During the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) process, which involved the first four COT Cases directly (which included me), we were unaware of a significant and troubling development. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Warwick Smith, who acted as the administrator of the FTSP, was allowing Telstra access to sensitive documents to use in their defence during the initial stages of our FTSP process. These documents were essential to our claims, as they contained critical information we intended to use to support our case against Telstra. This practice of granting access to the opposing party’s legal team before we had even presented our claims was a severe violation of protocol and ethics. It undermined the integrity of the claims process. It created an uneven playing field, severely restricting our ability to prove our claims effectively as Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration.

This situation reflects a profound failure on the part of the Ombudsman to uphold impartiality and fairness. It showcases a disturbing level of potential corruption in the handling of our disputes with Telstra. Such actions cannot be overlooked, as they compromise the trust placed in the oversight authorities designed to protect the rights and interests of individuals in the telecommunications sector.

In my case, Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my claims against Telstra, granted Paul Rumble, Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, access to my arbitration claim materials an astonishing five months before he was permitted. This breach of the strict conditions against favouritism, clearly outlined in the arbitration agreement signed by both parties, raises significant concerns. Please refer to the Not Fit For Purpose page for more details.

 

I am currently eighty years old and have witnessed significant events in my lifetime. I was one of the four individuals known as the Casualties of Telstra, which drew critical attention to claims against Telstra between 1992 and 1995. Our efforts were pivotal in prompting thorough investigations by the New South Wales State Police and Australia’s Federal Police (AFP). These investigations unveiled an alarming level of organized crime within Telstra, which was involved in the embezzlement of millions—some estimates suggest the total could be in the billions—of dollars meant for the Australian public. Refer to pages 5166 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

Page 5169 in this SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows Telstra's lawyers 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. 

I was initially unaware that registering my telephone issues in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page (Telstra's arbitration lawyers) was not merely a formality but a crucial prerequisite for Telstra to take any steps toward investigating those faults. During my correspondence with Ms McBurnie, a legal document labelled "COT Case Strategy" had been set up as an added caution to stop the COT Cases from proving their arbitration claims. It has become apparent from government records that this document was strategically crafted to obscure the severity of the telephone problems I and the other COT Cases were experiencing. It served as a smokescreen that effectively hid the substantial evidence I had regarding the ongoing issues, which were critically impacting the viability of our businesses, mainly as we prepared for the arbitration process with Telstra.

The process of meticulously documenting each individual telephone fault so that the lawyers at Freehill Hollingdale & Page could subsequently present them to Telstra became not just labour-intensive but also incredibly repetitive. Despite the overwhelming nature of this task, I believed that by providing Telstra with detailed records of these faults, I was offering them a valuable resource that would assist in quickly identifying and rectifying the critical issues that were hampering my business operations.

Unfortunately, I was oblivious to the fact that I would later require this meticulously gathered evidence for the arbitration proceedings. In a frustrating turn of events, I found myself needing to obtain the same documentation from Telstra through a Freedom of Information Act request—documentation that I had previously supplied to their legal representatives. The realization that I had already provided essential evidence to bolster my case, only to have Telstra and their lawyers withhold it from me, compounded my frustration and left me feeling powerless in a situation that was already extremely challenging for my business.

This 'COT Case Strategy' even named our four businesses and the four claimants to be targeted so that we could never fully prove our claims against the government-owned Telstra Corporation, as Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C shows. 

• Golden Mesaenger /Graham Schorer
• Tivoli Theater Restaurant/Ann Garms 
• Japanese Spare Parts/Maureen Gillan 
• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp /Alan Smith 

To elaborate, it’s evident that our four businesses were specifically targeted right from the beginning, even before we initiated our arbitration proceedings. The establishment of the Kangaroo Court was a calculated move that took place prior to the signing of our arbitration agreements in the four COT Cases. Fast forward thirty years, and the government now expects us to quietly retreat and erase our struggles from memory.

This journey has taken a profound personal toll—Ann and Maureen Gillan are no longer with us, and Graham Schorer is gravely ill, reminding us of the heavy burden we've carried over the years. Additionally, my own health challenges, including a major heart surgery and a subsequent month-long stay in the Royal Melbourne Hospital during November and December of 2017, have only compounded our hardships. Throughout this period, it has become increasingly apparent that the government has prioritized the protection of Telstra, seemingly at all costs - as the following Senate - Parliament of Australia shows

 

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements. 

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

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 the same COT Cases that Telstra's 'COT Case Strategy' had named, which Telstra's lawyer Denise McBurnie had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their claim against Telstra’.

Also, on pages 76 and 77 in the above Senate - Parliament of Australia, Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (Re: Alan Smith - (me).

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,  [Telstra Senior Executive] 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 impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much confidence information was there in the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser and held by Telstra officials? → Refer to  Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

During my second meeting with the Australian Federal Police - AFP (refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 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.” 

One of the questions I raised with Malcolm Fraser was: How could Australia say their selling of wheat to the Republic of China was on humanitarian grounds when the Australian government knew that some of this same wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam? A country that was killing and maiming as many Australian, New Zealand and USA troops as they could during the Vietnam War?

What is so important about these internal intelligence networks held by Telstra's middle management is that 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 its 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 actually 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. 

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand.

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) that Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues. The same legal firm that provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's. The psychologist's signature was missing.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me because I was 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 [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?" 

It is 2024; I have yet to see a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, including mine, is the following: although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged in different cases or altered, as in mine - changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed - is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. For Maurice Wayne Condon to have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when Ian Joblin’s signature did not appear on this affirmation is further proof that the COT case's claims and fundamental legal rights were disregarded by all concerned.  

 

 

As part of these investigations, the AFP conducted interviews with me, the three other principal members of the COT (Casualties of Telstra) group, and two additional members who later joined our cause. During this inquiry, the AFP discovered that Telstra had been unlawfully intercepting our conversations related to the COT Cases. Furthermore, they found evidence that our faxes were being screened and monitored through a secondary fax machine set up by Telstra. Among the intercepted materials were faxes from politicians, including correspondence from Parliament House, as evidenced by Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) a fax interception report dated January 7, 1999, sent to Senator Ron Boswell.

The evidence within this report 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.

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)

 

 

The complexity of our narrative is compounded by the thousands of exhibits we gathered as evidence, necessitating the creation of two accompanying books. These books were designed to be read side by side, allowing readers to distinguish between the various crimes committed against the COT Cases by multiple actors, including public servants and regulatory agencies. The structure was carefully chosen to ensure that the multifaceted nature of our experience is clearly represented. This approach may very well be unprecedented, as it is likely the first instance of a joint eBook being produced in this way, highlighting the serious criminal behaviours that permeated the government-endorsed arbitrations conducted under the International Arbitration Act.

The framework established by the Arbitration Act of 1984 was fundamentally designed to obscure the serious injustices the COT Cases experienced before their signing of arbitration agreements. This legislation also concealed the troubling events that transpired during the arbitration process itself. As a result, many of the offences committed against these claimants remained hidden behind the confidentiality clauses embedded within the agreements they were required to sign.

 

 

Our collaborative narrative, titled "absentjustice.com and Not Fit For Purpose," seeks to draw attention to the significant manipulation and alteration of the language within the arbitration agreement presented to the claimants. It is vital to underscore that these changes were made after our legal representatives—William Hunt and Alan Goldberg—and two supportive Senators, Richard Alston and Ron Boswell, had collectively reviewed and agreed upon the original, unaltered version of the arbitration agreement. Notably, this original version had already been signed by Maureen Gillan in the first of the four COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Amanda Davis, who possessed Power of Attorney over Maureen Gillan's claim, played a crucial role in this process. Amanda Davis formerly served as the General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, the Australian government's communications regulator (now called ACMA). In her capacity, she recognized the significance of the liability clause included in the arbitration agreement, affirming that it lent the document a level of credibility that justified its execution. This involvement by Amanda underscores the importance of the agreement in the context of the claims and the subsequent legal proceedings (refer to $250,000 missing liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 and the alteration to clause 24 Part 2 - Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct).

The consequences of these changes were significant and detrimental. The inclusion of harsh confidentiality clauses in the revised arbitration agreement effectively barred the COT Cases from seeking any form of justice against the arbitration consultants who engaged in misconduct during the process. This manipulation of legal language not only undermined the rights of the claimants but also perpetuated a system that allowed such wrongdoings to go unpunished.

I am planning to publish a comprehensive work that combines the insights of absentjustice.com and Not Fit For Purpose in 2025. This timeline will allow us to ensure that we thoroughly address all significant aspects of our intricate narrative. By merging these two platforms, which both explore the same events but from different perspectives, we aim to illustrate the deep connections and complexities inherent in this entire saga.

The events we are discussing are not just isolated incidents; they are interwoven elements of a larger story that demand to be understood in context. By integrating these narratives into a single, cohesive account, we believe we can provide readers with a clearer and more impactful understanding of the issues at hand.

I welcome anyone who is interested in supporting this vital project to reach out. Whether you can contribute partial or complete funding, your involvement would play a crucial role in our efforts to highlight these pressing issues. You can contact me through the Contact—Government Corruption page. Your support would not only help elevate this project but also advocate for much-needed accountability surrounding these critical matters. Together, we can bring these important issues to light and foster meaningful change.

To illustrate this approach, we refer to the Bell Canada International (BCI) testing process, which allegedly occurred from November 4 to 9, 1993, at the Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchanges. Telstra claimed that 15,900 test calls were successfully generated to those two exchanges during this testing period. They later used these claims in 1994 as part of their defence during arbitration proceedings, attempting to convince the arbitrator that there were no ongoing telephone issues impacting my business from those exchanges.

However, a troubling incident occurred when I attempted to contest these alleged successful BCI test results by sending a comprehensive report via the arbitrator's fax machine. On December 13, 1994, my faxed report disappeared from the arbitration process despite fax transmission records indicating that it had been sent from my office to the arbitrator's office.

Fast forward to December 2009, fourteen years later, and the same BCI report became embroiled in another troubling circumstance. My business was transferred to new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, in December 2001. While navigating their bankruptcy appeal, I allowed them to use a modified BCI report that had previously been approved by the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police during their investigations in December 2001.

However, this same BCI report, along with a separate service verification report related to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, was hijacked while being sent by the Lewises via Australia Post to the Australian Federal Court. Jenny and Darren Lewis attempted to utilize the modified test results to convince the Federal Court that their financial problems stemmed from purchasing a telephone-dependent business with a deficient phone system.

 

Threats Made 

Threats Carried Out 

Threats were made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues.  Refer to page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“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 in the TIO office or 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 investigated why an Australian citizen who had assisted the AFP in their inquiry into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

The harassment and bullying I endured began in May 1992 and continued relentlessly throughout my first settlement process, which lasted until December 11, 1992. This troubling behaviour persisted as I navigated my amended Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which I submitted on November 23, 1993, and which remained active until April 21, 1994. During this challenging period, I, along with my fellow COT Cases—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—were placed in a dire situation where we felt compelled to abandon our claims and acquiesce to Telstra's preferred arbitration process. This legal framework was meticulously drafted by their attorneys at Freehill Hollingdale and Page, creating an environment that overwhelmingly favoured Telstra.

The ongoing difficulties transitioned into a more complex situation involving the Major Fraud Group investigations conducted by the Victoria Police between September 1998 and 2002. This span of over ten years was a harrowing experience for me, particularly as I was seconded into these investigations by Barrister Sue Owens, who represented all four COT Cases, alongside Mr Neil Jepson, the Barrister for the Major Fraud Group. This collaboration placed me at the heart of critical inquiries into Telstra’s conduct.

Throughout this ten-year ordeal, I was also obliged to assist the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telephone conversations. This period of cooperation extended from February 1994 to March 1995 and was fraught with anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, I was involved in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation into Telstra’s failure to comply with requests for Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, which began on January 20, 1995, and concluded on October 4, 1997. The lengthy timeline of these investigations contributed to an overwhelming sense of frustration as the integrity of my concerns continued to be dismissed.

By the time these investigations were drawing to a close, the lives of all four COT Cases had been profoundly affected, leaving us devastated by the persistent misconduct of Telstra. Among the most notable offenders was Sue Laver, who, as of 2024, holds the position of Corporate Secretary for Telstra. She remains complicit in concealing significant truths related to Telstra's previous actions. Specifically, she has failed to acknowledge that Telstra submitted false evidence to the Senate during proceedings in October 1997. This false evidence involved the validity of arbitration defence documents that had been falsified, particularly the test results from Bell Canada International Inc. related to the Cape Bridgewater tests.

Had Sue Laver come forward with this crucial evidence between 1997 and 1998, when the Senate was investigating this matter on my behalf, the immense trauma that my partner Cathy and I experienced could have potentially been alleviated as early as 1998. 

 

The Major Fraud Group 

 

In late 1998, following the submission of fraud complaints by Sue Owens, barrister for four of the COT cases (not including my own), I received a significant telephone call from Neil Jepson, the barrister representing the Victoria Major Fraud Group. During this conversation, Mr. Jepson inquired about my willingness to assist the Victoria Police in their investigation concerning the allegations raised by Sue Owens. He had been informed of my compilation of two comprehensive reports detailing instances of fraudulent conduct by Telstra directed against me throughout my arbitration process. Moreover, I possessed substantial evidence indicating that the arbitrator, along with his arbitration unit, had colluded with Telstra by unduly minimizing my losses incurred due to their failure to provide adequate service. This crucial evidence was not disclosed to Laurie James in January 1996, when he embarked on a preliminary investigation into my claims in his capacity as President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

After considering Mr. Jepson's request, I agreed to travel to Melbourne to present my findings. Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT and owner of Golden Messenger Couriers, generously agreed to cover all associated expenses for my trip. During my visit, I submitted three detailed reports, namely Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2, Tampering with Evidence and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report accompanied by supporting exhibits, to Mr. Jepson. After reviewing the contents of Telstra's falsified report, the Major Fraud Group expressed a pressing need for my assistance in compiling the evidence requisite for their ongoing investigations. I acquiesced to their request, dedicating two full days during two separate visits to the Major Fraud Group's offices located on St. Kilda Road in Melbourne.

The significance of my engagement with the Major Fraud Group cannot be overstated, particularly concerning the litmus test cases. The group was genuinely astonished by the weight of the evidence I presented, which convincingly demonstrated that Telstra had perverted the course of justice on two distinct occasions by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case.

The witness statements relevant to this matter have been thoroughly discussed throughout this website and are meticulously documented. Current members of the government have received copies of these witness statements without any redactions, affirming their authenticity and the seriousness of the claims made. Unfortunately, despite the gravity of the information contained within these statements, no action has yet been taken to address the allegations presented.

In addition, as elaborated in Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File, 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 comprise a witness statement dated August 10, 2006. This statement was submitted to the DCITA and authored by Ann Garms. It was formally sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who eventually achieved the status of Principal Investigator. Mr Direen has demonstrated considerable bravery by revealing that, in the years 1999 and 2000, after he departed from Telstra, he played a crucial role in assisting the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group—particularly Rod Kueris—in their investigations into the allegations of fraud associated with COT. I was subsequently called upon to participate in this investigation as a witness. This role underscores the seriousness of the claims being addressed (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

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 having assisted the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.

"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, 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 21and 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 it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements of 8 and 10 August 2006 released in full as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) confirm how Telstra and their corporate employees bullied and harassed a fully trained senior police officer to breaking point during his official investigations into the COT Cases claims.

It will be on record, within the archives of the Major Fraud Group, that both Mr Neil Jepson and three officers with whom I had worked and lunched were able to confirm that at least two sets of documents I had faxed from my residence to Mr Jepson's office facsimile service line 0395266614 (see File 800B in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 never arrived at his office. This is despite my fax journal showing it had connected to that number 0395266614. It is also on record at the Major Fraud Group that on one of my visits to Melbourne, my apartment had been entered, and certain documents in my bedside drawer had been shifted around in a manila folder where there was chalk dust, which I placed in my folder in said drawer which contained the folder. 

Document File 643 in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 is a letter written by a previous resident of Cape Bridgewater who, after viewing the Sunday Television program now attached to this website as a YouTube video (see Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte), explained that he had been contacted by the Major Fraud Group concerning a Telstra employee by the name of Anderson. He noted the police would not elaborate on what they were investigating, and I will not do so here. I have only attached this letter as confirmation that the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were concerned about my claims.

However, I will disclose here that after the arbitrator and his technical arbitration resource unit ignored my ongoing 008/1800 billing faults, the government communications regulator AUSTEL allowed Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer to my arbitration - Steve Black, to address these unaddressed ongoing arbitration billing faults in secret on 16 October 1995. This was five months after the completion of my arbitration process without the arbitrator.   I did have a legal right under the arbitration agreement to challenge Telstra's late submission to the Government. (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

What was so troubling about the address of legal documents without the claimant and arbitrator being present is that Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, resubmitted Mr Anderson's original arbitration witness statement dated 12 December 1994 to support Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission to AUSTEL. He knew that Mr Anderson's 12 December 1994 witness statement contained false and misleading statements concerning the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network.

This is why the Major Fraud Group was so interested in Mr Anderson. Using witness statements twice—aware that some of the statements in them were false—was why the government communications regulator sent a representative, Darren Kearney, to my business on 19 December 1995 (a twelve-hour drive there and back) to collect my unaddressed arbitration claim evidence, which proved that the billing faults Telstra stated were non-existent were still affecting my business.   

Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group's investigations into the four claims registered by Barrister Owen concerning alleged fraud by Telstra. Page 11 shows Sue Owens stating I am "extremely intelligent" and that the police also thought the same concerning my reporting, i.e., why I was asked to assist with their fraud investigations.  

The immense pressure the Liberal National Party government applied to the Major Fraud Group prevented the Victoria Police from proceeding with their investigations. The letter from the Chair of the Senate dated 4 September 2000, discussing the confidentiality pertaining to these 6 and 9 July in camera hansards, is attached to the 

Telstra's admission has never been acted on.

As detailed in Chapter 5, Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct, the Lewises lost their Federal Court case because they were not granted extra time for me to submit two more reports on their behalf to replace those two stolen reports, namely the Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 issues also discussed on our Not Fit For Purpose page. Further ambiguities regarding the BCI, SVT, and Major Fraud Group Victoria Police are compelling reasons for their repeated mention in our story, albeit through a different lens.

I also submitted the Tampering with Evidence link, which is also discussed on Not Fit For Purpose, along with Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2

 

  

 

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 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 File 657 AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700)

On 17 May 2007, I took the initiative to inform The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, who serves as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, about a pressing issue regarding her office's handling of a serious matter. I pointed out that David Lever, a representative from her office, had not followed through on his promise to notify the relevant authorities about Telstra's unlawful conduct during my arbitration proceedings. This situation was particularly concerning as it also involved the interception of my faxes sent to various politicians in Parliament House Canberra. Among these communications were faxes directed to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, who had previously demonstrated significant concern regarding how my arbitration was conducted. In response to my alert, the Senator wrote the following:

"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 File 616-B 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 matters of the submission during a government-endorsed arbitration of the 'Tampering with Evidence, Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2' and of the interception of confidential documents that were being faxed 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 the opposition, Telstra, unlawfully screened sensitive information to benefit the arbitration defence.

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? These actions violate individual rights and undermine the integrity of the arbitration process, warranting immediate attention and rectification from government authorities.

 

 

After reviewing both Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it's clear that the exhibits and evidence attached to the report provided by both the Hon David Hawker MP and me to Senator Richard Alston, who then passed it on to his staff manager Paul Fletcher for investigation.

Throughout this COT narrative, I intentionally utilize the terms "intertwined" and "linked" to reinforce the idea that, despite our interactions with government bureaucrats and their associated agencies, we cannot assume they are innocent of wrongdoing. In fact, many of these public servants have engaged in criminal behaviour or failed in their duty of care towards the COT claimants, all to protect the interests of the government-owned Telstra Corporation.

A particularly significant figure in this saga is the Honorable Paul Fletcher, who served as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts. Mr Fletcher played a crucial role in ignoring the serious offences during the COT arbitrations, particularly concerning my arbitration process, which refers to Chapter 5 - The Fifth remedy pursued. As of 2024, he is serving as the current Member of Parliament for the electorate of Bradfield.

Back in 1996, Mr. Fletcher contacted me, requesting that I furnish him with evidence demonstrating that the COT arbitrations had not been conducted within the framework of previously agreed arbitration procedures. I complied with his request and provided comprehensive documentation detailing the discrepancies. However, despite the compelling nature of the evidence—contained in Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two —Paul Fletcher chose to disregard my submission. These volumes make it abundantly clear that the arbitrations were conducted outside the established parameters of the agreed-upon procedures.

Ultimately, the COT story is marked by a complex web of deceptions and ethical violations. The Australian government's attempts to obscure these truths reflect a concerning commitment to protecting its interests at the expense of accountability and justice for those affected.

My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location 

If only the telephones had been fit for purpose

What made the arbitrator hearing my case state at point 7.3 in his award under the heading Loss of Occupancy (d)

The fact remains that it would be quite inappropriate for me to ignore the possibility that some of the difficulties, at least experienced by the claimant's business, were attributed to factors such as:

• A decline of tourist interest in the area
• the remoteness of the location
• an inability to fund improvements.

Government statistics indicate a notable increase in tourism within our region from 1988 to 1994, corresponding to my claim's relevant six-year period. The holiday camp is strategically positioned on a principal tourist route, leading visitors to significant attractions, including the Blowhole, Petrified Forest, and Seal Colony. Consequently, all traffic to and from these destinations traverses my holiday camp. The photographs presented below further substantiate that the holiday camp is not situated in a remote location. The rationale for highlighting these points in the arbitrator's award is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the COT cases' circumstances, particularly when considering the challenges posed by a potentially biased arbitrator, as detailed on my absentjustice.com webpage and in my published book Absent Justice.

When Telstra realized I had assisted the Australian Federal Police in their inquiries into the electronic interception of my phone conversations and arbitration-related documents faxed to my technical consultant at George Close & Associates, they employed their formidable lobbyist and arbitration liaison officer Paul Rumble to threaten me with fierce determination. This is evident in the police transcripts from my second interview with the Australian Federal Police on September 26, 1994 (see page 12 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1).

The transcripts indicate that I identified Paul Rumble as a pivotal individual involved in these threats. I named Mr. Rumble for two primary reasons. First, he executed these threats and halted the provision of arbitration discovery documents, which the government had pledged to supply under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), contingent upon my agreement to participate in their government-sanctioned arbitration. Second, I discovered he had successfully influenced the arbitrator to release my interim claim materials five months before the timeline outlined in the arbitration agreement signed by Telstra and myself. As a result, Telstra accessed my claim well before the legal timeframe allowed. Meanwhile, I was given just one month to review their submission. Remarkably, just six weeks into my thirteen-month arbitration process, the arbitrator was already aligning with the defence, putting me at a disadvantage.

 

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Sister Maureen Burke IBVM and Helen Handbury, 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.” 

Despite the financial precariousness of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, I had, from the start, sponsored the stays of underprivileged groups at the Camp. It was no vast loss to me: sponsored food was provided through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and it cost me only a tiny amount of electricity and gas.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, organised largely 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.

Testimonials

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, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

On one particular occasion in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen (my then-partner) 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 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. 

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 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 wonderful 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 well have followed if only the callers could have been successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE Portland telephone exchange.

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. 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 [sic].” 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. 

After five years, it took almost a tragedy for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital where convalescent is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. 

It was another fiasco that lasted until August 2009, when not-so-new owners of my business were walked off the holiday camp premises as bankrupts. 

By the middle of 1993, people had become interested in what they had heard about our battle. Several articles had appeared in my local newspaper, and interstate gossip about the COT group was growing. In June, Julian Cress from Channel Nine's 'Sixty Minutes' documentary television programme faxed me:

Just a note to let you know that I had some trouble getting through to you on the phone last Thursday. Pretty ironic, considering that I was trying to contact you to discuss your phone problems.

The problem occurred at about 11 am. On the 008 number I heard a recorded message advising me that 008 was not available from my phone and your direct line was constantly engaged.

Pretty ironic, all right!

A special feature in the Melbourne Age Newspaper gave my new 'Country Get-A-Ways' program a great write-up. It was marketing weekend holidays for over-40s singles in Victoria and South Australia: an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco, a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries in South Australia, and a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier. I began to feel things were looking up for the Camp.

It was too much to hope for that my telephone saga was ending. A fax arrived on 26 October 1993 from Cathine, a relative of the Age journalist who wrote the feature:

Alan, I have been trying to call you since midday. I have rung seven times to get an engaged signal. It is now 2.45 pm.

In response to my request for feedback between May and October of 1993, I received 36 letters from different individuals and more than 40 other complaints from people who had unsuccessfully tried to respond to my advertisements (File - 9-A AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47). The Hadden & District Community House wrote in April 1993:

Several times I have dialled 055 267 267 number and received no response — dead line. I have also experienced similar problems on your 008 number.

Our youth worker, Gladys Crittenden, experienced similar problems while organising our last year's family camp, over a six month period during 1991/1992.

 

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. 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.  

Astonishingly, one letter, dated 17 May 1993, was from a senior Telstra technical engineer, who wrote regarding his own experience of trying to ring me:

"On the 24/2/93 I received a phone call from a technician at Portland who stated he had been given a fault from (1100 fault dept.) indicating a customer in Ballarat had trouble calling your business 055 267 267. I then attempted to ring 055 267 267 myself, the ring was tripped after several bursts, i.e. ‘answered’ and I received a loud noise similar to a radio carrier noise and a very faint ‘Hello’."

At last, a second person inside Telstra acknowledged that I had a problem with the phone service! The engineer had even given me his name. Yet in the course of their defence of my arbitration claims, Telstra proffered a Witness Statement from this man (made in December 1994) that included no reference to this (see Summary of events/Chapter Two to Five)   

On 9 June 1993. A TV news program was also a target for Telstra's executives to muzzle the media regarding the validity of the COT Cases claims and that of three single members from Ballarat who had spoken to Jason Cameron (Channel Nine TV reporter) regarding their failed effort to reach the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp by telephone from Skipton and Scarsdale.  This Telstra internal email dated 16 June 1993 FOI folio A04646 (AS 956) reports:

"Good news re channel nine news. Haven’t checked all outlets but as it didn’t run on the main bulletin last night, we can be pretty certain that the story died the death. I wish I could figure which phase it was that convinced Jason Cameron not to proceed. Might have been one of Jim Holmes' pearls..."

Jim Holmes was the Telstra Corporate Secretary, so the readers may well be asking themselves, what type of pearl had been cast by Jim Holmes? Were they pearls of wisdom, financial pearls, or a different kind of pearl that convinced a respected journalist to drop a story? 

On 12 July 1993, a newspaper article from the Portland Observer Newspaper headed ‘Network Complaints Taken Up by MPs’ and notes:

“Problems highlighted by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith, with the Telecom network have been picked up on by not only other disgruntled customers but Federal politicians. Having suffered a faulty telephone service for some five years, Mr Smith’s complaints had for some time fallen on deaf ears, but it now seems people are standing up and listening. Federal Member for Wannon, David Hawker, described the number of reports of faulty and inadequate telephone across Australia as alarming. Mr Hawker said that documents recently presented to him showed that the problems people had been experiencing Australia wide had been occurring repeatedly in the Portland region.” (See Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No -17)

The pressure on all four COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our continuing canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling by now, but I continued to hammer for a change in rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.” (See Arbitrator File No/76)

The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal Member of Parliament, corresponded with me from 26 July 1993.

On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP wrote to me again, noting:

“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (Arbitrator File No/77)

 

 

One of these letters, dated 23 August 1993, is particularly interesting. It came from a company of Insurance Loss Adjusters in Ballarat, a rural city in Victoria. It was sent to the producer of “Real Life”, a TV current affairs program then broadcast on Channel 7.  The Loss Adjusters wrote:  “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)

 

In August 1993, Rita Espinoza from the Chilean Social Club wrote:

I tried to ring you in order to confirm our stay at your camp site. I found it impossible to get through. I tried to ring later but encountered the same signal on 10 August around 7 – 8.30 pm. I believe you have a problem with the exchange and strongly advise you contact Telstra.

Do you remember the same problem happened in April and May of this year?

I apologise but I have made arrangements with another camp.

Attempting to move on…but wait!

At the camp in Cape Bridgewater, I acquired a logo, especially for the over-forties singles club and his Community Groups, which I was calling “Country Get-A-Ways”, and he hit the road with a vengeance, marketing a range of different weekend holidays. I had organised an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, and a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco, as well as a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries and a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier, both in South Australia. This meant I could market the holiday periods in Victoria and South Australia.

Then it hit home: I got no response from Ballarat and the surrounding areas. I later learned from a Ballarat single club patron who was a Ballarat Parents Without Partners social club member that they had given up on receiving a response to their failed telephone calls.

Numerous testimonials from hopeful customers trying to book at my venue from 1988 to this period are well documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994. At points 9, 10 and 11 in their reporting notes:

"During the past five years Mr Smith has received many testimonials from other network users such as community groups, health and welfare agencies, school and individuals which have advise of continuing difficulties contacting the camp. These statements support Mr Smith's claims of service problems of Mr Smith.

An important point in relation to Mr Smith's service is that he is operating a business service in an area which is predominantly that of a residential and/or farming community. Therefore both the nature, volume and origin of calls received by Mr Smith is comparison with those of his neighbours would be markedly different…

Often calls to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp would be from people previously unknown to Mr Smith, who in comparison to other callers to Cape Bridgewater would be less likely to initiate further contact should they have difficulty in contacting the Camp…"

So here it was, mid-1993, and hardly any phone calls were getting to me at the Camp.  I didn't know that less than twelve months later, AUSTEL would discover that what I had been telling Telstra was the truth but that AUSTEL would hide most of those truths from the relevant Ministers, me and the arbitrator.

All I knew was that my business was sinking fast, so I stepped up the marketing of the camp and the singles-club weekends; I visited numerous recognised social clubs around the Melbourne metropolitan area and spoke personally to the people in charge and, over the next few weeks, he spoke to the Phoenix Social Club in Camberwell, the Australian Social Centre in Hartwell, Frenze-In-Deed in Mont Albert and Capers in Knox City, as well as visiting numerous other singles organisations in Ballarat and Warrnambool, both large country centres in Victoria.

Further newspaper advertising followed, placing ads with the Leader Newspaper group in Melbourne.  This local newspaper group covers twenty-three different metropolitan areas around Melbourne. Ads also went into the local newspapers for several large regional centres around Victoria and South Australia, including the Geelong Advertiser, the Warrnambool Standard, the Ballarat Courier News, the Horsham Wimmera Times, the Colac Local News, the Mt Gambier-Border Watch and others.  

It is crucial to highlight Telstra's unethical and potentially criminal conduct, as evidenced by the Senate Hansard. As we delve deeper into this information, we uncover proof that Telstra tampered with my TF200 Exicom telephone, which was taken from my business on 28 April 1994 during my government-endorsed arbitration. Connecting the Senate statements with the TF 200 issues, it becomes undeniable to visitors of absentjustice.com that Telstra cannot be considered a trustworthy company. Continue reading to find out more.

 

 

The fact that my business, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, and I are named in this Freehill Hollingdale & Page "COT Case Strategy" to be stopped from receiving discovery and/or FOI documents to stop me from obtaining my discovery and FOI documents further supports my claim that the Hon Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia needs to investigate my evidence 

 

An investigation was not conducted to ascertain whether another individual named Alan Smith, residing in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration correspondence. Telstra's defence counsel, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had been in communication with this other Alan Smith since at least 1992, as indicated by the fax footprint on both Notices of Summons documents that he received from D. Madden Lawyers in Warrnambool, which demanded payment for disputed telephone accounts.

I received analogous demand letters from Telstra despite the company's awareness of a systemic national billing issue that caused telephones to become inoperable. I submitted information pertaining to Alan Smith, which I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, to illustrate to the arbitrator that he was similarly receiving letters of demand from Telstra and their legal representatives because, like myself, he contested charges for calls he did not make or for which he was not on the line for the entire billed duration.

The local Telstra switching exchanges in the Cape Bridgewater and Portland regions, including the principal Ericsson AXE Portland telephone exchange, experienced considerable disarray regarding telephone issues prior to and for several years following my arbitration. As evidenced in the TF200 EXICOM image below, Telstra even resorted to extreme measures to impede customers from substantiating their claims of significant operational problems. They allegedly introduced a sticky substance into the phones upon collection, asserting that customers had spilt beverages, which supposedly resulted in erroneous billing and device malfunctions. Furthermore, they claimed that the condition of the returned telephones (which were clean upon their return by customers) indicated customer negligence. How can one effectively engage with a corporation that employs such questionable tactics?

 

 

After Mr Anderson completed his testing on 27 April, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)

A second photo I received under FOI is a photo taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming a note I placed on the phone was quite clean when it was received at Telstra. See Open Letter File No/37  exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6.

This report raises several questions. When the phone left my office, it was quite clean. Why did it arrive at the laboratory in such a filthy state? How did the beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone and why? If the addition of beer was not deliberate, how did it get inside the phone? The main aim of Telstra’s submitted report, used as evidence, was to prove Telstra’s service was not at fault.

As soon as I read this beer-in-the-phone report, I requested the arbitrator, asking for a copy of all the laboratory technicians' handwritten notes so he could see how Telstra had arrived at their conclusion. I had appointed my forensic document researcher to look over the documents when I received them, and he provided me with his CV credentials and signed a confidentiality agreement stating he would not disclose his findings to anyone outside of the arbitration procedure. Although I passed all this information on to the arbitrator, the only response I received from the arbitrator and Telstra was a duplicate copy of the report I had already received as part of Telstra’s defence.

On 28 November 1995, six months after my arbitration ended, I received Telstra’s TF200 EXICOM report. This report confirms Telstra carried out two separate investigations of my EXICOM TF200 telephone, two weeks apart and the second test report, dated between 24 and 26 May 1994, proved that the first one, the report provided to the arbitrator, was not an accurate account of the testing process at all, but a total fabrication. Photos and graphs by Telstra laboratory staff proved wet beer introduced into the TF200 phone dried out entirely in 48 hours. As mentioned above, Telstra collected my phone from my business on 27 April 1994, but it was not tested until 10 May – a gap of 14 days. Various pages (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5) confirm that, even though Telstra knew its second investigation proved the first arbitration report, dated between 10 and 12 May 1994, was more than fundamentally flawed, it still submitted the first flawed report to the arbitrator as Telstra’s true findings.

The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the phone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?

 

 

Another disturbing side to this tapering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This wicked deed and the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration are a testament that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond, by supplying vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both occasions during my arbitration.

Even worse, this Telstra FOI folio D01026/27 (Tampering With Evidence File No 2) confirms Telstra knew there were lock-up problems in moisture-prone areas affecting the EXICOM T200s manufactured after week seven of 1993. This document confirms that one of the known lock-up side effects of this problem was that, while the line was in locked-up mode, the line remained open so one party could hear the room noise of the locked-up party after the call was supposedly terminated. Document D01026 confirms that instead of destroying these faulty EXICOM TF200 phones, Telstra allowed their technical staff to re-deploy some 45,000 phones back into service in areas where local technicians believed moisture was not a problem.

 

A testing situation

Late in 1993, Mrs Cullen from Daylesford Community House informed me that she had tried unsuccessfully to phone me on 17 August 1993 at 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20 pm, each time reaching a deadline (File 35-A, 35-B and 35-C AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47). She had reported the fault to Telstra’s Fault Centre in Bendigo at 1100, speaking to an operator who identified herself as Tina. Tina then rang my 1800 number but couldn’t get through either. Telstra’s hand-written memo, dated 17/8/93, records the times that Mrs Cullen had tried to get through to my phone and reports Tina’s failed attempt to contact me.

 

So arbitration seemed the only solution.

5 October 1993:  The draft of the COT Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) from AUSTEL’s Robin Davey states, at point 40:-

“Finally, if the attached letter (Attachment ‘D’) dated 7 July 1993 from Freehill, Hollingdale & Page to one of the COT Cases’ solicitors is indicative of the way that Freehill, Hollingdale & Page have approached the COT Cases in the past, I would be more than a little concerned if they were to have a continuing role.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 110)

11 October, 1993:  Telstra internal email H36291 confirms Telstra’s knowledge of the 1800 network billing problems Peter Zeagers to Nigel Beaman:-

“I am receiving a disturbing number of reports of instances where the 1800 prefix ‘does not work’ in the network.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 - See AS-CAV 122-D)

14 October 1993:  This internal Telstra email FOI folio R03331 discusses how to minimise the problems experienced by the COT claimants. It states:-

“We need to focus Austel’s attention as much as possible on the current rather than the past level of service delivered to Cot Cases. …”

“My view is that Telecom’s response to this issue should reflect the advice from Denise McBurnie, Freehill, Hollingdale & Page, Solicitors.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 111)

19 October 1993:  This document from Denise McBurnie to Don Pinel titled Legal Professional Privilege/Commercial In Confidence. includes the following:-

“Duesbury & FHP continuing of evaluating [redacted by Telstra] claim – final report to Telecom will be privileged and will not be made available to [redacted by Telstra]”

“Telecom preparing report for FHP analysing data available on [redacted by Telstra] services (ie. CCAS, Leopard, CABS and file notes) – this report will be privileged and will not be made available to (blank).” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 112)

It is clear from the above letters of 14th and 19th October 1993 that Telstra had no intention of listening to Robin Davey’s concerns about Freehills having a continuing role in the COT case issues.

On 9 December 1993, the Hon David Hawker MP wrote to congratulate me for my “persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.” (See Arbitrator File No/82)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 and copied to me from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor government, who wrote:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress. This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82)

Even though I had been able to show the government before arbitration that Telstra was installing poor-quality infrastructure in the Cape Bridgewater network and the government regulator was allowing Telstra to test their own customers' complaints, even those who were to enter arbitration, no one bothered to investigate.

I have brought up the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange faults documents (see below) because, during a meeting with Hon. David Hawker, we discussed the impact of the AXE equipment installed in the telephone exchanges in his electorate, which seemed to be negatively affecting many businesses. I offered to continue supplying FOI documents received from Telstra to Mr Hawker, who would then pass them on to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston. I followed up by sending him (False Witness Statement File No 3-A), which he forwarded to Senator Alston. This document was subsequently raised in the Senate "On Notice" on 24 February 1994

 

Malfeasance

Ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems

A further Telstra documents, in this illusive briefcase dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland AXE telephone exchange states:

“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)

It is confirmed from this other Telstra document that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid. This can best be viewed by reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), 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.”

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).”

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 my case, as evidenced by the following two links, the arbitrator's failure to compel Telstra to address my ongoing telephone issues enabled Telstra to persist in ignoring the problems. This ultimately led to my reluctant decision to sell my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and residence in December 2001 after enduring seven years of ongoing telephone problems after completing my arbitration on 11 May 1995. Subsequently, the new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, encountered the same phone faults, corroborated by the following two links. By December 2008, their bankruptcy declaration in the Melbourne Magistrates Court resulted in their eviction from the property in August 2009, leaving them broken. Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5, Immoral - hypocritical Conduct.

Upon discovering that the COT Cases had engaged the services of George Close and Associates to assist with their arbitration claims, Telstra took proactive measures. Specifically, they implemented a facsimile interception system at Mr. Close's residence and office. The objective was to intercept the FOI documents Mr Close was instructing his COT Case clients to access from Telstra, a critical component for the claimants' chances of success in their claim.

In my 1998 draft manuscript (referred to above), I presented a compelling argument to Senator Kim Carr and Helen Handbury, the sister of Rupert Murdoch and Maureen Burke IBVM. I detailed how AUSTEL (now ACMA), the government communications regulator, deliberately distorted its findings to benefit Telstra in its report on the COT Cases. This manipulation deeply troubled Helen, as it underscored the alarming extent of Telstra's influence over government decisions. The original draft report, discussed with the COT Cases during a critical two-day meeting at AUSTEL's headquarters in Queens Road, Melbourne, on April 7 and 8, 1994, revealed that around 120,000 customers across Australia were grappling with COT-type complaints against Telstra.

However, on 13 April 1993, the final report was submitted to the government, and the arbitrator shockingly stated that 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers "...may be higher than Telecom's original estimate of 50." This significant discrepancy (removing the correct figure) still needs scrutiny and raises serious concerns about the government's transparency and regulatory accountability during the government-endorsed COT arbitrations.

This situation raises a critical inquiry: did the 120,000 COT-type customers across Australia, as referenced in Falsification Report File No/8, only experience some of the phone problems raised by the COT Cases? Could some of those 120,000 COT type-phone complaints have been refuted for billing claims, as well as the phone faults that had caused the billing problems, making those claims two-fold complaints? These challenges may indeed be linked to problems associated with the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange, which is currently under scrutiny by AUSTEL, alongside concerns regarding CAN and AXE (as documented in (Falsification Report File No/8).

The arbitrator involved in the COT case arbitrations, whose actions appeared to favour government interests, asserted that there were no ongoing issues affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. In his May 11, 1995 award, he acknowledged only outdated, anecdotal faults related to Telstra, disregarding the pressing ongoing problems. Had he been informed of the significant 120,000 unresolved faults within Telstra, he might have prompted his technical consultants to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the validity of my ongoing telephone fault complaints.

 

PLEASE NOTE:

I have raised an important question regarding whether some of the 120,000 COT-type complaints were, in fact, related to billing issues. Frank Blount, the CEO who managed the COT arbitrations for Telstra, acknowledges in his 2000 co-produced book that systemic billing problems plagued Telstra. Yet, remarkably, Telstra's defence against my billing claims was only addressed in a secretive meeting with the government on October 16, 1995—five months after my arbitration concluded. Refer to Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? This covert handling of arbitration claims, where defence documents were utilized without allowing me my legal right to respond, is simply unacceptable and unheard of in most if not all, Western nations that rely on arbitration for dispute resolution.

The following link https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-Australia › fran› makes it clear that Frank Blount, former CEO of Telstra, took a pivotal step after his departure by co-publishing a manuscript in 1999 titled *Managing in Australia*. In this work, he uncovers significant issues that Telstra had concealed from its 1800 customers, particularly in relation to the systemic billing problems highlighted by the COT arbitrator appointed by the government. Notably, on pages 132 and 133, the author decisively addresses these critical concerns. 

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
• The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

It is crucial to emphasize the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document).

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. During the period when Ann Garms sent the four attached letters, I also engaged in direct communication with The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, during his tenure as Minister for Communications and Prime Minister of Australia.

On my behalf, a lawyer from Hamilton presented a comprehensive timeline of events to The Hon. Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance, regarding the issues detailed on absentjustice.com. This was formalized in a statutory declaration dated 26 July 2019, which we both witnessed. The brief version of that Chronology of Events is now firmly established on the Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 webpage. 

On November 21, 2007, I received a significant document from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This document contained AUSTEL’s original draft findings, dated March 2-3, 1994, regarding the telephone challenges experienced at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp from 1988 to 1994—twelve years after the conclusion of my arbitration and thirteen years after my initial request for this information.

The report elucidates the considerable obstacles faced by AUSTEL, as the government regulator, in obtaining essential documents from Telstra, a corporation fully owned by the government at that time. Given the regulatory difficulties experienced, it would have been prudent to suspend the arbitration process until all necessary evidence was made available. Such evidence is crucial for all parties to effectively substantiate or refute the claims associated with each Claim of Ordinary Telephone (COT) case.

The government's inability to access pivotal documents compromised the integrity of the arbitration process, yet claimants were still expected to expend substantial financial resources in attempts to acquire documents from Telstra—documents that even the regulator found challenging to obtain. This fundamental oversight constitutes a breach of the statutory obligations owed to the COT cases and permitted Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations) and Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) to compel the COT claimants into arbitration without the requisite documentation to support their assertions.

As a result of not receiving critical records during our respective arbitrations, we, the COT claimants, were unable to convincingly demonstrate to the arbitrator that our telephone faults persisted. Below, I outline specific areas within the AUSTEL draft report where access to Telstra's records concerning the service provided to me proved challenging.

     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.”

I wish to reiterate an important matter: Once AUSTEL became fully aware that Telstra was withholding pertinent information, it became evident that AUSTEL should not have permitted the arbitration and mediation processes to continue. This information was essential for the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister, particularly since these processes were intended to be based on information that Telstra had declined to provide.

By allowing the arbitrations and mediations to proceed, AUSTEL neglected its duty of care toward the COT cases. If the government could not formally mandate that Telstra furnish the necessary records to the minister, what prospects did the COT cases possess in obtaining similar documents?

The document dated 22 September 1994 is a transcript from an oral interview conducted at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, posed the following question:

"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".

The actions undertaken by AUSTEL constitute a significant abuse of process. AUSTEL permitted me to initiate arbitration and legal proceedings against Telstra without providing the requisite documents necessary to substantiate my claim. Furthermore, I incurred expenses exceeding $300,000 in arbitration fees to establish a case that the government had already substantiated against Telstra, utilizing extracts from Telstra's Portland telephone exchange logbook. Notably, both the government and Telstra declined to supply this logbook during the discovery process and under the Freedom of Information Act. This situation raises serious concerns regarding AUSTEL’s breach of its statutory obligations to me as a citizen of Australia.

As clearly documented on my website, absentjustice.com, I have devoted the past thirty years to pursuing the issues related to AUSTEL and ACMA for this very reason.

 

 

The document [1659], dated March 1994, unequivocally confirms that the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone issues validated my claims against Telstra between Points 2 and 212. It's clear that had the arbitrator reviewed AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, the award for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than what was ultimately granted.

The ongoing loss of business and revenue is undeniable. As highlighted in point 153 of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, it’s evident from the statement issued by the government technical consultants who compiled the 68-page, 212-point report that, despite the installation of the new RCM facility at Cape Bridgewater by Telstra, there was a significant oversight for eighteen months Telstra failed to program the alarm system in the RCM, which should have notified the Portland technicians—18 kilometres away—of any faults affecting one, two, or even three of the 132 residents relying on this roadside box for connectivity to the outside world.

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.”

To aid newcomers to this website, absentjustice, I have highlighted twelve significant findings from the government's investigation see (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which are marked in red below. These findings were derived from the Telstra Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook, which Telstra withheld from me during my arbitration process. This concealment hindered my ability to comprehensively demonstrate my claims, particularly those that continued to adversely affect my business during the arbitration. Those who compare the highlighted twelve points with the findings in (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings will recognize their alignment. I encourage individuals interested in further examination of these transcriptions to download (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. Your understanding of this matter is essential.

The government only released this 68-page, 212-point report to me on November 2oo7, twelve years after the completion of my arbitration on May 11, 1995.

Point 23 – “It is difficult to discern exactly who had responsibility for Mr Smith’s problems at the time, and how information on his problems was disseminated within Telecom. Information imparted by the Portland officer on 10 February 1993 of suspected problems in the RCM [Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange]“caused by a lighting (sic) strike to a bearer in late November” led to a specialist examination of the RCM on March 1993. Serious problems were identified by this examination.”

Point 25 – "It should also be noted that during the period of time covered by this chronology of significance events it is clear 

• Telecom had conducted extensive testing 
• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp frequestly reported problems with the quality of telephone service
• both the camp and Telecom were receiving confirmation of reported from other network users
• major faults were identified more through persitense reporting of probles by customer than through testing of the network 
• customers in the Cape Bridgewater area also complaining of similar problems

Point 32 – "Telecom's communications with Mr Smith in the months prior to settlement uniformaly argued that the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was at an acceptable level and that Telecom was capable of rapidly rectifying faults as they occured."

Point 42 – “Some important questions are raised by the possible existence of a cable problem affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service. Foremost of these questions is why was the test call program conducted during July and August 1992 did not lead to the discovery of the cable problem. Another important question is exactly how the cable problem would have manifested in terms of service difficulties to the subscriber.”

Point 44 – “Given the range of faults being experienced by Mr Smith and other subscribers in Cape Bridgewater, it is clear that Telecom should have initiated more comprehensive action than the test call program. It appears that there was expensive reliance on the results of the test program and insufficient analysis of other data identifying problems. Again, this deficiency demonstrated Telecom’s lack of a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to resolution of Mr Smith’s problems.” 

Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM.  Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.”

Point 47 –“Telecom's ignorance of the existence of the RCM fault raises a number of questions in regard to Telecom's settlement with Smith. For example, on what bases was settlement made by Telecom if this fault was not known to them at this time? Did Telecom settle with Mr Smith on the bases that his complaints , of faults were justified without a full investigation of the validity of these complaints, or did Telecom settle on the basis of faults substantiated to the time of settlement? Wither criteria for settlement would have been inadequate, with the later critera disadvantaging Mr Smith, as knowledge of the existence of more faults on his service may have led to an increase in the amount offered for settlement of his claims".

Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau:

• “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 disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. (AXE – Portland telephone exchange)”

Point 115 –“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.”

Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”

Point 169 –" Documentation reviewed indicates that other network users attached to the Cape Bridgewater exchange did report problems similar to those experienced by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. It is also clear that problems identified in the area would have impacted on other network users as well as Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp."

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.”