Discover the disturbing world of heinous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who wield control over the legal profession in Australia. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous aptly describe these lawbreakers. There are numerous instances of foreign bribery and corrupt practices, such as bribing arbitration witnesses to conceal the truth about government-endorsed arbitration processes. This includes kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, and the involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has facilitated the privatization of government assets that are not fit for purpose.

Visitor feedback indicates that this website's content effectively highlights these criminal activities, encompassing fraud. 

 

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

― Maya Angelou

After completing my initial draft of absentjustice.com, I received invaluable feedback from two insightful editors—one based in the picturesque landscapes of New Zealand and the other in the vibrant city of Melbourne. They suggested that I delve deeper into the narratives, emphasizing that this focus would help shed light on the intricate web of collusion, misconduct, and deceit that permeates various levels of accountants and government officials.

I am developing a detailed timeline of events for my manuscript, ABSENT JUSTICE—Part 2. This timeline is in draft format as I diligently work toward its finalization. I invite you to explore the “Lies Deceit And Treachery” section to glimpse the unfolding story.

I initially crafted and refined the additional mini-stories featured throughout the website and continue enhancing them on the Home Page. As visitors engage with absentjustice.com daily or weekly, they will witness the ongoing evolution of the narrative, with fresh updates that will keep the content dynamic and engaging. These updates will persist until this significant chapter of our story reaches its conclusion.

This unfolding experience, rich in detail and emotion, may prove compelling in its own right, and I envision transforming it into a thought-provoking documentary. If anyone reading this narrative feels inspired and is interested in investing in such a project, I wholeheartedly encourage you to contact us through the website. Your support could help bring this vital story to a broader audience.

The holiday camp (my business) heavily relied on landline phones as the only means of communication except for passing trade. When we first fell in love with the place, we overlooked the outdated telephone system. In those days, there was no mobile coverage, and business was not conducted through the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility, which was then routed to the central telephone exchange in Portland, 20 kilometres away. This facility, installed over 30 years ago, was designed for low-call-rate areas and had only eight lines to serve 66 families, totalling 132 adults and children.

If four callers were trying to connect to or from Cape Bridgewater, there were only four available lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children to make or receive calls. During peak times—such as weekends and holidays—when more visitors flocked to the seaside resort, the demand for calls increased significantly. This often resulted in the lines becoming jammed and non-responsive

After three and a half years of utilizing outdated equipment, Telstra ultimately implemented a new system. However, they erroneously failed to program this system through the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. Such workmanship is considered unacceptable. This issue is further illustrated by a government document AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between  Points 2 to 212, the public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated.

 

I knew this was a business I could run successfully.

My name is Alan Smith, and I want to share my story and the harrowing experiences of other business owners who have endured significant hardships at the hands of Telecom, now rebranded as Telstra. We became known by the poignant acronym COT—Casualties of Telecom.

Until the late 1990s, Telecom was the backbone of Australia's communication infrastructure, serving as the government’s telephone network and primary communication carrier. It was a time when reliable communication was vital for businesses and communities. However, as the century turned, Telecom faced a significant transformation; it was privatized and adopted the name Telstra. This change, heralded as a move toward modernization and efficiency, marked the beginning of a decline. Once a monopoly in the telecommunications sector, Telstra became mired in rampant mismanagement at every level. The result was a crumbling network that poorly served countless customers reliant on consistent communication for their operations and connections with clients.

I knew this was a business I could run successfully. From the age of 15, when I went to sea as a steward on English passenger/cargo ships, I worked in areas that prepared me for the hospitality trade. In 1963, I jumped ship in Melbourne to work as an assistant chef in one elite hotel after another. Two years later, I joined the Australian Merchant Navy. By 1975, I had been a chef on many Australian and overseas cargo ships and had returned to land.

Faye and I had married in Melbourne in 1969, and I worked freelance in the catering industry and on tugboats while I studied for a hotel/motel management diploma. I had already managed one hotel/motel and pulled it out of receivership to be released. By 1987, at the age of 44, I had enough experience behind me to be confident that I had the skills and knowledge to turn a simple school camp into a thriving, multifaceted concern.

I visited almost 150 schools and shires to extol the virtues of the Camp, and in February 1988, I had some 2000 colour brochures printed and distributed. Then, we waited for the phone to ring with inquiries, which were in vain. Due to this marketing exercise, there was not even a modest 1% inquiry rate.

By April, we had begun to realise that the problem might lie with the telephone service. People asked why we never answered our phones or suggested we install an answering machine to take calls when we were away from the office. We had an answering machine, but even after installing a new one, the complaints continued, coupled with comments about long periods when the phone gave the engaged signal.

As time passed, the call 'drop-outs' added to our problems, especially when the line went dead in the middle of a call. We lost that contact if the caller hadn't yet given us contact information and didn't ring back. Between 19 April 1988 and 10 January 1989, Telstra logged nine separate complaints from me about the phone service, plus several letters of complaint. A typical response to my 1100 call (the number you called when there was a problem) was a promise to check the line. A technician was sent out on rare occasions, whose response was inevitable: 'No fault found' while my problems continued unabated.

In a misguided effort to rectify the mounting communication crises that plagued businesses, the government instituted an arbitration process. This was intended to be a lifeline to address and resolve ongoing issues with faulty telephone services. However, the reality unfolded starkly differently. What began as a possible avenue for redress quickly devolved into a skewed power struggle between the COT claimants and the formidable, government-backed Telecom. As four claimants, we found ourselves ensnared in a daunting duel that felt insurmountable. Our mounting frustrations with unreliable telephone and fax services only compounded our challenges, leading to costs and staggering losses. Our legitimate concerns were met with a cold indifference, as if they were mere inconveniences rather than serious impediments to our livelihoods.

The impact of this turmoil was both profound and personal. Our integrity was questioned; reputations painstakingly built over the years were systematically dismantled. In some troubling instances, outright criminal acts were perpetrated against us. Telecom attempted to divert the blame onto small business owners, casting us as the architects of our misfortunes. In truth, we suffered from the severe consequences of their negligence, facing a devastating erosion of our livelihoods due to the failure of essential communication services to uphold our connections with clients.

As COT claimants, we collectively incurred losses amounting to millions of dollars. The toll on our mental well-being was nothing short of devastating; many of us experienced a drastic decline in our health as stress and despair took hold. Eventually, our once-thriving businesses crumbled into ruins. Meanwhile, those entrenched in government—the very architects of this outrageous injustice and widespread corruption—continue to inhabit positions of power to this day. The tragic truths of our experiences remain shrouded in obscurity, suffocated under layers of bureaucratic red tape.

These stories carry immense significance even now as the cover-up continues unabated. They serve as a stark reminder of how, amidst rapid technological advancements, large organizations can exploit their clients, conceal corrupt practices, and evade accountability for their mismanagement. This narrative is steeped in themes of egregious government malfeasance, deep-seated injustices, and alarming criminal behavior, echoing the treachery traditionally associated with organized crime syndicates.

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.” 

During her second visit, Helen Haddbury animatedly shared her plans to enlist her brother Rupert, a prominent media mogul, to help bring my story to the public's attention. As she spoke, I felt a knot tightening in my stomach; I hesitated to reveal that Rupert was already acutely aware of the grave inadequacies plaguing Telstra’s infrastructure. After all, he had successfully pursued a jaw-dropping $400 million claim against the telecommunications behemoth, exposing its failures. This stark contrast in our positions underscored the vast chasm in power and resources—Rupert’s influence was monumental. At the same time, we, the COT cases, felt like mere whispers in the chaotic din of corporate negligence as the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury) pages show.

After Helen Handbury carefully reviewed my initial draft of absentjustice.com, she and two insightful editors—one hailing from the vibrant landscapes of New Zealand Lyn, and the other from the lively city of Melbourne—Ronda all shared their thoughts. They noted that my writing captures the intricate narratives surrounding the collusion, deep-seated wrongdoing, and deceptive actions of various layers of accountants and government officials, ensuring that these critical issues are not overlooked.

The chronology of events I have meticulously compiled, which will eventually evolve into my finished manuscript, is currently accessible in draft format as I strive to refine and complete it Refer to Lies Deceit And Treachery. Each mini-story presented on the website is thoughtfully paired with evidence files, carefully curated to enhance the reader's understanding of the significance behind each piece of information presented and the supporting evidence enclosed. This approach is designed to illuminate the complexities of the narrative and underscore the importance of accountability in this ongoing journey.

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I grappled with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted as discussed in Senate Hansard. If this amount were channeled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal of every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritize ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia 

When Helen Handbury visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The revenue in question should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public at large. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfill their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that Telstra would not meet the deadline.

If we accept this premise, as the Senate appears to recognize in the following three points below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then it raises serious concerns. Why were the COT Cases—business owners struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, what does?

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

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline. 

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

 11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.

Telstra had significant influence over AUSTEL, the former government communications regulator (now known as ACMA), which led to AUSTEL drastically reducing the reported number of affected customers. According to the official government regulatory COT Case Report from April 1994, this number was decreased from around 120,000 COT-type customers experiencing similar issues with the CAN and Ericsson AXE systems across Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) to just over 50. Additionally, Telstra pressured AUSTEL to submit altered Special Voice Test (SVT) reports to the minister in their third quarterly COT Cases Report dated February 2, 1995.

The 120,000 COT-type customers, who faced significant problems nationwide (refer to Falsification Report File No/8), were related to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange issues that remained unaddressed during the COT arbitrations. Correspondence dated April 8 and 9, 1994, from Telstra's general manager to AUSTEL indicates that AUSTEL was far from independent and could be influenced to modify its official findings in the COT reports, as Telstra requested in many instances (Refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN)

The pressure from Telstra, the defendants in the COT arbitrations, led the government regulator to revise its initial conclusions in the formal AUSTEL report issued on April 13, 1994. This manipulation resulted in persistent telephone problems for the COT Cases even years after the arbitrations concluded. The COT Cases were assured that their ongoing issues would be addressed through government-endorsed arbitrations. Yet, AUSTEL (now called ACMA) warned them that these problems were linked to Telstra employees' fraudulent theft of government funds, which would affect the deadlines for the COT Cases’ complaints.

We did suffer as a result. The COT Cases were not permitted to amend their claims or to be treated with respect, unlike in the case of FOX, due to their identity and status within Australia’s establishment. Simply put, 120,000 Australian citizens suffering from systemic phone problems were ignored. Was the cable rollout for FOX more critical than trying to give some relief to the 12o 000 Telstra COT type customers (see also Chapter 2 - Bell Canada International In)

For a government regulator to reduce its findings from 120,000 COT-type complaints to just over 50 is an egregious misrepresentation to the public.

 

In preparing the introduction to Gaslighting, it was essential to show how Telstra's gaslighting conduct towards its customer base, particularly regarding allegations of malfeasance, impropriety, and malpractice; it is pertinent to note that certain Telstra employees themselves faced accusations of delinquency, impropriety, and malversation. These individuals were purportedly involved in unethical activities commonly known as naughtiness, legal bullying and rudeness. This led to malpractice and mismanagement claims against its senior officials for their offensive transgression and wrongdoing towards the COT Cases.

 

This hypocritical, leaning towards untrue and fallacious insincere, perjurious and two-faced double, dealing smooth-tongued mealymouthed behaviour is what the COT Cases tried to have the arbitrator take on board—the arbitration proceedings of the COT Cases endeavoured to bring attention to these issues. However, the considerable duration, spanning over three years, during which Telstra remunerated the arbitrator's fees presented a formidable challenge.

 

A government-endorsed arbitration process was established to assist business owners in addressing ongoing communication issues and resolving persistent problems with faulty telephone services. Unfortunately, this initiative quickly devolved into a one-sided struggle between the COT Cases and the government-supported telecom provider, leaving the four claimants—including myself—unable to achieve a fair resolution. Our difficulties with telephone and fax services worsened as our financial burdens grew, exacerbated by the failure to repair inadequate services and the lack of direct attention to our concerns. This lack of support was especially disheartening given the government's previous assurances in their April 1994 public COT Cases Report and various media releases from Canberra Parliament House.

Amidst this turmoil, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed commercial assessor for the proposed arbitrations and a former President of the Law Council of Australia, along with Warwick Smith, the newly appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and a former government minister, informed us and an expanding group of other individuals affected by similar chronic phone issues about the urgent need for a proper arbitration process. The initial four COT Cases, recognized as trailblazers for highlighting the significant inadequacies in the Telstra network, were ultimately offered an alternative: instead of pursuing arbitration, we were presented with a commercial assessment process to acknowledge our efforts. Telstra signed this agreement on November 18, 1993, followed by the four COT Cases on November 23, 1993.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, before we agreed to the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), Warwick Smith—the administrator of the FTSP—was secretly given privileged government information that was shared with Telstra's upper management. This confidential information indicated that the COT Cases were losing the government support that had initially backed a Senate investigation into Telstra. This strategic move allowed Telstra to stall the FTSP process, denying the four COT Cases access to essential discovery documents we would receive under the established Freedom of Information (FOI) framework. As Telstra exploited this delay to their advantage, their legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, seized the opportunity to draft an arbitration agreement that was heavily skewed in favor of Telstra.

On 10 January 1994, a significant document from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), referenced as File 56-B - Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D, was issued confirming that Warwick Smith had granted authorization to Grant Campbell of Telstra. This authorization empowered Campbell to thoroughly assess my FTSP claims against Telstra. Notably, this evaluation occurred a full five months prior to the appointment of Dr. Gordon Hughes as the Arbitrator in this matter. As a result, Telstra possessed crucial insights into my strengths and weaknesses before I formally signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994, thus impacting the dynamics of the following negotiations.

 

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other vital members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he provided the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Thus, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

On January 10, 1994, Warwick Smith received a copy of the arbitration agreement crafted by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, which was subsequently handed over to Dr. Gordon Hughes as the FTSP assessor.

 

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.

In the weeks that followed, my phone problems continued unabated. I began keeping a log of phone faults, recording all complaints I received in an exercise book, along with names and contact details for each complaint and a note regarding the effect these failed calls had on the business and me.

In February 1994, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) reached out to me with urgent news: I needed to meticulously separate the phone complaints lodged by my single club patrons, dating back to 1990, from those made by schools and other organizations throughout the 1990s that had also reported dissatisfaction with my service. This distinction was critical because the AFP had uncovered that Telstra—Australia's major telecommunications company—had been systematically documenting my single club members' names, addresses, and phone numbers over an extended period. These records, carefully maintained in Telstra's internal files, had become the focus of the ongoing investigation.

Under the AFP's directive, I was tasked with a daunting job: translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. These diaries were to remain strictly confidential and not be shared with Telstra under any circumstances. While I battled through this meticulous rewrite, the AFP simultaneously delved into alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that plagued my operations. (Refer to  Single Club Losses Ignored → Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete).

Although Bell Canada did not respond to inquiries about the inaccuracies in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, the Canadian Government did respond, as illustrated in the following letter.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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.

 

 

How has Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), Australia's largest and most prominent legal firm, evaded scrutiny by the Senate for their troubling actions during the COT arbitrations? Official government records indicate that their involvement with the COT cases should have ceased after October 1993 → (point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2). Yet, despite this stipulation, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne was still appointed as the defense attorneys for Telstra in the majority of the COT cases, including my own. It raises alarming concerns—how could they be permitted to validate witness statements never signed by the actual witnesses?

In a troubling turn, Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), presented a fabricated Bell Canada International (BCI) report to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to read before Mr Joblin assessed my mental state. This misleading BCI document claimed that 15,590 test calls were successfully transmitted over four to five hours spanning five days, from November 4 to November 9, 1993, to my local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater. During my arbitration, this spurious information concerning my telephone claims was presented to Ian Joblin, who was part of Telstra's arbitration defence unit.

By utilizing these deceptive BCI tests, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne aimed to create the impression that Ian Joblin would conclude I must be suffering from paranoia regarding my alleged phone issues. They implied that anyone of sound mind would not assert they were experiencing phone problems when, according to the fabricated BCI report, the 15,590 test calls were supposedly transmitted without incident. This manipulation of information raises serious concerns about the integrity of their defence and the implications for my claims.

Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) employed the highly regarded CCS7 monitoring equipment to generate an astonishing number of calls. However, the nearest telephone exchange equipped to handle this advanced CCS7 technology was 112 kilometers from my business location. This raises the question: where did the staggering 15,590 test calls ultimately end up? As you delve into this story, you'll uncover a troubling detail — Telstra audaciously contaminated the collected TF200 telephone by pouring wet and sticky beer residue into it after those phones departed from the COT Cases businesses. Adding to this bizarre scenario, Telstra sought to label other COT Cases members as mentally unstable, as evidenced by my narrative. This corporation has remained unchanged; the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, holds the key to revealing the truth about the BCI (false test results) provided to Ian Joblin. All she needs to do to clarify matters is publicly dismiss my claims as frivolous in a media release, along with the evidence that my claims are false.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.

As detailed throughout this website, absentjustice.com, Telstra controls Australia's arbitration and mediation process. Readers can freely download the evidence in my mini-stories while navigating the website, which leaves no doubt that my claims are valid.

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature being where it legally should be on the document as the law states it should be shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (refer to File 596 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

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

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature is unlawful enough; however, with that said, the fact John Pinnock, administrator to my arbitration as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has in 2025, still not provided Telstra's official response concerning this dreadful conduct by Mautice Wayne Condon of Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia shows Senator Kim Carr asking Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s leading 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”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming issue surrounding Telstra’s intelligence networks established across Australia is the critical question of who within the Telstra Corporation possesses the expertise and government clearance to filter the extensive raw information gathered appropriately. This information must be cataloged impartially for future use, yet the process and oversight remain unclear.

PLEASE NOTE: 

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became evident that this story had two sides.

Although Bell Canada did not respond to inquiries about the inaccuracies in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, the Canadian Government did respond, as illustrated in the following letter.

PLEASE NOTE: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems six years after I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in December 1987, found my claims against Telstra validated as the following points 209 to 212 show:

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.”

Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”

Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.

Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.”

 

Back to 1988 through to 1994

 

Eventually, we discovered that the business's previous owner had endured the same problems and had complained equally unsuccessfully about them. In 1988, when I began marshalling my case against Telstra, I obtained several documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). According to a document headed 'Telstra Confidential: Difficult Network Faults — PCM Multiplex Report', with a sub-heading '5.5 Portland — Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp', Telstra was aware of the faults in early 1987.

Harry, our next-door neighbour, sympathised; his daughter, ringing from Colac, often complained about how difficult it was to get through to her parents. Fred, another local and once the owner of Tom the Cheap grocery chain, suffered from similar problems to ours for many years. He commiserated, saying, 'But what can you expect from Telstra when we're in the bush?' I expected better than this, and indeed, we were promised better.

We encouraged people to write, but the telephone culture was endemic. People wanted an immediate response. As bookings dwindled instead of increasing, I felt I hadn't adequately researched the pros and cons before moving to Cape Bridgewater.  I was beginning to question what I had done, asking Faye to agree to sell the family home so that I could satisfy my ambition to run my own business. It was not the fun I had anticipated. I was operating in constant anger, a very unamusing Basil Fawlty.

We went touring South Australia to sell the concept of our Camp through the Wimmera area, but responses were few. Was it the phone to blame? How could we be sure? The uncertainty itself added to the stress.

Attacking one's character 

It was our fault, not Telstra's  

Sometimes, the culprit was blindingly obvious. I was soon labelled a vexatious litigant, and my claims were frivolous. On a shopping expedition to Portland, 20 kilometres away, I discovered I had left the meat order list behind. I phoned home from a public phone box, only to get a recorded message telling me the number was not connected! I phoned again to hear the same message. Telstra's fault centre said they would look into the matter, so I went about the rest of the shopping, leaving the meat order to last. Finally, I phoned the Camp again, and the phone was engaged this time. I decided to buy what I could remember from the list and hope for the best; however, I was not surprised when I got home to learn the phone had not rung once while I had been out.

Anyone who uses a telephone has at some time reached a recorded voice announcement (known within the industry as RVA): 'The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.' This incorrect message was the RVA people most frequently reached when trying to ring the Camp. While Telstra never acknowledged what I later discovered among 1994 FOI documents, an internal Telstra memo stating: -

'This message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader.' AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

Another Telstra document referred to the need for

a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied … I am sure when we start to scratch around, we will find a host of network circumstances where inappropriate RVAs are going to line. AS6 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

For a newly established business like ours, this was a major disaster. Still, despite the memo's acknowledgement that such serious faults existed, Telstra never admitted the existence of a fault in those first years. And with my continued complaints, I was treated increasingly as a nuisance caller. This was rural Australia, and I was supposed to put up with a poor phone service — not that anyone in Telstra was admitting that it was poor service. In every case, 'No fault found' was the finding by technicians and linesmen.

The frustration was immense, coupled with uncertainty. Were our problems no more than general poor rural service compounded by the congestion on too few lines going into an antiquated exchange? At that stage, the Camp was the only accommodation business in Cape Bridgewater. We relied on the phone more than most people in the area. But if there was some specific fault, why weren't the technicians finding it?

The business was in trouble, and so were we. By mid-1989, we were reduced to selling our retirement shares to cover operating costs. Here we were, a mere 15 months after taking over the business, beginning to sell off our assets instead of reducing the mortgage. I felt like a total failure. Neither of us was able to lift the other's spirits.

I decided to do another round of marketing in the city. I would give it all I had. We both went. Was it masochism that made me ring the Camp answering machine via its remote access facility to check for any messages so I could respond promptly? Whatever it was, all I could get was the recorded message: '

The number you are calling is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.' 

On the way home, just outside Geelong, we stopped at a phone box, and I tried again. Now, the line was engaged. Perhaps somebody was leaving a message, I thought. Ever hopeful.

There were no messages on the answering machine, and nothing could be gained by asking why I had received an engaged signal. How many calls had we lost during the days that we were away? How many prospective clients had given up trying to get through because a recorded message told them the phone was not connected? Anger and frustration were very close to the surface.

Near the end of October 1989, our twenty-year marriage ended. I had already been taking prescribed drugs for stress; that afternoon, I added a quantity of Scotch and hunkered down in one of the cabins. Faye, understandably, was seriously concerned and called the local police, who broke into the cabin to 'save' me from me. They took me to a special hospital, and I am forever grateful to the doctors who confirmed that I wasn't going 'nuts' and who sent me home the following day.

When I took refuge in the cabin on the afternoon of 26 October 1989, only to find my refuge attacked by a Police rescue team, I was transported straight back to China in 1967.  After some heavy discussions with my wife and my ‘saviours’ who, in my confused state, seemed more like the Red Guard soldiers than anything else, I was taken to hospital — in a straitjacket.

I will be forever grateful to the doctors who confirmed that I wasn’t going ‘nuts’ and who allowed me to return to the camp the following day, accompanied by my mate’s wife, Margaret.  I will also be forever grateful to Jack for sending Margaret to ‘bail me out’ so to speak.  The fun, however, had just begun.

At this point, I need to fill in some details regarding an incident in 1967 during the Cultural Revolution in China.  At that time, many young Australians were supporting the American fight against Communism in North Vietnam, and this young man was sailing with the Merchant Marines out of Australia.  We were headed to China from Port Albany in Western Australia with a cargo of wheat, although the Australian Labor Party was against our ship leaving. A brief explanation of this China issue is highlighted in Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong.

While I was in this particular hospital in Warnambool (southwest Victoria), my friends Margaret and Jack from Melbourne, who were well aware of what had happened to me in China, decided that Margaret would come to Warnambool and take me home for the holiday camp which was 110 kilometres away  'bail me out'. The fun, however, had just begun for me and Margaret. 

Margaret and I arrived at the Camp and were confronted with a disaster area. Faye had left the night before, following advice from various people that she needed to be in a 'safe house'. Doors had been left unlocked, meat from the deep freeze was left on benches, and various items had mysteriously vanished. According to the Camp diary, 70 students from Monivae Catholic College in Hamilton were due to arrive in two days and booked in for five days and four nights. Without Margaret's assistance, I would have been wiped out.

Mourning the end of my marriage, the very thought of shopping was a mountain I didn't want to climb. What to feed 70 students plus staff? When I got my head around what to order, it was Sunday evening, and the Monivae group were due the following day. Then the hot water service broke down!

The staff were not happy about the cold showers! Even so, Monivae College returned two and sometimes three times a year for the next five years. Their support throughout this awful period helped me keep trading.

And, of course, Margaret's support. She carried so much through that first week. Aware that I was holding on by my fingernails, she suggested Brother Greg, one of the Monivae teachers, come to the house to talk to me. It was an inspired suggestion, and we talked well into the night. Margaret, too, worked through many things, from early childhood experiences to the end of twenty years of marriage.

Regrettably, a few months later, a serious oversight occurred. The hard copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors had promised to safeguard away from the holiday camp during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by my claim advisors.

A shocking tale unfolds throughout this narrative after Telstra acquires this pivotal evidence. It may astonish readers to learn that a government-owned corporation could engage in such unethical practices against the COT Cases, yet, remarkably, no individuals have been held accountable for these unlawful actions.

One day, the phone extension in the kiosk died. The coin-operated gold phone in the dining room, which was on a separate line, had a normal dial tone, so I dialled my office number, only to hear the dreaded:

'The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.'

I was charged for the call because the phone did not return my coins! Five minutes later, I tried again. This time, the office phone appeared to be engaged (it wasn't), and the gold phone happily regurgitated my coins.

I used this testing routine frequently over the next months and registered every fault I found with Telstra. The situation was beginning to tell on me. Why was this still happening after so many complaints? Could Telstra really be this incompetent? Or was there something worse going on? Had I made too much of a nuisance of myself? But that was ridiculous. Under the circumstances, I had behaved impeccably politely … when in fact, I had fantasies of sheer violence at times.

Now I was no longer one half of a working husband and wife team, and I started 1990 digging into my pitifully low financial reserves to pay staff or risk losing everything. I was suffering what is commonly known in the world of finance as a 'consequential resultant loss' — Faye was no longer contributing her unpaid labour. I now had to pay her a yearly dividend on her financial investment in the business.

The future looked grim. Telstra did not attempt to remedy the faults or at least no attempt that made any difference. The constant refrain of 'No fault found' was wearing very thin. I found it hard not to dwell on how many prospective customers might be lost because they couldn't reach me by phone. Nor was it long before the legal vultures were circling. I hadn't met my financial agreement with Faye, and her solicitor was demanding money. I was having trouble meeting my own legal costs, let alone finding any extra. My son's school fees were overdue, and to pay some of the mounting debts, I sold the 22-seater school bus I had originally used to ferry customers around and purchased a small utility in its place.

On the positive side, I had met a woman called Karen, who lived in Warrnambool. Our relationship developed to become quite serious. When Karen knew I was about to wind up my business because I couldn't raise funds to make any more payments to Faye, she put her house up as security for a loan, thereby giving me two years of breathing space. She believed in me, and she believed in the capacity of the Camp to succeed. She wanted to be a partner in it. This was early in 1991.

Things were starting to look up, especially when I discovered that a new exchange was to be installed later in the year at Cape Bridgewater. I was hoping this would alleviate all the problems of congested lines. It was just a question of time. Karen moved in with me, and we worked together with new energy to pull the business out of the doldrums.

In August that year came another joy when I got the first confirmation from someone within Telstra that they knew my phone problems were real. I felt such a relief that the faults were, at last, being acknowledged, and I asked for my new friend's name. I was so happy; I didn't even really register any perturbation when all he could tell me was that he worked at the fault centre in Hamilton.

According to Telstra's own file note:

Alan Smith rang 15/8/91 re service 267 267. Incoming callers are receiving engaged signal when it's not engaged …

This has been a continuing problem and he is losing a lot of business.

I said it appears from the fault history that the problem may be in the exchange and that the next RCM exchange 21/8 would solve these problems but that I would check this out with the techs.

I also said we would have a look at the service now to try and get it working correctly until cutover. AS4 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47.

At last, someone in Telstra had given me something to hang on to. When Karen sold her house, a part of the proceeds went towards paying my legal fees and my debt to Faye. I paid Faye out, and Karen's name was now officially on the title to the business. We counted the days to the installation of the new exchange.

But the triumph of a new exchange when it came at the end of August 1991 was the briefest of victories. It made not the slightest difference. The telephone problems continued just as before. However, now exacerbated by the dreadful disappointment that the war wasn't over at all. Increasingly, people reported complaints of recorded voice announcements, and I continued to complain to Telstra about faults, which seemed to me to be getting worse, not better. I asked technicians if a new exchange didn't correct the problems, then where could the faults lie? Their response was unbelievable: 'No fault found.' They simply refused to engage with my question. I cursed the fact that I had no contact details for the one person who had acknowledged that there were faults. I did not see the file note he wrote until 1995.

New bookings continued to be rare. The Camp was getting in need of painting and upgrading. The business looked sad and bedraggled, so people who passed by were not interested in stopping. And when we did have a booking, cash flow was a problem, making it tricky to put food on the table. We somehow always managed, but it was very stressful. Karen was starting to see her investment going down the drain, and the strain on her came to a head while we were in the middle of organising a charity camp for underprivileged children.

Despite the financial precariousness of the enterprise, I had, from the start, sponsored the stays of underprivileged groups at the Camp. It was no loss to me, really: sponsored food was provided through the generosity of a number of commercial food outlets, and it cost me only a small amount in electricity and gas.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, organised largely by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. 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. The Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline — no sound at all. Finally, after trying in vain all through one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

Testimonials

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks, partly (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 repeatedly, 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 90 to 100 people in fourteen cabins. 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, 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 occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen (my new partner) took a phone call from a furious 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 and 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 incredible 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 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 have followed if only the callers could have 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, a transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP states 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 that Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence because if it ever reached an Australian court, I had a 50% chance of proving that 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 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 this almost tragic event 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. 

 

 

 

 

Transcripts from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 8 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) reveal significant testimony provided by Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT cases. In an official capacity under oath, Mr. Schorer conveyed to two government attorneys and a senior member of the AAT panel that he and I were actively seeking access to a series of freedom of information documents that Telstra had withheld during the critical arbitration discovery process. Our primary objective was to compile a comprehensive and factual narrative that would illuminate and potentially open doors for other similar cases—fewer than sixteen—that could prompt the Senate to advocate for a thorough government investigation into the validity of our claims.

What Mr. Schorer failed to disclose to the attorneys or the presiding judge, Mr. GD Friedman, was a crucial detail that had a bearing on our case: unbeknownst to me, the government had concealed AUSTEL Adverse Findings from both itself and the arbitrator in March 1994. Alarmingly, these findings were provided to Telstra a mere six weeks before I signed my arbitration agreement. This transfer of information was strategically timed to assist Telstra in mounting a defence against my claims regarding the persistent problems I was experiencing with telephone and fax services, continuing even on the day the information was bestowed upon them.

The government appeared to operate under the belief that preventing me from substantiating my claims was imperative. It was not until November 2007—twelve years after the government initially supplied these AUSTEL Adverse Findings to Telstra—that I received access to this critical document. By this point, the utility of the findings had diminished significantly, as they were now five years past the six-year statute of limitations for filing an appeal against my award.

A thorough examination of this report may lead an impartial observer to conclude that the government has patently breached its obligations towards me as an Australian citizen. This breach appears to stem from a discriminatory practice favouring Telstra, a corporation wholly owned by the Australian government and representing the collective interests of the Australian people, during that significant period in March 1994, Refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings

Points 2 to 212, in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirm that the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings.  

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered this AAT hearing and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

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

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