In 1994 and 1995, during my arbitration, I sent forty-one important documents, along with their attachments, by fax to the arbitrator's fax machine. However, these documents were never received at their intended destination. According to the records from my fax account, the documents were successfully transmitted to the appointed arbitrator. Yet, surprisingly, the arbitrator's list of documents does not acknowledge the receipt of these crucial submissions..

In my effort to address this discrepancy, I contacted the arbitration process administrator, seeking copies of the documents that, as stipulated in the arbitration agreement, should have also been received by his office. This agreement, which outlines the procedural responsibilities of all parties involved, was signed by everyone, including Mr. Pinnock, the official administrator responsible for overseeing the administrative duties of the arbitration process.

Regrettably, my inquiry was met with notable resistance. Mr. Pinnock, in an unfortunate error, responded in writing on January 10, 1996 (which should have correctly been January 10, 1997), stating his position just eleven days later. In his response, he wrote:

“I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

On 26 September 1997, eight months after John Pinnock refused to assist me in obtaining the most relevant 41 lost claim documents that may well have allowed me to appeal my aware against the arbitrators gross misconduct which was also after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, 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 (Refer to Prologue Evidence File No 22-D, in which he stated):

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

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

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the 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, Dr Gordon Hughes, and John Pinnock, who was also the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

How can the arbitrator, who had no control over the arbitration proceedings, continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party.

I am compelled to direct visitors to my website, absentjustice.com, to engage more deeply with the serious issues concerning the COT cases, wherein there was considerable criminal misconduct by the arbitrator and other individuals who contributed to reducing Telstra's liability during the arbitration process. To elucidate this matter, I would like to reference a letter dated July 30, 2009.

In this correspondence, Graham Schorer, a representative for COT and a former client of the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes (as elaborated in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest), addressed Paul Crowley, the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Arbitrators, Mediators Australia (IAMA). He enclosed a statutory declaration and included a copy of a prior letter dated August 4, 1998, in which Mr. Schorer recounted a telephone conversation with the arbitrator during the 1994 arbitration proceedings concerning the loss of Telstra COT-related faxes. During this conversation, the arbitrator provided a detailed explanation that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office, and yet this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of important arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process. During the second interview conducted by the (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the interception of my telephone conversationa and the lost faxed claim documents refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1

What is even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within a twelve-month period. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

Between October 18, 1995, and October 4, 1997, I worked closely with Mr. John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to obtain crucial pieces of relevant evidence: Telstra’s arbitration file. My requests were made under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, as this file was expected to contain not only relevant Portland and Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook extracts but also some of the 41 faxed documents that were vital to my case (refer to Exhibit 57-D - Open Letter File No 57-C). Mr. Wynack's findings revealed that he did not believe Telstra's assertion that they had destroyed these essential documents.

This situation poses a significant dilemma: if the administrator refuses to release these 41 crucial faxed arbitration documents, and Telstra similarly withholds them, the question has lingered for nearly three decades: Is Dr. Hughes aware that his Sydney office has retained these documents, mistakenly believing they belonged to Telstra?

Simultaneously, during this period, Dr. Hughes's Sydney office was engaged in complex negotiations on behalf of several Telstra employees involved in the COT arbitrations. Unfortunately, we, the COT cases, were never made aware of this potential conflict of interest. While it may not strictly constitute a conflict of interest—since Dr. Hughes was also arbitrating on Telstra matters in Melbourne—there remained a strong possibility that the ongoing faxing issues between the two offices led to my 41 vital faxes being inadvertently retained in Sydney, overlooked and undervalued by Dr. Hughes in his Melbourne office. This oversight raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the transparency of communications throughout these proceedings.

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations 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)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:? "... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

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, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organizations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of my single club members over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

Subsequent to this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, as a major entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions seemingly unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, similarly declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra was able to determine the exact times at which my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence while I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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 Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? 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.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, which emphasize the need for transparency and accountability Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

What happened next can be viewed by clicking on the Logbook image above.

The Logbook

In 1789, the British Royal Navy's HMS Bounty departed from the prominent port of Portsmouth, England, with a significant objective: to transport the exotic breadfruit tree from the South Pacific to the British Isles. This initiative aimed to provide a new food source that could enhance the agricultural prospects of British colonies in the Caribbean. However, on April 28, 1787, the vessel became the site of a dramatic mutiny in the isolated and tumultuous waters of the South Pacific Ocean. This critical event not only altered the ship’s original mission but also incited considerable historical interest, resulting in the production of three notable films inspired by the detailed accounts documented in the ship's logbook. This essential record, meticulously maintained by Captain William Bligh prior to the mutiny, serves as a historical reference that preserves the intricate realities of the events, in contrast to the various interpretations offered in cinematic portrayals.

In a parallel context, the disputes arising from the Certificates of Title (COT) could have had a different trajectory if the involved parties had been granted access to the telephone exchange logbooks that they were assured would be provided before the commencement of official arbitration. These logbooks contained vital information relevant to their businesses, which could have illuminated the underlying factors contributing to their financial losses. Access to this data might have unveiled essential truths, facilitating a more just resolution.

For me, the attainment of genuine justice remains a challenging prospect. The full disclosure of the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbooks is essential for the public to engage in a thorough examination of the evidence and to gain an accurate understanding of the entire situation. Such transparency is crucial to ensuring that all relevant aspects of this matter are appropriately addressed.

A covert copy of the extracts from the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbooks was utilized by the government communications regulator AUSTEL, now known as ACMA, and is attached here as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirming that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. This document reveals a much more comprehensive narrative than the one presented by the arbitrator, which was based solely on the limited material provided by Telstra during the arbitration process.

Those who examine Evidence One will find that the extracts from the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbooks were indeed provided to Dr. Gordon Hughes as promised when the COT Cases signed our agreement. If Dr. Hughes had considered this crucial supplemental information, he likely would have awarded me an amount three to four times greater than the sum he determined on May 11, 1995. The significance of these logbooks cannot be overstated, as they contain vital information that could have dramatically influenced the outcome of the arbitration.

Six months before the arbitrations commenced, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (1984) to access the telephone exchange logbooks from our local exchanges. We were informed that the logbook would be made available to the appointed arbitrator after signing our arbitration agreements. However, this logbook was never provided to the claimants or the arbitrator.

This document was essential for the claimants to demonstrate to the arbitrator that their telephone issues remained unresolved. As a result, the arbitrator could dismiss a claim as settled until Telstra, the defendant in each case, could unequivocally prove that no further issues were affecting their telephone services.

In my particular case, even the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman sought access to this same logbook from the then-CEO of Telstra. Regrettably, the Ombudsman’s request yielded no response. If the Commonwealth Ombudsman, an entity tasked with overseeing investigations for a fully funded government agency, was unable to secure the crucial and relevant documents from the entire arbitration process on my behalf, what hope did I—or any of the other claimants—have in effectively substantiating our claims against Telstra? The inability to access these vital pieces of evidence raises serious questions about the fairness of the process and the prospects for justice in our cases.

Having devoted twenty-eight years to the British Australian Merchant Navy, I have gained a profound understanding of the importance of meticulously maintained records within the ship's logbook. These records document the daily operations of the vessel and the activities of the crew, serving as a critical resource not only for the current voyage but also for future reference.

This understanding prompted me to advise the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook. Should their request be denied, I recommend pursuing access through the arbitrator and, if necessary, escalating the matter to the Commonwealth.

The content of this logbook is fundamental to the resolution of their cases, as it contains a comprehensive record of every fault complaint submitted by Telstra customers.

It is imperative to highlight that the logbook from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange was not provided to me, the arbitrator, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), which raises significant concerns regarding why was it not provided? What was Telstra afarid of it exposing?

On September 22, 1994, an important transcript emerged from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, featuring representatives from AUSTEL, Bruce Matthews, and John McMahon. During this session, Commonwealth Ombudsman officer John Wynack inquired about the release date of the AUSTEL report. (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, Mr. Matthews stated,

"The final report was released in April; I can’t recall the exact date, but it was April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received its copy then.”

The FOI ACMA release of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings clearly shows that I only received my copy of the AUSTEL report in November 2007—thirteen years after Telstra obtained theirs in March 1994. AUSTEL's conduct represents a significant abuse of process. They allowed me to engage in arbitration and legal actions against Telstra while deliberately withholding crucial documents essential for supporting my claims. This situation is profoundly concerning.

Moreover, I incurred expenses exceeding $300,000 in arbitration fees as I sought to prove a case that the government had already substantiated against Telstra, relying on extracts from Telstra's Portland telephone exchange logbook. This is the same logbook that was denied to me during discovery. Consequently, AUSTEL has neglected its statutory responsibilities to me as a citizen of Australia, fully cognizant that without access to that logbook or the AUSTEL report, I was unable to adequately prove my claims—an outcome that ultimately materialized.

Had I access to this logbook during my arbitration appeal

I would have proven my phone problems were still ongoing.

However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under Freedom of Information (FOI Act) from Telstra, a copy of their arbitration file, which would have shown who had been involved in stopping me at all cost in proving my claims and why only AUSTEL received a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater but not my arbitration team. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file.

I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who, under the rules of the arbitration agreement, had to receive every single arbitration document as the process administrator, including receiving my request to the arbitrator asking him to access the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. As the administrator of my arbitration under law, the TIO had to retain a copy of those documents for at least six years, until 2002.

John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra Principal Security Officer, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp business) refer to (File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789).

One of the key individuals under investigation by Mr. Des Direen, the Principal Investigator, is Gordon Stokes, a former employee of Telstra. Stokes is referenced in a vital memo from Telstra and allegedly shared my business telephone and fax contacts with a person named Micky (mentioned below in the AFP segment), raising significant concerns about the breach of my privacy.

Moreover, Stokes is implicated in setting up a clandestine recording device, a matter documented in correspondence from Telstra to the Australian Federal Police. This situation is troubling, as the logbook that recorded critical details regarding the installation of the listening device—including the date it was set up and the individual who authorized it—was never presented during the arbitration process.

The absence of this logbook concealed essential information from both myself and the arbitrator, effectively undermining my privacy claims. This omission was particularly detrimental, as it could have bolstered my case and clarified the serious violations that occurred, which were integral to my overall arbitration claims.

In our desperate fight for justice, COT members had no choice but to bear the financial burden of hiring our own arbitration consultants to sift through the tangled mess of our ongoing telephone issues. It was an exhausting and costly process that felt almost Sisyphean, as Telstra remained obstinately defiant, refusing to admit to any faults in their service.

Point 10, pages 5164 and 5165, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the 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.

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.”

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, as shown by an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The Senate investigation statement demonstrates that the COT Cases were promised essential documents prior to being compelled into government-endorsed arbitrations. This occurred without the crucial documents we were entitled to, including the Telstra telephone exchange Logbook, which should have been provided through the agreed discovery process or under the Freedom of Information (FOI Act).

This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

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, he advised the Committee that:

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Schacht - "Who".

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

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

If we accept this premise, as pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia records appears to recognize in points 10 and 11 below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then serious concerns will arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, what does?

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.

11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.

It is crucial to highlight the significant $400 million compensation agreement established among Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This agreement was designed to hold Telstra accountable, imposing a substantial penalty if the company failed to meet its commitment to provide promised telecommunications services by a specified deadline. Unfortunately, Telstra did not uphold this commitment, resulting in no penalties for their shortcomings.

In stark contrast, Telstra was determined to put an end to the five COT Cases, which represented a group of claims involving significant losses from inadequate telecommunications services. These claimants sought approximately $15 million in damages—a modest figure when compared to the monumental penalty Telstra faced. Despite this relatively small amount, Telstra opted to pay Rupert Murdoch an astonishing $400.000.000 million. This raises an alarming question: how can this glaring disparity in treatment not be perceived as discrimination against the five COT cases?

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING - this happened in Australia thirty years ago.

Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.

In 1994, when another individual named Alan Smith was available to advise the arbitration unit at Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, they visited Cape Bridgewater on two occasions between March and April 1995. Their purpose was to familiarise themselves with the location and discuss issues faced by other businesses in the area. However, neither of them visited this other Alan Smith.

This is despite my faxing Dr. Hughes's (the arbitrator) evidence indicating that Alan Smith was experiencing phone problems similar to mine. In their witness statements, the Freehill Hollingdale & Page defence team had already claimed that no other known customers in Cape Bridgewater were encountering issues with their phone systems.

The two legal summonses shown in the image above demonstrate that Freehill Hollingdale & Page were also dealing with another Alan Smith regarding the same billing issue under investigation during my arbitration. The fax imprint on these documents displays the Freehill logo at the top of the pages. Alan Smith had agreed to inform anyone who visited his premises that he often received legal documents from Telstra by mail. However, no one from the arbitration unit visited or contacted him to inquire about the type of legal documents he received from Telstra related to my phone problems.

Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne).

The government's communications regulator, AUSTEL, and its Chairman, Robin Davey, met in his office with three of the four COT cases in a tense atmosphere thick with unease.The individuals present were visibly shaken, their eyes glistening with impending tears as they voiced their distress. “We are being threatened and harassed by Freehill's Hollingdale & Page. Where can we turn for help?” they pleaded, their voices trembling. It is utterly unacceptable that these professionals find themselves enduring such emotional turmoil.

Denise MsBurnie, her brow furrowed with concern, urgently reiterated the stark reality: if I do not persist in formally documenting my complaints to Freehill's, Telstra would swiftly dismiss any investigation into those grievances. From my perspective, many of these complaints appeared unjustly labelled as imaginary, a dismissive judgment that further compounded their distress.

Anne Gams, a woman who once radiated strength and confidence, now shook as she spoke, her voice quaking with palpable fear. What is this legal firm doing to instill such profound dread? Who has granted them the power to wield such intimidation? The letter dispatched from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to Graham Schorer's legal representative—acting on behalf of the COT—was steeped in threats and derogatory remarks. It sternly instructed them that Mr. Schorer's complaints must come to an immediate halt, or there would be dire consequences.

In addition, Point 40 of the settlement agreement, meticulously drafted by AUSTEL's Chairman, Robin Davey, on October 5, 1993, firmly asserts the government's position that Freehill's must not engage any further in these COT cases. (Refer to Prologue Evidence File No/2)

This situation raises serious and troubling questions: Why did Warwick Smith, the newly appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—charged with overseeing our four commercial assessment processes—along with Dr. Gordon Hughes, the official assessor for this procedure, allow Freehill Hollingdale & Page to draft the agreement utilized in the assessment process covertly? Even twelve months into the arbitration, they continued to rely on this Freehill Hollingdale & Page - drafted document, despite Dr. Hughes branding it as grossly deficient and unfit for purpose. (Refer to Open Letter File No 55-A)

Starting on page 5163, this link > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence to gain fully functional phone systems was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that the Telstra CEO and board knew millions of dollars were being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. Figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's SENATE official Hansard – Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (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.

When AUSTEL, the then government communications authority, now called ACMA, became aware that the four named Australians, Ann Garm, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C were being targetted in a revenge type of retaliation Telstra's lawyers the government told us in October 1993, Freehill's would not have any further involvement in the COT Cases matters even though I was still being forced under threat by Telstra's senior management that unless I register my ongoing telephone faults in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems.

Freehill Hollingdale & Page was appointed by the government in 1997 as the official lawyers for the privatisation of Telecom (now called Telstra). The government turned its back on the truth concerning what happened to everyday Australians who dared to complain about a government-owned telecommunications carrier.

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand

Absent Justice - Forensic Psychologist Meeting

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being of sound mind?

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?"

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

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, is a testament that the COT story must be investigated.

MOST IMPORTANT

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:

"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. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed."

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2025, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?

Absent Justice - Corroded Copper Wire Network

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

Six months before the arbitrations began, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, boldly requested access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured that the arbitrator would provide these logbooks once we signed our arbitration agreements. However, this crucial document was never made available to claimants.

The Adverse Findings issued by AUSTEL, see points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, unequivocally demonstrate that the logbook referenced by the government to support its unfavourable conclusions about Telstra was sourced from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, which meticulously records telephone activity and technical performance, played a pivotal role in shaping the government’s stance, highlighting its importance as a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scrutiny of Telstra’s operations.

The same international supplier of telecommunications equipment, from which Telstra was acquiring technology, was Ericsson of Sweden. This company’s AXE telephone exchange systems, once widely installed in exchanges throughout Australia, were facing increasing scrutiny and were being systematically removed from telecommunications exchanges around the globe. The removal was primarily due to a multitude of faults endemic to the system, which had been formally documented by the Casualties by Telstra (COT for short). These issues were brought to the arbitrator's attention and the government communications regulator, AUSTEL. The problems documented in the COT cases directly stemmed from these malfunctioning systems, leading to significant disruptions for businesses involved in the arbitration process. As a response, these businesses turned to Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, enlisting them as the principal technical consultant during the arbitration hearings.

Within the arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator and the administrator appointed Lane as the technical consultant (and witness) to carefully assess each claim put forth by the COT cases against the Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. In a concerning turn of events, they permitted Ericsson to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd for an undisclosed sum during the COT arbitrations. This acquisition occurred without granting the COT cases the opportunity to amend their claims or appeal the awards rendered for or against the ongoing problems still being experienced with the various Ericsson telephone exchanges.

The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock, the then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who was also the official administrator of the arbitrations, to William Hunt and the lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). In this letter, Mr Pinnock notes that.

“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.

“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…

“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.

“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …

“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

In fact, on 24 July 1997, John Pinnock wrote a second letter concerning the same Lane Telecommunications conflict of interest, disallowing Ann Garms the right to have a re-hearing of her arbitration claim on the grounds Lane had previously been the technical consultants assigned to her case ( File 298 - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

Telstra's arbitration defence unit stated to the COT arbitrator in several COT arbitrations, including mine, that Telstra had found no significant faults with the Ericsson telephone equipment they used in their telephone exchanges. This lie was of immense proportion. This lie denied all COT Cases a proper assessment of their arbitration claims where Telstra had used Ericsson equipment.

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards even though it is now apparent that the purchasing of the Australian government-appointed technical unit Lane had to have been in motion months before the purchase. The government should investigate each COT Case to determine what they lost due to Lane not addressing the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which destroyed the COT Case businesses after the conclusion of their arbitrations.

I requested copies of the Lane working notes during my pending appeal process. However, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, responded on 10 January 1996, stating that he would not provide me with copies of any documents held by his office (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal). It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.

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/)

It is essential that we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator, who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases' claims against Telstra, including the Ericsson-manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges that serviced the COT Cases businesses.

The above US Department of Justice (link) supports the COT Cases ' right to demand answers as to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations. Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were mistreated when Ericsson could nobble Lane?

I again ask the Australian government why Ericsson was allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during an Australian government-endorsed arbitration process in which Telstra and Ericsson were being investigated by the arbitrator and the COT Cases technical consultants for knowingly using Ericsson AXE exchange equipment when other countries around the globe were or have removed it from their telephone exchanges?

On April 6, 1995, both Peter Gamble, the senior arbitration engineer from Telstra, and David Read, the principal partner at Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, troublingly refused to proceed with the mandatory arbitration service verification testing for the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. This refusal marked a critical failure to fulfill their obligations, especially following the significant setback when the original SCT process, led by Peter Gamble, was abandoned on September 29, 1994, due to serious malfunctions in the Ericsson equipment designated for those tests.

The situation worsened when AUSTEL, the Australian telecommunications authority, requested clarity regarding the ongoing issues. They sent letters on October 11, 1994, and November 16, 1994, aimed at both Peter Gamble and Telstra's Steve Black, pressing for explanations about the deficiencies uncovered during testing at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on that fateful September day (see File 23-E and 23-F - Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G).

Gamble and Read's refusal to conduct the service verification testing on April 6, 1995, must be viewed within the broader context of statements made by Lindsay White, a former Telstra technical expert who later became a whistleblower. During his testimony at a Senate Committee hearing on June 24, 1997, White expressed serious concerns, stating that I was one of five COT Cases who needed to be obstructed at all costs from substantiating my claims against Telstra, naming Peter Gamble as one of the Telstra arbitration officials who had advised him the five COT Cases had to be stopped at all costs.

Canadian Government

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."

The Briefcase

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment

After filing numerous complaints, Telstra's investigators finally arrived at Cape Bridgewater on June 3, 1993. Despite not resolving the issue, two senior technicians from Melbourne offered me a lift when I found myself stranded. They left a briefcase behind, which contained a file labelled "SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER." This file revealed that Telstra knew about faults in their network when they settled with me in December 1992, but did not disclose this information.

The first thing that rang an alarm bell in this briefcase was a document that revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault was a major network problem, which was noted:.

“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.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, 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.”

The Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.

Aladdin

I encountered an unlocked briefcase bearing the name of Mr. Macintosh. Upon inspection, I uncovered information about Telstra's misrepresentation of facts related to their telecommunications network and the government, particularly in the context of 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER'. Rather than exploiting this discovery for personal gain, I decided to disclose the contents of the briefcase to the government to address systemic issues impacting myself and other members of the Australian populace. Regrettably, my commitment to transparency resulted in prolonged remorse and systematic efforts by AUSTEL (now ACMA) to discredit my assertions and deem them frivolous and vexati

After AUSTEL reviewed the lies and deceit that the Telstra Corporation had been telling consumers and the government, they facilitated a special commercial assessment (not arbitration) for me and the other three main COT Cases, along with the twelve other COT Cases that had joined our group. However, both processes failed the COT Cases.

As a result, our story is now being exposed, highlighting the shameful way in which the Australian government has chosen to address some COT Cases claims while ignoring others. This discrimination by the Australian government has motivated me to share my story and reveal what was in that briefcase.

However, this process proved to be little more than a facade. The appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to manipulate the proceedings, effectively minimizing our claims and dismissing our losses. Instead of advocating for the affected parties, the arbitrator ceded control to Telstra, which dominated the arbitration process. During these proceedings, Telstra engaged in serious misconduct, yet astonishingly, neither the Australian government nor the Australian Federal Police have held Telstra or the implicated entities accountable for their actions.

We understand that many visitors exploring absentjustice.com may not have the opportunity to watch the compelling video before diving into our narrative. However, we strongly urge you to take a moment to view at least part of it. This powerful footage chronicles the profound impact that the Telstra Corporation had on the lives of nine Australian citizens—each a member of the COT Cases—who bravely stood up against a corporate giant.

As you watch, even if you find yourself skipping through some of the nine candid interviews, you will quickly grasp the harrowing reality: if these nine small business operators could be driven to despair, then the story surrounding the COT Cases is both significant and worthy of your attention.

While the video may not boast the same level of polish as many YouTube productions, it captures raw emotions and the palpable anger that enveloped us as we faced Telstra and their formidable legal team. It also sheds light on our interactions with the arbitrator and the administrators overseeing the COT arbitrations, showcasing the deep frustrations we experienced throughout the process.

By taking the time to watch, you will witness firsthand just how unethical the Telstra Corporation has been—and continues to be—as they obstinately refuse to acknowledge the truth, even as we move into 2025. The video is not a work of fiction; it presents genuine experiences and struggles that have had lasting repercussions for those involved.

Call for Justice

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 started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 40 years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond. Of all the places in the world I had visited, I chose to make Australia my home.

My business is hospitality, and I had 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 perform. Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business I knew I had a problem. I was hearing from customers and suppliers alike that they had tried to call and could not get through to me.

Yes, that’s right. I had a business to run and a phone service that was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, just not there at all. Of course, we lost business as a result.

And so, my saga begins. It has been a quest to get a working phone at the property. On the way I have received some compensation for business losses and many promises that the problem is now resolved. It has not been resolved to this day. I sold the business in 2002 and later owners have suffered a similar fate to me.

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 want is for Telecom/Telstra to admit to our various problems, fix them all, then pay compensation 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 honestly expected that the technical problems that prevented our phones from working would be resolved.

No such luck. Suspicions that something about the arbitration process was not quite right started 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 is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“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.”

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 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)

Worse, we had been tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered all of our efforts since. I may be breaking the provisions of that clause by making this information public, but what choice do I have?

The next chapter of our journey was dedicated to exhaustively pursuing the promised documents that had been withheld from us, leveraging the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. We firmly believed that within those pages lay the crucial evidence that would bolster our case, revealing that the lines in question were malfunctioning and had not undergone the thorough testing mandated by the established protocols.

However, the task of obtaining those documents proved to be more challenging than anticipated. When we finally received a portion of the promised documentation, the government informed us that this information was available under the Freedom of Information Act. Yet, what we received was far from clear; much of the content was heavily redacted or obscured, rendering significant portions indecipherable. The accompanying FOI schedules were vague and failed to illustrate the relevance of the information to our specific circumstances. Alarmingly, some of the documents contained fault complaints lodged by Telstra customers located more than 1,000 kilometers away, which had no bearing on our situation.

This raised an important question: what use were these documents to us? On Christmas Eve, December 24, 1994, I was handed a staggering 24,000 documents. Yet, the clock was ticking—the arbitrator granted me a mere two weeks to dissect and organize this mountain of information into a coherent report that would challenge Telstra's arbitration defense. That defense had been crafted by none other than Australia's largest legal firm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now renamed Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, adding to the pressure of our already daunting task.

What do you think? Are we imagining it or has there really been massive corruption and collusion on the part of public servants, politicians, regulatory bodies and Telstra themselves, to protect Telstra to the detriment of Australian rural businesses?

But wait, if these troubling events are unfolding in Australia, as detailed on the website absentjustice.com, then why aren't we witnessing similar issues in your own country? Are the public officials, government ministers, and agencies tasked with serving and protecting citizens in your nation not as entangled in corruption as those in Australia? Is the integrity of your legal system being undermined by powerful corporations that wield significant financial resources and influence, enabling them to manipulate judicial decisions to favor their interests? This raises serious concerns about judges' impartiality and the arbitration process's fairness.

The Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations are a troubling example of how justice can falter through a web of government mismanagement, flawed decision-making, and outright corruption. The COT claimants, represented by a team of passionate lawyers, alongside several politicians and the government communications regulator, were at the heart of this issue. They were all led to believe that the arbitrator selected for the Telstra COT arbitration was a credible and fully qualified figure, devoid of any prior affiliations with the defendant, Telstra. However, investigations revealed that Dr. Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, had connections that undermined his credibility, as detailed on the absentee justice website's Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest page.

Dr. Hughes, a distinguished legal scholar and former president of the Law Institute, operated in a context fraught with suspicion. At the time of the arbitration, the Australian Federal Police were deep into an investigation concerning Telstra's illegal interception of the phone calls belonging to the COT claimants and the unauthorized access of arbitration-related documents that were faxed to the arbitrator, the advisors representing the claimants, and even certain government ministers who had previously offered assistance to the COT cases.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues, as referred to in the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. The transcripts explicitly acknowledged that my phone conversations were bugged when the AFP stated,"... does identify that you were live monitored for some time, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."

How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to this kind of intrusive hacking? Is the alarming phenomenon of electronic eavesdropping and the unauthorized access to confidential documents still occurring during legitimate Australian arbitrations today? On 7 January 1999, a group of arbitration claimants (which included me) presented a chilling report to the Australian Government, revealing that sensitive, arbitration-related documents were covertly and unlawfully monitored before they even reached Parliament House in Canberra.

The following fax interception Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), states:

“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.”

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)

One must question whether this critical report will ever be made public to the Australian public. It would require an admission from the COT Cases that their arbitration-related faxes were intercepted and screened before being sent to their intended destinations. A public acknowledgment of the report's authenticity would enable the COT Cases to appeal their arbitration awards and revise their original claims.

**Fast Track Arbitration Procedure**

In August 1993, as the Australian Government became increasingly aware of the distressing plight of individual citizens—myself included—who had invested in businesses only to discover they were operating in regions plagued by unreliable phone services, an official arbitration and mediation process was established. This Government-endorsed initiative aimed to investigate and address these grievances. Fast forward to March 1994: as part of the ongoing investigation related to this process, the Government Communications Regulator delivered a disheartening verdict, asserting that the still-government-owned telecommunications carrier lacked the technical expertise to identify the faults disrupting my business. Shockingly, they chose to conceal this information from the arbitrator overseeing my claim.

It is utterly astonishing that the Australian Government would willingly endorse a legally binding Arbitration Agreement that was claimed to be independently drafted by the esteemed President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. In reality, it was crafted by attorneys representing the defendants—the very government-owned telecommunications carrier against whom I had lodged my claim. To make matters worse, the government refused to investigate how this agreement came to include a clause—engineered by the defendant's legal team—that drastically limited the time available for claimants to obtain essential discovery documents from the defendants. These documents were crucial for supporting our claims and achieving a fair resolution.

The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) commissioned a Project Manager to assist the arbitrator with the intricacies of nine separate arbitrations, including mine. Working in concert with his arbitration resource unit and with the explicit approval of both the defendants and the TIO, the Project Manager and his team were granted the power to meticulously scrutinize a wide array of documents submitted during these arbitration proceedings. They held the unsettling authority to determine not only which documents would be presented to the arbitrator but also which pivotal pieces of evidence would remain concealed, all without the knowledge of any of the claimants involved.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable

On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman secretary to Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Telecommunications noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt 657 File AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts, that David Lever from her office had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities concerning the screening on my faxes to Federal government ministers and the submission of fraudulently submitted claims during my arbitration Senator Coona wrote back to me noting:

"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 616-B File AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.

The gravity of the situation raises essential questions: Why was it deemed acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, how could Telstra justify interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration as the following 66 examples already provided the the administrator of my arbitration.

Example 1 of 66

The evidence within the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to 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.

The Australian Federal Police were actively investigating this matter at the time. They also looked into my phone and fax interception issues; at the same time, they were examining Telstra's thieving from the government coffers. I confidently question whether the interception of my faxed letter to The Hon. Peter Costello was connected to this embezzlement. It raises an important point: is this why so many of my arbitration-related claim documents failed to reach the arbitrator's office?

The embezzlement of public funds by Telstra employees and the complicit board of directors, who knowingly allowed millions of dollars in erroneous customer charges to inflate Telstra's value during its privatization, constitutes fraud against unwitting shareholders. Shareholders were unaware that a significant portion of Telstra's profits came from overcharging its customers for over six years.

It is essential to draw connections between these two significant wars, as both had far-reaching consequences for the well-being of countless individuals, including many who never took up arms. The fallout from these conflicts has vividly illustrated the presence of government corruption, and this is why I believe it is crucial to link these historical events with the corruption issues that arose during the Telstra-endorsed arbitrations. This connection is not just about historical accountability; it is about recognizing patterns of behaviour that continue to affect governance and public trust, which are key points of the ongoing COT story.

Before we delve into our narrative, we invite visitors to carefully examine our Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2. These meticulously compiled files contain extensive documentation that provides a solid foundation for our story and the other related COT narratives currently being developed.

Within these files, you will find a plethora of evidence that sheds light on the real-life experiences of twenty-one courageous Australians. These individuals faced significant challenges as they bravely stood up against the misconduct and oppressive practices of the Telstra Corporation, a struggle that spanned from 1988 to at least 2009.

Government Corruption and its many corrupt activities, including bribery, embezzlement, and abuse of power, have begun to permeate many courts and justice institutions worldwide. In jurisdictions where such corruption is commonplace, marginalized and vulnerable populations often find themselves with limited access to justice. Meanwhile, those who are wealthy and powerful exploit and manipulate entire justice systems for their benefit, often at the expense of the public good and fair legal processes, as I have shown below in both Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong and the Australia–East Timor spying scandal.

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:

"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

Here is further proof that the Australian government bureaucrats, when they deem it appropriate, use electronic equipment to gain an upper hand, as was the case discussed above and the COT arbitrations. We COT Cases never stood a chance against these secret government officials with no qualms about whom they harm.

Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia shows Senator Kim Carr asking Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (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 issue surrounding Telstra’s intelligence networks established across Australia is the critical question of who within the Telstra Corporation possesses the expertise and government clearance to filter the extensive raw information gathered appropriately. This information must be cataloged impartially for future use, yet the process and oversight remain unclear.

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 evident that this story had two sides.

Although Bell Canada did not respond to inquiries about the inaccuracies in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, the Canadian Government did respond, as illustrated in the following letter.

It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.

The Major Fraud Group Barrister, Mr. Neil Jepson, requested that I provide all evidence to support Telstra's claims in their arbitration cases against the COT Cases. I supplied this evidence, which included three individual reports that Telstra had used. Additionally, I included further reports that the Major Fraud Group was previously unaware of.

After I provided the contents of (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over three separate visits to Melbourne, spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group's St. Kilda Road offices on each of those three occasions, assisting the Victoria Police in understanding the relevance of the three fundamentally flawed reports, namely Telstra's Falsified which Telstra used to conceal from the arbitrator and his arbitration advisors how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was. AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) had already done their investigations into the grossly deficient Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchange during the early part of my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (which in April 1994 became the arbitration process. It is clear from AUSTEL's investigations leading up to March 1994 refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, that at points 2 to 212 in their report, they had uncovered how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was and, like Telstra's arbitration defence unit concealed these findings from the arbitration process.

The Major Fraud Group was stunned by this evidence and my ability to prove that Telstra and the government perverted the course of justice by concealing the truth from the arbitration process.

As discussed in Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen → File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, particularly Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that investigation as a witness (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".

Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.

To address this alarming situation, a survey leaflet was distributed to all police officers within the Major Fraud Group office. This leaflet specifically inquired if any officer had inadvertently collected my documents related to the Bell Canada International report. Regrettably, none of the officers came forward that day to acknowledge any error in collecting the documents, which raises serious concerns about handling sensitive information.

Additionally, I must express my alarm regarding the information recorded on the home page of absentjustice.com. This page discusses similar documents from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) that I had compiled into a comprehensive report. I then provided this report to the new owners of my business to assist them in their 2008 bankruptcy case presented in the Federal Magistrates Court. I must highlight that I modified this report, yet it was hijacked en route to the court.

A particularly troubling aspect of this situation involves the Australia Post representative who accepted two sealed registered packages containing these critical documents. Each package costs $28.00 to send. However, when they were received at the court, only my cover letter from Darren Lewis and a two-page letter detailing the contents' significance were attached. This circumstance strongly suggests that the package must have been unlawfully opened after it left the Portland Post Office, and this was certainly the case after Darren Lewis had already paid the registration fee.

In summary, the Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater Report was stolen three times. The first incident occurred during my arbitration process when it was unlawfully removed en route to the arbitrator. The second instance involved the interception of the documents on their way to Mr. Neil Jepson's office, who serves as the barrister for the Major Fraud Group. The final theft transpired when these documents were sent to the Federal Magistrates Court.

To substantiate my claims, I am referencing two witness statements from File 766 (AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789). These statements illustrate that a police officer, while attempting to engage with the Telstra Corporation, found himself at a loss. The COT Cases, too, faced significant difficulties as they were forced into arbitration with Telstra, a powerful entity. Both the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations expressed fear of abandoning the negotiations, primarily due to Telstra’s considerable influence over the legal system in Australia. I urge you to read and consider the implications of the following two witness statements, as they provide essential context to this troubling situation.

I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced into arbitration with the same monster who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.

"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business refer to (File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789).

These two witness statements were provided to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), Australian government by Ann Garms, COT Case member, after discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce (in 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia). Because no one has come forward to explain their position in these matters, all information that might assist the sixteen COT Cases (those who are left, many have since died), all documents will be provided without deletions. 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements were also released as (File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789).

Before concluding the reading of our Casualties of Telstra story, we suggest you click on the following legal research paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817646 where you will find there are others, not just the COT cases, who see loopholes in the justice given out by some of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman staff. Often, these ombudsmen have not even been registered lawyers or judges. Yet, the Australian Establishment gives them the right to decide legal issues, which have, in many cases, as our story shows, ruined the lives of those who participated in the arbitrations.

Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term

To add yet another alarming set of circumstances to this unbelievable story, I need to take the reader back to 1999, when the Victoria police Major Fraud Group seconded me as a witness in their attempt to prove Telstra had committed fraud against five of the twenty-one COT Cases during their arbitrations (see namely Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowman.

It was common knowledge amongst the five COT Cases (who were being assisted by the Senate to access their previously withheld arbitration documents from Telstra) that Telstra had used two separate technical reports to support their arbitration defence of the COT Cases claims knowing then to be both fundamentally flawed.

By 1999, using some of the late-released Telstra FOI documents regarding the five COT Cases, I could prove that Telstra had twice perverted the course of justice during my arbitration.

The current 2024 Telstra corporate secretary, Sue Laver, has refused my request to provide the Senate and administrators of the COT arbitrations with the same evidence she received in January and April 1998. This evidence proves that Telstra knowingly used one of those fundamentally flawed arbitration reports, the Cape Bridgewater BCI report, as arbitration defence documents.

This was the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report that Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister of the Major Fraud Group, worked with me on during 1999 and 2000, declaring my reporting as factual.

Between 1998 and 2000, I worked alongside Mr Neil Jepson and assisted three other Victoria Police Investigators over three three-day periods. After working with the two male and one female officer, I knew I had, years before, chosen the wrong career—I wished I had joined the Victoria police force. These three officers were dedicated to their craft.

After the Federal Government put the Major Fraud Group under political pressure to abandon the COT claims of fraud against Telstra, I met two senior Victorian police officers who apologized for what they realized was indeed an ordeal for me: my failed arbitration and the failed Victoria Police investigation. I was provided with a small A4 storage box, taped shut. They advised me my four larger boxes of evidence would be couriered to my designated location. I asked if this small package could be included, as I preferred not to carry it away. The look in the eyes of the police officer in charge was stern and direct, and when he stated, “NO, you take this box with you now,” I didn’t argue!

This box contained some startling documents I had not seen before that would shock most people, even today. Two of those documents were two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, which indicated that their predecessors had allowed only five of the twenty-one legitimate COT claimants to have access to discovery documents and had also organized compensation for those five COT Cases (18 million dollars between them) in hush money. All of that was accomplished so that the Telstra Corporation could be privatized.

The Government believed that having the Senate investigate sixteen COT Case complaints would take years, as it had when the five litmus cases were assessed. So, the sixteen names on the Senate schedule list as still unresolved issues were destroyed.

Now, if I am wrong, and that is not the case, then why were the remaining sixteen COT claimants all denied access to any of the privileges that the five ‘litmus test cases’ had been granted, and why did a letter from the Senate Estimates Committee Chair advises the police that the two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, must not be provided to anyone outside of the Major Fraud Group.

I believe the Major Fraud Group released these two 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camara Hansards to assist the remaining sixteen COT Cases in appealing to the government for a similar settlement.

It might be hard to believe, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing (see Senate Evidence File No 12), to charge me with contempt of the Senate if I was ever to disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process. Where is the justice in that?

Governemnt discrimination of the worst possible kind

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I'm grateful for Helen's comments.

When Helen Handbury visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch.

I grappled with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted as discussed in Senate Hansard. If this amount were channeled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal of every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritize ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

When Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The revenue in question should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public at large. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfill their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that Telstra would not meet the deadline.

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.

11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline.

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra is obligated to provide in the event of a missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In sixteen COT cases, all Australian citizens were promised similar commitments by Telstra on the condition that they financed their own arbitrations to resolve ongoing issues. Unfortunately, the telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases were not addressed in these costly arbitration proceedings. In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator.

In essence, it appears that one set of legal standards exists for individuals who are well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set for those who do not possess such connections.

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalizing this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the myriad hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

During the years I dedicated to building my business, I invested significant resources into establishing a vibrant agency across Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier (South Australia). This agency was designed to efficiently handle incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club, a lively community hub for singles over forty seeking connection and companionship. This initiative proved to be a lucrative venture, consistently bringing in between six and seven thousand dollars each weekend, a testament to the club's popularity and the community's engagement.

However, disaster struck when the 008/1800 free call service, crucial for our operations, failed due to persistent and frustrating systemic software issues. Regrettably, I found myself without any compensation from the government-owned Telstra Corporation for the business I inevitably lost during this turmoil. This experience is not an isolated incident; I am just among many entrepreneurs grappling with similar hardships. Countless small businesses—potentially numbering in the thousands—have experienced severe financial strain due to the unreliability of the telephone system, which has often been a lifeline for their operations.

This troubling situation raises an essential question: Why does the government devote resources to supporting the Murdoch empire while seemingly turning a blind eye to the struggles of grassroots small business operators like myself, who work tirelessly to contribute positively to the Australian community?

Many small businesses faced the daunting challenge of navigating the complex and expensive arbitration process in pursuit of compensation from Telstra. They often found it their only option to compel the corporation to rectify the ongoing telecommunications problems affecting their businesses. Unfortunately, in most cases, the problems that prompted the arbitration persisted long after the legal proceedings concluded, continuing to disrupt these businesses for years and stifling their growth potential.

I must reiterate that the crux of the issue is not simply whether Foxtel received the substantial sum of $400 million, as the Senate indicated would be awarded to them if Telstra failed to meet its contractual obligations. Instead, the more pressing concern lies in Telstra's conduct during this time, particularly since it was still under government ownership. This scenario reveals a troubling disparity: Telstra chose to extend support to a specific segment of the business community while neglecting the needs of countless others adversely affected by the same inadequate network services.

Between October 7th and 10th, 1993, Robert Nason, a partner at Coopers and Lybrand, along with his secretary, Ms. Hurley, visited my business as Telstra representatives. This visit was part of an audit of our ongoing COT arbitrations, which aimed to address disputes related to fixed-line telecommunications services.

During the meeting, I provided Mr. Nason with several key documents from my briefcase, which included essential materials relevant to the arbitration process. Among these was a significant letter from AUSTEL, dated June 9, addressed to Telstra, which outlined critical issues related to my case.

After reviewing these documents, Mr. Nason conveyed his firm belief that the information could be instrumental in demonstrating that Telstra had misled and deceived me throughout the arbitration proceedings. His comments suggested he felt compelled to highlight this potential misrepresentation in his analysis.

Despite his initial assertions, it is essential to note that Robert Nason did not include any findings of misleading or deceptive conduct in his final report to Telstra. This outcome was surprising, given the weight of the information I provided and its implications for my case.

Subsequently, Robert Nason rose to an executive position within Telstra and later joined the board of FOX. Notably, this is the same Robert Nason who was a partner at Coopers and Lybrand, the auditing firm referenced in a letter from Doug Campbell to Ian Campbell (who is unrelated) on November 10, 1993. In this letter, Doug Campbell, Telstra's Group General Manager responsible for the COT Cases, advised Ian Campbell, who had agreed with the government to audit the COT matters using the Coopers & Lybrand report.

The internal letter from Telstra dated November 10, 1993, states...

"...I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

Visitors to absentjustice.com may find it interesting that Channel Nine Television aired a documentary about the COT cases (Refer to Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte). In this program, nine group members, including myself, present our claims against Telstra. The documentary discusses and features a copy of the letter dated November 10, in which Telstra's former arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, attempts to navigate the situation.

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

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.

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.”

Contact Absent Justice

Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.

Aladdin

Call for Justice

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.

Aladdin

Call for Justice

Read Alan’s new book ‘Absent Justice’

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us