The relevant Canadian Telecommunications Minister shows leadership 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

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

John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally communicated to the Government and provided testimony to a Senate Estimates Committee on September 26, 1997, after the completion of most arbitrations 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 of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”.  ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) 

On September 26, 1994, I endured a thorough second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business premises, where I was subjected to an exhaustive series of 93 questions regarding their ongoing investigation into severe bugging issues (refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1). The transcripts from this crucial session, particularly on pages 12 and 13, reveal the troubling identification of Paul Rumble, an employee of Telstra, as a central figure in the orchestration and execution of threatening actions that occurred during my government-endorsed arbitration.

What is particularly disconcerting is the behaviour of the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, who opted to distance himself from these alarming developments. His refusal to engage, despite the arbitration being conducted under the authority of the Victorian Supreme Court, raises significant questions about the integrity of the process. The conspiring actions of Dr. Hughes and Mr. Rumble clearly highlight a treacherous alliance, suggesting a deliberate abdication of responsibility and control over the arbitration process. This unlawful conduct not only undermines the legitimacy of the proceedings but also paints a picture of systemic corruption entwined with the initial investigation, fostering an environment where fairness and justice have been completely subverted.

There is no amendment attached to any arbitration agreement signed by the first four COT members that allows the arbitrator to conduct those specific arbitrations entirely outside the established ambit of the arbitration procedure. Additionally, it was not stated that the arbitrator. 

The government has only investigated five of the twenty-one COT arbitration and mediation processes referred to by John Pinnock, as shown in the following link: An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

Even the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, expressed concerns about the arbitration agreement he relied upon while deliberating my claim. He condemned the agreement as lacking credibility but still used it to my disadvantage. Refer to (Open Letter File No 55-A)

Meanwhile, the subsequent three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillian, and Graham Schorer—were granted more than thirteen additional months beyond what the original arbitration agreement, which we four claimants signed back in April 1994, had specified. In stark contrast, I received merely an additional week compared to the extensive thirteen-month extensions awarded to the other claimants.

For the past thirty years, my partner, Cathy, and I have been forced to navigate the challenges posed by this inequity, living with the weight of discrimination that has pervaded our lives due to the unethical way in which the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and the administrator, Warwick Smith, administered the COT arbitrations process.

 

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my relentless battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this conflict has taken me through the labyrinth of elected governments, various government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the colossal telecom entity called Telstra, which was called Telecom when my saga began. I am still pursuing justice today.

My journey began in 1987 when I decided to leave behind my life at sea, where I had spent the better part of twenty years. I sought a new path on land that would carry me through my retirement years and beyond. Among all the enchanting places I had explored around the globe, I chose the serene yet captivating coastal region of Cape Bridgewater, located in southwest Victoria, Australia, as my new home.

My passion lies in hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a holiday camp akin to the iconic Butlins in Bognor Regis. This place sparkled with joy during my childhood in England. Imagine my excitement when I spotted the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age, a well-respected newspaper. This facility was nestled in rural Victoria, near the quaint maritime port of Portland, surrounded by stunning natural landscapes. Everything seemed to align perfectly. 

To the best of my understanding, I diligently conducted my due diligence to ensure the business was financially sound. Little did I know that one crucial aspect I overlooked was checking the functionality of the phone lines.

Within just a week of taking over the business, alarm bells rang loud and clear. I received distressing calls from customers and suppliers who had made numerous attempts to reach me, only to find themselves thwarted by a dead line. Yes, here I was, tasked with managing a thriving business, yet my phone service was, at best, woefully unreliable and, at worst, completely nonexistent. As a result, we faced significant revenue losses as customers turned away in frustration.

 

 

And so, my quest began. Securing a dependable phone service at the property became a protracted saga filled with frustration and struggle. Along the way, I secured compensation for our business losses and encountered countless assurances that the issues were resolved. Yet, here I am, years later, still facing the same insurmountable problems. After selling the business in 2002, I learned that subsequent owners have endured similar plights as did the new owners of my business when they purchased the camp for land value only. By December 2001, all of the goodwill had well and truly gone (refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story),

I was not alone in this battle; many independent businesspeople adversely affected by poor telecommunications joined me in my efforts. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. Our shared goal was straightforward: we wanted Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our grievances, deliver solutions, and compensate us for our significant losses. After all, is it too much to ask for a functioning phone line?

Initially, we sought a full Senate investigation into Telecom to expose these pervasive issues. Instead, we were offered a commercial assessment process as an alternative to arbitration. This initially appeared to be a promising path toward resolution, so we gladly accepted. Yet, we were soon unceremoniously pushed out of the commercial assessment process, allowing Telstra's agreement to take precedence. 

Unfortunately, that hope proved to be in vain. Almost instantaneously, doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process began to fester. We had been assured that if we entered arbitration, we would have access to the crucial Telecom documents needed to support our case. Those documents, however, were never provided, despite the promises made. To compound our frustrations, we discovered that our fax lines were illegally tapped during the arbitration process. With the considerable weight of the Government aligned against us, we found ourselves at a significant disadvantage and ultimately lost.

To make matters worse, we had unwittingly signed a confidentiality clause that significantly hampered our ability to share our experiences. I may be risking the consequences of that clause by making this information public, but I feel I have no choice—my circumstances compel me to speak out.

The next chapter of our struggle focused on our relentless pursuit of the promised documents through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. We were confident that the evidence existed to validate our assertions that the phone lines were not functioning and had failed to meet the agreed testing protocols. However, for that evidence to be valid, we needed access to it.

Telecom engaged in a series of deceptive tactics, intercepting privileged faxes sent by COT lawyers, live-monitoring and tapping COT phones, and intercepting COT arbitration mail throughout the arbitration process. They resorted to threats against COT claimants, following through on those threats with alarming frequency. The Government had assured us that the arbitration would be straightforward, non-legalistic, and that the arbitrator could issue findings only once the issues were resolved. We were also promised access to the necessary Telecom FOI documents, yet the government-owned Telecom blatantly refused to comply. Many of the documents that were eventually provided were either defaced or irrelevant to our claims. Lacking a detailed schedule accompanying the FOIs, we wasted precious time deciphering the scant information handed over while under an unforgiving deadline.

By March 1994, during the investigation of this initiative, the Government Communications Regulator concluded that the government-owned telecommunications carrier could not locate the persistent faults plaguing my business. Alarmingly, they concealed their findings rather than sharing this critical information with the arbitrator overseeing my claim. This lack of transparency was nothing short of shocking.

It is utterly inconceivable that the Australian Government would endorse a legally binding Arbitration Agreement, supposedly drafted with independence by the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. In reality, this agreement was crafted by lawyers representing the defendants—the government-owned telecommunications carrier itself. To compound matters, the Government turned a blind eye to including a clause in this agreement, designed by the defendants, that severely restricted the time available for claimants to access vital discovery documents from the defendants. These documents were essential for supporting their claims.

The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) appointed a Project Manager to assist the arbitrator in navigating nine arbitrations, including mine. With the backing of his arbitration resource unit, the defendants, and the TIO, the Project Manager was empowered to scrutinise some of the most pertinent documents submitted for the arbitrations. Without notifying any of the claimants, he and his team decided which documents would be submitted to the arbitrator and which would be withheld, casting a shadow of secrecy over the proceedings.

 

 

This situation should raise serious concerns for organisations contemplating arbitration for commercial disputes in Australia or Hong Kong. The same Project Manager, now a practising arbitrator with offices in both locations, presides over such disputes. In my manuscript, "Absent Justice," I reveal how this resource unit deliberately withheld four critical documents from the arbitrator in my case. These documents had the power to alter the entire course of the arbitration and provide much-needed support to other Australian businesses grappling with similar long-standing telephone billing issues.

On November 15 1995, when the TIO sought clarification from the Project Manager regarding the missing billing claim documents, the project manager resorted to misleading and deceiving the TIO, further complicating an already convoluted process.

As my arbitration progressed, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) became aware of a chilling threat from the defendants: they would cease providing any further discovery documents if I continued to assist the AFP in their investigations into my serious complaints that those very same defendants were intercepting my phones and faxes. These discovery documents were vital to my case—I was at a standstill, unable to substantiate my arbitration claim without them.

 

“COT Case Strategy” 

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” (see 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. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."

27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."

28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne) who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

• "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's previous Attorney General in 2024/2025, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne) when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made on page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems, almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress, having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers before they would investigate my complaints. I provided this information with extreme difficulty while trying to run my telephone-dependent business. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note my repeated reminders to the arbitration project manager regarding soliciting these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page,  from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.

It was not in Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 ). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.

2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases indeed did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File 293-B- Exhibit  GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

It is October 2022, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.  

This strategy was in place before the five of us signed our arbitration agreements. 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, 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 Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?  How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, concerning Telstra officials' hold on my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about its customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek a resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitated an extended hospitalisation, underscoring the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.

Criminal Conduct Example 3

TIO Evidence File No 3-A 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 confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, he appears to have also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information. There was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

Was this secret government party-room information passed on to Telstra by the administrator to our arbitrations have anything to do with the Child Sexual Abuse and the cover-up of the paedophile activities by a former Senator who had been dealing with the four COT Cases? The fact that Warwick Smith, the soon-be administrator of the COT settlement/arbitrations, provided confidential government in-house information to the defendants (Telstra) was a grave matter. 

IMPORTANT AUTHOR'S NOTE

When three witnesses and I provided Senator Richard Alston conclusive proof that Warwick Smith had proved privileged COT Case government discussed party room information to Telstra, as the following TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms, he was shocked. Still, he did say he would follow up on this issue with Warwick Smith as a matter of great concern. NONE of the four COT Cases received advice from either Senator Alston or Warwick Smith on why Warwick Smith had been allowed to get away with this matter when it was so important to all four commercial assessment processes, 

On 30 November 1993, this Telstra internal memo FOI document folio D01248, from Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member, writes to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive Office. Subject: TIO AND COT. This was written seven days after Alan had signed the TIO-administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this memo, Mr Benjamin states:

“At today’s Council Meeting the TIO reported on his involvement with the COT settlement processes. It was agreed that any financial contributions made by Telecom to the Cot arbitration process was not a matter for Council but was a private matter between Telecom, AUSTEL and the TIO.

I hope you agree with this.”

This shows that Telstra was partly or wholly funding the arbitration process.

If the process had been truly transparent, then the claimants would have been provided with information regarding the funds—specifically, the amounts provided to the arbitrator, arbitrator's resource unit, TIO, and TIO special counsel for their professional advice throughout four COT arbitrations.

It is still unknown how the arbitrator billed Telstra for his professional fees or how the TIO billed Telstra for his fees, including those of the TIO-appointed resource unit and special counsel. This raises the questions:

Was the arbitrator and resource unit paid every month?
Did the resource unit receive any bonus for being secretly appointed as the second arbitrator in determining what arbitration documents the arbitrator was allowed to receive and what was withheld (see letter dated 11th July 1994, from Telstra to Warwick Smith)?

Without knowing how the defendants distributed these payments to the parties involved in the first four arbitrations, it would be impossible for the TIO and AUSTEL (now the ACMA) to continue to state that the COT arbitrations were independently administered.

To summarise the issue: during these four arbitrations, the defence was allowed to pay the arbitrator and those involved in the process. How is this different from the defendant being allowed to pay the judge in a criminal matter? It is an apparent and concerning conflict of interest.

The COTs never had a chance.

“There are regular reports from the TIO on the progress of the CoT claims.”

Senate Hansard information dated 26th September, 1997 (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 124-B) confirms that:-

Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s principal arbitration defence liaison officer in Graham and Alan’s arbitrations, was also a member of the TIO Council and
During a Senate hearing into COT issues, the then-new TIO, John Pinnock, agreed that Mr Benjamin had not removed himself from council discussions of COT matters:-

Senator SCHACHT – “Mr Benjamin, you may think that you have drawn the short straw in Telstra, because you have been designated to handle the CoT cases and so on. Are you also a member of the TIO Board?”

Mr Benjamin – “I am a member of the TIO council.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Were any CoT complaints or issues discussed at the council while you were present?”

Mr Benjamin – “There are regular reports from the TIO on the progress of the CoT claims.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Did the council make any decision about CoT cases or express any opinion?”

Mr Benjamin – “I might be assisted by Mr Pinnock.”

Mr Pinnock – “Yes.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Did it? Mr Benjamin, did you declare your potential conflict of interest at the council meeting, given that as a Telstra employee you were dealing with CoT cases?”

Mr Benjamin – “My involvement in CoT cases, I believe, was known to the TIO council.”

Senator SCHACHT – “No, did you declare your interest?”

Mr Benjamin – “There was no formal declaration, but my involvement was known to the other members of the council.”

Senator SCHACHT – “You did not put it on the record at the council meeting that you were dealing specifically with CoT cases and trying to beat them down in their complaints, or reduce their position; is that correct?”

Mr Benjamin – “I did not make a formal declaration to the TIO.”

The fact that Ted Benjamin, as a TIO Council officer, would have a good idea from the TIO meetings on how far advanced each of the COT arbitrations was and what the arbitrator was discussing with the TIO (who was also the administrator to the arbitrations) on when each claimant my further advance his claim knowing this inside information assisted Mr Benjamin when to release requested FOI documents to each of the claimants and when to hold back any relevant document that could jeopardise Telstra's defence. 

It was grossly unethical for Warwick Smith to allow this to happen, and it was just one more nail in each of the COT cases' coffins.