The website that triggered the deeper exploration into political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime. This website looks at the controversial fraud and corruption cases, the psychology of crimes, and the criminals who commit these crimes.  Nemesis, treacherous, villainous, and evil wrongdoings by the professionals the government of Australia sanctioned to administer their government-endorsed arbitrations in the 1990s. Arbitration and mediation processes that the government has since admitted failed those who participated in them.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has overseen the jailing of his first whistleblower, David McBride, even though he promised to protect whistleblowers before he was elected prime minister of Australia.

David McBride, who blew the whistle on unlawful killings in Afghanistan, will 0n (14/5/24) possibly be sentenced to 5 years in jail with a non-parole period of 2 years and three months.

And yet back in September to December 1967, Australia's Trade Minister John McEwen, later the Prime Minister of Australia, misled and deceived the government and its people in Australia about why several British seamen and I refused to return to communist China on board the Hopepeak ship with a further cargo of wheat because we had uncovered the trip before that China was supplying some of this wheat we had just delivered in August 1967, to North Vietnam while Australian troops and its allies were fighting North Vietnam as the following text and webpage Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong shows.  

 

 

For centuries, seafarers have exchanged information about cargo destinations and ship contents. These conversations often happen during missions and seafaring events, where seamen from different countries connect with each other. By sharing valuable information about cargo routes and contents, seafarers have played a significant role in shaping the outcomes of wars, including the First and Second World Wars.

We were whistleblowers protecting our country's interests as we had done centuries ago. The quality of intelligence gathered from these conversations has determined which side was victorious in battles. It is clear- seafarers have been the world's spies for centuries.

So when I learned, along with other crew members from the Hopepeak ship, that some of the wheat we were unloading was being shipped to North Vietnam, I felt obligated to my new country, Australia, having only been naturalized on 11 May 1965, to do all I could to alert the Australian government that our wheat was being wrongly shipped under the cloak of humanitarian grounds because it was being redeployed to a country with whom Australia was at war.

It's difficult to fathom the extent of harm inflicted on the young Australian, New Zealand, and United States service members by North Vietnam soldiers who were fueled by the wheat supplied to them by their communist Chinese supporters. Sadly, many of these brave service people lost their lives or were left with permanent injuries.

1.     In September of 1967, I brought to the attention of the Australian government that a portion of the wheat allocated to the People's Republic of China on humanitarian grounds was being redirected to North Vietnam during the Vietnam War Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong

2.    Who else in the Australian government was aware that Australian wheat intended for a starving communist China was being redirected to North Vietnam to feed the North Vietnamese soldiers before those soldiers marched into the jungles of North Vietnam to kill and maim Australian, New Zealand, and United States of America troops? Refer to Footnote 82 to 89 FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu, who even reports the name of our ship, the Hopepeak and how the seaman feared for our lives if we were forced to return to China with another cargo of Australian wheat. Australian wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam during the period when Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America fought the Vietnam Cong in the jungles of North Vietnam.   

3.   During the 1960s, the Australian Liberal-Country Party Government engaged in misleading conduct regarding trade with Communist China despite being aware that Australian merchant seamen had vehemently refused to transport Australian wheat to China. The grounds for such an objection were their apprehension that the grain would be redirected to North Vietnam during the North Vietnam War between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. The underlying inquiry is to ascertain the government's rationale for deliberately deceiving the general public and jeopardising the country's troops whose lives were being lost in the conflict in North Vietnam. Murdered for Mao: The killings China 'forgot'

4.    Why didn't Australia's Trade Minister, John McEwen, correctly and honestly advise the people of Australia why the crew of the British ship Hopepeak had refused to take any more Australian wheat to China because they had witnessed its redeployment to North Vietnam during their first visit to China?  

When I started writing "My Story - Warts and All" and created this website, I decided to tell the complete story without leaving any bits out to avoid embarrassment. To narrate all my COT stories, I had to go back in time to explain how phone faults affected my well-being, and I had to include some details about an incident involving China. In 1967, only a few Australians supported America's fight against communism in Vietnam. In June 1967, I signed up for the MS HopePeak, a merchant ship with British and West Indian sailors (see British Seamans Record Book R744269  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman).

I was unaware we were bound for the People's Republic of China. A British Seamen's Union representative told me that the MS HopePeak was heading to Canada. Still, the following day, after I signed on board and accepted the conditions, I was informed that we were going to the People's Republic of China. I was sailing out of Australia with a cargo of wheat heading to China. The crew was horrified that Australia was trading and selling wheat to the People's Republic of China. At that time, Mao Zedong's communist government supported the North Vietnamese communists and authorized the supply of arms, technical knowledge, and financial assistance. Australian troops were among those dying in the conflict with the Viet Cong. Nothing made sense to the crew or me. 

That British seaman had witnessed me on two occasions being frog-marched off the Hopepeak under armed guard, never to be seen again. I was only seen again because my life was not worth 13,600 tons of wheat still in Australia, ready to be loaded onto the Hopepeak for her return voyage to the Peoples Republic of China. The voyage this British seaman was afraid of (for a good reason) if they returned with the Hopepeak. 

 

Read Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong, and learn how my time in communist China in August and September 1967 is related to my 1993 to 1995 government-endorsed arbitration.  Read about our dealings with fraudulent submission of corrupt evidence.

Threats, misleading, and deceptive conduct used by government bureaucrats should not be tolerated in any country, let alone Australia.

Selling out the other side of politics, the money grubbers and career dogs, especially politicians — who have compromised their morals and the community's needs in pursuit of illicit personal gain is shaping the Australian legal profession, but no one wants to admit it. 

Why did Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) force us, the COT Cases, into signing our arbitration agreement after it had been altered and, therefore, not the version of the agreement our lawyers and two senators had agreed we should sign.? Why were Dr Hughes's arbitration consultants secretly exonerated from all liability for any negligent acts regarding their part played in the arbitration from this now-changed agreement once clauses 25 and 26 had been removed? Why was clause 24 altered to exonerate Warwick Smith's legal advisor, as Part 2 Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct shows? 

 

The $250,000 liability caps were replaced on the other twelve agreements 

After we were forced to sign this tampered-with agreement on 21 April 1994, two months later, in June 1994, the $250,000 liability caps that had previously been removed from our agreement were replaced in the arbitration agreement for the other twelve COT Cases to sign. We were not told that clauses 25 and 26 had been reinstated on the other agreements during our designated appeal period. During that time, we could have used the negligent acts perpetrated against us by Dr Hughes's arbitration consultants.

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases. It is marked as CONFIDENTIAL: Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before Warwick Smith was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, but he also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

Regrettably, the corruption of federal public officials is prevalent, posing a threat to the integrity of our governmental bodies. The events surrounding the Australian government-endorsed Casualties of Telstra arbitrations prompt reflection. The conduct of specific public figures, notably politicians, who prioritize personal gain over ethical considerations and community welfare, exerts a discernible influence on the Australian arbitration and mediation system. This phenomenon warrants candid and comprehensive examination.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise tclaimant'st's claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable.

The Arbitraitor 

Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith - Order of Australia

Discover the shocking truth of the corruption that pervaded the Australian government bureaucracy during the COT arbitrations. Unveil the identities of those responsible for these heinous crimes and learn where they currently stand in the Establishment and the legal system in 2024. It is simply outrageous that the same Establishment granted awards to both the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes and the administrator of the identical arbitrations, Warwick Smith, despite the condemnation from six senators who found against Telstra and these two individuals for forcing the COT Cases into arbitration without having received the necessary documents to support their claim fully. Moreover, it is absolutely unacceptable that Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith were still awarded the Order of Australia. This raises the question: how far can corruption go within the Establishment?

Forced members to proceed with arbitration. 

 

On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

It's essential to remember that Telstra was the defendant in the COT arbitrations, and they could not have coerced the COT Cases into arbitration without providing the necessary documents unless both the arbitrator and administrator had agreed to this forceful tactic. It's imperative to remember that justice should always be impartial, and all parties involved should have equal opportunities to present their case. Therefore, ensuring that such tactics are not used in legal proceedings. It is clear from the Senate findings this was not the case. So why were Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith awarded these honours? It was a slap in the face of justice, especially when John Pinnock, the second TIO to be appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, on 26 September 1997 (two years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine) alerted a Senate Estimates Committee ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) that:  

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."

“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”.  

The following six senators formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations; however, where were Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was being carried out?  

 

 

Our website has uncovered critical issues related to political corruption, tampering with evidence, kleptocrats, and other related topics such as corruption, bribery, crime, exploitation, extortion, fraud, graft, misconduct, and nepotism. Through our investigations, we have brought to light shocking stories, including the COT Cases, failed Telstra arbitration and mediation processes, and how the international telecommunications giant Ericsson assisted in corrupting Telstra in Australia to thwart the course of justice. Furthermore, we have uncovered that the Australian-owned Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd arbitration consultant, initially appointed by the government-endorsed arbitration process, was purchased by Ericsson to investigate whether it was their telephone equipment causing the many phone problems being experienced around Australia. Our investigations are crucial in bringing these corrupt practices to light and holding those responsible accountable. We are making significant progress in our investigation into the Telstra Ericsson fiasco and are heading in the right direction to have the government value our claims. Our efforts are making a difference, and we will continue to expose these unlawful practices to bring justice to those affected → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.

 

 

The British Post Office scandal uncovered concrete evidence of corruption within the government-owned utility. It is alarming how the Post Office attempted to cover up illegal activities within its government-run system, similar to what Telstra and the Australian government have done Mr Bates vs The Post Office-Absent Justice. Our investigations play a critical role in exposing these corrupt practices and holding those accountable for their actions.

The involvement of Alan Bates and his Post Office subcontractors in uncovering these unlawful practices by the British Post Office has become a national scandal, and we demand swift and decisive action to bring them to justice. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for ‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’, which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The latest update on that terrible story is on the following YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

On the other hand, we assert that our website, absentjustice.com, is making significant progress in our investigation into the Telstra Ericsson fiasco → File 296-Aand 298 - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323. However, we are yet to receive the government's full recognition of our claims, which is disappointing and unacceptable.

It is clear from the following Google link: "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." that the COT Cases were right to demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.

It is concerning that the Australian government has not investigated why Ericsson was able to purchase Lane, the principal arbitration technical consultant appointed to investigate Ericsson's telephone exchange equipment. Additionally, Lane has not yet returned all of the COT Cases' claim documents, which were provided to Lane by the COT Cases during their respective arbitrations. These issues raise questions about the arbitration process's impartiality and the outcome's fairness.

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 as recorded in the Australian media, i.e.; 

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

 

 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

 

The day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White -- "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White --"Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the induction process—"

The statement made by Mr. White is an unequivocal assertion that Telstra had deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants to obstruct us from proving our claims against the company. This matter was also brought to the attention of the Senate Hansard on June 24th, 1997, during a discussion between Senator Kim Carr and Telstra's leading arbitration defence Counsel regarding Alan Smith, a TIO Council member. It is disconcerting that the same individual, Peter Gamble, who advised Mr. White to take this action, also swore that the testing at my business premises conformed to all of AUSTEL's specifications. However, Telstra's falsified SVT report indicates that Peter's arbitration Telstra's Falsified SVT Report (SVT testing) did not comply with all of the government's mandatory specifications. The report is accessible through the following link: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report. The issue with Peter Gamble neglecting to disclose that he had to abandon the SVT process at my Cape Bridgewater business due to the faulty Ericsson testing equipment being utilized by Telstra at the exchange is also concerning.

Do you use your intelligence networks in these CoT cases?

 

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel Subject - Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The issue of intelligence networks established by Telstra in Australia is a cause for alarm. It is unclear who within the Telstra Corporation has the right expertise and government clearance to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use. It raises questions about the confidentiality of telephone conversations held with former Australian Prime Minister in April 1993 and April 1994 regarding Telstra officials holding sensitive material related to the Red Communist China episode. Furthermore, it is concerning to note that after Telstra's full privatisation in 2005, it is unclear which organisation in Australia was tasked with archiving the sensitive material collected by Telstra over several decades.

PLEASE NOTE:

On the day of my altercation, as mentioned in the 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost their patience. They had taken the extreme measure of sending the Sheriff to my property. He was there to remove the catering equipment that I needed to keep my business running. During the altercation, I did not resort to physical violence. Instead, I used a wrestling hold, specifically the 'Full Nelson, ' to escort the Sheriff out of my office. All charges were eventually dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when they realized that there was another side to the story.

Starting on page 5163 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, it is revealed that Telstra employees have fraudulently taken millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, including the government and Australian citizens who owned Telstra then. The pressure applied by Senators Alston and Boswell led to a Senate investigation into the phone fiascos of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases, which was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in November 1993. This was because Telstra could not afford further investigation into its operations, as this unethical behaviour was not limited to just NSW.

Many people threatened the COT cases as their persistence in gaining fully functional phone systems was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. Shockingly, the Telstra CEO and board were aware of the millions of dollars being unlawfully taken from the government coffers, as stated on page 5163 of the SENATE official Hansard. Furthermore, it is believed that the figures ran into billions.

 

"COT Case Strategy"

 

In this same official SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, on page 5169, it was revealed that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had prepared a legal document titled "COT Case Strategy" (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), which instructed Telstra to conceal technical information from four businesses, including me, using Legal Professional Privilege as a pretext, even though the information was not privileged. This same law firm had previously threatened me, along with Telstra, that if I did not register my complaints in writing with Denise MsBurnie of Freehill's, Telstra would not take my phone complaints seriously. Despite this "COT Case Strategy" being exposed, the COT Cases were not allowed to amend our arbitration claims.

It is unbelievable that the COT cases received no recognition from either the government or Telstra for their stand for honesty and truth. Instead, they were labelled as vexatious litigants, and their lives were ruined.

It is important to acknowledge the fact that the concerns of COT members regarding the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) forcing them into arbitration with Telstra while Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for unauthorised interception of COT cases' telephone conversations were completely ignored. This undemocratic move was further aggravated by the fact that the TIO and arbitrator had secretly agreed with Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement and NOT the independent deal the government had assured would be used to assess the COT members' matters.

Despite the arbitrator's letter to the TIO advising that the arbitration agreement was not credible enough to use in the arbitrations, it was still used, and the letter was concealed from the claimants during their designated appeal processes. It is clear that there were forces at work derailing the arbitrations, and both the arbitrator and the TIO ignored the written advice they received. During the same designated appeal process, the arbitration project manager's letter to the TIO was also concealed from the claimants.

The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Telstra engaged in unconscionable conduct towards the COT cases. Despite Telstra's admission to intercepting telephone conversations, employing stand-over tactics, and issuing threats, the corporation faced no consequences during the arbitration process. This is unacceptable. The Senate Hansard, AFP transcripts, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's records provide compelling evidence that confirms Telstra's wrongdoings. Yet, neither the arbitrator nor the TIO took any action to address these issues. It is highly concerning that a corporation could take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process and engage in such egregious acts without facing any repercussions. The COT cases made significant contributions to the people of Australia, and it is disheartening that their concerns were not adequately addressed. It is crucial that we hold Telstra accountable for its actions and administer appropriate justice.

 

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, File 658 - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

The publication "Absent Justice" and the corresponding website "absentjustice.com" present a comprehensive account of the campaign against the COT Cases. As the author, I believe the circumstances that led to the sale of my business and residence were not of my own doing but rather the result of external forces beyond my control. The evidence in my publication and website provides undeniable proof of the injustice the remaining sixteen COT Cases experienced. It is essential that the COT story and the evidence presented in my publication and website receive the attention they deserve, and those responsible for the campaign against the COT Cases should be held accountable.

My story serves as a testament to the need for transparency and accountability in business and public life.

Obtain a complimentary e-book of "Absent Justice" from a reputable publishing company. Merely hover over the cover page below to acquire your copy.

 < Absent Justice is accessible with just one click!

 

Criminal Conduct 2

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

I think it's essential to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. Two Telstra technical consultants inadvertently left a briefcase in my office. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (Front Page Part Two 2-B).

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER' - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a significant AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over 8 months received a 'service disconnected' message telling the caller my line was disconnected. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. The following day, after Telstra returned and picked up the briefcase, that information was sent to AUSTEL, the government communications regulator. 

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries worldwide were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment.

When the COT arbitration documents submitted into arbitration proved that this Ericsson AXE lock-up call loss rate was between 15% to 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. AUSTEL then instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. As shown below, (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C) shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding of 120,000 COT-type complaints to show a hundred (see below).

The current government oversight of Telstra's past transgressions, involving unethical practices dating back to these times, is equivalent to neglecting a rotten apple within a barrel of otherwise wholesome ones. This failure to address and acknowledge historical improprieties risks the pervasive corruption of the entire system in which Australia is governed. It is imperative to confront what happened during the Casualties of Telstra government-endorsed arbitrations so that the victims of these crimes can live out their remaining lives in peace. 

Simply put, it is concerning that this public servant, who allowed himself to be persuaded not to investigate the truth, still refuses to assist. 

This bureaucrat became a politician and remains a politician in 2024.

Between September 1995 and June 1996, a politician to whom he was an advisor asked him to investigate my arbitration claims and the broader allegations that if my claims were correct, then the twenty or so COT-type ongoing telephone problems now under investigation by the government-appointed arbitrator might be affecting more than 120,000 Telstra customers.

 

(Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

Copper Wire was not compatible.

Telstra had so much power over AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator (now ACMA) that it forced AUSTEL to drastically reduce the numbers, as shown in the official government regulatory COT Case April 1994 Report, from some 120,000 COT-type customers who had similar CAN and Ericsson AXE problems, right around Australia Falsification Report File No/8) to 50-plus. Telstra was also somehow able to force AUSTEL to submit fabricated SVT reports to the minister via their third quarterly COT Cases Report of 2 February 1995.

Of course, since the arbitrator was clearly protecting the government during our arbitrations, he found that there were no more ongoing problems affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and his award of 11 May 1995 only reported on old, historic, anecdotal Telstra-related faults and ignored the still-ongoing faults that were still occurring.

Were these 120,000 COT-type customers who were having similar major problems right around Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) also related to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems that were worrying AUSTEL, as well as the CAN and Ericsson AXE problems? The information I supplied to AUSTEL between June and August 1993 (which was inadvertently left inside the allusive briefcase at my premises) showed this was possibly the case. 

The following letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, to AUSTEL’s chair from Telstra’s group general manager, suggest AUSTEL was far from truly independent but rather could be manipulated to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this first letter. For example, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. …  Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (Open Letter File No/11)

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s (the government communications regulator) April 1994 formal report notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

The fact that Telstra (the defendants) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is deeply disturbing. The 120,000 other customers – ordinary Australian citizens who were experiencing COT-type problems – are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report Senate Evidence File No 28). However, they used this to determine the validity of the COT claims.

For a government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. Were the government's downplaying of the Ericsson AXE fault complaints part of the overall collusion, which involved purchasing Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, who often worked on government contracts? 

 

 

The report speaks for itself - Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two

My report and the supporting exhibits were again provided to the government on my behalf by my Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker MP, later Speaker of the House of Representatives, and they are not available for downloading from this website Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two,

This discovery is essential because The Hon David Hawker's predecessor, The Hon Dan Tehan MP, approached this minister on my behalf, asking him to review his past decisions. Now that he was the minister for communications in the Liberal National Coalition government, whose portfolio allowed him to investigate my claims, he still would not investigate the validity of my claims.