oOo

The Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) issue continues

Telstra was aware of serious deficiencies in Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing practices, specifically their failure to test the 008/1800 free call service trunks through Portland and Cape Bridgewater exchanges, which was crucial to my arbitration claim. Alarmingly, BCI reported no tests on these exchanges, raising doubts about their findings.

Despite the government's endorsement of my arbitration, there was a distressing lack of investigation into BCI's failures. This is especially concerning since Telstra used BCI's questionable results to undermine the cases of the four COT claimants, including myself.

In light of this situation, what factors compelled the Canadian government to extend its support upon uncovering the submission of misleading information by Bell Canada International Inc.? This erroneous data, relayed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to a clinical psychologist, was strategically used to depict me as mentally unstable. Furthermore, a pressing question arises: why did the Australian government remain silent while the Canadian government expressed concern over these troubling developments

The testimonials from potential patrons of the Over Forties Single Club are intricately woven into the narrative presented in the AUSTEL report, a pivotal government communications regulatory document published on March 3, 1994 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. This report thoroughly examined my complaints, shedding light on various inadequacies and failures within the communication services that affected numerous individuals. What is particularly alarming is the government's decision to deliberately suppress this vital report from the arbitrator until November 2007, an astonishing twelve years after my arbitration proceedings had officially concluded. This glaring omission delayed the resolution of my concerns.  This type of corruption and deception, which was misleading conduct affecting all of the COT arbitrations, again highlights the need for an investigation into my claims

It raised profound questions about the integrity and transparency of the entire arbitration process, as it suggests a troubling disregard for accountability in addressing citizens' legitimate grievances. The following five points, 85, 130, 140,153, and 209 from this AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show my claims were valid 

Point 85 –“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” 

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 140 – “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

This glaring omission by government officials delayed the resolution of my concerns but also raised profound questions about the integrity and transparency of the entire arbitration system in Australia. It suggests a troubling disregard for accountability in addressing citizens' legitimate grievances. The ramifications of this concealment highlight the urgent need for reform in how government regulatory bodies operate and communicate findings related to public complaints.

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked: "What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report"? And Mr Matthews replied: "The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received their copy then."

AUSTEL, presently known as ACMA, exhibited a clear abuse of process by permitting me to initiate arbitration and legal proceedings against Telstra while simultaneously withholding essential government report documentation provided to Telstra to assist its defence against my claims. Such selective dissemination of information raises substantial concerns regarding fairness and equity, as it favoured a government-owned telecommunications entity over an individual Australian citizen.

The ramifications of this decision were considerable. I was compelled to invest over $300,000 in arbitration fees to substantiate a case that AUSTEL/ACMA had already established against Telstra as of March 3, 1994, just six weeks prior to the commencement of my arbitration on April 21, 1994. The regulator's failure to furnish me with the same evidentiary materials that it shared with Telstra signifies a neglect of its statutory obligations to ensure equitable treatment for all parties involved. This circumstance not only undermines the integrity of the regulatory process but also imposes a substantial financial burden on individuals pursuing justice against powerful corporations within the telecommunications industry (see INTRODUCTION above)

Imagine what the arbitrator might have awarded me if he had seen this report twenty-eight years ago.

The falsehoods that the arbitrator should not have broadcast.

The COT Cases have never received copies of the nine tapes mentioned below. 

AUSTEL, the government communications authority (now called ACMA), wrote to Telstra's Steve Black on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

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).”

The Malcolm Fraser FOI released documents? 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense. 

During my first meetings with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I comprehensively responded to 93 questions about unauthorized surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

It is imperative to underscore that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, engaged in highly inappropriate collaboration during my arbitration process. On June 15, 1994, Dr. Hughes provided Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials a full five months before the timeline stipulated in my arbitration agreement, which allocated Telstra one month to respond to my claim. This premature disclosure afforded Telstra a considerable advantage in their 12 December 1994 defence of my arbitration claim.

This situation illustrates Telstra's and the individuals overseeing the various COT arbitrations' disregard for protocol. The processes involved were conducted like a Kangaroo Court. 

How can one narrate a story so astonishing that even the author finds it hard to believe, leading to an exhaustive examination of the records before proceeding? What methods can we deploy to unveil the insidious collusion among arbitrators, government entities, and the defendants, who seem to operate in concert? How do you shine a spotlight on the alarming fact that the defendants in an arbitration process intercepted confidential faxed documents to fortify their defence, causing significant harm to the claimants as the following report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) shows?

How many other arbitration cases across Australia have been similarly tainted by such unethical practices? Is it possible that electronic eavesdropping and breaches of confidentiality continue to permeate legitimate Australian arbitration proceedings today?

The complex web of foreign bribery, corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and foreign corruption initiatives unfolds dramatically on absentjustice.com. This thought-provoking Australian website has ignited a thorough investigation into the pervasive nature of political corruption, shedding light on how unscrupulous offshore companies have stealthily infiltrated Australia’s arbitration system as the following link Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden) shows.

In 1995, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) administrated the Complex and Ongoing Telecommunications (COT) arbitrations. As part of this undertaking, the TIO appointed Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to investigate Ericsson, the principal supplier of Telstra’s telephone equipment serving the businesses involved in the COT Cases. A critical issue arose when the TIO neglected to disclose that the arbitration claims valued by Lane before Ericsson acquired Lane were, in fact, invalid. This failure to act resulted in the TIO allowing these claims to proceed without challenge, ultimately depriving the COT Cases of a fair and independent evaluation of their assertions.

Ericsson's acquisition of Lane, the key arbitration technical witness, significantly influenced the COT case, which had seen its final arbitrations and the pending claims still awaiting assessment. On July 16, 1997, John Pinnock, the official administrator overseeing the arbitrations, sent a pivotal letter to William Hunt's lawyer. This lawyer represented Graham Schorer, a leading voice for the COT cases, whose claims against Ericsson were yet to be evaluated. This scenario highlights the critical nature of the situation (refer to File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323).

In his letter, Mr. Pinnock expressed deep concern regarding the potential repercussions of selling Lane to Ericsson on other pending COT arbitrations. He recognized that any additional complications could further jeopardize the already fragile trust that claimants held in the fairness of the arbitration process. Therefore, in a decisive move, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) terminated Lane's involvement in the arbitration procedure.

As an illustration of the lengths to which Ericsson is willing to go in order to safeguard its global brand, the company maintains that all types of organizations, including terrorist entities, must be cognizant of telecommunications services. A pertinent example can be found in the Australian media's exposé regarding bribery and corruption allegations brought forth by the United States Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden on December 19, 2019, as reported in various Australian news outlets.

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/)

Clicking on the image titled "The Ericson List" below is an additional example supporting the assertion that the Australian government should not have permitted Ericsson to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) has been assigned to investigate allegations stemming from the COT cases, which assert that Telstra knowingly utilized faulty Ericsson telephone exchange equipment in its telecommunications exchanges. This misconduct has severely compromised the ability of various telephone-dependent businesses to make and receive calls essential for their operations, thereby obstructing their ability to compete on a level playing field with their competitors.

 

 

The purchasing (tampering) with an arbitration witness 

 

No one has investigated the truth surrounding the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment problems, even when my local Telstra technicians in Portland acknowledged I was right to raise these RVA faults.  

On 24 February 1994, Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, took a firm stand in the Senate by addressing the ongoing voice message issue related to the Alan Smith, Ericsson AXE. I had previously informed the Senator that this was not just an isolated incident but a national systemic problem affecting most, if not all, of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges throughout Australia. File 10-C Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f clearly illustrates the Senator's strong demand for answers from Telstra regarding the following AXE document discussed below and in the Senate by The Hon. Senator Richard Alston.

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

The Telstra fault report 'minute', dated July 2, 1992, reveals the blatant dishonesty of the Portland Telstra technicians. Under oath during the arbitration process in December 1994, these technicians asserted that my business had not experienced any faults with the Ericsson AXE telephone system, a claim that starkly contrasts with the reality depicted in this document.

The dreaded voice message - "The number you have called is not connected." 

These recorded messages were not "perceived problems".

The author of the AXE document also provided a witness statement for the arbitration on December 12, 1994. In his testimony, he offered a narrative inconsistent with the thorough understanding he and the local Portland technicians had regarding the operations of the Portland AXE exchange. He acknowledged having “perceived problems,” yet paradoxically claimed he had not observed any deficiencies in the service provided by Telstra. This contradiction is glaringly evident when examining the AXE document, which clearly indicates that his statement does not align with the actual service issues we faced.

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid, can best be viewed reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

Why hasn’t the Australian government demanded answers from Telstra management about why they made so many false arbitration witness statements under oath, telling the arbitrator there were no real problems that had affected my business when the following image shows otherwise?

New bookings into the holiday camp continued to be rare. The Camp was getting in need of painting and upgrading. The business looked sad and bedraggled, so people who passed by were not interested in stopping. And when we did have a booking, cash flow was a problem, making it tricky to put food on the table. We somehow always managed, but it was very stressful. Karen was starting to see her investment going down the drain, and the strain on her came to a head while we were in the middle of organising a charity camp for underprivileged children.

Despite the financial precariousness of the enterprise, I made a conscious decision to sponsor the stays of underprivileged groups at the Camp from the very beginning. It was a strategic move that turned out to be beneficial, as the revenue impact was minimal. In fact, the presence of these groups at our facility encouraged others to maintain their interest in our services. Many of them were actively reaching out to make telephone connections, demonstrating their awareness that we were still operating. Their persistence meant they were able to secure accommodation at a significantly reduced rate compared to the standard booking fees.

This arrangement proved to be a win-win situation for everyone involved. Sponsored meals were generously provided by several local commercial food outlets eager to support our initiative, which substantially alleviated the burden on my budget. Consequently, my only expenses were a marginal amount for electricity and gas to keep the accommodations running. Not only did this effort help those in need, but it also fostered a sense of community and goodwill, reflecting our commitment to social responsibility while simultaneously sustaining our business during challenging times.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, organised mainly 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 one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

Ballarat was to be the central hub for my Cape Bridgewater social club 

The Testimonials Continued 

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to partly sponsor underprivileged groups to stay at the camp during the weeks (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins.  I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of a number of commercial food outlets and these groups then just used the camp facilities — it didn’t actually cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas.  At one point around this time, May 1992, I had organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.  This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Maureen Burke had enormous problems making phone contact; calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a furious man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Maureen Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with my wife of twenty years, Faye, who had ended our marriage by this time. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp.   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

Some years later, I sent Sister Maureen Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“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

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these incredible women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or, alternatively the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line.  Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

 

 

Point 115 in the following government report AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which is also discussed above notes: 

“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  read:

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.” Evidence File 10 B 

During this same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, a professional associate of mine Cathy, signed a Statutory Declaration, dated 20 May 1994, explaining several sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (File 22 Exhibit 1 to 47).  This declaration leaves questions unanswered about who collected my mail and how they knew there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office.  On both occasions, when a third person collected this mail, I telephoned Cathy, informing her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me that mail was waiting to be picked up. 

On pages 12 and 13 of the transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP state at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47

I also provided the AFP Telstra documents showing that Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence because if it ever reached an Australian court, I had a 50% chance of proving that Telstra had systemic phone problems in their network. In simple terms, Telstra was operating outside of its license to operate a telephone service, charging its customers for a service not provided.  

21st April 1993:  Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88

These Telstra executives forgot that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, destroyed the Australian economy while the powerful bureaucrats attempted to fight this fire with the talk of change. This bribery and corruption plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations.

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. 

I received a letter dated August 23, 1993, from a firm of Insurance Loss Adjusters located in the historic town of Ballarat, nestled in rural Victoria. This correspondence was directed to the producer of “Real Life,” an influential current affairs program broadcasting on Channel 7. It had taken the media by storm, revealing that a holiday camp in the picturesque Cape Bridgewater was no longer considered a safe venue for children. In the wake of these alarming revelations, it became commonplace for schools and social clubs to withdraw their bookings, causing a significant wave of cancellations.

Amidst this turmoil, the Australian Federal Police were summoned by The Honorable Michael Lee, MP and Minister for Communications, to investigate allegations surrounding Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telephone conversations, alongside both my business and private faxes. The implications of these events sent my company spiralling into decline, exacerbated by inadequate telephone service and serious concerns regarding communications security for those attempting to book with us. The enterprise now found itself battling against a perfect storm of adversity. 

The Loss Adjusters' August 23, 1993, letter tells their story supporting my plight:  “Re Problems with Telstra.”

"I have watched with interest the shorts leading up to tonight’s program as I have similar problems to the man at Cape Bridgewater.

Our office is located in Ballarat and due to Telecom structure the majority of our local calls are STD-fee based. (STD calls are charged per time)

On many occasions we have been unable to get through to numbers we have dialled, often receiving the message “this number is not connected” or similar messages which we know to be untrue.

Clients report that they often receive the engaged signal when calling us, and a review of the office reveals that at least one of our lines was free at the relevant time.

We have just received our latest Telecom bill, which in total is up about 25% – 30% on the last bill.  This is odd because our work load in the billing period was down by about 25% and we have one staff member less than the previous billing period.” (AS 1008)

 

The whistleblower, the unsung hero

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

Worse, however, 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 38 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 in the Freehill's area (meaning) those five COT Cases in which Freehill Hollingdale & Page had an interest in Mr White 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 Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White’s statement, I reiterate that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all cost’ from proving their against Telstra’. The named Peter Gamble in this Senate Hansard is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his arbitration witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Arbitrator File No/110 that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatorily required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267, 055 267230 and 055 267260 were generated into my business and held open for the necessary period of 120-seconds for each completed call. Simply put, the SVT process at my business was not carried out according to the government communications regulatory mandatory specifications (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra is aware that Peter Gamble (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL on 11 October and 16 November 1994 regarding the grossly deficient Ericsson AXE / RCM Service Verification Tests (SVT). AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended to do about this deficiency see Front Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B.  Here is corruption, deception, misleading and deceptive conduct at its worst. 

In response to AUSTEL’s 11 October and 16 November 1994 letters, Peter Gamble replied in his letter dated 28 November 1994:

“As agreed at one of our recent meetings and as confirmed in your letter of 16th November 1994, attached please find the detailed Call Delivery Test information for the following customers. …

“This information is supplied to Austel on a strict Telecom-in-Confidence basis for use in their Service Verification Test Review only and not for any other purpose. The information is not to be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Telecom.” (Arbitrator File No/98)

By what legal authority could Peter Gamble insist what the government regulator could or could not disclose to a third party, in this case, a claimant whose business was about to be destroyed because Peter Gamble had not conducted the agreed Service Verification Tests process at my premises using only the Ericsson faulty testing equipment instead of the agreed-to more updated SVT testing device (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report)?

It is most important to link the above corruption, deception, misleading and deceptive conduct, which affected all COT arbitrations, to the other wrongdoings by various government bureaucrats, which should have been addressed years ago. The following information shows on 2 February 1995, AUSTEL (the Government Communications Regulator) public servants decided to withhold their factual findings from the then-Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, regarding the deficient arbitration Service Verification Tests (SVT) conducted at my Cape Bridgewater business on 29 September 1994 (see Open Letter File No/23 and Open Letter File No/23), AUSTEL notes:

“Service Verification Tests have been compiled for seven customers. Reports have been completed and forwarded to six of the customers, and the seventh report is in preparation. All six of the telephone services subjected to the Service Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements established”.

This statement on page 23 of this AUSTEL COT Cases report does not coincide with the advice AUSTEL gave Telstra on 11 October and 16 November 1994 concerning the deficient SVT testing by this elusive ‘Peter Gamble’.  (see Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B).

We will never know what action the Hon. Michael Lee MP might have taken in 1994 had the government bureaucrats advised the Minister that the SVT testing at my Cape Bridgewater business had not occurred according to mandatory government communications regulatory specifications. On 12 December 1994, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence, it was stated under oath to the arbitrator that all three of the service lines tested at my holiday camp on 29 September 1994 had exceeded all of AUSTEL’s specifications. However, the person who made this statement (Peter Gamble) could not get the SVT monitoring device to work with its sister device installed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned roadside exchange.

It is clear from the arbitrators’ technical findings in his award that he believed Peter Gamble's version, AUSTEL’s regarding the SVT events, and NOT my arbitration response. Bad Bureaucrats /Chapter One through to Chapter Four clearly shows that Telstra not conducting the government regulatory mandatory SVT process at my business, allowed my ongoing telephone problems to continue for years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

On April 6, 1995, Peter Gamble and the so-called independent arbitration consultant David Read from Lanes Telecommunications Pty Ltd visited my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp business. This visit was part of the agreed-upon testing process and on-site investigation regarding the Telstra-installed equipment we used.

Despite the significance of this investigation, Peter Gamble and David Read refused to perform any call line testing on my three service lines. This decision was particularly concerning, given the context of our previous correspondence. In October 1994, my partner, Cathy, and I submitted two statutory declarations to the arbitrator. These documents explicitly stated that Peter Gamble had been forced to abandon his Service Verification Testing (SVT) on September 26, 1994. This abandonment was due to the malfunctioning of the Ericsson testing equipment located at the Cape Bridgewater RCM switching unmanned exchange, which was connected to the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

This was the same David Read who allowed his company Lane to be purchased by Ericsson. 

My Holiday Camp and Convention Centre was undoubtedly in a pristine location.  

If only Telstra had admitted, my claims were valid.

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my protracted struggle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government—a battle that has twisted and turned since 1992, weaving through the complexities of elected officials, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra, known as Telecom when my ordeal began. My quest for justice persists to this day. Corruption, deception, misleading and deceptive conduct must not be allowed to go unaddressed.

My journey started in 1987 when I decided to leave behind the sea, where I had spent two adventurous decades. Looking for a fresh start and a stable, land-based career to carry me into retirement and beyond, I set my sights on Australia, a country that had captured my heart during my travels.

With a background steeped in hospitality, I had always envisioned operating a vibrant school holiday camp. My excitement peaked when I came across the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre, nestled in the picturesque rural landscapes of Victoria, just a stone's throw from the charming maritime port of Portland. The property seemed like a dream come true, and after conducting what I believed to be thorough due diligence, everything appeared sound. Little did I know that I would overlook one vital aspect: the functionality of the phone service.

Just one week after taking the helm of this inviting camp, I encountered a significant issue that threatened to sink my dreams. Instead of a flurry of enthusiastic families eager to book their holidays, I was greeted with an eerie silence that filled the air. It didn’t take long to uncover the troubling truth: the contact number featured in my advertisements was incorrect, effectively locking out potential clients from reaching me. My investigation revealed an even grimmer reality. When prospective guests tried to call the number I had posted, they were met with an unsettling void of silence or a disheartening automated message informing them that the service was unavailable.

This revelation was frustrating and a stark reminder of communication's vital role in running a successful business. Yes, I had a thriving holiday camp to manage, yet my phone service was, at best, unreliable and, at worst, altogether absent.

Coverup and collusion 

<Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C>

Upon signing the government-endorsed arbitration agreement, I was unaware that the legal firm to which I was mandated to submit my telephone faults in writing before Telstra would take any action was not advocating for my interests. As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, this firm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, crafted a strategy - Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C that Telstra subsequently employed to utilize the information I conveyed to them to fortify their defence in the arbitration proceedings related to my claims.

As the arbitration process unfolded, I discovered that all the written communications I had provided to Freehill Hollingdale & Page were being conveniently withheld from me, justified by the assertion of Legal Professional Privilege. However, it was clear that the information in question was technical and, therefore, should not have qualified for such legal protection. Furthermore, the arbitrator upheld Telstra's claims of privilege, enabling Telstra to conceal a pivotal document—the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. 

This logbook would have extensively recorded every telephone complaint submitted regarding various Portland and Cape Bridgewater issues. It would have documented all of my complaints registered over six years, reflecting my ongoing efforts to address the concerns that arose during that time. In addition to my entries, the logbook would also encompass the phone complaints submitted by other residents in the area. Approximately eight thousand other residents lived in the same region over the same six years. This data would have illustrated not only my persistence but also the collective challenges faced by the whole community. It would have proved my case, which it did, as the following government AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows. 

In response to the apparent inconsistencies in my case, AUSTEL (the Australian Communications Authority) intervened, spurred by the involvement of other small business operators who rallied behind my efforts. AUSTEL undertook a meticulous audit of my complaints, utilizing the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook as a verification tool to assess the accuracy of my claims. The resulting 68-page manuscript AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which meticulously outlines points 1 to 212, irrefutably demonstrates that my claims were valid from 1988 to 1994. Remarkably, this crucial government document, which was withheld from me during my arbitration proceedings in 1994, was not provided until November 2007, a full twelve years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

It is not necessary to be a mathematician to understand that if the arbitrator had been given the logbook that both the Director of Investigations to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, John Wynack, and I requested over the thirteen months of my arbitration, the award for my losses would have been significantly higher than it ultimately was

A careful study of this document will shed light on the motivations behind my urgent desire to expose the systemic shortcomings and inherent corruption within the Australian arbitration system.

Even more concerning was the misleading information provided to both Parliament representatives and legal counsel for the COT Cases prior to the initiation of the arbitration process. This sheer corruption, deception, and misleading and deceptive conduct further highlights the fact that COT Cases were led to believe that the arbitration agreement had been crafted independently of Telstra, which created a false sense of assurance about the impartiality of the proceedings. This assertion was profoundly misleading; the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page had meticulously prepared the agreement. The first draft was faxed to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman’s office on January 10, 1994.

This misrepresentation is particularly alarming when considering the explicit assurances given by the government to the COT Cases, stating that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in their matters (also discussed below) and in the following link Prologue Evidence File No/2) . This contradiction raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and the intentions behind those assurances.

Additionally, Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case, openly criticized the Freehill-drafted agreement in correspondence with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, describing it as lacking credibility see Open Letter File No 55-A). Despite acknowledging these deficiencies, Dr Hughes ultimately chose to use this flawed agreement as the basis for my arbitration process. 

I have yet to receive a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. concerning the significant deficiencies highlighted in their Cape Bridgewater report. This document has raised serious questions about the integrity of the data presented. In the meantime, I have received two formal letters from Telstra, acting on behalf of the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, disputing my claims and suggesting a different narrative. This situation becomes even more alarming when considering that Telstra’s internal correspondence has substantiated the validity of my assertions, casting further doubt on their defensive strategy.

In a critical meeting held on April 7 and 8, 1994, before the initiation of the arbitration process, Robin Davey assured the four COT Cases, of which I was a part, during discussions at AUSTEL’s Queens Road headquarters that Freehill Hollingdale & Page could not legally represent Telstra in our arbitration proceedings due to their prior involvement with us. This firm had collaborated with me and the COT Case spokesperson, Graham Schorer, since early 1993, acting as our fault registrars to resolve persistent telephone issues. Nevertheless, by April 1994, they were still withholding critical fault information that they had collected on behalf of Telstra, information that was essential for substantiating our claims. Their actions effectively concealed key evidence that could bolster our cases against Telstra; therefore, the government could not allow Freehill Hollingdale & Page to become Telstra's legal representatives (Refer to the following link → Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page).

It is particularly alarming that, within mere hours of my signing the arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994, I uncovered the unsettling fact that Freehill Hollingdale & Page were, in reality, legal representatives for Telstra. This revelation raised serious concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest. When the COT Cases brought this significant issue to the attention of Senators Boswell and Alston, we underscored that Freehill Hollingdale & Page appeared steadfast in their commitment to preventing the COT Cases from unveiling the glaring deficiencies in Telstra's network during the crucial submission period. In response, both senators expressed their frustrations, conveying that they had explored every possible avenue to address our concerns. They urged us to remain patient, providing assurances that they would act as vigilant watchdogs on our behalf. However, the situation took an unexpected turn when Senator Alston, seemingly overwhelmed, fell asleep during our discussion. This left Senator Ron Boswell to take on the daunting task of advocating for our interests almost single-handedly, striving to navigate a challenging political landscape.

Closing one's eye to threats and thuggery  

Two Senators, one with vision, the other scared to expose the truth.

When the arbitrator allowed Telstra to threaten me for my unwavering support of the Australian Federal Police in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, a deeply moved Senator Ron Boswell shed a tear—or perhaps it was just a speck of dirt in his eye—as he confronted Telstra's Legal Directorate in the Senate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) officer, were also the administrator of the government-endorsed arbitrations or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their inquiry into unauthorised interception of telephone conversations and the screening of their arbitration-related documents (refer to the Scandrett & Associates fax hacking report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report reached out to me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasizing the importance of these findings.

“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)

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their second interview present a detailed and alarming account of Telstra's gross misconduct toward me and others involved in government-endorsed arbitration processes. These transcripts reveal a troubling connection between Paul Rumble of Telstra and the threats I have faced. This conclusion is underpinned by two critical and interrelated factors that merited further exploration yet were unfortunately overlooked. Moreover, the COT Cases were essentially left to navigate a complex arbitration process without adequate supervision or guidance. This lack of control is underscored by a memorable statement made by John Pinnock, the administrator of the arbitrations in the Senate, illustrating the challenges we faced during this troubling period.

On 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 is no amendment 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 the tainted altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills 

Misleading and deceptive conduct 

During the tumultuous period when Freehill Hollingdale & Page was involved in the privatization of Telstra, I found myself increasingly frustrated and determined to seek clarity from the government. I was particularly concerned about the continued involvement of Freehill Hollingdale & Page with Telstra despite the government’s earlier assurances to the COT Cases that this law firm would not play a further role in matters pertaining to the COT Cases.

It was alarming to discover that Freehill Hollingdale & Page had been appointed Telstra's arbitration lawyers, directly contradicting the government's statements. In my case, they even falsely signed witness statements, claiming the witnesses had signed them. These signatures were not even on the document, raising serious ethical questions about their conduct.

When I learned about the potential implications of Freehill Hollingdale & Page's position as Telstra's arbitration lawyers—specifically that they may have been privy to critical information regarding the ongoing fax interception of the COT Cases arbitration-related faxes—I felt an urgent and compelling need to contact Australia's Federal Treasurer The Hon Peter Costello. I was aware he was one of the few good guys in government. I intended to address these troubling discrepancies and seek accountability for the issues.

My apprehensions deepened when I learned that my faxes to Freehill Hollingdale & Page various government officials might have also been hacked and that Freehill's may not have received all of my fault complaints. At the same time, they had been my fault liaison officer on behalf of Telstra. My Faxes to the appointed arbitrator had been illegally intercepted and scanned by an unauthorized secondary fax machine connected to Telstra's network. In light of this serious violation, I requested a copy of my original letter back, and to my relief, Mr. Costello's office graciously fulfilled my request.

The Scandrett & Associates report was delivered to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999. This report confirmed that faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations (refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13).

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that my fax to the Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Knowing more than they were legally entitled to know 

Submission of false testing results 

It is essential to provide visitors to the website absentjustice.com with a comprehensive understanding of the issues concerning Telstra and their legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, particularly regarding the interception of documents related to the COT Cases arbitration.

In July 1995, I discussed various aspects of the Bell Canada International (BCI) testing with the Canadian Government. During this process, some critical materials were intercepted while being transmitted to the arbitrator, resulting in these documents not reaching their intended destination. John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, has confirmed this significant lapse.

The implications of this interception are profound, as it raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process. Unfortunately, the Australian Government has chosen not to investigate this BCI matter. This reluctance appears to stem from the potential for an inquiry to substantiate the accuracy of my claims, which have remained consistent since 1994. The ongoing silence on this issue strengthens the urgency of addressing these injustices.

On May 17, 2007, the government addressed the unresolved issues identified in its March and April 2006 review. This review specifically focused on Telstra's unauthorized interception of my arbitration-related faxes during the 1994/95 period, which contained sensitive information relevant to the arbitration process. Furthermore, it was disclosed that Telstra's arbitration lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, submitted a falsified report to at least one arbitration witness to discredit my claim. In light of these serious concerns, Senator Helen Coonan, representing the government, advised me to pursue legal action against Telstra. This recommendation underscored the government's acknowledgement of the significant breaches of privacy and integrity involved in this matter, emphasizing the importance of holding the company accountable for its actions within the arbitration framework.

The Senator's statement follows:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B  File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

The gravity of the situation prompts significant inquiries: What rationale justified the imposition on an Australian citizen to take legal action against Telstra for the unauthorized interception of documents during a government-sanctioned arbitration process? These documents were unlawfully intercepted while being transmitted to and from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, Parliament House in Canberra, an Appeal Judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the arbitrator, and the technical consultant assisting the COT claimants in their arbitrations.

Is it any wonder that the COT Cases have found it nearly impossible to live with the unresolved injustices they have faced for the past thirty years?

The contradiction between my findings and Telstra's position underscores the gravity of this matter. The fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were submitted by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to bolster Telstra's defence during the arbitration proceedings in 1994. This reliance on a questionable report significantly influenced Mr. Joblin's assessment of my mental state. Upon reviewing the BCI report—which claimed that an astonishing 13,590 test calls were successfully placed to the exchange serving my business, spanning five hours a day for five consecutive days—it is easy to see why many might perceive me as mentally unstable in light of such inconceivable figures.

It remains unclear whether Freehill Hollingdale & Page realized that the assertion of 13,590 successful test calls received by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Portland and Cape Bridgewater exchanges was utterly implausible. Nonetheless, when this report was presented to Mr Joblin, Telstra knew that conducting such extensive testing at those two locations could not have happened. The CCC7 testing device BCI claimed was employed for their tests in November 1993 and could not have accommodated this specialized testing equipment as it could only function at the nearest Telstra exchange, located at a considerable distance away—110 kilometres—in Warrnambool. 

In June 2007, twelve years after BCI boldly asserted that its Cape Bridgewater testing had achieved an astonishing 99.98% success rate, Brian Hodge—a seasoned technical expert formerly with Telstra—arrived at the holiday camp. Due to the relentless frustrations of ongoing telephone faults, I was forced to sell this picturesque camp in December 2001. These were compounded by the indifference of Telstra and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who refused to investigate why the telephone problems raised before my arbitration and during the thirteen months of my arbitration had continued for a further seven years after the completion of my arbitration. Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, illustrates that the phone faults persisted until at least November 2006, eleven years after the arbitration was finalized.  

Upon his arrival, Brian Hodge meticulously conducted a series of comprehensive tests and delved into the arbitration documentation from BCI. This was the very same evidence that Telstra and the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page had relied upon to mount their defence against my legitimate concerns. Hodge’s findings culminated in a detailed report prepared for the significant sum of $15,000 by a party with a vested interest in the outcomes—namely, the new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis. In his thorough analysis, Brian Hodge condemned both the November 1993 BCI test and the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp testing conducted by Telstra. (Refer to pages 16 and 17 at points 5.31 and 5.32 in the Brian Hodges report attached as File 486  Exhibit - AS-CAV Exhibit 470 to 486).

Moreover, two senior technicians inadvertently confirmed under oath that the CCA7 equipment could not be operated at Portland and Cape Bridgewater in their written and sworn witness statements regarding another service fault. This further substantiates the conclusion that the BCI testing at Cape Bridgewater could not have occurred (Refer to witness statements 11 and 12 BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46). See also Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.

Telstra's fax billing records for my account confirm that the documents were faxed from my office. A letter dated January 13, 1995, which accompanied the BCI information, shows from the fax footprint that only this letter arrived while the essential BCI information did not.

The significance of this BCI issue is further underscored by an incident in December 2008. I provided an updated version of the falsified Bell Canada Tests and the Freehill Hollingdale and Page/Ian Joblin information to Darren and Jenny. This information was copied onto a CD and a report I prepared to assist Mr and Mrs Lewis in their bankruptcy case in the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court. My cover letter with the BCI report to the Magistrate advised that the falsified BCI testing had escalated the ongoing phone issues and contributed to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) moving to bankrupt Mr and Mrs Lewis.

Despite the Lewis couple registering their two overnight parcels, the Portland Post Office securely sealed my information. They registered the parcel for $28.00; however, it never arrived. Furthermore, the letter from Darren and Jenny Lewis to the Magistrates Court is astonishing and must be read to be believed. Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct.

Up to two years following the conclusion of my arbitration, I communicated with Freehill Hollingdale & Page, detailing this serious denial of justice and its implications for the outcome of my arbitration. However, like Telstra and the Australian Government, Freehill Hollingdale & Page did not pursue an investigation into the matter. In contrast, when the Canadian government became aware that a reputable telecommunications company was implicated in this fraud—resulting in substantial personal loss—

 

Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills 

At the outset of this homepage, I wish to emphasize the critical appointment of Mr Ian Joblin, an esteemed clinical psychologist who, in 1994, practised in Queens Street in Melbourne as one of the principal arbitration witnesses for Telstra. Mr Joblin is renowned in his field for his expertise and integrity, which brings additional weight to this matter.

For the last twenty years, I have actively sought clarity from various representatives within the Australian government regarding a pressing issue that has implications not only for my business but potentially for many others who rely on consistent and reliable telecommunication services. The crux of the problem involves misleading testing results presented to Mr Joblin by Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These results were purportedly produced by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) regarding their evaluation of the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange.

The Cape Bridgewater exchange has been a cornerstone of my business operations, providing vital communication channels necessary for maintaining relationships with our clients and facilitating smooth operational functions. However, I am increasingly concerned about the reliability of Mr. Joblin’s assessment, which was conducted based on these questionable and potentially erroneous results.

I am eager to ascertain whether Freehill Hollingdale & Page was aware of the deficiencies in the BCI report concerning the Cape Bridgewater exchange. Suppose they were indeed unaware and thus misled by their client, Telstra. In that case, this leads to a critical and significant question: Why has Freehill Hollingdale & Page not taken decisive steps to inform the Australian government about what appears to be a grave miscarriage of justice?       

I would like to formally articulate my persistent concerns surrounding the misleading test results submitted by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), facilitated by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to Ian Joblin. A critical issue is that only Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehills initially signed Mr Joblin's witness statement, while Mr Joblin's signature is conspicuously absent. Despite numerous inquiries over the years, I have received little to no substantial response regarding this crucial concern, leaving me frustrated and unheard of.

According to government records, Robin Davey, the Chairman of AUSTEL, communicated with Telstra regarding the AUSTEL-drafted commercial assessment process, previously referred to as the "Fast Track Settlement Proposal" (see point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). He indicated that the government would express significant concern if Freehill Hollingdale & Page continued to be involved in our dispute with Telstra.

This correspondence occurred during a significant period when Freehill Hollingdale & Page was still operating under its former name. They have since rebranded and are now known as Herbert Smith Freehills. 

While I have endeavoured to recount this account without explicitly naming Freehill Hollingdale & Page, this endeavour has increasingly proven impractical. The substantial evidence against them is thoroughly documented within governmental archives and is available for public review on absentjustice.com, a resource I accessed legally under the Freedom of Information Act. This accessibility underscores the transparency and integrity with which I approach these critical issues as I seek to illuminate the injustices at play.

Gaslighting

Psychological manipulation 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.

In my arbitration case, Wayne Maurice Condon, a Telstra lawyer employed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who is now a leading world law firm, submitted a clinical psychologist report which discusses my mental health after clinical psychologist Ian Joblin, a witness on Telstra's behalf, In 1997, when the administrator of the arbitration process John Pinnock heard that only Wayne Maurice Condon had signed the psychologist report witnessing a blank signature where Ian Joblin was supposed to have signed it but only Freehill's signature was on it.

Later, rumours circulated that Ian Joblin had turned the tables on Telstra, dammed their conduct towards me, and wanted an investigation into this conduct. It was rumoured that Wayne Maurice Condon had removed this statement from Telstra's arbitration defence.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's 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?" 

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 (also a TIO Council Member) Re: 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,   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 most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use.  

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives' actions towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress.

Regarding Telstra's lawyers using the Mental Health Act against the COT Cases to deflect the truth about what the COT Cases had uncovered about Telstra's ailing copper wire network, it is essential to reference the COT Case strategy legal advice discussed above.

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyer Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see  (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers (in writing) before they would investigate my complaints. 

I was unaware I would need this evidence twelve months later for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the documentation I had previously provided to Telstra via this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I ask all visitors to my website absentjustice.com to page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 in SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which states:    

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. 

Corruption, deception, misleading and deceptive conduct 

 

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Who would have believed that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with the government's advice that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find that those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded? We have no alternative but to include the exhibits as we have (Refer to Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2). This is truly an unbelievable story.  

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is illegal. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is prohibited (see Tampering With Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is illegal. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and Austel (the then government communications authority), often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

 

 

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the following statements of six senators in the Senate in March 1999:

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston  Sen Richard.   

 

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing and unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, four years after the completion of my arbitration, with none of the ongoing 1800 billing problems having been diagnosed by the arbitration process or fixed during that process, which ended on 11 May 1994, and after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, After reading the first draft of my 280-page manuscript "Absent Justice", 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.” 

 

 

Senator Mark Bishop's denouncement of Telstra's utilization of these 45 prominent legal firms against ordinary Australian citizens and small business operators, who had lodged complaints solely regarding inadequate service, is accessible at parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11. His condemnation of this unjust practice underscores the enormity of a government-owned entity, Telstra, employing public funds in opposition to the public interest, constituting an abuse of power. The enduring absence of an investigation into this scandalous matter is noteworthy.

 

Senator Kim Carr criticised handling the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”