Until the late 1990s, the Australian government retained exclusive ownership of Telecom, the nation’s primary telephone network and communications carrier, a monolithic entity that once held a dominant position in the telecommunications landscape. This organisation, which has since undergone privatisation and rebranded itself as Telstra, historically operated as a monopoly, stifling competition across the entire Australian telecommunications sector. Regrettably, this lack of competitive pressure led to a significant neglect of essential infrastructure maintenance and advancements, culminating in a notable decline in service quality that left countless customers feeling frustrated and dissatisfied.

A particularly alarming scenario emerged when four small business owners found themselves grappling with severe and persistent communication issues that impeded their ability to operate effectively. In their quest for resolution, these entrepreneurs were compelled to engage in arbitration with Telstra, seeking to rectify their pressing grievances. Unfortunately, the arbitration process was marred by substantial flaws. The arbitrator assigned to preside over the proceedings exhibited a troubling bias favouring Telstra, actively downplaying the substantial claims and losses articulated by the distressed business owners, collectively referred to as the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members. Rather than ensuring an equitable and impartial process, the arbitrator effectively allowed Telstra to dictate the terms of engagement, causing the plaintiffs to lose any realistic hope for a fair and just outcome.

Adding to an already untenable situation, Telstra was reportedly involved in serious misconduct throughout the arbitration proceedings. Such troubling behavior raised significant ethical concerns; however, despite the gravity of the allegations, neither the Australian government nor the Australian Federal Police have undertaken any action to hold Telstra or any implicated parties accountable. This alarming inaction provokes a critical and unsettling question: Why does it appear that Telstra operates above the law, seemingly enjoying an unsettling immunity from the repercussions of its actions?

It is essential to expose the concerning aspects of the Australian authorities' failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the serious claims detailed on absentjustice.com. These allegations paint a disturbing picture of corporate malfeasance, featuring elements of coercion, unconscionable conduct, and a profound distortion of justice that unfolded both before and during the government-endorsed COT arbitrations. Such overt corruption not only jeopardises the existence of businesses, whether large or small, but also fundamentally undermines the democratic principles of justice that ought to protect all citizens.

The harrowing accounts of Telstra's victims, meticulously detailed on absentjustice.com, serve as a poignant reminder of the severe and far-reaching consequences resulting from this systemic betrayal. Society must confront the insidious threats to governmental integrity posed by a precarious alliance of bribery, corruption, and political malfeasance, particularly visible through the ramifications stemming from these government-sanctioned arbitrations involving Telstra.

In the shadows, an alarming array of covert practices has been intricately woven into the fabric of the COT arbitrations, orchestrated by an unscrupulous network of intermediaries, including lawyers, accountants, and complicit government agencies. Their detrimental influence has left a devastating legacy, perpetuating persistent communication issues that have critically undermined the operations of affected businesses long after the arbitrations had callously concluded. This pervasive deception breeds a profound sense of mistrust and disillusionment toward the institutions tasked with upholding justice, leaving numerous individuals in turmoil as they grapple with the tumultuous aftermath of such egregious collusion.

In February 1994, I received a troubling communication from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that would irrevocably alter the course of my business. The AFP explicitly directed me to meticulously sift through the telephone complaints lodged by my single-club patrons since 1990, carefully distinguishing them from a multitude of grievances filed by various educational institutions and organisations throughout the 1990s. This was no regular administrative task; instead, it represented a crucial and urgent measure to confront an imminent crisis of alarming magnitude.

Upon submitting my evidence to the arbitrator, I aimed to articulate that 47% of my lost revenues were attributable to a singular club loss. Despite presenting compelling evidence, which included the fact that the AFP had specifically instructed us not to divulge this vital information to Telstra during their protracted fourteen-month investigation, the arbitrator inexplicably refused to accept it. Initially, he assured me that he would consider my evidence once the AFP allowed me to do so; however, he ultimately failed to honour that commitment. This refusal highlights the deeply flawed nature of the arbitration process, which appeared to prioritise the protection of Telstra's already tarnished reputation over delivering a just and equitable resolution.

The AFP unveiled a shocking reality: Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, had been systematically monitoring the activities of single-club members, compiling their names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extensive period. These records, meticulously collected and stored in Telstra's shadowy internal databases, had become pivotal to a troubling investigation that exposed egregious violations of privacy and corporate ethics. The enormity of this revelation sank in as the AFP urged that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) should halt the ongoing Communications Offset Claims (COT) arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO callously dismissed their recommendation, revealing a disturbing complicity among regulatory bodies in the face of these grave issues.

The investigation into Telstra's nefarious practices sought to expose the disturbing reality of how sensitive information about at least six of the COT Cases—including my personal phone communications—was illicitly obtained without our consent. 

While these telecommunications interception issues are tied to multiple COT Cases, I will focus on my case to shed light on the dark injustice we have endured since 1995. The 93 questions I was asked during the second AFP interview, referring to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), would have forced the public disclosure of their findings, a risk the government couldn't afford as Telstra prepared for privatisation. The evidence attached to absentjustice.com was not made available to those preparing the lawyers who were preparing the Telstra prospectus. The ramifications of these illegal activities would have had to have been revealed in the government’s prospectus for the sale of Telstra, a scandalous truth that they were desperate to keep hidden.

Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act (see File 114 → AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“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.” 

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

It is noteworthy that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator operated in collaboration. Dr. Gordon Hughes supplied Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials months before Telstra should have received these documents, according to the terms of my arbitration agreement.

The document from March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212. It is chilling to consider that, had the arbitrator been furnished with this critical evidence, he would likely have awarded me far greater compensation for my substantial business losses. Instead, my claims were weakened because they lacked a proper log over the six-year period that AUSTEL deceptively used to formulate their findings, as outlined in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

Compounding this treachery, government records (Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) illustrate that AUSTEL's damaging findings were handed over to Telstra, the defendants, one month before the arbitration agreement was signed. This calculated manoeuvre ensured that Telstra was armed with information that I, the innocent party, was wholly unaware of until November 23, 2007—a staggering twelve years after my arbitration concluded. This insidious manipulation left me unable to challenge the arbitrator's decision, as I was now trapped beyond the statute of limitations. 

How do you expose that these defendants, during the arbitration process—which was once under government ownership—used sophisticated equipment linked to their network to covertly screen faxed documents leaving your office, storing sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to redirect them to their rightful destination—a route shrouded in secrecy?

Were the defendants using this intercepted material to bolster their defence during arbitration, undermining the claimants' rights? 

In the lead-up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration on April 21, 1994, a significant event took place involving AUSTEL and the COT Cases, the soon-to-be arbitration claimants.  On April 7 and 8, 1994, a two-day lockdown was implemented at the government offices located on Queens Road. During this period, the COT Cases, which consisted of individuals directly affected by ongoing telecommunication problems that impacted their telephone-dependent businesses, were subjected to searches as they entered and exited the premises, not unlike the Soviet Union and USA spy movies, except that this was real and not a movie. 

What could AUSTEL have been so worried about that we had to endure searches as we exited their building? Wasn't it I who, perhaps mistakenly, copied and handed over all the relevant Telstra files left at my business on that fateful day of June 3, 1993? Rather than making a bold move by releasing those files to the media, I chose to act with restraint. Had I taken the more public route, I doubt I would still be penning this account at the age of 81. The ensuing bad publicity would likely have pressured AUSTEL into ensuring I received the compensation I so deserved, compensation that has eluded me for far too long. So, I ask, why were we—myself and the other COT Cases—made to feel like criminals as we left AUSTEL's premises, our grievances still hanging in the air, unacknowledged and unaddressed?  

Numerous bureaucrats have conveyed to the COT Cases that the vital information we provided to AUSTEL was instrumental in equipping the government with knowledge that ultimately benefited all Australians. Given this, it is perplexing why we, the COT Cases, have been treated as if we are criminals. Tragically, the first two individuals involved in the COT Cases have since passed away, while the third, unfortunately, is suffering from dementia and remains unaware of the extensive hardships he has faced. As for my situation, I continue to be unjustly categorised as a vexatious litigant. This label is far from the truth, a fact corroborated by the details presented on absentjustice.com. Furthermore, Senator Ron Boswell's statement to the Senate on September 20, 1995, under the heading "A Matter of Public Interest," highlights the injustices we have endured and underscores the broader significance of our experiences.

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 labelled as government-endorsed arbitrations. His words conveyed our pain and frustration, underscoring 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)

I must take the reader back eleven months from the time of this governemnt lockdown to the date of 3 June 1993. Telstra senior management finally visited my business, a five-hour drive from Melbourne. Within five minutes of saying hello, Mr Smith, I knew I was in for another round of untruths.

I should have known better. It was just another case of 'No fault found.' We spent some considerable time 'dancing around' a summary of my phone problems. Their best advice for me was to continue doing exactly what I had been doing since April 1988, which was keeping a record of all my phone faults. I could have wept. Finally, they left.

A little while later, in my office, I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.

Aladdin

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait until the next business day to track him down. However, what was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER'. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang alarm bells was a document that revealed Telstra knew that the RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement payout. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing me get an RVA' service disconnected' message with the 'latest report' dated 22/7/92 from Station Pier in Melbourne and a 'similar fault reported' on 17/03/92. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months.'

I copied this and some other documents from the file on my fax machine and faxed copies to Graham Schorer, the then COT spokesperson. The next morning, I telephoned the local Telstra office, and the Telstra technician who had been providing my private and business information to a person called Micky, who Telstra admitted to the AFP on 14 April 1994 had been chosen by Telstra to listen to my telephone conversations, came out and picked the briefcase up. 

The information in this document, dated 24 July 1992, proved that senior Telstra management had deceived and misled me during previous negotiations, the 11 December 1992 settlement. It showed that their 'written guarantees' that my phone system was up to network standard were made in full knowledge that it was nowhere near 'up to standard'.

I would like to emphasise that Telstra's area general manager was fully aware, at the time of my settlement on December 11, 1992, that she was providing me with incorrect information. This misinformation influenced my judgment of the situation and put me at a commercial disadvantage when I accepted compensation. Additionally, the General Manager of Commercial for Victoria/Tasmania, Rosanne Pittard, was also aware of this deception, as indicated by her handwritten statement at the bottom of Folio C04008.

I did not receive Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008 under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act during my arbitration until after Telstra submitted their defence. The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, refused to allow this vital evidence to be added as a supplement to my arbitration claim, as referenced in his May 4, 1995, letter (Arbitrator File No/48). These documents, labelled TELECOM SECRET, state the following: Front Page Part Two 2-B.

“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.”

It was this type of evidence that I had freely supplied to AUSTEL between 3 June 1994 and the lockup two-day meeting on 7 and 8 April 1994, although Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008 were not part of the information supplied.

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.