There was very little to salvage 

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne) devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

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

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

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

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

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

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page 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 former 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 on page 5169 of the 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 (the author of "The COT Strategy") before Telstra attempted to fix them, almost drove 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 required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. 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.

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 representative of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report regarding my telecommunications issues prior to 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, who also was the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1. any explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin (clinical psychologist)

2. were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement 

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.

It is June 2025, 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. 

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

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements 

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

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 the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use? 

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 institutionalization. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

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

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

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek 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 hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.

 

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 indicate that you are the only customer complaining, despite the documents showing that 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.

These insidious tactics were intended as gaslighting techniques designed to ruin our chances of obtaining a reliable phone service. If my claims, along with those of my fellow COT Cases, were not genuine, what prompted a former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, to publicly demand answers regarding the internal Telstra document that recorded my conversation with him?

The arbitration process, led by Dr. Gordon Hughes and administered by Warwick Smith, served as little more than a symbolic gesture—like trying to swat a fly on an elephant's backside in the face of Telstra's flagrant unethical conduct.

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. The letters were addressed to The Honourable Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Honourable Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). They state that gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to undermine our legitimate claims against Telstra. Additionally, the letters expose allegations regarding Senator Bob Collins, who was responsible for the investigations into ongoing telephone issues, including the interception of our phone conversations during the period when he faced accusations of child sexual abuse. (See (rb.gy/dsvidd).   

The issue of paedophile activity, particularly the disturbing cover-up of this child rape by a former senator, has surfaced as an alarming concern that demands urgent attention. There are pressing questions regarding whether these grave issues were intertwined with the contentious Telstra arbitration cases involving the four Customers of Telstra (COT) cases. During this tumultuous period—marked by escalating tensions and public scrutiny—the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were engaged in a dual investigation. On one front, they were probing Telstra's unauthorised interception of crucial telephone conversations related to the COT cases; on another, they were uncovering the horrifying incidents of child sexual abuse that had taken place within the hallowed halls of Parliament House in Canberra.

This simultaneous investigation raises unsettling inquiries about the potential for these pedophile activities to reflect a more pervasive, systemic issue within the government, suggesting a troubling culture that extends far beyond the actions of a single, disgraced senator. Compounding my concerns are the serious threats made against me by Telstra, which have been duly documented by Senator Bob Collins. These threats appear to be intricately linked to a troubling theft that occurred within Parliament House, adding yet another layer of complexity to this already nightmarish situation.

Alarmingly, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, along with Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing my arbitration, opted not to pursue an investigation into Telstra's alarming withholding of critical documents—documents that could have significantly bolstered my case. Even as the threats against me were being carried out, Dr. Hughes and Smith seemed unwilling to hold Telstra accountable for their actions. Instead, in a striking contradiction, Dr. Hughes, in his written award, commended Telstra for their conduct throughout the arbitration process, casting serious doubt on his objectivity. This troubling behaviour suggests that both individuals may be more deeply entangled in this disturbing cover-up than the citizens of Australia have been led to believe.

It is also essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter dated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.

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.  

 

How does a passionate holiday camp operator, driven by his deep love for children, find himself stepping into the ownership of a school camp? He faces the unsettling prospect that the ongoing telephone problems plaguing his camp may be linked to alarming revelations from Telstra—specifically, their admission to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that one of their local technicians in Portland had been secretly intercepting my telephone conversations. Intriguingly, this interception was reportedly only active while this technician was on duty. Why, one might wonder, was a device capable of such invasive surveillance used exclusively during his shifts, especially when the telephone issues had been an incessant headache since at least January 1988—and it was now an unsettling March 1994?

In question 81 of the AFP transcripts, which pertains to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, compelling evidence has been disclosed that sheds light on the involvement of John McMahon from AUSTEL. He provided crucial information corroborating the claim that my phones had indeed been bugged. The transcripts clearly specify, "… it does identify that you were live monitored for some time. We are quite satisfied that there are other references to it."

Furthermore, the details presented in exhibits 646 and 647 (refer to AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) underscore a significant admission made by Telstra. In a written statement to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994, they acknowledged that my private and business telephone conversations were surreptitiously listened to and recorded over several months, however, only during the hours that this specific officer was on duty.

This raises a critical question: Does Telstra honestly expect the Australian Federal Police to accept the notion that every time this officer departed from the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm system designed to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was conveniently turned off? What rationale exists for deploying equipment that connects to my telephone lines, operational only when this particular technician is present? 

During my arbitration proceedings, I sought detailed records from the specific equipment set up for this designated Portland technician under the Freedom of Information Act. However, Telstra failed to produce this data during my arbitration in 1994-95, and disappointingly, it remains unavailable even now, in 2025.

ARTICLE 7

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

Are serious crimes being perpetrated against the parties entering into arbitration, reminiscent of the troubling case involving the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrator? In this particular instance, the arbitrator was on the verge of removing specific contentious clauses from the arbitration agreement just before the confidentiality provisions were signed. Once the parties affixed their signatures to the agreement, these coercively inserted clauses effectively silenced the claimants, preventing them from reporting the various crimes that had occurred prior to the agreement's execution. As a result, the clauses served as a shield, obstructing any investigation into the unethical practices adopted by the arbitrator. This concerning pattern is evident in the outcomes of three separate COT arbitrations, raising significant questions about the integrity of the arbitration process. (See Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct).

Altering clause 24 and removing the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 after the first of the four COT Cases, Maureen Gillan disadvantaged the remaining three claimants, Ann Garm,s Graham Schorer and me, from using those clauses to appeal the findings made by the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes.

 

 

In March 1994, AUSTEL released a comprehensive report titled AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which spanned from points 2 to 212. This report confirmed that the Government Communications Authority had conducted an in-depth investigation into my ongoing telephone problems and found my claims against Telstra to be substantiated. It is clear that had the arbitrator been presented with this critical report, the financial compensation awarded for my business losses would have been significantly greater than the amount he determined for the six years AUSTEL had investigated.

According to government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551), AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra, the defendants in my case, merely one month before I signed the arbitration agreement with them. In stark contrast, I did not receive my own copy of these crucial findings until November 23, 2007—twelve long years after my arbitration had concluded. This delay occurred well beyond the statute of limitations, preventing me from utilising the valuable government findings in an appeal that could have undoubtedly led to additional compensation.

I am profoundly frustrated and disturbed by the fact that I was compelled to invest more than $300,000 in arbitration fees to support my case against Telstra— a case that was already well-established by AUSTEL/ACMA. The situation arose from essential information located in Telstra's Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook, critical evidence that AUSTEL had successfully accessed to bolster their findings. Alarmingly, AUSTEL was fully aware that this vital evidence (telephone exchange logbook) was being intentionally withheld from me throughout the arbitration process. This deliberate concealment not only undermines the integrity of the proceedings but also places an unjust financial burden on me. AUSTEL/ACMA has egregiously failed in their statutory obligation to me as a citizen of Australia.

On page 62 of Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr. Barry O’Sullivan, who initially served as the arbitration claim advisor for Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me, was endorsed by the three of us based on his impressive credentials and integrity. With a distinguished career as a Detective Sergeant in the Queensland Police Force, he exemplified the qualities we valued in our advisor. In 2000, Mr. O’Sullivan transitioned into politics, becoming a National Party Senator for Queensland. During a Senate Committee session, he provided testimony under oath regarding the three of us claimants, asserting that we three claimants:

“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett  in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.

Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional manner”

Dr. Hughes, who serves as the arbitrator, and Warwick Smith, the administrator, are incorrect in their assessment regarding the applicability of the confidentiality clauses within the arbitration agreement. They assert that these clauses encompass any wrongdoing that took place before the signing of the deal by the COT Cases. However, it raises a critical question: how can a crime committed during the period from January 1994 to April 19, 1994, be shielded by a confidentiality agreement that was only executed on April 21, 1994? This contradiction highlights a fundamental flaw in their reasoning and calls into question the validity of their judgment.

I have never received a copy of my arbitration file, despite John Pinnock, the second-appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations, advised a Sentate Committee on 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) that 

“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.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

What factors allowed Telstra, along with the arbitrator and the so-called independent consultants, to operate beyond the confines of the rule of law? What forces were truly controlling these arbitrations, and why did Telstra escape accountability for its unlawful actions concerning the COT cases? Furthermore, what circumstances led to Dr. Hughes's lack of control over the COT arbitration processes? In addition, how can it be explained that the arbitrator praised Telstra Corporation in his written findings for their supposedly appropriate conduct, even after receiving alerts from John Rundell, the arbitration project manager, about external influences that were jeopardising the integrity of the arbitration process?

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. 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 invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting 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 intention of submitting 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 jeopardise 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 26 September 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 attention of 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 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 that establishes 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 jeopardising my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorised 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 compromised the integrity of the arbitration process and gave Telstra an unfair advantage in its 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 authorised 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 

Another Alan Smith, unrelated, was also living in Cape Bridgewater during my arbitration. 

No one investigated whether this other 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 the 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).

I refer to the Senate Hansard records from 20 September 1995, which capture a profoundly emotional speech delivered by Senator Ron Boswell under the heading "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST ". In this compelling address, he passionately highlighted the significant injustices endured by the four claimants involved in the COT case—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me—during what were inaccurately labelled as government-endorsed arbitrations. His words conveyed our pain and frustration, underscoring the more significant systemic issues at play. It is essential to draw attention to the remarks made by Senator Boswell regarding the TIO and his annual report, as they shed light on the broader implications of our experiences and the need for accountability.

“...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. … (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

 

 

Given the extensive and intricate nature of the COT Cases narrative, the editors, upon meticulously reviewing a vast array of Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, recommended that we begin by illustrating that our telecommunication problems encompass far more than just the COT Cases’ account of corruption within Australia’s arbitration system. To set the stage, we should first present compelling and undeniable evidence that numerous government ministers—individuals who share our deep concern—firmly believed that an inexperienced arbitrator should never have been entrusted with the responsibility of presiding over a government-endorsed arbitration, as was the case during the COT arbitrations. 

Hovering over the names of the six senators listed below will direct you to the Australian Government archives, where you can access the statements made by these senators regarding the unethical conduct associated with the COT Cases during their government-sanctioned Telstra arbitrations. These senators, expressing their astonishment, articulated their concerns in the Senate Hansard on March 11, 1999, and their remarks will be permanently recorded therein. Their findings lend credence to the narrative currently presented on absentjustice.com. It is also noteworthy that, shortly after the prior COT arbitrator resigned from his position in late 1998, he joined a prominent law firm that was assessing the same 1800 freecall billing issues that he had previously disregarded while serving as the COT arbitrator from 1994 to 1998.

 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston  Sen Richard.  

 

On 23 March 1999, 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, noting: 

“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.”   

This concern is particularly highlighted by the fact that the arbitrator involved had never engaged in a court battle against the notoriously corrupt, government-owned telecommunications company, which, at that time, was the sole telecommunications provider in Australia. Such a situation raises serious questions about the arbitrator's qualifications and impartiality.

Moreover, when this arbitrator represented the Telstra corporation as legal counsel for one of the COT Cases four years earlier, he failed to ensure that his client, Graham Schorer, received all the critical documents to which he was entitled. This negligence is notably documented in Graham Schorer’s letter of understanding, which reveals a startling absence of necessary documentation that should have been provided (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).

By highlighting the voices of numerous government ministers who have openly condemned Telstra for its unethical practices, we strengthen our assertion that our narrative extends far beyond mere ongoing telephone issues that have plagued us for three decades. This callous conduct has not gone unnoticed.

 

Government Corruption 

 

 

According to Telstra's own file note:

Alan Smith rang 15/8/91 re service 267 267. Incoming callers are receiving engaged signal when it's not engaged …

This has been a continuing problem and he is losing a lot of business.

I said it appears from the fault history that the problem may be in the exchange and that the next RCM exchange 21/8 would solve these problems but that I would check this out with the techs.

I also said we would have a look at the service now to try and get it working correctly until cutover. AS4 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47.

At last, someone in Telstra had given me something to hang on to. When Karen sold her house, a part of the proceeds went towards paying my legal fees and my debt to Faye. I paid Faye out, and Karen's name was now officially on the title to the business. We counted the days to the installation of the new exchange.

However, the triumph of a new exchange, which came at the end of August 1991, was the briefest of victories. It made not the slightest difference. The telephone problems continued just as before. However, now exacerbated by the dreadful disappointment that the war wasn't over at all. Increasingly, people reported complaints about recorded voice announcements, and I continued to complain to Telstra about faults, which seemed to me to be worsening, not improving. I asked the technicians if a new exchange wouldn't correct the problems; then, where could the faults lie? Their response was unbelievable: 'No fault found.' They simply refused to engage with my question. I cursed the fact that I had no contact details for the one person who had acknowledged the faults. I did not see the file note he wrote until 1995.

New bookings continued to be rare. The Camp was getting in need of painting and upgrading. The business looked sad and bedraggled, so people passing by were not inclined to stop. And when we did have a booking, cash flow was a problem, making it tricky to put food on the table. We somehow always managed, but it was very stressful. Karen was starting to see her investment going down the drain, and the strain on her came to a head while we were in the middle of organising a charity camp for underprivileged children.

Despite the financial precariousness of the enterprise, I had, from the start, sponsored the stays of underprivileged groups at the Camp. It was no loss to me, really: sponsored food was provided through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and it cost me only a small amount in electricity and gas.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, mainly organised by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact. The Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline — no sound at all. Finally, after trying in vain for an entire week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

 

Testimonials

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks, partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repeatedly, regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

The holiday Camp could sleep 90 to 100 people in fourteen cabins. When the charity group organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, finally arrived, the whole week became a great success for all concerned; all enjoyed the in-camp activities, canoeing, and horse riding on the beach. I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact, Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain for an entire week, she drove the 3½ hours to finalise the arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a furious man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her that she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends. However, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me the space to travel, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson 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

In early 1992, Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, made the three-and-a-half-hour drive from the college to my holiday camp to make a booking. She was aware of the difficulties we faced with telephone connectivity, having experienced issues herself during the two years that Loreto used the venue.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson 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

In 1997, after I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, "Absent Justice: My Story," which details my valiant attempt to run a business relying on a telephone-dependent service without a reliable phone connection, she acknowledged my story, noting:

“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

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these incredible women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line.  Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  read:

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.” Evidence File 10 B 

During the same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, a professional associate of mine, signed a Statutory Declaration dated 20 May 1994, explaining several sinister incidents that occurred when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (File 22, Exhibits 1 to 47).  This declaration leaves questions unanswered about who collected my mail and how they knew there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office.  On both occasions, when a third person collected this mail, I telephoned Cathy, informing her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me that mail was waiting to be picked up. 

On pages 12 and 13, a transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP states at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47

I also provided the AFP Telstra documents, which showed that Telstra was concerned about my telephone complaint evidence, as it would have a 50% chance of proving that Telstra had systemic phone problems in their network if it were to reach an Australian court. In simple terms, Telstra was operating outside of its license to operate a telephone service, charging its customers for a service not provided.  

21st April 1993:  Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “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 overlooked the fact that Telstra is 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. Bribery and corruption plagued the government-endorsed arbitrations in the COT cases.

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 after I had driven the 18 kilometres to Portland Hospital to raise the alarm. 

After five years, it took this almost tragic event for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit occurred on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital had vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove that my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital outlet that chose convalescent as a form of healing has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. 

It was another fiasco that lasted until August 2009, when not-so-new owners of my business were walked off the holiday camp premises as bankrupts. 

In light of the extensive body of evidence supporting our original homepage at absentjustice.com, it became imperative to convey this information in a manner that fosters reader confidence. We opted to develop two interconnected mini-stories, designed to render the overall narrative so extraordinary that it necessitated the creation of intentional gaps within certain segments. This approach resulted in questions regarding the prioritisation of essential pieces of evidence. Therefore, the foundational narrative was crafted independently and subsequently integrated into the larger framework, thereby preventing the chapters from becoming encumbered by the presence of numerous influential governmental figures.

oOo

The twelve new chapters, titled "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, " form a cohesive and engaging tapestry of titles and narratives intended to capture and maintain public interest. Although these compelling stories will eventually be removed and incorporated into an upcoming report, they play a critical role in elucidating the multifaceted issues associated with the absentjustice.com narrative.

Due to the voluminous amount of evidence supporting our original absentjustice.com homepage, we needed to ensure that readers believe what is written. It was decided that two mini stories would be written, and intertwined with one linked to the other deception, making the whole true story so unbelievable that gaps in that part of our story had to be created and when this happened, the doubts started about the authenticity of which crucial piece of evidence needed to be highlighted over another. Therefore, the setting up of this home story had to be written separately and then integrated into the overall narrative so that the chapters would not be bogged down by the involvement of so many influential government dignitaries.

Governments worldwide must recognise the invaluable contributions of whistleblowers. History eloquently demonstrates that without these brave souls, the principles of democracy cannot thrive or endure.

These fearless trailblazers navigate a world plagued by corruption and deceit, where the burden of concealing uncomfortable truths can become a heavy cross to bear. For them, living in a state of complicity with the lies they've uncovered is not an option. Driven by a profound moral obligation, they confront these injustices head-on, determined to illuminate transgressions that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The unwavering courage and resolute commitment to truth displayed by whistleblowers stand as powerful testaments to the extraordinary sacrifices made in the pursuit of accountability. Their compelling narratives not only highlight the personal risks they take in speaking out but also serve as urgent calls to action for governments and societies to recognise and honour the vital contributions of these courageous individuals. By shedding light on corruption and wrongdoing, they inspire others to join the relentless fight for justice, fostering an environment where honesty and integrity are valued and upheld.

Malfeasance

A Telstra minute (fault report), dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland AXE telephone exchange which my business was trunked through states:

“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)

This one Telstra minute, dated 2 July 1992 (on its own), shows what a liar the Telstra Corporation was and still is. 

The author of this AXE document also signed an arbitration witness statement (under oath) dated 12 December 1994, which tells an entirely different story from what he and this document show concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. In his witness statement, he states, “I had perceived problems,” but then says he had not observed any deficiencies in the service provided by Telstra. Yet, it is clear from the AXE document that this is not the case.

 

 

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid, can best be viewed reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) 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.”

Why hasn’t the Australian government demanded answers from Telstra management asking why these lies have not been made to account for those incorrect unlawful statements during an arbitration process? Statements that helped downgrade the validity of my arbitration claims.

It is clear from much of the information supplied by David Hawker, MP, to me in 1993 and 1994 that many people, as far away as Penshurst, Apsley, Hamilton, Timboon, Victoria Valley, and through Portland, were complaining to him about the phone problems in his electorate. The Hon. Mr Hawker was passing on many of those complaints to me for the COT cases to take to Parliament House, Canberra, in our pursuit to have the Senate investigate why so many rural south-west citizens were experiencing the same problems as my business (see Introduction File No/11-E).

On 21st November 2007, I received from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), under FOI, a copy of AUSTEL’s original draft findings dated 2nd / 3rd March 1994 regarding the telephone problems experienced by the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp from 1988 to 1994. Copied below are some of the page numbers and points in the report. I am discussing these issues on our Manipulating the Regulator page to highlight AUSTEL's difficulties as the government regulator in obtaining documents from Telstra (at the time, a wholly government-owned corporation). Given these difficulties, the non-supply of documents to the COT claimants during their respective arbitrations is one reason I could not conclusively prove to the arbitrator that my telephone faults were still ongoing.  The following list identifies some areas (in the AUSTEL draft report) where AUSTEL had problems with access to Telstra records on the service provided to me:

The following information indicates that, in March 1994, one month before Telstra tampered with my TF200 telephone after it left my office, the government regulator had already identified that the equipment supplied to me by Telstra was grossly deficient. My telephone problems had been ongoing since 1988, six years before someone in Telstra poured a wet, sticky substance into my telephone before it arrived at Telstra's laboratories for examination.

 The following five sets of documents were not provided by the government regulator to Telstra regarding my ongoing telephone problems. Yet, without this information, AUSTEL (now ACMA) could still prove my claims were valid.

So why did Telstra fudge their TF200 report?

     Point 43 on page 20 “As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residents prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area.”

     Point 48 on page 22 “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”

     Point 71 on pages 28 and 29 “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”

     Point 140 on page 49 “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

     Point 160 on page 55 “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”

Once AUSTEL was fully aware Telstra was refusing AUSTEL relevant information that would allow the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister after the regulator facilitated the arbitration and mediation processes that were to be based on information obtained from Telstra, it is evident that AUSTEL should never have allowed those processes to proceed. AUSTEL breached its duty of care to the COT cases by permitting the arbitrations/mediations to proceed. After all, if the government could not officially order Telstra to supply records to the minister, then what hope did the COT cases ever have of obtaining the same documents?

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And Mr Matthews replied: ‘The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received their copy then.

Spoliation of evidence – Wikipedia

In simple terms, AUSTEL's only providing Telstra with a copy of their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings in March 1994 not only assisted Telstra in defending my 1994/95 arbitration but also in 2006, when the government could only assess my claims on a sanitized report prepared by AUSTEL and not their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

These actions by AUSTEL constituted an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration or legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim. To have allowed me to spend more than $ 300,000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already proven against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia. 

Minimizing Telstra’s liability 

It is important to note before AUSTEL did their investigation into my complaints I provided them with a comprehensive log of my phone complaints, which I later also supplied an updated copy to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) on 15 June 1994 in my interim arbitration submission (see File - 7 to 9-A - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 and File 108 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, on Pages 2 and 212 - Points 23, 42, 44, 46, 109, 115, 130, 153, 158, 209 and 212 (below), were compiled after the government communications regulator investigated my ongoing telephone problems. Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show 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.

Page 2 – "Mr Smith has had an ongoing complaint about the level of service for some time .....customer was originally connected to an old RAX exchange, which had limited junctions brtween Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Thus congestion was a problem for all customers on the Cape Bridgewater exchnage. The exchange was up graded to an RCM parented back to the Portland AXE 104".  

Page 10 – “Whilst Network Investigation and Support advised that all faults were rectified, the above faults and record of degraded service minutes indicate a significant network problem from August 1991 to March 1993.”

Point 23 – “It is difficult to discern exactly who had responsibility for Mr Smith’s problems at the time, and how information on his problems was disseminated within Telecom. Information imparted by the Portland officer on 10 February 1993 of suspected problems in the RCM “caused by a lighting (sic) strike to a bearer in late November” led to a specialist examination of the RCM on March 1993. Serious problems were identified by this examination.”

Adequacy of Response 

Point 25 – "It should also be noted that during the period of time covered by this chronology of significance events it is clear 

• Telecom had conducted extensive testing 
• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp frequestly reported problems with the quality of telephone service
• both the camp and Telecom were receiving confirmation of reported from other network users
• major faults were identified more through persitense reporting of probles by customer than through testing of the network 
• customers in the Cape Bridgewater area also complaining of similar problems

Point 26 – "The chronology of significant events demonstrates that Telecom conducted estensive testing and Telecom rectified faults without delay when faults were identified. It is clear however, that

• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was exposed to significant network problems over an extended period of time 
• Telecom testing did not not detect all of the network problems affecting Mr Smith".

Telecom's Approach to reaching Settlement 

Point 27 – "As is discussed under allegation in more detail throughout this document, Telecom's failure to adequately identify Mr Smith's network problems challenges the bases of Senior Telecom Management's approach to the resolution of Mr Smith's complaints and his claims for compensation etc, etc 

Point 29 – "A fundamental issue underlying Telecom's settlement with Mr Smith was the question of whether Telecom had taken reasonable steps to comprehensively diagnose the standard of Mr Smith's telephone service. This is an important point as settlement took place on the bases that both parties agreed Mr Smith was receiving an acceptable standard of service at the time of settlement. Mr Smith maintains he was under considerable financial pressure to reach settlement, leading him to accept Telecom's assurances of his services at the time of settlement."

Point 32 – "Telecom's communications with Mr Smith in the months prior to settlement uniformaly argued that the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was at an acceptable level and that Telecom was capable of rapidly rectifying faults as they occured."

Point 42 – “Some important questions are raised by the possible existence of a cable problem affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service. Foremost of these questions is why was the test call program conducted during July and August 1992 did not lead to the discovery of the cable problem. Another important question is exactly how the cable problem would have manifested in terms of service difficulties to the subscriber.”

Point 44 – “Given the range of faults being experienced by Mr Smith and other subscribers in Cape Bridgewater, it is clear that Telecom should have initiated more comprehensive action than the test call program. It appears that there was expensive reliance on the results of the test program and insufficient analysis of other data identifying problems. Again, this deficiency demonstrated Telecom’s lack of a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to resolution of Mr Smith’s problems.” 

Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM.  Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.”

Point 47 –“Telecom's ignorance of the existence of the RCM fault raises a number of questions in regard to Telecom's settlement with Smith. For example, on what bases was settlement made by Telecom if this fault was not known to them at this time? Did Telecom settle with Mr Smith on the bases that his complaints , of faults were justified without a full investigation of the validity of these complaints, or did Telecom settle on the basis of faults substantiated to the time of settlement? Wither criteria for settlement would have been inadequate, with the later critera disadvantaging Mr Smith, as knowledge of the existence of more faults on his service may have led to an increase in the amount offered for settlement of his claims".

Point 48 – “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”

Point 49 –: "As a result of Telecom's failure to provide file documentation relating to Mr Smith some of the following conclusions are consequently based on insufficient information. The information which is avaialble however, demonstates that on a number of issues Telecom failed to keep Mr Smith informed on matters fundamental to the assessment of his complaints". 

Point 71 –: “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”

Point 76 – “One disturbing matter in relation to Mr Smith’s complaints of NRR  is that information on other people in the Cape Bridgewater area experiencing the problem has been misrepresented from local Telecom regional manager to more senior manager.” 

Point 86 – “From examination of Telecom’s documention concerning RVA  messages on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp there are a wide range of possible causes of this message.” 

Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau:

• “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 disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. (AXE – Portland telephone exchange)”

Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 140 – “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”

Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”

Point 160 – “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”

Point 169 –" Documentation reviewed indicates that other network users attached to the Cape Bridgewater exchange did report problems similar to those experienced by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. It is also clear that problems identified in the area would have impacted on other network users as well as Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp."

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”

Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.

Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.”