In my 18 September 1967 correspondence, I said that I had serious concerns about the mental distress experienced by a significant number of crew members of the vessel Hopepeak after we refused to return to Communist China, where we had just delivered 13,600 tons of Australian wheat (refer to British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman. The prospect of being forced to sail to a communist country with another cargo of wheat destined for China and North Vietnam was deeply troubling for all of us. FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
Pages 54 and 55 refer to footnotes 82 - 85 in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: Food and Trade In Late Maoist China, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021
In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said, “I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.” 83 (my emphasis). The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”84
--The reason why China became a big market for Australia partially resulted from the competition with the Americans in the world market because of the P. L. 480 plans. Since the U.S. was still on a full embargo with China in the 1960s, Australia had to grab the opportunity. What upset many ordinary Australians in the wheat deals was that the price of wheat sold to China was low, at least lower than the price paid to Australian growers. In April 1965, a resident in Western Australia wrote to the Parliament, saying that “I was surprised to learn recently that a large sale of wheat had been made to communist China at a price of 13/7 per bushel. I understand that the guaranteed price to the farmer is 1/- per bushel above this price and that the Commonwealth Government (ourselves) needed to find an amount of £4,000,000 to make up the difference...We have apparently reached the stage where we are prepared to supply cheap wheat to strengthen an enemy who has sworn to destroy us.” 89
The following three statements taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly) only tell part of this tragic episode concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on 18 September 1967 as Minister for the Army.
Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569
"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"
If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."
Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."
It is clear from the statement made by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965: "If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam, it is wrong to supply their enemies," Australia knew it should not continue to provide aid to its enemies.
It is a well-known fact that during the Vietnam War, the Australian government ordered its soldiers to risk everything and fight for their country. Unfortunately, this also meant many would not return home alive. Unfortunately, 521 were killed, and 2398 were wounded. Moreover, the country they were fighting against was being supplied with food from their homeland. This raises the question - how many of the soldiers who were wounded or killed in the war might have been saved if Australia had not continued to provide aid to the enemy?
Living with this guilt destroyed my usual happy-go-lucky persona. I became withdrawn and could not sit anywhere, in a cafe, library, or even a ship, unless my back was to the wall or bulkhead. I did not know this until November 1989, when Brother Greg from Monivae College (Hamilton) sat with me face-to-face during a college excursion at my residence at the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, where he talked out the red devil hidden inside me since August 1967.
Page 12 of the transcripts from my interview with the AFP's Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 reveal that the AFP was interested in the confidential discussions I had with Mr Fraser concerning my correspondence on September 18, 1967, after my return from China. Mr Fraser's conduct during our conversations was highly professional. He showed great integrity when he decided to report only what was necessary to the media regarding our discussion about phone bugging. This was after I had informed him about a Telstra file note that had redacted significant portions of the information we had discussed. His actions demonstrated his unwavering commitment to preserving confidential information, a testament to his character.
“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.” (See Senate Evidence File No/53)
China and North Vietnam
Trading with the enemy
My story elucidates a significant concern regarding the government's unethical conduct and lack of compassion during the Vietnam War. The decision to vend wheat to China, despite being cognizant of the fact that some of it was serving to nourish North Vietnam, whose troops were perpetrating heinous acts, not only against the Australian military but also against the troops of our allies, such as New Zealand and the USA, is a flagrant example of immoral trading practices. This trade deal indicates that the bureaucracy of Australia, which is responsible for advising the politicians, may engage in corrupt practices that do not align with the best interests of the people they serve.
It appears that my faxes to and from various COT Cases interested in my China story, especially Ann Garms and Graham Schorer's telephone lines, were intercepted during the period I discussed this terrible trade that had returned to haunt me. We were fighting against the same government bureaucrats - the same public servants who cared little about the lives lost in North Vietnam as long as their government policy could sell as much of Australia's stockpile of grain at any cost. The phrase "at all costs" became a reality once again when it was revealed in the Senate on June 24th and 25th, 1997, that the first five COT cases Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me had to be stopped "at all costs" from proving our arbitration claims.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
On 24 June 1997, see pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia, an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, told a Senate Committee that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested under the 'Freedom of Information' (FOI Act); he advised the Committee that:
Mr White -- "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White --"Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?
Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the induction process—"
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.
During my original meeting with Ian Joblin in September 1994, I raised with him that my stress levels were high, that I had discussed this with Mr Barnard, a fellow psychologist in Melbourne, and my local Portland psychologist who was treating me for my China flashbacks which again had surfaced after being placed under Telstra that all my registered phone complaints had to be in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page who was treating me as if I was the enemy instead of a person trying to run a telephone dependent business which did not have a reliable phone service.
My Joblin was adamant he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that it was not a proper and fit way for Telstra to treat me and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed.
I am wondering if Maurice Wayne Condon removed or changed any reference to Ian Joblin's original writing, where he stated that I was of sound mind but with differing PSD due to the pain and suffering I saw the Chinese people enduring every day. When I informed Mr. Joplin that Telstra had redacted the wording of my conversation with Mr. Fraser, which contained a detailed account of the terrible things I witnessed in China, he was troubled. Mr. Joblin was now somewhat concerned about how Telstra and Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who employed him, had treated me.
On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking:
1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?"
However, one thing must never be forgotten: The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia, bridged a gap that the South Vietnamese have never forgotten as the following government documents show The Fraser legacy - refugees, asylum seekers and ... - ParlInfo show.
On 3 February 1994, before the arbitration process began, I wrote to the Hon. Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A). A subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, shows that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
AUSTEL writes to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE:
On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put several questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimant's arbitration claims Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):
- Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
- 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?
- On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
On 29 October 1993, only a month before Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and I signed our Fast Track Settlement Proposal on 23 November 1993, which eventually became our arbitration agreement, both Graham Schorer's Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service and my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, were still experiencing issues while sending and receiving faxes between our respective offices and our technical consultant. However, the Telstra internal FOI document, folio K01489, → See AFP Evidence File No 9) confirms that Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine with Golden Messenger as the testing base. This document indicates that the issue was not with my machine but with Telstra's network, which indicates the company's lack of responsibility and accountability.
‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’
During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)
A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (AFP) clarifies that Mr Penrose Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) was misled and deceived about the faxing issues the author had to deal with, as discussed in the letter. Upon comparing the four exhibits numbered (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13, it became apparent that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP about the author's faxing issues, the AFP would have been able to prevent Telstra from intercepting the relevant faxed arbitration documents in March 1994. This would have prevented any damage to the author's overall claim.
The fax hacking by Telstra continued throughout the COT arbitrations.
In 2024, I am still denied copies of the tape recordings that Telstra has admitted to taping the first four COT Cases' telephone conversations. In April 1994, I telephoned the Hon Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia, alerting him to the fact these tapes were being denied me even though Telstra files notes received under FOI dated around the period of these telephone taped conversations were taken at the time I had discussed with Mr Fraser my time in China when he was Minister for the Army in September 1967. Mr Fraser could not help with these phone and fax hacking issues.
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper File AS 773-b → AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) 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).”
Faxes were intercepted en route to the Federal treasurer's office - File 10-C Open Letter File No/12
I acknowledge that Senator Kim Carr was given evidence that the COT arbitration-related documents were regularly hacked into between January 1994 and November 1998. Senator Carr was also provided with the first draft of the manuscript, Absent Justice. The senator participated in three Senate debates about the COT arbitrations on September 20, 1995, June 24, 1997, and June 25, 1997. Thus, including the image above as the spearhead to the following text was crucial.
Only the Treasurer's office received the first page of my letter to Mr Peter Costello, Federal Government Treasurer Canberra, dated 1/11/98, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration. What happened to the other pages?
It is clear from Files 646 and 647 (Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024.
It was unethical and unconscionable that the arbitrator assigned to my case, in consultation with the arbitration administrator, assisted the government-owned Telstra Corporation, the defendant in the arbitration proceedings, in defeating my claim. The arbitrator used unethical tactics, such as allowing Telstra and their lawyers to use their drafted arbitration agreement despite its numerous discrepancies while fully aware of these deficiencies. This agreement was used in my arbitration process, whereas a modified arbitration agreement was utilized in all the remaining fifteen arbitration processes that followed mine.
The following letter, written by the arbitrator to the administrator on May 12, 1995, a day after the conclusion of my arbitration (Open Letter File No 55-A), revealed discrepancies in the arbitration agreement, which the arbitrator had located and pointed out in the letter. Furthermore, the arbitrator mentioned other ambiguities that affected the arbitration and intended to discuss them with the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) later. However, I was not informed of the other failures in my arbitration that the arbitrator refused to document on paper. It was highly unethical for an arbitrator to question my arbitration agreement's credibility and use it, especially when the arbitrator and the administrator were already aware that the defendants and their lawyers had drafted a non-credible arbitration agreement.
I strongly suspect that Telstra and its lawyers intentionally drafted the agreement with its shortcomings to favour their defence at the expense of my claim. Had I received this letter within my allotted appeal period, I would have appealed my arbitration accordingly with complete confidence in my case.
If the appeal in question had been granted, which was bound to happen once the letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) was presented to the government, it would have exposed the wrongdoings of the arbitrator and TIO. Both of them permitted Telstra and their lawyers to draft an agreement instead of using an independently drafted agreement as promised to the government for the arbitration process. If this had come to light, both the arbitrator and the TIO, unjustly awarded the 'Order of Australia', would have been stripped of their medals of honour.
The document labelled as TIO Evidence File No 3-A is a confidential internal email of Telstra, dated 10 November 1993. It was authored by Chris Vonwiller and addressed to Telstra's corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell, and other key members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject of the email is Warwick Smith - COT cases.is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other vital members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
“Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.
“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”
Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A proves that the TIO provided privileged information about the COT cases to Telstra, who were soon-to-be defendants in the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP). By doing so, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as an independent process administrator. This vital information gave Telstra an unfair advantage, which they used to draft a legalistic arbitration procedure favouring them. The administrator of the arbitration, Warwick Smith, and the Arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, allowed Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement instead of the independent arbitration agreement that AUSTEL had created. Dr Hughes acknowledged in his letter dated 12 May 1995 that this same Arbitration Agreement was not credible enough to be used in the arbitrations. Despite this, it was still used in the arbitration anyway. This is unacceptable and calls for a thorough investigation into the TIO and Telstra's conduct during this process. The COT claimants deserve justice, and it's time for their voices to be heard.
It is an unacceptable failure of the justice system to disregard crucial reports that could have prevented countless casualties of Telstra's lives and spared their loved ones from the devastating effects of a flawed arbitration process. The official public servants appointed by Senator Richard Alston in September 1995 to investigate the report failed miserably in fulfilling their duties. Notably, Paul Fletcher, one of the public servants, disregarded the report even after The Hon. David Hawker, MP, and The Hon. Senator Ron Boswell had unequivocally described its content as grossly disturbing, thereby confirming that the COT Cases were denied a fair arbitration process. Senator Ron Boswell even made a public speech in the Senate on 20 September 1995, denouncing how the first four COT Cases were denied justice in their arbitration.
My report, prepared at the request of The Hon. David Hawker MP and Senator Richard Alston, also condemned the arbitration process for its deficiencies. It is attached here as Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two. Despite its weighty content, Paul Fletcher ignored it twice, even after he became the Minister for Communications in the Morrison government. This indicates that the justice system failed, and it's time to hold those accountable for their actions.
I want to share an excerpt from the official Senate Hansard records of 20th September 1995. During the discussion, Senator Ron Boswell passionately spoke about the injustices I and three other COT claimants - Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer - faced during our government-endorsed arbitrations. I vividly recall how Senator Ron Boswell's staff reacted towards me and my fellow COT case claimant, Ann Garms after we presented our report excerpts Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two for review. Senator Ron Boswell's statement highlights the need to resolve all COT case claims.
“...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)
The unqualified, non-graded arbitrator, who exhibited arrogance and lacked proper control over the arbitrations he conducted, has been rightfully condemned by John Pinnock, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the second-appointed official responsible for administering the process). His statement to the Australian Senate on 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the arbitrations, including mine, noted. "Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”. Prologue Evidence File No 22-D)
By simply clicking on Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, you will have enough evidence to form your own opinion about whether or not you should read the previous four chapters, from Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter. Even if you only skim through those four chapters and read a few selected paragraphs here and there, it will become evident that going through an arbitration process to settle a dispute in Australia is not a wise decision.
Viewing my Absent Justice Book 2 → Chapter 1 to Chapter 12 will give the reader some understanding of the difficulty I experienced when operating a telephone-dependent business in the 1990s with a grossly ineffective telephone service.
My experience with Telstra is one of injustice, deceit, and persecution. It goes beyond my personal struggles and encompasses the many unlawful happenings against me and other COT cases in different ways. As you read my COT Telstra story, I urge you to understand the gravity of the threats that Telstra carried out against me, the lies told about me by the arbitrator and Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), and the appalling treatment I received from TIO arbitration consultants.
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
Why did it take AUSTEL/ACMA until 23 November 2007 (thirteen years) after the conclusion of my arbitration to validate my claims?
The government had already validated my claims against Telstra six weeks prior to my arbitration, as confirmed in Points 2 to 212 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994. It is concerning that despite this knowledge, AUSTEL/ACMA still allowed me to spend over $300,000 in the arbitration process trying to prove something that had already been established.
Between October 1997 and May 2011, I presented evidence to the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The evidence showed that the arbitrator did not view 41 official arbitration documents during my arbitration process. I arrived at this conclusion by comparing the arbitrator's official schedule of arbitration-related faxes his office received from my office to Telstra's billing accounts for faxes that left my office en route to the arbitrator's fax machine.
Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one apparently investigated whether the other Alan Smith, living in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, had received some of my arbitration mail. I submitted some of Alan Smith's billing information, which I had received under FOI, to explain to the arbitrator that Alan Smith was also receiving threats from Telstra and their lawyers because he, like me, refuted the billing accounts for calls he did not make. The Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange was a mess before, during and after my arbitration.
The billing summons above both bear the same fax imprint of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who represented Telstra in arbitration. They denied any billing issues in my area or across Australia. These lawyers devised the COT Case Strategy and handled my phone complaints before Telstra investigated them.
The following "COT Case Strategy" (discussed below Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) confirms Telstra made threats that if I did not register my phone complaints in writing with their lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, then Telstra would not investigate my phone complaints, which in most cases, then became a billing complaint. Telstra's billing software could not determine if the line had jammed in this case. This meant the phone would lock up the phone service. The billing software could not determine whether this was a fault or whether someone on the line was talking for a long time.
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
The Australian communications regulator, AUSTEL, has admitted that there was a locking fault in the telecommunications network from 1992 until at least 1997. During this time, Telstra, the telecommunications corporation, made significant profits despite these faults. AUSTEL, now known as ACMA, has been presented with evidence of this issue. Following the presentation, AUSTEL's John MacMahon, the General Manager for Consumer Affairs, requested that the presenter work with AUSTEL to resolve these ongoing billing issues in the public interest, and this was done.
However, it was later discovered that Telstra had addressed these same billing matters with AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, five months after the completion of the arbitration, without the presenter’s knowledge. This secret arrangement with the government AUSTEL (ACMA) disallowed the presenter’s legal right to challenge Telstra when, as part of their 16 October 1995 clandestine submission, they used a known false statement prepared by a local technician. As a result, the original arbitrator of the case, Dr Gordon Hughes, was also unable to make a finding on this late secret arbitration defence document → Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?
However, some of the evidence I provided, including the billing evidence of another person named Alan Smith, who also lives in Cape Bridgewater (no relation), was not investigated by the arbitrator's technical consultants, DMR Inc (Canada) and Lane (Australia), even though it supported my claim these billing faults were known to be systemic across Australia providing revenue to Telstra and the government who owned Telstra millions upon millions of dollars in illicit profit.
As mentioned in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, DMR and Lane informed the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, that they had not attempted to diagnose the fault causes of these ongoing billing issues. Unfortunately, they left these billing issues unaddressed and unresolved.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Melbourne - case number V2008/1836
I provided the same unaddressed arbitration systemic billing evidence during an official government Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) between February and October 2008 (case No V2008/1836). The judge (Senior AAT Member Mr G. D. Friedman) and the two government lawyers from ACMA seemed concerned about what this extra billing revenue meant regarding a government-appointed arbitrator not having addressed these matters during my arbitration.
I presented my 158-page Statement of Facts and Contentions, supported by 1,850 exhibits on this website. During the AAT hearing on 3 October 2008, Mr G.D. Friedman, in his closing speech, acknowledged the validity of my claims in the presence of two ACMA lawyers and several witnesses. He explicitly noted my arguments in Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
