Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

― Maya Angelou

Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

Discover the disturbing world of heinous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who wield control over the legal profession in Australia. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous aptly describe these lawbreakers. There are numerous instances of foreign bribery and corrupt practices, such as bribing arbitration witnesses to conceal the truth about government-endorsed arbitration processes. This includes kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, and the involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has facilitated the privatization of government assets that were not fit for purpose at the time they were sold.

I strongly encourage you to explore this unfolding narrative in greater depth. It reveals a troubling situation involving a soon-to-be senior politician who is responsible for managing four distinct arbitration cases. This individual intentionally concealed a significant letter from the arbitrator, which declared that the arbitration agreement he had relied upon during my protracted thirteen-month arbitration process was deemed not credible

Despite possessing this vital information, both the administrator of the arbitration process and the arbitrator decided to move forward with the agreement, disregarding the implications of their actions. Had I been given access to this critical letter (see Open Letter File No 55-A ).

The arbitrator may well have hung, drawn and quartererd the COT Cases. This would have been a more humane approach to the one he chose.

Absent Justice - Hung Drawn + Quartered

The fax imprint across the top of this 12 May 1995 letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the Federal Attorney-General have still not answered is:

Was this letter faxed to my office by the TIO to assist me in any pending appeal process? If not, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period? 

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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)

Visitor feedback indicates that this website's content effectively highlights these criminal activities, encompassing fraud. 

The Casualties of Telstra saga began in 1992, marked by the efforts of four dedicated individuals: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Grahan Schorer, who served as the COT spokesperson, and myself, Alan Smith. Our journey started a few years earlier when our businesses first reported significant telephone issues to Telecom (now known as Telstra) in 1986 and 1987.

Initially, we sought resolution for seemingly simple problems, unaware that our struggles would soon reveal a more profound, troubling narrative. By December 1992, we encountered a disturbing shift—what began as minor grievances escalated into a harrowing experience characterized by government corruption, calculated malice, and a pervasive atmosphere of ill will. Telstra’s response transformed from indifference to aggressive, threatening actions, leaving lasting scars on our businesses and personal lives as we grappled with a profound sense of injustice.

 

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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

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

I have emphasized the significance of the Canadian government's response to me, dated July 7, 1995, by referencing it twice on the Home Page of absentjustice.com. This important acknowledgment has led me to delve into the introduction of my COT story, which details a serious injustice.

During my arbitration between 1994 and 1995, Telstra and the Australian government communications authority AUSTEL were fully aware that the test results from the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were fundamentally flawed. Despite possessing this crucial information, Telstra and AUSTEL concealed these inaccuracies, allowing the flawed evidence to remain in Telstra's defense throughout the arbitration process.

The Canadian government stood apart as the only organization willing to recognize the wrongful use of this misleading report, demonstrating its commitment to justice. They actively supported my case by reaching out to Bell Canada International Inc., urging them to acknowledge their errors and admit to the misuse of the report. Such an admission would open the door for me to appeal the arbitrator's award, which had endorsed the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests as evidence, falsely indicating that there were no significant ongoing issues with Telstra's Cape Bridgewater exchange that serviced my business.

The current Telstra Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, is part of a group of senior Telstra executives who are aware that on September 26, 1997, Senator Chris Schacht from the Labor Party and Senator Ron Boswell from the National Party demanded that Telstra address my concerns regarding the severely inadequate Cape Bridgwater BCI report, as communicated to the Senate Secretary.

Between May and September 2015, I submitted comprehensive documentation to several key figures, including the Hon. Tony Abbott, then Prime Minister of Australia, members of his office, and various Coalition ministers, such as those from the Australian Federal Police. Exhibit AS-001, the BCI Report, and AS-002 BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 BCI were among the documents. These crucial reports unequivocally demonstrate that the BCI Cape Bridgewater report was fundamentally flawed. This conclusion came to light when Telstra's clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, was presented with the evidence prior to his visit to assess my mental state in Portland (Refer also to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2)

Telstra boldly asserted that 15,590 test calls noted in the BCI report were successfully generated over a five-hour window across five days, specifically from November 4 to November 9, 1993. They claimed that these test calls were crucial in invalidating my arbitration claims. However, it is critical to highlight that, as Sue Laver and the entire Telstra board are fully aware, none of those 15,590 BCI tests were actually conducted at the Cape Bridgewater facility referenced in the Bell Canada International Inc. report. As the BCI Report clearly indicates, Sue Laver and the board have been privy to this incriminating evidence since April 1998.

Books Written Concurrently - Absent Justice

After completing my initial draft of absentjustice.com, I received invaluable feedback from two insightful editors—one based in the picturesque landscapes of New Zealand and the other in the vibrant city of Melbourne. They suggested that I delve deeper into the narratives, emphasizing that this focus would help shed light on the intricate web of collusion, misconduct, and deceit that permeates various levels of accountants and government officials.

I am developing a detailed timeline of events for my manuscript, ABSENT JUSTICE—Part 2. This timeline is in draft format as I diligently work toward its finalization. I invite you to explore the “Lies Deceit And Treachery section to glimpse the unfolding story.

I initially crafted and refined the additional mini-stories featured throughout the website and continue enhancing them on the Home Page. As visitors engage with absentjustice.com daily or weekly, they will witness the ongoing evolution of the narrative, with fresh updates that will keep the content dynamic and engaging. These updates will persist until this significant chapter of our story reaches its conclusion.

This unfolding experience, rich in detail and emotion, may prove compelling in its own right, and I envision transforming it into a thought-provoking documentary. If anyone reading this narrative feels inspired and is interested in investing in such a project, I wholeheartedly encourage you to contact us through the website. Your support could help bring this vital story to a broader audience.

The holiday camp (my business) heavily relied on landline phones as the only means of communication except for passing trade. This facility, had only eight lines to serve 66 families, totalling 132 adults and children.

If four callers were trying to connect to or from Cape Bridgewater, there were only four available lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children to make or receive calls. This resulted in the lines becoming jammed and non-responsive.

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

 

I knew this was a business I could run successfully.

My name is Alan Smith, and I want to share my story and the harrowing experiences of other business owners who have endured significant hardships at the hands of Telecom, now rebranded as Telstra. We became known by the poignant acronym COT—Casualties of Telecom.

Until the late 1990s, Telecom was the backbone of Australia's communication infrastructure, serving as the government’s telephone network and primary communication carrier. It was a time when reliable communication was vital for businesses and communities. However, as the century turned, Telecom faced a significant transformation; it was privatized and adopted the name Telstra. This change, heralded as a move toward modernization and efficiency, marked the beginning of a decline. Once a monopoly in the telecommunications sector, Telstra became mired in rampant mismanagement at every level. The result was a crumbling network that poorly served countless customers reliant on consistent communication for their operations and connections with clients.

I knew this was a business I could run successfully. From the age of 15, when I went to sea as a steward on English passenger/cargo ships, I worked in areas that prepared me for the hospitality trade. In 1963, I jumped ship in Melbourne to work as an assistant chef in one elite hotel after another. Two years later, I joined the Australian Merchant Navy. By 1975, I had been a chef on many Australian and overseas cargo ships and had returned to land.

Faye and I had married in Melbourne in 1969, and I worked freelance in the catering industry and on tugboats while I studied for a hotel/motel management diploma. I had already managed one hotel/motel and pulled it out of receivership to be released. By 1987, at the age of 44, I had enough experience behind me to be confident that I had the skills and knowledge to turn a simple school camp into a thriving, multifaceted concern.

I visited almost 150 schools and shires to extol the virtues of the Camp, and in February 1988, I had some 2000 colour brochures printed and distributed. Then, we waited for the phone to ring with inquiries, which were in vain. Due to this marketing exercise, there was not even a modest 1% inquiry rate.

By April, we had begun to realise that the problem might lie with the telephone service. People asked why we never answered our phones or suggested we install an answering machine to take calls when we were away from the office. We had an answering machine, but even after installing a new one, the complaints continued, coupled with comments about long periods when the phone gave the engaged signal.

As time passed, the call 'drop-outs' added to our problems, especially when the line went dead in the middle of a call. We lost that contact if the caller hadn't yet given us contact information and didn't ring back. Between 19 April 1988 and 10 January 1989, Telstra logged nine separate complaints from me about the phone service, plus several letters of complaint. A typical response to my 1100 call (the number you called when there was a problem) was a promise to check the line. A technician was sent out on rare occasions, whose response was inevitable: 'No fault found' while my problems continued unabated.

In a misguided effort to rectify the mounting communication crises that plagued businesses, the government instituted an arbitration process. This was intended to be a lifeline to address and resolve ongoing issues with faulty telephone services. However, the reality unfolded starkly differently. What began as a possible avenue for redress quickly devolved into a skewed power struggle between the COT claimants and the formidable, government-backed Telecom. As four claimants, we found ourselves ensnared in a daunting duel that felt insurmountable. Our mounting frustrations with unreliable telephone and fax services only compounded our challenges, leading to costs and staggering losses. Our legitimate concerns were met with a cold indifference, as if they were mere inconveniences rather than serious impediments to our livelihoods.

The impact of this turmoil was both profound and personal. Our integrity was questioned; reputations painstakingly built over the years were systematically dismantled. In some troubling instances, outright criminal acts were perpetrated against us. Telecom attempted to divert the blame onto small business owners, casting us as the architects of our misfortunes. In truth, we suffered from the severe consequences of their negligence, facing a devastating erosion of our livelihoods due to the failure of essential communication services to uphold our connections with clients.

As COT claimants, we collectively incurred losses amounting to millions of dollars. The toll on our mental well-being was nothing short of devastating; many of us experienced a drastic decline in our health as stress and despair took hold. Eventually, our once-thriving businesses crumbled into ruins. Meanwhile, those entrenched in government—the very architects of this outrageous injustice and widespread corruption—continue to inhabit positions of power to this day. The tragic truths of our experiences remain shrouded in obscurity, suffocated under layers of bureaucratic red tape.

These stories carry immense significance even now as the cover-up continues unabated. They serve as a stark reminder of how, amidst rapid technological advancements, large organizations can exploit their clients, conceal corrupt practices, and evade accountability for their mismanagement. This narrative is steeped in themes of egregious government malfeasance, deep-seated injustices, and alarming criminal behavior, echoing the treachery traditionally associated with organized crime syndicates.

I received guidance suggesting that I compile two narratives in tandem due to the pervasive nature of corruption and deception rather than segregating the chapters that depict more egregious incidents. This strategy has proven effective. Nevertheless, Telstra's vindictiveness and threatening behavior represent only a peripheral aspect of this corruption.

To elucidate, we encountered an arbitrator who acted unlawfully, an administrator and administrative consultants who distorted the course of justice. These parties sometimes failed to adhere to the arbitration process's established rules.

Moreover, we observed government agencies operating outside of the rule of law, in conjunction with two of the most respected auditing firms, which have been engaged by both the current government and its predecessors since at least 1993. These entities committed various offenses both prior to, during, and long after the conclusion of the 1994 arbitrations.

 

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

Threats - Criminal Conduct 

“COT Case Strategy” 

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

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

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

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

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

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

  • "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

 

Absent Justice - Stopped at all Costs

The Threats Contained 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

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 39 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 (Freehills Hollingdale & Page - Telstra's arbitration ) 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 Riddle. That was the induction process—"

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

“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.” 

During her second visit, Helen Haddbury animatedly shared her plans to enlist her brother Rupert, a prominent media mogul, to help bring my story to the public's attention. As she spoke, I felt a knot tightening in my stomach; I hesitated to reveal that Rupert was already acutely aware of the grave inadequacies plaguing Telstra’s infrastructure. After all, he had successfully pursued a jaw-dropping $400 million claim against the telecommunications behemoth, exposing its failures. This stark contrast in our positions underscored the vast chasm in power and resources—Rupert’s influence was monumental. At the same time, we, the COT cases, felt like mere whispers in the chaotic din of corporate negligence as the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handburypages show.

After Helen Handbury carefully reviewed my initial draft of absentjustice.com, she and two insightful editors—one hailing from the vibrant landscapes of New Zealand Lyn, and the other from the lively city of Melbourne—Ronda all shared their thoughts. They noted that my writing captures the intricate narratives surrounding the collusion, deep-seated wrongdoing, and deceptive actions of various layers of accountants and government officials, ensuring that these critical issues are not overlooked.

This approach is designed to illuminate the complexities of the narrative and underscore the importance of accountability in this ongoing journey.

Absent Justice - Helen Handbury

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In correspondence with Coopers and Lybrand, Bell Canada International Inc. and Deloitte, I also expressed significant concerns regarding the AXE equipment used at Cape Bridgewater and Portland, where Bell Canada did part of their testing. I argued that the conclusions presented in the Cape Bridgewater BCI report could not reflect an accurate assessment due to the ongoing problems with the AXE system in the Portland Ericsson exchange, which was responsible for servicing my business. 

Subsequently, Robert Nason ascended to an executive position within Telstra and later joined the board of FOX. Notably, this is the same Robert Nason, partner of the then Coopers and Lybrand, where the auditing by Coopers was referenced in a letter from Doug Campbell to Ian Campbell (no relation) on November 10, 1993. As shown below, in this letter, Telstra's Group General Manager in charge of the COT Cases soon to be arbitrations, Doug Campbell, advised Telstra's Ian Campbell (no relative), who had agreed with the government to arbitrate the COT matters using the Coopers & Lybrand report which admitted the COT Cases claims was now forcing Coopers & Lybrand to change their findings regarding Telstra's unethical conduct to the COT which the following wording in this November 10 1993 internal Telstra letters shows:   

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

The Hon. David Hawker MP, who serves as my Federal Member of Parliament, had already provided Doug Campbell's letter to Senator Richard Alston during a meeting on September 20, 1995, at Parliament House in Canberra. Two other representatives from the COT Cases attended this meeting. The presentation of this letter visibly unsettled the Senator, mainly because he was already aware of both the draft and final reports prepared by Coopers & Lybrand. These reports explicitly indicated that Telstra had permitted a manipulated version of the report to be submitted in arbitration proceedings.

This situation was reminiscent of the earlier Bell Canada International Inc. report, where the arbitrator did not receive the comprehensive advice he had been promised if he agreed to take on the arbitrator role rather than the commercial assessor position to which he had already been officially assigned. As Helen Handbury examined the numerous examples of how the Coopers & Lybrand report had been altered to favor Telstra while simultaneously disadvantaging the COT Cases, she expressed her concern, remarking that Rupert, her brother, "must see what has happened here; he would be aghast."

There are reasons to believe that Rupert Murdoch may have already been informed about the controversies surrounding Robert Nason and the manipulated findings in the Coopers & Lybrand report. This scrutiny extends to Mr. Nason’s subsequent appointment as a Telstra executive and elevation to the board of FOX, raising further questions about the integrity of these corporate dealings.

Furthermore, Doug Campbell's insights and testimonies were featured on the Sunday Business show broadcast on Channel Nine. The episode can be found on the third listed YouTube video on the Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte page, providing additional context to the ongoing issues related to these reports and the treatment of COT Cases.

Kangaroo Court - Absent Justice Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte hyperlinks to https://shorturl.at/5EALA and https://shorturl.at/djvYt prominently displayed on the Kangaroo Court website underscore a troubling and increasingly visible pattern of scrutiny directed at major accounting firms' operational practices by the Australian government and the media.

My primary concern is that if Rupert Murdoch and FOX received a staggering $400 million in compensation from Telstra, then the COT Cases, which have endured ongoing telephone and faxing problems with their respective businesses long after arbitration was intended to resolve their ongoing telephone problems and faults, should likewise have received compensation when these phone and faxing faults continued for years after the conclusions of their arbitrations.

There exists some ambiguity regarding whether Mr. Murdoch has obtained a copy of my manuscript, which serves as the foundation for the website absentjustice.com, dedicated to shedding light on these pressing matters. To date, I have not received any communication from Mr. Murdoch, and given his considerable connections with Telstra, his direct involvement in this situation appears unlikely.

How does the above PwC text relate to the COT Cases arbitration process? 

 

 

Coopers & Lybrand Report 

QUESTION

Were the issues surrounding Coopers & Lybrand merely inadvertent mistakes, or was there a calculated intention to present only selective evidence leading up to the COT Cases arbitrations? This particular report proved to be a significant influence in those contentious arbitrations, much like the deeply flawed Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater report and the AUSTEL COT Cases report from April 1994. Whether or not the inclusion of these three problematic reports was aimed at undermining the integrity of the COT arbitrations in 1994, the government’s eventual public acknowledgment of their shortcomings—coupled with the decision to withdraw them from consideration in 2025—would provide a crucial sense of relief and closure for the remaining participants of the COT Cases, helping them to find a measure of peace in their lives.

 

A letter dated 3 November 1993 to Mr Robert Nason (Coopers & Lybrand) from the Hon Senator Richard Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications (Exhibit 938 → AS-CAV 923 to 946) notes:

"I have at last received a copy of your terms of reference and these make it clear that the review requires Coopers & Lybrand to "conduct an independent audit of (the) adequacy, reasonableness and fairness (of) Telecom's approach to Difficult Network Faults reported by customers over the last 5 years".

The review also explicitly requires Coopers & Lybrand recommendations to take "into account Telecom's legal obligations".

Despite the clear nature of these terms of reference I am disturbed to learn from several COT members that your review will not deal with questions of misleading and deceptive conduct".

While the final public Coopers & Lybrand report is almost identical regarding Telstra's previous settlements with the COT Cases at point 2.20 to that shown in their draft at point 2.20, we must highlight one particular variation.

Draft

"We have found evidence that an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process." (Exhibit 939 AS-CAV 923 to 946)

 

Final

"We believe that in some cases an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process’s" (Exhibit 940 AS-CAV 923 to 946 )

Absent Justice - My StoryI have always been convinced that the segment referred to in the Coopers & Lybrand draft as "have found evidence" was the same evidence I provided Robert Nason and Sue Hurley during their visit to my business on 13 October 1993, which shocked them and left them both speechless. At points 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) hearing my claims clearly articulates that he placed the Bell Canada International Inc. Report, Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL COT Cases Report into evidence.

Had Dr Hughes been provided the factual findings in this case, those of Coopers & Lybrand, as well as AUSTEL's secret findings on this settlement issue, as arbitrator, he would have had to find against Telstra regarding these settlement issues instead of finding in favour of Telstra.

Although Senator Ron Boswell’s questions on notice were put to the Senate Estimate Committee Hearing in December 1993, they are most relevant to this date line, primarily because of the question that the Senator put directly to Telstra (AS 1030), i.e.: 

“In the review by Coopers and Lybrand of Telecom’s difficult network fault, policies and procedures will the terms of reference allow Coopers and Lybrand to examine the issues of misleading and deceptive conduct of Telstra?”

Telstra then replied:

“...Telecom does not accept that it has been involved in such conduct” and “Should allegations of such conduct arise in the course of C&L investigations, Telstra would expect C&L to have proper regard to such allegations on the conduct of its work” and “Telstra would also expect C& L to address any such allegations in its reports” (AS 1230). 

When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct. Still, all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting me and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the proof that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.

Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9th November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (AS 942),, saying: 

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

These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country, which at the time had a monopoly on the industry in Australia.

Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft, it is noted (AS 943) that:

"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."

However, in the same section of the final version (AS 944), there is no mention of ensuring that “…the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act.”

The draft report, at point 23 under ‘Other Recommendations’, notes (AS 945) that:

"Fitness for Purpose: Telecom needs to issue, inter alia, instructions to sales, installation, maintenance, fault investigation and repair involved with PSTS and/or CPE work that checks must be made to ensure the PSTS will meet or continue to meet the "fitness for purpose" requirements of the 1974 Trade Practices Act for the circumstances they are dealing with."

In the final version, Coopers & Lybrand have again left out the central issue of the service provided is ‘fit for purpose’ according to the 1974 Trade Practices Act (AS 946), the very issues that AUSTEL advised the Government would be addressed by Telstra in a commercial settlement process, with no need for an arbitration if it was proved that Telstra had acted outside of the 1974 Trade Practice Act. But once again, here we have the arbitrator accepting the Coopers & Lybrand report, even though it did not reference what Telstra should be doing according to the Trade Practice Act. 

Robert Nason has been a senior executive in the Telstra Corporation for some time, including holding the position of Group Managing Director, Business Support and Improvement in 2014. In 2013, he was also appointed as Chairman of Foxtel. Still, in June 2010, I provided Mr Nason with a condensed draft version of this story and most of the Exhibits it refers to in the hope that he could resolve my matters. Mr Nason has never responded.

 

Coopers & Lybrand Report

Towards the end of 1993, Telstra commissioned an international audit company, Coopers and Lybrand, to report on Telstra’s fault-handling procedures, particularly about complaints like those raised by the members of COT. In a letter dated 17 September 1993 (Exhibit 1010 -AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019) to AUSTEL’s Chairman, Mr Robin Davey, the then-Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, wrote:

"Finally I note that Telecom propose to engage one of the "Big Five" accounting firms to audit its handling of the COT cases with Austel merely having unspecified access to the consultants and its output.

If such an audit is to have any legitimacy it is essential that it should be commissioned and paid for by Austel. To allow one party to litigation to select and pay - undoubtedly generously - for the judge would not be tolerated in any judicial proceedings. It should not be tolerated here."

Despite the concerns expressed by various government ministers, including Senator Alston, Telstra alone paid Coopers & Lybrand and Bell Canada International Inc. to do that work. In the case of the COT arbitrations, Telstra paid for the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s helpers, who were then exonerated from all liability for anything untoward they might have been involved in. Still, the RVA "service disconnected" fault problems were not appropriately addressed during my arbitration, even though the then Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston had raised them in the Senate on 25 February 1994

 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Threats made during my arbitration 

In late March 1994, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I placed a significant phone call to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms. Phillipa Smith. During this conversation, we alerted her to the documents we had received under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act from Telstra. Among these documents was a critical final report that was relevant to all four arbitrations, including the case of Maureen Gillan. However, we faced challenges accepting the accompanying draft report, which outlined how the final report had been prepared. We chose not to reveal that we were specifically seeking the draft report from the Coopers and Lybrand auditor, which the four COT Cases had participated in during September and October 1993.

Moreover, we refrained from informing Ms. Smith that Senator Richard Alston, the determined Shadow Minister for Communications, had passionately insisted that we be provided with both copies of the crucial audit documents. Senator Alston's involvement stemmed from his active participation in the auditing process itself. He had taken the initiative to write to Robert Nason, one of the audit partners, fervently demanding that he address Telstra's misleading and deceptive conduct. This communication turned into a contentious document that Telstra's representative, Paul Rumble, adamantly refused to supply to me. Compounding the issue, there were indications that Telstra had been covertly monitoring my telephone conversations during the first week of October 1993. This was a particularly unsettling time, as Robert Nason had visited my holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater, urging me to continue faxing Telstra-related documents to him, which I believed could aid in the audit process.

In a pivotal moment in July 1994, I decided to escalate the matter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). At this time, Paul Rumble was acutely aware that this specific document was part of the FOI materials I was pursuing from Telstra. In a menacing turn of events, he threatened me, suggesting that if I were to share any documents with the AFP, this particular document would be among those withheld, underscoring the lengths to which Telstra was willing to go to maintain control over the information.

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.


As my story shows, I did not honour this statement. I found evidence that Telstra was intercepting my faxes, and there was no way I would trade with a corporation that was saying one thing but doing another. The Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms that the COT Cases faxes, including mine, were being screened (viewed) by a secondary fax machine before being redirected to their original destination. It was like honouring a commitment to the devil who had one hand on your heart and the other on a dagger! 

 

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, 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 on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in investigating Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.

As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.

Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details that were shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete

This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?

On May 24, 1995, Ted Benjamin, a notable figure at Telstra and an influential administrator within the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman office, released the Cooper & Lybrand Report draft. This significant event marked a response to my original Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which I had submitted a year earlier, in May 1994. Along with the report itself, I received three additional documents that pertained to my FOI request, specifically seeking access to the intricate working notes related to the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International tests.

Throughout my arbitration process, I had been persistently striving to obtain these crucial documents from Telstra, which I believed held vital information pertinent to my case. The timing and nature of these documents were particularly troubling, suggesting that Telstra had intentionally withheld them out of fear that I might present this evidence to the Australian Federal Police, who were currently investigating the company. These documents potentially contained irrefutable proof of Telstra's longstanding and covert practice of intercepting my telephone conversations—an invasive intrusion that had occurred for years without my knowledge.

In his letter dated May 24, 1995, Mr. Benjamin remarked: “Further documents have recently come to light that fall within your FOI request of 1994. Copies of the documents are enclosed. At this time, a table providing decisions regarding these documents has not been prepared, as it was considered more important for you to receive the copies now.”

Upon receiving these documents, I promptly informed John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, about the pertinent information that had finally come to light a year after my initial request. The release of these documents could significantly alter the trajectory of my case had they been made available during the arbitration process. Mr. Pinnock then meticulously documented key observations regarding the delayed release of these indispensable documents, highlighting the gravity of the situation.

John Pinnock wrote to me on 7 August 1995 regarding the impracticable BCI test documents received twelve months after my initial FOI request in May 1994, in this letter Pinnock states:-

“You have also claimed that on 26 May 1995 you received further FOI documents from Telstra which, you state, would have assisted your claim significantly. …”

“As Administrator of the FTAP, I have a duty to ensure the integrity of the procedure. Your complaints go to this issue, and accordingly, I would be pleased if you would provide me with:

all documents supplied to you by Telstra on or after 26 May 1995 together with covering letters, schedules or annexures which may identify those documents.
a concise explanation of the significance of the further FOI documents released by Telstra; in particular, specific instances which support your contentions in (a) and (e) above.
Any other evidence which supports the above contentions.”
(File 226 - GS-CAV Exhibit 216 to 257)

On 8 August 1995, I wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin concerning Telstra knowingly using the flawed BCI tests in their arbitration defence and withholding FOI documents until after Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) deliberated on my claim. (File 196 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

On 9 August 1995, I submitted another FOI request to Ted Benjamin, re the T200 report.  As neither Telstra nor Dr Hughes accessed, on my behalf, the working notes regarding Telstra’s ‘beer-in-the-phone’ TF200 report, Alan makes a fresh FOI request, with the appropriate $30 application fee, for these documents.  This letter was also copied to Mr Pinnock, who plays a continuing role in this TF200 saga. (File 188 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

In Telstra's Steve Black’s letter to Mr Pinnock, he states:-

“I refer Dr Hughes’ letter to you dated 21 June, 1995 which enclosed a copy of a facsimile from Mr Smith to Dr Hughes dated 20 June 1995. Dr Hughes copied his letter to Telstra.”

 

Absent Justice - A Can of Worms

Six weeks subsequent to Dr. Hughes delivering his findings pertaining to my case, a fax from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office, authored by Pia, a lawyer with Minter Ellison, was sent to Peter Bartlett. This communication was a response to my letter directed to Dr. Hughes dated June 20, 1995, regarding my assertion that the Bell Canada International (BCI) Cape Bridgewater tests were impracticable. Dr. Hughes's subsequent response to that correspondence was issued on June 21, 1995. In Pia's header sheet (letter), she states:

“Peter – could you please review Dr. Hughes's letter to Pinnock dated June 21, 1995, concerning Alan Smith? John wishes to discuss this on Monday, and we need to formulate a strategy regarding parties seeking to revisit issues post-arbitration. His position is to avoid 'opening the can of worms,' but he would like to discuss possible strategies with you. Regards, Pia” (File 184 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233).

This reference to a 'can of worms' is directly associated with the Cape Bridgewater and BCI information I received twelve months late on May 23, 1995, two weeks after Dr. Hughes deliberated on my arbitration claim. Furthermore, I had previously requested from Dr. Hughes, the COT arbitrator, the same Bell Canada International Inc. information that TIO John Pinnock referred to in a letter dated June 28, 1995 (File 665-aAS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700). That letter indicated that the “file does not demonstrate that you (I) advanced the matter further,” despite my journal entry for January 24, 1995 (File 665-a -AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 ) confirming that the fax I dispatched that day was indeed received at the arbitrator's office.

Several factors appear to contribute to Mr. Pinnock's hesitance to investigate my legitimate Bell Canada International claims, as it may potentially ‘open the can of worms.’ By June 1995, it became increasingly apparent that Dr. Hughes, Telstra, and Peter Pinnock acknowledged the origin of my letter to Dr. Hughes, the appointed arbitrator. The fax identification indicated that the letter had been transmitted from my office, leaving no doubt about its source.

The investigation into this matter and the troubling issues surrounding the flawed Bell Canada International tests could have posed serious concerns regarding the integrity of the arbitration process. Given the gravity of these issues, I asserted that neither matter received the thorough investigation it warranted, leaving significant gaps in the arbitration proceedings.

On 24 August 1995, Ted Benjamin responded to my letter of 8th August 1995, noting:-

“I refer in particular to the last paragraph of your letter in which you state that Telstra had ‘…internal knowledge that the Bell Canada International Addendum report was not a true and correct document’. 'Telstra rejects outright your claim…” (File 197 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

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

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

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

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

1996 a troubling situation unfolded involving the arbitrator Dr. Hughes and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) John Pinnock. They misled and deceived Laure James, who was serving as the President of the Institute of Arbitrators, about several significant issues. These included the flawed Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater tests, which had profound implications for the arbitration process, and the manipulated Coopers and Lybrand Reports, which were intended to misrepresent the facts.

Their actions seemed to undermine James’s authority and effectiveness as President, likely to prevent him from conducting thorough investigations into my claims. I had raised serious concerns that Dr. Hughes had lost control over my arbitration process by accepting witness statements known to be false and relying on fabricated reports. This created a lack of integrity in the arbitration system, which is supposed to ensure fairness and truth.

Furthermore, it's important to highlight that Dr. Hughes had a troubling history related to this case. Four years prior, he had assisted Telstra during a Federal Court action. This relationship raised significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest, which are crucial in ensuring impartiality in arbitration settings (see the section on Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest for more details).

Dr. Hughes also failed to honor his pre-arbitration statement on February 17, 1994. He had explicitly stated that if we, the COT Cases, were not provided with the promised documentation vital for our cases, he would refrain from making a decision based on incomplete information. His disregard for this commitment raises serious questions about the validity and fairness of the arbitration outcome.

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

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

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

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

 

Gaslighting - Absent Justice

In preparing the introduction to Gaslighting, it was essential to show how Telstra's gaslighting conduct towards its customer base, particularly regarding allegations of malfeasance, impropriety, and malpractice; it is pertinent to note that certain Telstra employees themselves faced accusations of delinquency, impropriety, and malversation. These individuals were purportedly involved in unethical activities commonly known as naughtiness, legal bullying and rudeness. This led to malpractice and mismanagement claims against its senior officials for their offensive transgression and wrongdoing towards the COT Cases.
 
This hypocritical, leaning towards untrue and fallacious insincere, perjurious and two-faced double, dealing smooth-tongued mealymouthed behaviour is what the COT Cases tried to have the arbitrator take on board—the arbitration proceedings of the COT Cases endeavoured to bring attention to these issues. However, the considerable duration, spanning over three years, during which Telstra remunerated the arbitrator's fees presented a formidable challenge.

 

A government-endorsed arbitration process was established to assist business owners in addressing ongoing communication issues and resolving persistent problems with faulty telephone services. Unfortunately, this initiative quickly devolved into a one-sided struggle between the COT Cases and the government-supported telecom provider, leaving the four claimants—including myself—unable to achieve a fair resolution. Our difficulties with telephone and fax services worsened as our financial burdens grew, exacerbated by the failure to repair inadequate services and the lack of direct attention to our concerns. This lack of support was especially disheartening given the government's previous assurances in their April 1994 public COT Cases Report and various media releases from Canberra Parliament House.

Amidst this turmoil, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed commercial assessor for the proposed arbitrations and a former President of the Law Council of Australia, along with Warwick Smith, the newly appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and a former government minister, informed us and an expanding group of other individuals affected by similar chronic phone issues about the urgent need for a proper arbitration process. The initial four COT Cases, recognized as trailblazers for highlighting the significant inadequacies in the Telstra network, were ultimately offered an alternative: instead of pursuing arbitration, we were presented with a commercial assessment process to acknowledge our efforts. Telstra signed this agreement on November 18, 1993, followed by the four COT Cases on November 23, 1993.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, before we agreed to the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), Warwick Smith—the administrator of the FTSP—was secretly given privileged government information that was shared with Telstra's upper management. This confidential information indicated that the COT Cases were losing the government support that had initially backed a Senate investigation into Telstra. This strategic move allowed Telstra to stall the FTSP process, denying the four COT Cases access to essential discovery documents we would receive under the established Freedom of Information (FOI) framework. As Telstra exploited this delay to their advantage, their legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, seized the opportunity to draft an arbitration agreement that was heavily skewed in favor of Telstra.

On 10 January 1994, a significant document from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), referenced as File 56-B - Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D, was issued confirming that Warwick Smith had granted authorization to Grant Campbell of Telstra. This authorization empowered Campbell to thoroughly assess my FTSP claims against Telstra. Notably, this evaluation occurred a full five months prior to the appointment of Dr. Gordon Hughes as the Arbitrator in this matter. As a result, Telstra possessed crucial insights into my strengths and weaknesses before I formally signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994, thus impacting the dynamics of the following negotiations.

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other vital members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he provided the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Thus, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

On January 10, 1994, Warwick Smith received a copy of the arbitration agreement crafted by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, which was subsequently handed over to Dr. Gordon Hughes as the FTSP assessor.

 

 

Absent Justice - My Story - Australian Federal Police

 

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

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

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

 

Absent Justice - Telstra Spying on its Employees

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

In the weeks that followed, my phone problems continued unabated. I began keeping a log of phone faults, recording all complaints I received in an exercise book, along with names and contact details for each complaint and a note regarding the effect these failed calls had on the business and me.

In February 1994, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) reached out to me with urgent news: I needed to meticulously separate the phone complaints lodged by my single club patrons, dating back to 1990, from those made by schools and other organizations throughout the 1990s that had also reported dissatisfaction with my service. This distinction was critical because the AFP had uncovered that Telstra—Australia's major telecommunications company—had been systematically documenting my single club members' names, addresses, and phone numbers over an extended period. These records, carefully maintained in Telstra's internal files, had become the focus of the ongoing investigation.

Under the AFP's directive, I was tasked with a daunting job: translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. These diaries were to remain strictly confidential and not be shared with Telstra under any circumstances. While I battled through this meticulous rewrite, the AFP simultaneously delved into alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that plagued my operations. (Refer to  Single Club Losses Ignored → Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete).

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

 

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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

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

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority (now operating under the banner of ACMA) seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 - (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

In response to their inquiry on 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson from AUSTEL wrote,

"The tests you refer to were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be directed to those who conducted or claimed to have conducted them."

A storage letter to have been sent after Cliff Mathieson had already written eighteen months previous on 9 December 1993, before Telstra used the BCI report as Defence Material, advising Telstra to provide the “assessor(s)” of the COT processes with a copy of his letter regarding the BCI tests, which he declared did not go far enough. This letter was NOT provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) or the COT Cases, as AUSTEL had directed, which makes Telstra’s use of the BCI Report even more unconscionable.

It is essential to highlight that critical information was not communicated to the Canadian Government or Tait Lawyers, who may have taken a different approach based on this knowledge, regarding the actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. This firm submitted misleading BCI tests, falsely claiming that 15,590 successful test calls had been directed to my local exchange, which services my business. These tests occurred at an entirely different telephone exchange, resulting in a substantial misrepresentation of the facts.

 

Canadian Flag 2

 

How has Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), Australia's largest and most prominent legal firm, evaded scrutiny by the Senate for their troubling actions during the COT arbitrations? Official government records indicate that their involvement with the COT cases should have ceased after October 1993 → (point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2). Yet, despite this stipulation, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne was still appointed as the defense attorneys for Telstra in the majority of the COT cases, including my own. It raises alarming concerns—how could they be permitted to validate witness statements never signed by the actual witnesses?

In a troubling turn, Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), presented a fabricated Bell Canada International (BCI) report to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to read before Mr Joblin assessed my mental state. This misleading BCI document claimed that 15,590 test calls were successfully transmitted over four to five hours spanning five days, from November 4 to November 9, 1993, to my local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater. During my arbitration, this spurious information concerning my telephone claims was presented to Ian Joblin, who was part of Telstra's arbitration defence unit.

By utilizing these deceptive BCI tests, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne aimed to create the impression that Ian Joblin would conclude I must be suffering from paranoia regarding my alleged phone issues. They implied that anyone of sound mind would not assert they were experiencing phone problems when, according to the fabricated BCI report, the 15,590 test calls were supposedly transmitted without incident. This manipulation of information raises serious concerns about the integrity of their defence and the implications for my claims.

Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) employed the highly regarded CCS7 monitoring equipment to generate an astonishing number of calls. However, the nearest telephone exchange equipped to handle this advanced CCS7 technology was 112 kilometers from my business location. This raises the question: where did the staggering 15,590 test calls ultimately end up? As you delve into this story, you'll uncover a troubling detail — Telstra audaciously contaminated the collected TF200 telephone by pouring wet and sticky beer residue into it after those phones departed from the COT Cases businesses. Adding to this bizarre scenario, Telstra sought to label other COT Cases members as mentally unstable, as evidenced by my narrative. This corporation has remained unchanged; the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, holds the key to revealing the truth about the BCI (false test results) provided to Ian Joblin. All she needs to do to clarify matters is publicly dismiss my claims as frivolous in a media release, along with the evidence that my claims are false.

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)

Absent Justice - The Firm

“COT Case Strategy” 

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

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

As detailed throughout this website, absentjustice.com, Telstra controls Australia's arbitration and mediation process. Readers can freely download the evidence in my mini-stories while navigating the website, which leaves no doubt that my claims are valid.

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature being where it legally should be on the document as the law states it should be shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

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 (refer to File 596 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

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

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature is unlawful enough; however, with that said, the fact John Pinnock, administrator to my arbitration as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has in 2025, still not provided Telstra's official response concerning this dreadful conduct by Mautice Wayne Condon of Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia shows Senator Kim Carr asking Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (Re: Alan Smith): 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming issue surrounding Telstra’s intelligence networks established across Australia is the critical question of who within the Telstra Corporation possesses the expertise and government clearance to filter the extensive raw information gathered appropriately. This information must be cataloged impartially for future use, yet the process and oversight remain unclear.

PLEASE NOTE

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

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

PLEASE NOTE: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems six years after I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in December 1987, found my claims against Telstra validated as the following points 209 to 212 show:

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.”

Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”

Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.

Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.”

 

Back to 1988 through to 1994

 

Eventually, we discovered that the business's previous owner had endured the same problems and had complained equally unsuccessfully about them. In 1988, when I began marshalling my case against Telstra, I obtained several documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). According to a document headed 'Telstra Confidential: Difficult Network Faults  PCM Multiplex Report', with a sub-heading '5.5 Portland  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp', Telstra was aware of the faults in early 1987.

Harry, our next-door neighbour, sympathised; his daughter, ringing from Colac, often complained about how difficult it was to get through to her parents. Fred, another local and once the owner of Tom the Cheap grocery chain, suffered from similar problems to ours for many years. He commiserated, saying, 'But what can you expect from Telstra when we're in the bush?' I expected better than this, and indeed, we were promised better.

We encouraged people to write, but the telephone culture was endemic. People wanted an immediate response. As bookings dwindled instead of increasing, I felt I hadn't adequately researched the pros and cons before moving to Cape Bridgewater.  I was beginning to question what I had done, asking Faye to agree to sell the family home so that I could satisfy my ambition to run my own business. It was not the fun I had anticipated. I was operating in constant anger, a very unamusing Basil Fawlty.

We went touring South Australia to sell the concept of our Camp through the Wimmera area, but responses were few. Was it the phone to blame? How could we be sure? The uncertainty itself added to the stress.

Attacking one's character 

Absent Justice - Portland Lighthouse

It was our fault, not Telstra's  

Sometimes, the culprit was blindingly obvious. I was soon labelled a vexatious litigant, and my claims were frivolous. On a shopping expedition to Portland, 20 kilometres away, I discovered I had left the meat order list behind. I phoned home from a public phone box, only to get a recorded message telling me the number was not connected! I phoned again to hear the same message. Telstra's fault centre said they would look into the matter, so I went about the rest of the shopping, leaving the meat order to last. Finally, I phoned the Camp again, and the phone was engaged this time. I decided to buy what I could remember from the list and hope for the best; however, I was not surprised when I got home to learn the phone had not rung once while I had been out.

Anyone who uses a telephone has at some time reached a recorded voice announcement (known within the industry as RVA): 'The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.' This incorrect message was the RVA people most frequently reached when trying to ring the Camp. While Telstra never acknowledged what I later discovered among 1994 FOI documents, an internal Telstra memo stating: -

'This message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader.AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

Another Telstra document referred to the need for

a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied … I am sure when we start to scratch around, we will find a host of network circumstances where inappropriate RVAs are going to lineAS6 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

For a newly established business like ours, this was a major disaster. Still, despite the memo's acknowledgement that such serious faults existed, Telstra never admitted the existence of a fault in those first years. And with my continued complaints, I was treated increasingly as a nuisance caller. This was rural Australia, and I was supposed to put up with a poor phone service — not that anyone in Telstra was admitting that it was poor service. In every case, 'No fault found' was the finding by technicians and linesmen.

The frustration was immense, coupled with uncertainty. Were our problems no more than general poor rural service compounded by the congestion on too few lines going into an antiquated exchange? At that stage, the Camp was the only accommodation business in Cape Bridgewater. We relied on the phone more than most people in the area. But if there was some specific fault, why weren't the technicians finding it?

The business was in trouble, and so were we. By mid-1989, we were reduced to selling our retirement shares to cover operating costs. Here we were, a mere 15 months after taking over the business, beginning to sell off our assets instead of reducing the mortgage. I felt like a total failure. Neither of us was able to lift the other's spirits.

I decided to do another round of marketing in the city. I would give it all I had. We both went. Was it masochism that made me ring the Camp answering machine via its remote access facility to check for any messages so I could respond promptly? Whatever it was, all I could get was the recorded message: '

The number you are calling is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.' 

On the way home, just outside Geelong, we stopped at a phone box, and I tried again. Now, the line was engaged. Perhaps somebody was leaving a message, I thought. Ever hopeful.

There were no messages on the answering machine, and nothing could be gained by asking why I had received an engaged signal. How many calls had we lost during the days that we were away? How many prospective clients had given up trying to get through because a recorded message told them the phone was not connected? Anger and frustration were very close to the surface.

Near the end of October 1989, our twenty-year marriage ended. I had already been taking prescribed drugs for stress; that afternoon, I added a quantity of Scotch and hunkered down in one of the cabins. Faye, understandably, was seriously concerned and called the local police, who broke into the cabin to 'save' me from me. They took me to a special hospital, and I am forever grateful to the doctors who confirmed that I wasn't going 'nuts' and who sent me home the following day.

When I took refuge in the cabin on the afternoon of 26 October 1989, only to find my refuge attacked by a Police rescue team, I was transported straight back to China in 1967.  After some heavy discussions with my wife and my ‘saviours’ who, in my confused state, seemed more like the Red Guard soldiers than anything else, I was taken to hospital — in a straitjacket.

I will be forever grateful to the doctors who confirmed that I wasn’t going ‘nuts’ and who allowed me to return to the camp the following day, accompanied by my mate’s wife, Margaret.  I will also be forever grateful to Jack for sending Margaret to ‘bail me out’ so to speak.  The fun, however, had just begun.

At this point, I need to fill in some details regarding an incident in 1967 during the Cultural Revolution in China.  At that time, many young Australians were supporting the American fight against Communism in North Vietnam, and this young man was sailing with the Merchant Marines out of Australia.  We were headed to China from Port Albany in Western Australia with a cargo of wheat, although the Australian Labor Party was against our ship leaving. A brief explanation of this China issue is highlighted in Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong.

While I was in this particular hospital in Warnambool (southwest Victoria), my friends Margaret and Jack from Melbourne, who were well aware of what had happened to me in China, decided that Margaret would come to Warnambool and take me home for the holiday camp which was 110 kilometres away  'bail me out'. The fun, however, had just begun for me and Margaret. 

Margaret and I arrived at the Camp and were confronted with a disaster area. Faye had left the night before, following advice from various people that she needed to be in a 'safe house'. Doors had been left unlocked, meat from the deep freeze was left on benches, and various items had mysteriously vanished. According to the Camp diary, 70 students from Monivae Catholic College in Hamilton were due to arrive in two days and booked in for five days and four nights. Without Margaret's assistance, I would have been wiped out.

Mourning the end of my marriage, the very thought of shopping was a mountain I didn't want to climb. What to feed 70 students plus staff? When I got my head around what to order, it was Sunday evening, and the Monivae group were due the following day. Then the hot water service broke down!

The staff were not happy about the cold showers! Even so, Monivae College returned two and sometimes three times a year for the next five years. Their support throughout this awful period helped me keep trading.

And, of course, Margaret's support. She carried so much through that first week. Aware that I was holding on by my fingernails, she suggested Brother Greg, one of the Monivae teachers, come to the house to talk to me. It was an inspired suggestion, and we talked well into the night. Margaret, too, worked through many things, from early childhood experiences to the end of twenty years of marriage.

Regrettably, a few months later, a serious oversight occurred. The hard copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors had promised to safeguard away from the holiday camp during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by my claim advisors.

A shocking tale unfolds throughout this narrative after Telstra acquires this pivotal evidence. It may astonish readers to learn that a government-owned corporation could engage in such unethical practices against the COT Cases, yet, remarkably, no individuals have been held accountable for these unlawful actions.

One day, the phone extension in the kiosk died. The coin-operated gold phone in the dining room, which was on a separate line, had a normal dial tone, so I dialled my office number, only to hear the dreaded:

'The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.'

was charged for the call because the phone did not return my coins! Five minutes later, I tried again. This time, the office phone appeared to be engaged (it wasn't), and the gold phone happily regurgitated my coins.

I used this testing routine frequently over the next months and registered every fault I found with Telstra. The situation was beginning to tell on me. Why was this still happening after so many complaints? Could Telstra really be this incompetent? Or was there something worse going on? Had I made too much of a nuisance of myself? But that was ridiculous. Under the circumstances, I had behaved impeccably politely … when in fact, I had fantasies of sheer violence at times.

Now I was no longer one half of a working husband and wife team, and I started 1990 digging into my pitifully low financial reserves to pay staff or risk losing everything. I was suffering what is commonly known in the world of finance as a 'consequential resultant loss' — Faye was no longer contributing her unpaid labour. I now had to pay her a yearly dividend on her financial investment in the business.

The future looked grim. Telstra did not attempt to remedy the faults or at least no attempt that made any difference. The constant refrain of 'No fault found' was wearing very thin. I found it hard not to dwell on how many prospective customers might be lost because they couldn't reach me by phone. Nor was it long before the legal vultures were circling. I hadn't met my financial agreement with Faye, and her solicitor was demanding money. I was having trouble meeting my own legal costs, let alone finding any extra. My son's school fees were overdue, and to pay some of the mounting debts, I sold the 22-seater school bus I had originally used to ferry customers around and purchased a small utility in its place.

On the positive side, I had met a woman called Karen, who lived in Warrnambool. Our relationship developed to become quite serious. When Karen knew I was about to wind up my business because I couldn't raise funds to make any more payments to Faye, she put her house up as security for a loan, thereby giving me two years of breathing space. She believed in me, and she believed in the capacity of the Camp to succeed. She wanted to be a partner in it. This was early in 1991.

Things were starting to look up, especially when I discovered that a new exchange was to be installed later in the year at Cape Bridgewater. I was hoping this would alleviate all the problems of congested lines. It was just a question of time. Karen moved in with me, and we worked together with new energy to pull the business out of the doldrums.

In August that year came another joy when I got the first confirmation from someone within Telstra that they knew my phone problems were real. I felt such a relief that the faults were, at last, being acknowledged, and I asked for my new friend's name. I was so happy; I didn't even really register any perturbation when all he could tell me was that he worked at the fault centre in Hamilton.

According to Telstra's own file note:

Alan Smith rang 15/8/91 re service 267 267. Incoming callers are receiving engaged signal when it's not engaged …

This has been a continuing problem and he is losing a lot of business.

I said it appears from the fault history that the problem may be in the exchange and that the next RCM exchange 21/8 would solve these problems but that I would check this out with the techs.

I also said we would have a look at the service now to try and get it working correctly until cutover. AS4 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47.

At last, someone in Telstra had given me something to hang on to. When Karen sold her house, a part of the proceeds went towards paying my legal fees and my debt to Faye. I paid Faye out, and Karen's name was now officially on the title to the business. We counted the days to the installation of the new exchange.

But the triumph of a new exchange when it came at the end of August 1991 was the briefest of victories. It made not the slightest difference. The telephone problems continued just as before. However, now exacerbated by the dreadful disappointment that the war wasn't over at all. Increasingly, people reported complaints of recorded voice announcements, and I continued to complain to Telstra about faults, which seemed to me to be getting worse, not better. I asked technicians if a new exchange didn't correct the problems, then where could the faults lie? Their response was unbelievable: 'No fault found.' They simply refused to engage with my question. I cursed the fact that I had no contact details for the one person who had acknowledged that there were faults. I did not see the file note he wrote until 1995.

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

Despite the financial precariousness of the enterprise, I had, from the start, sponsored the stays of underprivileged groups at the Camp. It was no loss to me, really: sponsored food was provided through the generosity of a number of commercial food outlets, and it cost me only a small amount in 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 all through one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

Absent Justice - My Story - Loretto College

Testimonials

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks, partly (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 repeatedly, 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 90 to 100 people in fourteen cabins. When the charity group organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, finally arrived, the whole week became a great success for all concerned; all enjoyed the in-camp activities, canoeing, and horse riding on the beach. I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

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

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen (my new 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.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her that 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 incredible women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line.  Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

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, a transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP states at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story

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 this almost tragic event 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. 

 

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair
Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could
Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery
Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose
Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator
A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective
The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived
The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

 

Transcripts from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 8 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) reveal significant testimony provided by Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT cases. In an official capacity under oath, Mr. Schorer conveyed to two government attorneys and a senior member of the AAT panel that he and I were actively seeking access to a series of freedom of information documents that Telstra had withheld during the critical arbitration discovery process. Our primary objective was to compile a comprehensive and factual narrative that would illuminate and potentially open doors for other similar cases—fewer than sixteen—that could prompt the Senate to advocate for a thorough government investigation into the validity of our claims.

What Mr. Schorer failed to disclose to the attorneys or the presiding judge, Mr. GD Friedman, was a crucial detail that had a bearing on our case: unbeknownst to me, the government had concealed AUSTEL Adverse Findings from both itself and the arbitrator in March 1994. Alarmingly, these findings were provided to Telstra a mere six weeks before I signed my arbitration agreement. This transfer of information was strategically timed to assist Telstra in mounting a defence against my claims regarding the persistent problems I was experiencing with telephone and fax services, continuing even on the day the information was bestowed upon them.

The government appeared to operate under the belief that preventing me from substantiating my claims was imperative. It was not until November 2007—twelve years after the government initially supplied these AUSTEL Adverse Findings to Telstra—that I received access to this critical document. By this point, the utility of the findings had diminished significantly, as they were now five years past the six-year statute of limitations for filing an appeal against my award.

A thorough examination of this report may lead an impartial observer to conclude that the government has patently breached its obligations towards me as an Australian citizen. This breach appears to stem from a discriminatory practice favouring Telstra, a corporation wholly owned by the Australian government and representing the collective interests of the Australian people, during that significant period in March 1994, Refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings

Points 2 to 212, in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirm that the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings.  

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered this AAT hearing and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

Who We Are

 

Absent Justice was set up in an attempt to publish a true account of what really happened during the various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations with Telstra. We are a group of Australians who call themselves the Casualties of Telstra (CoT). This website stands as a testament to the unlawful conduct we were exposed to.

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. The story of how for years Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found,’ when documents on this website show they were found to have existed as the following government records show (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2, to 212)

Learn More ⟶

Who We Are

 

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

My decision to write this book stems from the complex nature of our narrative and the wide range of exhibits that required careful organization and duplication. This strategic choice allows readers to recognize the various crimes committed against the COT Cases by numerous entities, including public officials and regulatory agencies. This storytelling approach is essential in illustrating the extensive criminality that thrived within the government-sanctioned arbitrations under the International Arbitration Act.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier Telecom (now privatized and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to fall into disrepair. Instead of addressing our severely deficient telephone services as part of the government-endorsed arbitration process—which became an uneven battle we could never win—these issues were never resolved, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost claimants to pursue their cases against this government-owned asset.

Read About Our Dealings With

Learn More ⟶

Quote Icon

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

Absent Justice - Unresolved Privacy Issues

A young man (a boy) with a Conscience.

Julian Assange provided a vital link for the COT cases, but we did not know this during our arbitrations.

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General, Hon. Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers discovered that Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations acted unlawfully towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

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