Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the claimant's claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have not held Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable.

Telstra and its legal representatives systematically employed the tactics of ostracism, marginalisation, and inflicting feelings of insignificance to isolate the victim affected by the company’s inadequate telecommunications services. By doing so, they sought to create a narrative that made the individual feel like they were the sole complainant, thus undermining their credibility and concerns. This strategy was not merely about discrediting the complaint, but also about sowing the seeds of self-doubt within the victim's mind. Such psychological manipulation, commonly referred to as gaslighting, serves to blur the lines between reality and perception, compelling the victim to question the validity of their experiences. This psychological tactic is further discussed below, highlighting its damaging effects on an individual's confidence and sense of self-worth.

This Telstra internal email, FOI folio C04094, their corporate power against legitimate complaints against the then government-owned Telstra Corporation:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88

How can one present an accurate and compelling narrative about the events that unfolded during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without including supporting exhibits to substantiate those claims? We find ourselves in this predicament due to the pervasive corruption that seems to seep through the very fabric of the government bureaucracy. How can the author convincingly demonstrate—without the looming threat of legal repercussions—that public servants were complicit in providing private and sensitive information to the then-government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants), all while deliberately concealing the same crucial documents from the claimants and their fellow Australian citizens?

What strategies can articulate a story so astonishing that even the author questions its credibility, only to feel validated upon reviewing their meticulous records before moving forward? How do you expose the deep-rooted collusion among an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and the defendants? How can it be brought to light that the defendants, in this arbitration process—the former government-owned telecommunications carrier—exploited equipment connected to their network to intercept and screen faxed materials sent from our office? They stored these documents without our knowledge or consent and then redirected them to their intended recipients.

The Telstra Corporation, serving as the defendant, likely utilised this intercepted material to fortify their defence in the arbitration, ultimately causing significant harm to the claimants. 

How many other arbitration processes across Australia have fallen victim to such invasive hacking tactics? Is electronic eavesdropping—and this violation of confidentiality—still an ongoing reality during legitimate Australian arbitrations today? In January 1999, the claimants alerted the Australian Government to the alarming reality that confidential, arbitration-related documents were being secretly and illegally screened before they reached Parliament House in Canberra. Will that critical report, which has the potential to illuminate these troubling practices, ever see the light of day and be made available to the Australian public?

Documents Telstra released to us years later made it incontrovertibly clear that Telstra knew its systemic problems and how to solve them in rural areas, where many of the COT cases businesses were located.  

So, today’s younger generations might find it hard to understand that, only 20 years ago, a corporation like Telstra and its government minders were able to cheat so many Australians into believing it was trying to fix its ailing network. However, in reality, it was band-aiding the many known problems in Australia’s network to defer capital expenditure, as privatisation was on the agenda. Let the shareholders foot the bill was Telstra and its minders' answer to the ongoing problems.

For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural companies were not using the Internet, email, or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobile telephones regularly at the start of each working day was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations, and mobile blackspots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business.

Before I delve into my "Casualties of Telstra" story, I feel it is essential to provide some context. As a seafarer with 28 years of experience navigating the oceans with diverse nationalities, I have forged strong bonds with many sailors from around the globe. Throughout my journeys, I have been fortunate to work alongside individuals from Asia, Africa, the West Indies, and South America. I can proudly say that they have never engaged in derogatory remarks about other nationalities. This camaraderie extends to seafarers from all the continents I've mentioned, including those from the Americas and Canada.

The Canadians I’ve sailed with stand out for their sense of integrity. While around 99 per cent of my closest friends are Australians, I deeply respect Canadians, who consistently uphold the ideals of fairness and lawfulness. My time aboard Canadian tugs, particularly the Ingram, during significant events like the Bass Strait fires of the mid-1960s highlighted their dedication and professionalism.

Now, turning to a troubling situation involving Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), which the Australian government commissioned to investigate widespread telephone issues across the country. BCI set out to conduct tests based on information about various telephone exchanges, believing they were testing the correct infrastructures. Unfortunately, it was later revealed that the exchanges they were led to believe they were testing were not the actual locations where the tests took place.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

The Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of test results provided by Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills in Melbourne). These contentious test results from Bell Canada International Inc. were submitted for review to Mr. Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was set to travel to Portland for an assessment of my mental health amid ongoing arbitration proceedings.

DMR Group Inc. Canada was brought into the arbitration process in March 1995 by the arbitration administrators, ten months after it was learned the original arbitration consultants had admitted they had a gigantic conflict of interest, regardless of their having signed the arbitration confidentiality papers in April 1994. At the time, Telstra had 47 of the most prestigious legal firms in Australia and just about all of the recognised telecommunications in Victoria on retainer. I had to source a technical consultant, George Close & Associates, who lived in Buderim in Queensland, 1000 kilometres away.

In the 1980s and 1990s, taking a stand against Telstra was an unthinkable move for any reputable professional. The sheer power that Telstra wielded in the telecommunications sector meant that defying them could lead to immediate and devastating consequences, such as the abrupt termination of contracts that businesses had relied on for years. As you immerse yourself in the following story, you will discover that Telstra's approach was not just about issuing threats; they were unflinching in their resolve and acted on those threats with alarming certainty. 

After conducting an exhaustive review of the compelling evidence surrounding DMR Group Inc. (Canada), I have arrived at a deeply troubling realisation. Paul Howell, a highly regarded Principal Technical Arbitration Consultant, was dispatched from Canada with a specific mandate: to investigate the serious technical grievances I raised against Telstra between 1994 and 1995. My complaints stemmed from alarming and deceptive practices that Telstra engaged in, particularly their troubling reliance on falsified testing results provided by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Cape Bridgewater Telstra facility. These misleading results led the arbitrator down a misguided path, resulting in a conclusion contradicting my lived experiences, leading him to dismiss my claims of ongoing telephone faults.

What amplifies the distressing nature of this situation is the unsettling realisation that the government communications authority was aware of Telstra's flawed testing methodologies. These methods were manifestly inadequate for identifying the recurring systemic issues I had consistently reported. This troubling information is painstakingly documented in their report dated March 1994, where specific points—particularly AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at 210, 211, and 212—stand out for their glaring exposure of a profound disregard for the validity of the tests.

Deepening this narrative of frustration is the painful understanding that neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications possesses any obligation to take action in investigating or resolving the persistent telephone faults that have plagued my service for years. Point 2.23 of their report starkly highlights the unsettling reality that the failure to investigate these ongoing issues has left them unresolved and exposed. The arbitration report, dated April 30, paints a grim and unflattering portrait of the process, suggesting that Howell's journey from Canada was merely a procedural formality that endorsed a deeply flawed report. This report not only contributed to the downfall of my business but also wreaked havoc on my personal and professional life. This disturbing scenario raises profound and unsettling questions about the ethical integrity and accountability within the Canadian telecommunications industry.

In the wake of my first heart attack, I returned home after several days in the hospital to recuperate. Upon my return, I received a phone call from Paul Howell, who expressed his sincere wishes for my speedy recovery. He candidly remarked that it was the worst arbitration process he had ever been involved in, noting that no arbitration would have permitted such an appalling approach had it occurred in North America. Disturbed by his account, I sent a statutory declaration to the then Minister of Communications, Michael Lee MP, detailing what Mr. Howell had disclosed. Once again, a Canadian national had courageously shone a light on the troubling events that had transpired.

Gaslighting

Psychological manipulation 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.

In the case of Telstra (who was government-owned during the COT arbitrations), in my arbitration alone, Telstra's arbitration defence unit used nine separate witness statements, all signed by nine different Telstra senior employees where everyone swore under oath my business was not suffering with ongoing telephone faults during my arbitration when secret government records AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994 confirm my complaints were ongoing for the whole six-year period of my arbitration claim as points 2 to 212 show:

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

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

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

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

Who was the arbitrator going to believe, me or the nine witness statements, all sworn out under oath stating that there were no ongoing problems? 

These nine sworn testaments worked, and why wouldn't they work one statement from me against nine? Of course, the arbitrator made no written finding concerning my ongoing problems in his award. 

Intimidating threats issued by Telstra

Do not disclose this sensitive information to Telstra.

During my first visit to the holiday camp in February 1994, AFP Senior Constable Melanie Cochrane gave me crucial advice. She recommended that from then on, I should refrain from supplying the arbitration process with any documented names, addresses, or telecommunications details of my single club patrons. This was to be done unless the arbitrator provided official written confirmation that my correspondence would be sent to Telstra after the AFP had concluded their investigation into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunication services. The AFP was still examining how Telstra had obtained sensitive private and business information related to this aspect of my operations.

My members from the single club—a significant revenue source for my holiday camp—have communicated their concerns regarding the reliability of my security protocols, primarily related to the faxes being sent and received. This concern has been heightened by recent media reports indicating the potential bugging of my business phone lines. Below are two of those media reports for your reference

While the intimidating threats issued by Telstra and the unsettling fact that these actions took place under the watchful eyes of the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman during the COT arbitrations have been extensively examined and brought to light throughout this website, what indeed weighs heavily on my mind—and the minds of many others involved in COT Cases—is the grim reality of serious threats that were never thoroughly investigated. This alarming neglect has left us grappling with the disheartening truth that a democratically elected government has, disturbingly, allowed these grave threats to go unaddressed. As a result, those who became targets of such intimidation have experienced profound and lasting impacts on their lives, leading to an enduring sense of injustice and despair that permeates our daily existence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats made and carried out.

Telstra at its worst  

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 discovered that Mr. Rumble had 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 permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and gave Telstra an unfair advantage in responding 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 investigating 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 defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.

Did Mr. Rumble inadvertently stumble upon sensitive information concerning my phone and interception issues documented in my interim claim, which I had previously provided to the AFP as they had requested? The Australian Federal Police (AFP) had exclusive jurisdiction over this information, and Mr. Rumble was not authorized to access it until my claim was officially certified. Essentially, when Dr. Gordon Hughes prematurely released this confidential material to Paul Rumble a full five months before he was legally obligated to do so under the Fast Track Arbitration Agreement, he not only violated the terms of that agreement but also significantly obstructed the investigations being conducted by the AFP during that crucial five-month period. Given these circumstances, why has the Australian government overlooked my legitimate claims against Dr. Hughes?

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).”

On 15 April 1994, 27 years later, the Herald Sun, an Australian newspaper, reported:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” (Senate Evidence File No/53)

George Close - COT Case Technical Consultant

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records that the fax was sent from Mr Close’s residential fax number at 17:54. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) contains the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the fax header does not include the correct business identification of the respective COT business, it indicates that a secondary fax machine intercepted those faxes and then redirected to the intended destination. This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House, Canberra, raising several important questions. It is worth considering whether government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra’s Fax Streaming centre, and if so, what could happen to the documents that go through that system without the government’s knowledge. This prompts the question of whether privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra's Fax Streaming process, meaning that private information may not be as secret as assumed.

Just so you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), their poor quality does not diminish the fact that, when viewed together, they still prove our claims.

Exhibit 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page (see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC—17:34). In simple terms, those with access to Telstra’s network were able to use ‘keywords’, so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close’s residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

When George Close, the arbitration technical advisor to the COT Cases, visited my home in Cape Bridgewater, he highlighted the role of his residence in Buderim, Queensland, and his office as key locations for providing valuable guidance to the COT Cases. This advice focused on the essential documents they needed to obtain from Telstra under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which were crucial for supporting their arbitration claims.

During our meeting, I shared several vital documents with him, including Open Letter File No/12, File No/13, Front Page Part One File No/1, Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E, Front Page Part One File No/4 and  Front Page Part One File No/5. We engaged in a constructive discussion about the impact of intercepted or hacked faxes on the overall submissions made by the COT Cases to the arbitrator. Mr. Close’s reflections showed his commitment to better understanding the situation. He recognised the significance of the guidance he gave the COT Cases from his residence and office and its implications for the COT Cases. He understood the crucial role that his residence and office played in the COT Cases and the broader impact of that involvement. With a heavy heart, he recognized that it was precisely these locations that Telstra had exploited to conduct their surveillance on the COT Cases. My Close could not hide his hurt that his office and residence had inflicted so much damage and heartache on our families Front Page Part One File No/26).

Following our conversation on August 5, 2011, Mr Close emailed me to help disclose what the Telstra Corporation had been prepared to do at any costs, noting:

“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.

“He had been shown fax’s  which had clear indication of change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.

“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.

“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred the offender(s) would be jailed.

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives.

Unsolved crimes committed against the Casualties of Telstra   

It is therefore essential I raise the AFP transcripts of 10 February 1994, where it is shown Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose and Detective Sergeant Cochrane, Grahm Schorer (COT spokesperson) and Amanda Davis, Ex-government official, discussed a briefcase that Telstra had inadvertently left at my business which had the names of several people in it who like Mr Schorer and myself had our telephone conversations listened to and tapped. Pages 37, 38 and 39 in the transcripts of that AFP interview AFP evidence file GS 18 show that Mr Schorer advised the AFP that ex-Telstra employee Mr Marr provided this telephone interception (phone monitoring evidence) to Senator Bob Collins.

When the COT Cases tried to access these tapes from Senator Bob Collins during the arbitration process, they were never released under FOI or through the arbitration discovery process, even though they were needed to support our various arbitration claims against Telstra that our telephone conversations had been intercepted and tapped without our knowledge and consent. 

When government public servants thought it better to conceal relevant COT Case phone tapping evidence in cases of other evidence being mistakenly provided that shows the Senator was a paedophile during the period he was actively involved in the COT matters, they thought only of protecting the government and to hell with its citizens.

On March 25, 1994, I, Ms. Philippa Smith, Commonwealth Ombudsman, wrote to Telstra's CEO, Frank Blount, clearly stating that Telstra had meticulously scrutinised FOI documents requested by COT Cases Ann Garms and Alan Smith. This was in response to my disclosure of sensitive information to the media. 

It is important to note that Telstra failed to disclose to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that I released sensitive documents to the Australian Federal Police to aid their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interceptions of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxed documents.  Ms Philippa then stated that Telstra informed Mr Wynack, Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, that Telstra expected the vetting of the documents to take only a couple of days. (See 2-B - page 3  Home Page – Part One File No/2-B).

The correspondence from Ms. Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, validates that Telstra examined sensitive freedom of information documents before they were disseminated to the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, as elaborated below, the correspondence neglects to elucidate Telstra's course of action regarding the sensitive information in instances detrimental to Telstra and government officials, such as Senator Bob Collins.

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France.

It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)

Ann Garms' letter clearly states that the cover-up surrounding her arbitration issues led to her losing her home and superannuation. This situation directly resulted from the risks associated with exposing the paedophile activities of former Minister for Communications, Senator Bob Collins, in his Parliament House office during the investigation of the COT Cases.

During our separate arbitrations, Senator Collins' illicit activities significantly obstructed the COT claimants' access to freedom of information documents from his office. It is a well-established fact that these documents were deliberately withheld from us COT Cases due to the potential release of non-related papers associated with the raping of aboriginal (one nation) children by Senator Collins in his parliamentary office. 

Allowing the COT Cases to sign their arbitration and mediation processes while the AFP was investigating one of the major players involved in those arbitrations who had been raping children in Parliament House while he was investigating the COT Cases issues as part of his folio in Parliament House Canberra when the COT Cases had also raised phone and fax interception with this same Senator. It has now been proven in the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 that COT-related arbitration faxes were being intercepted en route to at least one Senator's parliament house office during the COT arbitrations, which is alarming.

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 7 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)

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) raised several questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1.     "Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?

2.    Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?

3.    On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?

4.    (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?"

Criminal Conduct 1

Leading up to my arbitration 

Forty-one faxed arbitration-related documents did not arrive at their intended destination. 

On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994. We asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes, and all parties agreed.

I am sure Detective Superintendent Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the AFP would recall that on September 26, 1994, I presented five pages of evidence indicating that eighty-one incoming calls registered in Telstra's Portland telephone exchange appeared in the Call Line Identification system CCAS data. Still, the testing equipment data installed at Cape Bridgewater showed they were not connected to my service lines. This occurred over two months. Then, the AFP acknowledged that a massage parlour owner was losing calls to a rival massage parlour in another COT Case. This comparison did not surprise the AFP.

I still have records of these eighty-one lost calls, which I also provided to Darren Kearney, a government representative who visited my business on December 19, 1995. Thus, business sabotage by a minority group within Telstra was not new to the COT Cases. Although the arbitrator was presented with this information, he failed to provide a written finding, either for or against.

Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra's technicians were testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they made the following statement:

‘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)

To be clear so that the reader understands, a dated chronology of my 008/1800 billing issues was submitted to the arbitrator as a chronology of events. Why didn't the arbitrator look for it or call for a second copy when I provided evidence that my claim advisers had sent it? Were these 008/800 claim documents lost in Telstra's fax screening process en route to Dr Hughes's office (see the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), or did they arrive at Dr Hughes' Melbourne office before being diverted to the Sydney office, where that office failed to send the information back? 

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.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within twelve months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues between Chapters 1 and 12.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations. 

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity. 

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated. 

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a

Chapter 12

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.