Telstra 'unnecessarily harasses' woman about dead husband's account for nine years

I too have had experience of the concrete brains at Telstra -- and Optus is even worse

Jenny Moncur begged Telstra to stop contacting her about her dead husband for almost a decade. But despite Ms Moncur's best efforts, it kept coming.

Each time was a painful reminder her "special fella", her husband Royce, was gone. "Unnecessarily harassed, that's how I felt," Ms Moncur said.

"It was so distressing. Every time I spoke to somebody I had to continually reiterate, 'my husband has died, he's dead — what don't you understand?'"

One email she found particularly upsetting declared in large font: "Good news, your account is in credit". "It was awful, because it wasn't good news," Ms Moncur said. "It was a reminder he was never going to use that credit."

Ms Moncur was married to Royce for 37 years before he died in 2014.

He was a primary school teacher who travelled Australia educating kids about the wonders of modern science.

Royce died inside the house he built in a small Gippsland town in regional Victoria after being diagnosed with advanced late-stage kidney cancer.

"It was shattering," Ms Moncur said. "We had so many plans to grow old together."

'An absolute failure'

As Ms Moncur grappled with her grief, she tried to cancel Royce's Telstra account, but she said phone operators insisted on speaking with the account holder.

She persisted, supplying a death certificate and attending a shop with further evidence, but the contact still didn't stop.

Ms Moncur estimates receiving 30 to 40 pieces of correspondence in total over the past nine years and having made the same number of calls to the telco giant.

She made complaints directly to Telstra and in 2019 escalated her dispute to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.

Even that didn't work. "It was like ... the Monty Python skit, the Dead Parrot," Ms Moncur said.

Ms Moncur was left in disbelief in January this year when Telstra emailed her again asking her to confirm Royce as an authority on an account. Fed up, she complained directly to the office of Telstra CEO Vicki Brady.

The company wrote back, apologising "for the grief and anxiety" it had caused.

Telstra "did not follow the appropriate processes" in managing the situation, according to the letter, seen by the ABC. "We must and will do better," it said.

Ms Moncur said the ordeal was "an absolute failure", and showed phone and internet providers need to do better so more grieving families don't go through the same experience.

An internal Telstra investigation found a mistake was made shortly after Royce's death that was never rectified, customer service executive Kate Cotter told the ABC.

"When she first contacted us, she should have been transferred to the compassionate care team and that didn't happen," she said.

Ms Cotter apologised again and said Telstra last year overhauled its operations for customers in bereavement. "We are investigating our processes again as a result of Ms Moncur's case."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-20/telstra-australia-harasses-woman-about-dead-husband-phone-bill/102614662

***********************************************

What the Voice will do

One of the many issues that people have difficulty understanding about the Aboriginal Voice is whether it will lead to an avalanche of litigation. It is a serious question because, if the Voice generates litigation, it will stymie government decision-making until the lawsuits make their leisurely way through the labyrinthine processes of the courts. Effective government will grind to a halt for years.

Naturally, the government uses the same tactic on this issue as it does on the many other objections that have been raised to the Voice: it denies that it is a valid objection and, until the referendum is over, it is doing its best to keep the people in the dark and trick them into accepting that all will be revealed in due course and that, in any event, there is nothing to be worried about. It reminds me of that statesmanlike electoral reform introduced in the Central African Republic a few years ago: count the votes before, rather than after, the election. It produces a better result.

One of the reasons why people have trouble resolving the litigation question is that it can be complicated, and that is why I may be able to help by simplifying things. Here then is Brown’s Simplified Guide to The Voice and Litigation. You might like to send it to the Attorney-General, Mr. Dreyfus, and ask him if it is correct, and, if not, exactly where and why it is not correct. But don’t wait with bated breath for a reply.

Before we start, let us remember two things. First, let us assume that the referendum is passed and the Voice is established. The Voice, therefore, is now in the Constitution. That means it is not just a law that can be changed with a change of government; it is in the Constitution and, for all practical purposes, it will be there forever. Second, to be valid, all laws have to be consistent with the Constitution as determined by the High Court. Therefore, any law that tries to restrict or change the constitutional clause on the Voice will have no effect. Remember: the referendum is not a smorgasbord where you can take only the bits that you like; if you go for the Voice, as prescribed, that is what you get.

Will the Voice be able to sue? Yes, it is a legal person and has the same rights as any person or entity and one of them is to sue to enforce whatever rights it has.

What rights will the Voice have? It is created by the Constitution and is given the right to make representations or give advice to the parliament and the executive government (the public service). That right cannot be taken away because it is in the Constitution and constitution is king.

Is this a limited right or is it more? It is much more because it is the right to make representations on “matters relating to” Aboriginals. This obviously means having a connection with Aboriginals, but it does not mean, as Mr Albanese likes to say, only matters that are directly, mainly, or solely connected with Aboriginals. Nor does it mean only the big-ticket items that Ms Burney says she will ask the Voice to tackle. It means connected with Aboriginals, which is virtually everything.

What could the Voice sue about? If there is a matter coming up for decision by the government, about land, sea, mining, health, transport, education, or anything else “relating to” Aboriginals, the Voice has been given the constitutional right to make representations to the government and parliament about it and no-one can stop it. It must therefore have the right to sue to enforce that right because if you have a right, you can enforce it and you do this by going to court. Thus, any project can be stopped until the Voice exercises its right to give advice.

Won’t that right expire in time? No. It is a permanent right with no limit on how many times it can be used, or when. The Voice has the right to make representations and repeat them multiple times, if and when it wants to.

What could be the result? There is already in the Constitution a power for the High Court to issue orders to stop the government from doing things and to order it to do other things. So, the right being enforced by the Voice is a real one that will be enforced by court orders. These orders can affect the operation of mining laws, fishing rights, electoral laws, bail and probation, Australia Day, or anything else that the Commonwealth can do until the Voice exercises its constitutional right to make representations and have its say.

What about the Parliament? The right of the Voice includes even giving advice to the Parliament.

Can the Voice complain that its advice was ignored? Yes. If the Voice has the right to make representations, it must have the right to have them considered and to be given reasons if they are rejected. Otherwise, it is being denied the full extent of its right to give advice, written into the Constitution. It is therefore open to the Voice to sue if it has not been given reasons for the rejection of its advice or if it can say that the reasons given were unreasonable or wrong.

Is it only the Voice that can sue? No. It may even be open to a third party like the environment or climate change lobby to argue that as mining is clearly a matter relating to Aboriginals, the development of a new mine should be stopped until the Voice gives its opinion on whether the project should go ahead.

Conclusion: there will be litigation and a lot of it, from the Voice itself and third parties who will use it to push their own barrows. And a big thank-you from we lawyers for the years of work ahead, and especially to the taxpayers who will pay for it.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/brown-study-273/

***********************************************

Another murderous Muslim

A terrorism expert has told an inquest a Muslim man who killed a Brisbane couple, before being shot dead by police, was "absolutely radicalised" but he could not definitively determine the murders were motivated by extremist views.

The Deputy State Coroner is examining the deaths of Zoe and Maurice Antill and Raghe Mohamed Abdi in December 2020.

Mr Abdi, 22, was fatally shot by officers on the side of the Logan Motorway at Drewvale after he came toward them holding a knife.

Mr and Mrs Antill, who were both aged in their late 80s, had been stabbed to death at their Parkinson home the night before but their bodies were not discovered until after the shooting.

It was alleged Mr Abdi had earlier murdered the couple in their backyard and investigators at the time declared the two incidents to be a linked "terrorism event".

Tracking device removed before shooting

The inquest has already heard Mr Abdi was on bail at the time and was being monitored by police and counter terrorism officers.

It heard he had been required to wear a GPS tracking device but had removed it several hours before he was shot.

On Thursday, lecturer in Terrorism and National Security, Levi West, was called to give evidence about his assessment of Mr Abdi's ideological motivations.

Mr West told the court he determined Mr Abdi was "absolutely radicalised" at the time of his death, and some of his actions were "likely motivated at least in part" by extremist religious views.

"There was relatively little doubt he had come to hold [extremist] Jihadist beliefs," he said.

Mr West explained to the court the term Jihad in its "mainstream and common use" was a reasonably uncontroversial set of ideas but terrorist organisations held an extremist interpretation of it.

Exposed to extremist views

Mr West told the court he believed Mr Abdi had been exposed to these extremist views through people he knew, and there was a particularly "strong influence" from a man from a south-east Queensland mosque who had been charged with terrorism offences.

Mr West accepted it was "impossible to know what [Mr Abdi's] state of mind" was but told the court there was a "high likelihood" his actions on the motorway were ideologically motivated.

Police officers huddle around the car on the Logan Motorway.
Mr Abdi was shot on the Logan Motorway. (ABC News)
He said this was due to him repeatedly shouting the words "Allahu Akbar" at the officers, which he described as another term used "all day every day, all over the Arabic speaking world" but had been "hijacked" and used by extremists "to signify they are committing an act of Jihadist terrorism".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-20/qld-raghe-mohamed-abdi-killings-inquest/102626094

************************************************

Destruction of rainforest by Greenies

Four decades after the battle for the Franklin Dam, a contest between nature and industry is underway in the high tropical forests of Far North Queensland that is equally as pivotal.

If the battle to save Chalumbin tropical forests from the bulldozers is lost, a rapacious, environmentally-destructive industry will have open slather to rip the heart out of other areas of unique natural beauty from Cape York to Tasmania.

The battle for the Franklin was the coming of age battle for Dr Bob Brown, who went on to create the Greens as a political party.

This time round there isn’t a Green in sight because the environmental vandal claims to be the Green movement’s best friend: Big Wind. If the proposed development at Chalumbin was a coal mine, its backers could kiss their chances goodbye. Yet Ark Energy’s proposal to bulldoze native tropical forest across an area of 10.7 square kilometres adjacent to a World Heritage-listed area is just one step away from approval.

If Environment Minister Tania Plibersek says ‘Yes’, 146 km of access roads, some 70 metres wide, will be cut across the landscape to install 94 turbines. At 250 metres, these will be some of the largest turbines in Australia.

The tragedy is that Chalumbin is a highly biodiverse old-growth forest that is hundreds if not thousands of years old. It is home to 535 native animals and 28 rare and threatened species such as the globally threatened Sarus Crane and the endangered Spectacled Flying Fox. The turbines will strike the Masked and the Barking Owl.

Chalumbin borders the globally significant Wet Tropic World Heritage Area and Bush Heritage’s York Reserve. It should be protected as a National Park not turned into turbine trash in pursuit of a flawed decarbonisation strategy. The Labor/Greens policy of cutting emissions through wind and solar is inevitably forced to rely on gas as a backup as has been acknowledged by the Net Zero Australia report prepared by Australia’s former chief scientist Professor Robin Batterham.

Yet, it is completely unnecessary to destroy environmentally unique places such as Chalumbin. To cut emissions and save the environment the obvious solution is to go nuclear which is cheaper than Labor’s renewables plan that has been estimated to cost an eye-watering $9 trillion by 2060. There are plenty of supporters of nuclear in Labor and in the union movement who have been forced to bite their tongues up to now including South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas.

The Greens need to take a look at Finland’s Green Party which in May last year made a historic shift to adopt a fully pro-nuclear stance. As Tea Tormanen, who visited Australia in April to talk about Finland’s experience said, ‘The Australian approach of cutting emissions solely by relying on renewables is not realistic. It hasn’t worked anywhere (except) countries that have huge reserves of hydro.’

The Chalumbin Wind Turbine industrial plant is being fiercely opposed by the three Aboriginal tribes for whom it is their ancestral home. Their opposition has been ignored. So much for Labor’s Voice to Parliament. They are working together with the broader community to stop the development.

Ms Plibersek is due to announce her decision in September. With Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s madcap renewal rollout way behind schedule, she’ll be under pressure to turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the community and green light the bulldozers to woo inner-city environmentalists who don’t realise that they are inadvertently destroying the thing they love. Labor’s turf war with the Greens in those seats adds further pressure.

As Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson inscribed the Daintree Rainforest and surrounding areas on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1988.

Ms Plibersek must follow in his footsteps and visit Chalumbin before she makes this crucial decision. She should stand atop the ridge and watch the wedge-tailed eagles soar above forests stretching as far as the eye can see. She should sit with the elders and hear their stories of the Dreamtime. Then she should carve out a place for herself in history by saving Chalumbin and persuading her party to change course and go nuclear.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/chalumbin-the-new-franklin/

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************