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, visited my business as Telstra representatives. This visit was part of an audit of 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 essential 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 firm belief that the information could be instrumental in demonstrating that Telstra had misled and deceived me throughout the arbitration proceedings. His comments suggested he felt compelled to highlight this potential misrepresentation in his analysis.
Despite his initial assertions, it is essential to note that Robert Nason 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 provided and its implications for my case.
It is crucial to highlight that on October 20, 1993, Robert Nason visited my business on October 7, 1993. Following this visit, he communicated with Bell Canada International and simultaneously copied his correspondence to Ian Campbell, who was the General Manager of Commercial at Telstra. In his letter, Nason disclosed that he had received an anonymous phone call from a Telstra employee, alerting him to severe and widespread problems with the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment employed across Australia (see FOI document K47301).
In correspondence with Coopers and Lybrand, Bell Canada International Inc. and Deloitte, I also expressed significant concerns regarding the AXE equipment used at Cape Bridgewater and Portland, where Ball Canada did part of their testing. I argued that the conclusions presented in the Cape Bridgewater BCI report could not reflect an accurate assessment due to the ongoing problems with the AXE system in the Portland Ericsson exchange, which was responsible for servicing my business.
Subsequently, Robert Nason ascended to an executive position within Telstra and later joined the board of FOX. Notably, this is the same Robert Nason, partner of the then Coopers and Lybrand, where the auditing by Coopers was referenced in a letter from Doug Campbell to Ian Campbell (no relation) on November 10, 1993. As shown below, in this letter, Telstra's Group General Manager in charge of the COT Cases soon to be arbitrations, Doug Campbell, advised Telstra's Ian Campbell (no relative), who had agreed with the government to arbitrate the COT matters using the Coopers & Lybrand report which admitted the COT Cases claims was now forcing Coopers & Lybrand to change their findings regarding Telstra's unethical conduct to the COT which the following wording in this November 10 1993 internal Telstra letters shows:
"...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."
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 COT Cases have brought to light similar concerns about 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 about 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."
Despite the concerns expressed by various government ministers, including Senator Alston, Telstra alone paid Coopers & Lybrand and Bell Canada International Inc. to do that work. In the case of the COT arbitrations, Telstra paid for the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s helpers, who were then exonerated from all liability for anything untoward they might have been involved in. Still, the RVA "service disconnected" fault problems were not appropriately addressed during my arbitration even though the then Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston had raised them in the Senate on 25 February 1994.
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 could still manipulate the results by hiding any findings against them, whether Coopers & Lybrand or BCI reported those findings. 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 the arbitrator would never know what Coopers and BCI found wrong with Telstra’s processes.
Since I have shown 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 can the present Coalition Government condone the behaviour that led to the arbitrator not only accepting two thoroughly flawed reports as arbitration evidence but also 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 evident 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 business 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 regarding Telstra's previous settlements with the COT Cases at point 2.20 to that shown in their draft at point 2.20, we must 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 as "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 points 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, Nason clearly articulates that 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 factual 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, primarily 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. Still, 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 proof 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, which at the time had a monopoly 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 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 central issue of the service provided is ‘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 reference what Telstra should be doing according to the Trade Practice Act.
Robert Nason has 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. Still, 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 resolve 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".
Corruption in Arbitration
On 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:
“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.
“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.
“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
On 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) John Pinnock, noting:
“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.
“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …
“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
John Rundell's letter to John Pinnock TIO dated 15 November 1995, File 45-A Open letter File No/45-E states DMR & Lane did not leave the billing issues open when they were left open, and DMR & Lane advised this was the case. In other words, John Rundell misled and deceived John Pinnock when the Institute of Arbitrators Australia began investigating my claims.
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 Pty Ltd, 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 Group (Canada) Inc. → Paul Howell.
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.
It is crucial to highlight that on October 7, 1993, Robert Nason visited my business. Following this visit, he communicated with Bell Canada International and simultaneously copied his correspondence to Ian Campbell, who was the General Manager of Commercial at Telstra. In his letter, Nason disclosed that he had received an anonymous phone call from a Telstra employee, alerting him to severe and widespread problems with the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment employed across Australia (see FOI document K47301).
I expressed my concerns regarding their Cape Bridgewater report in my correspondence with Bell Canada International. I argued that the conclusions presented could not reflect an accurate assessment due to ongoing problems with the AXE system in the Portland Ericsson exchange, which serviced my business. I also informed Robert Nason that the testing equipment used at the Portland AXE exchange could not support the CCS7 technology that Bell Canada claimed to have implemented for their reported results. This discrepancy raised serious doubts about the validity of their findings.
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.”
My concise three-minute YouTube video, exclusively featured on absentjustice.com, compellingly illustrates how the arbitrations were mishandled by those in charge, deviating drastically from the agreed arbitration procedures. At eighty years old, I passionately confront the deep-seated injustices endured by the COT Cases throughout their tumultuous arbitration experiences.
Viewing Ann Garm’s heartfelt statement in her video may evoke feelings of sadness, especially knowing that she tragically passed away shortly after it was produced. Her experience highlights the profound trauma of losing her beloved business, not due to any shortcomings in her management but because of persistent phone faults.
The following YouTube video features first-hand accounts from nine of the sixteen individuals affected by the issues caused by Telstra, as discussed in a documentary aired on Channel Nine. Although this documentary was produced two decades ago, it was recently added to absentjustice.com in March 2025. It sheds light on the struggles faced by those trying to run phone-dependent businesses without reliable telephone service.
Although I do not expect every visitor to absentjustice.com to engage with these videos, they serve as striking examples featured prominently on the Home page. They reveal how the seemingly simple telephone line loss can wreak havoc on a business and fundamentally disrupt a person’s life. This resonates deeply, considering that during the 1960s and 1970s, Australia lacked mobile phones and online email systems, making the reliance on traditional phone lines even more critical.
It was also essential to raise Ann Garms's letter here because Wayne Goss (Chair of Deloitte), who Ann referred to, had also been Premier of Queensland Therefore, Ann's statement that told her that during our arbitrations, Gaslighting methods were used against us fits in with the Gaslighting character assassination used against me in 1996, to stop Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from investigating my claims concerning the unethical way in which the four COT arbitrations had been conducted.
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 government-endorsed arbitration where they had to contend with numerous unaddressed crimes. These crimes were perpetrated against us during our involvement in a government-endorsed arbitration process that was supposed to provide us with justice and resolution.
The problem for the COTs can be broken down into two major issues. Firstly, several 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 scrutiny is illustrated in Chapter Nine of the Sunday Business Programme (see below).
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 more profound exploration into political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime. Living with unconscionable Conduct:&
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.
