Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on an incident involving Telstra and the Mandemar Rural Fire Brigade at High Range just west of Mittagong on the Wombeyan Caves Road in the electorate of Hume. In July last year the Mandemar Rural Fire Brigade undertook to de-silt a dam that was located in the grounds of St Thomas’s Church at High Range. The purpose of the de-silting was to increase the storage capacity of the dam, which is used by the Mandemar brigade along with other rural fire brigades in the Wingecarribee shire both for training and refreshing purposes and as a water source during the outbreak of bushfires in the area.

De-silting is a way of increasing the storage capacity of a dam without actually enlarging the dam. It removes the debris and mud that builds up over time on both the floor and walls of a dam. It is recognised that the way to de-silt a dam is to employ the services of an excavator and an experienced operator. In this case a member of a neighbouring volunteer rural fire brigade who is also an earthmoving contractor offered the services of his excavator and his time voluntarily to undertake the dam de-silting. Before the commencement of the de-silting of the dam the captain of the Mandemar brigade and the excavator operator made an inspection of the site and discovered that a Telstra cable was located in the paddock in close proximity to the dam. The de-silting process was then started.

About 10 minutes into the job the excavator pulled up a cable and damaged it. The cable was identified as a Telstra cable. It was located about a metre from the dam wall in the water. This was not a very sensible place to have laid a Telstra cable in the first place, one would suggest. Telstra was immediately advised of the damage and arrangements were made for its repair. The volunteer contractor then finished the de-silting of the dam. Upon completion of the de-silting, the volunteer contractor without hesitation proceeded to dig a more appropriately located trench in which the repaired cable could be laid.

Telstra repaired the cable, relocated it into the new trench that had been dug by the volunteer excavator operator and left the trench open. Within a couple of days the volunteer excavator driver returned with his machine, refilled the trench and tidied up the area. This additional work was completed by the volunteer contractor at no cost to either the Mandemar brigade or Telstra. At this stage it was thought that all was resolved satisfactorily and that the matter was closed.

Not long after the completion of the de-silting and the repairs to the Telstra cable, the volunteer earthmoving contractor received a bill from Telstra in the amount of $1,075.92 for ‘damage to Telstra assets’. The contractor duly paid the invoice. The Mandemar Rural Fire Brigade subsequently wrote to Telstra inquiring as to the possibility of having the amount refunded as all the work on the dam was done by volunteer labour and they felt it was unfair that the volunteer contractor should be made liable for the damage, given the inappropriate location of the Telstra cable in the dam. Telstra, I might add, did not recognise the work performed voluntarily by the contractor in assisting Telstra by digging a new trench for the relocation of the repaired cable.

Mandemar Rural Fire Brigade received a letter of reply from Telstra advising and acknowledging, ‘Your brigade is a volunteer organisation and the contractor was volunteering his time and excavator. However, damage to Telstra plant costs millions of dollars per year and damagers are financially liable for the damage caused to cables as a result of negligence or carelessness. Telstra considers that there is a liability in this matter by the responsible party and Telstra is entitled to recover costs where repairs are done that restore Telstra’s network to a predamaged state. It is realised that this damage was not intentional. However, in cases where there is no wear and tear, and like any accidental damage, there is a cost for work which would otherwise not have been necessary. Telstra will recover these costs from the person that has caused the damage. Therefore a reimbursement will not be provided.’ There was no mention by Telstra of the work that was carried out by the volunteer contractor at no cost to Telstra and assisting them to carry out the repair.

I subsequently made inquiries into the matter with Telstra and Mandemar Rural Fire Brigade, but in the first instance my representations to Telstra fell on unsympathetic ears. It has only been after some further pressure from me and some further investigation and recommendations by a most competent and efficient member of Telstra’s customer and infrastructure support team assigned to matters in the electorate of Hume—who recognised what trying to enforce Telstra’s corporate muscle to recover the sum of a mere $1,000 or so from a volunteer charity organisation may have caused to Telstra’s already strained public reputation—that a more appropriate outcome occurred.

I am pleased to announce tonight that common sense has prevailed and Telstra has now agreed to refund in full the amount of $1,075.92 to the volunteer contractor. I would hope that Telstra now recognises the significant contribution that volunteers make to their communities and will look sympathetically at any further such incidents that may inadvertently occur from time to time. I thank Dawn from Telstra for her professional and prompt action on this issue.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.