Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned and operated the nation’s telephone network through an agency called Telecom. This agency was later privatized and renamed Telstra. As a government enterprise, Telecom held a monopoly over telecommunications services in Australia, which led to a gradual but significant decline in the network's infrastructure and the quality of services offered to consumers.
Instead of adopting robust and practical strategies to tackle the persistent deficiencies afflicting telephone services, the government opted for an arbitration process. This system was ostensibly designed to provide a forum for resolving disputes and assisting consumers in their quest for redress. However, it frequently obscured the fundamental issues plaguing the telecommunications sector. Despite the government's acknowledgement of the deeply entrenched and systemic nature of these problems, its chosen approach often appeared more concerned with creating a façade of concern rather than initiating the substantial reforms necessary for meaningful change in the telecommunications landscape.
All of the main events referenced on my website, absentjustice.com, are backed by original documents (confirmation data) that support the principal statements made in our two stories, as shown in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. You can click on the links attached to the paragraphs, such as Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte, Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C, and Tampering with Evidence, to open the exhibit file supporting the claims made in the written text. By clicking on these links, a PDF exhibit will automatically open. This method allows you to follow the various file numbers and verify our story. Without these documents, many people would find it difficult to believe that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) claimants have endured these appalling events.
Evidence File-1 includes 156 mini-stories for easy reference. The following seven examples illustrate the types of mini-stories and reports available. They can be clicked on immediately to open, allowing readers to browse the various mini-stories and reports quickly.
How can one accurately publish an account of what truly happened during various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations when corruption is so prevalent within the bureaucracy? How can I prove that government public servants provided privileged information to the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while concealing the same documents from the claimants—essentially, their fellow Australian citizens? How does one narrate a story that seems so unbelievable that even the author questions its authenticity until they have thoroughly verified their records before proceeding?
Who would ever have believed (without the proof on this website) that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with advice from the government that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded. We have no alternative but to include the exhibits the way we have. This is truly an unbelievable story.
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were still affecting the COT Four's capacity to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found’ when documents on this website show they were found to have existed. Refer to "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter."
The following three examples, dated June 23, 2015, November 9, 2017, and April 28, 2018, demonstrate that more than twenty years after the conclusion of the COT arbitrations, including my arbitration, the issues were not resolved in the government-endorsed arbitration that took place between 1994 and 1999.
23 June 2015: Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using
9 November 2017: https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095
28 April 2018: >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow
When I phoned AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a public servant at the government communications authority, to talk about this hang-up fault on 26 April 1994, Mr Mathieson suggested he and I conduct a series of tests on the phone line. He planned for me to hang up and count aloud, from one to 10, while he listened. This first test proved he could hear me count right up to 10 and beyond. He suggested we try it again and count even further this time. It was still the same situation: he could hear me right through the range as I counted. Then he suggested I switch the phone on that line with a phone connected to another. I did this, and we repeated the counting test with the same results. It was apparent to both that the fault was not in the phone but somewhere in the Telstra network
And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is prohibited. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is illegal. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is illegal. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The TIO and Austel, often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.
Failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), destroying documentary evidence, and fabricating evidence.
How central points our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit.
During all these travesties, the regulatory bodies—Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers)—failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.
Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice that is way out of proportion to the problem we began with—people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.
As most telephone users would think, each COT member assumed their phone faults would be easily found and fixed by Telstra’s skilled technicians. But ‘No fault found’ was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout our arbitrations and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone, and the system was supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?
The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal?
Documents Telstra released to us years later made it incontrovertibly clear that Telstra knew its systemic problems and how to solve them in rural areas, where many of the COT cases businesses were located.
So, today’s younger generations might find it hard to understand that, only 20 years ago, a corporation like Telstra and its government minders were able to cheat so many Australians into believing they were trying to fix their ailing network. However, in reality, they were band-aiding the many known problems in Australia’s network to defer capital expenditure, as privatisation was on the agenda. Let the shareholders foot the bill was Telstra and its minder's answer to the ongoing problems.
For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural companies were not using the Internet, email, or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobile telephones regularly at the start of each working day was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations, and mobile blackspots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business.
Due to Australia’s comparatively inadequate telecommunications infrastructure relative to other Western nations, AUSTEL, the government authority responsible for communications, faced pressure from Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, and Senator Ron Boswell. They urged the involvement of Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) to conduct assessments of the telephone services linked to the six principal exchanges servicing the COT Cases businesses.
However, Telstra wielded significant influence over numerous bureaucrats across the political spectrum and misrepresented the situation to BCI executives. During the assessment, Telstra conveyed that the exchanges under evaluation were those servicing the COT Cases. In reality, the exchanges being tested had already undergone extensive upgrades and were not the sources of the issues experienced by the COT Cases entities.
In summary, Telstra manipulated the BCI testing process, utilizing the reputable name of Bell Canada International to obscure the substantial deficiencies in its telecommunications network. Since becoming aware, in January 1998, of the false information provided to the Senate in the official request dated September 26, 1997, the current Telstra Corporate Secretary, Sue Lava, has failed to disclose this information to the Senate.
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were still affecting the COT Four's capacity to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found’ when documents on this website show they were found to have existed. Refer to "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter."
When I got no response during or after my arbitration concerning these false BellCanada International Inc. BCI tests, I contacted the Canadian Government. Not long after that correspondence, I received a letter of support from the Canadian government dated July 7, 1995. stating:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
The letter acknowledged that I should contact Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) if I believed their testing was flawed, which I had already done. This was in response to evidence of these flaws provided by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Ted Benjamin, on May 23, 1995, under my original Freedom of Information Act request from May 1994 (twelve months too late to use in my arbitration). I could not afford the $600,000.00 in an appeal process, so I had no choice but to continue to write the way I am doing online.
When I alerted AUSTEL, the former Government Communications Authority, about the significant flaws in the testing equipment Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) utilised for the disputed tests, they promptly acknowledged these issues. Recognizing the importance of obtaining accurate information, AUSTEL advised me to seek raw data directly from BCI in Canada.
On March 24, 1995, AUSTEL executives Cliff Mathieson and Frances Wood directed me to contact BCI for this critical raw data concerning the questionable tests conducted at my local Cape Bridgewater exchange. This information was particularly vital, as I later shared it with the Canadian Government in my quest for transparency and resolution.
Although the Canadian Government did respond, a frustrating barrier emerged: neither Telstra, AUSTEL nor the arbitrator overseeing my arbitration claim could obtain the crucial information through the discovery process or the Freedom of Information Act. Even more concerning was that a single document that could have determined the outcome of the COT Cases arbitration was withheld. This document was the telephone exchange logbook for each exchange that serviced the COT case businesses. Not one of the COT Cases was able to access this vital document, which meant that none could prove whether the BCI tests were conducted on the days that Telstra and BCI claimed or if the phone faults under investigation by the arbitrator were still affecting the COT Cases businesses.
Here's a more straightforward explanation for readers who may not fully understand the implications of the COT Cases not having access to the logbooks of the telephone exchanges servicing their businesses. Without these logbooks, the COT claimants could not prove to the arbitrator that their phone issues were part of a systemic problem. They needed to demonstrate that other Telstra subscribers in the region experienced similar issues, which would have underscored the validity of their claims. The investigation results from those complaints would have shown that the phone faults affected multiple users. Consequently, the arbitrator could not reach a final decision on the COT Cases until it was established that their businesses were fault-free.
During the government's investigation into my complaints, they utilized the Telstra logbook from Portland and Cape Bridgewater to ensure an unbiased record of my registered faults. The (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), dated March 1994, which was derived from this logbook, confirmed my claims between Points 2 and 212. It's clear that if the arbitrator had been provided with the (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), the award for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than the amount he ultimately granted for my claim.
With that backdrop established, let us now delve into the intricacies of the following arbitration process.
Ann Garms (now deceased) spent over $600,000.00 on her appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria but ultimately lost her case. Documents from this website reveal that Ann's arbitration technical consultant, George Close & Associates, sought discovery on her behalf for the raw data from Bell Canada International Inc. This data was generated while testing the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange in Brisbane, which serviced Ann’s business. However, the arbitrator could not locate this essential information regarding Ann Garms' claim. Sadly for all concerned, Ann lost her appeal.
When I wrote to Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) in June 1995 and the administrator of my arbitration, John Pinncock, I detailed this situation and requested that this part of my claim be reopened. I pointed out that Telstra had been sitting on this evidence since May 1994, a full twelve months. However, my request was denied, even though I highlighted to Dr. Hughes and John Pinnock that in Dr. Hughes' official findings (his award) dated May 11, 1995, at points 3.5 (a), (b), and (c)...
"...BCI concluded that the tests revealed a grade if service being delivered by Telecom to its customers which met global network performance standards."
Dr. Hughes's findings from May 11, 1995, did not mention his subsequent letter to Warwick Smith about the arbitration agreement. He failed to inform Smith that Clause 24 was modified and Clauses 25 and 26 were removed, which barred the claimants from suing the arbitration consultants for misconduct. Dr. Hughes also noted that the agreement did not provide sufficient time for claimants to prepare their cases or access necessary documents (as stated in his May 12, 1995 letter → Open Letter File No 55-A and that revision was needed for the remaining claimants. Despite this, the faulty agreement was still used for my arbitration, while the other three claimants were given over thirteen months more to prepare their submissions and answer Telstra’s defence than he had allowed me.
On the day we signed this not credible arbitration agreement (see Open letter File No 54-B), the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 were removed, and clause 24 was modified. We were informed that there would be no arbitration if we did not accept these last-minute changes. All three COT claimants were under duress, as our banks were ready to close on us; we had no choice but to accept these late modifications. Modifying clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 meant that we could not sue the TIO-appointed arbitration consultants for acts of negligence (and there were several). In simple terms, we had no chance to appeal our awards in the Supreme Court of Victoria
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia. It is important to note that when addressing claims made in the Senate that the BCI report was falsified, Senator Chris Schacht posed a question to Telstra Ted Benjamin, refer to page 107, noting:
“…Did Simone Semmens on behalf of Telstra state on Channel 9's Current Affair program in August 1996 that the findings of the Bell Canada International report into the performance of the Telstra network substantiate that there were no systematic problems within Telstra's billing system”?
Mr Benjamin then answered:
“I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report.”
It is important to emphasise to the reader that the report from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) played a significant role in legislative discussions within the Senate and various governmental forums. It served as a key piece of evidence supporting the privatization of Telstra. This report was particularly pivotal during the formulation of the sale prospectus under the administration of the John Howard Liberal Coalition government.
I contend that the government’s decision to refrain from investigating my specific claims about Cape Bridgewater and BCI was influenced by the potential repercussions of such an inquiry. Conducting an investigation would have required the public dissemination of my evidence through media channels. Had this evidence been made public, it would have disclosed that the findings presented in the BCI report regarding Telstra’s telecommunications network were not entirely valid or reliable. Such revelations would likely have created significant uncertainty, potentially delaying or even halting the sale of Telstra until a thorough examination could ascertain the accuracy of my claims.
Moreover, it is relevant to note that the US Securities Exchange → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring was closely monitoring the implications of the COT Cases, as the following Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating:
"I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?"
On July 15, 1995, two months after the arbitrator’s premature announcement of findings related to my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis—the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, the then-government communications authority now known as ACMA—issued me an open letter to share with individuals of my choosing. This action highlighted her confidence in my integrity and professional character.
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
"A Matter of Public Interest"
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice."
"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
After completing the first draft of this COT story in late 1998, I have since created four additional drafts. Tragically, seven individuals from the COT Cases have died due to stress-related illnesses. I have faced health challenges, including hospital stays for heart attacks, the most recent being in 2018, which required a 26-day hospitalization and the installation of a pacemaker. Other COT Cases have also faced severe hardships, with some experiencing the suicide of two family members or needing psychological care to cope while trying to manage a telephone-dependent business. This was particularly challenging when there were no computers, emails, or mobile phones to assist in running various businesses for those who became Casualties of Telstra.
The first draft was submitted to Senator Kim Carr, and a second draft was sent to Sister Maureen Burke, the principal of Loreto College Ballarat at the time.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
My two arbitration advisors contributed invaluable testimonials to the arbitrator on my behalf. Garry Ellicott, a distinguished former Senior Detective Sergeant with the Queensland Police, brings a wealth of experience as a Senior Investigator for the National Crime Authority, where he tackled some of the most complex criminal investigations. Alongside him is Barry O'Sullivan, a former Senior Detective Sergeant with the Queensland Police. He later served as the Honorable Senator Barry O'Sullivan, representing the Queensland National Party with integrity and dedication.
I meticulously submitted these compelling testimonials as part of my arbitration claim. I included them in my detailed chronology of events, which outlines the sequence of occurrences relevant to my case. However, for reasons unknown, these critical testimonials were inexplicably omitted from the comprehensive log of my phone complaints prepared for the arbitration consultants, leaving a significant gap in the documentation supporting my case.
The draft and formal findings from the arbitrator's technical consultants, DMR & Lane, dated April 30, 1995, indicate that they did not identify the causes of the faults related to my 008 complaints. As a result, these faults are classified as "Open," which I do not emphasize. In the same evaluation of my complaint from April 30, 1995, they state: "...A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist".
It did exist, so why was it not provided to DMR & Lane to assist with their assessment of my claim? The final fee, which did not account for my travel to Queensland, my accommodation, and the expenses I incurred for Garry Ellicott to travel to Victoria on three occasions, amounted to $51,000. In May 1995, this was significantly more than its current value. I paid fifty-one dollars to submit a claim, yet only a portion of it was ever reviewed by the valuers. Is it any wonder I am still battling this enormous arbitrator who now oversees an international legal firm in Melbourne Davies Collison Cave?
Testimonials
Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001, I continued to partly sponsor underprivileged groups to stay at the camp during the weeks (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.
The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins and a twelve-birth self-contained 1870 Presbyterian Church. When the charity group organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, finally arrived, the whole week became a great success for all concerned; all enjoyed the in-camp activities as well as canoeing and horse riding on the beach. I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.
Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact, Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two particular occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.
Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a very angry man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.
But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her that she would lose nothing because of her generosity to me, that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.
Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:
“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.
Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these wonderful women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or, alternatively the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line. Either way, I lost the business that may well have followed if only the callers could have been successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.
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 newspaper, 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.” Evidence File 10 B
During this same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, a professional associate of mine Cathy, signed a Statutory Declaration, dated 20 May 1994, explaining several sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (File 22 Exhibit 1 to 47). This declaration leaves questions unanswered about who collected my mail and how they knew there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office. On both occasions, when a third person collected this mail, I telephoned Cathy, informing her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me that mail was waiting to be picked up.
On pages 12 and 13 transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP state at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-
“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47
I also provided the AFP Telstra documents showing Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence because if it ever reached an Australian court, I had a 50% chance of proving Telstra had systemic phone problems in their network. In simple terms, Telstra was operating outside of its license to operate a telephone service, charging its customers for a service not provided.
21st April 1993: Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
These Telstra executives forgot that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, destroyed the Australian economy while the powerful bureaucrats attempted to fight this fire with the talk of change. This bribery and corruption plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations.
Children's lives could be at risk
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:
“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.
The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”
Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.
Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital.
After five years, it took almost a tragedy for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital where convalescent is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001.
It was another fiasco that lasted until August 2009, when not-so-new owners of my business were walked off the holiday camp premises as bankrupts.
As discussed throughout this website, a meticulously drafted report by AUSTEL, the Australian government’s communications authority, chronicles the six-and-a-half-year investigation into my telephone complaints. This comprehensive report underscores the government's recognition of the validity of my claims; it presents findings in a detailed format, identifying key issues from points 1 to 212 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings),
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
