Constable Melanie Cochrane instructed me not to divulge the private information of the singles club members to Telstra. Meanwhile, Superintendent Detective Penrose suggested that I sneak the private details to the assessor under the guise of confidentiality, cautioning me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) was also probing this same material, which appears to have been unlawfully accessed by Telstra.
Constable Cochrane made it clear that I had assured my singles club members their private information would remain protected, and now I had to tread carefully when discussing this with the assessor, Dr. Hughes. Penrose hinted that the assessor would be aware of my limitations in sharing this sensitive information through conventional channels with Telstra while the AFP was investigating.
Given these troubling circumstances and Penrose’s dubious counsel, I sought clearance from the arbitrator to present this information under the cover of confidentiality.
Transcripts from my oral arbitration hearing on October 11, 1994, expose a disturbing reality: Telstra boldly claimed my singles club information was irrelevant, insisting it shouldn't even be acknowledged in the arbitration proceedings. This unsavoury manoeuvre suggested I had suffered losses in two businesses due to the relentless phone issues—specifically, the school camp bookings and the potentially more lucrative singles club bookings. The transcripts, which I can provide to the AFP upon request, reveal that Dr. Hughes was pressured and coerced into siding with Telstra’s demands, allowing their determination to trample my rights to present crucial evidence during arbitration.
One must wonder why Dr. Hughes capitulated to Telstra's corrupt influence, dismissing my singles club evidence as a mere business loss, especially given that he had previously understood Superintendent Detective Penrose's advice and agreed that my materials would only be reviewed in confidentiality with his presence or that of an official from the arbitration. This raises unsettling questions about the integrity of the entire process and the troubling collusion at play.
Question 24, in the 20 September 1994 interrogatories, shows I answered the following question 24 by stating to Telstra and the arbitrator:
“This matter is currently under investigation by the Federal Police. In the interest of fair justice I believe that I should not further comment apart from what I have already stated that it is true that I was told this by Detective Superintendent Penrose. It the Australian Federal Police are prepared to disclose the details of their investigations and of their conversations with myself, then Telecom will be able to obtain the same”
On 11 October 1994, during this oral hearing, which lasted for close to five hours, nonstop, Telstra’s Mr Benjamin and Telstra’s other arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, discussed with the arbitrator and me my claims regarding Telstra’s unauthorised interception issues, noting:
Ted Benjamin (Telstra): “In respect of Detective Superintendent Penrose.”
Steve Black (Telstra): “There has been an allegation that Detective Superintendent Penrose says that the Plummers’ telephone was allegedly unlawfully tapped” —
Me: “I believe Telecom is playing on words – the word “illegally tapped” – it’s like asking me – I’m not a —
Dr Hughes (Arbitrator): “Sorry, if I can interrupt both of you, the issue here is that your answers – your answer to question 24, you indicate that you were told something by Detective Superintendent Penrose.”
Me: “Yes:”
Dr Hughes (Arbitrator): “Is there any documentation to support that statement or is there any other light that you can shed upon that statement you have made in relation to Detective Penrose?”…
Me: “I have spoken to Detective Penrose on two occasions and he has stated that my phones had been listened to.”
I raise my answer to question 24 regarding Telstra's interrogatories (Questions for better particulars) and the oral arbitration hearing because of the main question they raise: how could it possibly be ethical, or moral, for Dr Hughes to expect me to disclose at this meeting personal and private information about the female members of my Singles Club, for all to see when the Australian Federal Police (AFP) told this was not appropriate while they were still investigating Telstra about how Telstra was able to separately record the names and phone numbers of various female Singles Club members (which were of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, bush-walking, canoing, horse ridding (social club) which was another part of the revenue my holiday camp was losing due to the ongoing telephone problems. The AFP was trying to determine how Telstra had obtained this private information about the group, as it had only been shared by those members via fax or discussed over the telephone.
On page seven of its final, 3 May 1995, financial-evaluation report, which both Telstra and I received, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA) the arbitration financial advisor to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) states:
“An analysis of the clientele of CBHC shows that only 53% were in fact schools.” (See Open Letter File No 57-A to 57-D)
There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.
The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:
“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (See p33, point 85, Open Letter File No/6)
I also demonstrated to AUSTEL, when their representatives visited my venue, that singles club customers regularly purchased souvenirs before leaving, including printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA ignored all the income I lost from lost singles club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs, as well as the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.
The Arbitration Project Manager, John Rundell’s statement to Derek Ryan Open letter File No/45-E) that “FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator” ties in with the excluded single club material, and my Echo tourism venture losses, which I provided, under confidentiality, to FHCA in February 1995, when it visited my busi ess. The submission of this singles club evidence into arbitration under confidentiality is discussed on this website. What has not been widely discussed is that it took six years after John Rundell made this statement for (Open letter File No/45-E) to come to light.
To be continued
