Withholding Evidence
INTRODUTION
As the moment approached to sign the arbitrations, the claimant's agreement with the government became a crucial element in navigating the complex landscape of the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short. The government referred to us as the "COT Cases," who banded together in this endeavor. My background as an honorary secretary of the marine division of the Seaman's Union, accumulated over years spent at sea, offered me valuable insights into the dynamics and power plays of influential unions in Australia.
Determined to address the escalating turmoil surrounding the COT Cases, I took the initiative to contact the Telstra union, specifically at its stronghold in Collingwood, Melbourne. I passionately urged Peter Aberheart, the assistant secretary, to have his rank and file members abandon their threatening and intimidating tactics directed at us. Unfortunately, the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), Warwick Smith, who oversaw the arbitrations, turned a blind eye to the unethical tactics of Telstra's management towards the COT Cases. Alarmingly, the union had infiltrated the TIO's office and gained access to our claim materials well before they reached the arbitrator’s desk.
COT Cases was unaware that Warwick Smith had entered into a confidential agreement with Steve Black, who served as Telstra's arbitration liaison officer. This agreement granted the consultants selected by Warwick Smith for the arbitration full access to all relevant documents pertaining to the case. Consequently, these consultants held the power to selectively determine which documents would be presented during the arbitration and which would be excluded from consideration before the arbitrator even reviewed the materials. This arrangement is formally documented in a letter dated July 11, 1994, from Steve Black to Warwick Smith, which is cataloged as File 590 in AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647. stating:
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”.
Simply put, the arbitration process managed by Telstra and Warwick Smith operated as a façade, utilizing Dr. Hughes's name to impart a sense of legitimacy to the government-endorsed proceedings. The underlying issues of this setup came to light much later, after the majority of the arbitrations (which included mine) had already been finalized.
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?
In my own situation, I discovered that Telstra’s Grant Campbell (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration) had been reviewing my arbitration claim materials a staggering six months prior to the arbitrator gaining access. Even more troubling, he signed off on deceptive information regarding the legitimacy of my faxed claim issues directed to Telstra’s future arbitration defense unit. This manipulation presented a facade of legitimacy by affixing Warwick Smith's signature to documents signed on his behalf, long before the arbitrator had a chance to review the unverifiable information, a significant portion of which had been sanitized or outright omitted from the arbitration process.
Despite the COT Cases' previous efforts to show the government before arbitration that Telstra was installing subpar infrastructure, which was adversely affecting thousands of Australian consumers, the government regulator chose to downplay the seriousness of these ongoing telephone faults. They claimed that only 50 or more Telstra customers in Australia were impacted.
The following letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, to AUSTEL’s chair from Telstra’s group general manager, suggest AUSTEL was far from genuinely independent but instead could be manipulated to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this first letter. For example, 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. … (See Open Letter File No/11)
And the next day:
“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” (See Open Letter File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report to the arbitrator and the Canberra Parliament House Press Gallery notes:
“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 Telstra (the defendants in the COT arbitrations) pressured the government regulator to change its original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report led to the telephone problems still being experienced in 2018, twenty-two years after the arbitrator and Canberra Parliament House Press Gallery received this grossly defective government "COT Cases Report dated - April 1994. Refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.
On September 29, 1994, Telstra representatives arrived at my business to conduct their mandatory arbitration Service Verification Testing. To my dismay, the arbitrator and the administrator allowed Telstra's arbitration consultant to carry out the testing, instead of the promised technical consultant who was supposed to oversee the process. This decision was particularly troubling, as the testing had to be abandoned due to failures in Telstra’s equipment. When I requested a technical consultant be present to review the results, the arbitrator refused, ultimately accepting Telstra's defense that their SVT testing adhered to global standards without scrutinizing the evidence presented.
The document dated March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) serves as crucial evidence that, between Points 2 and 212, government public servants who investigated my persistent telephone issues on behalf of AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This validation occurred six weeks before I was compelled to enter arbitration. Yet I was not provided with the essential documentation to demonstrate that my phone problems were ongoing.
On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, see an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
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."
Bell Canada International has never responded to my correspondence since 2025.
The Force of Evil.
Threats carried out
Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues, as 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 the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Although we have addressed the many threats the COT Cases received during their government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes elsewhere on the website, it was relevant to introduce these threats in the introduction to our COT story because, for reasons never explained by the arbitrator and government, these threats were never transparently investigated. In my case, I visited the Telstra employees' union rooms in Collingwood, Melbourne, asking them to back off. This dispute was not with the rank-and-file union members. It was a dispute with management and the Australian government, which owned Telecom and is now rebranded as Telstra.
My pleas to the arbitrator to bring Telstra to account for their actions when I had still not received my requested discovery documents. Amazingly, he refused to take calls, as his secretary, Caroline Friend, is aware. Even though the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be brought into arbitration for Telstra to obey the Freedom of Information (FOI Act) and the government solicitors took control of the delivery of my arbitration documents, the delivery of my requested May 1994 FOI Ericsson AXE-related documents never arrived until 23 May 1995 twelve months after my original request. Worse, those newly released documents came two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995 (refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued).
I encourage you to explore the troubling details surrounding the serious threats I encountered from Telstra during my government-endorsed arbitration. This arbitration stemmed from my decision to assist the Australian Federal Police in exposing a range of illegal activities allegedly conducted by Telstra against ordinary Australian citizens. The mere act of issuing such menacing threats is profoundly disturbing. Still, the situation becomes even more alarming when considering that these threats were made during an arbitration process governed by the Victorian Supreme Court. In this context, the arbitrator was allowed to intervene, which highlights a significant failure in the integrity and effectiveness of the COT arbitrations.
The scandal surrounding Telstra is marked by serious allegations of misconduct and acts of outright theft, raising profound ethical concerns. Some government officials have estimated that the financial losses could soar to staggering amounts—potentially billions of dollars—misappropriated from public funds intended to serve the broader community.
The situation becomes even more troubling when we consider the government minister tasked with investigating the COT Cases against Telstra. This individual, Senator Bob Collins, found himself under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for gravely serious charges of child rape in his office at Parliament House. Tragically, he took his own life just moments before he was due to face charges. This sequence of events brings into sharp focus the fate of the COT Cases arbitration-related documents that were under scrutiny during his tenure. Given the gravity of the circumstances, the arbitrations should have been put on hold, especially in light of revelations from the Australian Federal Police indicating that Telstra was actively intercepting business faxes and phone conversations related to the COT Cases throughout the arbitration process.
These unlawful activities were not mere coincidences; they were part of a meticulously orchestrated plot to conceal the alarming findings of the COT Cases. The investigations unveiled not only critical deficiencies in Telstra's network infrastructure but also illuminated systemic failures that jeopardized the safety of countless Australians, fundamentally eroding the trust that customers rightfully expect from their telecommunications provider. This scandal raises deep questions about accountability and oversight in an industry that plays such a crucial role in everyday life.
This unsettling situation serves as a critical reminder of the need for accountability and transparency in corporations entrusted with public services. It calls into question the mechanisms in place to protect citizens and foster ethical behavior within such powerful entities as Telstra.
It is crucial to emphasize the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document); where Ann Garms exposes the raping of the first nation aboriginal children by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office → (rb.gy/dsvidd).
The sexual abuse and the raping of Australian citizens in Parliament House Canberra during the period of the Casualties of Telstra mediation and then arbitrations is still very much in the public eye in 2024 as the following Kangaroo Court website https://shorturl.at/dtDH9, and https://shorturl.at/svwI5.
Although AUSTEL, the former government communications authority, engaged in discussions regarding the ongoing issues associated with the four COT Cases with Senator Bob Collins—potentially during a period marked by the mistreatment of Australia’s First Nation children—none of the requested governmental records concerning this discussion were made available under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, the arbitrator was unable to access technical documents relevant to that timeframe when Senator Collins held the position of Minister for Communications.Although AUSTEL, the former government communications authority, engaged in discussions regarding the ongoing issues associated with the four COT Cases with Senator Collins.
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.”
I envision this story gradually reaching a wider audience, starting from the shores of Australia, where fragments of our "Casualties of Telstra" tale are known, yet remain largely undiscovered. The core truth of our narrative is so damaging to both past and present government officials, as well as the Establishment that subtly guides our politicians on a daily basis, that I’ve divided the story into twelve distinct chapters for clarity and depth.
Absent Justice - The story in full
The Secret State
On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:
"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."
Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. The arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that the road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
Eighteen years after my arbitration concluded on May 11, 1995, the new owners of my business acquired it solely for its asset value, as it had little goodwill to offer. This lack of goodwill was largely due to the persistent telephone and fax issues I experienced during the thirteen years leading up to their bankruptcy appeal. Telstra had assured the owners that these problems would soon be resolved, but this turned out to be misleading.
During my arbitration process, I brought to the attention of several key individuals, including Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman at the time, Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police, and the Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman, John Wynack on two separate occasions in 1994 and 1995. I experienced significant challenges securing vital documents that Telstra had dispatched through Australia Post and their faxing network. Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose advised me to formalize my situation in a statutory declaration (Refer to File 76 and 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), which he recommended I present to both Warwick Smith and Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator. This declaration provided evidence that more than 56 faxed header documents had been altered and incorrectly stapled to unrelated documents when I was summoned to Melbourne to assess which documents were missing from those initially sent by Telstra. Regrettably, neither Dr. Gordon Hughes nor Warwick Smith responded to my statutory declaration, despite confirmation from Warwick Smith's office that I had submitted this evidence on 16 May 1994 to Sue Harlow, the Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (File 77 -AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
The documents in question were crucial in our efforts to avert bankruptcy, which was already in progress. I diligently prepared these papers and sent them from the Portland Post Office in an effort to safeguard my business from bankruptcy proceedings. Unfortunately, these documents did not arrive at their designated destination at the Melbourne Magistrates Court, resulting in a precarious situation for the new owners amid ongoing telecommunications issues and leading to the court's final bankruptcy ruling in 2009. (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
For those readers who have journeyed this far into our story and find themselves questioning whether the loss of legal documents mailed by Australia Post was merely a fleeting glitch, I urge you to consider the troubling details that follow. This includes the alarming threats I received from Telstra, along with critical insights presented to a Senate Committee by whistleblower Lindsay White. He revealed that Telstra officials were determined to thwart the first five COT Cases—my own case included—at all costs to prevent us from substantiating our arbitration claims. This troubling backdrop should compel readers to take our narrative seriously, particularly in light of the evidence we’ve shared thus far.
This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their claims against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding Telstra's intelligence networks established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidential 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 placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
For those readers who have journeyed this far into our story and question whether the loss of legal documents mailed by Australia Post was merely a fleeting glitch, I urge you to consider the following troubling details. This includes the alarming threats I received from Telstra and critical insights presented to a Senate Committee by whistleblower Lindsay White (referred to above). This troubling backdrop should compel readers to take our narrative seriously, particularly in light of the evidence we’ve shared thus far.
PLEASE NOTE
In the context of my government-facilitated arbitration process, the telecommunications company Telstra, serving as the defendant, submitted five reports that exhibit significant flaws upon closer examination. The purpose of these documents was to convince the arbitrator that my telephone-dependent business, the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, was no longer plagued by persistent issues related to telephone and fax services. The reports in question include the
- Coopers & Lybrand Report;
- Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater Addendum Report;
- TF 200 EXICOM Sticky Beer in the Telephone Report;
- Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp Service Verification Report;
- AUSTEL's COT Cases Report.
These reports have been thoroughly analyzed and discussed on absentjustice.com, where I have provided detailed insights into their shortcomings. It is critical to note that all five reports contain substantial inaccuracies and fail to disclose essential facts that negatively impacted the COT Cases leading up to the arbitration proceedings.
In this overview report, I have incorporated a concise analysis of the Bell Canada International Inc. report due to the valuable assistance I received from both the Canadian government and an expert from DMR Group Inc. (Canada). Their expertise was crucial in scrutinizing the fundamentally flawed Bell Canada International Inc. report, which Telstra relied on during my arbitration. Telstra presented this report to falsely claim that no persistent telephone issues impacted my business, despite being fully aware that such problems continued to exist. This misrepresentation significantly influenced the arbitration process and warranted further examination.
If the Australian government had expressed the same level of concern as the Canadian government regarding the serious issues surrounding Telstra, which was wholly owned by the Australian government at the time, a critical opportunity to address these problems were losted. Bell Canada was already aware of these inaccuracies, and by permitting this fraudulent information to go unchallenged, the Australian government undermined the integrity of the arbitrations it had previously endorsed. This failure to act exacerbated the trauma experienced by the COT Cases—a situation that has persisted since 1994. For Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), to present 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 created the impression to all reading Telstra's arbitration defence including Ian Joblin 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.
The manipulation of factual information raises significant concerns that merit serious attention. A particularly troubling aspect of this complex situation involves Maurice Wayne Condon, an attorney associated with the prestigious law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. Mr. Condon submitted the final witness statement concerning my mental health, yet he did so without acquiring the essential signature from Ian Joblin, which is a vital requirement for legal documentation. Despite Mr. Condon's assertion that Mr. Joblin had indeed signed the document, this claim constitutes a clear violation of established legal protocols and ethical standards.
This grave matter has been subjected to scrutiny by John Pinnock, the administrator responsible for overseeing my arbitration proceedings. Remarkably, this oversight has persisted for an alarming twenty-eight years, during which time there has been a conspicuous lack of response, even though Mr. Pinnock’s office had been the officially appointed administrator for my government-endorsed arbitration initiated in 1994/95. Compounding this issue is the disturbing fact that the arbitrator opted to conceal this incident, paralleling his previous actions regarding two additional bogus arbitration defense reports submitted by Telstra. These reports, which were presented under oath as authentic, have since been conclusively determined to have been fraudulently prepared, in a manner strikingly similar to the infamous Bell Canada International Inc. Report.
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.
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.
My efforts to bring this significant discrepancy to the government's attention came two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, but I was met with indifference. The government's lack of interest in contacting BCI in Canada was disheartening. Instead, the Canadian Government recommended that I write directly to Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) from Australia for guidance and support, leaving me feeling heartened that someone cared.
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."
ABSENT JUSTICE Tampering with evidence.
On April 26, 1994, I contacted AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a dedicated public servant at the government communications regulatory department, to discuss a persistent hang-up fault I had been experiencing on my phone line. Mr. Mathieson proposed that we conduct a series of diagnostic tests to investigate the issue further. He instructed me to hang up the phone and audibly count from one to ten while he listened on the other end. During our first test, he confirmed that he could hear me count clearly up to ten without any interruptions. Encouraged by this, he suggested we extend the counting to see if my voice would still transmit properly. He continued to hear me without difficulty as referred to in FOI folio R37911, which states:
“This T200 is an EXICOM and the other T200 is an ALCATEL, we thought that this may be a design ‘fault???’ with the EXICOM so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM and the old phone was marked and tagged…” (see File No 1-C).
Next, Mr. Mathieson recommended I swap the malfunctioning phone with another one to see if the issue persisted. After making the switch, we repeated the counting test, and the results were the same: my voice came through clearly. It became increasingly evident to both of us that the fault lay not with the phone but somewhere deeper within the Telstra network infrastructure. Mr. Mathieson advised me to escalate this matter, suggesting that, given my current arbitration status, I should inform Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer, about the fault.
Complicating matters, Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, had publicly named Peter Gamble during a Senate estimates committee hearing, warning that he had taken a stance to prevent the first group of COT five claimants—including myself—from substantiating our claims by any means necessary (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23, dated June 24, 1997) which notes: that Lindsay White advised the Senate Committee that Peter Gamble had told him the Five COT Cases naming me as on of the five: "had to be stopped at all costs" from proving our claims against Telstra.
Unaware of these clandestine orders to stifle our five COT cases, I reconnected the phones to their original lines and called Mr. Gamble. I chose not to mention that Mr. Mathieson and I had already conducted tests with two phones on the relevant lines. During our conversation, Mr. Gamble and I performed similar tests on the line in question. He assured me he would arrange for a technician to collect the phone for testing the next day.
According to FOI document K00941, dated March 26, 1994, someone—whose name was redacted—believed this frustrating lock-up fault stemmed from an issue in the RCM exchange located at Cape Bridgewater (see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C). Furthermore, a separate document, dated the day of our tests with Mr. Mathieson and Mr. Gamble, indicated that Mr. Gamble suspected the problem arose due to excessive heat and moisture within the telephone exchange (see File No-B).
Another disturbing aspect of Telstra's tampering with arbitration evidence is that I had volunteered with the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters illustrate how, during my arbitration, Telstra misrepresented my inability to be present to test my TF200 telephone at my premises during a scheduled meeting on the morning of April 27, 1994. In their file notes later submitted to the arbitrator, Telstra stated that I refused to allow them to test the phones because I was tired. However, they did not mention that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours, nor did they note that my sore eyes made it impossible for me to observe the testing by Telstra. I had been battling the fire the previous evening from 6 PM until 9 AM the following morning.
Our "Tampering With Evidence" page clearly shows that Telstra not only aimed to discredit me by implying I was too tired to have my TF200 phone tested but also tampered with the phone after removing it. Someone had poured beer into the phone upon its arrival at Telstra's laboratories. In their defense report for the arbitration, Telstra then claimed that the sticky residue from the beer was the cause of the problems, rather than issues with the Cape Bridgewater network. This malicious act and the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration indicate that my claims should have been thoroughly investigated long ago. Despite fulfilling my civic duties as an Australian citizen—providing vital evidence to the AFP and fighting raging fires—I was penalized during arbitration in both instances.
Another point is how I could have spilled beer into my telephone. Telstra's documentation states that when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire, I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fellow firefighters if I had been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader a sense of the appalling conduct that we, the COT Cases, had to endure from Telstra while we fought for a reliable phone service.
When I submitted a statutory declaration to the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel, prepared by Paul Westwood, a forensic document specialist, it was indicated that he would test the collected TF200 and Telstra's notes to determine how they concluded that my alleged drinking habits caused my phone faults rather than issues with the EXICOM TF200. However, the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel refused my request to investigate Telstra's actions.
Threats made during my arbitration
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.
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 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.
This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their claims against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding Telstra's intelligence networks established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidential 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 placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:
“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.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
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.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice."
"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
Senator Boswell’s statement that: “a point confirmed by professionals deeply involved in the arbitration process itself and by the TIO’s annual report, where conclusion is described as ‘if that is ever achievable’ shows, by the date of this Senate Hansard on 20 September 1995, the TIO had already condemned the arbitration process. So why did John Pinnock (the second administrator to the COT arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes, eight months later, conspire to mislead and deceive Laurie James, President of The Institute of Arbitrators Australia (refer Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter and Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter) concerning the truth of my claims, which were registered with the proper authority, i.e., the president of Institute of Arbitrators Australia?
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the statements of six senators in the Senate in March 1999:
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston Sen Richard.
On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, as shown by an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
