Spurious, Erroneous, Perjurious Conduct

The saga began in late 1987 when my wife Faye and I bought a holiday camp accommodation business perched high above Cape Bridgewater, near Portland on the southwest coast of country Victoria. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had been run as a school camp, and we intended to turn it into a venue for social clubs, family groups, and schools.

The camp was a phone-dependent concern: the phone and incoming faxes were the only access to our business. Our big mistake when we fell in love with the place was failing to look at the telephone system. In those days, there was no mobile coverage, and business was not done via the internet or by email. The business was connected to a phone exchange installed more than 30 years before and explicitly designed for ‘low-call-rate’ areas. This antiquated and unstaffed telephone exchange had only eight (8) lines to service (66 families), equating to 132 adults plus children, so if four of those adults or their teenage children were dialling out of Cape Bridgewater or were taking a call into their residence in Cape Bridgewater, that left only four free lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children. 

 

The holiday camp was certainly in a pristine location 

 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian Government exercised complete ownership over Australia's telephone network and the communications provider, Telecom, which subsequently underwent privatization and rebranding as Telstra. During Telecom's telecommunications industry monopoly era, the network infrastructure languished in disrepair. Small business proprietors grappling with severe communication impediments resorted to arbitration with Telstra. Regrettably, the arbitration proceedings were marred by impropriety and partiality as the designated arbitrator not only permitted Telstra to diminish the magnitude of sixteen claims and losses but also succumbed to Telstra's influence, allowing the carrier to control the arbitration procedure. Telstra's reprehensible misconduct during these arbitrations is a testament to serious transgressions, yet the Australian Government has failed to hold Telstra and other implicated entities accountable.

The narrative presented on absentjustice.com delineates my account subsequent to the arbitrator's failure to compel Telstra to rectify the persistent telephone issues that prompted my pursuit of arbitration. The government's formal findings, dated April 13, 1994, and submitted to the Minister for Communications, The Hon Michael Lee MP, explicitly mandated Telstra to substantiate to the arbitrator the absence of ongoing phone problems impacting the services of the COT Cases opting for arbitration. Notwithstanding the culmination of my arbitration on May 11, 1995, the telephone malfunctions persisted and exacerbated. Subsequent proprietors of my business, who took possession in December 2001, continued to grapple with these issues, affecting their operations until November 2006, a noteworthy eleven years subsequent to the arbitrator's pronouncements (refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct.

The awarded reparations addressed losses incurred up to July 1994 and not those still affecting the business until 11 May 1995, the day the arbitrator concluded his finding. 

The statement issued by DMR & Lane at point 2.23 in their final report dated April 30, 1995, presented to the arbitrator following the conclusion of the arbitration process refer to Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, has continued to resonate with me. It reads:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”  (see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

I am led to question whether Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia) pressured DMR Group Inc (Canada) to abstain from diagnosing my persistent Ericsson AXE telephone billing issues due to Lane's negotiations with Ericsson for its eventual acquisition in 1996. Alternatively, the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, may have declined DMR & Lane's request for additional time to investigate these billing issues despite their advisory on April 30, 1995, citing the need for further examination into the faults upon Telstra's notification to Dr. Hughes regarding the widespread nature of the billing issues across Australia. Dr. Hughes' reluctance to conclusively rule on my claim may have been influenced by the potential implications for similar claims from the 120,000 other COT-Type Telstra customers reporting analogous faults (refer to "Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN").

The foregoing circumstances raise serious inquiries regarding the equity of the arbitration process and the conduct of the parties involved.

 

It is imperative to acknowledge that in most Western nations governed by the rule of law, the protection of all citizens is foundational, rather than being confined to those with government affiliations. However, during the 1990s in Australia, a government-sanctioned arbitration, known as the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases, utilized a confidentiality agreement, colloquially termed a "gag clause," to shield the government-owned Telstra Corporation. This facilitated Telstra's engagement in gross misconduct, both preceding and during the arbitrations.

It is disconcerting that several government public servants, affiliated with three distinct government-funded agencies, refrained from investigating numerous allegations against the administrator of the arbitrations and the arbitrator, who were both accused of gross negligence and mismanagement.

These agencies, cognizant of deliberate crimes perpetrated by the Telstra Corporation against Australian citizens, obfuscated the gross misconduct without taking action to safeguard the citizens, thereby warranting an examination in the public's interest.

Dr. Gordon Hughes was appointed as the arbitrator and was represented to the media, the government minister, and the claimants as an experienced graded arbitrator. It later emerged, however, that he was not a graded arbitrator at the time of his appointment. Inquiries have arisen pertaining to whether Dr. Hughes undertook his grading examinations during the arbitration period and whether he failed these examinations well before the conclusion of my arbitration on May 11, 1995.

The provided text highlights a specific scenario that exemplifies the challenges encountered by the COT Cases during the government-endorsed arbitrations. Despite the failure of Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith to fulfil their duty of care in preventing Telstra from actualizing their threats, I persevered in supporting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigations. Regrettably, my requests for assistance from Warwick Smith and Dr. Hughes were unmet. Instead, Warwick Smith advised me to proceed without the essential FOI (Freedom of Information) documents I had requested.

On 29 November 1994, Senator Ron Boswell demanded that Telstra address these threats during his Senate presentation (Senate Evidence File No 31). Senator Boswell was deeply troubled by Telstra's intimidation tactics and how they were enforced during my arbitration, with the arbitrator ignoring those threats. This led him to raise the issue of the falsified BCI test results in Cape Bridgewater during the Senate debate on 26 September 1997, urging Telstra to respond to my claims "On Notice."

In January and April 1998, Sue Laver was apprised on two occasions of the falsified BCI test results originating from Cape Bridgewater. Telstra utilized these falsified results during my arbitration. Despite being informed, Sue Laver, as Telstra's Corporate Secretary, has regrettably failed to act in good faith to rectify the submission of false BCI tests and the supply of known false information to the Senate during their investigations of the BCI issues. This absenteeism in addressing the identified concerns bears implications on the integrity of the arbitration process and the credibility of the information presented to the Senate.

It is clear from the statement made by Senator Boswell in my arbitration on 29 November 1994 that would have been addressed as the following statements by the Senator:

“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?” Senate Evidence File No 31)

Despite my full cooperation with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the unauthorized interception of telephone conversations and arbitration-related facsimiles, I am still awaiting their conclusions on the initial evidence I provided. The AFP's lack of information adversely affected the transparency of the arbitrator's investigations into the same phone and fax hacking issues.

The reality is that Telstra's legal representatives crafted the regulations to favour their client, Telstra, thereby impeding claimants' access to essential documentation to substantiate their claims. Clauses 25 and 26, encompassing a $250,000 liability ceiling permitting claimants to litigate against arbitration consultants, were omitted, while clause 24, modified to nullify any possibility of litigating against arbitration lawyers, was also expunged. This account portrays the actions of influential figures in Australia willing to safeguard their privileges at the expense of other Australians' well-being. The narrative further elucidates how an Australian politician, on the cusp of joining a new government, compromised the judiciary to enable a governmental entity embroiled as the defendant in a government-sanctioned legal arbitration process to dictate its own regulations. Both government officials and claimants were informed that the rules had been formulated impartially, contrary to the actual circumstances.

My name is Alan Smith, and my protracted conflict with Telstra began in 1988. This ordeal has spanned successive governmental administrations, departments, regulatory entities, the judiciary, and the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia. The quest for reparation endures to the present day. Several other independent businesspersons, similarly afflicted by substandard telecommunications services, have joined me in this endeavour, collectively referred to as the Casualties of Telecom or the COT cases. Our initial misgivings regarding the integrity of the arbitration process were swiftly substantiated.

The Government had pledged to furnish the requisite Telecom documentation to substantiate our contentions in the event of our participation in government-sanctioned arbitrations. However, regrettably, the pertinent documents crucial to validating our claims of persistent telecommunication issues were not forthcoming during the arbitration course. Furthermore, the Government submitted a report to the arbitrator that delved solely into historical grievances, thus concealing evidence that would have corroborated the systemic nature of our ongoing telephone predicaments and their harmful impact on the viability of our businesses. In essence, placing our trust in the Government exacted a severe toll.

Even three decades subsequent to the conclusion of these arbitration processes, a mere five out of the twenty-one COT cases have been furnished with the promised documentation as outlined in "An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens"

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-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

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

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

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults to these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

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

Criminal Conduct

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 (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

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

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

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

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

Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?

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

Mr. White's statement unequivocally asserts that Telstra deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants to obstruct our ability to prove our claims against the company. It is now 2024, and I have still not received all my promised arbitration documents.

Criminal Conduct

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

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

During my original meeting with Ian Joblin in September 1994, I raised with him that my stress levels were high, that I had discussed this with Mr Barnard, a fellow psychologist in Melbourne, and my local Portland psychologist who was treating me for my China flashbacks which again had surfaced after being placed under Telstra that all my registered phone complaints had to be in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page who was treating me as if I was the enemy instead of a person trying to run a telephone dependent business which did not have a reliable phone service. 

My Joblin was adamant that he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra's treatment of me was not proper and fit and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed. 

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

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

In my arbitration in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin that Telstra had been monitoring my daily movements since 1992 and that FOI documents showed Telstra had redacted those recorded conversations. This revelation greatly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized he had been deceived by Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I presented evidence that Freehill Hollingdale & Page had provided him with a false report regarding my phone problems before he interviewed me. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address this concern. Nonetheless, there were no adverse findings against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

My Joblin was adamant that he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra's treatment of me was not proper and fit and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed. There were no adverse findings against Telstra nor Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to Ian Joblin's initial writing about me being of sound mind? 

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

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

 Criminal Conduct

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

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

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

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

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

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

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Similar injustices were experienced in the COT case of Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“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.” (p87)

 

The Regulator

A letter dated 9 April 1994 to AUSTEL’s Chairman from Telstra’s Group General Manager suggests that AUSTEL was far from truly independent but could be convinced to alter its official findings in its COT reports, just as Telstra has requested in many of the points in this first letter. 

 For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

At point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report, they note:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50″.

The fact that, on this occasion, on 9 April 1994, Telstra (the defendants) was able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.

The 120,000 COT-type problems being experienced by other Australian citizens are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report, even though the DCITA used it to determine the validity of the COT claims of ongoing telephone problems that were destroying their businesses.

Concealing the Truth (1)

One aspect of this more-than-twenty-two-years-old case is still very relevant today, and that is the fact that at least two of the public servants and/or bureaucrats who were heavily involved in concealing the truth about what the Communications Regulator had uncovered concerning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards their customers are still senior bureaucrats within the current Communications Regulator today, in 2015.  Even though their behaviour, all those years ago, was a breach of their statutory obligations, both to myself  and the other COT claimants too, but still, no one has ever transparently investigated any of the claims now exposed on absentjustice.com, which suggests that nothing has changed within the Regulator’s Department.  Just imagine what would have happened if the Regulator and their public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were being recorded in 1994!  The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network was, and that would have resulted in most of the millions upon millions of dollars (in fact, it is probably more like a billion dollars or more), of what it has cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved, because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, twenty-three years ago. In other words, when the Regulator decided not to include the truth in their AUSTEL COT Cases Report of April 1995, those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blow-out related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia.

Concealing the Truth (2)

 On page 7 of this transcript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And AUSTEL’s representative replied:

“The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994 and Telecom received their copy of that at the time.”

While it is clear from the statement made by one of AUSTEL’s two representatives at the hearing (see above), that Telstra received a copy of AUSTEL’s draft findings, ‘NONE’ of the information in this draft report, which enabled the Government Communications Regulator (AUSTEL), to arrive at their adverse findings against the Telstra Corporation, was ever made available to the COT claimants during their arbitrations.

On 15 July, 1995, AUSTEL’s previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs  provided me with an open letter noting:

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July.  I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”

Concealing the Truth (3)

Had the Government Communications Regulator AUSTEL/ACMA not concealed their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp covert report from the Minister for Communications and the arbitrator, the arbitrator would have been compelled to investigate whether my claim of ongoing problems was valid. Below are just some examples of the information concealed from the arbitrator.

“Page 10 – Whilst Network Investigation and Support advised that all faults were rectified, the above faults and record of degraded service minutes indicate a significant network problem from August 1991 to March 1993.

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

In the Arbitrators award for the same fault he notes: Damaged was caused to Cape Bridgewater RCM equipment by a lightening strike on 21 November 1992, resulting in a variety of complaints which affected services for 4 days before restorative action was taken. The restorative action may have been less than successful .

Point 29 – A fundamental issue underlying Telecom’s settlement with Mr Smith was the question of whether Telecom  had taken reasonable steps to comprehensively diagnose the standard of Mr Smith’s telephone service. This is an important point as settlement took place on the basis that both parties agreed that Mr Smith was receiving an acceptable standard of service at the time of settlement.  

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

Point 43 – here was other fault information available to Telecom which indicated possible problems at Cape Bridgewater in late 1992. As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residence prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it  is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area which should have been known to Telecom based on their own routine reporting data.  

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

Point 46 – It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mt Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM.  Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.

Point 48 – AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealing with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints. A file from the local Telecom area who deal with Mr Smith’s complaints has not been provided to AUSTEL, although documents from this file have been copied to other files. At the time of writing, no explanation for the failure to provide this file or other files has been received from Telecom.     

Point 71 – AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.

Point 83 – As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group booking. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss. On calling up Directory Assistance a calling party would have been informed that the number was connected, but many callers would probably not have taken this action, accepting the contents of the RVA message at face value.

Point 95 – Of all the identified causes of RVA’s on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service the most severe cause, in terms of the volume of incoming traffic affected, was when the Cape Bridgewater number code data was not correctly programmed at the Windsor Digital Trunk Exchange (MELU). The length of period that this problem existed however, is contentious. 

Point 5.12 – In the arbitrators award for this same MELU fault he notes: In March 1992, Telecom checking indicated that due to data entry error on the Melbourne Windsor Truck Exchange, all calls through this exchange to Cape Bridgewater (at least 33% of Melbourne and interstate traffic) were directed to RVA for at least 16 days and possibly longer.

Point 98 – The time taken by Telecom to provide this information to Mr Smith indicated extreme negligence on this matter , particularly given the severity of the problems to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service.

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

Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.  

Point 115 – Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.

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

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

Point  144 – AUSTEL has raised the issues of the significance of the RCM error counter readings with Telecom.

Point 152 – The condition of the Cape Bridgewater RCM when examined by the Pair Gains Support officer suggests that in reality little work had been undertaken by the local area to address potential problems in the RCM. The inadequate sealing of the cable ducts and the lack of strapping records support this condition, as no apparent technical expertise was required to locate and correct deficiencies. 

Point 160 – It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.

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 of this in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.

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.”

 

Concealing the Truth (4)

No report can be used as evidence in any court of law or arbitration unless it is properly backed by relevant supporting documents and all other necessary information.  If that can be done, then justice will be done.  It is now quite clear however,that justice was NOT done in Graham Schorer’s  case because, as the following points explain, AUSTEL’s March 1994 Golden Messenger Report pages 14 & 23 see Falsification Report No/7 proves that AUSTEL’s investigation into Graham’s complaints reached the conclusion that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived him over the whole period of his claim.  Even though they were the official decision makers when investigating Graham’s case, AUSTEL still concealed their findings from the relevant Minister (the Hon Michael Lee MP) and the arbitrator throughout the whole of Graham’s arbitration.

Page 14

In AUSTEL’s further draft findings on Golden Messenger 

“Findings at Allegation (ii) are also relevant to this Allegation. Telecom have maintained the position that network service was within acceptable standards despite having considerable information, obtained from internal investigations, that major problems did exist with the network and that these problems did impact on the level of service provided to the customer”.

Page 23

In AUSTEL’s further draft findings on Golden Messenger 

“Telecom Minute of 30/3/88 states that advice from Legal and Policy Headquarters indicate that Golden Messenger appeared to have a case against us and that we should negotiate a settlement to prevent legal action proceeding. This advice was also contained in Telecom Minutes of 27/4/88 and 5/1/92.

Telecom Minute of 22/9/92 states that the Australian Government Solicitor had advised Telecom that Golden Messenger is likely to be successful in establishing that Telecom engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to the Trade Practice Act and that consequence of lost calls or calls not getting through was likely to lead to an immediate loss of business in relation to that call and potential loss of future business from the customer”.

The two full reports, totalling 41 pages in one report and 78 in the other was obtained from, were not released to Graham Schorer by the Government Communications Media Authority (ACMA) until October 2008, fourteen years too late to be used in his arbitration or during the Senate Estimates Investigation into why relevant documents (which AUSTEL had previously used to arrive at their findings) were being withheld from Graham.  In other words, if AUSTEL had provided their adverse findings against Telstra to Graham and the Senate Estimates Committee during that 1997/1999 Committee investigation, it would be fair to say that the Committee would have immediately ensured that Telstra didn’t pressure Graham into accepting compensation of less than 33% of his arbitration claim – and that 33% did NOT include the thousands upon thousands of dollars Mr Schorer had wasted on legal fees to prove something that the Australian Government Communications Regulator had already proved.

Australian National Archives

Why are the Casualties of Telstra (COT) documents now kept in the Australian Government Archives so different to COT documents kept in the Government Communications Regulators AUSTEL/ACMA archive? During the 2006 Government-endorsed assessment process that Senator Helen Coonan organised, why were the ‘cleansed’ government archive records used for assessment by government bureaucrats instead of AUSTEL/ACMA's true and more adverse findings against the Telstra Corporation?