Privacy Policy

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible.

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

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

One of the two technical consultants who verified the accuracy of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

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

An accountant deeply involved with the COT Cases and a key constituent of The Hon. Peter Costello, Federal Treasurer, brought to light the substantial sums of money that Telstra employees reportedly embezzled from the public purse, as shown on pages 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

 

The Australian Federal Police were actively investigating this matter at the time. They also looked into my phone and fax interception issues; at the same time, they were examining Telstra's thieving from the government coffers. I confidently question whether the interception of my faxed letter to The Hon. Peter Costello was connected to this embezzlement. It raises an important point: is this why so many of my arbitration-related claim documents failed to reach the arbitrator's office?

The embezzlement of public funds by Telstra employees and the complicit board of directors, who knowingly allowed millions of dollars in erroneous customer charges to inflate Telstra's value during its privatization, constitutes fraud against unwitting shareholders. Shareholders were unaware that a significant portion of Telstra's profits came from overcharging its customers for over six years.

The link to Kangaroo Court, https://shorturl.at/69L6r, shows government issue cover-ups. It is documented here as an 'example only' to show that when significant daily problems are not investigated transparently, they can destroy the very fabric of our democratic system of justice. 

I am focusing on the latest 2025 https://shorturl.at/69L6r issue because it's up to date and shows other Australians are concerned about government coverups are not just past issues, but current today in 2024 and 2025.

It is essential to draw connections between these two significant wars, as both had far-reaching consequences for the well-being of countless individuals, including many who never took up arms. The fallout from these conflicts has vividly illustrated the presence of government corruption, and this is why I believe it is crucial to link these historical events with the corruption issues that arose during the Telstra-endorsed arbitrations. This connection is not just about historical accountability; it is about recognizing patterns of behaviour that continue to affect governance and public trust, which are key points of the ongoing COT story.

Before we delve into our narrative, we invite visitors to examine our Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2 carefully. These meticulously compiled files contain extensive documentation that provides a solid foundation for our story and the other related COT narratives currently being developed.

Within these files, you will find a plethora of evidence that sheds light on the real-life experiences of twenty-one courageous Australians. These individuals faced significant challenges as they bravely stood up against the misconduct and oppressive practices of the Telstra Corporation, a struggle that spanned from 1988 to at least 2009.

Government Corruption and its many corrupt activities, including bribery, embezzlement, and abuse of power, have begun to permeate many courts and justice institutions worldwide. In jurisdictions where such corruption is commonplace, marginalized and vulnerable populations often find themselves with limited access to justice. Meanwhile, those who are wealthy and powerful exploit and manipulate entire justice systems for their benefit, often at the expense of the public good and fair legal processes, as I have shown below in both Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong and the Australia–East Timor spying scandal. 

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:

"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.  

Here is further proof that the Australian government bureaucrats, when they deem it appropriate, use electronic equipment to gain an upper hand, as was the case discussed above and the COT arbitrations. We COT Cases never stood a chance against these secret government officials with no qualms about whom they harm.

Tragically, Helen passed away in 2004. Years later, I reflected on her initial encouragement and sent a draft of the original version of my book, "Absent Justice," to her husband, Geoff Handbury. I recalled my conversation with Helen and sought his guidance on the best way to present a copy of my book to Rupert Murdoch.

On October 17, 2012, I received a response from Mr. Handbury—a beautifully handwritten letter that showcased exquisite, old-fashioned penmanship, a rarity in today’s digital age. By then, he was 87 years old and was deeply respected for his philanthropic contributions to numerous vital projects in Victoria. However, with time, he felt he could no longer help. Nevertheless, I treasure how Rupert Murdoch’s sister recognized my “intriguing story” as one worth sharing with her brother, and I am profoundly grateful for her kind and encouraging remarks.

Before we progress further, it's essential to highlight the impactful statements made by Helen Hndbury regarding the plight of crime victims. She powerfully noted that irrespective of the type of crime involved, the assurance that someone genuinely cares and is ready to offer support can significantly aid a victim in their journey to healing. One of Helen's most formidable obstacles was the assistance I provided to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), alongside their hesitance to help Mr. when I sought their intervention. This unwillingness from the AFP and their protection of Telstra allowed the telecommunications giant to continue undermining the COT Cases even after the AFP had drawn their conclusions. Despite having clear evidence in their files that demonstrated Telstra's misuse of electronic technology to sabotage the arbitration claims related to persistent telephone issues, the complications surrounding these cases persisted for years, exacerbating the struggles of those affected. 

 

 

 

 

Before the arbitration proceedings commenced, the information detailed in the report from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) was initially prepared by BCI, a highly esteemed and technologically advanced telecommunications company in Canada. BCI asserted that they had executed a staggering 15,590 test calls to a particular telephone exchange; however, this exchange could not support the specialized equipment utilized by Bell Canada International Inc.

To simplify, Telstra managed to persuade BCI that successful testing of the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone switching exchange had occurred between November 4 and November 9, 1993, spanning a staggered five-day period. Nonetheless, this assertion was fundamentally flawed, as the Cape Bridgewater exchange lacked the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the CCS7 testing equipment that BCI claimed was employed. This advanced CCS7 monitoring technology, known for its sophistication, would not have been able to generate those test calls. The closest exchange equipped to handle the CCS7 specifications was located a significant 118 kilometres away from the unmanned Cape Bridgewater exchange, further highlighting the implausibility of the tests reported by BCI.

File 11 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) is the sworn witness statements provided by Telstra's Christopher James Doody on December 12, 1994, making it clear on page two that the sole telephone exchange in my area capable of supporting the Common Channel Signaling System No. 7 (CCS7) was the Warrnambool AXE exchange. Similarly, File 12 -BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) contains the witness statement prepared by Telstra's David John Stockdale, dated December 8, 1994. In this statement, Mr. Stockdale, under oath, explicitly confirms at point 20 that the CCS7 system could only function at the Warrnambool exchange. Despite this compelling evidence, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing the case, unjustly allowed Telstra to cite the report from Bell Canada International Inc., leaving significant doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process.

This raises critical questions: What specific telephone exchange did Telstra utilize during these purported test calls? Why did the COT arbitrator fail to discard the Bell Canada International report from Telstra's arbitration defence despite its questionable validity?

It is crucial to emphasize that both Christopher James Doody's witness statement from Telstra, dated 12 December 1994, and David John Stockdale's statement from 8 December 1994, reference my ongoing telephone issues. These individuals provided their accounts under oath, yet their assertions do not correspond with the 2 to 212 specific points identified by the government communications authority AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which were derived from Telstra's own records. The government has asserted that my business has suffered from severe deficiencies in telecommunications service over almost seven years, as outlined in my arbitration claim. In particular, point 209 highlights the extent of these issues noting:

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

I encourage the reader to reflect on the claims made by both Telstra and the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, regarding the unresolved issues I faced with my phone during the arbitration proceedings. Their assertion starkly contradicts the extensive evidence compiled on absentjustice.com, which vividly details the persistent challenges I encountered. Had Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc. been compelled to re-evaluate their testing methodologies comprehensively, my ongoing phone and faxing problems would probably have been rectified during my arbitration in 1994.

As detailed on this homepage, the situation unfolded further when the Canadian government, upon uncovering these discrepancies, supported my efforts to urge Bell Canada International to come forward. This was essential for me to appeal my arbitration award, an action that occurred in July 1995. Since then, neither Bell Canada International Inc. nor Telstra has accepted accountability for their part in obstructing the course of justice. It is important to note that knowingly providing false information under oath in Australia is a serious crime. I invite you to read on for more insights into this matter.

A gripping and unsettling narrative emerges as Telstra acquires crucial evidence, revealing a shocking reality. It may astonish readers to learn that a government-owned corporation could stoop to such unethical practices against the COT Cases. Yet, disturbingly, not a single individual has faced accountability for these unlawful actions—much like the harrowing experience when I received my third threat during my arbitration process. This menacing communication was crafted by someone with privileged access to my arbitration submission, which I had diligently submitted to the arbitrator on June 15, 1994.

Within the intricate framework of the Arbitration Agreement I signed on April 21, 1994, several clauses were meticulously outlined, but one stood out as the most significant. This critical clause stipulated that the arbitrator could not disclose any information submitted by the claimant to the defendant (Telstra) until the claimant had conclusively proven their claim was final. In a surprising turn of events, however, the arbitrator chose to share that sensitive claim material with Telstra, allowing the corporation, from 15 June 1994 to 12 December 1994, a full six months to formulate a defence against the assertions made in my letter of claim. Attached herewith is my...Letter of Claim → CAV P3- Exhibit 8- Exhibit 9. Dr Hughes is currently a Senior Partner at Davies Collison Cave.

I seek to gain an understanding of the potential responses from the partners and associates at Davies Collison Cave, an esteemed international law firm headquartered in Melbourne, should Dr Gordon Hughes, the current Principal Partner, disclose that he authorized full access to my claim materials by Paul Rumble, the senior arbitration consultant for Telstra, for six months. This authorization is particularly concerning, as it contravenes the stipulations of the arbitration agreement, which explicitly limited access to one month.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that Paul Rumble is the same individual from whom the Senate is still awaiting a comprehensive explanation regarding threatening communications he directed towards me via telephone rather than the appropriate communication channels at a designated Melbourne gymnasium. The implications of these unauthorized actions and the associated threats raise significant concerns regarding the integrity of the arbitration process and the ethical standards upheld by the firm. Considering how the leadership at Davies Collison Cave may address these serious issues is imperative, as they could have far-reaching consequences for all parties involved.

Late one evening, I received a phone call from Paul Rumble, one of Telstra's two arbitration liaison employees. During the call, he threatened that Telstra would cease providing me with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. The reason for this drastic measure, he claimed, was my decision to share the documents with the Australian Federal Police. I had done so to assist with their investigations into the unlawful interception of my telephone conversations and the tampering of arbitration-related faxes. Despite the gravity of these legal breaches, neither Warwick Smith nor Dr Gordon Hughes—the appointed arbitrator—was willing to investigate the matter further.

A brief overview of the power that Telstra had over the Establishment during the COT arbitrations follows: 

Threats made during my arbitration 

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

 

Regrettably, members of Australia’s Establishment—among them Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, both of whom have since been honoured with “Orders of Australia”—chose not to hold Telstra accountable for the pressing issues I and several COT Cases were forced to endure during our arbitrations.

I must alert the reader to the following: 

The first of eight damning letters (which form part of my COT story) was from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, on 18 April 1995, advised the TIO, the arbitrator and the TIO counsel that:  “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A).

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

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

When Dr. Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett—three qualified lawyers—decided to conceal the pivotal letter dated April 18, 1995, from the four COT cases, they inadvertently played a crucial role in facilitating the “forces at work” that aimed to undermine the arbitrations of all four cases. Had John Rundell fulfilled his obligation to share a copy of his letter with the four COT cases, we—all claimants seeking justice—could have approached the Supreme Court to compel the arbitrator to explain why the COT cases had not been notified about these insidious forces. Such transparency might have prompted the Supreme Court to take action, demanding answers regarding why Telstra's threatening behaviour towards me had not been thoroughly investigated. At that time, Telstra was already under scrutiny for the serious allegations of intercepting our phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes without securing written consent from the COT claimants. This situation highlighted a troubling disregard for the integrity of the arbitration process and the rights of those involved.

Also, in this 18 April 1995 letter, John Rundell (FHCA) was so openly deceptive when stating, “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (See  Prologue Evidence File No 22-A).

I firmly believe that John Rundell acted deceptively. On March 9, 1995, all four COT Cases received a written notification from Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) stating that Paul Howell, from DMR Group Inc. based in Canada, would be the primary consultant responsible for preparing the final technical evaluation reports. This decision was made consciously, as we had serious reservations about Lanes, mainly due to their connections with former Telstra officials, which raised concerns about their impartiality.

Our doubts about Lanes were well-founded. While they were tasked with investigating our arbitration complaints regarding the Ericsson-installed telephone equipment in Telstra exchanges—essential systems that directly impacted our businesses—Lanes was simultaneously being acquired by Ericsson for an undisclosed amount. This acquisition created a troubling conflict of interest; it meant that all technical documents associated with the investigations into the COT Cases, which Lanes was working on during our arbitration, would ultimately be transferred to Ericsson. Such circumstances allowed for significant concerns regarding the integrity and transparency of the entire investigation (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

 I urge you to examine the statements delivered by six Senators in the Senate on March 9, 1999, as they shed light on the gravity of our situation, and I quote them directly:

 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston  Sen Richard.   

 

 

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford as shown in an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"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."   

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority (now operating under the banner of ACMA) seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 - (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

In response to their inquiry on 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson from AUSTEL wrote,

"The tests you refer to were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be directed to those who conducted or claimed to have conducted them."

A storage letter to have been sent after Cliff Mathieson had already written eighteen months previous on 9 December 1993, before Telstra used the BCI report as Defence Material, advising Telstra to provide the “assessor(s)” of the COT processes with a copy of his letter regarding the BCI tests, which he declared did not go far enough. This letter was NOT provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) or the COT Cases, as AUSTEL had directed, which makes Telstra’s use of the BCI Report even more unconscionable.

It is essential to highlight that critical information was not communicated to the Canadian Government or Tait Lawyers—who may have taken a different approach based on this knowledge—regarding the actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. This firm submitted misleading BCI tests, falsely claiming that 15,590 successful test calls had been directed to my local exchange, which services my business. These tests occurred at an entirely different telephone exchange, resulting in a substantial misrepresentation of the facts.

 

 

Upon being informed of this deception, Ian Joblin expressed his significant concerns. When I made it clear to him that he had been misled, he acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. He indicated that he would advise Telstra to examine the evidence I had provided thoroughly. His acknowledgement of the validity of certain aspects of my claims underscored the weight of the matter, and he assured me that this would be prominently included in his forthcoming report.

However, a troubling oversight became evident when this report was submitted to the arbitration process. The 'witness statement' intended to validate Mr Joblin's findings was signed solely by Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne).

The consultation I conducted with Ian Joblin on the day of his visit to Portland to evaluate my mental health occurred in the saloon bar of the Richmond Henty Hotel. This environment, characterized by the ambient noise of hotel patrons and the movement of guests, was not conducive to a private consultation, as it significantly differed from the standard settings of a designated consultation room at the Portland Hospital or a physician's office. I communicated my concerns regarding this arrangement to the arbitrator, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and in a formal letter addressed to Telstra's Chief Executive Officer, Frank Blount. Transferring small cards from point A to points B and C in full view of other hotel guests was particularly discomforting. Unfortunately, I did not receive an official apology from any party involved in the arbitration process.

However, with that said, it is essential to note that I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted critical portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues prior to our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne.

Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasized that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin (clinical psychologist).

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature raises serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia. Even more concerning is that I have not received any response from either the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman office, Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne regarding the questions raised on 21 March 1997 by the administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, written during the six years of the statute of limitations which would have allowed me to use any adverse response received by John Pinncock. It is now 2025, and it is blatantly apparent the big end of town has won again.

On 23 October 1995, Portland solicitors Bassett & Sharkey formally contacted John Pinnock, the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman. In their correspondence, they expressed serious concerns that Telstra was relying on BCI test results, which were known to be impractical, as part of their defence in an arbitration case. They emphasized the need for further clarification on this alarming issue (File 198 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233). 

 

 

Just a few days later, on 26 October 1995, Minter Ellison, acting on behalf of the TIO, drafted a response to Bassett & Sharkey. Within this response was a statement asserting, “Although the Arbitrator had a copy of the Bell Canada Report, it does not appear to have ever formally been put into evidence.” This assertion was misleading and factually incorrect, as Minter Ellison and the TIO’s office knew that Telstra’s arbitrator had cited the BCI report as significant evidence presented during the arbitration (File 199 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233).

Moreover, both parties were cognizant that on 23 October, Telstra’s Freedom of Information officer had released compelling proof previously requested by me in May 1994 (a full twelve months earlier). This documentation conclusively demonstrated that BCI had not conducted their tests at Cape Bridgewater at the time and location specified in the Bell Canada International Inc. report, raising serious questions about the integrity of the evidence used in the arbitration process.

It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.

In December 2001, I found myself in a challenging situation after incurring an overwhelming financial burden of $300,000 in professional arbitration fees between November 1993 and May 1995. The possibility of appealing my arbitration claim had faded, leaving me to confront persistent telephone issues that had plagued me since 1988. Despite the time, effort, and resources I had dedicated to the arbitration process, these issues remained unresolved, casting a long shadow over my daily life, as the Prologue to this story shows. 

My beloved holiday camp was situated in a beautiful location. Faced with the disheartening reality of regularly encountering one of the three local Telstra technicians who had lied under oath during the arbitration witness statements on December 12, 1994, I decided to sell my business to Darren and Jenny Lewis.

During one of my regular meetings as a member of the Portland Tourism Association, I nearly lost my temper and considered confronting one of these Telstra employees. According to AFP transcripts and files, this person had set up an alarm system in the Portland telephone exchange to secretly listen in on my phone conversations.

I had already been to court for placing a wrestling hold known as 'A Full Nelson' on a sheriff who was confiscating industrial kitchen equipment from my holiday camp, equipment that was essential for my business to continue operating. I appealed this case 'on the grounds that' the equipment was on a yearly lease from the Commonwealth Development Bank, as recorded in the Senate Government Hansard dated June 24, 1997.

On 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s principal arbitration defence Counsel Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

Faced with this disheartening reality, I decided to sell my business to Darren and Jenny Lewis. This decision was not made lightly; it came after a profound sense of defeat following years of futile efforts. In the following years, Darren and Jenny embarked on their own difficult journey, marked by their relentless pursuit of a reliable telephone service amidst various challenges. Their experiences, detailed throughout my COT narrative, vividly illustrate the ongoing difficulties that everyone involved faces. This account highlights broader accountability and customer service issues within the telecommunications industry, emphasizing the human cost of bureaucratic failures and the resilience required to navigate such overwhelming challenges.

Additionally, Portland Health Services became involved and visited my residence next door to the now-bankrupt holiday camp owned by the Lewis family. My residence, a six-bedroom bed and breakfast with a manager’s house, represented a significant downgrade from my previously owned holiday camp, which featured 100-120 cabins. My partner, Cathy, collaborated with Telstra and The Honorable David Hawker MP, our local representative, to address the ongoing telephone issues at the Seal Cove Guest House. David Hawker had been assisting with matters related to the holiday camp since 1992. He was well acquainted with the inadequate service in his electorate, as evidenced by the covert government-prepared report dated 3 March 1994 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which highlights the issues from points 1 to 212.

At that time, the in-house psychologist from Portland Health prepared a list of individuals (of which I was one of three) whom she believed should be contacted if Darren experienced suicidal thoughts. I provided this list to David Hawker under the stipulation of confidentiality. (Refer Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and  Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).

On 31 August 2006. the Hon David Hawker MP, Speaker in the House of Representatives, wrote to me noting:

Many thanks for keeping me informed. As requested, issues concerning privacy breaching have been raised with Senator Coonan’s office for your meeting with the Minister set for 6 September 2006".  (Refer File 578 - AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588) 

My privacy concerns were not addressed during this 6 September 2006 meeting, as shown in Senator Helen Coonan's letter to me dated 17 May 2007, noting:

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

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

The gravity of the situation raises essential questions: Why was it deemed acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, how could Telstra justify interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration? These actions violate individual rights and undermine the integrity of the arbitration process, warranting immediate attention and rectification from government authorities.

 

I found myself reflecting on the gripping novel "The Firm" by John Grisham, as it made me feel as though Freehill was manipulating me like a pawn in a larger game. According to page 5 of Australia’s Government Senate official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, the lawyers from Freehill Hollingdale & Page had crafted a clandestine legal document known as “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C . This document outlined a strategic plan for their client, Telstra, instructing them on how to effectively conceal crucial technical information from me and three other businesses, all under the misleading guise of Legal Professional Privilege, despite this information not qualifying as privileged.

In my case, Telstra had obstinately refused to document my telephone complaints directly with AUSTEL on a daily basis. This left me in a frustrating position where my only option was to have those concerns formally written down by me and lodged with Freehill Hollingdale & Page as an alternative. I conveyed to the arbitrator that Telstra was leveraging Legal Professional Privilege as a shield to withhold vital information, and this was the very reason why Dr. Hughes had steered clear of any involvement in Freedom of Information (FOI) matters.

On November 11, 1994, in an attempt to seek accountability, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, penned a letter to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra. In his correspondence, he pressed for answers regarding why I was being denied access to my own records under FOI regulations (Refer to File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47).  This pivotal moment in my journey is further explored in the sections that follow.

How does Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now called Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, relate to the arbitration process concerning the COT Cases? This inquiry can be addressed succinctly: Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the arbitration attorneys representing Telstra, exhibited unprofessional conduct towards the COT Cases. These attorneys were engaged by Telstra, against whom the COT Cases possessed valid claims. AUSTEL, the government communications authority responsible for telecommunications regulation, under the advisement of Chairman Robin Davey, indicated in their official 5 October 1993 drafted Fast Track Settlement Proposal at point 40 (refer to Prologue Evidence File No/2) that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would no longer participate in the matters involving the COT Cases. However, regardless of these assurances, Freehill Hollingdale & Page became Telstra's arbitration lawyers, and what they did towards the COT Cases can be accessed by clicking Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page.

This writing by me directly to Freehill Hollingdale & Page undermined AUSTEL's position as the government communications regulator, which was supposed to be the transparent watchdog, giving them the power to demand that Telstra fix my ongoing telephone and faxing problems. Instead, Freehill was allowed to register those complaints with Telstra as their lawyer. Still, Freehill Hollingdale & Page did not necessarily provide me with the correct results of the findings by Telstra on my written claims, as the following COT Case Strategy shows.

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organizations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of my single club members over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

Subsequent to this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, as a major entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions seemingly unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, similarly declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra was able to determine the exact times at which my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence while I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.

 

 

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, which emphasize the need for transparency and accountability Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

What happened next can be viewed by clicking on the Logbook image above.

How can one accurately publish an account of the complex events surrounding various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations, especially when proof of crimes against the claimants in those arbitrations is withheld under a confidentiality agreement that the arbitrator changed after the claimants’ lawyers had only sanctioned the unchanged agreement? In 2015, I submitted this crucial evidence to the Australian Federal Police, several government ministers, and four relevant government agencies who had the authority to investigate why these clauses were changed and permanently removed from the arbitration agreement in two incidences. No one would investigate this matter further. Worse, if that is at all possible when the government uncovered this terrible denial of justice where these changes and removal of clauses 25 and 26 were applied, the government ensured clauses 25 and 26 were installed back on the arbitration for the remaining twelve cases so as those twelve COT Cases could use those reinvented clauses to appeal their awards on the grounds of negligence by the arbitrations consultants, without advising the three claimants their arbitration agreements had been amended. 

During our designated appeal periods, Ann Garms and I were not advised that clauses 25 and 26 had been reinstated into the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (administered arbitration process). In my case, my appeal lawyers instructed me to seek all references to how these changes were made when I was informed and who authorised these changes after my lawyer had agreed to the unchanged agreement. On 18 October 1995, five months after my arbitration had concluded, I requested a copy of my arbitration file under FOI from Telstra. Telstra refused to provide me with my arbitration file, stating it had been destroyed. Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, wrote several letters, receiving a response from Telstra that the file had been destroyed. Mr Wynack's letters to Telstra also refute Telstra's claims they destroyed my arbitration file.

John Pinnock also refused to supply me with my arbitration files, even though his office had been in charge of the administration of my arbitration. I Mr Pinnock.s 

The process of redacting the names and sensitive details of those involved in the intricate COT Cases saga has been both labour-intensive and financially draining. Given that no actions have been taken based on these redacted documents, I feel it is necessary to bring forward the evidence that supports my case on absentjustice.com. We have no choice but to identify those culpable, including certain government regulators and members of Australia’s elite, who operate covertly to safeguard the government’s interests.

Consider, for example, the enigmatic individuals behind Australia’s latest five SSN-AUKUS submarine deals. Australia is slated to acquire five state-of-the-art submarines from the United States in the mid-2050s, with a staggering projected cost ranging from $268 billion to $368 billion—sums that raise serious questions about fiscal responsibility and national priorities.

If you take a moment to hover your cursor over "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam," you will uncover part of the heavy cost Australia has incurred—not merely in financial terms but also in the precious lives of mothers and fathers who endured the unimaginable heartbreak of losing their young sons in the dense jungles of North Vietnam, fighting valiantly alongside our allies from New Zealand and the USA. Ironically, those very North Vietnamese soldiers were sustained by Australian wheat, which, under the guise of humanitarian aid, was provided to them by the starving People's Republic of China—wheat allegedly sourced from Australia.

How does one share a harrowing story without naming the individuals who systematically coerce low-income Australians into repaying financial assistance that they received—often with threats from these public officials looming over them? These officials wielded the power to imprison those who failed to repay these alleged government overpayments. I am, of course, referring to the deeply controversial robodebt scheme.

My COT story is a reflection of this broader issue. It centres on an extraordinary group of twenty-one Australians, sixteen of whom faced discrimination from public servants in our government. Motivated by a sense of justice, this group worked tirelessly to shed light on AUSTEL, the then-government communications authority now known as ACMA. They revealed that more than 120,000 Australians were grappling with serious phone issues, as documented in a government report dated April 13, 1994. The report shockingly disclosed that the government only acknowledged around 50 COT-type phone problems, omitting the existence of the 120,000 COT-type complaints that Telstra had pressured AUSTEL to silence before the report was presented to the COT Case arbitrator, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, and the general public.

How do you articulate an extraordinary narrative that your editor pushes for more evidence to substantiate your claims, insisting that she won’t refine your incomprehensible assertions without irrefutable proof? How do you unravel the troubling truth that the defendants in an arbitration process—once a government-owned telecommunications giant—utilized equipment linked to their network to screen faxed materials leaving your office covertly? They stored these documents without your knowledge or consent before rerouting them to their intended recipients. Were the defendants leveraging this intercepted information to bolster their defence in arbitration, ultimately to the detriment of innocent claimants seeking justice?

Consider the gravity of the situation: how many other arbitration processes in Australia have fallen victim to this insidious form of hacking? Is this electronic eavesdropping—this blatant intrusion into confidential documentation—still a reality amid legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the claimants in the arbitration submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, confirming that sensitive, arbitration-related documents were being secretly and illegally screened before they arrived at their designated destinations. In my case, despite the contrary statement from the arbitrator's secretary—who confirmed that six of my faxed claim documents never reached the arbitrator's office—I was unfairly denied the chance to resubmit this crucial material for assessment. My fax account clearly shows that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.

Interestingly, one of the two technical consultants who signed off on the findings in that report, in a letter dated December 17, 2014, told me, “I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had, at some stage, been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted. This was evidenced by the dual time stamps on the faxes.”

Who holds the power and influence over the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia (IAMA) to halt an investigation and refuse to return the evidence that the IAMA initially requested from the individual they agreed to investigate, which confirmed the government-appointed arbitrator only investigate (eleven per cent (11%) of my legally submitted claim documents? Why has the IAMA declined to return the evidence I provided them at their request over five months?  Refer to   Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued.

 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

Six months before the arbitrations began, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, boldly requested access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured that the arbitrator would provide these logbooks once we signed our arbitration agreements. However, this crucial document was never made available to claimants.

The Adverse Findings issued by AUSTEL, see points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, unequivocally demonstrate that the logbook referenced by the government to support its unfavourable conclusions about Telstra was sourced from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, which meticulously records telephone activity and technical performance, played a pivotal role in shaping the government’s stance, highlighting its importance as a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scrutiny of Telstra’s operations.

Had the COT Cases been told before they signed their arbitration agreements that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures, I, for one, would have stayed in my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) signed by Telstra on 18 November 1993 and the four COT Cases on 23 November 1993.  

I highly recommend you check out the link “My Story Warts and All.” Like many other mini-reports in our 'Evidence File-1', this content will be refined and re-edited before integration.

 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

How can the arbitrator—who had no control over the arbitration proceedings—continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question effectively.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

Six months before the arbitrations began, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, boldly requested access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured that the arbitrator would provide these logbooks once we signed our arbitration agreements. However, this crucial document was never made available to claimants.

The Adverse Findings issued by AUSTEL, see points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, unequivocally demonstrate that the logbook referenced by the government to support its unfavourable conclusions about Telstra was sourced from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, which meticulously records telephone activity and technical performance, played a pivotal role in shaping the government’s stance, highlighting its importance as a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scrutiny of Telstra’s operations.

Had the COT Cases been told before they signed their arbitration agreements that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures, I, for one, would have stayed in my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) signed by Telstra on 18 November 1993 and the four COT Cases on 23 November 1993.  

I highly recommend you check out the link “My Story Warts and All.” Like many other mini-reports in our 'Evidence File-1', this content will be refined and re-edited before integration.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

How can the arbitrator—who had no control over the arbitration proceedings—continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to effectively assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question.