Summary of Events

Government corruption, bribery and misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, are destroying the world economy while the powerful bureaucrats worldwide attempt to fight this fire with the talk of change. This bribery and corruption plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations.

Summary of Events

Portland, located 18 kilometres from my much-loved holiday camp, is a major tourist location at the end of the Great Ocean Road. In many media tourist publications, Cape Bridgewater is Victoria's pristine location with its seal colony, a petrified forest, canoeing on Bridgewater lake and the renowned blowholes.. It is also where local Portland Telstra technicians — under oath during my arbitration in 1994 — fabricated evidence (lied) when questions about the telephone service failures I was subject to. Most have retired by now, but, as, they have family and friends still living in Portland, I am protecting their relatives. I still, however, name these liars Joker One to Joker Seven.

120,000 COT-type customers

On 8 April 1994, Telstra had so much power over AUSTEL (the then governemnt communications regulator (now ACMA) that it forced AUSTEL to drastically reduce the numbers as shown in the official government regulatory COT Case April 1994 Report, from some 120,000 COT-type customers who were having similar CAN and Ericsson AXE problems, right around Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) to 50-plus. 

Telstra was also somehow able to force AUSTEL to submit fabricated SVT reports to the Minister via their third quarterly COT Cases Report of 2 February 1995.

The arbitrator, who by his actions was clearly protecting the government during COT case arbitrations, found that there were no more ongoing problems affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and his award of 11 May 1995 reported only old, historic, anecdotal Telstra-related faults while blatantly ignoring the ongoing faults.

The question remains as to whether  similar major problems for 120,000 COT-type customers around Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) also related to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems which were the concern of AUSTEL as well as problems from CAN and AXE (See  File 8-B (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C). This letter dated 8 April 1994 was from Telstra’s Group General Manager to AUSTEL’s Chairman.

It s clear that AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) was far from truly independent, but rather could be convinced to alter their official findings in their COT Case 13 April 1994 report, just as Telstra requested in many of the points in this first letter.

For example, at Point 4, page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, in a second letter on 9 April 1994,  Telstra writes (Point 2, page 1):

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that, on this occasion on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.

In Austel’s public report (See File 8 — (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), the 120,000 COT-type problems experienced by other Australian citizens are not referred to even as “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.  AUSTEL changed the wording in the public report (to read: "...may be higher than Telecom's original estimate of 50". 

 

In September 1995, after having read an 'Open Letter' from Amanda Davis " File 501 -  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541  who had been the previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, (the then government communications regulator) my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP arranged for some of the COT members to meet with the then-Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, in his office in Canberra late September 1995. Senator Alston was more than concerned about the way my arbitration was conducted. 

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the above type of injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...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 in 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.” 

Evidence ignored by Minister and Chief of Staff 

However, it will be apparent from the following information (see  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two), that the tampering with evidence during my arbitration was ignored in 1996, by the newly elected Minister for Communications The Hon Richard Alston and his Chief of Staff Paul Fletcher, less than two years after this crime had been committed. Evidence Bad Bureaucrats - Tampering of Evidence confirms beyond any doubt that a crime was committed against me during my arbitration. Both the Hon David Hawker MP and I provided Senator Richard Alston at his request two other similar falsified arbitration reports submitted by Telstra under oath to the arbitrator namley: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.

A letter I received from Mr Paul Fletcher, dated 4 September 1996 (see  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One), notes:

“In addition, I have examined the material you sent me.

“On the basis of the information I have received, I do not believe that there is any action in relation to your case that would be appropriate for the Minister to take at this time. The Minister has no power to intervene in the conduct of the COT arbitrations, which are being administered by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.”

On 26 May 2019, Paul Fletcher, became The Hon Paul Fletcher Australia’s Minister for Communications and the Arts (see  Media Release: Fletcher 'deeply honoured' to be appointed Minister for Communications, Cybersafety and the Arts  a portfolio he is professionally equipped to handle.

In 2019 and 2020, via my then Federal Member of Parliament the Hon Dan Tehan MP, the Hon Paul Fletcher refused to reinvestigate these criminal matters that had been before the ministers office since June 1996. Exhibit Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report shows these crimes affected the whole outcome of my arbitration and my ability to run my business on a level playing field with fellow competitors. The Hon Dan Tehan is aware of the validity of my claims, as was his predecessor the Hon David Hawker MP. That neither of them has ever had the ability or power to get the government to investigate Telstra’s corporate thuggery clearly shows how corrupt the Telstra corporation is.