This document provides a statement of facts and contentions in support of Alan Smith's application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding two Freedom of Information applications to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The 157-page statement includes 339 exhibits supporting Mr. Smith's argument that the requested information from both Telstra and AUSTEL (now ACMA) was wrongfully withheld during his government-endorsed arbitration process. It describes meetings and correspondence between Mr. Smith and representatives from AUSTEL and ACMA regarding flaws in technical reports submitted during the arbitration. It also includes a statutory declaration asserting that ACMA has likely withheld relevant FOI documents that could prove detrimental to ACMA or Telstra. The statement aims to prove that Mr.

1. 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,tion
FOI applications to the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA)
should 6e provided in the Public Interest and therefore free of charge all of the
requestedinformation both Telstra andAUSTEL (nowACMA) withheld during my
government endorsed arbitration process. Both of these AAT hearings were
ionsidered by Senior AAT Member Mr G D Friedman and it is now apparent that Mr
Friedman was not aware that the Government solicitors (AGS) and ACMA had based
their defence of my claims on totally inaccurate Department of Communications
Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) COT archival documents, including
the sanitised, public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994, none of which
included the true (and very adverse) findings that AUSTEL had originally reached in
relation 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 then
became a public document) see absent iustice.com / Falsification Report File
No/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 (nou
ACMA). llie full letter, uhich tu:,o.s prepared on the aduice of a
Senator, is attached to rny Sto:ternent of Facts o:nd. Contentions as
Exhibit (AS 278-b. I hooe not get receioed pennission to identifu the
Senortor in relation to these tnolter:s but I ho:ae, hotoetser', prooided
the Senator's nanne to tny legal aduisot c:nd. roillpass the name onto
the AAT at the appropriate tirne, in confidence. Thot q Senotot
uould c,ctually iuggest that I fonaard this quote to the Chainnon of
the Australiai Cotrrrrnunico,tiorts Authority @CA) indicates just hou
concented this particular Senator uaq in relation to the uay that a
Gouertunent Agencg, Iike the ACA (nou ACMA) didnot sddress
Telstra's unlanoful behauiour during a Gouerntnent-endotsed
arbitrction process that the Regulator hadfacilito,ted. The
follouing quote is takenfrorn rng lettet to Mr Sho:u:
"...We suggest that any Regttlotor antd or agent of the
Federal/-Croton, toho possessed knouledge of the no,ture of
these unlano{ul acts oind euents bg Telstra during the AUSTEL
fscilitated COT olrbitrorion procedure, and specifically-coneeoled
these octs bg not broailcastirtg to the opptopria:te
lano e4forcement agencies, uould be acting outside of the low,
arnd uould be engaging in prinafacie o,buse of ofice, antd
obstruction ofiustice.
In all th*e resptects, the lano is clear, irprohibits such
conduct."
z6 September zooS: In my correspondence to Ms Regina Perton, Administrative
Appeals Tribunal I noted:

2. "I ann sure gou ote ot tare, the T?ade Practices Act directs
cornpornies to toithdrano faultg goods or sertsices itnrnediatelg upon
becornirlry aiutore of problems related to those good.s and/or seruices
and, ot the sanne tirne, to bring the problems to the notice of theit
custonters ond the Austroliorn public in g eneral. If theg do not
folloro these directions theg ane in breach ofthe T?ade Practices
Act.
ACMA lcnonrs that, on at least trlto occosiotts, Telstro used the
regulator to 'r'ubber stannp' tltoo technical reltorts that Telstra kneu
uire rnore than justflolul,ed but uhich toere then prouided to the
anbitrator during my arbitro:tion. ACMA has not published their
knouledge of this ma,tten
On t6th October tgg5 the regulator alloued. Telstra to address one of
the billirtg issues.;E om my arbitration, outside the legal arena of rng
orrbitra;rton. Since tny anbitrotion uas a priuate tnottel" betueen
Telstra arnd rne. the regulator did not haue the authority to allou
arrbitrrrtion tno:tter:s tobe addressed in such a confidentioJ uag,
outside the clrbitro;tiorr- process' thus disallotoing rne mg legal right
under the Comrnercio,l Arbitro,tion Act 7 g I 4, to challeng e the false
i4fonnation that Telstra kneu u as false ond misleoding ". (AS rroZ)
On 3 October zoo8, Mr G.D. Friedman, Senior AAT Member hearing my case (No
Vzoo8/r886) noted:
"Let nte just sag, I don't cottsider gou, personallg, to befriuolous or
uercfious - far frotn it. Yes. I suppose all thtfi r.ernoinsfor rne to
sag, Mr Smith, is that gou obuiouslg o:r.e uery tenacious o;nd
pirsistent 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 9an
onlg appktid people toho houe persistence and the detertnino,rton to
see 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 nstoered
questions bg the regulatory authorities or bg Tebtra,t-hat he
rrrishes to pursue antd. he belieues these documents uill shoto
thot his uihorppiness roith the uay he has been treated
personallg also uillfloro to other o:reas such as it utill expose
'the
practices by Telstra and regulatorg bodies uhich qffects
not onlg hiln but other people throughout Austrclia,
Mr Srnith said todag thaf he had concerns about the equiprnent
used. in cabling d.one at Cape Bridgewater bolck in the tggos. IIe
said that it s hould - the equiprnent or sorne of the equiptnent
should horue a life ofup to 40 Aeoirs but, infact, because of the

3. terrain c:nd the toet surfaces o:n,d othel. things doun there the
u)rlortg equiptnent l,l.:,o.s ttsed".
During this second AAT hearing in May zorr I again raised the telephone problems
that had affected my business from before my arbitration in 1993 to 1995, stressing
that the arbitrator had failed to investigate or address most of those problems, which
therefore allowed them to continue for a further eleven years after the end ofthe
arbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia's National
Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-zorr and is still continuing
in zor5, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my arbitration and both
my AAT Hearings in zoo8 and zorr, have been proved; this can be confirmed by a
simple Internet search for "Australia NBN".

4. STATUTORY DECLARATION
VICTORIA
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 ofan
interview 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 Mathieson
regarding 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 by
BCI 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' could
possibly 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 COT
arbitrations. 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 letErs
exchanged 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, which
was 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 the
name on to the AAT at the atpropriate time, in confidence. That a Senaor would actually
suggest 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 behaviour
during a Government-endoned arbitration proc€ss that the Regulator had facilitated' The
folloiing quote is taken from my letter to Mr Shaw: "...We suggest thet any Regulabr
and or ag€,nt of the Fderal/Crown, who possessed knowlqge-ol the netwe of
th*e uilawfut acfs and everlts by Tdsta durtng he AUSIEL fadlttatad COT

5. CI
obstru ction of i usti ce.
tn ett these ,cslects, tfie ,aw is ctear, it Prohibib such conducl "
ng Telstra's abuse of the Australian
af,Palling mamer in which You hoe
ues' Yanr manuscript demonstrates
inge upon lhe civil liberties of Australian
accePtable. "
I can say though that, before these Senators offered th less
than haifthe material now provided as attachments to
Stat€ment of Facts and Contentions.
:
Hodges' report in May 2008, they have no1 yet notifid any relevant law enforcement agency
regaiding Telstra's ui of known flawed reports as defence documents'
I have prcpared this Statutory Declaration because it shows that' since ACMA has been prepared
io t ia"i"irt
"'.
,nta*t t acs foi so many years, there is a strong possibility they are still
*iitliotOing ,etevant FOI documents t}lat might Prove to be derimental to either ACMA or
Telstra.
bc true in every Parriculsr,
this z,c, r day of tr r^u't
Before me
,.-*z:--{
(Signalurc of petson before whom the d€€lEation is mad€)
S,tAra.f^-e<
SLc -l -J +Rc!, .
(SiSnarurc of DcDlarant)
,, t' l

6. i
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
And:
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
MELBOT]RIIE REGISTRY
Between
No 200E/1E36
ALAN SMITH
Applicant
AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND
MEDIA AUTHORITY
Respondent
Alan Smith
Seal Cove Guest House
1703 Bridgewater Road
Portland 3305
Victoria
26th July 2oo8
The Applicants Report Statement of Facts
and Contentions (i.e. written summary of
facts and arguments the applicant releies
upon to support the view that the decision
under review is not correct.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Alon Smith - Statement ol Facts and Contenlions - Administrative Appeals fritryg!
-
l"ironotogt of en"nt{ 2dh Juty 2008 Page I of 157

7. I
T
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
T
T
t
T
T
I
T
!
T
T
Seal Cove Guest House
I 703 Bridgewater Road
Cape Bridgewater, Portland 3305
Phone: 03 55 267 170
26'h Juty 2008
Conference Registrar
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
PO Box 9955, Melboume
Victoria 3001
Re: CONFERDNCEREGISTERLETTER
Dated: 2"d Juty 2008 Comolaint No: 2008/1835
Dear Sir or Madam,
The following attached documents support the applicant's evidence, and the documents upon
which the applicant relies:
L Document tilled "Stalement ofFacts and Conlentions", referred to throughout as '7he
Chronologt of Evenls' or 'The Chronologt'. This is the written summary of the facts and
arguments that the applicant relies on to support his view that the decision under review is
not correct, as per your point (ii). Please note that the applicant refers to himself in the
third person throughout this 'Chronology', i.e. as AIan Smith or Alan;
2. 339 exhibits, collated into three spiral-bound books, in support of the I 57-page Chronology
of Events (see point I , above), together with a CD of the same. The exhibits are labelled as
(As r) ro (As 33e), with the 'AS' representing Alan Smith.
3. A document labelled as "Attachment Two ". This sixty-nine page draft report, dated 3'd
March 1994, is titled "Re Alan Smith", wds prcpared by Bruce Matthews of AUSTEL (now
ACMA) and is referred to on page 3 of this letter. It is enclosed here for your information.
4. A Statutory Declaration swom by the applicant.
The applicant's FOI issues are not the only matters that are currently ofconcem. The
information recently provided, both to the AAT and ACMA, proves that the applicant has been a
victim ofa crime perp€trated by a Govemment-owned corporation during a Covernment-
facilitated and endorsed arbitration procedure that was expected to provide justicr but, instead,
provided the exact reverse. Because some of the applicant's FOI issues are linked to these
crimes; because those crimes were committed by a Govemment-owned corporation; and since
both the AAT and ACMA are also Federal Govemment agencies, the applicant believes that
perhaps his present AAT and ACMA FOI issues should be put on hold until the information in
the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions and Argument (the Chronology) has been
properly and fully investigated by an appropriate State law enforcement agency.
ln the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, he has proved the existence ofthe Tclstra-
related FOI documents that are not included in the list of FOI documents that ACMA say they
have retrieved in relation to the matters under review. It is important to note that, in response to
previous FOI requests, ACMA have noted that: "Some Out not all) ofthese documents may
conlain inlormation about business afairs ofa third party ACMA is required to consult the lhird
party about lhese documents before releasing them under the FOI Act. " The applicana
understands that this is a normal position for any Govemment agency to take when assessing the
I

8. T
T
T
T
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
T
T
T
T
I
T
validity of any Fol request, and he is aware that ACMA would therefore have had to seek
before they could release some of the FOI documents the applicant has
material included in the request of2l"tMay, and the FOI issue currently
, will prove to be quite damaging for Telstra, and this raises questions of
justice if ACMA has to approach relstra for permission to pass on to the applican! co'pies of
documents proving that Telstra perverted the course ofjustice during the applicanfs aibitration.
What sort ofjustice is that? It is tantamounl to asking the criminalsio invistigate themselves! It
would therefore be inappropriate for ACMA to ask relsra for permission to provide documents
that prove that Telstra committed crimes.
ln mid- 1998, John Wynack, Director of Investigations, Commonwealth Ombudsman's OfIice,
provided to an ln-camera Senate Estimates Committee Hearing into cor claimants, Fol issues,
a scathing report in relation to Telstra. This report is not available for public comment but could
possibly be,accessed by the AAT. A number of other statements fiom this In-camera Hearing
(made on 6" and 9th July 1998) are however included in the applicant's Statement ofFacts anl
Contentions - which also describes how a Coalition Minister has twice threatened the applicant
with the possibility ofajail sentence, ifthe applicant publicly releases these In-camera ijansard
documents, even though rhey only relate to the cor claimants' FoI issues. These two In-camera
Hansard reports would be most useful for the AAT and, if the AAT were to ask the applicant,
under confidentiality rules, to provide them, they would help to show, more clearly, how the Fol
matters Presently under review are linked to Telstra's previous decisions to withhold documents
from AUSTEL (now ACMA).
ln the applicants statement of Facts and contentions, he has provided information confirming
that a number of Senators, during this same Senate Estimates committee Hearings (refer above),
dammed Telstra for withholding COT related FOt documents from the Commonwealth
ombudsman officer assisting the senate Estimates committee investigations. The applicants
Statement of Facts and Contentions also provides evidence showing that Telstra waJwithholding
lechnical information from him at least up to october 199E, under Legal professional privilege
(LPP). Some of this same LPP technical information Telstra had already provided AUSTEL ii
February/March 1994, see ("Attachment Two"), the same technical information that ACMA now
state they cannot locate.
A,list provided by AUSTEL to some of the second group of COT claimans to go through
arbitration includes three documents proving that the Tlo's special counsel (paer Bartlett),
AUSTEL and relstra's Steve Black exchanged correspondence during June 1994 in relation to
providing material, free of charge, to the second group of COT claimants. The ACMA list
provided to the applicant in response to his FOI applicalion covering February to June 1994
however, does not include any letters from Peter Bartlett or Steve Biaok, even though the
applicant's arbitration was under review between February and April 1994. Surely, since
arbitrations for the first group offour (which included the applicant) and the second group of
twelve cor claimants were all facilitated by AUSTEL, and Steve Black (Telstra) and peier
Bartlett (the Tlo's Special Counsel) were both involved in all the arbitrations, rhen AUSTEL
would have rcceived similar correspondence from Steve Black and Peter Bartlett in rclation to the
applicant's arbitration - so why is none ofthis correspondence included in the ACMA Iist
provided to the applicant?

9. T
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
T
T
t
I
T
I
,l
A copy ofa letter dated 26s August I993, from Robin Davey, then-Chairman ofAUSTEL, to the
then-Communications Minister, the Hon David Beddall MP, is included in the applicant's
Statement of Facts and Contentions. as Exhibit 1ls ltgy. ln this letter, Mr Davey discusses the
continuing phone complaints still being registered by the COT claimants. Mr Davey correctly
names allthe claimants except the applicant. Instead of using the applicant's name, Mr Davey
refers only to 'Cape Bridgewater', where the applicant operated his business at the time, and
notes, on page 4, that, in reference to Cape Bridgewater: "Telecom has admitted existence of
unidentfiedfaults to AUSTEL." Between the reference on page 3 to Craham Schorer, the last
claimant listed before the applicant, and this reference to Cape Bridgewater on page 4, a number
of paragraphs have been concealed. It would therefore seem that the applicant's name (which is
the only one not included in the letter) is probably included somewhere in these concealed
paragraphs, suggesting that, when this document was provided to the applicant under FOI in
2001, The Australian Communication Authority (now ACMA), concealed at least some
important information pertaining to the applicant's claims.
The applicant maintains that, on 6ft and 76 April 1994, during a briefing regarding the drafting of
the AUSTEL COT Report, the applicant and other claimants were not permitted to le€ve the
building without agreeing to strict confidentiality regulations and to being searched before they
left. The applicant recalls that, during this briefing period, he saw, in a folder, a copy ofthe letter
dated 26h August 1993 (see paragraph above); other documents related to his telephone
problems; and Telstra documents admitting the existence of telecommunications problems
affecting the Portland AXE exchange and the Cape Bridgewater RCM. The applicant remembers
clearly that some ofthese documents were dated February 1994, a period that is covered by the
applicant's relation to the FOI claim issue that is currently
under revie le not specifically included in the timeframe
covered by the FOI claim under review, is however directly linked to that claim, demonstrating
how important it is for the AAT to read the applicant's entire Chronologt of Events document.
It is clear that NONE of the ongoing telecommunication problems and faults that (A) Telstra
agreed (in 1993) were then affecting the applicant's business, and that (B) AUSTEL included in
the draft report prepared by Bruce Matthews on 3d March 1994 (see Attachment Two at point 3
on page l) were ever investigated or fixed during the applicant's arbitration. The applicant
believes that, if Robin Davey (past{hairman of AUSTEL) was to leam of this present FOI
situation, he would insist that the applicant immediately be given all the documents he needs free
ofcharge to bring this appalling saga lo an end.
ln support ofthis evidence, the applicant can also provide to both the ATT and ACMA,
numerous examples of:
r COT/Telstra-related Supreme Court documents that a lawyer faxed to a COT client at a
different address to his normal business address, as well as other, similar documents faxed in
the same way but to the client's normal address. Those faxed to the different address arrived
with the lawyer's correct fax identification displayed across the top ofthe document, as
would be expected, but the same documents arriving at the client's normal address anived
without the lawyers identification in place.
e Documents faxed by the applicant that arrived with the applicant's correct fax identification
in place when faxed to one location but when the some document was faxed to AUSTEL
(now ACMA) five minutes later, the applicant's fax identification was missing.
T
I
I

10. I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
T
This is why the applicant has requested, from ACMA, copies of documents he has faxed to
ACMA in the past.
Both the AAT and ACMA should find the applicant's information of particular interest because:
a. lt suggests that, at least between April 1994 and 2002, Telstra{OT-related documents,
intended for and faxed to AUSTEL and the ACA, were intercepted and then redirected on to
the intended recipients and
b. Raises questions regarding whether or not ALL the intercepted material was actual
forwarded on - which is why the applicant has raised this mafter now,
The applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions provides other examples ofarbitration claim
material thal he faxed to the arbitrator but which did not always arrive atlhe arbitrator's office
and shows that Telstra acknowledge this problem in arbitration records.
This AUSTEL and ACMA fax interception issue is directly related to the presenr ACMA Fol
matters under review because ACMA has now stated that some Telstra/COT related technical
documents that should be included in their list of located documents cannot be found. The AAT
and ACMA must therefore view the applicants Statement of Facts and Contentions in irs entirety.
Some ofthe documents provided to ACMA by the applicant are attached to the applicant,s
Statement ofFacts and Contentions as proofthat (l) Telstra pewerted the course oljustice during
the applicant's arbitration and (2) AUSTEL (now AcMA) misled the applicant's lawyers in 1995
when the lawyers asked AusrEL about Telstra's use of flawed material in their defence of the
applicant's arbitration claims. These documents show why the applicont's Statement of Facts
and contentions should be provided to an appropriate law enforcement agency before the process
can proceed any further.
In the applicant's Statement ofFacts and Contentions, the applicant has explained why, in
support of his contention that the decision under review is not correct, it has been necessary to
provide a list ofevents and facts dating back to 19E8. His .Chronology, shows that the FOI
matters presently under review are directly linked to previous Fol requests and other document
issucs.
on pages 92 & 93 in the applioants statement of Facts and contentions, the applicant shows quite
clearly that on l6th october I 995, five months after his arbitration was deemed'completg
AUSTFI (now ACMA) allowed Telstra, to address arbitration claim documents outside the legal
arena of the arbihation procedure. This disallowed him his legal right to challenge Telstra undir
the ageed rules of arbitration. Attached as Exhibit 1as rlr; to the applicants Statiment of Facts
and Contentions, is evidence Telstra used confidential arbitration materiat that should never have
been released outside of the arbitration procedure. The swom witness statement provided to
ACMA' by Telstra on I6th october I993, which relstra originally used in their arbitration
defence, has since been condemned by the victoria police Majoi Fraud Group as more thanjust a
bias document. This l6'h october 1995, issue shows that ACMA has an unhealthy relationstiip
with Telstra when it comes to COT related document issues.
l1 is blatanrly clear from the applicants statement of Facts and contentions that he provides a
strong argument in support ofhis contention that some ofthe material that Telstra did not supply

11. I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
T
to AUSTEL (now ACMA) in 1994, during the AUSTEL investigations into the applicant's
previous phone faults, are directly related to some of the documents that ACMA now mainlain
they cannot locate, even though the applicant has proved they do exist,
The applicant has named Graham Schorer, Director of Golden Messenger Service, as a witness in
support ofthe FOI matters under review.
SUMMARY
The applicant has provided (above) his argument regarding why he believes the AAT should call
upon the appropriate State law enforcement agency or agencies before this matters can proceed
any further. The applicanr understands houever that the AAT will have toread all the applicants
Statement of Facts and Contentions before such a decision can be made. The applicant therefore
leaves this matter in the hands ofthe Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Sincerely,
Alan Smith
cc Ms Allison Jermey, Senior Lawyer, ACMA P.O. Box | 3l 12 Law Courts Melboume 8010
I
u
E