Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned and operated the nation’s telephone network through an agency called Telecom. This agency was later privatized and renamed Telstra. As a government enterprise, Telecom held a monopoly over telecommunications services in Australia, which led to a gradual but significant decline in the network's infrastructure and the quality of services offered to consumers.
Instead of adopting robust and practical strategies to tackle the persistent deficiencies afflicting telephone services, the government opted for an arbitration process. This system was ostensibly designed to provide a forum for resolving disputes and assisting consumers in their quest for redress. However, it frequently obscured the fundamental issues plaguing the telecommunications sector. Despite the government's acknowledgement of the deeply entrenched and systemic nature of these problems, its chosen approach often appeared more concerned with creating a façade of concern rather than initiating the substantial reforms necessary for meaningful change in the telecommunications landscape.
On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers and several witnesses that:
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
Transcripts from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 8 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) reveal significant testimony provided by Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT cases. In an official capacity under oath, Mr. Schorer conveyed to two government attorneys and a senior member of the AAT panel that he and I were actively seeking access to a series of freedom of information documents that Telstra had withheld during the critical arbitration discovery process. Our primary objective was to compile a comprehensive and factual narrative that would illuminate and potentially open doors for other similar cases—fewer than sixteen—that could prompt the Senate to advocate for a thorough government investigation into the validity of our claims. Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
What Mr. Schorer failed to disclose to the attorneys or to the presiding judge, Mr. GD Friedman, was a crucial detail that had bearing on our case: unbeknownst to me, the government had concealed AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings from the then Minister of Communications, The Hon Michael Lee MP, and the arbitrator in March 1994. Alarmingly, these findings were provided to Telstra a mere six weeks before I signed my arbitration agreement. This transfer of information was strategically timed to assist Telstra in mounting a defence against my claims regarding the persistent problems I was experiencing with telephone and fax services, continuing even on the day the information was bestowed upon them.
The government appeared to operate under the belief that it was imperative to prevent me from substantiating my claims. It was not until November 2007—twelve years after the government initially supplied these AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings to Telstra—that I received access to this critical document. By this point, the utility of the findings had diminished significantly, as they were now five years past the six-year statute of limitations for filing an appeal against my award.
A thorough examination of this report may lead an impartial observer to conclude that the government has patently breached its obligations towards me as a citizen of Australia. This breach appears to stem from a discriminatory practice favouring Telstra, a corporation that was wholly owned by the Australian government—representing the collective interests of the Australian people—during that significant period in March 1994.
When we first fell in love with the place, we overlooked the outdated telephone system. In those days, there was no mobile coverage, and business was not conducted through the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility, which was then routed to the central telephone exchange in Portland, 20 kilometres away. This facility, installed over 30 years ago, was designed for low-call-rate areas and had only eight lines to serve 66 families, totalling 132 adults and children.
If four callers were trying to connect to or from Cape Bridgewater, there were only four available lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children to make or receive calls. During peak times—such as weekends and holidays—when more visitors flocked to the seaside resort, the demand for calls increased significantly. This often resulted in the lines becoming jammed and non-responsive
After three and a half years of utilizing outdated equipment, Telstra ultimately implemented a new system. However, they erroneously failed to program this system through the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. Such workmanship is considered unacceptable. This issue is further illustrated by a government document dated March 1994 detailing ongoing challenges from points 2 to 212. Despite these persistent problems, AUSTEL, the regulatory authority, did not compel Telstra to address the deficiencies. Consequently, it became the responsibility of the arbitrator to ensure that Telstra rectified the telephone issues impacting my business and other COT cases. Regrettably, this rectification did not occur, and evidence indicates that the problems deteriorated further.
As discussed throughout this website, a meticulously drafted report by AUSTEL, the Australian government’s communications authority, chronicles the six-and-a-half-year investigation into my telephone complaints. This comprehensive report underscores the government's recognition of the validity of my claims; it presents findings in a detailed format, identifying key issues from points 1 to 212 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings),
However, a critical aspect that did not receive widespread attention was the involvement of Paul Howell, a Canadian technical consultant recruited from DMR Group Inc. Canada. In April 1995, he was tasked with investigating the systemic problems outlined in the COT Case claims. Unfortunately, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes—currently a Senior Partner at Davies Collison Cave, an international law firm based in Melbourne—prevented Mr Howell from completing his findings regarding my ongoing telephone issues.
This intervention profoundly affected the possibility of conducting a comprehensive and unbiased review of my claims, leading to the continued neglect of the persistent and disruptive 008/1800 billing issues. These unresolved matters had a detrimental impact on my business operations, persisting for an agonizing seven years following the conclusion of the arbitration process. The arbitration failed to resolve my telephone issues, which continued to escalate until December 2001 and left me with no choice but to make the difficult decision to sell my business. Despite my relentless efforts to seek a fair resolution, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor Telstra undertook the thorough investigations necessary to substantiate my claims that the arbitration process inadequately addressed and rectified the ongoing telephone faults that plagued my operations.
It seems plausible to conclude that the reason John Pinnock, the TIO and the administrator of my arbitration, along with Telstra, refrained from conducting an exhaustive and transparent inquiry into my ongoing complaints was the potential revelation of a concerning reality. This reality involves the fact that Paul Howell, a representative from DMR Group Inc. in Canada and the principal technical evaluator of my claim, along with his assistant from Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in Australia (DMR & Lane), had been unjustly denied the additional weeks they had formally requested from Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, on April 30, 1995. Their request specifically emphasized the critical need for extra time to thoroughly investigate my claims, which remained unresolved and continued to disrupt my business operations significantly. The unwillingness to grant this extension not only hindered the resolution of my issues but ultimately contributed to a lasting impact on the viability of my business.
As shown in point 2.23 of the DMR & Lane 30 April 1995 report, the two consultants collectively state (Refer to Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) and Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A) → Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues
“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.
“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.”
and
“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’.”
What was the point of investing over $300,000 in professional arbitration fees during 1994/95 for a process intended to investigate and resolve my ongoing telephone issues when the consultants appointed to conduct these investigations failed to identify the root causes of my problems, preventing Telstra from implementing effective solutions? (Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).
How can one authentically document the intricate and alarming events during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without attaching the essential exhibits that substantiate these claims? This challenge becomes even more daunting when considering the pervasive corruption infiltrating government bureaucracy. What methods can the author employ to convincingly demonstrate that certain government public servants divulged privileged information to the Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) and systematically concealed the same documentation from their fellow Australian citizens—the claimants?
How does one articulate a narrative so extraordinary that, at times, even the author finds it hard to believe? This disbelief often compels a thorough verification of records before continuing the story. How can one illuminate the disturbing collusion between an arbitrator, several appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and the defendants? It is crucial to reveal that the defendants in this arbitration process—the former Government telecommunications carrier—leveraged equipment attached to their own network, screening crucial faxes sent from your office. They stored this sensitive information without your consent, only to redirect it to its intended destination.
The defendants, Telstra Corporation, cunningly utilized this intercepted material to fortify their defence in the arbitration, ultimately to the detriment of the claimants.
Furthermore, how many other Australian arbitration processes have been vulnerable to this intrusive hacking? Is the insidious practice of electronic eavesdropping and unauthorized access to confidential documents still occurring in today's legitimate Australian arbitrations? These questions highlight the troubling landscape of trust and integrity within the arbitration system.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
To clarify, the reader must grasp the seriousness of the interception of arbitration-related faxes. The Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and 768) File No/13) indicates that faxes were intercepted and screened by a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra's network. Furthermore, the following paragraph explains that faxes sent to the arbitrator's office after business hours each night were automatically redirected to the arbitrator's office in Sydney
To be clear, the reader must understand how serious this interception of arbitration-related faxes was. The Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) clearly shows that faxes were intercepted and screened by a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra's network. However, the following paragraph shows that faxes sent to the arbitrator's office after the close of business each night were automatically redirected to the arbitrator's Sydney office.
I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.
Even more troubling is that Dr Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within twelve months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.
I selected the image titled "TELECOM SPYING ON ITS EMPLOYEES" because it exposes the unsettling reality that Telecom (now rebranded as Telstra) was surveilling its employees and intruding into its customers' private lives. This invasive behaviour came to light in the case involving the Casualties of Telstra, where the company was embroiled in arbitration after it was revealed that customers' voices had been monitored for extended periods. The "TELECOM SPYING" example also supports my claim that the COT Cases should never have been forced into arbitration while the Australian Federal Police was investigating the hacking by Telstra of the COT-related arbitration documents, which the COT cases needed to support their arbitration claims.
In my own experience, a series of documents were unintentionally released—though I find it difficult to believe this was an accidental oversight—because an insider at Telstra recorded nearly an entire A4 page of my conversations in 1993 and 1994 with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser that had been redacted.
During two significant phone calls with Mr. Fraser, we delved into his time as Minister for the Army during the tumultuous Vietnam War era. I shared with him my troubling recollections of being interrogated in Communist China on espionage charges back in 1967. I also inquired if he remembered receiving a letter from me dated September 18, 1967, in which I recounted my harrowing experiences in Communist China and the alarming events witnessed by several seamen, including myself. (Refer to Flash Backs – China-Vietnam)
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
In the second interview with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my arbitration process in September of 1994, the AFP expressed concerns about the evidence they had collected, indicating that I had been under electronic surveillance for an extended period. I want to emphasize two critical questions: Why were my arbitrations not put on hold until the AFP concluded their findings? Additionally, why didn't the AFP charge Telstra with harassment, intimidation, and extortion after Senator Boswell asked Telstra's legal directorate in the Senate:
“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.
oOo
I want to emphasize that while Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) believed they were generating 16,590 test calls over five days to the Cape Bridgewater Portland telephone exchange from November 4 to 9, 1993, using CCS7 testing equipment, their tests were overseen by Telstra and directed to a different telephone exchange. It’s important to note that the switching devices at Portland and Cape Bridgewater could not facilitate the CCS7 equipment that BCI claimed was used in their report to validate that the service my business was receiving was of world-class standard.
Although the COT arbitrator refused to access the raw data to verify this, I contacted Bell Canada International Inc. to obtain those files, but they have never been released. The only response I received was a letter of support from the Canadian Telecommunications Minister, Mr. Helm, affirming that I was right to request that information from BCI.
Thanks to this support, along with the backing of the Canadian seamen who refused to load wheat for China and arbitration consultant Paul Howell from DMR Group in Canada, I have dedicated this introduction to the Canadian people.
oOo
All of the main events referenced on my website, absentjustice.com, are backed by original documents (confirmation data) that support the principal statements made in our two stories, as shown in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. You can click on the links attached to the paragraphs, such as Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte, Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C, and Tampering with Evidence, to open the exhibit file supporting the claims made in the written text. By clicking on these links, a PDF exhibit will automatically open. This method allows you to follow the various file numbers and verify our story. Without these documents, many people would find it difficult to believe that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) claimants have endured these appalling events.
Evidence File-1 includes 156 mini-stories for easy reference. The following seven examples illustrate the types of mini-stories and reports available. They can be clicked on immediately to open, allowing readers to browse the various mini-stories and reports quickly.
The Bell Canada International Inc. tests were never conducted.
Telstra manipulated the BCI testing process, utilizing the reputable name of Bell Canada International to obscure the substantial deficiencies in its telecommunications network. Since becoming aware, in January 1998, of the false information provided to the Senate in the official request dated September 26, 1997, the current Telstra Corporate Secretary, Sue Lava, has failed to disclose this information to the Senate.
When I got no response during or after my arbitration concerning these false BellCanada International Inc. BCI tests, I contacted the Canadian Government. Not long after that correspondence, I received a letter of support from the Canadian government dated July 7, 1995. stating:
"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."
The letter acknowledged that I should contact Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) if I believed their testing was flawed, which I had already done. This was in response to evidence of these flaws provided by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Ted Benjamin, on May 23, 1995, under my original Freedom of Information Act request from May 1994 (twelve months too late to use in my arbitration). I could not afford the $600,000.00 in an appeal process, so I had no choice but to continue to write the way I am doing online.
When I alerted AUSTEL, the former Government Communications Authority, about the significant flaws in the testing equipment Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) utilised for the disputed tests, they promptly acknowledged these issues. Recognizing the importance of obtaining accurate information, AUSTEL advised me to seek raw data directly from BCI in Canada.
On March 24, 1995, AUSTEL executives Cliff Mathieson and Frances Wood directed me to contact BCI for this critical raw data concerning the questionable tests conducted at my local Cape Bridgewater exchange. This information was particularly vital, as I later shared it with the Canadian Government in my quest for transparency and resolution.
Although the Canadian Government did respond, a frustrating barrier emerged: neither Telstra, AUSTEL nor the arbitrator overseeing my arbitration claim could obtain the crucial information through the discovery process or the Freedom of Information Act. Even more concerning was that a single document that could have determined the outcome of the COT Cases arbitration was withheld. This document was the telephone exchange logbook for each exchange that serviced the COT case businesses. Not one of the COT Cases was able to access this vital document, which meant that none could prove whether the BCI tests were conducted on the days that Telstra and BCI claimed or if the phone faults under investigation by the arbitrator were still affecting the COT Cases businesses.
Here's a more straightforward explanation for readers who may not fully understand the implications of the COT Cases not having access to the logbooks of the telephone exchanges servicing their businesses. Without these logbooks, the COT claimants could not prove to the arbitrator that their phone issues were part of a systemic problem. They needed to demonstrate that other Telstra subscribers in the region experienced similar issues, which would have underscored the validity of their claims. The investigation results from those complaints would have shown that the phone faults affected multiple users. Consequently, the arbitrator could not reach a final decision on the COT Cases until it was established that their businesses were fault-free.
During the government's investigation into my complaints, they utilized the Telstra logbook from Portland and Cape Bridgewater to ensure an unbiased record of my registered faults. The (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), dated March 1994, which was derived from this logbook, confirmed my claims between Points 2 and 212. It's clear that if the arbitrator had been provided with the (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), the award for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than the amount he ultimately granted for my claim.
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman.
The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.
The Canadian government strongly supported my claims against the fundamentally flawed report by Bell Canada International Inc., which Telstra used to defend itself in my arbitration claims. Additionally, a Canadian technical consultant from DMR Group Canada Inc. brought in as the principal technical consultant from Montreal, Quebec (H3B 4G7), confirmed that the arbitration process I was involved in would not have been allowed to proceed so unethically in North America.
A striking similarity in my narrative regarding the Chinese Cultural Revolution is Canadians' perspective on democracy and the concepts of right and wrong.
I have written two interconnected stories concerning the unethical conduct of Telstra, the arbitrator as well as the administrators to the various arbitrations that readers can access, which ensures they remember who is genuinely corrupt and who is only partially corrupt. Telling the story in one go without seperatating the collusion, treachery, evilness, thuggery, betrayal and duplicity the disgusting conduct that is intertwined in our story became confusing and most reading the draft beleived telling mini stories as we have done in Evidence File-1 as well as splitting our principal story was the best sollusion. Refer to the example below "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
An example of why it was essential to tell separate narratives can best be explained by how Canadian Merchant Seamen and British seamen in different parts of the world refused to take the ships they were assigned to Communist China. It became widely known that once the wheat was unloaded in China, it was redirected to North Vietnam to feed its soldiers before they marched into the jungles of North Vietnam in search of Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops to kill and maim as many as possible, a fight that could not have continued for the years it did had it not been Australia's continued supply of grain to Communist China.
Interestingly, the Australian government, despite its young soldiers dying in North Vietnam, seemed unconcerned by this trade. In contrast, Canada, which was not at war with North Vietnam, took this issue seriously. I had to differentiate between the gravity of the Australian government's inaction and the concerns expressed by others around the world, who saw trading with China as a betrayal of the young men dying in Vietnam.
During my 1994 arbitration claim, the arbitrator showed no interest in the arbitration documents, which the Australian Federal Police also possessed. These documents indicated that Telstra had a file regarding my discussions with Australia's former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. In April 1993 and again in April 1994, I expressed my opposition to the trade deals made with China by the Liberal Coalition Country Party Government in 1967, when Mr Fraser was the Minister of the Army in charge of the Vietnam War.
Throughout the 1994/95 arbitration, the arbitrator refused to access these documents to verify that Telstra had an electronic surveillance network, despite the Australian Federal Police informing me that Telstra had been electronically monitoring communications for an extended period. Recent documents revealed that someone within Telstra had recorded my telephone calls with Malcolm Fraser in 1994. These calls were linked to my arrest by the Chinese Red Guards in August 1967.
The Telstra documents related to the 1994 arbitration showed an interest in my discussions with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, particularly regarding my arrest and my initial letter to him on September 18, 1967, while he was the Minister of the Army. During that time, I faced the risk of being shot on suspicion of being a spy.
This part of my story had to be told separately to allow the reader to intertwine it with the overall narrative as they see fit. That story is now presented in "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam," I encourage you to read it; you may be shocked by what you learn.
Who would ever have believed (without the proof on this website) that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with advice from the government that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded. We have no alternative but to include the exhibits the way we have. This is truly an unbelievable story.
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were still affecting the COT Four's capacity to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found’ when documents on this website show they were found to have existed. Refer to "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter."
Two Alan Smiths (not related) 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. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that 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 problems and faults Mr and Mrs Lewis inherited when they purchased my business in December 2001, seven years after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995. (Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).
The following three examples, dated June 23, 2015, November 9, 2017, and April 28, 2018, also demonstrate that more than twenty years after the conclusion of the COT arbitrations, including my arbitration, the issues were not resolved in the government-endorsed arbitration that took place between 1994 and 1999.
23 June 2015: Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using
9 November 2017: https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095
28 April 2018: >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow
Latest News
In January 2025, the latest pre-election announcement, the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, said only a Labor government would "finish the National Broadband Network NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands."
A Labor government will inject $3bn in equity into the national broadband network, as Anthony Albanese warns against letting the critical Coalition control the necessary infrastructure.
The equity injection will fund the upgrade of Australia's remaining national fibre to the node network, which the Government claims will deliver higher internet speeds for more than 600,000 premises by 2030.
It's about how we live our lives. It is about telehealth and education services. It is absolutely critical to the way that a modern economy and a modern society function. refer to https://shorturl.at/68hD6.
Between 1994 and 1999, the arbitration process failed to effectively address the ongoing telecommunications issues related to the COT Case. This failure can be attributed to a lack of adherence to established legal standards. If Telstra's arbitration defence had been conducted within the framework of the law, it would have permitted the arbitrator to adequately direct his consultants in identifying and analyzing the myriad problems affecting the telecommunications services in question.
In a 2025 statement, Australia's Prime Minister highlighted that the country has considerable work ahead to reach the same level of efficiency and effectiveness in arbitration processes as other Western nations. These countries have consistently demonstrated a higher dispute resolution standard, fostering a more favourable environment for consumers and businesses.
Unfortunately, several acts of misconduct worsened the situation. These included tampering with evidence to obstruct a proper inspection, manipulating the discovery documents sought by the parties, and submitting false testing results that had never occurred to influence the arbitrator's decision. This constitutes gross misconduct of the worst kind.
When I phoned AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a public servant at the government communications authority, to talk about this hang-up fault on 26 April 1994, Mr Mathieson suggested he and I conduct a series of tests on the phone line. He planned for me to hang up and count aloud, from one to 10, while he listened. This first test proved he could hear me count right up to 10 and beyond. He suggested we try it again and count even further this time. It was still the same situation: he could hear me right through the range as I counted. Then he suggested I switch the phone on that line with a phone connected to another. I did this, and we repeated the counting test with the same results. It was apparent to both that the fault was not in the phone but somewhere in the Telstra network
And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is prohibited. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is illegal. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is illegal. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The TIO and Austel, often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable.
Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice that is way out of proportion to the problem we began with—people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.
The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes's findings handed down on May 11, 1995, did not mention his subsequent letter to Warwick Smith about the arbitration agreement. He failed to inform Smith that Clause 24 was modified and Clauses 25 and 26 were removed, which barred the claimants from suing the arbitration consultants for misconduct. Dr. Hughes also noted that the agreement did not provide sufficient time for claimants to prepare their cases or access necessary documents (as stated in his May 12, 1995 letter → Open Letter File No 55-A and that revision was needed for the remaining claimants. Despite this, the faulty agreement was still used for my arbitration, while the other three claimants were given over thirteen months more to prepare their submissions and answer Telstra’s defence than he had allowed me.
On the day we signed this not credible arbitration agreement (see Open letter File No 54-B), the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 were removed, and clause 24 was modified. We were informed that there would be no arbitration if we did not accept these last-minute changes. All three COT claimants were under duress, as our banks were ready to close on us; we had no choice but to accept these late modifications. Modifying clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 meant that we could not sue the TIO-appointed arbitration consultants for acts of negligence (and there were several). In simple terms, we had no chance to appeal our awards in the Supreme Court of Victoria
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia. It is important to note that when addressing claims made in the Senate that the BCI report was falsified, Senator Chris Schacht posed a question to Telstra Ted Benjamin, refer to page 107, noting:
“…Did Simone Semmens on behalf of Telstra state on Channel 9's Current Affair program in August 1996 that the findings of the Bell Canada International report into the performance of the Telstra network substantiate that there were no systematic problems within Telstra's billing system”?
Mr Benjamin then answered:
“I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report.”
It is important to emphasise to the reader that the report from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) played a significant role in legislative discussions within the Senate and various governmental forums. It served as a key piece of evidence supporting the privatization of Telstra. This report was particularly pivotal during the formulation of the sale prospectus under the administration of the John Howard Liberal Coalition government.
I contend that the government’s decision to refrain from investigating my specific claims about Cape Bridgewater and BCI was influenced by the potential repercussions of such an inquiry. Conducting an investigation would have required the public dissemination of my evidence through media channels. Had this evidence been made public, it would have disclosed that the findings presented in the BCI report regarding Telstra’s telecommunications network were not entirely valid or reliable. Such revelations would likely have created significant uncertainty, potentially delaying or even halting the sale of Telstra until a thorough examination could ascertain the accuracy of my claims.
Moreover, it is relevant to note that the US Securities Exchange → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring was closely monitoring the implications of the COT Cases, as the following Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating:
"I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?"
The first draft was submitted to Senator Kim Carr, and a second draft was sent to Sister Maureen Burke, the principal of Loreto College Ballarat at the time.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
Some weeks later, after I sent Sister Maureen Burke, then Principal of Loreto College Ballarat, an early draft of Absent Justice, Sister Burke wrote back,
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
My two arbitration advisors contributed invaluable testimonials to the arbitrator on my behalf. Garry Ellicott, a distinguished former Senior Detective Sergeant with the Queensland Police, brings a wealth of experience as a Senior Investigator for the National Crime Authority, where he tackled some of the most complex criminal investigations. Alongside him is Barry O'Sullivan, a former Senior Detective Sergeant with the Queensland Police. He later served as the Honorable Senator Barry O'Sullivan, representing the Queensland National Party with integrity and dedication.
I meticulously submitted these compelling testimonials as part of my arbitration claim. I included them in my detailed chronology of events, which outlines the sequence of occurrences relevant to my case. However, for reasons unknown, these critical testimonials were inexplicably omitted from the comprehensive log of my phone complaints prepared for the arbitration consultants, leaving a significant gap in the documentation supporting my case.
The draft and formal findings from the arbitrator's technical consultants, DMR & Lane, dated April 30, 1995, indicate that they did not identify the causes of the faults related to my 008 complaints. As a result, these faults are classified as "Open," which I do not emphasize. In the same evaluation of my complaint from April 30, 1995, they state: "...A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist".
It did exist, so why was it not provided to DMR & Lane to assist with their assessment of my claim? The final fee, which did not account for my travel to Queensland, my accommodation, and the expenses I incurred for Garry Ellicott to travel to Victoria on three occasions, amounted to $51,000. In May 1995, this was significantly more than its current value. I paid fifty-one dollars to submit a claim, yet only a portion of it was ever reviewed by the valuers. Is it any wonder I am still battling this enormous arbitrator who now oversees an international legal firm in Melbourne Davies Collison Cave?
Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating under Herbert Smith Freehills,
I must strongly reiterate the discrimination I faced when the other three COT Cases signed the same arbitration agreement I executed in April 1994. After the arbitrator identified numerous deficiencies in that agreement—drafted by Telstra (the defendants in the first four arbitrations)—despite claims that it had been independently prepared by other arbitration specialists and not Telstra or their lawyers, serious concerns arose. The same lawyers prepared the arbitration agreement and faxed it on January 10, 1994, to Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who informed the government and the COT Cases that the agreement (the rules) had been drafted independently of Telstra.
AUSTEL, the then government communications authority (now called ACMA), under the advisement of Chairman Robin Davey, indicated in its official Fast Track Settlement Proposal, drafted on 5 October 1993, at point 40 (refer to Prologue Evidence File No/2) that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would no longer participate in the COT Cases. Despite the assurances provided, Freehill Hollingdale & Page assumed the role of Telstra's arbitration lawyers, dispatching the arbitration agreement on 10 January 1994 from their Melbourne office. This agreement, marked by numerous deficiencies, was later deemed lacking in credibility by the arbitrator on 12 May 1995, necessitating revisions. Regardless, the arbitrator chose to rely on this flawed document to make determinations regarding my case, which was finalized on 11 May 1995.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
Criminal Delinquent Evildoer, Felonious, Lawless, and Nefarious
Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and foreign corruption programs—the website that triggered the more profound exploration into political corruption—stand shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime, and international fraud against the government presents significant challenges.
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 that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact it had on my overall submission to the arbitrator.
The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in investigating Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.
As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.
Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details that were shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete?
This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?
On 25 March 1994, Ms Philippa Smith wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, stating:
“It was unreasonable for Telecom to require the participants to make further assurances while Telecom was considering the Agreement and thereby denying the participants the opportunity to consider the rules that Telecom wished to have included in the Agreement.” (Home Page – Part One File No/2-B)
Ms Philppa Smith also stated on page 3 of this letter that Telstra's Steve Black had advised Mr Wynack (the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations) that Telstra was vetting the supply of sensitive documents because I had previously released misused them, which had embarrassed Telstra. These documents I had supplied to the AFP exposed Telstra's listening to my telephone conversations, intercepting my faxes, or both.
In straightforward terms, Telstra was selectively vetting the sensitive information that I required to substantiate my claims. This practice hindered the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Arbitrator, who were jointly tasked with investigating these claims, from fully validating their legitimacy.
In her correspondence, Ms. Philippa Smith specifies that Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the settlement proposal, communicated to her office that the delays encountered during the process were solely due to Telstra's actions. Nevertheless, this assertion is only partially accurate.
The letter does not mention that Warwick Smith was covertly sharing internal government political information that could potentially aid Telstra in their defence against the claims related to the COT Cases. The information provided by Warwick Smith, which Telstra appeared to value highly, was directly causing the delays in resolving these claims.
In March 1994, Ms. Phillipa Smith could not have anticipated that five years later, almost to the day after most of the COT cases, businesses—including mine—would be destroyed by the government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes. 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.
In the world of political and media misinformation surrounding the NBN, one crucial issue hasn’t been fully addressed: Did Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements when the government privatised Telstra? When the COT arbitrator was officially provided (in my case) with nine separate sworn Telstra witness statements that my service was now up to network standard, i.e., there were no more ongoing telephone problems, were these nine sworn statements made under oath true or false?
If this question is answered honestly, it would not only directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending but also mean that the arbitrator hearing my cases was lied to so that Telstra could minimise its liability towards me. As seen from the following exhibits, my phone problems continued past 11 May 1995, eleven years after the arbitrator found in favour of Telstra, i.e., they had now fixed their network problems affecting my business. (Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct
The persistent troubles with telephone and fax services, which the arbitrator neglected to address before delivering his findings, are a significant contributing factor to the ongoing decline of Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure. Detailed reports from AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) make clear that the arbitrator was mandated to ensure that Telstra's arbitration service verification testing for each Customer-Owned Telecommunications (COT) case adhered to strict government specifications. Shockingly, the arbitrator permitted Telstra to carry out these critical arbitration tests without the oversight of government-appointed independent technical consultants, undermining the integrity of the process.
In my case, as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows, Telstra’s representative, Peter Gamble, attempted to conduct the essential Service Verification Testing (SVT) process. Unfortunately, he had to halt the testing due to unforeseen equipment malfunctions. When AUSTEL questioned how he planned to rectify this inadequate testing at my business, Mr Gamble refused to proceed with any further testing.
Instead, he submitted a statutory declaration under oath to the arbitrator, claiming that his SVT process had fully complied with AUSTEL’s requirements. This assertion was far from the truth.
Stop these people at all costs
This is the same Peter Gamble who, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia was named by 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 under FOI 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 against Telstra’.
Peter Gamble's unethical behaviour is significant, but it is also crucial to highlight that David Read from Lane Telecommunications chose not to oversee Gamble’s tests on April 6, 1995. As the technical consultant for the independent arbitrator, Read was responsible for evaluating the COT Cases, which alleged that faulty Ericsson telephone equipment was the source of ongoing complaints from various businesses.
Furthermore, Lane Telecommunications was acquired by Ericsson during the COT arbitration proceedings. This acquisition had profound implications, as it transferred all investigative materials collected by Lane against Ericsson of Sweden—gathered over approximately eight COT arbitrations—into Ericsson's possession. This situation raises significant ethical concerns about the investigation's impartiality, considering that the entity under scrutiny now controlled the evidence against it.
Such circumstances challenge Australia’s stated commitment to the rule of law and suggest that it may be one of the few Western nations that allows a principal witness to be financially influenced by those being investigated (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)
Had Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, taken the necessary steps to ensure that at least one of his two technical consultants—either the DMR Group from Canada or Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—was present during the Service Verification Test (SVT) tests, Telstra Peter Gamble (the principal arbitration engineer) would have been held accountable for following the established arbitration SVT process. This oversight by the arbitration process has dramatically affected my life and that of my partner and allowed these critical issues to continue to plague Telstra's network.
“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.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
29. Whether Telstra was active behind the scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.
One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.
30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:
- "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."
31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.
Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?
And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?
While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.
This is the same fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 that the Canadian government was concerned about, and it is most relevant we again address it here because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.
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 telephone 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 detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers before they would investigate my complaints.
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 Denise McBurnie. 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.
I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note my repeated reminders to the arbitration project manager regarding soliciting these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.
It was not of Mr Joblin's hand
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.
During my arbitration proceedings 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasized that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? 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 .
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"
Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.
It is 2025, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist, regarding Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all.
