Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte
BRIEFCASE SAGA
On 3 June 1993, two Telstra technicians, David Stockdale and Hew Mackintosh, visited my business to investigate my continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. The contents of this briefcase confirmed that before my settlement on 11 December 1992, Telstra knew that major faults existed in their network. Still, they did not disclose this to me during his settlement (AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 - See AS – CAV 3, 4 and 5, and AS – CAV 9-B).
On 9 June 1993, a letter from AUSTEL to Telstra was also part of the “briefcase saga” as it confirmed that AUSTEL was concerned that Telstra appeared to have misled me during his settlement because of the evidence I found in the briefcase. On page one, paragraphs four and five, when referring to my allegations that Telstra withheld this information from me on 11 December 1992, this letter states:-
“Further he claims that the Telecom documents contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customers concerned.”
“In summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that in the context of the settlement Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information.”
“I ask for your urgent comment on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith’s premises for its inspection. …”
“In light of Mr Smith’s claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism which will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made.” ( GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88 - See GS-CAV 76)
Between October 7th and 10th, 1993, Robert Nason, a partner at Coopers and Lybrand, along with his secretary, Ms. Hurley, conducted a visit to my business as representatives of Telstra. This visit was part of an audit associated with our ongoing COT arbitrations, which aimed to address disputes related to fixed-line telecommunications services.
During the meeting, I provided Mr. Nason with several key documents from my briefcase, which included important materials relevant to the arbitration process. Among these was a significant letter from AUSTEL, dated June 9, addressed to Telstra, which outlined critical issues related to my case.
After reviewing these documents, Mr. Nason conveyed his strong belief that the information could be instrumental in demonstrating that Telstra had misled and deceived me throughout the arbitration proceedings. His comments suggested that he felt compelled to highlight this potential misrepresentation in his analysis.
Despite his initial assertions, it is important to note that Robert Nason ultimately did not include any findings of misleading or deceptive conduct in his final report to Telstra. This outcome was surprising given the weight of the information I had provided and the implications it had for my case.
The Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte hyperlink https://shorturl.at/5EALA to the Kangaroo Court demonstrates a growing apprehension within the Australian government and media regarding the operational practices of the prominent big four accountancy firms. The aforementioned COT Cases have brought to light similar concerns pertaining to irregularities during and after the 1994/1995 arbitrations. Despite being raised within a government-sanctioned arbitration process, these issues were not adequately addressed for the ordinary citizens of Australia.
How does the above PwC text relate to the COT Cases arbitration process?
Coopers & Lybrand Report
Towards the end of 1993, Telstra commissioned an international audit company, Coopers and Lybrand, to report on Telstra’s fault-handling procedures, particularly in relation to complaints like those raised by the members of COT. In a letter dated 17 September 1993 (Exhibit 1010 -AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019) to AUSTEL’s Chairman, Mr Robin Davey, the then-Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, wrote:
"Finally I note that Telecom propose to engage one of the "Big Five" accounting firms to audit its handling of the COT cases with Austel merely having unspecified access to the consultants and its output.
If such an audit is to have any legitimacy it is essential that it should be commissioned and paid for by Austel. To allow one party to litigation to select and pay - undoubtedly generously - for the judge would not be tolerated in any judicial proceedings. It should not be tolerated here."
Regardless of the concerns expressed by various government ministers, including Senator Alston, it was Telstra alone who paid Coopers & Lybrand and Bell Canada International Inc. to carry out that work. Then, in the case of the COT arbitrations, Telstra paid for the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s helpers who were then also exonerated from all liability for anything untoward that they might be involved in.
Senator Alston’s objections to Telstra being allowed to pay for both the Coopers & Lybrand audit of Telstra systems and the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) audit of the main COT claims, and the telephone exchanges that the COT businesses were connected to, was particularly alarming because, as is now known, both those reports were not only orchestrated by Telstra, but were orchestrated by AUSTEL too, as their April 1994 ‘COT Cases Report’ clearly shows. (Note: these Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) tests are discussed in the next chapter)
This is even more alarming because, although all this auditing was carried out on behalf of the Government Regulator, Telstra was still able to manipulate the results by hiding any findings that went against them, whether Coopers & Lybrand or BCI reported those findings, and they accomplished this with even more manipulation, this time by using various exemptions in the FOI Act, such as Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) or adverse findings against Telstra marked as (ADV), as (Exhibit 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and 1019 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019) so clearly show.
A further alarming aspect of Telstra’s interference in the official auditing process is that any adverse findings could also be deliberately omitted from the formal Coopers and BCI reports that AUSTEL and the TIO had already agreed would be provided to the COT arbitrator. This meant that the arbitrator would never know what it was that Coopers and BCI found wrong with Telstra’s processes.
Since I have shown proved that both the Coopers & Lybrand and BCI reports were fundamentally flawed and exhibits (AS 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and AS 1019) show that not all the adverse findings against Telstra have been revealed – even now – how then can the present Coalition Government condone the behaviour that led to the arbitrator not only accepting two thoroughly flawed reports as arbitration evidence, but then basing his final decisions, in part at least, on those flawed reports?
How can the results of the COT arbitrations still stand, as they have for the last twenty years, when it has been obvious for some time that these were not the only findings against Telstra that Telstra has kept hidden, and that some of those hidden findings included technical documents that were falsified so the arbitrator would not uncover the truth about Telstra’s failing telecommunications network? How could Telstra get away with manipulating the law as it stood back in 1994, without even being asked to explain what happened during the COT arbitrations?
It is important to note that when Coopers & Lybrand investigator Robert Nason and his secretary, Sue Hurley, met with me at his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on 13 October 1993, I supplied them with evidence supporting my claims that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my 11 December 1992 settlement. I explained that two technicians visited my businesses on 3 June 1993 to investigate his continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. When Robert Nason and Sue Hurley saw this evidence, they were shocked and convinced that Telstra had disadvantaged my previous settlement claim.
A letter dated 3 November 1993 to Mr Robert Nason, (Coopers & Lybrand) from the Hon Senator Richard Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications (Exhibit 938 → AS-CAV 923 to 946) notes:
"I have at last received a copy of your terms of reference and these make it clear that the review requires Coopers & Lybrand to "conduct an independent audit of (the) adequacy, reasonableness and fairness (of) Telecom's approach to Difficult Network Faults reported by customers over the last 5 years".
The review also explicitly requires Coopers & Lybrand recommendations to take "into account Telecom's legal obligations".
Despite the clear nature of these terms of reference I am disturbed to learn from several COT members that your review will not deal with questions of misleading and deceptive conduct".
While the final public Coopers & Lybrand report is almost identical in regards to Telstra's previous settlements with the COT Cases at point 2.20 to that as shown in their draft at point 2.20, it is important we highlight one particular variation.
Draft
"We have found evidence that an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process." (Exhibit 939 AS-CAV 923 to 946)
Final
"We believe that in some cases an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process’s" (Exhibit 940 AS-CAV 923 to 946 )
I have always been convinced that the segment referred to in the Coopers & Lybrand draft "have found evidence" was the same evidence I provided Robert Nason and Sue Hurley during their visit to my business on 13 October 1993 which shocked them and left them both speechless. At point 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 Nason clearly articulates he placed the Bell Canada International Inc Report, Coopers & Lybrand Report and the AUSTEL COT Cases Report into evidence.
Had Dr Hughes been provided the true findings in this case, those of Coopers & Lybrand as well as AUSTEL's secret findings on this settlement issue, as arbitrator he would have had to find against Telstra regarding these settlement issues instead of finding in favour of Telstra.
Although Senator Ron Boswell’s questions on notice were put to the Senate Estimate Committee Hearing in December 1993, they are most relevant to this date line, mostly because of the question that the Senator put directly to Telstra (AS 1030), i.e.:
“In the review by Coopers and Lybrand of Telecom’s difficult network fault, policies and procedures will the terms of reference allow Coopers and Lybrand to examine the issues of misleading and deceptive conduct of Telstra?”
Telstra then replied:
“...Telecom does not accept that it has been involved in such conduct” and “Should allegations of such conduct arise in the course of C&L investigations, Telstra would expect C&L to have proper regard to such allegations on the conduct of its work” and “Telstra would also expect C& L to address any such allegations in its reports” (AS 1230).
When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct, but all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting me and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the evidence that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.
Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed, because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9th November, from the Group Managing Director of Telstra Mr Doug Campbell to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial Mr Ian Campbell (AS 942), saying:
"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."
These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country; a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.
Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they really uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft it is noted (AS 943) that:
"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."
In the same section of the final version (AS 944) however, there is no mention of ensuring they that “…the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act.”
The draft report, at point 23 under ‘Other Recommendations’, notes (AS 945) that:
"Fitness for Purpose: Telecom needs to issue, inter alia, instructions to sales, installation, maintenance, fault investigation and repair involved with PSTS and/or CPE work that checks must be made to ensure the PSTS will meet or continue to meet the "fitness for purpose" requirements of the 1974 Trade Practices Act for the circumstances they are dealing with."
In the final version Coopers & Lybrand have again left out the major issue of the service provided being ‘fit for purpose’ according to the 1974 Trade Practices Act (AS 946), the very issues that AUSTEL advised the Government would be addressed by Telstra in a commercial settlement process, with no need for an arbitration if it was proved that Telstra had acted outside of the 1974 Trade Practice Act. But once again, here we have the arbitrator accepting the Coopers & Lybrand report, even though it did not include any reference to what Telstra should be doing according to the Trade Practice Act.
Robert Nason has now been a senior executive in the Telstra Corporation for some time, including holding the position of Group Managing Director, Business Support and Improvement in 2014. In 2013 he was also appointed as Chairman of Foxtel, but before that, back in June 2010, I provided Mr Nason with a condensed draft version of this story and most of the Exhibits it refers to, in the hope that he could facilitate a resolution to my matters. Mr Nason has never responded.
However, Sue Laver, Telstra's General Counsel did write instead, noting:
I refer to your letter dated 1 June 2010 addressed to Robert Nason, Group Managing Director of Corporate Strategy & Customer Experience.
"Your claims were resolved pursuant to the arbitral award dated 11 May 1995. Over the thirteen years since the award, you have repeatedly sought to have your complaint re-opened. Telstra does not propose any further review of your claims or to respond to any further correspondence from you".
In the course of my AAT government FOI hearings with ACMA in 2007 and 2008 (No V2008/1836) and during my subsequent AAT hearing in May 2011 (No 2010/4634), I expressed my apprehensions regarding acts of impropriety to the entire ACMA Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was tasked with evaluating my assertions on behalf of the government. I unequivocally asserted that either the principals of KPMG, PWC, and Deloitte had participated in dubious conduct linked to my arbitration or that individuals employed by these three auditing firms were cognizant of the fundamental flaws in their submissions to my arbitration or leading up to it.
The corruption dates back to when the soon-to-be partner of KPMG became the Arbitration Project Manager for the COT arbitrations. As soon as he and his fellow arbitration advisors learned that FHCA had been covertly exonerated from all liability for negligence as administrators to the financial side of three of the first four arbitrations, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, allowed the wrong technical consultant, Lane Telecommunications Consultant, to assess the COT Cases' claims instead of the Principal Technical Expert, Paul Howell, who had flown in from Canada for that assessment.
As an increasing number of submissions in the COT Case arbitration shed light on the inherent faults of the Ericsson AXE equipment and the prior knowledge possessed by Telstra before the commencement of arbitrations, it has become evident that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, comprising ex-Telstra officials, was tasked with investigating the failure of Ericsson's telephone exchange equipment. The draft report, authored by Lane and counter-signed by DMR (Canada), failed to include any written findings concerning my ongoing problems with Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Shortly thereafter, while assessing the COT Cases claims, Lane was acquired by Ericsson for an undisclosed sum (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).
In simple terms, John Rundell must explain why he allowed Lane to be the Principal Technical consultant instead of the agreed-upon DMR Inc.
Chapter 1—The Collusion Continues and Chapter 2—Inaccurate and Incomplete expose further untruths told by John Rundell while a partner of KPMG. We need to consider how the deception issues present in the COT arbitrations are exacerbated by the statements made by the young computer hackers who contacted Graham Schorer, as discussed below.
A Telstra minute, dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange states:
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid, can best be viewed reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
It is clear from much of the information supplied by David Hawker, MP, to me in 1993 and 1994 that many people as far away as Penshurst, Apsley, Hamilton, Timboon, Victoria Valley and through Portland were complaining to him about the phone problems in his electorate. The Hon. Mr Hawker MP was passing on many of those complaints to me for the COT cases to take to Parliament House, Canberra, in our pursuit to have the Senate investigate why so many rural south-west citizens were experiencing the same problems as my business (see Introduction File No/11-E).
A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun, read:
“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.
I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.
I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.
I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”
(Because of a number of reports regarding this ‘piercing noise’, Ray Morris from Telstra’s Country Division arranged to have my service switched to another system.” (My Story Evidence File 10-B)
The pressure on all four COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our continuing canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling by now, but I continued to hammer for a change in rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.
“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …
“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”(See Arbitrator File No/76)
On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP again wrote to me, noting:
“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.
“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)
My concise three-minute YouTube video below makes this clear. At eighty years old, I'm tackling the injustices endured by the COT Cases during their arbitrations. The Australian government's tacit acceptance of unresolved issues in sanctioned arbitrations would likely be unacceptable in most Western democracies. The video also exposes corruption in government when they allowed Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page to target four Australians and their four named businesses so that when these four citizens signed their government-endorsed arbitration, the documents the government promised them would be provided to assist them in preparing their claims were firmly hidden using the Freehill Hollingdale & Page COT Case Strategy.
Most importantly, Telstra financed all three auditing companies involved in the government-endorsed arbitration, rather than having the government provide funding for the arbitration consultants it had endorsed during the approval of all four arbitrations. It raises concerns about how the government can endorse a process that permits only the arbitration defendants to test the equipment under investigation, while not ensuring that the arbitration technical consultants from DMR Group Inc., who were brought in from Canada, conduct similar testing on the same service.
Viewing Ann Garm’s statement in her video may evoke sadness, particularly as she passed away shortly after its production, having endured the trauma associated with losing her business due to phone faults, rather than due to any deficiencies in her management. Many cases similar to those of the COT demonstrate that businesses were lost as a result of inadequate telephone service supplied by Telstra. While these businesses might have been able to withstand the challenges posed by fire, flood, and natural disasters, the loss resulting from the deceptive practices of a company such as Telstra was exceedingly difficult to endure. Telstra was under investigation by both the New South Wales and Federal Police for allegedly defrauding millions of dollars, a situation that appeared to be obscured by the government, resulting in a lack of accountability, with no individuals facing imprisonment.
Ann Garms' YouTube video and her subsequent appeal process critically undermine Deloitte's defense of her arbitration claim on behalf of Telstra. During my arbitration session, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, only evaluated a portion of my overall claim when he should have examined all the pertinent material related to the case. This limited review severely weakened the integrity of the arbitration process.
In the case involving Deloitte, while they were defending Telstra during my arbitration, their assessment of my telephone line was flawed. They inaccurately reported to the arbitrator that there were no ongoing telephone issues. This assertion was accepted without question by the arbitrator, who refused to allow the DMR Group (Canada)—our principal technical consultants—the additional time they requested to thoroughly investigate my claims of persistent telephone problems. This decision was detrimental, as it cut short what could have been a more comprehensive examination of the technical issues that we had been experiencing.
Now, as we enter 2024, each time I attempt to finalize various sections of our website and the proposed documentary, I find myself required to revisit the intricate details of our troubling narrative. The emotional toll of doing so causes my anxiety levels to spike. I often struggle to articulate the right words needed to conclude this distressing story effectively. It proves to be an arduous task to convey the full extent of the disaster that we have endured over the years, which has impacted not only our lives but also the lives of countless others.
A significant aspect of our plight is that none of the COT cases—comprising honest, law-abiding Australian citizens—should have been forced into a situation where they had to contend with numerous unaddressed crimes. These crimes were perpetrated against us during our involvement in a government-endorsed arbitration process, which was supposed to provide us with justice and resolution.
The problem for the COTs can be broken down into two major issues. Firstly, a number of individuals, as outlined below, collaborated with Telstra to facilitate and perpetuate these unaddressed crimes. Secondly, Telstra possesses a level of influence and authority that enables it to obstruct any investigations by regulatory and law enforcement agencies, including government authorities. This ability to prevent any scrutiny is clearly illustrated in Chapter Nine of the Sunday Business Programme, as well as in our detailed website narrative titled "Absent Justice," which outlines the systemic failures and injustices we have faced.
It's important to emphasize that every detail on this website is accurate and backed by irrefutable evidence readily available directly from the website. Additionally, after discussing with other members of the COT group, we decided that considering the stress we're all still experiencing, it would be better to release our stories to the public exactly as they are on the website now, even if it's not how we originally intended to present them when we started putting the website together.
Absentjustice.com is the website that triggered a deeper investigation into criminal conduct in government. Narcism, unconscionable <
Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues
The website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime
Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete
Goverement corruption and horrendous and horrifying crimes were committed against ordinary small business operators by the Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications giant.
Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter
Horrendous and horrifying crimes were committed against ordinary small business operators by the Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications giant.
Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines government.
Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines government.
Evidence File-1
Explore the disturbing realm of horrendous crimes committed by unscrupulous criminals with little regard for the law or morality.My YouTube Video
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies.Organized Crime and Corruption - Absent Justice
Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.
