Continued from the Home page

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

The Canadian government ministers' office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc. (specifically, the falsification of BCI reports by Telstra).

The main issue is that the equipment mentioned in the formal report by the BCI, specifically the CCS7 monitoring device, could not be set up at either the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The closest exchange capable of facilitating this device is in Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away. Therefore, where were the 13,590 BCI test calls sent? They were not generated into either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges.

When the sixteen COT Cases missed out on the punitive damages, which was discriminatory enough to say the least, why didn't the John Howard government reinvestigate the statement made 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith 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.”

There exists no amendment appended to any arbitration agreement, duly signed by the members of the COT, which would permit the arbitrator to carry out their specific arbitrations completely outside the established framework of the arbitration procedure. Furthermore, the agreements do not indicate that the arbitrator would relinquish control over the arbitration process once the COT Cases had executed their contracts.

 

The rise of Warwick Smith to a front-bench Minister in the John Howard government in March 1996 is nothing short of alarming, especially considering he was under investigation by the very government he now serves. Senator Richard Alston's willingness to investigate the questionable conduct of the initial four arbitrations raises serious concerns. Yet, as soon as Warwick Smith clinched victory in the seat of Bass in Tasmania, all inquiries into his actions and those of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, were abruptly halted by the Howard administration. 

This disturbing turn of events suggests a deeper conspiracy, as both Smith and Hughes were subsequently awarded the "Order of Australia." It exemplifies a troubling reality: the voices of ordinary citizens like us are completely drowned out in the halls of power. The Confidentiality Agreement, signed by all involved parties, should not serve as a smokescreen to conceal the egregious acts documented by Senate Hansard related to the COT Cases. It's a grim reminder of how corruption can infiltrate the fabric of government, allowing the influential to evade accountability while ordinary people are left powerless.

The text reveals a disturbing narrative of collusion and deception at the highest levels of telecommunications oversight. It suggests that Warwick Smith, the first appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), allowed Grant Campbell—a Telstra executive with dubious ties to the TIO—to manipulate the complaint process for his own agenda. Campbell, whose employment with the TIO was conveniently buried in a lack of official records, was seen signing off on letters under Smith's name, cloaked in the TIO's authority.

This raises alarming questions about the integrity of the TIO and its commitment to impartiality. The suggestion that Campbell had access to sensitive COT (Customers of Telstra) complaint materials before they entered the arbitration process hints at a broader scheme, potentially enabling Telstra to strategise against individuals raising grievances. Furthermore, the fact that Campbell misled Telstra about ongoing investigations into document losses—an issue which was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police—suggests a deeply ingrained culture of deceit. It points to a sinister alliance where the interests of the corporate giant eclipse any notion of fairness or justice for customers, leaving victims of the system vulnerable and exposed. This is corruption at work → Part 3, Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, where truth is sacrificed on the altar of corporate protection and collusion.

Government Corruption - absentjustice.com

 

 

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. The scenario surrounding Ms. Amanda Davis and her "Open Letter" has taken a dark and unsettling turn. Initially uncertain about whom to address, the gravity of her situation unravelled the moment she considered naming a recipient. With her history as a senior government bureaucrat, this wasn't just a simple letter; it was a potential Pandora's box, especially given the deeply entrenched criminal activities involving Telstra and its employees. 

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July.  I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.” 

After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.

Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies. 

Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being  fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.

I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time. 

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 -  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )

 

 

I wish to draw attention to a pivotal moment captured in the Senate Hansard records from 20 September 1995, specifically under the title "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST." In this profoundly moving speech, Senator Ron Boswell courageously expressed the profound injustices faced by four individuals, including myself, in the COT case—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. His heartfelt words resonated with the pain and frustration we endured during what were mischaracterised as government-sanctioned arbitrations.

Senator Boswell's impassioned plea was not just a reflection of our suffering but also a crucial indictment of a larger system that failed us. He emphasised, on three separate occasions, the assurance given to him and Senator Richard Alston that our arbitrations would be just and fair, just as they had experienced. This conviction stands in stark contrast to the reality we lived through—a reality filled with heartache and unresolved grievances.

The remarks made by Senator Boswell regarding the TIO and its annual report are particularly significant, as they illuminate the pressing need for accountability and resolution surrounding our experiences. His words serve as a powerful reminder that our struggles cannot be ignored and that we deserve justice. It's imperative that these issues are addressed, not just for us, but for the integrity of the system that governs all citizens. We need resolution, and we need it now. The following words by Senator Boswell show my claims are valid:

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra" 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding".

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all". 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

 

On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), which Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed. Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, at my business, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, had been experiencing problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the following was noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra's Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra's internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file indicates that Telstra encountered significant issues when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at Graham's office.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham's fax machine.

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

 

Faxed COT arbitration-related documents screened and intercepted 

Fighting on two fronts 

Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases' businesses and, furthermore, it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process.  This didn't stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:

1. How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken simultaneously by two organisations, namely an arbitrator and the AFP? To the best of our knowledge, this situation is unprecedented in any other Western democracy.
2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with their investigations?
3. Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?

Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation, but these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being conducted concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act 1984), for failing to supply the COT cases with the promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. The investigation began before the COTs signed their arbitration agreements and continued for five years.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration?

 

 

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put many questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with 'COT' members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
2. Who authorised this taping of 'COT' members' phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
3. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
4. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
5. Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
6. Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
7. How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?

The response to Question 5 (see Main Evidence File No/29) notes, "…These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom;"

It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom”.

Telstra's claim (when referring to Question 5 On Notice) that it would be inappropriate for them to comment on these phone interception issues whilst the AFP was still investigating these matters is, in itself, the typical and expected comment that Telstra lawyers would have ensured that Telstra would make, under those circumstances.  No other form of investigation by any other authority should have taken place whilst the AFP were still investigating where the arbitration relation documents were vanishing to. These were breaches of the Privacy Act if those documents were not just lost in Telstra's network. The primary reason the COT Cases were in arbitration was to determine whether these were legitimate cases or if the faxes were being hijacked by those paying for this unlawful service to gain an advantage over their competitors.

The Australian Federal Police, specifically Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penros, alerted me to this possibility, naming two organisations where this was occurring. This was after I showed Mr Penrose samples of 81 intended calls to my business that had come into the Portland telephone exchange but had been electronically switched to another source as well as showing Mt Penrose 8 of those intended calls because they came through my 008/1800 freecal service line with was trucked of my prinispla 055 267 267 service I was charged for those calls. Losing 81 incoming telephone calls over two months, as these records show, could singularly wipe out a small business operator, which this was gradually doing. 

Before I signed for my arbitration

Before I signed for my arbitration, on 21 April 1994, I used a similar response to questions from the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations) when I advised the TIO that it would be unworkable for the Arbitrator to start my arbitration while the AFP had not yet concluded their investigation, particularly since the COT spokesperson and I were both seeking compensation from Telstra as part of our arbitration claims and in direct relation to Telstra's breaches of the Interception Act. 

As if it were yesterday, I still clearly remember that the TIO stated he would conduct his investigations tactfully, along with the Arbitrator, and that their investigation would not impede the then-present AFP investigations.  As shown in our Front Page Part One, the arbitrator allowed Telstra to cross-examine me regarding what the AFP had uncovered during my arbitration.

Telstra's statement to the Senate Estimates Committee (at point 5) that: "It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police", clearly raises the question of why the COT Cases were forced into arbitration while the AFP were still investigating exactly the same breaches of privacy claims that were also to be investigated by the arbitrator because how can there be two investigations, by two separate bodies, into the same complaints, at the same time? What if the AFP and the arbitrator came up with conflicting findings? Which findings would the arbitrator then use to calculate and pay compensation?

Of course, the arbitration process was unworkable while the AFP was involved.

What finally happened is that neither the AFP nor the arbitrator produced a record of any findings concerning the (now proven) invasion of my privacy. More than two decades later, after neither side made a decision, the COT Cases have been left to live with these unresolved issues, even though it has cost each of us hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in this arbitration charade.

The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report 

January 1994: A Telstra arbitration liaison officer faxed this document to the TIO concerning the appointment of an assessor for the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. The words across the top of this document, in the space that should record the sender's business identification, are absent, and it records only the wording "Fax from" followed by the fax number. The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report discusses this "Fax from" issue (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13). The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra's network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why the illegal interception of these legally confidential documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations when these illicit acts were first discovered. Who were the faceless people soon termed the "forces at work"?

My Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) Accountant Selwyn Cohen sent me a fax on 21 January 1994 stating:

“I refer to your facsimile of 10.42am on 17th January 1994. The fax cover sheet refers to 7 pages being sent. Unfortunately, I only received 2 pages. Please forward the remaining 5 pages to enable me to begin the required work.” (See AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C)

This was the fourth time between the Christmas period of 1993 and the present that Mr Cohen had problems sending or receiving documents from me.

31 January 1994: A comparison of my phone/fax account, 055 267230, with the two Telstra CCAS documents, FOI numbers K01410 and K01411, confirms that someone within Telstra has handwritten the names of the people I spoke to and/or faxed. 

Transcripts from my interview with the AFP on 26th September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) confirm that the AFP were alarmed that Telstra had gathered private information about me, including documenting on this CCAS data the names of the people I had telephoned daily. This CCAS data was supplied to Warwick Smith and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office.

Stedman Cameron, Lawyers & Solicitors, wrote to me on 2 February 1994, stating:

“We note that you did not receive two pages at all and only the number 2 from the third page and the signature from the last page of the facsimile sent to you at approximately 2.23pm on the 1st February, 1994. It was successfully sent approximately two hours later.” (AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C) 

Telstra's FOI document (M34363) dated 4 February 1994 was not made available to the arbitrator or me during my arbitration, even though Telstra's FOI numbering system (M followed by a number) indicates to Telstra and the TIO's office that I was still reporting problems with my fax transmissions during my FTSP process (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24).

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police enquiries into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones. Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters.” (This exhibit was not made avaialable to me during my arbitration)

On 8 February 1994, The Hon Michael Lee, Minister for Communications, wrote to the Hon Duncan Kerr, MP, Minister for Justice: (Note: this document is held in the Government archives.)

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police inquires into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones.

Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters”.

All of the above information, along with the information Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two was provided to the Then Honable Senator Richard Altson, now minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts by both myself and the Hon David Hawker MP, who forms the following image that should be cliked on to gain more evidence that should have been acted on by Senator Richard Alston when it was supplied as additional information in April 1996, two months after the John Howard government won office,

 

Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two

In the wake of the devastating defeat of the Liberal Government in the May 2025 Australian Federal election, the party has tasked two former senior ministers with investigating the causes of their failure: Alan Stockdale, a prominent Victorian State Minister, and Senator Richard Alston, a well-known Federal Liberal Minister.

An examination of "Manipulating the regulator and The eighth remedy pursued" reveals that public servants in the John Howard government were aware that the records of the Department of Communications, Technology, and the Arts had been intentionally altered. This manipulation was done to conceal the truth about Telstra's unlawful conduct towards the COT Cases, preventing these issues from being exposed during the later stages of Telstra's privatisation. 

While the examination of the two links nominated above confirms that the claims made on absentjustice.com are valid, hovering your mouse or curson over → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG will make it clear that the Telstra board should never have approved the $400 million default clause payable to Murdoch/Fox if the cable rollout period was not met, especially knowing that Telstra could not meet that rollout period. 

Are our governments genuinely focused on serving the needs and interests of their citizens, or are they increasingly swayed by the agendas of influential, unelected billionaires who operate within the shadows of global organisations such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum? These influential figures, often disconnected from the everyday realities of ordinary people, wield significant influence over policy decisions that impact our lives. As these institutions push for a global agenda, we must ask ourselves: Who is really in charge, and whose voices are being prioritised?

 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

 

In the summer of 1999, while immersed in the intricacies of drafting a pivotal section of my story, I had the opportunity to share my manuscript with Helen Handbury, the sister of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Helen was profoundly troubled by the stark denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had been subjected to. After perusing my draft, she made two visits to my idyllic Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, proclaiming with conviction, "I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked."

During her second visit, Helen arrived with a fresh sense of determination, her mind buzzing with ideas and insights sparked by my manuscript featured on absentjustice.com. Our discussions flowed effortlessly as she passionately conveyed her intent to share the compelling evidence presented on the website with her brother, convinced that he would be deeply disturbed by Telstra's blatant disregard for fundamental justice..

As I weighed the implications of what I might disclose, thoughts of the long-standing telephone chaos flooded my mind. I hesitated to confront Helen with the knowledge that Rupert was aware of Telstra's troubling and unethical practices. These ongoing violations have resulted in millions of dollars in lost revenue, affecting not just individual livelihoods but entire communities. Many Australians were trapped in the relentless grip of persistent telephone issues, some enduring these disruptions for over a decade. The repercussions of this situation have been profound, leaving an indelible mark on countless lives and underscoring the urgent need for accountability and reform.

One element of my narrative that particularly troubled Helen was the extensive evidence I had meticulously compiled, vividly illustrating the prolonged and illegal hacking of my faxes that had targeted me. This distressing intrusion was not just a past issue; it was still an ongoing nightmare at the time of Helen's visit, casting a long shadow over my business operations. In that summer of 1999, the scandal involving the News of the World and the notorious hacking issues surrounding her brother had yet to erupt in public consciousness, making our discussions all the more poignant and prescient.

In the wake of our exchanges, I gathered compelling evidence for the Australian Federal Police, detailing the unauthorised interference with my faxes that had transpired during various arbitration proceedings dating back to 1994. The documentation I presented to Helen strongly suggested that this fax hacking issue remained unresolved at my business premises in 1999, a staggering four years after my arbitration was expected to have rectified these critical injustices.

 

On June 3, 1993, an unexpected incident unfolded at my then-owned Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Two Telstra representatives, Hew Mackintosh and David Stockdale, accidentally left an open briefcase behind. Curiosity piqued, I gently opened the flap of the briefcase and was immediately confronted with a file prominently labelled "Smith Cape Bridgewater." As I began perusing the contents of that folder, I had no idea that my life was about to take a dark and distressing turn, a journey I now detail on this website.

What stands out most about this briefcase affair is the shocking realisation that I wasn’t alone in my struggles. Upon reviewing the documents, I found that numerous others in Victoria, Australia, were experiencing similar phone issues. A sense of urgency washed over me when I recalled that, six months prior to this incident, AUSTEL—then the government communications authority, now known as ACMA—had prompted Telstra to undertake an independent investigation into my claims of severe phone-related losses. The unsettling contents of the briefcase confirmed my worst fears: leading up to the assessment process on December 11, 1992, Telstra's senior management had engaged in a calculated campaign of deceit, misleading me about the true extent of my telecommunications problems. This same management team would later manipulate the narrative during a government-endorsed arbitration process that commenced on April 21, 1994, distorting the truth to mislead the appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, about the systemic nature of my issues—problems that would linger long after the arbitration concluded.

Instead of choosing to publicly expose the troubling evidence, which would later emerge to support AUSTEL, I opted for a more discreet approach. Armed with an outdated fax machine that seemed to falter at every turn due to my ongoing phone issues, I painstakingly copied whatever information I could. I then passed this vital evidence to COT spokesperson Graham Schorer, who swiftly couriered it to AUSTEL the very next morning.

Had I intended to embarrass Telstra and seek self-aggrandisement, I would have ultimately harmed my own interests. Instead of offering assistance, as AUSTEL had when it first recognised the damning nature of the information, it initiated a campaign to discredit me. In essence, the government shot the messenger, leading to a tumultuous and traumatic existence for both my partner, Cathy, and me for over thirty years. Our attempts to expose the arbiters of deception and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—who grossly undervalued my legitimate claims and even resorted to falsehoods in writing to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—have only compounded our struggles. These misrepresentations thwarted an objective investigation into the conduct of my arbitration, which would have revealed the shocking degradation of Telstra's network during its privatisation.

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an important aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honor and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.

In this challenging context, a crucial question arises: Should we celebrate and support those who risk their security and reputation to expose misconduct, thereby fostering a culture of accountability? Or should we condemn their actions, viewing them as threats to stability and order? The answer to this question can significantly influence the ethics of transparency within our communities and shape how society values integrity versus conformity. Ultimately, creating an environment that supports whistleblowers may be essential for nurturing a just and equitable society.

 

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.

• Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
• The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 
• In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken  by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)

I also wrote to the Hon. Robert Clark, the Federal Attorney-General, on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases. 

If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to report incidents that they believe are crimes, as doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats. 

The Bernard Collaery issue, coupled with the extensive transcripts from the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 and the comprehensive Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), vividly illustrates the complications that arise when specific individuals in government delve into legal matters that demand transparency. Ideally, these matters should provide all parties involved with a fair opportunity for representation. However, the findings outlined in the Scandrett & Associates report reveal that this ideal has often not been met. The following statements, extracted from the report, further emphasise these troubling inconsistencies:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 7 January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the images below. 

The arbitrations were nothing more than a kangaroo court - a show trial. 

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea, which I had spent the previous 28 years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond. Of all the places I had visited in the world, I chose Cape Bridgwater, Portland, Victoria, Australia, as my home.

My business is hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age newspaper. It was located in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland. Everything seemed perfect. I performed my “due diligence” to ensure that the business was sound, or at least, all of the due diligence I was aware I needed to accomplish. Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business, I realized I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were reaching out to me—not by phone, but through Australia Post. In some cases, they even decided to drive to inform me of their issues. One such instance came from a customer in Ballarat, Victoria.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, mainly organised by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact. The Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline — no sound at all. Finally, after trying in vain for an entire week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

 

 

The camp was a success, with fifty or sixty children learning to bond through group activities over five days of fun and learning. 

Twelve months later, in March 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, attempted to make contact via the Portland telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp, aware of the problems experienced the previous year. Sister Donnellon persisted over several days until she hit the jackpot.  Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

In 1997, after I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, "Absent Justice, Sister Burke acknowledged my story, noting:

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Yes, that’s right. I had a business to run and a phone service that was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, nonexistent. Of course, we lost business as a result.

And so, my saga begins with a quest to obtain a working phone for my property. Along the way, I received some compensation for business losses and numerous promises that the issue would be resolved if a group of small business operators and I funded our arbitration to hold Telstra accountable for failing to meet its service obligations as per its operating license. Unfortunately, the telephone issues were not resolved on the day the arbitrator delivered his findings on May 11, 1995. I sold my business in December 2001, and within days of the new owners taking over, their dream business faced a fate similar to mine. → Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Other independent businesspeople similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our various problems, rectify them, and then compensate us for our losses.  A working phone: is that too much to ask?

We initially asked for a full Senate investigation into Telecom in general and these issues in particular. We were offered, as an alternative, an arbitration process. It seemed like a good way to resolve the problem, so we accepted this alternative. At this early stage, we had honestly expected that the technical problems preventing our phones from working would be resolved.

No such luck. Suspicions that something was amiss in the arbitration process began almost immediately. We had been promised that the Telecom documents we needed to make our case would be made available to us if we entered into arbitration. Despite the promise, they have never been made available, and we still do not have those documents to this day. We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines were being illegally tapped.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

• “I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

 

 

Worse, we had been tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered all of our efforts since. I am breaking the provisions of that clause by making this information public, but what choice do I have? What we did not know when we signed our government-endorsed arbitration and confidentiality agreement that had been secretly drafted by Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, is that it had been designed so as not to provided enough time in the agreement for us to access the necessary documents to prove our claims or provided the process a properally prepared technical report. In other words, it was a Kangaroo Court set up by Telstra, in conjunction with an alleged arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman as administrator.

The next crucial chapter in our journey involved a determined effort to harness the Freedom of Information (FOI) process to secure the promised yet withheld documents. We firmly believed that vital evidence resided within each of the telephone exchanges, particularly in the meticulously maintained daily logbook. This logbook, signed daily by technicians, captures every activity and documents each fault reported by customers, serving as an essential record of the diligent investigations carried out by the skilled technicians assigned to those exchanges.

In my situation, it was this very logbook that the government relied upon to evaluate my claims before the start of my arbitration process. I have now included it as part of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, between Points 2 to 212 dated March 1994.

Anyone examining this government-prepared report will likely conclude that had I also obtained the logbook for the Cape Bridgewater/Portland telephone exchange, just as the government did, I would have been awarded a significantly more favourable outcome. Instead, I found myself facing the bitter reality of spending over $300,000 in professional arbitration fees, trying to validate claims that the government had already substantiated a full six weeks before my thirteen months of arbitration commenced.

The COT (Claimants of Telstra) cases involved a group of individuals who were inadequately informed about the far-reaching implications of a crucial confidentiality clause embedded within their arbitration agreements. This clause was particularly significant as it stipulated that if Telstra, along with the appointed arbitrator, failed to effectively address the persistent telephone issues that prompted the claimants to seek arbitration, the claimants would be strictly forbidden from disclosing these unresolved issues to any external parties, including the media and regulatory bodies.

This so-called "gag clause" functioned as a formidable obstacle, effectively silencing the claimants and preventing them from pursuing external assistance or publicly reporting the ongoing failures related to the telephone services. As a direct result, many businesses faced increased vulnerability, leading to a deteriorating operational environment and significant harm to their profitability. The frustration stemming from unresolved technical issues not only impeded their daily business operations but also threatened their long-term viability.

The lack of transparency inherent in this situation compounded the difficulties faced by the claimants. They found themselves trapped in a nightmarish cycle, unable to seek recourse from relevant regulatory authorities or other organizations that might have offered support or advocacy. The absence of third-party oversight and accountability in the arbitration process not only stifled their voices but also placed immense financial and operational pressures on them, making it increasingly challenging to navigate the complexities of their business environments.

 

 

As the situation continued to deteriorate, many claimants were ultimately forced to make the heartbreaking decision to sell their businesses, often at a loss. The thought of giving up years of hard work and investment was devastating. For Telstra and the arbitrator to properly investigate the ongoing issues affecting these businesses, the government would need to confront an uncomfortable truth: the arbitration process had failed to achieve its primary objective of resolving the telephone faults before the arbitrator issued his award. If the phone problems were still present as they were before the claimants entered arbitration, it meant that the process had failed, just as the previous processes involving the four COT Cases did in 1992 and 1993.

Recognising that the process had yet again failed would not only affect the individual claimants but could also have far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining public confidence in the entire arbitration system and raising serious questions about the arbitrator's ability to manage the procedure effectively.

Seven years after my arbitration concluded, I sold the business in December 2001, despite the ongoing telephone issues that the arbitration process could not resolve. By February 2002, the new owners Jenny and Darren Lweis, were seeking assistance from the same government official, the Hon. David Hawker MP, who had been helping me since 1992—with the same phone problems that persisted for a decade → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration noting:

“Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.

“After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.

“Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

“Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems. …

“The technicians then in a hookup consultation with outside office guru’s  did a fault graph reading on our 55 267267 line with the outcome that their office technical staff stated words to the affect  the reading was impossible (couldn’t be correct). It was then that the local technician became quite annoyed when the technical guru insinuated that the equipment the local tech was using must be faulty. The local tech then informed the technical guru that there was nothing wrong with the equipment at all.” (See Main Evidence File No 13)

If the government had acknowledged this significant oversight during the arbitration proceedings, it would have faced the daunting task of financing an appeal process. Such an appeal would necessitate a comprehensive review of the specific deficiencies in the initial arbitration award, focusing particularly on those areas that were inadequately addressed by the claims made by the opposing party. Admitting to these flaws would not only cast doubt on the integrity of the arbitration process, which the government had staunchly supported from its outset, but it would also carry serious financial consequences.

 

The substantial costs associated with an appeal, combined with the potential for protracted litigation and the looming risk of unfavorable judicial outcomes, could severely disrupt the government's budgetary plans and resource allocation. These realities underscore the intricate complexities and far-reaching consequences that arise in legal proceedings, especially when a governmental body is implicated. This intricate situation likely explains the government's reluctance to reopen these cases. 

 

At the centre of this controversy is the behaviour of Telstra's arbitration representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. This law firm is implicated in the highly questionable practice of drafting unsigned witness statements for specific individuals, which are subsequently submitted during arbitration proceedings as if they were legitimate and sworn testimonies. Alarmingly, the individuals whose names appear on these documents never actually signed them, despite Freehill Hollingdale & Page falsely attesting to their authenticity.

 

 

 

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman in his role as administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's arbitration liasion officer Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1. ...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .
2. ...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.

It is June 2025, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

This situation raises grave concerns regarding the integrity of these statements. They may have been crafted with the intent to bolster Telstra's legal standing, raising an even more troubling possibility: that the firm misled and deceived regulatory authorities. Such actions obstruct the pursuit of truth about the insights and observations of witnesses, especially in light of my own evidence against Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who manipulated key facts to persuade a witness that I was mentally unstable.

 

In an especially egregious breach of professional ethics, Freehill Hollingdale & Page supplied false evidence to a witness, which an offshore Canadian technical consultancy had prepared. This fundamentally flawed report was then used by Freehill to wrongly convince a clinical psychologist—hired on behalf of Telstra—that I was paranoid, all while insisting that there were no issues with my phone services.

 

This case starkly illustrates the lengths to which Freehill Hollingdale & Page would go to protect its interests and maintain a lucrative relationship with Telstra.

 

I can only imagine that the emerging generation of partners and associates at Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne—a firm now celebrated worldwide for its esteemed legal capabilities—would be horrified by the unethical tactics employed by their predecessors in their relentless pursuit of victory. This entire situation calls out for a thorough investigation and accountability within the legal profession, especially when such issues significantly impact justice and the fundamental principle of transparency.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, Senator Kim Carr, who 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.”