the Solar-Mesh 1800 777 592 code conditioning fault occurred from 1 September 1993, but was not initially uncovered and reported until 11 May 1994, when it was first reported to Telstra's faults department by Telstra's Miss Hatton and also by Mr Ivory, and (ii) it was then not rectified until the 31 May 1994 when Miss Hatton, witnessed by Mr Ivory over the telephone in a three-way conversation, bypassed Telstra's faults department and went straight to Telstra's exchange; (b) is the Minister aware that the phantom fault testing done on 1 June 1994, by Telstra's Mr Adam Sears, was done the day after the conditioning fault had been rectified; and (c) Given that these matters could be proven to the Minister if he were to instigate an internal investigation into Telstra and/or have a face-to-face meeting with Mr Ivory, is the Minister prepared to do so. (a) Is it a fact that Telstra's Operational Processes Support People, Network Operations Manager and Product Integration Management, during October 1993, each became aware of many major 1800 code implementation fault problems that had resulted in no access to a large number of 1800 services right across Australia, not just in country areas but also in metropolitan areas; (b) did these problems stem from system failures, equipment failures, planning failures and/or managerial neglect prior to and from 1 September 1993; (c) is it also a fact that, by 8 October 1993, Telstra knew that some of these implementation faults and network faults existed and were likely to worsen unless some rationale and co-ordination was introduced at high level to the product introduction process; and (d) is it a fact that Telstra has concealed these faults and defects.
(32)How many Australia Wide 1800 customers did Telecom/Telstra have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 31 August 1993 at the Salisbury Queensland exchange.
(33)How many Australia Wide 1800 customers did Telecom/Telstra have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 31 May 1994 at the Salisbury Queensland exchange.
(34)How many Australia Wide 1800 customers did Telecom/Telstra have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 31 August 1993 at the Valley Queensland exchange.
(35)How many Australia Wide 1800 customers did Telecom/Telstra have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 31 May 1994 at the Valley Queensland exchange.
(36)How many Australia Wide 1800 prefix exchanges did OPTUS have as at 1 September 1993.
(37)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Queensland exchanges.
(38)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their New South Wales exchanges.
(39)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Victorian exchanges.
(40)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their South Australia exchanges.
(41)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Western Australia exchanges.
(42)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Tasmanian exchanges.
(43)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Northern Territory exchanges.
(44)How many Australia Wide customers did OPTUS have as 008-1800 prefix subscribers as at 1 September 1993 in their Australian Capital Territory exchanges. In which, if any, states or territories were OPTUS's 1800 prefix exchanges, as listed above, fully working and/or fully compatible with Telstra's exchange equipment as at 1 September 1993.
(46)(a) Is it also a fact that, despite Telstra key staff knowing about the above 1800 code implementation and network faults and the possibility of the faults being likely to worsen, Telstra still failed to put in place an exchange by exchange, 1800 number by 1800 number, process of testing and sending staff out to each 1800 exchange across Australia to locate and rectify the systemic 1800 code implementation faults and network failures; (b) is it a fact that Telstra elected to wait and fix individual faults in response to individual customer complaints being made that callers could not get through when dialling 1800 code numbers; and (c) what does the Minister intend to do to have the appropriate department, or Telstra, immediately recompense subscribers for damage and injury.
(47)Is it a fact that it is a policy of Telstra that, since at least the 1995-96 financial year, its employees have not been allowed to obtain outside employment, and must keep their outside activities separate from Telstra Company work.
(48)Is it a fact that Telstra employees since at least the 1995-96 financial year have not been allowed to take outside employment without first obtaining written approval from their Telstra Manager; if so, can copies be provided of the signed approval for Mr David Hoare to become the dual hat Chairman of Mallesons Stephen Jaques and the signed authorisation for Stephen John Mead to become a partner in Mallesons Stephen Jaques while Mallesons Stephen Jaques was on a Telstra retainer and while Mr Mead was still employed by Telstra.
(49)If these signed authorities cannot be produced, what action will the Minister immediately be taking against Mr Hoare and Mr Mead, and against Mallesons Stephen Jaques and against Telstra's negligent directors responsible for bringing Telstra into such disrepute in breach of Telstra's own Code of Conduct.
(50)(a) Is it a fact that Telecom Australia/Telstra has, and has always had, a strict duty of care to keep secure and confidential its customers' records, unless specifically authorised to do otherwise; and (b) does the Commonwealth ensure that such procedures and policies are in place within Telecom/Telstra and that they are at all times adhered to, even in the case of Casualties of Telecom complainants' matters; if not, why not.
(51)(a) Is it a fact that Telecom Australia/Telstra employees are not allowed to be involved in bribes, pay-offs or kickbacks or in other considerations that are either paid or received directly or indirectly; and (b) did the Minister know of Telstra's potential liabilities pertaining to the 1800 network being sold and promoted from 1 September 1993 while the 1800 network of Telstra was not fit for use; if so, why did this occur. (a) With reference to Freehill Hollingdale and Page, the Telstra-retained COT claimants law firm from at least 1993: why did the 1994-95 financial year revenue received by Freehill Hollingdale and Page from Telstra fall below the amount that Mallesons Stephen Jaques received from Telstra in relation to COT claimant's matters; and (b) was the Minister aware of the conflicting loyalties of partnerships which occurred while both David Hoare and Stephen John Mead were Telstra employees. Can a detailed breakdown be provided, including claimants' names, of which `Casualties of Telstra' related matters Mallesons Stephen Jaques was specifically retained by Telstra to handle in exchange for the $1 129 767 00 paid by Telstra to Mallesons Stephen Jaques from the 1993-94 financial year up to and including the 1996-97 financial year.
(54)Can a fully itemised detailed statement be provided of how much money, financial year by financial year, has been specifically paid by Telstra to Mallesons Stephen Jaques since the 1993-94 financial year up to and including the 2000-01 financial year with each individual matter separately itemised.
Senator Alston —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1)Neither I nor the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts hold the information requested by Mr Ivory.
Mr Ivory has a number of options to obtain information, if it exists, from Telstra, including asking Telstra for the information, legal action through the courts or seeking information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
Should Mr Ivory have evidence of unlawful activities, he should bring this to the attention of the police. If he has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter. If Mr Ivory believes he is entitled to receive compensation or damages under statute law or common law, he can take legal action through the courts.
(2)to (24) See answer to part (1).
(25)(a) to (c) See answer to part (1).
(25)(d) The Minister for Finance and Administration had administrative responsibility within the Government for the T1 and T2 share offers. The Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing within the Finance portfolio had the primary role for the management of the T1 and T2 share offer, including preparation of public offer documents. Any matters relating to the offer, or the content of the public offer documents, should be directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration.
See answer to part (25) (d).
See answer to part (25) (d).
I am aware of Mr Ivory's allegations concerning these issues.
See answer to part (1).
(30)(a) and (b) I am aware of Mr Ivory's allegations concerning these issues. (c) No. Mr Ivory has a number of options for investigation or to pursue his allegations including asking Telstra for the information, legal action through the courts or seeking information from Telstra under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
If Mr Ivory has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter. If Mr Ivory believes he is entitled to receive compensation or damages under statute law or common law, he can take legal action through the courts.
(31)to (35) See answer to part (1).
(36)to (45) Neither I nor the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts hold the information requested by Mr Ivory.
Mr Ivory has a number of options to obtain information, if it exists, from Optus, including asking Optus for the information or legal action through the courts.
(a) and (b) See answer to part (1). (c) The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts does not have specific legislative power to direct Telstra to settle compensation claims. Nor would it be appropriate to do so. Mr Ivory has no damages claim against the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Consistent with the arrangements for Government Business Enterprises, Telstra's Board and management are responsible for the day to day running of Telstra's operations.
Telstra has been a corporation subject to Australia's Corporations Law (now the Corporations Act 2001) since 1991. Consistent with the arrangements for Government Business Enterprises, Telstra's Board and management are responsible for the day to day running of Telstra's operations. This includes decisions about employment matters, related internal codes of conduct and managing the security of customer records.
See answer to part (47).
See answer to part (47).
(a) Yes, as with all employers. (b) See answer to part (47).
(a) See answer to part (47). (b) I am aware of Mr Ivory's allegations concerning this issue.
Mr Ivory has a number of options to obtain information, if it exists, from Telstra, including asking Telstra for the information, legal action through the courts or seeking information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
Should Mr Ivory have evidence of unlawful activities, he should bring this to the attention of the police. If he has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter. If Mr Ivory believes he is entitled to receive compensation or damages under statute law or common law, he can take legal action through the courts.
(52)(a) See answer to part (1). (b) I am aware of Mr Ivory's allegations concerning this issue.
Telstra has been a corporation subject to Australia's Corporations Law (now the Corporations Act 2001) since 1991. Consistent with the arrangements for Government Business Enterprises, Telstra's Board and management are responsible for the day to day running of Telstra's operations. This includes decisions about employment matters, related internal codes of conduct and security of customer records.
If Mr Ivory has concerns about the conduct of Telstra he has the option of asking the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the matter. If Mr Ivory believes he is entitled to receive compensation or damages under statute law or common law, he can take legal action through the courts.
(53)and (54) See answer to part (1).
Question on Notice:
Telstra: 1900 Phone Numbers
(Question No. 313)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 May 2002:
(1)Why are certain premium phone numbers (1900) not available to prepaid mobile phones, while account customers have unlimited access to them.
Senator Alston —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1)Telstra has advised that premium rate (1900) telephone calls are charged at varying rates set by the 1900 information providers. The calculation of the cost of these calls is undertaken on the 1900 platform at the end of the call and billing information is then passed to the appropriate service provider. If prepaid services were able to access 1900 services, the cost of the call could well exceed the prepaid amount. There is not way of terminating the call when the value of the pre-paid amount has been reached.
To the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Senator the Hon Richard Alston.
18th September 2002
1. Does the Minister agree with the Macquarie Dictionary’s definition of the word ‘OMBUDSMAN’ meaning:
‘An official appointment by parliament, or some other legislative body, as a city council, to investigate complaints by citizens against the government or its agencies?’
2. Do Telstra, Optus and other independent telecommunication carriers or suppliers nominate the Ombudsman to the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman Limited (TIO Ltd), a company to independently be able to hear telecommunication subscriber’s complaints?
3. Minister, will you please advise if the TIO Ltd, a privately owned company is being fully funded by various independent carriers (and if it is at least 60% funded by Telstra) with the carriers’ employee’s having the power to hire and fire TIO Ltd Ombudsman or his staff?
4. Minister, if question three (3) above is answered fully or partially in the affirmative could it be perceived that the credibility of the Ombudsman has become tarnished?
5. As the Minister, who is currently responsible under administrative law for the conduct of Telstra, can you give me and my constituent’s a guarantee that all of the TIO Ltd’s determinations have been independent determinations?
6. Minister, if you can guarantee that they have all been independent determinations, what guarantee can you give me that they will remain to be just and fully independent resolutions if privatisation of Telstra was to proceed?
7. Minister, when considering that you have in the past made your own Ministerial decisions and judgements on the TIO Ltd Ombudsman’s determinations, can you be certain that justice has been done in all cases?
8. Minister, what action will you take to have any unjust TIO Ltd determinations rescinded, if proof could be provided to you?
9. Minister, is it correct that in-house Telco witnesses or outsourced TIO Ltd expert or independent professional witnesses are not required to submit sworn evidence during a TIO Ltd independent investigation?
(a) If so, could this not also affect the correctness or truthfulness of evidence and further cast doubts on the TIO Ltd Ombudsman’s credibility and ability to make any independent and just determination and prevent him from being able to make a lawful or just findings of fact?
10. Is the Minister aware of any cases where Telco witnesses, by not having to give sworn evidence to the TIO Ltd, could tamper with, ignore, destroy or alter evidence without fear of recrimination to ensure a factually incorrect, unjust and improper TIO Ltd determination or by concealing systemic faults to conceal the true potential liabilities from the shareholders?
11. Minister, under administrative law, is your office ultimately responsible for the production and presentation of FOI documents on request, which may or may not be detrimental or be prejudicial to Telstra Corporation Limited?
12. Minister, with a TIO Ltd company employee being named or held out to subscribers as if he were truly an independent ‘OMBUDSMAN’ could it not be perceived that as an ‘OMBUDSMAN’ he is in fact an impostor?
13. Minister, on 1st July 1995, Telecom Protective Services instructed Registrar Brockie at Telecom’s premises in Brisbane to destroy 46 boxes of investigation files (FOI Folio number A68767). As Telstra refuses to identify these files, could you please advise if these destroyed investigation files belonged to Ms Sandra Wolf, Mr Kenneth Ivory or his Solar-Mesh related identities or belonging to any other Casualties of Telstra complainant based in Queensland such as Mrs Ann Garmes of the Tivoli Theatre & Restaurant?
14. Minister, if these 46 boxes of Telecom/Telstra investigation files that were destroyed on 1st July 1995 while TIO Ltd, Austel and or Senate Estimates Committee investigations were on foot, what is the Minister doing to have Telstra held accountable before any further privatisation of Telstra can lawfully proceed?
Senator Len Harris
18th September 2002
Question on Notice: Telstra: Claims
(Question No. 84)
Senator Harris asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 February 2002:
(1)Is it correct that the Minister and/or his department claimed that the terms of reference for the Senate Working Party investigating the `Casualties of Telstra' (COT) allegations in 1997 had to be changed on the basis that the previously settled terms, which included all the 21 COT group members would impede upon and prevent the further privatisation of Telstra (ie the `T2' float).
(2)Can the Minister explain how the amended terms of reference did not impede upon the T2 float and how, by omitting the other 16 members of the COT group, this would do so.
Senator Alston —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:
(1)The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and I are not aware of making any such claim.
(2)As the float was not impeded or prevented, the honourable senator's question is hypothetical.
|
