Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

 

How do you publish an accurate account of what happened during various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations with proof, without naming culprits? We have named only the government regulator in our Stop Press below, and NOT the public servants who fed privileged information to the then Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendant) and concealed the same documentation from the claimants, i.e., fellow Australian citizens.

How do you tell a story that is so incredible that your editor required more and more evidence to support your story because she would not edit your unfathomable claims without proof that your statements were factual?

How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), using equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, stored it, without your knowledge or consent, before redirecting it onto to its intended destination? Were the defendants using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants?

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eavesdropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation, still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitrations?  In January 1999 the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a report confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they arrived at their intended destination. In my case, even though the arbitrator's secretary advised the arbitration process that six of my faxed claim documents never reached the arbitrator's office, I was never allowed to resubmit this material for assessment. My fax account shows I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.

In fact one of the two technical consultants/signatories attesting to the validity of their findings in that report on 17 December 2014 wrote to me noting:

"...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 proved".   

In 1999 when I was working on the draft section of my story, I provided it to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen Handbury.  She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that we COT Cases had to endure.  Helen had twice visited my holiday camp, and after reading the draft, stated words to the effect “I will get Rupert to have it published, he will be shocked”.

One part of the story that Helen had the most difficulty in comprehending, was the clear evidence that I had accumulated in proving how long I had been troubled by illegal fax-hacking.  This was still occurring right up until the time of Helen’s second visit to my camp.  Of course, back in 1999, the hacking scandal linked to the News of the World and her brother's troubles surrounding similar hacking issues had not yet been revealed.  Evidence, which I have since provided to the Australian Federal Police, proves that the illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations (of which I was also a claimant) was certainly happening in 1994.  The information I supplied Helen Handbury, suggested this fax hacking was still happening at my business premises in 1999, four years after my arbitration was supposed to have addressed these issues.

Of course, 1999 was before the hacking scandal linked to the News of the World.

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, I sent a draft of the original version of Ring for Justice to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him of my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury replied on 17 October 2012 in a handwritten letter (with beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship that we no longer see). However, he was then 87 years old and, although highly respected for his philanthropic support of many worthwhile projects in Victoria, too much time had passed, and sadly, he couldn’t help. Still, I remember how the sister of the biggest newspaper-owner in the world believed my “intriguing story” was undoubtedly one her brother should publish. I’m grateful for her comments.

 

I'm grateful for Helen's comments. 

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 illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

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, sister to Rupert Murdoch, 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 pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia records appears to recognize in points 10 and 11 below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then serious concerns will arise. 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?   

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.

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. 

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra is obligated to provide in the event of a missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In sixteen COT cases, all Australian citizens were promised similar commitments by Telstra on the condition that they financed their own arbitrations to resolve ongoing issues. Unfortunately, the telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases were not addressed in these costly arbitration proceedings. In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator.

In essence, it appears that one set of legal standards exists for individuals who are well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set for those who do not possess such connections.

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalizing this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the myriad hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

During the years I dedicated to building my business, I invested significant resources into establishing a vibrant agency across Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier (South Australia). This agency was designed to efficiently handle incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club, a lively community hub for singles over forty seeking connection and companionship. This initiative proved to be a lucrative venture, consistently bringing in between six and seven thousand dollars each weekend, a testament to the club's popularity and the community's engagement.

However, disaster struck when the 008/1800 free call service, crucial for our operations, failed due to persistent and frustrating systemic software issues. Regrettably, I found myself without any compensation from the government-owned Telstra Corporation for the business I inevitably lost during this turmoil. This experience is not an isolated incident; I am just among many entrepreneurs grappling with similar hardships. Countless small businesses—potentially numbering in the thousands—have experienced severe financial strain due to the unreliability of the telephone system, which has often been a lifeline for their operations.

This troubling situation raises an essential question: Why does the government devote resources to supporting the Murdoch empire while seemingly turning a blind eye to the struggles of grassroots small business operators like myself, who work tirelessly to contribute positively to the Australian community?

Many small businesses faced the daunting challenge of navigating the complex and expensive arbitration process in pursuit of compensation from Telstra. They often found it their only option to compel the corporation to rectify the ongoing telecommunications problems affecting their businesses. Unfortunately, in most cases, the problems that prompted the arbitration persisted long after the legal proceedings concluded, continuing to disrupt these businesses for years and stifling their growth potential.

I must reiterate that the crux of the issue is not simply whether Foxtel received the substantial sum of $400 million, as the Senate indicated would be awarded to them if Telstra failed to meet its contractual obligations. Instead, the more pressing concern lies in Telstra's conduct during this time, particularly since it was still under government ownership. This scenario reveals a troubling disparity: Telstra chose to extend support to a specific segment of the business community while neglecting the needs of countless others adversely affected by the same inadequate network services.

It is vital to highlight that on May 11, 1995, the day I received my compensation award, the telecommunications issues remained a lingering and significant burden for the new owners of my business. In December 2001, they acquired my beloved school holiday camp—an establishment I had nurtured and cherished for years—primarily for its land value. Tragically, their financial situation deteriorated, leading to bankruptcy in 2009, just eight years later. This outcome serves as a poignant reminder of the lasting impact of those unresolved telecommunications issues, echoing the struggles many small business owners face like myself.

Moreover, the government communications authority surreptitiously acknowledged in March 1994 that the revenue lost due to the disruption of our business was substantial. This acknowledgement is detailed in points 2 to 212, referenced explicitly on page 33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

This situation paints a vivid picture of businesses' enduring struggles in this web of inefficiency and neglect.

There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.

The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:

“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (Refer p33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

When AUSTEL representatives visited my venue, I also demonstrated that singles club customers regularly bought souvenirs before they left: printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA (the arbitration financial resource unit working for the arbitrator and Telstra) ignored all the income I lost from lost singles club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs and the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.

 

 

Chapters 1 to 12, alongside this pivotal page titled "Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury". Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, graced my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp with her presence on two occasions.

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

Unconscionable Conduct 

Treacherous and Evil 

In a compelling narrative about government corruption, bribery, and fraud, it’s crucial to address the core issue immediately. This approach allows readers to confront the layers of deception and moral decay.

Explore the shocking realities of crimes and the pervasive corruption among politicians and lawyers in Australia. These unscrupulous individuals' actions—described as shameful and treacherous—have severe consequences for society. Many visitors have noted the similarities between this content and an in-depth exploration of fraud, highlighting the urgent need for accountability in the legal system.

In my upcoming publication, I will include endorsements from respected lawyers and international arbitrators to support the findings. The COT arbitrations reveal a disturbing landscape of deception and broken promises. The narrative exposes a web of betrayal, intimidation, and criminal deceit that undermines trust.

A troubling lack of honesty seriously affects the situation. The claims made during these proceedings are flawed, wrong, and impractical, indicating a major problem in the legal system. Threats from criminal groups that want to silence opposition and hinder justice make these issues worse.

The first four cases under the Customer Owned Telecommunications (COT) program included Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. In February 1994, we received assurances from two key figures involved in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP): Dr. Gordon Hughes, the assessor, and Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the entire FTSP process. They inspired us with the promise that by stepping away from the FTSP and embracing Telstra's preferred guidelines for the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), we would gain access to the crucial telephone logbooks from the exchanges that supported our businesses as part of the arbitration discovery process.

The prospect of obtaining these logbooks "under discovery" fueled our determination to pursue change, especially given our unsuccessful attempts to acquire them through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request during the FTSP assessment process.

Regrettably, despite our fervent hopes, the logbooks were never provided to any of the four COT cases, neither during the FTSP assessment phase nor throughout the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure that followed. This absence of vital documentation became a testament to our resilience in the face of challenges as we sought justice and resolution for our telecommunications issues.

 

 

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July.  I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.” 

After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.

Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies. 

Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being  fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.

I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time. 

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 -  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )

Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:

“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …

“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” 

Thus, the government was officially informed of the above concerning an arbitration process it endorsed and should have immediately appointed a review of the whole sordid affair. It never did.

Infringe upon the civil liberties

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“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.” 

To effectively communicate the severity of the situation documented on absentjustice.com, I am sharing a detailed account of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration case. This narrative begins with the distressing threats I received from two senior executives at Telstra who wield significant power and influence within the company. These executives were not merely acting as corporate defenders. Still, they were instrumental in devising a troubling strategy to undermine my future and the future of three other Australians, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, so the first four COT Cases could not wholly support our future arbitration claims against Telstra.

Their legal team, Freehills Hollingdale & Page, played a crucial role in this strategy. They prepared a legal document titled the "COT Cases Strategy", which named each of the four COT cases and the names of our four businesses that had to be stopped from receiving FOI technical documents (refer to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). They created this legal document that clearly outlined methods Telstra could use to obstruct our efforts to prove our claims against them. This cooperative effort illustrates the lengths the company would go to protect its interests and silence dissent, as evidenced below.

The legal team at Freehills Hollingdale & Page played an essential and strategic role in our overall approach to the situation. They meticulously prepared a comprehensive legal document titled the "COT Cases Strategy." This document specifically identified each of the four COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) cases and detailed the names of our four businesses that were targeted to be prevented from receiving Freedom of Information (FOI) technical documents. For further reference, please consult Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The "COT Cases Strategy" outlined a series of tactics that Telstra could employ to obstruct our efforts in substantiating our claims against them. These tactics included potential legal manoeuvres and procedural delays aimed at undermining our case. This concerted effort illustrates the significant lengths to which Telstra would go in order to protect its corporate interests and silence dissent. The following evidence highlights these actions and their implications further.

The current 2024 Corporate Secretary of Telstra, Sue Laver, has been actively concealing crucial information from the Senate Committee regarding the misleading evidence that Freehill Hollingdale & Page provided to Ian Joblin, who served as Telstra's arbitration psychologist. This situation arose prior to Joblin’s meeting with me in Portland, which was part of the arbitration process determined to evaluate my mental stability.

Sue Laver is acutely aware of the importance of the events that transpired 28 months after the conclusion of my arbitration, particularly during the Senate inquiry into Telstra on September 26, 1997. This inquiry specifically scrutinized the legitimacy of the tests conducted at Cape Bridgewater—the location of my business—by Bell Canada International Inc.

Phoney and flawed.

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 pages 23-8 of the letter, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) clearly provided Sue Laver (the current 2024 Telstra Corporate Secretary) with damning evidence. It shows that Telstra knowingly submitted false information to the Senate Committee on Notice while Ms Laver and Telstra were assuring the chair of the Senate legislation committee that there was nothing wrong with the BCI test conducted at Cape Bridgewater.

This false information was provided to the Senate regardless of whether the Senate requested it to be supplied on notice. Additionally, the two documents dated January 1998 (refer to (Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One confirm that Telstra knew in January 1998 that the BCI information, later provided to the Senate in October 1998, had to have been false. It is concerning that no one within Telstra has been held accountable for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate on notice. Had Telstra not provided this false information to the Senate on notice and acknowledged the accuracy of my claims, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters in 1998, the same BCI matters I am now highlighting on absentjustice.com in 2024.

In response to the Senate's probing questions about these tests, Telstra presented false evidence. This information was deliberately crafted to mislead the Senate committee and hinder a proper investigation into my allegations regarding Telstra's reliance on this fundamentally flawed BCI as critical evidence in their defence strategy (Refer to  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). This strategy was crucial in supporting their position against my claims related to the Cape Bridgewater region, which was indeed under investigation by the appointed arbitrator.

Moreover, Telstra's actions extended beyond mere misrepresentation. They aimed to manipulate perceptions about my mental stability by providing deceptive information to a psychologist. This was a calculated effort to label me as mentally unstable despite the fact that my claims were grounded in legitimate grievances. My concerns were based on factual events and were neither baseless nor irrational; they reflected serious issues related to the conduct of Telstra and the implications of their arbitration process.

The arbitrator himself recognized the significance of the Bell Canada International (BCI) testing results, which he mentions in his findings at points 3.5 (a), (b) and (c). 

Sue Laver's actions over the past 27 years have not only compromised the integrity of the arbitration process but have also raised profound ethical concerns regarding how Telstra conducts its business and interacts with regulatory bodies. The repercussions of these actions have been deeply damaging, affecting my personal well-being and significantly undermining the public’s trust in Telstra as a reputable corporate entity.

 

Individuals outside Telstra and the Australian Establishment who provided false information to the Senate Committee risked charges of Contempt of the Senate, potentially leading to two years in prison. Remarkably, no Telstra member has faced such charges in the twenty-eight years since the incident. If Telstra had addressed the misleading BCI information in January or April 1998, after Sue Laver's notifications, I could have appealed my arbitration award. Their failure to acknowledge these inaccuracies denied me a fair reassessment of my case. Other COT Cases could have prompted arbitration administrators to thoroughly investigate the validity of the BCI tests used by Telstra, as flawed tests could have significantly affected arbitration outcomes.

 

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 (File GS-110 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b))). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist (see above), with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings of 1994, 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 key 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. 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. In light of this information, Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns. 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.

Mr. Joblin was insistent that he would make a notation in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page regarding the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment towards me and emphasized that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that, ultimately, no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

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 important 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, 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.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's actual signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is not only warranted but essential.

These events illustrate a troubling narrative of systemic failures, conflicts of interest, and a lack of appropriate oversight that shaped the experiences of the COT cases. They highlight the need for transparency and accountability within this arbitration framework.

By sharing this menacing narrative on absentjustice.com, I aim to set a foreboding tone that reflects the complex and murky world of unthinkable crimes, ruthless individuals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who wield immense power over the legal profession in Australia. This approach clarifies the stakes involved and illustrates the extreme lengths some individuals will go to shield their interests and maintain their positions of power, as the following threats confirm.

 

Criminal deceit.

The Firm - John Grisham 

During the tumultuous period when all forms of deception and manipulation were transpiring, I found myself utterly exhausted, both mentally and physically, due to the relentless pressure applied by Denise McBurnie and the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page. In the midst of this overwhelming fatigue, I couldn’t help but reflect on the ruthless legal firm portrayed in John Grisham's 1991 novel, *The Firm*, which seemed to mirror my own experiences of intimidation and subterfuge.

On April 14, 1994, Telstra issued a letter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) revealing that at least one employee had been involved in unlawfully intercepting my private telephone conversations without my consent. This acknowledgment raised serious ethical and legal concerns. My subsequent response, dated September 9, 1994, directly addressed the issue of this unauthorized interception, which had persisted over an extended and distressing period. Both these significant documents are now classified as "Protected AFP" material, indicating their sensitive nature.

Moreover, the official records from the Senate Hansard provide damning evidence of Telstra's troubling conduct. They detail not only the unauthorized surveillance but also the aggressive stand-over tactics and threats that Telstra employed against those involved in the COT cases. This situation is not just a personal grievance; it underscores a broader pattern of misconduct that demands immediate scrutiny and accountability

Freehills remains one of Australia's most formidable law firms, with significant resources and expertise to influence legal outcomes. Furthermore, this oppressive strategy employed by Telstra is documented on page 5169 of Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, where it becomes clear that Telstra utilized the COT strategy against claimants like myself in the arbitration process. This information underscores the systemic issues within Telstra’s approach and the challenges those seeking justice face in their dealings with the company.

In the Senate Hansard records and within the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, there are documented conversations pertaining to the serious threats made against me. These documents, along with the records from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, unequivocally confirm that Telstra acted on those threats. Despite this clear evidence, neither the arbitrator overseeing my case nor the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) chose to address these significant concerns during my arbitration proceedings. This raises critical questions: Why has this unethical conduct been left unaddressed in the public eye? What accounts for the glaring absence of any mention of these threats in the arbitrator's final award? How is it that Telstra was allowed to engage in such threatening behaviour and commit various unlawful acts against the COT cases, both in the lead-up to our arbitration sessions and during the arbitration itself?

 

Themes of betrayal and mischief

Misleading conduct

Throughout this process, neither the TIO nor the arbitrator took any action to protect me or my fellow claimants, nor did they question how a corporation like Telstra came to wield such influence over arbitrations that were ostensibly guided by government oversight.

As we moved forward, the four COT cases—comprising Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and myself—were being pressured into a highly legalistic arbitration process that the government sanctioned. We were informed that our options were severely limited: we could either accept the arbitration process put forth by Telstra or pursue legal action against the government itself, which owned Telstra outright. What is particularly troubling is that we were not made aware of the fact that the FTSP (Fast Track Settlement Proposal) assessor, Dr Gordon Hughes, and the FTSP administrator, Warwick Smith, had been engaging in covert negotiations with Telstra. These discussions focused on utilizing an arbitration agreement drafted by the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Previously, the government communications authority, AUSTEL, had given us written assurances that due to the egregious actions committed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page against the four COT cases, this law firm would not be involved in any processes related to our claims. In my case, I experienced ongoing telephone issues, and Telstra outright refused to investigate these problems unless I first submitted a formal written complaint to Denise McBurnie at Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

During my arbitration, I took the initiative to request detailed documentation regarding the complaints lodged against Telstra, specifically those submitted to Denise McBurnie. This included asking for copies of each complaint, Telstra's official responses to those complaints, and information on the resolutions or outcomes that had been reached. Unfortunately, Telstra denied my request, citing Legal Professional Privilege, which introduced another layer of complexity to an already intricate situation. As a result, I could not provide the arbitrator with the comprehensive evidence needed to demonstrate that my ongoing telephone issues were still unresolved. This limitation ultimately impacted the strength of my case during the arbitration process.

Following the conclusion of my arbitration, I decided to appeal the outcome on several grounds, seeking to address the concerns that had arisen during the process. My appeal lawyers, Law Partners of Melbourne, were taken aback when they learned about a recent development concerning Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). They expressed their profound disappointment toward AUSTEL, the government authority responsible for communications at that time, now known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

The root of their outrage stemmed from the fact that AUSTEL had permitted Freehill Hollingdale & Page to act as my telephone fault handlers during and in the lead-up to my arbitration process. This was particularly concerning because Freehill Hollingdale & Page was simultaneously serving as the arbitration defence counsel for Telstra, the opposing party. My lawyers found it shocking that AUSTEL had previously reassured all parties involved in the COT (Commercial Operational Telecommunications) cases that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any involvement in proceedings related to our cases.

This troubling situation can be corroborated by reviewing the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) draft dated October 5, 1993. Robin Davey of AUSTEL prepared this critical document for Ian Campbell, Telstra's most senior Commercial Business Manager. Within the draft, point 40 (File GS-110 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b)) explicitly outlines the reassurances given by AUSTEL regarding Freehill Hollingdale & Page's non-involvement in our arbitration, thereby highlighting the breach of trust and potential conflicts of interest that arose during the arbitration process. 

“Finally, if the attached letter (Attachment ‘D’) dated 7 July 1993 from Freehill, Hollingdale & Page to one of the COT Cases’ solicitors is indicative of the way that Freehill, Hollingdale & Page have approached the COT Cases in the past, I would be more than a little concerned if they were to have a continuing role.” (File GS-110 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b))

Sham and spurious

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

The day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy (refer to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main 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 pressing concern regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is the question of who within the Telstra Corporation possesses the appropriate expertise and government clearance to properly filter the vast amount of raw information collected. It is essential that this information undergoes an impartial review and is meticulously catalogued for future use, ensuring that it can be accessed and utilized appropriately without bias.

I have significant concerns about the confidentiality and security of sensitive information, particularly regarding my telephone conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia. I spoke with him in April 1993 and again in April 1994, discussing important matters related to my experiences during the Vietnam War era. These conversations involved my interactions with Malcolm Fraser, Minister of the Army at the time. During these discussions, I shared details about what my fellow crew members and I on the HopePeak ship uncovered while unloading Australian wheat in Communist China in August and September of 1967. Refer to Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong. Specifically, we discovered alarming evidence indicating that China was redistributing Australian wheat to North Vietnam. At the same time, our allies—Australia, New Zealand, and the United States—were simultaneously being killed and maimed by the North Vietnamese Viet Cong guerillas. British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman.

Given the sensitive nature of these discussions, I am left wondering whether Telstra officials securely maintain this detailed record of my conversations with Fraser. Additionally, it raises the crucial question of when Telstra was fully privatized in 2005, which organization in Australia was granted the responsibility of archiving the sensitive material that Telstra had amassed about its customers over the years? Understanding who has access to this information and how it is preserved is vital for safeguarding privacy and ensuring accountability.

PLEASE NOTE:

During the altercation (referenced in the above Senate records from 24 June 1997), I found myself in a particularly challenging situation, as my bankers had reached their limit of tolerance with me. In their frustration, they sent the Sheriff to my premises to ensure I was kept in a vulnerable position, which made it very difficult for me to manage my affairs.

The Sheriff arrived with the intent of seizing catering equipment from my property, an essential asset that I relied on to maintain my business operations. As the situation escalated, I remained calm and did not resort to physical violence or throw punches at the Sheriff. Instead, I employed a wrestling manoeuvre known as a 'Full Nelson' to restrain him, allowing me to escort him out of my office without further incident.

After I appealed the case in the Magistrates Court, all charges against me were ultimately dropped when it became evident that there were two sides to this story. This highlights the complexities of my situation.

 

Threats Made 

Threats Carried Out 

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)

At the time of 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 were assisting the AFP in various ways.

A particularly striking moment was recorded in the transcript of my second interview, specifically on page 12 at question 57. In this instance, an AFP representative remarked: "What intrigues me is your assurance to Mr. Rumble that you would not consult the AFP. 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 not only violated the integrity of the arbitration process but also provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in their investigation into Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.

As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defense, while they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance not only undermined the fairness of the arbitration process but also significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.

Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details that were shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete? This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?

Forged and fabricated

Bogus and fraudulent,

How does one weave together a narrative so remarkable that it raises even the author’s eyebrows, prompting a detailed investigation of records before proceeding with the story? What strategies can we employ to unravel the intricate web of conspiracy that existed between an arbitrator, various governmental entities, and the defendants in this case? How can we illuminate the shocking reality that these defendants, during the arbitration process, intercepted and misappropriated confidential materials to fortify their defence while jeopardizing the claimants' chances for justice?

Furthermore, how prevalent is the issue of compromised arbitration processes across Australia? Are instances of electronic eavesdropping and breaches of confidentiality still commonplace in the realm of legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

A particularly alarming example surfaced in January 1999, when a thorough report was delivered to the government, confirming that Telstra Corporation—which stood as the defendant in these arbitration disputes—had been unlawfully intercepting confidential arbitration-related documents. The report detailed a troubling procedure where these unauthorized individuals not only accessed sensitive information. Still, it meticulously screened the hacked documents for relevant content before re-faxing them to their original destinations, thus obscuring the illegal activities. This critical report, attached here as evidence (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), raises profound questions about the integrity of the arbitration system in Australia and the extent to which such unethical practices may have infiltrated legitimate processes, casting a shadow over the pursuit of fair and just resolutions.

Discover the shocking crimes and unscrupulous criminals who, alongside corrupt politicians and lawyers, wielded significant control over the arbitration system in Australia during the 1990s. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface when describing these lawbreakers. I received a call from the Victorian State Ombudsman's office informing me that they had read my paper on The Brotherhood—an organized group of professionals, including lawyers, police officers, accountants, and legal academics, who successfully infiltrated the arbitration system in Victoria. This revelation underscores the depth of corruption that plagued our legal framework.

It became apparent that the operational methods employed by the Brotherhood were controlling arbitrations and utilizing these proceedings to obscure unlawful activities committed by Telstra. The then-arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, notably disregarded this pervasive misconduct throughout most COT arbitration processes. Following his departure from this role, Dr Hughes joined a prominent legal firm representing Telstra in ongoing disputes. Notably, he had not addressed the significant systemic billing issues I had previously raised. Yet, he aligned himself with a firm formally denying the existence of such problems. This situation underscores a troubling pattern, as detailed within our COT narrative.

Additionally, the validity of the forenamed report issued by Scandrett & Associates in January 1999, presented to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999, has been regrettably unacknowledged. This report corroborated the interception of faxes during the COT arbitrations, involving both the arbitration advisors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, which was assisting in our Freedom of Information requests. The evidence within this report also indicated that faxes sent to government ministers at Parliament House in Canberra, including communications directed to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, were 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.

Senator Helen Coonan, acting on behalf of the Australian Government, engaged in a significant and formal agreement with Senator Barnaby Joyce. This agreement is fundamental to the ten amendments the National Party Government committed to during Senator Joyce's tenure. Senator Joyce's critical vote in the Senate was instrumental in facilitating the passage of the privatization legislation for the final share of Telstra. In exchange for this support, the government has committed to addressing my claims regarding outstanding arbitration privacy issues. This includes the submission of false evidence by Telstra during the arbitration proceedings related to my claims in 1994 and 1995, as well as similar unresolved claims from the other thirteen COT Cases that were registered with Senator Joyce

However, after Senator Joyce fulfilled his critical role by casting that indispensable vote, Senator Coonan unexpectedly and controversially reneged on the commitment. This reversal undermined the agreement and left unresolved issues related to the 14 COT Cases hanging in the balance. These issues could have been settled a staggering eighteen years ago, in 2006.

On 15 September 2005, before Senator Coonan did a flip back on her agreement, Senator Barnaby Joyce, I received the following letter noting:- 

"Dear Mr Smith" 

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Shady and unethical 

  

Unscrupulous - Venal 

Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued

On 17 March 2006, I received a written communication from the office of the Minister for Communications, indicating that the government would investigate these critical issues (Refer to File 657 - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700). As shown in File 657, Senator Helen Coonan's government public servants assured me that, should evidence emerge demonstrating that Telstra had acted unlawfully during my arbitration, my findings would be referred to the appropriate governmental department. Following the submission of this pertinent evidence, I received a subsequent correspondence from the Senator on 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      

As the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, it was undeniably the responsibility of Senator Helen Coonan to launch a thorough and official inquiry into the alarming issue of Telstra’s intercepting of confidential documents. These documents originated not only from my office and residence but also from the offices of several Senators and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations.

The situation raises profound and critical questions regarding the systemic breach of privacy and trust that has gone unaddressed for an alarmingly long time. It is particularly troubling that a private citizen felt compelled to initiate legal action against Telstra due to the interception of important documents meant to remain confidential. This incident draws attention to issues of accountability and oversight in handling sensitive information.

The gravity of this situation is accentuated by the fact that the Senate Estimates Committee had previously received advisory briefings indicating that some crucial faxes were intercepted during their transit from Parliament House. This interception occurred as these faxes left Parliament during the arbitration process that was supposed to resolve the underlying issues. Such high-level oversight raises significant concerns about why no actions were taken in response to these briefings, primarily when the government engaged the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in February 1994 to investigate these matters.

Doctored and falsified 

Rotten - tainted 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

 

Deliciousness and wickedness 

Double-dealing duplicity 

Furthermore, the arbitrator assigned in April 1994 was tasked with examining the same issues. It is alarming that despite the involvement of two supposedly highly trained entities—the AFP and the appointed arbitrator—no documented findings were submitted regarding the severe breaches of privacy rights experienced by the COT Cases. This is particularly perplexing given that the arbitration process was designed to address these concerns and incorporate the findings from the AFP’s investigation.

Question 81 in the AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, clearly confirms that the AFP informed me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and government communications authority, provided evidence to the AFP indicating that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. It's baffling why the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, especially after being presented with these AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, 

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

When the COT Cases formally requested an immediate and transparent investigation into the ramifications these fax interceptions had on the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process, which was intended to protect citizens' rights in government-endorsed arbitration, their calls went unanswered. This lack of action undermines the trust in these institutions and highlights a disturbing failure to protect the rights of individuals in a system meant to safeguard them.

Debauched, demoralized and broken 

Shadiness, venality, degeneration 

The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 provide crucial insights into their observations regarding my communications with a bus company named O'Meara. In September 1992, I negotiated with O'Meara to arrange transportation for students and single club members travelling from Melbourne to my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. A Telstra file note from that time includes a handwritten annotation in the top right-hand corner, where "Meara" is noted as the bus company I was interacting with. It is essential to highlight that my letter has no formal identification. I simultaneously dealt with four other bus companies during this period regarding the same transportation tender.

The document's significance, dated September 9, 1992, became apparent to the AFP when they later examined a separate fax document from October 29, 1993. This second document was processed ten months after the O'Meara negotiations concluded. The accompanying attachment to the October 29, 1993, Telstra fault record indicates that faxes exchanged between my office and the office of the COT spokesperson—designated as a test station by Telstra due to my reported issues with fax communications—were documented and retained by Telstra after going through a screening process. (Additional details can be found in the attached evidence labelled File 9-C - Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C).

Given these circumstances, the AFP began to speculate about the possibility that the faxes pertaining to the COT Cases arbitration, specifically those exchanged with their advisors and various government ministers, may have been intercepted through this fax screening device. This concern raises critical questions about the security and confidentiality of sensitive communications during a pivotal time in the arbitration process.

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

When these fax and phone interception issues were discussed in the presence of two Telstra executives, Steve Black and Ted Benjamin and two arbitration consultants, Sue Hodgkinson and John Rundell, with the transcripts of this oral arbitration showing Pia from the Legal Counsel overseeing my arbitration, Dr Gordon Hughes advised all parties including me if I submitted evidence to prove these privacy issues were genuine he would address them as part of my arbitration claim. Dr Hughes never commented anywhere in his 42-page findings that I had been subjected to this intrusion by Telstra. 

Dr. Hughes chose not to investigate my claims regarding the interception of arbitration-related faxes, along with those of other COT Cases who raised similar concerns. If he had initiated such an investigation, it would have revealed significant issues that I brought to the attention of the IAMA in 2009. Notably, the IAMA was supposed to pursue these matters but ultimately halted their investigation.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

In April 1994, a young Julian Assange alerted Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the COT Cases, that he and two friends had gained unauthorized access to Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne. They discovered alarming evidence of illegal activities undermining the arbitration process we were involved in. This raises an important question: did the hackers uncover misconduct by the four arbitration professionals, Telstra, or both? Notably, the electronic surveillance that invaded the private and professional lives of the COT Cases continued for three years, while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator ignored the evidence we provided. This scenario highlights Telstra's considerable influence over the AFP during a government-sanctioned arbitration designed to investigate such abuses. 

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:

“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)

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 2024

The hyperlink https://shorturl.at/5EALA and the https://shorturl.at/vFCzd the Kangaroo Court highlights a troubling trend of growing concern among both the Australian government and the media regarding the questionable operational practices used by the prominent "Big Four" accounting firms. The two segments of the Kangaroo Court presented on absentjustice.com serve as crucial reminders that the pressing concerns of corporate misconduct and governmental corruption remain relevant in 2024. These issues echo the struggles of the COT Cases, who faced intimidation and harassment from Telstra during critical arbitration discussions three decades ago. Despite their plight, the arbitrator and administrator failed to provide meaningful support.

It raises a critical question: How can the arbitrator and administrator credibly address unlawful actions by Telstra when they secretly eliminated the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of the arbitration agreements (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct? Two government officials and the claimant’s legal team had thoroughly reviewed and approved these agreements, establishing a clear framework for the arbitration process showcased on absentjustice.com.

Moreover, how could they confront corruption issues involving Telstra while simultaneously allowing the Telecommunications Industry Office's arbitration special counsel to be completely exempt from any liability, as explicitly stated in the original arbitration agreement before any amendments?

Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, I worked with Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to request a copy of Telstra's arbitration file under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This file was crucial as it would reveal who was involved in altering clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 from my arbitration agreement. Additionally, it would provide insight into when AUSTEL received the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. Notably, Home Page File No/82 confirms that Mr. Wynack did not believe Telstra's claim about destroying the file.

--------------------

--------------------

This webpage, "Ballarat tourism absentjustice.com lost business", is a work in progress, last edited October 2024

The three extractions below point 46, 109 and 115, are taken from government records AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that between Points 2 and 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. This 212-point report indicates that in 1993, the Cape Bridgewater fault was reported concerning my ongoing telephone issues. This record reveals that numerous individuals in Ballarat who attempted to contact me over many years acknowledged my complaints and highlighted that addressing these concerns resolved not only my telephone problems but also the persistent issues affecting Ballarat Telstra subscribers for a minimum of two years.

 

 

By the middle of 1993, people had become interested in what they had heard about our battle. Several articles had appeared in my local newspaper, and interstate gossip about the COT group was growing. In June, Julian Cress from Channel Nine's 'Sixty Minutes' documentary television programme faxed me:

Just a note to let you know that I had some trouble getting through to you on the phone last Thursday. Pretty ironic, considering that I was trying to contact you to discuss your phone problems.

The problem occurred at about 11 am. On the 008 number I heard a recorded message advising me that 008 was not available from my phone and your direct line was constantly engaged.

Pretty ironic, all right!

A special feature in the Melbourne Age Newspaper gave my new 'Country Get-A-Ways' program a great write-up. It was marketing weekend holidays for over-40s singles in Victoria and South Australia: an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco, a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries in South Australia, and a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier. I began to feel things were looking up for the Camp.

It was too much to hope for that my telephone saga was ending. A fax arrived on 26 October 1993 from Cathine, a relative of the Age journalist who wrote the feature:

Alan, I have been trying to call you since midday. I have rung seven times to get an engaged signal. It is now 2.45 pm.

In response to my request for feedback between May and October of 1993, I received 36 letters from different individuals and more than 40 other complaints from people who had unsuccessfully tried to respond to my advertisements (File - 9-A AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47). The Hadden & District Community House wrote in April 1993:

Several times I have dialled 055 267 267 number and received no response — dead line. I have also experienced similar problems on your 008 number.

Our youth worker, Gladys Crittenden, experienced similar problems while organising our last year's family camp, over a six month period during 1991/1992.

From April 1990 through December 2001, I prioritised sponsoring underprivileged groups to stay at the holiday camp, even during the weeks when the camp was experiencing phone problems. Various charitable organizations coordinated food deliveries for these groups, and coach companies provided a 46-seater school bus, with my endorsed vehicle covering the necessary provisions when I drove. This sponsorship brought in much-needed revenue for the business and helped spread the word as those who visited shared their positive experiences. It's worth noting that the organizers of these groups were so committed that they would drive for hours to make a booking.

The organisers of these groups would drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins.  I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities. It didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas.  Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.  This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and 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 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 of the transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP state at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47

I also provided the AFP Telstra documents showing that Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence. 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.  

Astonishingly, one letter, dated 17 May 1993, was from a senior Telstra technical engineer, who wrote regarding his own experience of trying to ring me:

"On the 24/2/93 I received a phone call from a technician at Portland who stated he had been given a fault from (1100 fault dept.) indicating a customer in Ballarat had trouble calling your business 055 267 267. I then attempted to ring 055 267 267 myself, the ring was tripped after several bursts, i.e. ‘answered’ and I received a loud noise similar to a radio carrier noise and a very faint ‘Hello’."

At last, a second person inside Telstra acknowledged that I had a problem with the phone service! The engineer had even given me his name. Yet in the course of their defence of my arbitration claims, Telstra proffered a Witness Statement from this man (made in December 1994) that included no reference to this (see Summary of events/Chapter Two to Five)   

On 9 June 1993. A TV news program was also a target for Telstra's executives to muzzle the media regarding the validity of the COT Cases claims and that of three single members from Ballarat who had spoken to Jason Cameron (Channel Nine TV reporter) regarding their failed effort to reach the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp by telephone from Skipton and Scarsdale.  This Telstra internal email dated 16 June 1993 FOI folio A04646 (AS 956) reports:

"Good news re channel nine news. Haven’t checked all outlets but as it didn’t run on the main bulletin last night, we can be pretty certain that the story died the death. I wish I could figure which phase it was that convinced Jason Cameron not to proceed. Might have been one of Jim Holmes' pearls..."

Jim Holmes being the Telstra Corporate Secretary, the reader by now may well be asking themselves, what type of pearl had been cast by Jim Holmes? Were they pearls of wisdom, financial pearls, or a different kind of pearl that convinced a respected journalist to drop a story? 

On 12 July 1993, a newspaper article from the Portland Observer Newspaper headed ‘Network Complaints Taken Up by MPs’ and notes:

“Problems highlighted by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith, with the Telecom network have been picked up on by not only other disgruntled customers but Federal politicians. Having suffered a faulty telephone service for some five years, Mr Smith’s complaints had for some time fallen on deaf ears, but it now seems people are standing up and listening. Federal Member for Wannon, David Hawker, described the number of reports of faulty and inadequate telephone across Australia as alarming. Mr Hawker said that documents recently presented to him showed that the problems people had been experiencing Australia wide had been occurring repeatedly in the Portland region.” (See Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No -17)

The pressure on all four COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our continuing canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling by now, but I continued to hammer for a change in rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.” (See Arbitrator File No/76)

The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal Member of Parliament, corresponded with me from 26 July 1993.

On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP wrote to me again, noting:

“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (Arbitrator File No/77)

One of these letters, dated 23 August 1993, is particularly interesting. It came from a company of Insurance Loss Adjusters in Ballarat, a rural city in Victoria. It was sent to the producer of “Real Life”, a TV current affairs program then broadcast on Channel 7.  The Loss Adjusters wrote:  “Re Problems with Telstra.”

"I have watched with interest the shorts leading up to tonight’s program as I have similar problems to the man at Cape Bridgewater.

Our office is located in Ballarat and due to Telecom structure the majority of our local calls are STD-fee based. (STD calls are charged per time)

On many occasions we have been unable to get through to numbers we have dialled, often receiving the message “this number is not connected” or similar messages which we know to be untrue.

Clients report that they often receive the engaged signal when calling us, and a review of the office reveals that at least one of our lines was free at the relevant time.

We have just received our latest Telecom bill, which in total is up about 25% – 30% on the last bill.  This is odd because our work load in the billing period was down by about 25% and we have one staff member less than the previous billing period.” (AS 1008)

In the first twelve months of 1993, I received another eleven written complaints about Ballarat tourists and single club patrons who, like Loretto College, had problems connecting to my holiday camp. 

 

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. 

After five years, it took almost a tragedy for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital where convalescent is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. 

In August 1993, Rita Espinoza from the Chilean Social Club wrote:

I tried to ring you in order to confirm our stay at your camp site. I found it impossible to get through. I tried to ring later but encountered the same signal on 10 August around 7 – 8.30 pm. I believe you have a problem with the exchange and strongly advise you contact Telstra.

Do you remember the same problem happened in April and May of this year?

I apologise but I have made arrangements with another camp.

Attempting to move on…but wait!

At the camp in Cape Bridgewater, I acquired a logo especially for the over-forties singles club, and his Community Groups, which I was calling “Country Get-A-Ways”, and he hit the road with a vengeance, marketing a range of different weekend holidays. I had organised an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, and a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco, as well as a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries and a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier, both in South Australia. This meant I was able to market the holiday periods in both Victoria and South Australia.

Then it hit home: I got no response from Ballarat and the surrounding areas. I later learned from a Ballarat single club patron who was a member of the Ballarat Parents Without Partners social club that they had given up on receiving a response to their failed telephone calls.

Numerous testimonials from hopeful customers trying to book at my venue from 1988 to this period are well documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994. At points 9, 10 and 11 in their reporting notes:

"During the past five years Mr Smith has received many testimonials from other network users such as community groups, health and welfare agencies, school and individuals which have advise of continuing difficulties contacting the camp. These statements support Mr Smith's claims of service problems of Mr Smith.

An important point in relation to Mr Smith's service is that he is operating a business service in an area which is predominantly that of a residential and/or farming community. Therefore both the nature, volume and origin of calls received by Mr Smith is comparison with those of his neighbours would be markedly different…

Often calls to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp would be from people previously unknown to Mr Smith, who in comparison to other callers to Cape Bridgewater would be less likely to initiate further contact should they have difficulty in contacting the Camp…"

So here it was, mid-1993, and still hardly any phone calls were getting through to Alan at the Camp.  What he couldn’t know was that less than twelve months later, AUSTEL would discover that what Alan had been telling Telstra was the truth, but that AUSTEL would hide most of those truths from the relevant Ministers, from Alan and from the arbitrator.

All Alan knew was that his business was sinking fast and so he stepped up the marketing of the camp and the singles-club weekends; he visited numerous recognised social clubs around the Melbourne metropolitan area and spoke personally to the people in charge and in fact, over the next few weeks, he spoke to the Phoenix Social Club in Camberwell, the Australian Social Centre in Hartwell, Frenze-In-Deed in Mont Albert and Capers in Knox City, as well as visiting numerous other singles organisations in Ballarat and Warrnambool, both large country centres in Victoria.

Further newspaper advertising followed, with ads placed with the Leader Newspaper group in Melbourne.  This local newspaper group covers twenty-three different metropolitan areas around Melbourne. Ads also went into the local newspapers for a number of large regional centres around Victoria and South Australia, including the Geelong Advertiser, the Warrnambool Standard, the Ballarat Courier News, the Horsham Wimmera Times, the Colac Local News, the Mt Gambier-Border Watch and others.  

 

A testing situation

Late in 1993, Mrs Cullen from Daylesford Community House informed me that she had tried unsuccessfully to phone me on 17 August 1993 at 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20 pm, each time reaching a deadline (File 35-A, 35-B and 35-C AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47). She had reported the fault to Telstra’s Fault Centre in Bendigo at 1100, speaking to an operator who identified herself as Tina. Tina then rang my 1800 number but couldn’t get through either. Telstra’s hand-written memo, dated 17/8/93, records the times that Mrs Cullen had tried to get through to my phone and reports Tina’s failed attempt to contact me.

 

So arbitration seemed the only solution.

5 October 1993:  The draft of the COT Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) from AUSTEL’s Robin Davey states, at point 40:-

“Finally, if the attached letter (Attachment ‘D’) dated 7 July 1993 from Freehill, Hollingdale & Page to one of the COT Cases’ solicitors is indicative of the way that Freehill, Hollingdale & Page have approached the COT Cases in the past, I would be more than a little concerned if they were to have a continuing role.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 110)

11 October, 1993:  Telstra internal email H36291 confirms Telstra’s knowledge of the 1800 network billing problems Peter Zeagers to Nigel Beaman:-

“I am receiving a disturbing number of reports of instances where the 1800 prefix ‘does not work’ in the network.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 - See AS-CAV 122-D)

14 October, 1993:  This internal Telstra email FOI folio R03331 discusses how to minimise the problems experienced by the COT claimants. It states:-

“We need to focus Austel’s attention as much as possible on the current rather than the past level of service delivered to Cot Cases. …”

“My view is that Telecom’s response to this issue should reflect the advice from Denise McBurnie, Freehill, Hollingdale & Page, Solicitors.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 111)

19 October, 1993:  This document from Denise McBurnie to Don Pinel titled Legal Professional Privilege/Commercial In Confidence. includes the following:-

“Duesbury & FHP continuing of evaluating claim – final report to Telecom will be privileged and will not be made available to ”

“Telecom preparing report for FHP analysing data available on services (ie. CCAS, Leopard, CABS and file notes) – this report will be privileged and will not be made available to (blank).” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 112)

It is clear from the above letters of 14th and 19th October 1993 that Telstra had no intention of listening to Robin Davey’s concerns about Freehills having a continuing role in the COT case issues.

On 9 December 1993, the Hon David Hawker MP wrote to congratulate me for my “persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.” (See Arbitrator File No/82)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 and copied to me from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor government, who wrote:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress. This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82)

Even though I had been able to show the government prior to arbitration that Telstra was installing poor-quality infrastructure in the Cape Bridgewater network and the government regulator was allowing Telstra to test their own customers' complaints, even those who were to enter arbitration, no one bothered to investigate.

I have brought up the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange faults documents (see below) because, during a meeting with Hon. David Hawker, we discussed the impact of the AXE equipment installed in the telephone exchanges in his electorate, which seemed to be negatively affecting many businesses. I offered to continue supplying FOI documents received from Telstra to Mr Hawker, who would then pass them on to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston. I followed up by sending him (False Witness Statement File No 3-A), which he forwarded to Senator Alston. This document was subsequently raised in the Senate "On Notice" on 24 February 1994

Malfeasance

Ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems

A further Telstra documents, in this illusive briefcase dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland AXE telephone exchange states:

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

It is confirmed from this other Telstra document that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid. This can best be viewed by reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

In my case, as evidenced by the following two links, the arbitrator's failure to compel Telstra to address my ongoing telephone issues enabled Telstra to persist in ignoring the problems. This ultimately led to my reluctant decision to sell my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and residence in December 2001 after enduring seven years of ongoing telephone problems after completing my arbitration on 11 May 1995. Subsequently, the new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, encountered the same phone faults, corroborated by the following two links. By December 2008, their bankruptcy declaration in the Melbourne Magistrates Court resulted in their eviction from the property in August 2009, leaving them broken. Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5, Immoral - hypocritical Conduct.

Upon discovering that the COT Cases had engaged the services of George Close and Associates to assist with their arbitration claims, Telstra took proactive measures. Specifically, they implemented a facsimile interception system at Mr. Close's residence and office. The objective was to intercept the FOI documents Mr Close was instructing his COT Case, clients, to access from Telstra, a critical component for the claimants' chances of success in their claim.

To be continued: