Chapter 2 - The second remedy pursued
The content of this website has been compared by visitors to a comprehensive depiction of criminal activities, encompassing fraud, corruption, and unethical conduct. They have observed that the arbitrator and his consultants conducted arbitration processes outside the agreed procedures, benefiting the defendants to the detriment of the claimants. Despite being alerted to these concerns in 1996 and 2000, the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators (IAMA) has not issued any findings. The distortion of truth and corruption have significantly impacted the justice system, and it appears that corruption in the arbitration sector in Australia is prevailing, with consequential adverse effects on the democratic justice system.
The house of cards
Why weren't the COT arbitrations declared null and void after the disclosure below?
The link, beginning on page 5163 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, reveals that employees of Telstra allegedly embezzled millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, including the government and Australian citizens who owned Telstra during that period. Senators Alston and Boswell's request for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos put pressure on Telstra to resolve the COT cases. Telstra and four claimants reached a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal in the third week of November 1993. Telstra was unable to bear the cost of further investigations into its operations, as this fraudulent activity was not limited to NSW. Several individuals threatened the COT cases as their persistence in acquiring functional phone systems was about to uncover unethical conduct at management level and other fraudulent activities at Telstra. It is astonishing that the CEO and board of Telstra were aware of the millions of dollars being illicitly taken from the government coffers, as reported on page 5163 of the SENATE official Hansard. In fact, the figures may have run into billions.
It is shocking to discover that Telstra's CEO and all members of the Telstra board were already aware of the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from the government coffers, even before COT members and a few senators applied pressure. What's more surprising is that the COT cases, who stood for honesty and truth, received no recognition from either the government or Telstra. Instead, we have been labelled as vexatious litigants.
Our lives and the lives of our loved ones have been destroyed because we believed that our actions would benefit all Telstra subscribers. AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms between Points 2 to 212 that the government, who investigated my ongoing telephone faults (when using Telstra's own fault records), commented to other government investigators that these Telstra fault records in many instances show that had it had not been through my persistence Telstra would not have located many of the problems affecting my business but several other Telstra subscribers, These same Point 2 to 212 show major faults through nt fault complaining had located faults that had benefited the broader Telstra consumer. It is surprising that AUSTEL government investigators made so many statements about how my complaints had helped others as well as myself and then concealed this evidence from the arbitrator hearing my case. In one of those major statements between Points 2 to 212, AUSTEL (now ACMA) has documented that in one incident, had I not continued to register my phone complaints in the way I did, Telstra would not have located a fault that had been in existence in one rural town for more than two years.
In my case, I have every reason to know why the government regulator deliberately concealed AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings from the arbitrator. It is unacceptable that AUSTEL permitted me to spend over $300,000 in arbitration fees between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995 despite having already validated the matter in their March 1994 report. I am entitled to answers and accountability.
The fact that AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.
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 its copy then.
On 21st November 2007, I received from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), under FOI, a copy of AUSTEL’s original draft findings dated 2nd / 3rd March 1994 regarding the telephone problems experienced by the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp from 1988 to 1994. Copied below are some of the page numbers and points in the report. I am discussing these issues in Chapter 4 to show the difficulties that AUSTEL, as the Government regulator, had in obtaining documents from Telstra (at the time, a fully Government-owned Corporation). Given these difficulties experienced by the government, it should have been enough to halt the arbitration process until all the evidence needed by all the parties was made available to allow those parties to prove or disprove each COT Case claim.
AUSTEL COT Case’s public report
Point 5.46 on page 95. ‘
As part of its direction, AUSTEL sought to obtain detailed information on each of the exchanges involved in terms of performance standards, actual performance, maintenance requirements, and achievements. Telecom initially responded with advice in terms of a few generalisations. A cooperative approach may have been expected to deliver particular requests that were necessary to obtain data. Indeed, throughout this inquiry, it has been apparent that Telecom has interpreted AUSTEL’s request for information in the narrowest possible terms. The net effect was to minimise the amount of relevant data it put before AUSTEL and lengthen the process necessary to extract it.
If the government was unable to access the documents it needed to prove the various COT Cases claims and still allowed the claimants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to access documents from Telstra that even the government regulator could not access from Telstra breached their statutory obligation to the COT Cases for allowing Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) into forcing the COT Cases into arbitration without the necessary documents to prove they still had ongoing telephone problems.
Without this supply of documents to the COT claimants during their respective arbitrations, it is one of the reasons we, COT Cases, could not conclusively prove to the arbitrator my telephone faults were still ongoing. The following list identifies some areas (in the AUSTEL draft report) where AUSTEL had problems with access to Telstra records on the service provided to me:
Point 43 on page 20 “As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residents prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area.”
Point 48 on page 22 “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”
Point 71 on pages 28 and 29 “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault. It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary. It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”
Point 140 on page 49 “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 160 on page 55 “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”
Once AUSTEL was fully aware Telstra was refusing AUSTEL relevant information that would allow the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister after the regulator facilitated the arbitration and mediation processes that were to be based on information obtained from Telstra, it is evident that AUSTEL should never have allowed those processes to proceed. AUSTEL breached its duty of care to the COT cases by permitting the arbitrations/mediations to proceed. After all, if the government could not officially order Telstra to supply records to the minister, then what hope did the COT cases ever have of obtaining the same documents?
Brian Hodged used Telstra's CCAS call line data from November 2006 to argue that phone problems were still affecting my once-owned Holiday Camp 11 years after the conclusion of my 1994/95 arbitration.
Heartbreaking
After viewing the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (SVT) CCAS data dated 29 September 1994 (see Arbitrator File No/110), Brian Hodge, B Tech, MBA (B.C. Telecommunications), on 27 July 2007, prepared a report and on page 23, (see Main Evidence File No 3) concludes:
"It is my opinion that the reports submitted to Austel on this testing programme was flawed, erroneous, fictitious, fraudulent & fabricated, as it is clear that no such testing has taken place as Telstra’s own call charge system DOES NOT record any such activities. Therefore the results are flawed or did not occur"
On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration noting:
“Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.
“After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.
“Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.
“Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems. …
“The technicians then in a hookup consultation with outside office guru’s did a fault graph reading on our 55 267267 line with the outcome that their office technical staff stated words to the affect the reading was impossible (couldn’t be correct). It was then that the local technician became quite annoyed when the technical guru insinuated that the equipment the local tech was using must be faulty. The local tech then informed the technical guru that there was nothing wrong with the equipment at all.” (See Main Evidence File No 13)
Most, if not all, of the COT cases suffered from sleep disorders and stress for years as a result of their battles with Telstra’s senior management, who continued to deny there was ever a phone problem affecting their businesses. These types of denials by Telstra employees like Tony Watson after the COT Cases that had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees after the government had promised they would be fixed as part of the government-endorsed processes caused so much damage.
The AUSTEL COT report from the Government Communications Authority revealed that in 1992 and 1993, the initial settlements for the first four COT Cases failed to address their ongoing telephone problems. Telstra funded these settlements but did not provide the necessary documents to support the claims of the COT Cases, causing the process to fail. In 1994, the government proposed that the same four COT Cases, including me, pay their professional fees in arbitration with Telstra, which would hold Telstra accountable if they did not abide by the legality of the Arbitration Act. However, not only did the COT Case's phone problems persist during their 0arbitrations, but they continued for years after the conclusion of their arbitrations. In my case, the award provided by the arbitrator did not cover my arbitration and resultant costs.
This situation underscores a serious issue in a democracy governed by the rule of law. It's unfair for customers to bear the financial burden of investigating and addressing problems caused by a supplier. The concerning power dynamics at play have unfortunately led to inaction despite the ongoing impact of these issues. In 1994, I spent over $300,000 on arbitration fees in a fruitless attempt to resolve my ongoing problems. This significant cost ultimately led to the sale of my business six years later, as Telstra failed to address the persistent issues. Subsequently, the new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, suffered severely due to these unresolved problems (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story. This is a stark example of the far-reaching repercussions of inaction in addressing systemic issues.
It is crucial to emphasize to all parties reading this account that the COT Cases agreed to the arbitration process because the Australian government, along with several senators, prominent lawyers, and the Canberra media, were officially advised by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the proposed arbitrations) that the COT Cases arbitrations would be conducted under the Arbitration Procedure (the Act). Furthermore, we were informed that Telstra and the government would provide the documents we requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
To substantiate this understanding, John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally communicated to the Government and provided testimony to a Senate Estimate Committee on September 26, 1997, after the completion of most arbitrations that:
"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."
“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”. ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D)
I reiterate that it's concerning how the COT Cases were burdened with the financial responsibility for arbitration fees to resolve their ongoing telephone problems. They were essentially left with the choice of funding an arbitration to compel Telstra to fix these problems or operating their businesses at a significant disadvantage due to unresolved telecommunication issues.
It is important to chop and chain between the present time of 2004 and the impracticable tests at Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater in November 1993 because had Telstra not used those false tests as arbitration defence documents, I would never have been forced to sell the holiday camp to Darren and Jenny Lewis. The fact that AUSTEL knew the BCI Cape Bridgewater test (the BCI Report) was flawed and still did nothing directly assisted Telstra in perverting the course of justice when the BCI tests were submitted as factual.
Hence, I have used the BCI issues below.
Per the most recent update on the Kangaroo Court website https://shorturl.at/GQH0Z dated 4 August 2024, it is apparent that the form of governmental corruption that resulted in the degradation of numerous Australian government-sanctioned arbitrations between 1993 and 1999 continues to persist within the highest levels of government authority after a span of thirty years.
The Australian government's Senate Hansard unequivocally reveals the pervasive presence of corruption within the Telstra board between 1993 and 1997 (see pages 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government official SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, involving the deliberate concealment of substantial funds drained from government coffers.
It has been brought to attention that at least one current Telstra Board member, as well as Telstra's current corporate secretary, Sue Laver, was implicated in withholding pertinent information from the Senate during the period spanning 1997 to 1998. Ms Laver's involvement in allowing false testing results prepared by Bell Canada International Inc (BCI), utilized by Telstra in my arbitration, to be submitted to the Senate 'On Notice' is of significant concern. It is noted that the deliberate provision of known false information to the Senate constitutes Contempt of the Senate, carrying a potential two-year jail term.
As of 2024, Sue Laver has not been subjected to any custodial sentence for being party to this decision or for allowing it to destroy the lives of those COT Cases whose arbitration claims were devalued because of that deception → Sue Laver biography https://shorturl.at/7z8ml.
I reiterate: As of 2024, Sue Laver has not been subjected to a custodial sentence for these actions.
Sue Laver's failure to release a public statement refuting my claims, supported by Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One and exhibit 62-Part-Two and the legal affirmations of three ex-senior Telstra technicians, only serves to delay justice. Telstra's provision of known false BCI information to the Senate didn't just ruin my chance to prove to the arbitrator my telephone problems were still ongoing. It ruined the chances of all the other COT cases, proving their ongoing telephone problems still affected the viability of the arbitration and mediation claims.
The fact that Telstra allowed Simone Semmens to state on Nationwide TV that the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) proved there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network during the four years of the COT arbitrations is bad enough, but to have said it when thousands upon thousands of Australian's had billing problems and that Telstra was using the falsified BCI testing process to win over the COT arbitrator which it did is beyond contempt. This was deception of the worst possible kind, especially after Senator Schacht advised Telstra's Mr Benjamin of his concerns regarding Simone Semmen's statement, inferring Telstra's network was of world standard when both Telstra and BCI knew different.
Telstra’s Mr Benjamin's statement to Senator Schacht—"...I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report. " is also misleading and deceptive because I had already provided Mr Bejamin (Files 196, 188, 189, AS-190-A and 196; - (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233) with proof that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed. It is an indisputable fact that Ted Benjamin deliberately waited until 26 May 1995, two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration, to provide me with the crucial Bell Canada International Inc. BCI Cape Bridgewater evidence that I had requested under FOI during my arbitration in May 1994, a full twelve months earlier (File 183 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233.
File 184 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 contains an internal Fax Memo from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Office (TIO) to Peter, a TIO Lawyer. In the fax, Peter is asked to review John Pinnock's (TIO) letter to the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, dated 21 June 1995 and to provide guidance on the approach parties should take when revisiting post-arbitration issues. This statement, when referring to John Pinnock, goes on to state: "His position is not to open the can of worms, but would like to discuss strategy with you regards, Pia"
The fax mentioned implies that a group of lawyers is considering stopping an investigation into my post-arbitration claims. BCI did NOT test the local AXE Ericsson telephone exchange that serviced my business. These claims are related to the use of false testing results by Bell Canada to promote the sale of Telstra, misrepresenting Telstra's ailing network as being world-class. I am certain that this behaviour was criminal and should have prevented the sale. Unsurprisingly, the US Securities Exchange was concerned about the outcomes of the COT arbitrations. (File 184 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233), Is it any wonder that Telstra and Sue Laver are not acknowledging the truth about Telstra's submission of false information to prevent DMR Group Canada from thoroughly investigating my claims? As my story shows, Ericsson acquired (purchased) the other technical arbitration consultant, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, during the COT arbitrations as the following page Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden shows.
> Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring <
Lies by Telstra were systemic, as were their ongoing telephone faults
The evidence provided by Bell Canada International (BCI) unequivocally indicates that Sue Laver deliberately allowed Telstra to hide essential information from the Senate during the year 1998. Despite the passage of time and now being in 2024, Sue Laver has yet to take the necessary steps to disclose Telstra's blatant disregard for the Senate's authority publicly. This behavior is especially concerning considering that, as previously detailed, in both 1997 and 1998, Telstra actively presented fraudulent evidence to the Senate, which severely obstructed the assessment of my BCI Cape Bridgewater claims. This deliberate action not only misled the Senate but also prevented it from accurately evaluating the legitimacy and validity of my claims.
In light of the continuing telephone issues that prompted the COT Cases to be taken to arbitration back in 1993, Senator Chris Schacht became increasingly concerned about the ongoing ramifications of those problems. He learned that these disruptions were still affecting some businesses well after their arbitration had concluded. Consequently, he called on Telstra to provide comprehensive answers regarding whether these issues were part of a larger systemic problem or if they were specific only to the COT Cases. He wanted to clarify whether the claims related to my Cape Bridgewater BCI were genuine or simply fabricated. By September 1997, Senator Schacht had engaged with various parties involved in the COT Cases, sharing their collective concern that it would be profoundly irresponsible for the government to mislead prospective shareholders of Telstra into accepting the findings from the audit conducted by Bell Canada International Inc. This audit was intended to evaluate Telstra's network, but, as it turned out, its findings were fundamentally flawed.
In the Australian Senate Hansard Senate – Parliament of Australia, page 125, Senator Schacht asked Telstra a pointed question regarding a particular document, commonly referred to as the "pink herring." This document, filed recently with the US Securities Exchange, drew attention to the negative publicity surrounding the COT Cases. Senator Schacht explained that this document was created as part of the privatization process, emphasizing that the success of this privatization was contingent upon the impact of publicity on Telstra rather than the actual financial implications of any potential payouts arising from the COT Cases. He pressed Telstra, asking whether the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale would provide a more detailed evaluation of how the financial impact of the COT cases could affect Telstra moving forward.
To further investigate my arbitration claims, Paul Howell, a principal technical arbitration consultant linked with DMR Group Inc. in Canada, was brought over to Australia. During our discussions, Mr. Howell made it clear that the arbitration process we were engaged in would not have been acceptable in North America or Canada. He described the conduct of the arbitration as appalling and lacking the democratic principles that should guide such proceedings. I immediately recognized the gravity of his observations and took action by transmitting a signed affirmation to the Honorable Michael Lee MP, who served as the Minister for Communications in Canberra, Australia. This affirmation highlighted Mr. Howell's criticisms and subtly indicated his potential unease regarding his role in the ongoing process.
After receiving no response from the Australian government regarding my concerns, I sought to connect with the Canadian government. Canada has a well-established reputation for its commitment to ethical governance and practices, which made it a fitting alternative for pursuing transparency and accountability regarding these issues.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from BCI, but 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."
It is also clear from Exhibit 8, dated 11 August 1995 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46), a letter from BCI to Telstra's Steve Black, and Exhibit 36 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46), a further letter from BCI to Telstra's John Armstrong, that neither letter is on BCI letterhead, as are Exhibits 1 to 7, from BCI to Telstra (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).
Next Page ⟶
