Bad Bureaucrats
Delve into the serious issue of malfeasance in public office, as Absent Justice uncovers the hidden aspects of misconduct and its impact. Explore the legal journey undertaken by the COT Cases to seek justice.
This chapter explores the significant errors that came to light during the five Senate Estimates committee investigations tied to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, particularly focusing on the flawed Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing process. Deficiencies marked this process and, in my experience, proved to be impractical.
From 1994 until at least 2011, Graham Schorer, the outspoken spokesperson for the COT Cases, consistently maintained a compelling belief. He recalled an unsettling interaction when he received a phone call from computer hackers in April 1994. During this conversation, they suggested that Telstra was engaged in unlawful conduct. Among these hackers, one prominent individual—whom we now suspect to be Julian Assange—used the term “report” when they discussed certain documents and emails. They tantalizingly offered to provide copies of these materials, claiming they would substantiate their accusations against Telstra’s unlawful behaviour toward us.
This prompts an important question: Did the BCI Cape Bridgwater tests, referenced by Julian Assange, provide evidence of Telstra’s illicit actions? Neil Jepson, a barrister representing the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, has stated unequivocally that this report was false. He contended that for Telstra to utilize it as part of their defence strategy in arbitration—specifically, by presenting it to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist—was inappropriate. This occurred just before Joblin met with me, inquiring if my concerns regarding ongoing telephone issues stemmed from paranoia.
When we discussed these hackers with Neil Jepson, Julian Assange had not yet emerged as a significant figure in the public eye. Nonetheless, the BCI reports were paramount to the Major Fraud Group’s investigation, which is why Victoria Police sought my assistance in their fraud inquiry into Telstra's activities.
During this period, all members involved in the COT cases were willing to remain patient, convinced that the investigation into the litmus cases would eventually influence the other 16 cases listed on Senate Schedule B. However, as the investigation progressed, none of the 16 COT cases were updated about its status. John Wynack, the director of investigations who was aiding the Senate chair with the litmus cases, was simultaneously examining my FOI issues. He demanded that Telstra provide the documents I had requested initially in my FOI submission dated October 18, 1995.
While the litmus test cases garnered an impressive volume of approximately 150,000 FOI documents through the Senate Estimates Committee investigation, I found myself in a frustrating position: I received not a single document. Wynack's own records from March 11 and 13, 1997, reveal that he did not accept Telstra's claim that they had destroyed the arbitration file essential for my ongoing appeal process.
This troubling situation was precisely the kind of misconduct that Julian Assange attempted to warn us about about the COT cases, yet we failed to heed his advice. Had we taken his warnings seriously, our lives might have avoided the detrimental impacts we have endured.
The remaining COT cases, bearing names on the Senate Schedule B, similarly sought FOI documents from Telstra amid their own arbitration and mediation efforts, just as the litmus test cases had. The Senate was well aware of this situation, so a litmus test framework was instituted. The litmus test cases are enumerated on Senate Schedule A, while Schedule B lists the other 16 cases. If the litmus test cases established that Telstra had improperly withheld essential documents during their arbitration processes, the remaining 16 cases would have been poised to receive an equivalent outcome.
Nevertheless, the treatment of the Australian litmus cases starkly contrasted with that of the 16 other Australian citizens who faced dismissal. The rationale for this disparate treatment is clear: it stemmed from political dynamics and the passage of time. It took nearly two years, involving the concerted efforts of numerous senators, to obtain the necessary documents for the five litmus cases. Some observers believe that the looming privatization of Telstra may have played a significant role in the dismissive attitude toward the remaining 16 cases. This situation represents a grave instance of discrimination against these 16 Australian citizens, highlighting systemic failures that continue to resonate today.
Litmus Tests
The coalition LNP government should have fully acknowledged its profound constitutional and ethical obligation to represent and serve all citizens without prejudice rather than disproportionately favouring those individuals with established government influence. It is paramount for all relevant parties, including the COT Cases, to be treated with the utmost fairness and equity under the law. Regrettably, this fundamental principle was not upheld when the government denied the remaining 16 citizens access to the same comprehensive legal remedies and justice measures afforded to the five litmus test cases.
This failure is particularly alarming given the multiple warnings and advisories received by the government concerning the grave injustices that Julian Assange later brought to light. These warnings unfolded over an extended period from June 1997 to September 1999. The injustices initially highlighted by Assange during his discussions with COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer in 1994 are substantiated by meticulous records found in the Senate Hansard dated June 24 and 25, 1997. These official documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Refer to (1) Senate - Parliament of Australia and:- (2) SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia
The coalition LNP government should have fully acknowledged its profound constitutional and ethical obligation to represent and serve all citizens without prejudice rather than disproportionately favouring those individuals with established government influence. It is paramount for all relevant parties, including the COT Cases, to be treated with the utmost fairness and equity under the law. Regrettably, this fundamental principle was not upheld when the government denied the remaining 16 citizens access to the same comprehensive legal remedies and justice measures afforded to the five litmus test cases.
This situation is particularly concerning in light of the numerous warnings and advisories the government received regarding the grave injustices affecting three computer hackers—presumed to be Julian Assange since there has been no official confirmation from the government. Their communication emerged in April 1994, as the first four COT arbitrations began. During this crucial period, all four parties executed their arbitration agreements: Maureen Gillan signed on April 8, 1994, while Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I followed suit on April 21, 1994.
Over the years, various authoritative sources issued warnings, neglecting to take decisive action. These included the hackers, the Australian Federal Police in 1995, and the Quest Private Detective Agency in Melbourne in January 1996. The Senate and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman raised concerns in 1997, and the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police joined in alerting the public in 1998. The Senate reiterated these warnings in 1999, followed by an essential message from ex-senior principal Telstra Protective Officer Des Direen in August 2006. Finally, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal weighed in as well. This alarming sequence of warnings unfolded over many years.
These documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Furthermore, the LNP government was acutely aware that the litmus test cases were not the only individuals entitled to receive the critical documents pertinent to their legal cases; the other 16 citizens equally deserved such access, which is an essential aspect of justice.
The Senate Hansard records issued within three days distinctly confirm that Telstra Corporation engaged in unlawful practices against all 21 citizens involved. Despite this compelling evidence, the government inexplicably authorized financial compensation solely for the litmus test cases, thereby systematically excluding the other 16 individuals who were also victims of this injustice. The litmus test cases, consequently, benefitted from access to over 150,000 previously withheld discovery documents, which played a crucial role in enabling them to appeal the outcomes of their arbitration processes. In stark contrast, the remaining 16 citizens were left without the necessary documentation, rendering them powerless to pursue legal recourse or appeal.
Moreover, compelling evidence from Senate Evidence File No. 12 indicates that I have faced direct threats on two separate occasions—first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. During these tense moments, I was expressly warned that should I disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face serious charges of contempt against the Senate. This warning is particularly vexing, given that these records contain vital information that could facilitate successful arbitration and mediation appeals for the 16 citizens who were unjustly deprived of legal redress.
This troubling situation raises a critical question: Where is the justice in threatening imprisonment against individuals striving to expose the truth regarding unethical conduct directed at the COT Cases? Such actions appear to starkly contradict the core values and responsibilities that underpin the very purpose of the Senate in Australia. I am concerned about the potential repercussions of publicly disclosing these In-Camera Senate Hansard records from July 6 and 9, 1998. These records were provided to me by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, which believed that the dissemination of this information could catalyze an appeal on behalf of the remaining sixteen COT Cases. Regrettably, these individuals have endured treatment that is not only unjust but also demands unequivocal recognition and corrective action to address the inequities they have faced.
Next Page ⟶
