On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra. (rb.gy/dsvidd).
What prompted the threatening communications I received from Telstra, and why did the company follow through on those threats when I chose to disregard them? Additionally, why does the confidentiality agreement stipulating terms in my arbitration seem to obscure these threats, buried beneath the secrecy provisions of the arbitration contract? Furthermore, how prevalent are confidentiality agreements worldwide in government-sanctioned arbitrations against citizens, effectively concealing wrongdoings perpetrated against them throughout the arbitration process?
IMPORTANT: As you scroll to the bottom of the page, remember to hover your mouse over the displayed images.
Gaslighting
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.
On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis, who purchased my beloved holiday camp at land value only, wrote the following letter to the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration (See Main Evidence File No 13)
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
(AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on my.
Government records (Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show that AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.
Telstra internal email dated 21st April 1993, FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives under the heading “COT cases latest”, states:-
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
These Telstra executives forgot that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, destroyed the Australian economy while the powerful bureaucrats attempted to fight this fire with talk of change. This bribery and corruption plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations.
In March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:
“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.
Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Children's lives could be at risk
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:
“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.
The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”
Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.
Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital.
The above internal Telstra Freedom of Information (FOI) document GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88 was provided to the arbitrator presiding over my case during the tumultuous years of 1994 and 1995. This particular document, along with numerous others, shines a light on a troubling revelation: Telstra had a systemic billing problem that siphoned millions of dollars into its coffers, billing customers for calls that were never made. The government regulator, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), recognised the gravity of the issue and urged the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, to address these significant concerns, as they directly impacted thousands of unsuspecting customers. Unfortunately, Dr. Hughes disregarded these urgent requests, allowing Telstra to sidestep the pressing need to confront these faults during the arbitration process. This series of events underscores the considerable power and influence that the Telstra Corporation wields in Australia, extending even into the realm of legal professionals like Dr. Hughes, who was later awarded the prestigious Order of Australia after my arbitration concluded.
I have provided a comprehensive account of the beleaguered Telstra network, shining a light on the courageous efforts of whistleblowing technicians who stood resolutely against the mismanagement of their telecommunications infrastructure. These brave individuals risked their careers to uncover the serious issues that had long plagued the network, which the Telstra management board had systematically hidden from the public and their employees. Their noble endeavour aimed not just to expose these wrongs but to rectify them, addressing the significant service degradation that profoundly affected customers, as documented within the timeframe of my COT story. This narrative intricately details the extent of the deterioration while illuminating the extraordinary courage required to bring these critical concerns to the forefront.
Delve into the unsettling truths surrounding appalling crimes, devious criminals, and the pervasive corruption among politicians and lawyers who wield considerable influence over the legal profession in Australia. While this assertion may seem sensational, the underlying issues within the arbitration system play a crucial role in the injustices perpetuated under the Arbitration Act.
Attached below is a sample of the ailing Telstra network in which Telstra's whistleblowing technicians found the courage to expose in their valient attempt to right the wtongs of their Telstra board of management who allowed this deteration of its telecommunications network to be covered up for the period in which my COT story is showing has been the case.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding political and media misinformation related to the NBN, one critical issue remains inadequately addressed: Did Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements at the time of Telstra’s privatisation? i.e, "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.
23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these copper-wire network faults have existed for more than 24 years.
9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems been conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, again, shows that the COT Cases claims of copperwire ailing network were more than valid.
28 April 2018: This ABC news article dated 28 April 2018 regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story going back 20 1988 through to 2025, because had the arbitration lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) was just 7-years ago.
Regrettably, as highlighted on absentjustice.com, many Australians residing in rural areas find themselves reliant on an inferior National Broadband Network (NBN). This disheartening reality could have been avoided if the Australian Government had ensured that the arbitration process it endorsed to examine the persistent communication problems raised by the COT cases was conducted with integrity and thoroughness.
In fact, the following three YouTube videos from A Current Affair brilliantly capture the essence of the similar phone complaints brought forward by our COT group in 1994. It is astonishing that, twenty-seven years after the COT Cases unveiled these critical issues during a government-sanctioned arbitration process to address them, Australia continues to grapple with a telecommunications NBN network that falls far short of modern standards.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
On 23 March 1999, after most COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)
Incredibly, the six senators mentioned earlier formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all COT arbitrations. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents, but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process.
Senator Kim Carr criticised handling the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:
“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”
And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:
“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)
Senator Schacht was even more vocal:
“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.
The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”
On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.
He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.
At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:
“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.
Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?
Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen? An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?
Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)
“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra"
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding".
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all".
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even whether to enter arbitration at all. …
"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice."
"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
“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 page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
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 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 current Attorney General in 2024, 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 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 in the following 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.
I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.
The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.
"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."
It was not of 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 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 serious 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 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 video 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 Files 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 we five 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 and 38 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 Telstra's intelligence networks 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 in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?
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 their 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 actually 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 institutionalisation. 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 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, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore 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, but he also appears to have 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 major threat of a Senate enquiry.
IMPORTANT AUTHORS 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 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,
Fast-forward to May 2025, and the situation remains as bleak as ever—the logbooks, which hold critical importance to each case, have still not been provided. The passage of time has claimed both Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan, their voices now silenced. Meanwhile, Graham Schorer faces the cruel grip of dementia, rendering the logbook irrelevant to him in his battle with memory loss. As for me, I've wrestled with the daunting challenge of surviving not just one, but two heart attacks. The most severe struck in 2019, an ordeal that brought me face-to-face with the fragility of existence and nearly robbed me of life itself. Since that fateful day, I carry a pacemaker nestled within my chest—a relentless reminder of my compromised health and the delicate equilibrium I navigate each day. As I ponder my journey, a disquieting thought looms: are Telstra and the government merely biding their time, waiting for me to join my friends Ann, Maureen, and Graham, to fade into the shadows of forgotten voices?
The twelve chapters at the bottom of this homepage serve as a condensed version of a much larger manuscript I have diligently crafted over the years. As I approach my 82nd birthday, I am acutely aware of the ticking clock, realising that time is of the essence in bringing this work to completion. Despite this pressing urgency, I am excited to share that I am nearing the finish line with Chapter Twenty-Two, the final chapter of my manuscript. I feel a sense of accomplishment and anticipation with each word I write. I aim to have this chapter polished and meticulously edited by the end of this year, allowing me to finally share my reflections, insights, and experiences with the world.
To be clear, so that the reader understands, a dated chronology of my 008/1800 Free-call billing issues (I paid for the telephone calls coming into my business even though they did not connect) was submitted to the arbitrator as a chronology of events. Why didn't the arbitrator look for it or call for a second copy when I provided evidence that my claim advisers had faxed me onto the phone line through which my Free-call service was routed? Were these 008/800 claim documents lost in Telstra's fax screening process en route to Dr Hughes's office (see the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), or did they arrive at Dr Hughes' Melbourne office before being diverted to the Sydney office, where that office was working of Telstra related issues failing to send that information back believing it was part of their Telstra brief?
I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. As shown below and in the attached transcripts of their second interview with me during my arbitration concerning my lost arbitration-related faxes → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office, my arbitration lawyers, accountants, ex-wife and my "Over-Forties-Single-Club" members. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates fax interception report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
The lawyers and accountants who administered our arbitration were shameful, hideous, and treacherous—just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud, unscrupulous, vile, evil, and corrupt government-administered arbitrations.
Read about Government Corruption and how Gaslighting was used against the author of this story, as well as twelve other Australian citizens who stumbled upon the truth concerning Telstra's ailing copper wire network.
The issues highlighted on absentjustice.com depict a troubling environment characterised by deception, with terms like counterfeit and fraudulent used to describe prevalent injustices. The site features a thought-provoking documentary that addresses the troubling realities of dishonest reporting and nefarious dealings, encouraging viewers to advocate for justice and transparency.
Despite ongoing threats and harassment tied to COT cases—manifested through bullying and treachery—there is a strong spirit of resilience among those affected, empowering them to fight back against injustice.
As we explore the alarming realities involving heinous crimes, corrupt politicians, and influential lawyers in Australia, it becomes clear that the actions of these wrongdoers have significant societal repercussions. Words like shameful and treacherous aptly capture the nature of their misconduct.
Additionally, we must examine the darker elements of foreign bribery and corrupt practices, where manipulated arbitration processes and bribed witnesses obscure the truth from public scrutiny. This narrative highlights egregious acts of kleptocracy and deceptive foreign corruption schemes, revealing the troubling influence of international consultants who have facilitated the unjust sale of crucial government assets. Ultimately, this quest for truth inspires a collective determination to pursue justice.
The allegations of corruption and injustices experienced by the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) by various administrative authorities, within the context of legally administered arbitrations, are substantial. Due to the complexity of these issues, we felt it was essential to separate them for clarity and understanding.
As you engage with this publication, I encourage you to consistently review the evidence on the website and consult the numbered exhibits. This will enable you to appreciate the gravity of the matters discussed fully.
On 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:
- “Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.
- “In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.
- “The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
On 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration, noting:
- “The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.
- “I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …
- “In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
Please be advised of the following:
John Rundell's assertion in his communication to John Pinnock (see Open letter File No/45-E) that the Brighton CIB Department of the Brighton police force intended to interview me regarding property damage at his residence was entirely false. This fabrication was orchestrated to halt Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from further pursuing investigations into my arbitration claims.
Mr. Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group (Victoria Police), inquired into this claim and determined that I had never been a suspect of causing damage to Mr. Rundell's property by the Brighton CIB police. Furthermore, John Pinnock has not mandated Mr. Rundell to issue a written apology to Laurie James for utilising Mr. Rundell's letter as an attachment to his correspondence with Laurie James dated 17 February 1996 (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E).
False statements made by individuals such as Dr. Gordon Hughes and John Rundell have had a negative impact on my life and that of my partner, Cathy. On the day I signed my arbitration agreement, April 21, 1994, I received a different agreement than the one provided to Senators Richard Alston and Ron Boswell, as well as to lawyers William Hunt and Alan Goldberg QC, on the afternoon of April 19, 1994. I felt it necessary to exonerate John Rundell and several others for any deliberate or negligent actions they may have taken during my arbitration, as mentioned in Part 2, Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct. Furthermore, the fax imprint on the arbitration agreement dated April 19, 1994, confirms that it was sent from Dr. Gordon Hughes's office (the arbitrator) to lawyers Hunt and Goldberg after 1:00 PM. This indicates that the agreement was altered between the afternoon of April 19 and the morning of April 21 at 10:00 AM.
The statement made by DMR & Lane at point 2.23 in their 30 April 1995 report provided to the arbitrator as their final report when it was not complete has haunted me ever since the conclusion of my arbitration i, i.e.;
“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,” (see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)
Arbitrator False Evidence File 1) I'm wondering if Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd pressured DMR Group Inc (Canada) to refrain from diagnosing my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone billing problems because Lane was already in negotiations with Ericsson to sell itself to the latter, which it eventually did in 1996.
Or was it because Dr Hughes, the arbitrator, rejected DMR & Lane's request for additional time to investigate these billing issues, which they had advised him of on 30 April 1995? They had suggested that more time was needed to look into these faults because Telstra had informed Dr Hughes that these billing issues were widespread across Australia. Dr Hughes was reluctant to officially rule my claim because it would have left the door open for similar claims from the 120,000 other COT-Type Telstra customers complaining of the same faults as referred to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN
During my phone conversation with Dr Hughes on 4 May 1995 and in my fax of 5 May 1995, I asked why DMR & Lane had not yet investigated my ongoing billing issues in their final 30 April 1995 report. It is also noted in both reports that DMR & Lane note:
"A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist".
However, my Letter of Claim dated 7 June 1994, submitted to arbitration on 15 June 1995 (Refer to Open letter File Nos/46-A to 46-J), shows that a comprehensive log of my complaints did exist.
Forces at Work - Part 1
Corruption, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
There are discrepancies between the arbitrator’s version and my version of Lane's prepared technical consultant report titled Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report. Mr Alan Smith. CBHC. 30 April 1995. The second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence, “It is complete and final as it is,” (see Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator’s report, also dated 30 April 1995, says:
“There is, however, an addendum which we may find it necessary to add during the next few weeks on billing, i.e. possible discrepancies in Smith’s Telecom bills.” (See Arbitrator File No/28)
The arbitrator’s version contains more information than mine. For example, the reference to my ongoing billing problems states that extra weeks are required to complete the investigation, but the arbitrator did not provide the extra weeks.
Page two of this report (provided as the final report) Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D shows no mention of my billing claim document being discussed in my version. However, page three in the arbitrator’s version notes:
“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.
“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” (See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)
It is curious how two technical reports, prepared by the same consultants and with the same 23 technical assessments, dated 30 April 1995, can have different versions. One version notes that the “… case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks,” while the other does not mention the case still being open and requiring weeks to complete.
This situation raises an important question: What hidden influences could prevent an arbitrator from uncovering the truth and providing transparency regarding the ongoing phone and fax issues that continued to affect my business endeavours? It's essential to highlight that the lack of investigation into the billing problems, which should have been thoroughly addressed according to the agreed arbitration procedure, resulted in an incomplete report, as noted by DMR & Lane. Given this context, I question why my claim was finalized when it was clear from DMR & Lane's wording that their findings remained inconclusive.
Both reports state that a comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not seem to exist. However, this log did exist along with 76 letters. AUSTEL acknowledges that these letters could have been from clients; all were separate testaments. They included the Cape Bridgewater Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, that exposed how degraded the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment was. The same Ericsson AXE ongoing telephone problems continued for years after the completion of my arbitration.
A fault complaint log was also provided to the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, on 15 June 1994 and is attached on pages 19 to 34 in my Letter of Claim (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
Corruption in the government-endorsed arbitration process continued.
Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within twelve months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.
Forces at Work - Part 2
From Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, it becomes clear that John Rundell, who served as the Arbitration Project Manager appointed by the arbitrator for my arbitration proceedings, was willing to engage in questionable practices. Not only was he prepared to remove the business logo of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd from its technical report, but he was also prepared to transfer it to a separate report created by DMR Group Inc., a company brought in from Canada. This manipulation created a misleading impression that the Lane Report originated from DMR Group Canada, thus obscuring the trustworthy source of the document.
Moreover, Rundell informed my financial advisor, Derek Ryan, that he had excised a segment of Ryan's financial report detailing my losses at the arbitrator's behest. This action raises serious concerns about the integrity of the proceedings.
Compounding these issues, on November 15, 1995, just after he became a partner at KPMG, Rundell communicated with John Pinncock, the administrator overseeing my arbitration. In his correspondence, he inaccurately asserted that DMR and Lane had not left the 008/800 billing issues unresolved in their formal technical report assessing my billing discrepancies. This claim directly contradicts the evidence in Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, exposing a significant misrepresentation.
It is also important to note that John Rundell was a member of the technical resource unit, and I was forced, under pressure, to exonerate him from all liability (as detailed in the $250,000 liability caps discussed below). This was a necessary step for my arbitration matters to proceed further.
The corrupt practices within the government and the major auditing firms—often referred to as the "big four" —have significant implications for the integrity of Australia's democratic justice system. A troubling incident arises from the actions of a partner at KPMG, who provided misleading information regarding my arbitration to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, not just once but twice—once in November 1995 and again in February 1996. This was during an active investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia into this individual’s conduct during and after my arbitration, including the questionable conduct of the arbitrator involved.
Delve into the chilling world of appalling crimes, nefarious criminals, and corrupt politicians, alongside the lawyers who wield significant influence over the arbitration process in Australia. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous only begin to capture the profound moral depravity exhibited by self-proclaimed arbitrators in COT arbitrations. These individuals, lacking proper qualifications as graded arbitrators, were still chosen to oversee critical cases, despite some failing the rigorous Institute of Arbitration's Australian exams. This oversight led to a cascade of inaccurate findings that undermined the integrity of the arbitration process.
Why did Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) bring down my award on 11 May 1995, after arbitration consultants DMR & Lane advised on 30 April 1995 that they had only investigated eleven per cent of my claim documents and needed further weeks to do so? Ignore that request and bring down his findings when the very next day, on 12 May 1995 write to the administrator to the fur arbitration stating that:
- “the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;
- “in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …
- “In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” (Open Letter File No 55-A)
Why were the three remaining claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—granted the opportunity to amend their claims on May 14, 1995? This allowed them to prepare their amended allegations over thirteen months and respond to Telstra's defence, while I was not given the same thirteen months. Additionally, why was the letter dated May 12, 1995, concealed from me between May 12 and May 25 during that designated appeal period?
Was there more beneath the surface of my experiences with discrimination and the insidious electronic surveillance orchestrated by Telstra and government authorities? The memory still haunts me—on that fateful day, September 18, 1967, a Sydney journalist approached me with a grim warning just after I had miraculously managed to escape the clutches of Communist China aboard my ship. His words were etched in my mind: I would be a marked man for the rest of my life, forever carrying the burden of his foreboding prophecy.
In that tumultuous period, condemning the Americans for their involvement in the Vietnam War felt like a grim necessity to many, especially when the threat of violence loomed over us. It was a harsh yet understandable stance for those seeking solace when our country was not at war and felt relatively safe. My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on a British tramp ship, the Hopepeak. 
Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia.
This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Vietcong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong).
Fast forward to 2025, and I still hold the same conviction. Australia should never have been complicit in selling our precious wheat to China, especially knowing that some of that grain was being fed to the Viet Cong—our adversaries. It felt like a betrayal of the brave soldiers from Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, who were risking their lives on the battlefield. Realising that our resources aided those fighting against our own seemed a grievous wrong that should never have been overlooked (Refer to Flash Backs – China-Vietnam) ⇒ British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.
On 3 June 1990, during the period Telstra was telling me they had not found any problems (faults in their network) that were still affecting the viability of my businesses, The Australian (newspaper) printed an article under the heading: Telecom ‘spying’ on its employees, which supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The newspaper article states:
“She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom’s Protective Services branch.
“Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:
- He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. …
- He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
- Claimants have had a ‘C.CASS run’ on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone.” (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)
Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week that Telecom's activities included bugging workers' homes. …
In February 1994, the AFP visited my business at Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that I had recently received FOI documents suggesting Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned that Telstra had written the names of various people and businesses I had called on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). The hand-written notes in the right-hand column of this CCAS data include, against dates, the names of people I telephoned and faxed, e.g., 31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL and the Ombudsman. In one instance, the name Faye Smith appeared on several Telstra documents when I phoned my ex-wife. The writing up of my ex-wife's name on Telstra documentation reflects Senator Jenkins' statements above regarding Telstra's secret surveillance of their employees in 1990, because Telstra used similar tactics between January 1994, while in a litigation process with me and through to December 2001, when AUSTEL's Chairman, Tony Shaw was questioning my claims.
However, that was seven years after the Australian Federal Police (AFP) found my interception claims valid, as their second interview conducted at my business on 26 September 1994, shows. The AFP asked me 93 questions in their investigation into the phone and fax bugging issues, as their Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcript shows. It is perplexing that the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, particularly after being presented with the AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, "... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."
Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service and I at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), it noted:
‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’
During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)
A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.
By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at the COT spokesperson Graham Scorer's office.
It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.
Threats made during my arbitration
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“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)
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.
In my case, as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows, Telstra’s representative, Peter Gamble, attempted to conduct the essential Service Verification Testing (SVT) process. Unfortunately, he had to halt the testing due to unforeseen equipment malfunctions. When AUSTEL questioned how he planned to rectify this inadequate testing at my business, Mr Gamble refused to proceed with any further testing. Instead, he submitted a statutory declaration under oath to the arbitrator, claiming that his SVT process had fully complied with AUSTEL’s requirements. This assertion was far from the truth.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
The actions taken by Telstra during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as well as during investigations by the Australian Federal Police between 1994 and 1995 and the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group from late 1998 to 2001, are undeniably severe. It is alarming and unacceptable that Telstra employees have not considered legal repercussions for these actions. This highlights a troubling lack of accountability and transparency, casting doubt on the integrity of the systems meant to protect small businesses and uphold the rule of law.
It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.
The Major Fraud Group Barrister, Mr Neil Jepson, asked me to supply all evidence, at the request of the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, that assisted me in proving that Telstra used three individual reports to support their arbitrations claims against the COT Cases arbitrations, which I did by adding to further re Telstra's Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over three separate visits to Melbourne, spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group's St. Kilda Road offices on each of those three occasions, assisting the Victoria Police in understanding the relevance of the three fundamentally flawed reports, namely Telstra's Falsified which Telstra used to conceal from the arbitrator and his arbitration advisors how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was. AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) had already done their investigations into the grossly deficient Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchange during the early part of my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (which in April 1994 became the arbitration process. It is clear from AUSTEL's investigations leading up to March 1994 refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, that at points 2 to 212 in their report, they had uncovered how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was and, like Telstra's arbitration defence unit concealed these findings from the arbitration process.
File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, particularly Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that investigation as an advisor, showing the Major Fraud Group where, in those arbitrations, Telstra used five known fraudulent, flawed reports provided to the arbitrator and other to convince those parties Telstra had fixed all of their telephone and faxing problems before and/or during the arbitrations when telstra and their lawyers knew duiffenet. (Refer also to the Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).
Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".
Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.
I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced into arbitration with the same monster who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term
It may seem unbelievable, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, I received written threats from the Australian Government, warning me that I could be charged with contempt of the Senate if I ever revealed the in-camera Hansard records that were inadvertently shared with me by two high-ranking officers from the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. As I celebrate my 81st birthday this May, I keep their names confidential out of respect for these dedicated officers. They could not have possibly been mistaken in their revelations about the systemic corruption the Senate uncovered regarding Telstra during the COT arbitrations.
The Senate Hansards I received at their imposing St Kilda Road complex were supposedly given to me by the police officers I had previously collaborated with during my secondment. They believed these critical documents would support the remaining sixteen COT cases, which were still struggling to resolve their Freedom of Information claims. Sadly, then Prime Minister John Howard’s discriminatory actions placed substantial obstacles in the path of these sixteen cases.
I believe these vital Hansards could have turned the tide in our favour had the COT claimants chosen to appeal the arbitration process. However, the chilling threat of contempt of the Senate loomed over me—a threat carrying the weight of a two-year prison sentence. This situation raises a profound question: Where is justice in such an ordeal?
In March and April 2006, I presented several examples of intercepted documents from the COT arbitrations to the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications. One notable example included a document addressed to the Hon. Peter Costello, our former Australian Federal Treasurer. The Senator responded to me on 17 May 2007,
"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (File 616-B AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700)
It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.
The gravity of this situation raises critical questions: Why was it considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents leaving and arriving at Parliament House in Canberra during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, why was Telstra interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration?
When I phoned AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a public servant at the government communications regulatory department, to talk about this hang-up fault on 26 April 1994, Mr Mathieson suggested he and I conduct a series of tests on the phone line. He planned for me to hang up and count aloud, from one to 10, while he listened. This first test proved he could hear me count right up to 10. He suggested we try it again and count even further this time. It was still the same situation: he could hear me right through the range as I counted. Then he suggested I switch the phone on that line with a phone connected to another. I did this, and we repeated the counting test with the same results. It was apparent to both that the fault was not in the phone but somewhere in the Telstra network. Mr Mathieson suggested that, as I was in arbitration then, I should bring this fault to the attention of Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer. Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, named Peter Gamble in a Senate estimates committee hearing as the man who said he and Telstra had to stop the first COT five claimants (including me), at all cost, from proving our claims (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23 dated 24 June 1997).
Unaware of these orders to stop us from five COT cases (at all costs), I switched the phones back to their original lines and phoned Mr Gamble, but did not tell him Mr Mathieson, and I had already tested two phones on the 055 267230 lines. Mr Gamble and I then performed similar tests on the 055 267230 line. Mr Gamble said he would arrange for someone to collect the phone for testing the following day. FOI K00941, dated 26 March 1994, show someone (name redacted) believed this lock-up fault was caused by a problem in the RCM exchange at Cape Bridgewater see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C. Document K00940, dated the day the tests were performed with Mr Mathieson and Mr Gamble, suggests that Mr Gamble believed the problem was caused by heat in the exchange, see (File No-B), where document folio R37911 states:
“This T200 is an EXICOM and the other T200 is an ALCATEL, we thought that this may be a design ‘fault???’ with the EXICOM so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM and the old phone was marked and tagged…” (see File No 1-C).
My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location
If only the telephones had been fit for purpose
In my case, on 10 April 2002, Mr Ian Nosworthy, Senior Vice President of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediator Australia (IAMA), wrote to me concerning the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes AO, noting:
He was not, at the time, a graded arbitrator within the Institute, and was not included on the register of practising Arbitrators until well after he delivered the award in your matter on 11 May 1995.
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – 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.”
A Secret Deal
Was the decision to remove the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 discussed during the covert pre-arbitration meeting on March 22, 1994? Was this removal of the liability clause intended as a safety net to protect the arbitration consultants from being sued for negligence, similar to how an arbitrator can be challenged on appeal for incorrect decisions? Eliminating these clauses to prevent the resource unit from being sued constitutes gross misconduct of the highest order, bordering on criminal behavior.
Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer wrote to the TIO on 11 July 1994 stating:
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”.
The statement in Telstra’s letter Exhibit 590 in File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 “if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator” confirms that both the TIO and Telstra were aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had been assigned to vet most, if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to the arbitrator. If the resource unit decided a document was irrelevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed on to the arbitrator or other parties. This secret deal has been linked to further clandestine dealings and is discussed elsewhere on absentjustice.com. Could this secret deal be directly related to the essential 24 January 1995 arbitration letter, which is discussed below under Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman?
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) is an Australian National Telecommunications Industry Regulator, which seems like a good idea except that this Ombudsman is funded by the telecommunication carriers themselves, which means that it can hardly be called impartial, on any level, but particularly when they are involved in an arbitration, and their wages are actually paid by the defendants in that arbitration! Evidence available at absentjustice.com shows that, during the COT arbitrations, the TIO allowed Telstra employees (the defendants in the arbitration) to be present at all TIO board meetings, and all monthly TIO council meetings, including any that involved discussions about COT arbitration issues. So were any COTs (the complainants in this legalistic arbitration process) allowed to attend those same meetings, or even invited to those meetings? Of course not! And did anyone in any position of power ever attempt to put the complainants on the same footing as the defendants? Indeed not; once again, the COTs were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner.
I responded to Dr Gordon Hughes’ crucial 23 January 1995 letter (see) on 24 January 1995, but I didn’t receive any acknowledgement that Dr Hughes had received it. John Pinnock, the second TIO, later wrote to me (on 28 June 1995) claiming that no one had received my response to Dr Hughes’ letter, so the record showed that I had not replied.
After the statute of limitations had expired, and I could therefore no longer appeal my arbitration award, the TIO’s office returned most (but not all) of my arbitration documents and what was one of the documents that I DID get back? Yes, the letter I faxed to Dr Hughes on 24 January 1995 was included, with fax machine footprint identified across the top of the document.
If Dr Hughes had replied to my 24 January 1995 letter, I could have proved Telstra knowingly used fraudulent documents as arbitration defence documents as the following link > Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report shows.
As shown in File 10 above, the TIO did NOT have the authority to introduce a separate deal into a process conducted according to a written legal agreement. On page 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, under Part II – Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires, (see Open Letter File No/21
6. An arbitration agreement shall be taken to provide for the appointment of a single arbitrator unless –
(a) the agreement otherwise provides; or
(b) the parties otherwise agree in writing.
The fast-track arbitration procedure agreement I signed specifies that only one arbitrator will exist. To my knowledge, no amendment was attached to the agreement allowing a second arbitrator to determine which information the first arbitrator would see. If such an agreement existed, I would not have signed it.
Numerous cases surrounding the Telstra arbitrations—spanning from the tumultuous pre-proceedings through chaotic hearings to their distressing fallout—expose the extent to which these officials have perverted their roles. They exert undue pressure on both individuals and organisations, compelling compliance through the deceptive guise of legitimate legal authority.
As we approach 2025, we face a critical question: Are these unethical practices still entrenched within the Australian arbitration landscape, or are we witnessing a transformative shift towards a more equitable and just legal environment?
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
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."
On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of test results provided by Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills in Melbourne). These contentious test results from Bell Canada International Inc. were submitted for review to Mr. Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was set to travel to Portland for an assessment of my mental health amid ongoing arbitration proceedings.
DMR Group Inc. Canada was brought into the arbitration process in March 1995 by the arbitration administrators, ten months after it was learned the original arbitration consultants had admitted they had a gigantic conflict of interest, regardless of their having signed the arbitration confidentiality papers in April 1994. At the time, Telstra had 47 of the most prestigious legal firms in Australia and just about all of the recognised telecommunications in Victoria on retainer. I had to source a technical consultant, George Close & Associates, who lived in Buderim in Queensland, 1000 kilometres away.
In the 1980s and 1990s, taking a stand against Telstra was an unthinkable move for any reputable professional. The sheer power that Telstra wielded in the telecommunications sector meant that defying them could lead to immediate and devastating consequences, such as the abrupt termination of contracts that businesses had relied on for years. As you immerse yourself in the following story, you will discover that Telstra's approach was not just about issuing threats; they were unflinching in their resolve and acted on those threats with alarming certainty.
After conducting an exhaustive review of the compelling evidence surrounding DMR Group Inc. (Canada), I have arrived at a deeply troubling realisation. Paul Howell, a highly regarded Principal Technical Arbitration Consultant, was dispatched from Canada with a specific mandate: to investigate the serious technical grievances I raised against Telstra between 1994 and 1995. My complaints stemmed from alarming and deceptive practices that Telstra engaged in, particularly their troubling reliance on falsified testing results provided by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Cape Bridgewater Telstra facility. These misleading results led the arbitrator down a misguided path, resulting in a conclusion contradicting my lived experiences, leading him to dismiss my claims of ongoing telephone faults.
What amplifies the distressing nature of this situation is the unsettling realisation that the government communications authority was aware of Telstra's flawed testing methodologies. These methods were manifestly inadequate for identifying the recurring systemic issues I had consistently reported. This troubling information is painstakingly documented in their report dated March 1994, where specific points—particularly AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at 210, 211, and 212—stand out for their glaring exposure of a profound disregard for the validity of the tests.
Deepening this narrative of frustration is the painful understanding that neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications possesses any obligation to take action in investigating or resolving the persistent telephone faults that have plagued my service for years. Point 2.23 of their report starkly highlights the unsettling reality that the failure to investigate these ongoing issues has left them unresolved and exposed. The arbitration report, dated April 30, paints a grim and unflattering portrait of the process, suggesting that Howell's journey from Canada was merely a procedural formality that endorsed a deeply flawed report. This report not only contributed to the downfall of my business but also wreaked havoc on my personal and professional life. This disturbing scenario raises profound and unsettling questions about the ethical integrity and accountability within the Canadian telecommunications industry.
In the wake of my first heart attack, I returned home after several days in the hospital to recuperate. Upon my return, I received a phone call from Paul Howell, who expressed his sincere wishes for my speedy recovery. He candidly remarked that it was the worst arbitration process he had ever been involved in, noting that no arbitration would have permitted such an appalling approach had it occurred in North America. Disturbed by his account, I sent a statutory declaration to the then Minister of Communications, Michael Lee MP, detailing what Mr. Howell had disclosed. Once again, a Canadian national had courageously shone a light on the troubling events that had transpired, even though the government owned the Telstra Corporation.
The story was an ongoing saga from the time of purchase, December 1987
My name is Alan Smith, and this is the tale of my relentless battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This intricate and exhausting struggle has twisted and turned since 1992. This saga has drawn in elected officials, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the colossal telecommunications entity Telstra, which was called Telecom at the beginning of my journey. The pursuit of justice continues to this day.
My odyssey began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea—an adventure spanned over 28 years—was ending. I needed to find a new land-based vocation to sustain me through my retirement years and beyond. Of all the incredible places I had explored around the globe, Cape Bridgewater, Portland, Victoria, Australia, captured my heart, and I made it my home.
Having dedicated my career to the hospitality industry, I had long nurtured the dream of running a vibrant school holiday camp. The moment I came across the advertisement for the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre in The Age newspaper, I felt excitement. Nestled in the picturesque rural landscape of Victoria, close to the charming maritime port of Portland, the camp seemed like an idyllic opportunity. Everything appeared perfect: the setting, the potential, and the promise of a fulfilling new chapter in my life. I conducted my due diligence, ensuring that the business was sound and viable, or at least I thought I had covered all necessary checks. Who could have predicted that I would also need to verify the reliability of the phone service?
Just one week after taking ownership, reality struck like a thunderbolt. I began receiving alarming reports from customers and suppliers alike, repeatedly informing me that their phone calls to my camp were met with silence.
Indeed, that was the stark truth. I owned a holiday camp that should have been bustling but was hindered by erratic and often non-existent phone service—an essential lifeline to my business. Consequently, we began to experience significant financial losses.
Thus, my formidable saga commenced—a relentless quest to secure a functional phone line at the property. Throughout this journey, I experienced moments of fleeting hope, receiving partial compensation for some business losses and endless assurances that the problems were resolved. Tragically, it became clear that those promises were hollow, and the issues remain unresolved. After selling the business in 2002, I learned that subsequent owners faced analogous struggles.
I was not alone in this fight. Other independent businesspeople adversely affected by poor telecommunications joined forces with me, forming a collective known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. Our unified plea is simple: we need Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge the many issues we have faced, rectify those problems, and compensate us for our losses. Is a reliable phone line too much to ask?
AUSTEL's official statement in their "COT Cases Report" at Point 5.46 on page 95 dated April 1994 notes:
As part of its direction, AUSTEL sought to obtain detailed information on each of the exchanges involved in terms of performance standards, actual performance, maintenance requirements, and achievements. Telecom initially responded with advice in terms of a few generalisations. A cooperative approach may have been expected to deliver particular requests that were necessary to obtain data. Indeed, throughout this inquiry, it has been apparent that Telecom has interpreted AUSTEL’s request for information in the narrowest possible terms. The net effect was to minimise the amount of relevant data it put before AUSTEL and lengthen the process necessary to extract it.
Our initial move was to request a comprehensive Senate investigation into Telecom and the issues we encountered. Instead, we were presented with an alternative: an arbitration process, which initially seemed like a promising avenue for resolution. We accepted this option, having been told by the government communications authority, AUSTEL (now called ACMA), that our telephone and faxing problems would be fixed as part of the arbitration process.
Regrettably, fate had other plans. Doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process began to haunt us almost immediately. We had been assured that if we embarked on this arbitration journey, we would gain access to the Telecom documents necessary to fortify our case. Yet, despite those promises, the crucial documents remain elusive, and we still find ourselves without access to them. Our concerns deepened when we discovered that our fax lines were being illegally tapped—hacked—during the arbitration. Stripped of governmental support, our claims went uninvestigated, even in the face of compelling evidence presented to the authorities.
To worsen our plight, we had been unwittingly trapped by a confidentiality clause, which has stymied our efforts at every turn. Although I may risk repercussions by revealing this information to the public, what choice do I have?
Our next course of action involved exhausting every possible avenue to retrieve the promised yet withheld documents through the Freedom of Information (FOI) process. We firmly believed that evidence existed to substantiate our claims that the phone lines were inoperable and had not been adequately tested according to established protocols. However, without access to those documents, any hope of advancing our case remains stunted.
And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is illegal. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is prohibited (see Tampering with Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.
How can one craft a meticulously detailed and accurate narrative of the intricate events that unfolded during various arbitrations sanctioned by the Australian Government? The challenge is compounded by the necessity to eschew reliance on exculpatory evidence, which I have regrettably resorted to to lend credibility to my account. What strategic methodologies can an author employ to firmly substantiate claims, while carefully sidestepping legal repercussions, regarding the covert actions of government public servants? These individuals are alleged to have clandestinely provided privileged information to the telecommunications carrier owned by the Australian Government, which functions as the defendant in this case. Moreover, it raises the pressing question: Did they intentionally withhold crucial evidence from the claimant, thereby compromising the integrity of the arbitration process?
How can we effectively unveil the troubling practices of the regulatory body AUSTEL, which is now known as ACMA? It is crucial to highlight a deeply concerning revelation: the defendants allegedly resorted to using fabricated witness statements to assert that the arbitration testing complied with all mandatory government standards and specifications. Instead of confronting these serious violations head-on and demanding a comprehensive re-examination of the flawed arbitration tests—tests that had been denounced explicitly as grossly defective in two crucial letters addressed to Telstra's arbitration defense unit, Peter Gamble and Steve Black on October 11 and November 16 1994, as shown in Exhibits 23-E and 23-F Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G).
Despite the two letters indicating that Telstra's SVT testing at my business was severely inadequate, no further testing of my business lines occurred until November 2002. This was eight years after the initial failure of the SVT testing and ten months after I was forced to sell my holiday camp. Since the conclusion of my arbitration on May 11, 1995, no one had tested my service lines. I assume this was because if Telstra and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman had conducted further tests, they would have discovered that my telephone problems still impacted my business eight years later → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).
The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal? What convinced the arbitrator to change the findings in the DMR & Lane report?
I reiterate from the above statement that, to gain public trust in my story on absentjustice.com, I had no choice but to gather and present my evidence while disclosing what I share in the public's interest.
By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps provided me the ability to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,
What options did we have left? We had lost the arbitration due to our inability to secure the vital documents and faced yet another defeat in our appeal to obtain them. Should we abandon the fight, or is there a path forward that we can still pursue?
As a single operator aged 81, editing these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600-plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made, should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.
When I acquired my holiday camp, conducting business over the Internet—or even using emails and mobile phones—was still a distant dream. Little did I know I would be forced to sell my beloved business in December 2001 due to the lack of reliable phone and fax services.
In our small community of just 132 residents, the limitations of our communication infrastructure were evident. If four residents made or received calls simultaneously, only four phone lines were available for the remaining 128 residents, including families and friends visiting for the holidays. This often overwhelmed the phone lines during peak times, such as holidays and weekends, resulting in frustration and missed connections.
This communication bottleneck persisted for nearly four years—a critical period when any new business faces its most significant vulnerabilities. Did Telstra truly care about the hardships we faced? I invite you to read on and draw your conclusions. While doing so, consider the billboard displayed in the image above, which Telstra erected in 2018 on the way to Cape Bridgewater beach and the holiday camp proudly stating: "We've expanded Australia's best network to Cape Bridgewater".
Imagine what the arbitrator might have awarded me in 1994 during the arbitration process if Telstra had not submitted nine separate witness statements, all sworn under oath, claiming that there were no ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. Had the arbitrator been told it would take twenty-six years from 1994 to 2018 for Telstra to meet its government-mandated licensing conditions, he would have awarded me far greater compensation than he did. But this Telstra saga does not end here, as you will see if you continue to read my story.
