Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

Prime Minister of Australia 

Media Release 

On 13 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 is about how we live our life." https://shorturl.at/68hD6

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Statement of Facts and Contentions

"Tampering with Evidence"

During my arbitration process in 1994 and 1995, I shared several essential documents with Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, and John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL. I also brought this document to two hearings I had with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding Freedom of Information in 2008 and May 2011. In both cases, the communications authority of the government, known as ACMA, was involved as the responding party. The document in question, referred to as folio A00253, was dated September 16, 1993, and is titled "Fibre Degradation."

“Problems were experienced in the Mackay to Rockhampton leg of the optical fibre network in December ’93. Similar problems were found in the Katherine to Tenant Creek part of the network in April this year. The probable cause of the problem was only identified in late July, early August. In Telecom’s opinion the problem is due to an aculeate coating (CPC3) used on optical fibre supplied by Corning Inc (US). Optical fibre cable is supposed to have a 40 year workable life. If the MacKay & Katherine experience are  repeated elsewhere in the network, in the northern part of Australia, the network is likely to develop attenuation problems within 2 or 3 years of installation. The network will have major QOS problems whilst the CPC3 delaminates from the optical fibre. There are no firm estimates on how long this may take. …

“Existing stocks of Corning cable will be used in low risk / low volume areas.” (See Bad Bureaucrats File No/16)

Were the citizens of Australia entitled to be advised by the Australian government, before it sold off the Telstra network, that, e.g., the aforementioned optical fibre with CPC3 coating, supplied to Telecom/Telstra by Corning Inc (USA), was installed in their area? How many people in Australia have been forced to live with a subpar phone system, i.e., a known poor optical fibre that Telstra should NEVER have installed? How many businesses have gone up against the wall due to Telstra’s negligent conduct of knowingly laying their existing stocks of Corning cable in locations that Telstra believed were low-risk/low-volume areas?

What is the estimated number of businesses in the United States of America that have become insolvent due to issues related to corroded optical fibre? Many of these organizations have erroneously attributed their financial losses to inadequate management practices (refer to COT Cases Senate Hansard Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring).

On 3 October 2008, after considering the complexities of this eight-month AAT hearing (a struggle as I was up against two government lawyers), Senior AAT member (Judge) Mr G. D. Friedman addressed me directly in open court. He made his remarks in the presence of several witnesses, including these two government lawyers.

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

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

When analyzed alongside the Corning Inc (US) optical fibre cable (Bad Bureaucrats File No/16), the faulty EXICOM TF200 telephone reveals the significant impact that defective telephone equipment had on the COT cases. The telephone's shortcomings hindered communication and forced the COT cases into an arbitration process that incurred costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. These substantial expenses arose primarily due to the phone issues linked to Telstra's negligence.

A critical question emerges: Why was Telstra not held accountable for covering the arbitration fees when their negligence compelled the COT cases to seek arbitration?

Furthermore, as the upcoming story illustrates, Telstra's negligence appears to be just one element of a larger pattern of unconscionable conduct.

Telstra FOI folio D01026/27 (Tampering With Evidence File No 2) confirms Telstra knew there were lock-up problems in moisture-prone areas affecting the EXICOM T200s manufactured after week seven of 1993. The TF200 EXICOM document indicates that Telstra planned to redeploy over 350,000 EXICOM telephones across various locations in Australia, relying on staff assessments. However, it is concerning that most Telstra technicians lack formal training as meteorological officers, which raises important questions about the accuracy and reliability of their evaluations.

I felt it was necessary to raise the issue surrounding the EXICOM TF200 phones because the details outlined in the "Tampering with Evidence" section highlight a significant concern. In my experience, when I received one of these faulty telephones, the original unit was sent to Telstra’s laboratory for inspection instead of being replaced promptly. Furthermore, the local technicians in Portland did not recognize that my holiday camp, situated near the southern ocean with stunning views of Cape Bridgewater Bay, was exposed to substantial moisture challenges that could severely impact equipment performance.

This context is essential because Telstra informed the arbitrator that I had accidentally spilt beer into my phone, suggesting that this was the reason for its malfunction. Additionally, the involvement of the arbitrator's wife in this discussion illustrates the complexities and emotional weight surrounding this situation.

For the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, to have allowed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, to write to Laurie James on February 27, 1996, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, regarding a different set of facts associated with the late evidence received six months after my arbitration concluded, is concerning (Refer to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter).

This evidence revealed that Telstra's laboratory testing of the TF200 indicated that their arbitration report submitted to the arbitrator was fraudulently manufactured to conceal the serious nature of the redeployment of over 350,000 faulty EXICOM TF200 units back into circulation. This situation demonstrates how far Dr Hughes and John Pinnock were willing to go to assist Telstra in this disturbing deployment and misrepresent the facts with their misleading report, which implied that I was a drunken slob.

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

 

 

> Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury <

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

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

It is crucial to highlight the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement clearly stated that Telstra would be on the hook for $400 million if it failed to provide the promised telecommunications services by the deadline, even though Telstra and its board knew that meeting that deadline was impossible. Why were Rupert Murdoch and Fox afforded preferential treatment compared to the COT Cases, which faced penalties for their arbitrations? This situation exemplifies discrimination in its most egregious form.

 

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

On 24 June 1997, see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia shows an ex-Telstra employee -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested during our arbitrations, 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" .

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 my claims against Telstra’.

Here is further evidence that the government knows that we COT Cases did not receive preferential treatment from Telstra, as was the case with Rupert Murdoch and FOX, who also had claims against Telstra for not providing reliable phone service. 

 

Dilapidated Copperwire Network

Arbitration 

The persistent issues with telephone and fax transmissions that drove the COT Cases into arbitration with Telstra continued unabated for many years after the arbitrator failed to enforce any measures to compel Telstra to rectify these ongoing problems. As a part of the comprehensive nineteen-month settlement and arbitration process, Telstra was obligated to investigate and resolve these transmission issues, yet they remained unresolved. In nearly every instance of COT arbitration, the technical faults endured, despite the COT Cases investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees, all in a desperate effort to persuade the government to intervene and ensure that Telstra addressed these critical problems.

Unbeknownst to me, the government communications authority had already concluded that I possessed more than valid claims against Telstra throughout the entire seven-year span of my arbitration. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, particularly points 1 to 212, should be carefully scrutinized and accepted as credible evidence because the government investigated my problems in the public interest under section 335 (1) of the Telecommunications Act 1991. As recorded in (iii) of AUSTEL's official note to the relevant Communications Minister, the Hon Michael Lee MP, on 13 April 1994 under:

"... Section 342 of the Act provides, in effect, that after concluding such an investigation AUSTEL must prepare and give to the Minister for Communications and the Arts a report covering:

• the conduct of the investigations
• any findings it makes as a result of the investigations".

The comprehensive 258-page public report, titled "THE COT CASES - AUSTEL's Findings and Recommendations April 1994," can be accessed through the Australian Freedom of Information Act. This important document was delivered to the Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, on the 13th of April, 1994. Notably, this report fails to disclose the specific details contained in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

In this context, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) is responsible to the Australian government and its citizens. They must provide a transparent and thorough explanation for the decision to withhold the results of their investigations into the COT Cases claims back in 1994. Had this crucial report been accessible during my arbitration process, it would have been instrumental in shaping and supporting my claims for the 1994/95 period.

The evidence presented on absentjustice.com indicates that AUSTEL crafted detailed individual reports for each COT case. Yet, their official findings starkly contradicted these detailed documents, leading to a troubling lack of acknowledgement.

By spotlighting this critical issue through absentjustice.com, we have a meaningful opportunity to motivate the government to take significant action. The COT Cases must be granted a fair and just hearing concerning the vital evidence unethically concealed from them for the past thirty years. Correcting this injustice is not just necessary; it is crucial to addressing a situation that disproportionately favoured the government-owned Telstra while disregarding the rights and needs of the affected individuals.

 

'Introduction, 120,000 COT type-fault complaints.'

There were additional hidden issues associated with telephone transmission that AUSTEL did not fully report, related to known faults within the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges that served the COT Cases business. The problems became two-fold due to corroded copper wiring, which AUSTEL investigated in 1994 (refer to CAN and AXE in Falsification Report File No/8). Notably, The Hon. Anthony Albanese is still addressing ongoing copper wire issues in 2025, problems that could have been resolved years ago if AUSTEL (now ACMA) had fully disclosed the severity of the issues.

In simple terms, the continuing telephone and faxing transmission problems persisted after the COT Cases spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees attempting to persuade the government to force Telstra to fix these issues. I was unaware that the government communications authority had already proved that I had more than valid claims against Telstra for the whole seven-year period of my arbitration claim, as points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show. 

 

HIDDEN LETTERS

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

This situation raises an important question: did the 120,000 COT-type customers across Australia, as referenced in Falsification Report File No/8, only experience some of the phone issues raised by the COT Cases? Could some of these 120,000 complaints be linked to both billing issues and the phone faults that caused them, effectively making these cases two-fold complaints?

Additionally, "THE COT CASES - AUSTEL's Findings and Recommendations April 1994" does not mention the two letters dated April 8 and 9, 1994, from Telstra's General Manager to AUSTEL's Robin Davey were mishandled, reflecting a troubling disregard for public welfare. The concealment of the number of individuals affected by these faults caused significant personal distress and led to widespread financial hardship. While households faced overcharging for phone calls, this was merely the surface issue; numerous businesses among the 120,000 COT-type customers experienced lost calls, ultimately contributing to bankruptcies, as evidenced by the twelve COT cases currently in arbitration. Acknowledging the seriousness of these issues and their profound effects on individuals and families is imperative.

For AUSTEL (now ACMA) to have reduced their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints in the public government report, namely "THE COT CASES - AUSTEL's Findings and Recommendations April 1994" is one hell of a lie told to the citizens of Australia. I lie. That has cost many Australians the best part of their lives. 

The corroded copper wire affecting Australia's 120,000 citizens can best be measured by viewing Delimiter’s "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter."

 

Ongoing telephone problems 

In the world of political and media misinformation that is attached to the NBN, there is one important issue that 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) nine separate sworn Telstra witness statements that my service was now up to network standard i.e.; 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 the arbitrator hearing my cases was lied to so that Telstra could minimise their liability towards me. As seen from the following exhibit, my phone problems continued for eleven years after the arbitrator found in favour of Telstra, i.e. they had now fixed their network.

23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem NOT a past problem as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can which was released in March 1994, these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.

9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095 and absentjustice.com/Introduction again shows that the COT Cases claims of ailing copperwire network was more than valid.  

Almost two decades after this cover-up had been executed, with the government spin doctors successfully branding my claims as frivolous and me as a vexatious litigant, I have been left the government stopped financing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which still utilises part of the existing, seriously degraded copper network. In fact, the “… state of the copper network is considerably worse than expected, leading to extensive work beyond the node,” say leaked documents.

28 April 2018: This ABC news article regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story because had these lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) really was just 4-years ago

The Briefcase Affair 

 

 

Thirty years ago, on June 3, 1993, two Telstra technical executives visited my business to investigate my ongoing telephone complaints. I first registered with Telstra in April 1988, just two months after purchasing my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, located 18 kilometres from the seaport of Portland, Victoria. During the visit, the executives inadvertently left a briefcase open and unlocked at my premises. When I opened it to find the owner's information for delivery, I discovered my name associated with the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Beneath it were several other listed businesses also experiencing the same ongoing telephone issues that my business had been facing since April 1988 and even earlier. It became evident from the contents of this briefcase that Telstra had been misleading their customers about the quality of the 'old degraded copper wire' that serviced Telstra's consumers.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government maintained ownership of the country’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom, which has since been privatized and rebranded as Telstra. During this period, Telecom wielded a powerful monopoly over communications, allowing the vast network to fall into a state of disrepair, much to the detriment of the public. Instead of addressing the glaring deficiencies in telephone services through the government-endorsed arbitration process—a process that unfolded as an uneven and daunting struggle—the issues remained unaddressed. Claimants poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into their cases only to thwart their appeals. We experienced not just financial loss but a more profound violation; crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was profoundly undermined. The toll on our livelihoods was immense, resulting in millions of dollars lost and a decline in our mental health. Disturbingly, those who inflicted this harm continue to occupy influential positions of power today. Our story, rich with hardship and resilience, remains obscured from the public eye. 

The media release from the Honorable Anthony Albanese sheds light on a significant issue surrounding the COT Cases, which involve individuals grappling with persistent telephone faults. These individuals were compelled to engage in a government-endorsed arbitration process to investigate and resolve their ongoing communication issues. However, despite undertaking this costly process, the fundamental problems that drove them to arbitration remain unaddressed. The Minister's media release explicitly acknowledges this troubling lack of resolution.

In my personal experience, I faced an overwhelming financial burden, spending over $300,000 in arbitration fees in a desperate attempt to substantiate my claims against Telstra. Ironically, the very issues I was trying to prove had already been validated by the Australian government’s communications authority, AUSTEL. In fact, AUSTEL provided a covert report to Telstra in March 1994—just six weeks before my arbitration began. This report contained evidence that confirmed my allegations against Telstra, yet I was left to navigate the costly arbitration process without that knowledge.

Essentially, the government, represented by AUSTEL (now ACMA), stood by as I incurred these significant expenses, all while they had already proven my claims. The details of their findings, outlined in points 1 to 212 of the AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, clearly illustrate the injustices faced by individuals like myself in our quest for accountability and resolution.

How does one narrate a tale so extraordinary that even the author finds it hard to grasp its authenticity, leading to a meticulous review of records before sharing? How can we expose the troubling collusion between arbitrators, government entities, and defendants? What mechanisms can we employ to uncover the interception and illicit use of confidential materials that bolstered the defendants’ defences while leaving the claimants disadvantaged? How many other arbitration processes within Australia have been tainted in similar ways? Is the insidious practice of electronic eavesdropping and breach of confidentiality still rampant in legitimate arbitrations across Australia today?

On January 7, 1999, Scandrett & Associates prepared a significant report revealing confidential arbitration-related documents that were covertly and illegally intercepted during their transmission to and from the arbitrator's office, Parliament House in Canberra and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. 

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1, File No/2-A to 2-E, File No/3, File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5 that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator's office did not reach their intended destination.

Why did Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator), now Senior Partner of a Melbourne-based International Legal Firm, bring down his award on my arbitration claims when he was aware that the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement used in my arbitration was not a credible document to have been used? It was used anyway, to my detriment? 

 “…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports…

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” see Open Letter File No 55-A).

Why did the arbitrator amend the arbitration agreement for the remaining three COT cases, allowing those claimants thirteen more months to access their documents from Telstra (the defendants in all four arbitrations) than he allowed me?

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

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

If I had received a copy of this letter declaring the agreement used in my arbitration process was not credible, I would have appealed the arbitrator’s award. After all, how could an appeal judge argue against the arbitrator’s findings that the agreement was not credible, even though he used it anyway?

How could Dr Hughes even contemplate making a statement in his award like: “…as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration”, let alone decide to include it in his 12 May letter when he and the Senate had already been warned that Telstra was threatening to withhold further relevant documents from me, simply because I had agreed to assist the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into Telstra’s unauthorized interception of my phone conversations and faxes and, even worse than that level of Telstra treachery, Telstra then actually carried out those threats?  And what about the advice that both the arbitrator and Warwick Smith had received on 18 April 1995 (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A), i.e. 

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."

 

Criminal Conduct  

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.

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?

STEVE BLACK - PAUL RUMBLE 

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. 

 

Treacherous and evil 

No scrupulous of any kind

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, informed her office that the delays encountered during the process were solely due to Telstra's actions.

In March 1994, Ms. Phillipa Smith could not have anticipated that five years later, almost to the day after most of the COT cases, the government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes would destroy businesses—including mine.

As demonstrated in the 'Introduction, 120,000 COT type-fault complaints' refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN, Steve Black wielded significant power in the arbitration process, controlling which documents could be entered as evidence. His influence extended beyond mere document control; his letters from 8 and 9 April 1994 illustrate how he exerted pressure on Robin Davey, the Chairman of AUSTEL, to revise his findings in a critical government report on COT cases released on 13 April 1994. This report initially indicated a staggering number of over 120,000 complaints from COT-type customers across Australia, revealing the extent of the issues faced by many (See Open Letter File No/11). However, under Black's influence, the report was manipulated to obscure the reality, stating that there were only 50 or more COT-type cases

Subsequently, this altered report was presented to the COT arbitrator, reinforcing Telstra's claims that COT cases were not experiencing ongoing telephone faults. Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, cited this altered narrative in his award and concluded that my business no longer faced any problems.

To this day, Steve Black and Paul Rumble  must face public scrutiny for their deceptive actions and gross misconduct regarding the COT cases. Their lies have wreaked havoc on our lives and livelihoods, leaving a trail of devastation in their wake, and yet they have escaped accountability for their actions.

Steve Black was secretly permitted to address the arbitration issues the arbitrator had previously decided his arbitration unit should not consider. These issues were directly related to the 120,000 COT-type complaints that Steve Black had successfully pressured the government to exclude from their public report.

On 16 October 1995, five months after my arbitration concluded, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) allowed Steve Black to use prior witness statements dated 12 December 1994. However, these statements had been shown by my arbitration professionals—two police officers—to be fundamentally flawed.

When the government regulator AUSTEL permitted only Telstra to respond to my arbitration issues in their submission on 16 October 1995, they also denied my legal right to reply to that submission, as detailed in "Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?". The fact that the arbitrator made no findings regarding Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission confirms the COT arbitrations were nothing more than a Kangaroo Court.

The latest blog by Shane Dowling, author of the Kangaroo Court website, is featured here on Absent Justice because Australian citizens and several other media outlets are still discussing corruption within the public service https://shorturl.at/q4rL1. I initially raised this issue with AUSTEL (now ACMA) on 11 June 1993, and it continued until my second Administrative Appeals Tribunal FOI hearing in May 2011. Other COT group members and I addressed these ongoing corruption issues with the Australian Federal Police, Australian Consumer Affairs, the Victorian Major Fraud Group at Victoria Police, and various other parties detailed in Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued.

One of the most significant inaccuracies in the arbitrator's award dated May 11, 1995, is highlighted in point 3.2. (h). In this point, the arbitrator claimed, "the claimant adds that he continued to suffer transmission problems after March 1993, although since July 1994, he has had relatively little cause for complaints." This assertion starkly contrasts the detailed correspondence that Dr. Hughes (the arbitrator) received from AUSTEL and Telstra from October 4 to December 16, 1994. These letters indicated that my business was grappling with ongoing billing issues that were far from resolved, as shown above and below.

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the situation was serious enough that AUSTEL and Dr. Hughes allowed Steve Black to step in and address these billing problems on October 16, 1995. This intervention occurred five months after my arbitration had concluded, emphasizing the persistence of issues that critically affected my business. The arbitrator's misrepresentation undermines the factual basis of the situation and fails to acknowledge the extent of the difficulties experienced during that time. On 30 April 1995, DMR Group Inc, brought in from Canada to thoroughly investigate my arbitration claims, alongside Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd from Australia, informed the arbitrator of the following:

“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’,”  Not my emphasis - see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

DMR and Lane were undoubtedly correct; the persistent billing faults remained "Open," creating a significant disruption in my business operations until December 2001. Despite my efforts to resolve the issues, Telstra and the arbitration process consistently refused to acknowledge the chaos they had unleashed in my life and my partner, Cathy. Our dream of establishing a flourishing holiday camp filled with joyful families and vibrant activities was dashed by their negligence, leaving us grappling with the consequences of their oversight.

Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, clearly demonstrates that the telephone faults were an ongoing issue for the new owners of the holiday camp, Darren and Jenny Lewis, after they acquired it for land value in December 2001. The persistent telephone problems severely impacted the saleability of the business, eroding any potential goodwill. Ultimately, Darren and Jenny's tenure ended in December 2008 when they faced bankruptcy in the Federal Magistrates Court, as explored in Chapter 5, Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

 

The saga continues unabated. 

 

 

It was left for the COT Cases to take Telstra to court for phone and fax hacking issues.

 

On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts, that David Lever from her office had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities concerning the intention of my arbitration-related faxes during and after the conclusion of my arbitration. The evidence within the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

 

In this 17 May 2007 letter, Senator Coonan wrote, noting:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B  File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.

The gravity of the situation raises essential questions: Why was it deemed acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, how could Telstra justify intercepting (screening my arbitration-related faxes) to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration? 

A second, more refined version of the COT story is in progress and has yet to undergo comprehensive editing. This narrative, titled "My Story Warts and All," intends to provide a vivid exploration of the troubling and unethical practices exhibited by certain so-called arbitrators. These individuals, fully aware that those of us involved in the COT Cases faced profound injustices at the hands of figures like Steve Black and Paul Rumble, nonetheless chose to turn a blind eye to this misconduct.

In detailing our experiences, "My Story Warts and All" will reveal a disturbing reality: for some, there were tangible rewards for complicity. Medals were metaphorically earned by those willing to overlook the persistent telephone issues that plagued us long after the COT arbitrations had concluded. This narrative seeks to illuminate the failures of those in authority and the resilience of those unjustly affected by their decisions.