Corporate crime does not usually involve a bag of money.

 

On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and  Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – 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 the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment was attached to any agreement signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside the agreed procedure?

In March 1994, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and another COT member suffered break-ins and lost business-related documents. That made us all much more vigilant. I found no evidence of a break-in, but I did notice that two diaries from 1987 to 1989 were missing. I decided to remove my official business diaries from my office. From then on, I transferred all that pre-recorded information to them weekly from my wall calendar and unofficial notebooks. This meant that any forensic testing of those diaries would have seen several recorded statements added after the original information had been recorded. At the advice of the AFP, I did this to have two copies of everything I had documented while the AFP was investigating Telstra's unauthorised interception of my phone and faxes  Chapter 4 Government spying. 

I explained to both the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes and the first administrator to my assessment, Warwick Smith process, that because the Australian Federal Police had taken access to some of my FOI documents see AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, which confirmed much of my private and business affairs had been documented by Telstra in their records going back as far as 1992, and could have only obtained that information from intercepting my faxes or telephone conversation.

It was during this period that the AFP had stated the importance of me not submitting any future security business information to the arbitrator, such as names and addresses of my single club clients, under any circumstances, unless the arbitrator could assure me that this material would not be provided to Telstra.

Of course, the AFP could not allow Telstra access to the phone and fax numbers of my female single club members while Telstra was still under investigation for unauthorised interception of my telephone and faxes. Some female members' names and phone numbers were already on two of the documents I had provided to the AFP, which is why the AFP was so concerned. 

Nevertheless, when it came to his summary of my award for damages, the arbitrator stated: 

"I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability".

I contend that if the arbitrator had allowed these fault complaints, i.e.' extracts taken from notebooks and wall planners, which I had then entered into my central diaries so that I had two copies of all reference material as suggested by Detective Superintendent Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police to be submitted into arbitration as evidence, and provided them to Telstra’s Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland would have had a clear understanding of what the exercise books were and would have realised there was no attempt at deception.

The ninety-one questions in the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 show I should not have been forced to continue with my arbitration while Telstra was allowed to screen/intercept my arbitration-related document en route to the arbitrator and my claim adviser. There is no mention in the arbitrator award that many of my claim documents had disappeared, as noted by the arbitrator secretary and his arbitration technical consultants DMR & Lane, who notified him on 30 April 1995 that they had still not completed their investigations and needed further weeks to do so Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D because "A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist," refer to Chapter 1 - The collusion continues. 

It did exist because this was the comprehensive list of my phone complaints I provided the government communications regulator AUSTEL in December 1993, which assisted them in preparing their own report on my call losses. Refer to points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994. Who concealed this comprehensive log of my phone complaints so that the arbitration technical consultants had nothing substantial to work with?  

Had the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, carried out his arbitration with the diligence it warranted, he would have factored in all available evidence, including the critical details from the Telstra Portland Cape Bridgwater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook illustrated the persistent nature of the telephone issues plaguing the Portland and Cape Bridgewater region. The evidence is clear: Dr. Hughes's technical consultants explicitly warned that without a thorough investigation into the underlying causes of the documented telephone faults, these problems would continue to be categorized as "Open" and unresolved. The urgency of these concerns is articulated in the DMR & Lane report submitted to Dr. Hughes on April 30, 1995, which underscores the necessity for a comprehensive examination of the ongoing issues.

The statement made by DMR & Lane at point 2.23 in their 30 April 1995 report provided to the arbitrator as their final report when it was not complete has haunted me ever since the conclusion of my arbitration i,e;  

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC  service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”  (see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)