Chapter Ten - Julian Assange - Hacking

Government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has spuriously over more than two decades perverted the course of justice. 

Tampering with evidence during litigation represents an egregious transgression that undermines the legitimacy of the legal process. Evidence tampering serves to impede the foundational principles of equity in court and arbitration determinations. The illicit manipulation of court evidence necessitates exposure by courageous whistleblowers in Australia. Consequently, there exists a compelling need to overhaul legislation pertaining to whistleblower protection. In the context of Australian whistleblowing cases, the reporting of misconduct assumes paramount importance, serving to ensure an impartial and equitable landscape for all citizens.

It is well documented that I continued to complain about phone and fax problems throughout and after my arbitration, including complaints to local technicians regarding the phone alarm system and associated wiring installed by Telstra during ELMI monitoring of my service lines in 1991-1992.

During a site visit on 6 April 1995, the arbitration technical consultant, Telstra’s chief engineer and I inspected the exchanges at Cape Bridgewater and Portland and met with the local technician (who denied a local farm agent also had problems with his phone, although the FOI documents exposed the agent’s complaint records).

With the technical team in Cape Bridgewater, I asked the TIO-appointed arbitration technical consultant and Telstra’s engineer to look at the wiring issues and some of the evidence I had proving there was incorrect billing on all my phone lines. The arbitration technical consultant made it quite clear that the arbitrator had ordered him not to assess any new evidence or claim material during his site visits. (The arbitrator later confirmed these orders in a 17 February 1996 letter to the president of the Institute of Arbitrators.)

Naturally, I was irate because most of this late received FOI documentation on 23 December 1994 and early 1995, had originally been requested in December 1993. This was a complete turn-around by the arbitrator who had assured me that if I discovered any new information among late received FOI documents, that information could be presented to the technical resource unit when they came to the camp. I had burned the midnight oil night after night to have this evidence prepared before the technical team arrived and it was clear that all this new information would further support my allegations of ongoing problems. I was so angry. I managed to have the arbitration technical consultant look at one document while the Telstra official was still there. This was a copy of part of my 1800 call account. How, I asked, could I be charged for a 9.49 minute call on 13 January 1995 at 11.50 am, and then for a 42 second call at 11.57 am? It is certainly not possible to have two calls overlapping on the same line at the same time.

Incorrect charging was running rampant through Telstra’s 008/1800 network, just as my telephone account showed. Neither Telstra’s engineer or the TIO consultant were prepared to comment on this evidence at the time, although I was assured that the matter would be taken up and addressed as part of the arbitration.

Both these two left shortly after this. Of particular note, they travelled to and from my premises together, jeopardising ethical transparency. What private conversations took place between these two? The answer to that question is probably only known to the participants themselves (and perhaps the arbitrator?).

By the end of April 1995 (see below), the resource units were now preparing their reports and I had a gut feeling that the COT members had been deceived. I felt as if I had been crucified by the very person who was supposed to be delivering justice, the arbitrator. He had not once investigated my questions regarding why my fax and phones continued to create so many problems. By this time, Telstra’s SVT had given the Cape Bridgewater network the green light even though AUSTEL had condemned the testing as grossly deficient (refer Main Evidence File No/2). I was now convinced that the arbitration was just a sham, instigated with the single aim of ‘shutting me up’ by providing a finding that favoured Telstra. I was soon to find out how right I was.