Dear Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA),

Please provide me access to the document(s) that the ACMA issued to the identified network operators, to correct the performance and conduct issues of the offending participants of the industry. Relevantly, I refer to the non-compliance issue (brought to the ACMA’s attention 7 Jun 2021). I acknowledge that the information sought is in accordance with your governmental policy and regulatory function/duties, which would include (but not limited to) section 3, section 4 and section 121 of your Telecommunication Act.

Relevantly, I refer to the non-compliance issue, RE: Consultation for 3149006 or 3149003 at 33-45 Centreway, Mount Waverley, Victoria [SEC=OFFICIAL], with respect to the independent network operators Vodafone, Telstra, and Optus and their published proposed independent facility works for Site No. 3149006/3149003 (Ref: M0080 Mt Waverley). The Network operators Consultation ran from 7 Oct 2020 to around 8 Dec 2020.

It is necessary that the information you provide demonstrates the effectiveness of the regulation in effect and how Policy 'objects' mentioned in section 3 have been achieved. Specifically the information will provide the appropriate community safeguards in relation to telecommunications activities and demonstrate adequate regulation of participants of the Australian telecommunications industry, in relation to that matter or those matters.

Kind Regards
Scott

Dear Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)

Thank you for providing the formal acknowledgement 21 July 2021, with respect to receiving the formal written request for information on 13 July 2021. However it is not known, what capacity the unidentified person sent your response.

Nonetheless, you are correct with your recorded preliminary investigation comments. Indeed, the requester brought this non-compliance matter to the attention of the ACMA, and Mr Andrew Sabo of the Telecommunications, Monitoring and Compliance Section responded to these associated personal affairs. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the information sought contains my private personal details or an associated reference thereof.

I acknowledge that this request is a routine request for access to a document associated with the ACMA’s daily governmental function(s). As explained in the original request issued to you on 13 July 2021, the document(s) sought would be used with the intention of a general public interest or benefit matter.

To help with access, it may prove to be more convenient for the ACMA to simply forward their original electronic mail(s)/correspondence [if applicable] via this request. Furthermore, I do not require any private information that may be recorded on the material. Please redact any associated exempt personal or private business material.

The information sought may or may not reference your public policy/policies given the nature and cause of the non-compliance matter(s). However, any previous references to your policies in the request, such as Telecommunications Act 1997, were provided for your guidance only and referenced purely for your benefit and understanding of the public interest matter. Therefore to clarify, the original request remains unchanged. Further to that, I do not work for the public and therefore your policies have no effect on my private being. However, if you believe your policy regulates private citizens, then it is requested that you please clearly articulate how you come to that conclusion.

This request is made with goodwill and acknowledges that the material matters sought satisfies the public interest test, therefore it would not be unreasonable for any/all ACMA claims, fees, charges to be appropriately waived. Please identify any ACMA representative who disagrees with the requested waiver or it will be presumed otherwise.

Kind Regards,
Scott Chapman, in Sui Juris capacity

Dear Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

This is a request for an internal review of Australian Communications and Media Authority's handling of the information request made 13 July 2021, 'Please provide access to the information associated with the government's Public function'. It is the ACMA’s responsibility to regulate radio communications, and devices that emit RF radiation, and to do so in the public interest, including in regard to public health.

1. The non-compliance performance and conduct issues (with respect to the registered code) of agents representing facility works for Vodafone, Telstra and Optus (the offending participants) were brought to the ACMA’s attention on 7 June 2021.
2. Mr Andrew Sabo of the ACMA [regulating compliance division] advised that he had responded appropriately to these non-compliance performance and conduct issues.
3. Mr Sabo did not offer opposition or substantiate any objections or explained reasoning with these non-compliance matters of performance and conduct issues that were evidenced to him.
4. Mr Sabo did not provide any reasoned explanation for an ACMA decision to terminate its notice of inquiry into these matters.
5. Ms Moroney (information officer) 12 Aug 2021, suggests that there are no associated documents in relation to these matters of non-compliance in the ACMA database.

It is noted that codes may be voluntary, however registered codes are mandatory. Therefore, I request that the ACMA performs an internal review of this request and its archives again, and clarifies what documents (if any) Mr Sabo and his associates generated/received/have access to, with respect to these non-compliance performance and conduct issues.

If you confirm no documents can be found please provide valid contact details of the ACMA's risk management department (or equivalent).

A full history of this information request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/p...

To be clear, there was no complaint made to the ACMA with respect to these matters, it was a request for clarification from the regulating agency of the stipulated facts of this case, which an agreement was achieved.

Yours faithfully,
Scott Chapman, in Sui Juris capacity