Deleted Without Being Read: The DCITA Cover-Up
I hold two email receipts—dated 23 April and 25 July 2006—sent by my claims advisor, Ronda, to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These aren’t just technical records. They’re evidence of a disturbing pattern of deception. They demonstrate how my legitimate claims were systematically undermined, ignored, and ultimately erased from the process intended to protect me.

These emails were part of a government-endorsed process—one that Senator Barnaby Joyce had publicly supported when he cast his critical vote for the privatisation of Telstra. Joyce had been assured that my claims would be assessed appropriately. That promise turned out to be hollow.

A Process Shrouded in Secrecy
From the beginning, the DCITA assessment was cloaked in secrecy. There was no transparency, no accountability. Then, in August 2006, the process was abruptly shut down—without explanation. Ronda received confirmation that her emails had been opened. But what’s truly chilling is that two critical items in my submission were never read. They vanished—deleted without being opened on 1 February 2008, more than 18 months after they were sent.

Here’s the proof:

MESSAGES RECEIVED 1st February 2008, on behalf of Alan Smith:
Your message
To:      Coonan, Helen (Senator) Cc:      Lever, David; Smith, Alan Subject: ATTENTION MR JEREMY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADVISOR Sent:    Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:31:41 +1100
was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:36 +1100
ATTACHMENT:
Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deletedX-MSExch-Correlation-Key: sdD1TSUHx0CoTD0Qm4wBVw==

oOo

Original-Message-ID: 001601c6669f$95736a00$2ad0efdc@Office
Your message
To:      Coonan, Helen (Senator) Cc:      Smith, Alan Subject: Alan Smith, unresolved Telstra matters Sent:    Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:42 +1100
was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:23 +1100

ATTACHMENT:Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted  X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: bNlMYfUKcUGqvIXiYQZULA==
Original-Message-ID: 003a01c6af21$2b7ece30$2ad0efdc@Office

 

The Cost of Silence

Chapter 12 — DCITA, Interception, and the Erosion of Justice

A System Rife with Deceit

When examining the two emails referenced above concerning the DCITA assessment process, it becomes painfully clear:

 

Their ineffectiveness in addressing the disturbing events that unfolded during the assessment didn’t just obscure the truth—it perpetuated a profound denial of justice for the COT claimants who dared to engage with the opaque and deeply flawed DCITA process.

 

What $16,000 Couldn’t Buy

The Department of Information Technology and the Arts’ (DCITA) government-endorsed process was fundamentally flawed, as the evidence in this chapter reveals.

•  Cost to prepare (March–July 2006): $16,000.00

•  Real cost:

•  Betrayal of trust

•  Erasure of truth

•  Emotional toll of being silenced

The officials tasked with evaluating my claims chose to ignore them.

Willfully. Deliberately.

What I experienced wasn’t negligence—it was a calculated cover-up.

 

 

 

Before the Agreement Was Entered Into

In July 2005, eleven years after the first government-endorsed arbitration agreements were signed, a pivotal meeting took place in Brisbane, Queensland. Members of the COT Cases met with Senator Barnaby Joyce.;

 

This was no routine dialogue—it was an emotional forum.

Each member shared stories of hardship and frustration from the arbitration process. The Senator’s emotional response revealed the gravity of what we had endured.

 

Evidence of Interception

Several COT Cases presented compelling evidence:

These faxes, sent to and from Parliament House in Canberra, were manipulated before reaching their intended recipients—including the arbitrator and our advisors.

Telstra had advanced knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each COT claim.

 

This undermined the integrity of the arbitration process and shattered any illusion of fairness.

 

The Logbooks That Never Came

The mood shifted when Ann Garms and I revealed the absence of critical logbooks from:

•  Fortitude Valley exchange (Ann’s business)

•  Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange (my operations)

The Senator was visibly agitated. At one point, he buried his head in his hands, overwhelmed by the gravity of what we were presenting.

 

The Intercepted Document

As I stood, gripping a crucial document brought by Sandra Wolfe, the atmosphere changed again. This document had been:

•  Faxed to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)

•  Intercepted shortly after leaving their office

•  Delivered to an undisclosed location

Had I known earlier, I could have used it to appeal the arbitrator’s decision.

 

Telstra’s Admission to the AFP

In a follow-up call with the Senator, I shared a disturbing admission from Telstra to the Australian Federal Police:

This fault log was never produced during arbitration. I strongly suspect it would have been noted in the Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange records.

 

Fax Imprint and the Scandrett Report

The fax imprint on my May 12, 1995 letter matches identically with the imprint in the January 7, 1999, report from Scandrett & Associates, submitted to Senator Ron Boswell.

This confirms the allegations of fax interception during the COT arbitrations.

 

In a notable twist, one of the two technical consultants who validated the findings of that report emailed me on December 17, 2014, stating:

 

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It was the withholding of the telephone exchange Logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that serviced the COT Cases business, including the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which most of the COT Cases believe prompted Senator Joyce to ensure we COT Cases finally get the justice that was denied us during the COT arbitrations. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce remains a prominent member of the National Party government.

After this meeting, Senator Joyce made a historic agreement with the Australian government. If the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the Senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.

15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

The Vote That Changed Everything

Political Promises, Bureaucratic Betrayal, and the COT Review That Never Was

 

A Pivotal Vote, A Historic Betrayal

Once Senator Barnaby Joyce cast the pivotal vote—one teetering precariously in the balance—he etched his name into the annals of history for both Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government.

 

But in a stunning reversal, Senator Helen Coonan reneged on her prior commitment, executing a decisive political back-flip—a betrayal starkly documented in the letters archived on this website.

 

A Compromise Undermined

To salvage some semblance of integrity, Senator Joyce brokered a compromise with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). The goal: to assess the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking justice.

 

But once Joyce’s vote was secured, the government backtracked.

 

The Evidence They Refused to See

Had I been permitted to submit the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 arbitration review could have been radically different.

Instead, the DCITA relied solely on internal archival information, distorting the process and burying the truth.

 

This gross misuse of authority—led by Senator Coonan and DCITA bureaucrats—was compounded by their reliance on:

This document reveals a glaring conflict of interest, undermining the very notion of an “independent” evaluation.

 

The Logbook That Could Have Changed Everything

The betrayal deepened with the deliberate neglect of a March 1994 document—a critical piece of evidence that validated my claims.

•  Government public servants had investigated my ongoing telephone problems.

•  Their findings? My claims were credible.

•  Yet this logbook was withheld, despite being legally requested.

This obstruction:

•  Sabotaged the impartial arbitration assessments from 1994 to 1996

•  Deprived the 2006 DCITA assessors of the truth

•  Denied justice to those who placed their faith in the review process initiated by Senators Coonan and Joyce

 

The Vajrabukka Email — 22 September 2005

An internal Coalition government email, dated 22nd September 2005, concerning the agreed-to COT commercial settlement proposal, from Nikki Vajrabukka, notes:

“Key issues for consideration include:

• Analysis of Senator Joyce’s request, and Minister’s response
• What the Minister can and can’t do
• Whether there is any basis to re-open the investigations/appoint an independent assessor
• If so, who will that be?
• What powers does the Minister have to direct a person to do so (for example direct the TIO to revisit the cases?)
• Whether there were any compensatory commitments or warrants of compensation given by the Minister, the Department or Telstra.”​ (Refer to GS 420 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Please note that the question as to whether the Minister had the power to grant a Commercial Assessment was only raised with Senator Joyce after the Coalition Government secured his crucial vote for the complete privatisation of Telstra.

29 September 2005, David Lever, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, sends an internal email to some Department Personnel regarding an Independent Assessor:-

“Matt Stafford rang to say that the Minister wants a draft letter to Senator Joyce by Friday next week that:

• re-states what she said she would do in her last letter to him;
• demonstrates that processes are in place to meet her commitment;
• indicates the cases/persons who the independent assessment would cover, and
• asks Senator Joyce whether this should meet his needs. …”

“I suggest that we do all we can to restrict coverage to the 16 COTs that were considered by AUSTEL in its 1994 report as inclusion of any others without some justification, eg that they were mentioned in the Senate’s 1999 report on COTs, would risk irresistible pressure to extend to numerous others who have had disputes with Telstra over the past 10 years. …”

“I also suggested that there may be advantages in appointing ACMA as the independent assessor rather than a consultant to the Department. He has not opposed to this idea.”
(Refer to GS 421 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Bullet point 2 above confirms there was a process in place to meet Senator Helen Coonan’s commitment given to Senator Joyce for his vote to allow the government to privatise Telstra. So why did the Minister’s Department not honour that commitment once Senator Joyce cast his vote?  This misleading and deceptive, unconscionable conduct caused the COT Cases and their families immeasurable grief, trauma and heartache.

This internal email, dated 18 October 2005, to Senator Helen Coonan states:-

“Senator Joyce has written to you seeking urgent advice on your proposed approach to the conduct of independent assessments of various claims against Telstra by customers or former customers or contractors of Telstra.

We propose you ask the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to conduct the assessments. …

There is significant risk for the Government if expectations in relation to compensation are created among claimants that cannot be met by the Government.” (Refer ro GS 422 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Exhibit GS 423 is an unsigned Government memo from Senator Coonan’s office, received by the Cot cases during their FOI requests to the Minister’s office regarding this assessment process.

“According to Minister’s understanding, assessor to:

• review the status of all outstanding claims and
• provide a basis for any sustainable claims that have not been resolved through earlier processes to negotiate a possible settlement with Telstra”

“Possible Loopholes

‘sustainable claims not resolved through earlier processes’ – on the basis that information provided by the claimants raises no new issues, particularly regulatory issues that require addressing by the Minister or the ACA/ACMA.

If concerns relate to conduct of Telstra, then these should be raised with the Commonwealth Ombudsman?

If the CoTS have evidence of unlawful activities, these should be brought to the attention of the police or relevant law enforcement authorities.” Refer to GS 423 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

19 October 2005,  David Lever, advisor to Senator Coonan, emails Departmental Personnel:-

“As discussed with Andrew yesterday, the minister has signed and sent a letter to Barnaby Joyce that deals with the above and local presence plan issues. We have not seen it but I made comments on the draft sent yesterday afternoon by matt, seeking to retain the tight constraints on the scope of the assessment, which he had relaxed.”

Simon Bryant responds:-

“I think Jodi maybe getting confused about what the assessment is meant to do (or at least what we are recommending) ie an assessment of process and what further resolution channels may be available to people. We are arguing strongly that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case.” (Refer to File 424 GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

My question here is:

1. Who was Simon Bryant, to argue strongly “that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case”?
2. How can an independent commercial assessment process be independent if those administering the process seek to retain tight constraints on the scope of the assessment process?
3. Why did the Federal Government give Senator Joyce its commitment, in exchange for his vote to allow the Telstra privatisation bill to be passed? Then, as soon as they secured his vote, renege on that commitment?

It is essential to think about the statement made by Simon Bryant, that: 

“I think Jodi maybe getting confused about what the assessment is meant to do (or at least what we are recommending), i.e. an assessment of process and what further resolution channels may be available to people. We are arguing strongly that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case.” (GS 424 File  [document|1248] does not exist)

Shows how far these government bureaucrats went to discredit the merit of our claims.

2 December 2005:  David Lever emails TIO John Pinnock:-

“Subject: independent assessment of claims against Telstra …

“Some of the former ‘COTs’ are among the 22 who will be asked if they wish to participate in the process. …

“The assessment will focus on process rather than the merits of claims, including whether all available dispute resolution mechanism have been used.” (GS 425)

This email from David Lever does not align with the promises made to Senator Barnaby Joyce by Senator Helen Coonan. The Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, assists me in my independent assessment process.

As shown below, however, worse was to come. I received a copy of an email dated March 3, 2006, after completing my 2006 government-endorsed assessment process. This email was initially sent to a senior former government communications bureaucrat who served as a government liaison officer for Telstra, seeking his advice on how to proceed with assessing my 2006 claim (see Senate Evidence File No 18).

10 March 2006:  The Hon David Hawker writes to me:-

“I wish to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 23 February and 27 February along with your facsimile transmissions of 6 and 9 March. I will ensure this material, including the corrected version, is forwarded to Minister Coonan…” (Refer to GS 442 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 ). 

In my 10 March 2006 letter to Liz Forman (one of the government assessors appointed on behalf of the government to assess my privacy issues and my claims Telstra had perverted the course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration I stated that:

"Although you have stated in your letter that “...the assessment process will not extend to an examination of whether the law was broken by Telstra....” I have been advised that it is mandatory, under Commonwealth law, for DCITA and/or the Minister to notify the Attorney General of any unlawful activities they may uncover during official department investigations". (Refer to exhibit AS 614 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

17 March 2006:  On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman, noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

When the Watchdogs Serve the Wolves

Bureaucratic Collusion, Conflicts of Interest, and the DCITA’s Compromised Review

Criminal Evidence Ignored

The information presented on this website clearly indicates that Telstra employees committed criminal offences during my arbitration. This is irrefutably demonstrated in:

•  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report

•  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report

Yet these damning reports were entirely ignored by government bureaucrats Liz Forman and David Lever—a decision that reeks of willful blindness.

Bureaucrats Emailing the Accused

 

On 3 March 2006, Nikki Vajrabukka, a senior bureaucrat at the Department of Communications, Environment, Technology and the Arts (DCITA), sent an internal email to David Lever. In it, she revealed that she had contacted David Quilty, now a Telstra Government Liaison Officer (AS 1042), at david.quilty@team.telstra.com, asking for his assistance in addressing my March 2006 DCITA submission.

That submission detailed how Telstra had knowingly submitted three fundamentally flawed reports as official defence documents:

•  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report

•  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report

•  Tampering of Evidence

The Revolving Door of Power

Before joining Telstra, David Quilty served as Chief of Staff to then DCITA Minister Senator Richard Alston. During that time, I was asked to provide the Minister with any further evidence of Telstra’s unlawful conduct during the COT arbitrations.

 

On 12 November 1997, I wrote to Philip Gaetjens, Principal Advisor to The Hon. Peter Costello, then Federal Treasurer. I submitted conclusive evidence of Telstra’s perversion of justice—evidence now published in:

•  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report

•  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report

•  Tampering of Evidence

On 3 December 1997, documents show that Mr Gaetjens passed this evidence to Mr Quilty, then still serving as Senator Alston’s Chief of Staff.

 

A Review Tainted from the Start

How could the DCITA process remain independent if David Quilty—now employed by Telstra—was involved in evaluating claims against his new employer?

This conflict is especially egregious given that:

•  Some claims alleged continued fax interception by individuals with access to Telstra’s network after arbitration had concluded.

•  Supporting evidence, signed under oath by two renowned technical consultants, was submitted to DCITA in January 1999 and resubmitted in March 2006 (, ).

A World Without Accountability

David Quilty’s résumé includes:

•  Chief of Staff to the Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston

•  Advisor to Prime Minister John Howard

•  Senior Executive at Telstra, following the DCITA review

 

The Final Blow

The DCITA’s final assessment of my submission—unsurprisingly—found in favour of Telstra.

And lo and behold, David Quilty landed a senior executive position at Telstra.

The Public’s Right to Know

As Peta Credlin rightly pointed out in her May 2021, a high-profile Australian media guru and TV host, and former advisor to Tony Abbott, Australia's Prime Minister, wrote in her May article in the Herald Sun newspaper, under the heading:  "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:

“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.

Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter.

When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country.  

Since the start of the 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”

Victims of the COT arbitrations were told their only path to justice was to take Telstra to court—even though Telstra’s guilt had already been proven

19 April 2006: my letter to the Hon Senator Helen Coonan (Refer to exhibit AS 615-A File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

"In regard to my current claim, Mr Lever of DCITA had notified me that, if DCITA found I have proved that Telstra had carried out any unlawful acts during my arbitration, then the evidence would be provided to the relevant authority. Then in a later telephone conversation with Mr Lever, I was told that he had not found any evidence in my claim to show that Telstra had perverted the course of justice".           

29 April 2006: my letter to the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, notes:

"Over the years however I have explained to you some of the problems I have encountered with faxes and emails that ‘go missing’ or arrive late or faulty. The apparent interference in my emails has now forced me to arrange for Ronda Fienberg, my Melbourne editing service to send emails out on my behalf, from her computer and email address, because emails often don’t arrive at their  correct destination when I attempt to send them from my emails address.’

 Please note the footnote in Alan’s letter from Ronda Fienberg states:

Mr Hawker, I feel obliged to add to the information Alan has provided here. I have run a small editing support business from my home since 1991 and first began assisting Alan in mid-1994. Until then I had never had a problem receiving or sending faxes for myself, or on behalf of my clients, to anywhere in the world, but I continually (still) have problems with Alan’s faxes which often come through with the words drawn out down the page and therefore unreadable, or with the page cut off half way down. 

24 May 2006,  Senator Coonan responds to Hon David Hawker MP:-

“Mr Smith has indicated that he would like the terms of reference for the assessment to be wider, requiring the Department to make judgements about the fairness of the arbitration process undertaken by Dr Gordon Hughes, under the administration of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, in 1994. While this is understandable, it is not reasonable to expect the Department or indeed any other person at this point in time to make judgements about the circumstances surrounding Mr Smith’s arbitration. The terms of reference for the assessment are therefore more forward looking, aimed at identifying whether any further dispute resolution processes may be available to be pursued by claimants and Telstra in order to resolve their disputes.” (Refer to exhibit GS 445-b File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

This statement by Senator Helen Coonan:-

Does not coincide with the commitment given by Senator Coonan’s advisor, David Lever, 17th March 200,6, to me, before I signed the agreement that:-“

If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority.” (Refer to exhibit AS 321 File  AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323  

Does not coincide with her commitment given to Senator Barnaby Joyce:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provide a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.”
(GS 432)

The one crucial vote the Government needed to pass the Telstra privatisation – Senator Barnaby Joyce’s vote – was given based on a commitment that Senator Coonan had no intention of honouring – that an independent assessor would be appointed to assess the merits of each COT case’s claims.

27 March 2006,  The Hon David Hawker writes to me:-

“A note to acknowledge receipt of your letters dated 24, 25, & 26 March pertaining to your request for an independent assessment. Thank you also for forwarding Darren Lewis’ letter of 25 March consenting to being interviewed under oath to support your claim that the phone and fax faults continued long after your arbitration.”

“Please be assured representations have been made today to the Minister for Communications and I have supplied Senator Coonan with copies of all above-mentioned letters.” (Refer to exhibit GS 443 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

17 July 2006:  In this letter to Senator Helen Coonan, I note:

"I will not attempt to include all of the numerous other alarming incidents that have occurred in relation to my battle with Telstra, but you may be interested to know that when the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were investigating my complaints between 1999 and 2001, I sent a number of faxes to the Police Barrister, Neil Jepson where on at least two occasions they did not reach his office even though Telstra included them on my subsequent bill, and my fax journal print-out shows they were sent successfully.   

Documented evidence now included in my current submission to the DCITA independent assessment confirms that other faxes sent from my office between 1994 and 2002 were still being intercepted by unknown parties, before they arrived at their intended destination". (Refer to exhibit AS 615-B File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

31 August 2006: David Hawker MP wrote to me, noting:

Many thanks for keeping me informed. As requested, issues concerning privacy breaching have been raised with Senator Coonan’s office for your meeting with the Minister set for 6 September 2006".  (Refer to exhibit AS 578 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588  

My privacy concerns were not addressed during this meeting. However, as shown below for the date of 17 May 2007, Senator Helen Coonan did write to me on this matter noting:

"...I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option" (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B) File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 )

4 September 2006, Darren Lewis (the new owner of my business) provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, a two-page statutory declaration noting:

"After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job. Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems".  (Refer to exhibit AS 520) File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 )

If the arbitrator had conducted my arbitration with the diligence and thoroughness required by the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, and had taken the time to meticulously investigate all of my ongoing claims related to telephone and fax issues, Darren and Jenny Lewis would have been spared the profound heartache they endured after purchasing a business that relied heavily on telephone communications. Both John Pinnock from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and Telstra failed to disclose the critical findings from their investigations, which were carried out after my arbitration on January 14, 1998, and clearly indicated that the phone problems I had reported continued to impact Darren’s business. Had the TIO and Telstra been transparent and diligent in examining my valid claims, the Lewis family would likely have avoided the anguish they faced.

Darren Lewis: A Life Undone by Faults
Darren Lewis's situation is particularly distressing, especially considering he battled intense suicidal thoughts during one of the most traumatic periods of his life. He believed that the relentless issues with his phone and fax systems had directly resulted in the loss of two crucial bookings—one in late 2006 and another in early January 2007. Each of these lost reservations involved approximately 120 guests who would have stayed for six or seven nights during the bustling Christmas season.

The weight of these cancellations pressed heavily on him, compelling him to seek help from Portland Health Services. A critical document entitled "Risk Management Plan," dated February 23, 2007, and prepared by Portland Psychiatric Services, painted a vivid picture of the seriousness of Darren's mental state. The plan urged him to confide in his caring wife, Jenny, as well as their sympathetic neighbour, Alan Smith (ME), should he ever feel overwhelmed by despair.

Seal Cove and Portland Health
After a representative from Portland Health visited me at my partner's now-closed B&B, Seal Cove Guest House, and examined the compelling evidence revealing our business suffered from similar phone and fax issues—mirroring those faced by Darren and Jenny—it became apparent that local Telstra technicians had misled both us and the public.

They had submitted falsified test results to support their unfounded assertions that the Cape Bridgewater network was functioning adequately. In reality, they had lied under oath regarding the same network.

This growing body of evidence confirmed that Darren’s experiences with the phone and fax troubles were far from imagined; they were real, distressing challenges that profoundly impacted both his business and his personal life. Moreover, these enduring issues continued to plague my partner's Seal Cove Guest House. The representative from Portland Health recognised that Darren was grappling with legitimate problems, not delusional ones.

Exhibit AS 682: A Technician’s Admission
On October 1, 2006, Darren Lewis reached out to The Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives (refer to exhibit AS 682 File ), noting:

"The technician, who comes from Colerain (also part of your electorate) advised me that he was aware that the problems I am experiencing now are the same problems experienced by the previous owner of the business (Alan Smith). When I asked him why this would be, he replied that the problems were caused because the wiring was so old that it was now totally incompatible with all the new technology (‘totally’ was his exact word).

I then described to him the latest fax problem – the one that I raised with you last Wednesday – when Alan Smith’s fax (intended for a destination in Melbourne) arrived at my business, cutting off my conversation with Cathy (Alan’s partner) as it came through".  

3 November 2006: Senator Helen Coonan wrote to David Hawker, Speaker In the House of Representatives, stating:

"Thank you for your representation of 17 August 2006 on behalf of Mr Alan Smith regarding Mr Smith’s allegations that Telstra monitored his phone calls and emails during an arbitration process with Telstra. The interception of emails and monitoring of phone calls is an offence under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Mr Smith should consider his dispute through the dispute resolution bodies, including his State Office of Fair Trading, the Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications and Media Authority state, and the courts". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

Following the advice given to me by Hon Senator Helen Coonan, I contacted Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) through his advisor, who also assisted him in the preparation of a claim to be provided to Peter Hiland, Barrister for the CAV. From October 2007 through to late 2008, this advisor (whom I have not named in this story) was a very high-ranking police officer who had many discussions with Mr Hiland, who then proceeded to assess the various claims provided by me.  Altogether, some thirty relevant submissions were provided to the CAV during the period up to 2008. While I was seeking FOI documents for my 3 October 2008 Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it became evident that the CAV had stopped providing any assistance in these matters.

On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman, noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts, that David Lever from her office had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities concerning the screening on my faxes to Federal government ministers and the submission of fraudulently submitted claims during my arbitration Senator Coona wrote back to me noting:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B  File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

Ministerial Duty Abandoned

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into Telstra’s continuous interception of confidential documents.

 

These documents were sent from:

•  My office and residence

•  The offices of several Senators

•  The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office

This issue was especially critical during and after the COT arbitrations, when sensitive information was being exchanged.

 

❓ Questions That Demand Answers

•  Why was it deemed acceptable for an Australian citizen to be forced to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents during a government-endorsed arbitration?

•  How could Telstra justify interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after my arbitration had concluded?

These actions violate individual rights and undermine the integrity of the arbitration process. They demand immediate attention and rectification.

 

 

My 2006 CCITA submission and the evidence accompanying it are crafted to reveal the truth that:

•  The Arbitration procedures failed the COT Cases

•  Allegations of fax interception was rampant during and after the COT arbitrations were concluded

A Calculated Effort to Mislead

Exhibit AS 639 appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead those tasked with re-evaluating COT claims in 2006. Its lack of transparency suggests:

•  A nefarious effort to confuse stakeholders

•  Protection of vested interests

•  Backing from complicit public servants within the Australian government

These officials manipulated government instruments and spread misinformation—operating outside the rule of law and threatening the integrity of the entire evaluation process.

 

Telstra Armed, Claimant Blindsided

Evidence submitted to the DCITA assessors between March and July 2006 show:

•  AUSTEL’s damaging findings were relayed to Telstra

•  One month before the arbitration agreement was signed

•  I remained unaware of this until November 23, 2007—twelve years after arbitration concluded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 13 Addendum - Two