Chapter Six

Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur.

Although we have addressed the many threats the COT Cases received during their government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes elsewhere on the website, it was relevant to introduce these threats in the introduction to our COT story because, for reasons never explained by the arbitrator and government, these threats were never transparently investigated. In my case, I visited the Telstra employee's union rooms in Collingwood, Melbourne, asking them to back off. This dispute was not with the rank-and-file union members. It was a dispute with management.

 

The Force of Evil.

Threats carried out 

Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues, as 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 the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

My pleas to the arbitrator to bring Telstra to account for their actions when I had still not received my requested discovery documents. Amazingly, he refused to take calls, as his secretary, Caroline Friend, is aware. Even though the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be brought into arbitration for Telstra to obey the Freedom of Information (FOI Act) and the government solicitors took control of the delivery of my arbitration documents, the delivery of my requested May 1994 FOI Ericsson AXE-related documents never arrived until 23 May 1995 twelve months after my original request. Worse, those newly released documents came two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995 (refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued).

Not even the Australian Federal Police came to my aid, demanding to know why I had been treated so badly after having helped the AFP with their investigations. 

 

 

I refer to the Senate Hansard records from 20 September 1995, which capture a profoundly emotional speech delivered by Senator Ron Boswell. In this compelling address, he passionately highlighted the significant injustices endured by the four claimants involved in the COT case—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me—during what were inaccurately labeled as government-endorsed arbitrations. His words conveyed our pain and frustration and underscored the more significant systemic issues at play. It is essential to draw attention to the remarks made by Senator Boswell regarding the TIO and his annual report, as they shed light on the broader implications of our experiences and the need for accountability.

“...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 (Director of Public Prosecutions), 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 whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

When Senator Len Harris (One Nation) met with me and several other COT claimants eight years after our arbitrations had failed to fix our phone problems, I provided documented information to Senator Len Harris regarding the difficulties I experienced before my arbitration in 1994 during my arbitration and beyond my arbitration.

It was clear from the information I provided Senator Len Harris that others in my region and around Australia still had to contend with, including the business being connected to the Telstra network via a single pair of wires.  Senator Harris is extremely shocked at this information and is preparing a press release for the following day on behalf of the COTs.  It was significantly censored before it was released, showing just how much power Telstra could wield, as part of their strategy, to downplay the COT claimant’s valid claims.

Please note that the  Senator Harris referred to in his media release was Senator Richard Alston (Minister for Communications). The latter and the government concealed from the public and Telstra shareholders how poor the infrastructure was before selling it off.

On 14 November 2002, Senator Len Harris sent his media release, Alston Praying For Continued Drought.  

“In other words, sell the whole shooting bag before it rains and let someone else worry about fixing it. …”

“In light of evidence presented by the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union to a senate inquiry then to the Estens inquiry, other court submissions and a large dose of anecdotal evidence from Telstra employees, there seems no doubt the copper and lead network could implode with the onset of rain.”

“Numerous reports from regional areas that have recently received rainfall, reveal the subscriber fault rate has doubled and tripled due to lack of proper maintenance, faulty materials and understaffing. …

• Faulty materials such as Hi Gel 3M 442, that has corroded copper joints
• Contractors cutting corners with cable installation
• Management giving capital works an economic priority order for replacing faulty cables and equipment i.e. those exchange areas that produce the most profit given priority for repair or replacement. This process could preclude most country areas. …”

“In city and country telephone exchange areas, low gas alarms, sometimes 200 or more a day, are sending technicians in a scurry from exchanges to manholes across the city or country roads and back. …”

“According to the union the CAN or Customer Access Network (customer land lines) accounts for 50 to 60 per cent of Telstra’s fixed costs, ie maintenance bill, but generates the lowest rate of return. …”

“Some industry analysts have placed the capital expenditure to replace the aging lead and faulty copper network in the hundreds of millions to perhaps the billion-dollar range. …”

“Estens, in recommendations 2.7 and 4.2, has clearly identified problems with the pair gain system, that allows multiple calls on a single pair of wires. It provides a good financial return for Telstra but is unfair on customers and repairmen.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 - See GS-CAV 415-A)

This media release, by a Senator, prepared to tell the truth about the whole story, page after page, and not the story the administrators of the COT arbitrations would have preferred to see released because the truth would show they allowed Telstra to:-

• delete relevant information from documents legally requested under FOI by the COT claimants;
• hide their defective network faults in flawed defence documents such as the BCI test results and
• use the manufactured TF200 EXICOM report to support their defence.

These actions have now brought me to where I am today. The following caption shows that the arbitration did not fix my ongoing telephone problems.

In November 2002, the installation of shallow wiring was located by Telstra and the new owners. When Telstra tested the first telephone service for the first time, they did so on 29 September 1994, when their testing process had to be abandoned without any testing. Even the arbitration consultant David Reid (Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd) and Telstra's Peter Gamble refused to test the service on 6 April 1995, even though the arbitrator officially requested them to do that testing as part of the on-site arbitration visit. 

Shallow wiring across Australia 

 

TELSTRA - FILE - NOTES

Telstra’s file notes dated 16 October 2002:  FOI folio 100264, concerns the new owner of my business, Mr Lewis’ was having ongoing phone problems and had contacted his local Member of Parliament

“Customer has contacted MP again re service as he is not receiving calls on message bank or *10#. Customer is aware previous owner of business also had problems with service . Customer said he was told by Telstra that there was a problem in his exchange.” ( AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323  - See AS-CAV 289)

18th October 2002:  Telstra FOI folio 100266 re the Lewis phone problems says:-

“The TIO have now raised a Level 1 complaint on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lewis. The TIO have specifically mentioned in their correspondence that the TIO have previously investigated a number of complaints raised by Alan Smith the previous account holder for this service.” ( AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323  - See AS-CAV 290)

8th November 2002:  This Portland Observer newspaper article is headed: “Holiday camp still plagued by phone and fax problems”, and says:-

“The telecommunications problems which plagued former Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith continued to beset current owner Darren Lewis.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 - See GS-CAV 414)

Although my phone problems began in 1988, it is now believed many of the phone and fax problems that occurred, at least from 1991 on, were caused by moisture and were exacerbated by heavy rainfalls in the area.  Cape Bridgewater faces the Southern Ocean and has always had a moisture problem.  This was not considered nor discussed in any of the technical findings of the arbitrator or his Technical Resource Unit, even though I included this information in his submissions.

The above statements made by Senator Len Harris and Telstra's file notes have in common that they are discussing phone problems that have been ongoing for years.

It will be apparent to the reader if they click on the caption of Senator Len Harris they will learn that Senator Harris was indeed a man concerned about Telstra's ailing network and that the government was selling Telstra when the product they were selling was not Fit For Purpose. 

illegally blanked out

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that, if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation."

"Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?"

"Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?"

"Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?"

"Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?”.

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith 

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.

Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).

 

The matters discussed on this website, absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the  Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

© 2021 Absent Justice