An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

Last edited March 2021.

Introduction

This section of our story An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens explains exactly how, just two decades ago, a supposedly democratic Australian Government allowed five of its own citizens to have access to important, previously-concealed, arbitration documents, but refused to allow the same rights to another sixteen members of the same group as the original five, even though those sixteen had already been included in a Senate schedule that would allow them to have their document issues assessed in the same way as the first, so-called ‘litmus five’, COT cases. This deliberate discrimination against the remaining sixteen members, which was put in place by the John Howard Government, may well turn out to be the worst case of deliberate discrimination against a small group of Australian citizens for a very long time, in fact, possibly since Federation, back in 1901.

In 1994, the Australian Government promised that all of our ongoing phone and faxing problems would be fixed as part of our government endorsed arbitration and mediation processes – a promise they never delivered.  Even when the government were informed of these injustices against the 21-type COT Cases, they only assisted five of those cases (as this injustice page shows) The other 16 cases, as we have shown below were left without the documents they were promised they would receive if they signed their TIO administered arbitration/mediation processes. As shown on Absent Justice Part John Pinnock (the administrator to our arbitrations) advised a Senate Committee on page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

The fact that Mr Pinnock’s statements covered the promises given to all of the COT Cases concerning their promised arbitration document and not just the five ‘litmus test cases’ being investigated by the Senate Committee concerned many people aware of the plight of the COT Cases. In late 1998, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the then Major Fraud Group seconded my as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the five litmus tests cases referred to here on this An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens page. Mr Jepson discussed when he and I were seconded to give evidence in the Supreme Court of Victoria by Sue Owens in 2002.

It is important to link the Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) because Fraud Group Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce AkehurstTelstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra. The Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group’s own investigations into claims the five litmus test cases registered concerning Telstra committing fraud. Page 11 of transcript (2) shows Sue Owens stating I am “extremely intelligent” and that police also thought the same concerning my own reporting in Telstra’s Falsified – SVT Report,  and Tampering With Evidence – TF200).

Was this fraud committed to preventing my claims of ongoing telephone problems from being investigated by the arbitrator? The arbitrator’s award (his findings) makes no mention of my complaints of ongoing phone problems.

As noted throughout this webpage, promises were made to the original four COT cases before we signed our arbitration agreements: the government communications regulatory report, titled AUSTEL COT Cases April 1994, states that a set of Service Verification Tests (SVTs) had to be conducted, in accordance with the government’s regulatory mandatory specifications, at each COT case’s premises before the arbitrator/ assessor could hand down findings. Numerous exhibits available on Absentjustice.com (see also Telstra’s-Falsified SVT Report) show Telstra did not conduct the mandatory SVT process at my business, yet told the arbitrator, in sworn witnesses statements, that the tests proved my business was not suffering from phone problems.

Absentjustice.com shows throughout that these unaddressed phone problems continued unabated until at least November 2006, 11 years after my arbitration was finalised.

The government ignoring Telstra’s fraudulent conduct is the Ultimate Betrayal.

This Major Fraud Group investigation discussed here on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens, who, like me, were discriminated against by the government – because to have properly investigated our matters would have impeded the sale of Telstra.

If the Telstra network condition was as, as the privatisation sale prospectus states it was, then why did Telstra use three known fraudulently manufactured reports as defence documents during my arbitration?

Chapter One

Major Fraud Group – Victoria police

Now I need to jump ahead of myself here to 1998 through to 2001, five years after the conclusion of my arbitration. During 1998/99, the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police asked me to supply any evidence I had of Telstra committing fraud to support its defence during my 1994/95 arbitration. It was common knowledge in government circles that Telstra, indeed, used fraud in defence documents, as well as submitted false information to the Senate in September and October 1997, concerning this same fraud. As I did during my 1994 arbitration, when I assisted the Australia Federal Police during its investigation into Telstra’s unethical conduct towards me (see Senate Evidence File No 31), I agreed to assist the Victoria Police in their 1998 investigations into similar acts of misconduct towards fellow Australian citizens.

I ask you to consider two witness statements, dated 8 and 10 August 2006, referring to the 1999 and 2001 Major Fraud Group investigations: one statement was prepared by a government public servant/ex-police officer and the other by an ex very-senior Telstra protective officer (later promoted to the principal investigator). Both statements are discussed on our Absentjustice Preface page AFP Evidence File No 13. Members of the current government were provided with copies of these witness statements, without redactions. Sadly, the information in these two witness statements, to date, has not been acted upon.

The Telstra ex-senior protective service officer’s witness statement discusses a then still senior detective sergeant of the then Major Fraud Group, Victoria Police. The ex-police officer’s witness statement also describes the anguish experienced by the senior detective sergeant while he was investigating alleged fraud within Telstra during the COT arbitrations and the fears he had after being subjected to intimidation. Consider this: if this feeling of being got at by the Telstra Corporation can reduce a fully trained senior police officer to the condition Telstra’s ex-senior protective service officer alleged, just think how this continued and unaddressed harassment, by Telstra officials, left the COT cases during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations. NONE of us was ever offered to counsel or apologised to by the government, who still owned Telstra when this harassment commenced in 1992 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) and continued well past the Major Fraud Group investigations of 1998 and 2001.

After the Federal Government put the Major Fraud Group under political pressure to abandon the four COT claims of fraud against Telstra, I met two senior Victorian police officers who apologised for what they realised was truly an ordeal for me: not only my failed arbitration but also the failed Victoria Police investigation. I was provided with a small A4 storage-box, taped shut. They advised me my four larger boxes of evidence would be couriered to my designated location. I asked if this small package could be included, as I preferred not to carry it away. The look in the eyes of the police officer in charge was stern and direct, and when he stated, “NO, you take this box with you now,” I didn’t argue!

It turned out that this box contained some startling documents I had not seen before, documents that would shock most Senators today, but which clearly indicated that their predecessors had allowed only five of the twenty-one legitimate COT claimants to have access to discovery documents and had also organised compensation for those five, compensation that ran into the millions upon millions of dollars in hush money, and all of that was accomplished so that the Telstra Corporation could be privatized.  Now, if I am wrong, and that is not the case, then why were the remaining sixteen COT claimants all denied access to any of the privileges that the five ‘litmus test cases’ had been granted, and why did a letter from the Senate Estimates Committee Chair advises the police that two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, must not be provided to anyone outside of the Major Fraud Group and, if someone did reveal them then that person risked being sentenced to jail?  Interestingly, the 9 July 1998 Hansard clearly states that to only award compensation to the ‘litmus test cases’ that were being investigated by the Senate Committee Working Party, and not to the other sixteen claimants, would be an injustice?

It might be hard to believe but, back in August 2001, and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing, to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process? Where is the justice in that? Being charged with contempt of the Senate can result in a two-year jail term and, of course, the Government has always known that but, if I had been in a position to safely go ahead and make these documents public, they would have been a huge help, probably resulting in me winning my appeal against Telstra for gross misconduct.  So how can the Senate continue to hide this conduct and, in the process, destroy so many lives? How is this democratic?

To understand how and why this occurred, we need to go back to 1997, when the John Howard Coalition Government was in the throes of executing the first of its three steps towards the final privatisation of Telstra. Then, towards the middle of October 1998, the COT ‘litmus test’ cases were, eventually and slowly, beginning to receive some of the previously withheld documents they had legally requested. It then became apparent that the Howard Government was selling the Telstra Corporation, i.e. a government asset, which was in a much worse state than the Government Communications Regulator had claimed it was in (see Manipulating the Regulator and Cape Bridgewater Evidence File). After some 150,000 previously withheld documents were finally delivered to the ‘litmus test’ cases (see An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens) the picture that began to emerge clearly identified exactly how bad the Telstra copper-wire network was, certainly in many rural locations. It then seemed that this was the real reason for the Government’s decision to stop the remaining sixteen COT claimants from receiving the same privileges as those awarded to the ‘litmus test’ cases, which eventually took more than two years to assess. Could the Government afford to have the truth of Telstra’s dilapidated network exposed just as they were about to privatise the corporation? I think not.

I am convinced that when the Major Fraud Group provided me with copies of these Hansard records, they believed that those records would be instrumental in eventually creating justice for the remaining sixteen COT Cases. Our webpage An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens shows however that this was never the case.

After I provided another report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over two separate visits to Melbourne spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group’s St. Kilda Road offices. This is important to the litmus tests cases issue because the Major Fraud Group was stunned at the evidence and how I was able to prove Telstra definitely perverted the course of justice, on two occasions, by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case.

It was sometime later (after the Major Fraud Group abandoned the four COT litmus cases’ claims against Telstra) that I was again seconded to Melbourne by Neil Jepson. Mr Jepson was clearly distressed – not only because the case against Telstra had folded through political pressure by the then Liberal National Party – but also because my evidence against Telstra was ignored by the Senate, despite Telstra knowingly providing this Bell Canada International Cape Bridgewater false testing information to the arbitrator as well as the Senate.

On October 1997, when Telstra provided the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, on notice, Telstra already knew it was false but still no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that, even though their actions were in contempt of the Senate.

On 12 January 1998, (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided yo the Senate) during the same Senate estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver (Telstra’s 2020 Corporate Secretary with a number of documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:

“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report is fabricated or falsified.”

On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the chair of the Senate legislation committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in October 1997, was false (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence). Knowingly providing false information to the senate is in contempt of the Senate. No one yet within Telstra has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters I now raise on absentjustice.com concerning my ongoing telephone problems, in 1997

This evidence which I formulated into my own prepared Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report which is also discussed on our Absentjustice.com/Frontpage was one of the documents along with the Tampering With Evidence – TF200 that Neil Jepson thought could assist me in winning my arbitration appeal. It is also clear from the statements made (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) by Sue Owens Barrister who was assisting Mr Neil Jepson in the Major Fraud Group investigations that my evidence had been compiled most professionally.

The (2020) Telstra corporate secretary, Sue Laver, is fully aware that, when Telstra provided the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc. report the Senate requested (On Notice) on 26 September 1997, they knowingly provided further false information to the Senate to cover-up the original falsified Cape Bridgewater BCI testing results. Instead of admitting to the Senate that a fraud had taken place during my arbitration – when Telstra relied upon this false information – Telstra dug further into their crime by misleading the Senate, as it had the arbitrator appointed to my arbitration three years previous. Now, instead of one crime, two crimes had been committed. During this Senate hearing, Ms Laver received written confirmation (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence), showing that Telstra indeed provided false Cape Bridgewater/BCI information to the Senate. So, how is it that Telstra has never been held to account for misleading and deceiving the Senate, or the arbitrator assigned to my arbitration, in relation to this matter? Not back then, and not at any time since.

Chapter Two

Australian Senate

In this chapter, we aim to show that, during the five litmus Senate estimates committee FOI investigations, errors were disclosed – such as the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) testing process, which was shown to be deficient and, in my case, impracticable. At that time, all participating COT members were content to wait, believing the investigation of the litmus cases would flow onto the remaining 16 on the Senate schedule B list and none of the 16 COT cases was notified of the progress as the investigation proceeded. John Wynack, director of investigations assisting the Senate chair and the litmus cases, was also investigating my FOI issues and demanding Telstra provide the requested documents I originally sought in my 18 October 1995 FOI request.

Although the COT litmus-test cases received some 150,000 FOI documents, through the Senate estimates committee investigation (see Senate Evidence File No/11), I did not receive one single document as John Wynack’s records show. Mr Wynack’s letters, of 11 and 13 March 1997, show he did not accept Telstra stating it destroyed the arbitration file I sought to use in my pending appeal process.

All of the remaining other COT cases, whose names appear on the Senate schedule list B, also sought FOI documents from Telstra during their respective arbitration and mediation process, as did the litmus tests cases, all this was known by the Senate estimates committee and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This was the reason a litmus-test situation was set up. The Senate schedule A list named the litmus tests cases and the Schedule B listed the remaining 16 cases. If the litmus test cases proved their case, that Telstra had withheld relevant documents during their arbitrations and was still doing so, then the remaining 16 cases would automatically receive a similar outcome.

But, the Australian litmus cases were treated differently to the remaining 16 Australians citizens, who were dismissed. Why? The answer is simple: politics and time. It took almost two years, using numerous senators’ valuable time, just to obtain the documents for the five litmus cases. Some consider the pending Telstra privatisation may also have played a part in why the 16 were dismissed the way they were. This is possibly the worst multiple discrimination against 16 Australians citizens.

Litmus Tests

What the coalition LNP government perpetrated against 16 citizens of Australia, from 1997 to 1999, after what was exposed in Senate Hansard records, dated 24 and 25 June 1997, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16. These Hansards, only a day apart, confirm the Telstra Corporation acted illegally against all 21 citizens, yet the government only sanctioned Telstra to pay compensation to the litmus cases, and not the remaining 16. The litmus cases (as stated above) also received 150,000, or more, previously withheld discovery documents (see Senate Evidence File No/11), which allowed them to appeal their arbitration process. But the remaining 16, who didn’t receive their withheld documents, we’re unable to appeal.

In fact, after one National Party senator verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” regarding the Telstra officers involved in the COT arbitrations, he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party senator also made it clear to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra was to award compensation only to the litmus COT cases, then this act “would be an injustice to the 16”.

The FOI Act allows the respondent 30 days to supply the requested information, yet the senior Telstra official, at the brunt of these senator’s attack, wrote to me, on 23 May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration appeal period expired. Accompanying his letter were numerous documents, hundreds, which I originally requested in May 1994, one month after I signed my arbitration.

This same official, while on the TIO council, provided in-confidence COT-related advice to another senior Telstra executive. The document in question shows he obtained the information while wearing his TIO hat. He also, prior to this severe reprimand by the Senate on 9 July 1998, advised another Senate estimates committee hearing, on 26 September 1997, that at no time during these TIO monthly meetings did he declare his conflict of interest. When the Senate asked TIO John Pinnock if COT arbitration issues were discussed at these TIO council meetings, he answered YES.

Correspondence to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, from various technical experts, appointed via the Senate working party to assess the relevance of FOI documents that the litmus COT claimants asked Telstra to provide, includes a letter from Qyncom IT & T Business Consultants Pty Ltd (Victoria) to Mr John Wynack, as chair of the working party (see Senate Evidence File No 13A & 13B). This 14-page letter, and many others to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, show the litmus COT claimants received free of charge, qualified technical assistance from government-appointed independent technical consultants. The other 16 claimants were denied these same privileges. If this is not discrimination of the worse possible kind, then what is?

Senate Schedule A and B list

Was there a second, or even a third, reason why the remaining 16 COT cases were denied the same type of compensation paid to the litmus-test cases? What other questions might the larger group of 21 claimants expose in the sale prospectus? Addressing a few still-unaddressed four-year-old arbitration claims, prior to the prospectus being prepared, would look better than 21 still-unaddressed four-year-old arbitration claims. Especially considering those 16 claimants had still not received their relevant discovery documents under the agreed FOI Act – an agreement reached with the administrator prior to arbitration that documents would be provided under FOI to enable us to prove our cases (see Arbitrator File No/71). The government knew Telstra was still refusing to supply relevant documents at the time of this litmus-test process, four years later.

On 23 October 1997, the office of Senator Schacht, Shadow Minister for Communications, faxed Senator Ron Boswell the proposed terms of reference for the Senate working party for their investigation into the COT arbitration FOI issues. This document shows the two lists of unresolved COT cases with FOI issues to be investigated. My name appears on the Schedule B list (see Arbitrator File No 67). Telstra, by still refusing to supply these 16 COT cases with promised discovery documents, first requested four years earlier, was acting outside of the rule of law and yet, regardless of Telstra breaking the law, these 16 claimants received no help from the police, arbitrator or government bureaucrats and were denied access to their documents, as absentjustice.com shows.

150,000 FOI Documents 

The 150.000 late provided FOI documents to the five litmus tests cases mentioned above was not of a historic nature in the case of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer, the forty-four large storage boxes that I received from Graham’s office in 2006 when I started to investigate these issues on behalf of Graham/Golden messenger I did not see any relevant Leopard or Ericsson Data for the exchanges that Graham’s Golden Messenger Courier Services were routed through. Between the end of 2006 and 2017, I have worked continually on some eight major projects on behalf of Graham/Golden who had commissioned me to investigate evidence they had received which showed Telstra had been aware prior to Graham’s arbitration process that Telstra had knowingly misled both Graham/Golden and the COT arbitrator concerning Graham/Golden 1994 to 1999 arbitration process. Since that period I have collated and written five major reports plus writing two separate manuscript’s (not yet completed) so that Graham/Golden can submit this material to the government as a testament there needs to be a Royal Commission Investigation into the COT arbitration process. During my first Administerial Appeals Tribunal FOI oral hearing in October 2008, the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) was the respondents, Graham Schorer advised the AAT under oath during cross-examination by ACMA lawyers that once my investigation on behalf of Golden was complete and the evidence collated and reported on was bound into submission those reports would be provided to the government. I have since viewed numerous COT Case Telstra related documents since that 2008 AAT hearing which supports Graham/Golden that even though members of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman office (who were the administrators of the COT arbitrations) had been aware before the COT Cases went into arbitration that the historic Telstra fault data which would be needed by the COT Cases to support their claims had already been destroyed (see TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C) this knowledge was never broadcast to the government who had endorsed the COT arbitrations. This release of 150,000 non-historic fault data documents and NOT the requested historic data which the five ‘litmus’ tests cases requested shows that the compensation the five litmus cases received were partly associated with Telstra being unable to provide those five cases the documents they should have received during their arbitrations.

The fact that NONE of the sixteen COT Cases who were also on the Senate schedule B list as unresolved COT FOI Cases is further testament we COT sixteen were discriminated against by the government.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING 

In the cases of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer, of the 150,000 FOI documents that were provided to the five ‘litmus-test cases (see Senate Evidence File No 11 proof 150,000 FOI documents) but which, as recorded above, arrived too late for them to use, none were of historic nature.  Seventy per cent (70%) of the 150,000 documents provided to the COT Cases during this ‘litmus test case fiasco were couriered to the offices of Golden Messenger. These are the documents that in late 2006, was sent down to my business by Graham/Golden in two separate deliveries. When I first started to investigate these issues for Graham, I did not find any Leopard Data for the exchanges that Graham’s Golden Messenger Courier Services was routed through, anywhere among the eleven large storage boxes that I received from Graham’s office in 2006, so it is quite clear from the three emails attached to TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C), are the truth, i.e. Telstra did not keep historic Leopard fault data longer than twelve to thirteen months.  The release of those 150,000 non-historic fault data documents, but none of the requested historic data that the five ‘litmus-test cases requested, shows that the compensation that those five ‘litmus-test cases received was partly associated with Telstra being unable to provide the documents that those COTs should have received during their arbitrations.

What has been possibly the hardest thing to live with concerning that 70% of the 150,000 documents which I finally received in 2006, from Graham/Golden is that they are only related to Graham/Golden. However, even though the 90,000 or so documents, I did receive from Graham/Golden was minus historic fault data that material when combined with other later material received from another source shows the COT Cases were never meant to win their case. 

In 2017, when I commenced preparing  An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens I had still not received the FOI documents that the TIO and AUSTEL (government communications authority) promised me I would receive if I signed my government-endorsed arbitration process. 

I again note: the fact that NONE of the other sixteen COT Cases received any compensation (even though they were also on the Senate Schedule B list as unresolved COT FOI Cases) further proves that the Government discriminated against us sixteen remaining COTs.

Chapter Three 

Conflict of Interest 

Conflict of Interest

AUSTEL (now ACMA) internal archival records show that, in early 1994, during official Government regulatory investigations carried out by the then-Government Regulator, AUSTEL (ACMA), into the telephone problems experienced by Golden Messenger, AUSTEL found that, even though Telstra had then already known for months that the Phillips-manufactured Flexitel Commander System had many deficiencies, Telstra still sold and installed that system at Golden Messenger and, even after AUSTEL had uncovered this evidence, still they did not direct Telstra to publicly recall this product, under the Trade Practices Act 1974. Once the manufacturer or distributor of a product (in this case, Phillips and Telstra) became aware of the many deficiencies with the Flexitel, it should have been recalled and/or removed from the network immediately.  AUSTEL, the Government Communications Regulator, appears to have breached their statutory obligation to the consumer when they chose not to force Telstra to recall ALL their Flexitel Commander Systems.

In the following Graham Schorer Addendum conflict on interest section below to this main story are issues only pertaining to his Flexitel Commander System which Telstra would not allow Graham to address during his arbitration and therefore these Flexitel issues are not covered by the Deed of Release Graham signed when he accepted payment from Telstra as part of his FOI 1997 to 1999, Senate Estimates Committee investigation into the withholding of these documents during his arbitration process. The full story of his other Telstra issues is contained in his own story titled The Briefcase. All Alan can say about  Graham’s many other Telstra issues which are apart from the Flextel issue is that like this story “Ring for Justice” Graham’s life has been totally ruined when like Alan he really thought his arbitration process would be conducted under the agreed ambit of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, and in doing so he would have been allowed to disclose all of the deceptive conduct issues that Telstra bestowed upon him once he started to register his phone complaints. All we can suggest to the reader is to read what we have stated on this website and you will be able to determine for yourselves as to whether Telstra acted as a government-owned corporation should act against an Australian citizen.

In part 1, of CAV Part 1, 2 and 3 is a brief description of the start of Graham Schorer’s  Flexitel Commander System Telstra issue.  CAV Part 1 of this section of our story shows  quite clearly that Graham was misled and deceived in a number of ways, on at least two separate occasions:

  1. In July 1987, when Telstra installed the Flexitel system at Graham’s business premises, even though they knew it was faulty;
  2. Throughout the whole of his Federal Court action against Telstra;

When AUSTEL ignored assurances made by their own Chairman, Robin Davey, to a Senate Estimates Committee, on 2 September 1993 (Exhibit GS 465 file GS-CAV 459 to 489, six months before Graham’s government-endorsed Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) began.  Mr Davey had assured the Committee that, if AUSTEL found that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived their customers (and as we now know – they DID find in relation to Graham’s allegations/claims), under the Trade Practices Act, those matters would be dealt with in a settlement process.

It is important that pages 14 to 31 in Graham’s manuscript are read in full because they explain Graham’s basic reasons for claiming that his Telstra Flexitel matter is still unresolved, even though he did ‘blindly’ accept a deed of release from the Telstra Corporation in April 1999, thereby ‘agreeing’ that all outstanding claims against Telstra had been resolved.  Unfortunately, this meant that the arbitration agreement signed by Graham and Telstra did not allow the arbitrator to assess those Flexitel issues, because they were matters that had been part of Graham’s previous Federal Court action against Telstra in 1990, and Graham had accepted a settlement in relation to that case. At that time though, Graham was not aware that the Australian Government Solicitor had already found and documented how Telstra had misled and deceived Graham over a number of years. Could this be one of the reasons for Telstra not allowing the Flexitel issue to be reopened, even though the other three COT claimants were allowed to reopen earlier issues (see  AUSTEL’s April 1994 final report), or was it because the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, had been one of Graham’s legal advisors for his 1990 Federal Court action against Telstra on this same Flexitel issue?

Pages 27 to 29 in our GS June 2013 report discusses a 2 November 1990 fax from Trevor Hill of Telstra’s Corporate Solicitors Office to Telstra’s Peter Gamble, regarding Telecom v Golden Messenger Federal Court Legal Proceedings, which notes, among other items:

 (5)   The Australian Government Solicitor, on behalf of Telecom, has written to the solicitors acting for Golden Messenger seeking their undertaking not to disclose to their client or others the contents of the report on the North Melb Exchange. To date, there has been no response. Exhibit GS 448-A file GS-CAV 448 to 458

Directly below this entry the report then discusses an internal Telstra minute dated 7 November 1990 that Telstra’s Peter Gamble, Manager, Business Network Planning, sent to Mr F Jones, Executive General Manager, Telecom Business Services (FOI Folio 001801), noting that:

“it would appear that any concerns over the disclosure of the adverse report on the North Melbourne Exchange can now be set to rest as it will not be released until point (5) has been complied with”. Exhibit GS 43 file GS-CAV 1 to 88

These two documents, together with the Author’s Comment (4) on pages 27 to 28 of our GS June 2013 report, show that, regardless of whether or not Graham’s solicitors, Landers & Rogers, received a copy of the North Melbourne Telephone Exchange report during Graham’s early Federal Court action, Graham is adamant that HE did NOT see a copy of the letter from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) that is referred to in these faxes.

On 21 November 2012 Graham produced a letter of understanding that included:

“During the period that I retained Landers & Rogers, at no stage was I informed by Gordon Hughes or any other member of Landers & Rogers staff, that Telecom or the Australian Government Solicitor contacted them with information regarding the North Melbourne exchange.

“Furthermore, had I known that Gordon Hughes had concealed knowledge of such an important document from me, I would not have accepted his appointment as the arbitrator in my arbitration process”. Exhibit GS 565 file GS-CAV 459 to 489 

This AGS letter is important because, when Dr Gordon Hughes was appointed as the official arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he did not declare his conflict of interest in relation to Graham’s previous Federal Court action against Telstra.

It is as important to look at this conflict of interest issue from the perspective of the other COT claimants as it is to look at it from Graham’s perspective because, as Graham’s earlier legal advisor in both his business endeavours and his Federal Court / Telstra matters, Dr Hughes knew about the various discovery documents that Landers & Rogers did receive from the AGS after 24 July 1990, just as he knew about the incorrectly installed, faulty Flexitel telephone equipment at Graham’s business premises.  Dr Hughes may possibly have thought he was helping Graham when he allowed an extra two (and, in one case, three) years for Graham to prepare his submission to arbitration, over and above what he allowed the other COT claimants, even though this extra time was not permitted in the official arbitration rules. In other words, it appears as though Dr Hughes actually allowed his own integrity to be compromised, which therefore left him a sitting duck, so to speak, because Telstra may well have then used this conflict of interest to their own advantage so that, in the end, Dr Hughes lost control not just over Grahams’ arbitration but over all the other COT arbitrations as well.

John Pinnock (TIO) later confirmed, however, in his address to a Senate Estimates Committee on 26 September 1997 exhibit GS 490 file GS-CAV 490 to 521, that this was certainly NOT the case noting:

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration proceedings”.

The questions arising out of this official statement are:

  • Did Dr Hughes lose control over the arbitrations – he was conducting (seven at least) because Telstra knew he had never declared his conflict of interest?
  • Did the secret use of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory as the secondary arbitrator for Graham’s arbitration contribute to Dr Hughes losing control over the process?
  • Could it be that when the TIO (the administrator of the arbitration process) became aware that Dr Hughes had lost control over the process, then the TIO had a duty of care to immediately request leave from the Supreme Court to appoint a new arbitrator?

Could it be that one of the reasons that Telstra accepted Dr Hughes’ previous association with Graham’s Telstra Federal Court action without raising it as a problem in relation to his appointment as COT arbitrator, was because they knew that this AGS letter had never surfaced after it was first sent to Landers & Rogers and so they, therefore, knew it had to have been deliberately concealed from Graham during his Federal Court proceedings?

AUSTEL’s COT Covert Findings

No report can be used as evidence in any court of law or arbitration unless it is properly backed by relevant supporting documents and all other necessary information.  If that can be done, then justice will be done.  It is now quite clear however that justice was NOT done in Graham’s case because, as the following points explain, AUSTEL’s March 1994 Golden Messenger report exhibits GS 450 and GS 453 file  GS-CAV 448 to 458) proves that AUSTEL’s investigation into Graham’s complaints reached the conclusion that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived him over the whole period of his claim but, even though they were the official decision-makers when investigating Graham’s case, AUSTEL still concealed their findings from the relevant Minister (the Hon Michael Lee MP) and the arbitrator throughout the whole of Graham’s arbitration.

Page 14 – In AUSTEL’s further draft findings on Golden Messenger (Exhibit GS 453):

“Telecom have maintained the position that network service was within acceptable standards despite having considerable information, obtained from internal investigations, that major problems did exist with the network and that these problems did impact  on the level of service provided to the customer”.

Page 23 – In AUSTEL’s further draft findings on Golden Messenger (Exhibit GS 453):

“Telecom Minute of 30/3/88 states that advice from Legal and Policy Headquarters indicate that Golden Messenger appeared to have a case against us…and…the Australian Government Solicitor had advised Telecom that Golden Messenger is likely to be successful in establishing that Telecom engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to the Trade Practice Act and that consequence of lost calls or calls not getting through was likely to lead to an immediate loss of business in relation to that call and potential loss of future business from the customer”.

Exhibits GS 450 and GS 453 file  GS-CAV 448 to 458) were not released to Graham until October 2008, fourteen years too late to be used in his arbitration or during the Senate Estimates Investigation into why relevant documents (which AUSTEL had previously used to arrive at their findings) were being withheld from Graham. In other words, if AUSTEL had provided their adverse findings against Telstra (GS 450 and 453) to Graham and the Senate Estimates Committee during that 1997/1999 Committee investigation, it would be fair to say that the Committee would have immediately ensured that Telstra didn’t pressure Graham into accepting compensation of only 33% of his arbitration claim – and that 33% did NOT include the thousands upon thousands of dollars Graham had wasted on legal fees to prove something that AUSTEL had already proved

Exhibit (GS 462) is a copy of a transcript dated 27 October 1994 that has been sent by John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to AUSTEL’s John MacMahon (see page 7 in that transcript).  This transcript acknowledges that AUSTEL’s Bruce Mathews advised Mr Wynack, under oath, that AUSTEL provided Telstra with copy of AUSTEL’s March 1994 draft findings from their COT investigations. Since Graham didn’t sign his arbitration agreement until 21 April 1994, AUSTEL had plenty of time to provide him with a copy of that same draft document, which consisted of two separate reports Exhibits GS 450 and GS 453 file  GS-CAV 448 to 458), which clearly details how Graham was misled and deceived over the full period of his claims.  This, therefore, provides the basis for good argument that AUSTEL breached their Statutory Obligation to Graham because it is obvious that, if Graham had received a copy of AUSTEL’s true findings, Graham would have immediately asked the Committee to investigate the matter because of the evidence that had been uncovered by AUSTEL.

A letter dated 28 October 1993, from Senator Richard Alston to Robin Davey, AUSTEL’s Chairman exhibit GS 466 file GS-CAV 459 to 489), notes:

“the opposition would reserve the right to consider the establishment of a Senate Select Committee if AUSTEL’s report raised matters of serious concern regarding outstanding problems or if there is evidence to substantiate the persistent complaints made by COT Case members, particularly Mr Schorer, of “misleading and deceptive conduct” on the part of Telecom”.  

After this 28 October 1993 letter was written, and under pressure from the Senate Estimates Committee, AUSTEL facilitated a new settlement process called the Fast Track Settlement  Proposal (FTSP) for the first four COT claimants, including Graham.

On 29 October 1993 however, Jim Holmes, Telstra’s Corporate Secretary, wrote to Graham, warning him that he was not allowed to raise the matter of the Flexitel System as part of his FTSP because he had already accepted a payment through the court, in relation to the Flexitel issue.  As shown above, when Graham agreed to accept this payment, which amounted to less than 10% of his actual losses at the time, he was not aware that the Australian Government Solicitor had advised Telstra (page 23 in AUSTEL’s adverse findings, GS 453) that:

“Golden Messenger is likely to be successful in establishing that Telecom engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to the Trade Practices Act and that the consequences of lost calls or calls not getting through was likely to lead to an immediate loss of business in relation to that call and potential loss of future business from the customer”.

Exhibits (GS 3, 4, 5, 6 and GS 10 file Exhibit GS 43 file GS-CAV 1 to 88) confirm that, by November 1986, both the Telstra Corporation and Philips (Australia) knew there were many deficiencies in the Flexitel Commander System.

On 18 July 1987 however, Telstra installed a new Flexitel Commander System at Golden Messenger, at a cost of $40,270.00 (GS 12).

On 18 November 1987 Mr P Nicolopoulos, for Telstra’s Chief General Manager, wrote to Mr Ron Jones, Philips Communications, Moorebank NSW stating:

“Further to our discussion, Telecom now requires your assistance in paying prizes for the sales competition for Flexitel.

The prizes being offered are gift vouches from Myers stores (also redeemable at Grace Bros, and Bone Bros.) or Safeway Stores (also redeemable at Woolworths and Big W). We expect the value of prizes to be approximately $30,000 over the next 12 months. …

The first payment, required immediately, is to the value of $1800 to be paid to Mr Stephen Johnson. Mr Johnson has selected vouches from Myers (Grace Bros) as his prize.

Please advise me when these vouchers will be available” (GS 15).

Correspondence dated 20 November 1986 (GS 4, above); 6 January 1987 (GS 5); 9 January 1987 (GS 6) and 10 April 1987 (GS 10) all prove that the Telstra Corporation and Philips Australia (the manufactures of the Flexitel system) were both aware of a number of serious deficiencies in the Flexitel system.

The letter dated 18 November 1987 (GS 15), proves that both companies were then busily promoting the Flexitel system, even though they had known about the many deficiencies with that system for more than a year. In other words, both Telstra and Philips were willing to promote this faulty equipment to Graham, and to other businesses who, like Golden Messenger, would therefore suffer the consequences of purchasing the promoted, faulty Flexitel system for many years to come. These businesses not only suffered the loss of a single call from a particular client, when that client was unable to get through to make a booking, they also lost all the repeat business that might have materialized as a result of that first contact.

According to Section 52 of the Australian Trade Practices Act under Part V – Consumer Protection Division 1 – Unfair Practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct

  • 52. (1) “A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive”

In relation to AUSTEL (now the ACMA) concealing their knowledge from Graham and the Minister that Graham had a valid claim against Telstra under Trade Practices Act 1974, suggests that the government regulator Commonwealth should treat this misleading and deceptive conduct towards Graham as a matter of some concern. In simple terms, the government regulator breached their statutory obligation to Graham, by concealing their knowledge of that Telstra had in-deed misled and deceived Graham’s under the Trade Practices Act.  \

Exhibits GS 450 and GS 453 file  GS-CAV 448 to 458) were not released to Graham until October 2008, fourteen years too late to be used in his arbitration or during the Senate Estimates investigation into why relevant documents (which AUSTEL had previously used to arrive at their findings) were being withheld from Graham. In other words, if AUSTEL had provided their adverse findings against Telstra (GS 450 and 453) to Graham and the Senate Estimates Committee during that 1997/1999 Committee investigation, it would be fair to say that the Committee would have immediately ensured that Telstra didn’t pressure Graham into accepting compensation of only 33% of his arbitration claim – and that 33% did NOT include the thousands upon thousands of dollars Graham had wasted on legal fees to prove something that AUSTEL had already proved.

Exhibit GS 462 file GS-CAV 459 to 489 is a copy of a transcript dated 27 October 1994 that has been sent by John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to AUSTEL’s John MacMahon (see page 7 in that transcript).  This transcript acknowledges that AUSTEL’s Bruce Mathews advised Mr Wynack, under oath, that AUSTEL provided Telstra with a copy of AUSTEL’s March 1994 secret findings from their COT investigations. Since Graham didn’t sign his arbitration agreement until 21 April 1994, AUSTEL had plenty of time to provide him with a copy of that same draft document, which consisted of two separate reports (GS 450 and GS 453), which clearly details how Graham was misled and deceived over the full period of his claims.  This, therefore, provides the basis for good argument that AUSTEL breached their Statutory Obligation to Graham by concealing these more adverse findings against Telstra in their public April 1994 AUSTEL’s COT Cases report.

It is clear from Telstra FOI folio C04550 (see GS-Conflict of interest 1-to 5) that the Australian Government Solicitor was writing to Graham Schorer’s legal team during his previous Telstra Federal Court Action between, 1990 and 1992.  Our conflict of interest page GS-Conflict of interest 1-to 5 confirms Mr Gordon Hughes and Michael Champion from Landers & Rogers (Mr Schorer’s solicitors) jointly received a letter from Mr Michael Shand Barrister confirming that Dr Gordon Hughes was heavily involved in Mr Schorer’s Telstra Federal Court action prior to him accepting his role as the COT cases Assessor land then later their arbitrator.

It was decidedly alarming to be presented with threats like this part-way through a Federal Court action and to say that Graham was completely devastated is an understatement but to also discover that an important letter that included vital information regarding this North Melbourne Exchange issue had been withheld from him by his own legal team during this Court action was absolutely shattering.

Graham’s AGS letter and the way it was hidden from him is important in relation to Alan’s story though because it is not only directly linked to the failure of Graham’s earlier Federal Court action against Telstra, but because it is also linked to the failure of Graham’s Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) two years later, and because Dr Hughes also withheld similar reports and FOI documents from Alan during his FTAP.  The thing that Alan has never understood is, though, since Telstra had to have known that Dr Hughes had helped with Graham’s defence in the 1992 Federal Court action, why then did they accept his appointment as arbitrator for the COT arbitrations when they knew that his previous involvement with Graham meant that he had a serious conflict of interest?  Graham is absolutely adamant that he never saw this threatening AGS letter which clearly means that it was deliberately concealed from him by his own legal team, a team that included Dr Hughes, and Telstra must have known about that decision.  Could this be why they did not expose Dr Hughes’ conflict of interests as soon as he was proposed as the official arbitrator?  Could it be that someone connected to Telstra, someone interested in helping Telstra to come out on top at the end of the COT arbitrations, could see a way to use that secret conflict of interest to benefit Telstra and destroy the COTs claims?

Directly below this entry the report then discusses an internal Telstra minute dated 7 November 1990 that Telstra’s Peter Gamble, Manager, Business Network Planning, sent to Mr F Jones, Executive General Manager, Telecom Business Services (FOI Folio 001801), noting that:

“it would appear that any concerns over the disclosure of the adverse report on the North Melbourne Exchange can now be set to rest as it will not be released until point (5) has been complied with”. (Exhibit GS 43 file GS-CAV 1 to 88)

These two documents, together with the Author’s Comment below show that, regardless of whether or not Graham’s solicitors, Landers & Rogers, received a copy of the North Melbourne Telephone Exchange report during Graham’s early Federal Court action, Graham is adamant that HE did NOT see a copy of the letter from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) that is referred to in these faxes.

This AGS letter is important because, when Dr Gordon Hughes was appointed as the official arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he did not declare his conflict of interest in relation to Graham’s previous Federal Court action against Telstra.

It is as important to look at this conflict of interest issue from the perspective of the other COT claimants as it is to look at it from Graham’s perspective because, as Graham’s earlier legal advisor in both his business endeavours and his Federal Court / Telstra matters, Dr Hughes knew about the various discovery documents that Landers & Rogers did receive from the AGS after 24 July 1990, just as he knew about the incorrectly installed, faulty Flexitel telephone equipment at Graham’s business premises.

Graham and I have remained very close friends since we met in 1992, and when I uncovered this situation and asked him why he did not reveal this conflict of interest issues he wrote a statement which I later provided to the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia at the request of Graham. The reason being is the possibility that because the North Melbourne Exchange AGS was never provided to Graham by Gordon Hughes while he was Graham’s Federal Court advisors maybe this is why Telstra allowed this conflict of issues to be disclosed. The fact that Dr Hughes had also concealed his knowledge from the four COT Cases it was Telstra’s arbitration agreement that was being used in the arbitration and NOT an arbitration agreement (Rules) that had been drafted independently might have also been the reason Telstra closed their eyes to Dr Hughes’ conflict of interest issues associated with Graham’s previous Telstra related Federal Court issues that we’re addressing the same issues less than four years later.

There is also another side to this conflict of interest issue. If Mr Schorer is telling the truth that he knew nothing about this government solicitors letter or that his legal team, which included Dr Hughes had been threatened that Telstra would not supply any further discovery documents unless Graham’s lawyers agreed to certain conditions then Dr Hughes should have surely acted differently to which he did when Telstra threatened me over similar withheld document issues (see page 180 Senate Evidence File No 31) dated  29 November 1994, which notes:

“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)

The rule of law cannot be brushed aside, nor covered up with the excuse that a failed arbitration process is collateral damage. The law is there to protect us all. All sixteen COT Cases as well as the five litmus tests cases should have been treated the same by the Senate working party and the government who commissioned them into investigated Telstra’s reluctance to provide discovery under the agreed FOI process.

These issues of Dr Hughes’ previously being both Mr Schorer’s business advisor as well as his adviser during Mr Schorer’s Telstra Federal Court stoush in 1990 to 1992, should have been addressed by the government when they endorsed our arbitrations. A written order for Dr Hughes to proceed as the COT arbitrator should have been sought by the government. It was not. Had I been aware that Dr Hughes had known Graham Schorer professionally the way he clearly did I would have opposed Dr Hughes’ appointment as arbitrator.

This Senate Hansard dated June 1997 (see page 5163,  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra.

It is interesting to note here the connection to both the way various Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from the public purse, and how the New South Wales police were investigating this very various serious matter, because Dr Hughes, the COT arbitrator, was a partner of the same law firm that helped some of the Telstra employees in New South Wales in relation to a number of different legal matters. When the COTs were signing their arbitration agreements, however, no-one ever revealed, on any level, Dr Hughes’ prior direct connections to Telstra and, as our story shows, this is not the only conflict of interest issue that plagued the COT arbitrations. While this particular conflict of interest issues might a strong argument that Dr Hughes should have alerted us COT Cases to this Telstra conflict issue, it is important we raise this issue here because it is another example where many of the COT Cases were not treated as equals by those who were soon to conduct our arbitrations. Just like the 16 remaining COT Cases which the senate and government conveniently forgot to include in the Senate working party FOI investigations. assessment process.

Dr Hughes may possibly have thought he was helping Graham when he allowed an extra two (and, in one case, three) years for Graham to prepare his submission to arbitration, over and above what he allowed the other three COT claimants, even though this extra time was not permitted in the official arbitration rules. In other words, it appears as though Dr Hughes actually allowed his own integrity to be compromised, which therefore left him a sitting duck, so to speak, because Telstra may well have then used this conflict of interest to their own advantage so that, in the end, Dr Hughes lost control not just over Grahams’ arbitration but overall the other COT arbitrations as well.

In other words, it appears as though the arbitrator actually allowed his own integrity to be compromised, which therefore left him a sitting duck, so to speak, because Telstra may well have then used this conflict of interest to their own advantage – so that, in the end, the arbitrator lost control not just over Grahams’ arbitration, but overall the other COT arbitrations as well. As shown above, in our introduction the TIO later confirmed, however, in his address to a Senate Estimates Committee on 26 September 1997 that:

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration proceedings”.

The questions arising out of this official statement are:    

  • Did the arbitrator lose control over the arbitrations he was conducting (seven at least) because Telstra knew he had never declared his conflict of interest?
  • Did the secret use of the TI-appointed arbitration resource unit as the secondary arbitrator for both Graham’s arbitration and the other three arbitrations contribute to the arbitrator losing control over the process?
  • Could it be that when the TIO (the administrator of the arbitration process) became aware that the arbitrator had lost control over the process, then the TIO had a duty of care to immediately request leave from the Supreme Court to appoint a new arbitrator for all four arbitrations?

Could it be that one of the reasons that Telstra accepted this particular arbitrator’s previous association with Graham’s Telstra Federal Court action without raising it as a problem in relation to his appointment as COT arbitrator, was because they knew that this Australian Government Solicitors AGS letter had never surfaced after it was first sent to the now pending arbitrator and/or the legal firm to which he was a partner? In simple terms, this most crucial letter from the Australian Government Solicitor’s Office may well have changed the whole outcome of both Mr Schorer’s Federal Court action and his later arbitration.

Chapter Four

Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents

Example One

Exhibit GS 451 File GS-CAV 448 to 458 is Telstra’s principal Arbitration Submission submitted to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) in November 1996. This arbitration document is clearly discussing issues that were relevant to both Telstra’s Federal Court action which Dr Hughes was party to in 1990/92 and again party to when he became the arbitrator hearing these same issues again in April 1994.  

Example Two

The following eighteen plus extracts have come from Telstra’s 26 November 1996 ‘B003 Arbitration Briefing Document regarding “Graham John Schorer and others’’.’  In this document, the word ‘Claimants’ refers to Graham’s other companies, which were also named in his interim claim.  The following 19 examples discussed in the B003 26 November 1996 arbitration issues are the same 1990/92 technical issues that Dr Hughes originally assisted Mr Schorer with, in his 1990 Federal Court Action.

Please note. the eighteen plus extracts from Telstra’s ‘B003 Arbitration Briefing Document regarding “Graham John Schorer and others’’, i.e., the evidence showing that Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) was viewing the same type of North Melbourne telephone exchange equipment when he assisted Graham Schorer in his 1990 Federal Court action against Telstra and again in his 1994 arbitration has not been included below. For reasons concerning confidentiality I have provided an example of the extracts to The Hon Dan Tehan MP and The Hon Paul Fletcher MP both ministers in the current Liberal National Party government. 

The matters discussed on absentjustice.com are said in the public interest and therefore are made in accordance with the Victorian Defamation Act 2005 Defamation-division 1 Defamation and the general law see > www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web-Note.

© 2017 Absent Justice

Please note: the following exhibits (which we might have missed in the text of the chronology of events above) can be accessed by placing the cursor over the relevant number range in order to access that exhibit.

AS – CAV 1 to 47 – AS-CAV 48-A to 91 – AS-CAV 92 to 127 – AS-CAV 128 to 180 – AS-CAV 181 to 233 – AS-CAV 234 to 281 – AS-CAV 282 to 323 – AS-CAV 324-A to 420 AS-CAV 421 to 469 – AS-CAV 470 to 486AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E AS-CAV 495 to 541 –AS-CAV 542 to 588 – AS-CAV 589 to 647 – AS-CAV 648 to 700 –  AS-CAV 765-A to 789 – AS-CAV 790 to 818 – AS-CAV 819 to 843 – AS-CAV-923 to 946  AS-CAV 1150 to 1169 AS-CAV 1069 to 1102AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 AS-CAV-1002 to 1019AS-CAV-996 to 1001 GS-CAV 1 to 88 GS-CAV 89 to 154-A – GS-CAV 155 to 215 – GS-CAV 216 to 257  – GS-CAV 258 to 323 – GS-CAV 410-A to 447 – GS-CAV 448 to 458 – GS-CAV 459 to 489 – GS-CAV 490 to 521 – GS-CAV 522 to 580 – GS-CAV 581 to 609