Introduction to Absent Justice Part 1, 2 and 3
Learn about government corruption and the horrendous crimes they commit Learn about unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia.
It is also important we include in our Hacking-Julian Assange pages with what Karina Barrymore, journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, wrote on 3 August 2016 concerning what she thought about whistleblowers. Had the government truly listened to the COT whistleblowers in 1995 and 1996 regarding their telephone faults, which were supposed to have been fixed during their government-endorsed Telstra arbitrations, perhaps the long-running NBN blowout would have not gone billions of dollars over budget. Sadly, Karina Barrymore’s statement below is right on target:
“Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It’s insightful how the words used to describe a whistleblower are so negative.
“Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government.
“So why aren’t we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives.
“These ‘truth tellers’ are shunned and rejected. Telling the truth often means they lose their jobs, their reputations are deliberately trashed, their finances suffer, their mental health fails and all these factors flow on to damage their family, social and professional relationships.
“The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job.”
Karina Barrymore’s statement is right on target because the Australian Establishment, which includes ex-government ministers as well ex-senior members of two government regulators, are aware Dr Gordon Hughes, arbitrator to my arbitration, and Warwick Smith, administrator to the same process acted in concert with the defendants and used their drafted arbitration agreement instead of the agreed totally independently drafted arbitration agreement. NONE of the corporate leaders, neither our regulators nor our government ministers have had the courage to investigate this matter. Set out below is only one of many examples where Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, acted in a manner not befitting an arbitrator and/or an administrator. We are telling this part of our COT story first, in the hope that the reader will be compelled to go to the next part of our story.
Government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has spuriously over more than two decades perverted the course of justice.
If the question is: “Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes that was committed by public officials, more than twenty-six years ago?”, then surely the answer must be “Yes”, particularly if those crimes affected the lives of other Australian citizens.
Don’t shoot the messenger
As a payback by the government, the COT four were to be commercially assessed. This was our reward for standing our ground and NOT faltering under the pressure applied by Telstra and their inner circles within the Establishment but instead pursued our claims for a better telecommunications service for all Australians. Representatives from the Australian communications regulator even visited our businesses premises to ensure the government understood what we had uncovered clearly. As a further incentive, the Labor government of 1993 assured us that if we refrained from pushing for a full Senate investigation into the gross misconduct of Telstra then the government would ensure our signed 23 November 1993 commercial assessment process with Telstra would be finalised by April 1994.
It was widely accepted by the Australian government that, because of the complexity of the first four cases, an assessor (not an arbitrator), appointed by AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, would value each case commercially and save the claimants’ time, money and heartache. The following link, Introduction File No/13-A to 13-M, shows, undoubtedly, that our four individual claims were meant to be commercially assessed. One again, we nearly achieved this in 2005, when a rooky (a very naive Senator Barnaby Joyce) met 14 of us COT Cases and heard what Telstra had done to each and all of us in different stages under the watchful eyes of four changing governments between 1994 to 2005. Surely what we COT Cases revealed to him and his adviser that night could never have happened in a democratic country like Australia, but it did happen as my story shows (see An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens) example one. Even Senator Helen Coonan, with all her legal background, was still able to do a back-flip on her commitment given to Senator Joyce in return for his crucial vote needed in the Senate to pass the final privatization sale legislation (see 12 Alternative remedies pursued/ Chapter Eight).
Learn about government corruption and the horrendous crimes they commit. Learn about unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia who as soon as the four COT Cases signatures those of Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and mine were on the commercial agreement, which Telstra signed on 18 November 1993, those in the Establishment who did not want proof showing our ongoing telephone problems still remained (still ongoing, still destroying our businesses) to come to light in the public arena allowed the administrator of the 23 November 1994 commercial agreement, Warwick Smith (TIO), and assessor (Dr Gordon Hughes) to swap the assessment process for a highly legalistic arbitration process, which the COT four could not possibly win.
Hence, Dr Hughes, originally appointed as the commercial assessor in 17 January 1994 (see Introduction File No/13-F), became the arbitrator of seven separate highly complex arbitration cases and mediator of two others, all at the same time. This was certainly not how Senators Alston Boswell and other senators were assured the first four cases would be conducted. What made the situation even worse was the concealed fact that, on top of all that pressure, Dr Hughes was not even a graded arbitrator when he first undertook those seven arbitrations. It is clear that decision was entirely inappropriate and should never have made, particularly when it has since been acknowledged Dr Hughes failed the exam to be admitted to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, as a graded arbitrator, while he was still deliberating on my case i.e., the first COT case to go through arbitration. In fact, the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia wrote to me on 10 April 2002 (see CAV Exhibits 701 to 756 confirming Dr Hughes was not a graded arbitrator for the whole period of my arbitration). Even worse is the statement made by the President Institute of Arbitrators Australia in his letter to me dated 10 September 1996 stating:
This Institute is a learned society whose principal function is the training, examination and grading of arbitrators. It will also nominate suitable arbitrators from its lists of graded, practising arbitrators if requested to do by the parties. It selects nominees of
appropriate technical expertise and grading (i.e. ‘experience) from its published lists.I am advised by our Chief Administrative officer that no reference was made to us in the appointment of the arbitrator in the matter in which you are involved and there is always a risk in these circumstances
As can be seen in the above statements, the four COT cases’ assessment-then-arbitration-process issues are extremely complex and without proof of what took place behind closed doors between those in government who supported a democratic assessment process of the four COT Cases claims and those in the government who were ex-Telstra employees and did not want such a process. Is this why a non-graded arbitrator was chosen to assess our matters? Or did it serve Telstra to have an arbitrator who had a massive conflict of interest as Absentjustice.com – Introduction shows?
Former Supreme Court judge calls for investigation
Judge Anthony Whealy presided over the Keli Lane trial in 2010. (ABC: Supplied)The revelations have prompted Mr Whealy to call for an investigation.
“It looks like a very serious matter that requires investigation,” he says.
“This is damning material to suggest there’s been a breach of the duty of disclosure.”
Even if the recordings do not contain anything incriminating, Mr Whealy says they are still relevant material for the defence.
“The point is an obvious one: if someone is under surveillance to see whether their behaviour indicates some sort of guilty action, it’s equally important from a defence perspective to show they haven’t been doing anything that’s untoward,” he says.
“While the prosecution might want to seize on one incident or one conversation, the defence are entitled to say ‘let’s look at it overall and see what the behaviour of this person is’, and from that, to say ‘there is a lot of innocent behaviour’, so they are entitled to get that material part.
“But it seems the defence has been deprived of the opportunity to do this.”
I have used the wording by Judge Anthony Whealy of the Supreme Court of New South Whales who presided over the Keli Lane trial in 2010, because of the similarities of his statements concerning full disclosure of documents during litigation and what happened during the COT arbitrations. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter also is noted as having said:
The arbitrator (one man) did determine for himself what was law - when he knew his decision was not law at all
“if one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. Legal process is an essential part of the democratic process”.
Dr Hughes (when he was the arbitrator hearing my claims) did not demand to know why I was threatened, during my arbitration, with the withholding of my requested discovery documents, sought under the FOI Act. What is so disturbing about this, is that when Dr Hughes learned I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police’s investigations into Telstra’s unauthorised interception of my telephone and faxes – and that Telstra did carry out its threat and stopped releasing FOI documents – he also forgot his official promise to COT spokesperson Graham Schorer made during our pre-arbitration hearing. During this meeting, Graham raised Telstra’s previous unethical conduct towards the COT cases and Dr Hughes stated “as arbitrator, he would not make a determination on incomplete information” (see Telstra’s minutes from this meeting [page 3 – second line] My Story Evidence File No 14). It is now confirmed, throughout this website, absentjustice.com, that Dr Hughes did, indeed, make a determination on incomplete information. This is serious enough, but what about the most important document of the whole arbitration process, which was also concealed, i.e, the Portland and Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook which AUSTEL used in order to prepare their own covert adverse findings against Telstra (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings). My correspondence to Dr Hughes in November 1994, even advised him that the Commonwealth Ombudsman was unable to force Telstra to release this document even after they had written to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, demanding it’s the release. For what reason did Dr Hughes ignore my pleas to access this most relevant logbook?
If you click on Summary of events, you will notice that I have gone to great lengths to NOT name various Telstra employees that knowingly made false witness statements to the arbitrator concerning my telephone problems. However, it has been almost impossible not to name one employee on this Absentjustice.com page (see below), as pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia show, because he was named by Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White as having officially advised him five of the COT cases (and naming me as one of the five) had to be stopped “at all costs” from proving our arbitration claims.
Although the following 24 and 25 June 1997 Senate Hansard discussed immediately below is also discussed elsewhere on this website we ask that you also read this version again because it further confirms we were COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from receiving out legally requested arbitration FOI documents. As stated in the introduction above, without discovery documents there is no justice for those denied access to them as was in the case during the COT arbitrations.
AT ALL COST
On 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee and then-Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, 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 Schacht also asked Mr White – “Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said ‘stopped at all costs”
Mr White – “Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the introduction process. (See Front Page Part One File No/6)
It is clear from Mr White’s statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. The named Peter Gamble, in this Senate Hansard, is the same Peter who swore under oath, in his arbitration witness statement to the arbitrator that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Arbitrator File No/110 that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatorily required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267, 055 267230 and 055 267260 were generated into my business and held open for the required period of 120-seconds for each completed call. In simple words, the SVT process at my business was not carried out according to the government communications regulatory mandatory specifications (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).
Telstra is fully aware that this named Peter Gamble (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, regarding the Service Verification Tests (SVT) being grossly deficient. AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended doing about this deficiency see Front Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B
In response to AUSTEL’s 11 October and 16 November 1994 letter, this Peter replied in his own letter dated 28 November 1994 letter stating:
“As agreed at one of our recent meetings and as confirmed in your letter of 16th November 1994, attached please find the detailed Call Delivery Test information for the following customers. …
“This information is supplied to Austel on a strict Telecom-in-Confidence basis for use in their Service Verification Test Review only and not for any other purpose. The information is not to be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Telecom.” (Arbitrator File No/98)
By what legal authority could this Peter insist what the government regulator could or could not disclose to a third party, in this case, a claimant whose business was about to be destroyed because this Peter had not conducted the agreed to Service Verification Tests process at this claimants premises using only the Ericsson faulty NEAT testing equipment instead of the agreed-to more updated SVT testing device (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report)?
It is most important we link the above wrongdoings by various government bureaucrats to the following episode where, on 2 February 1995, AUSTEL (the Government Communications Regulator) public servants decided to withhold their true findings from the then-Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, regarding the deficient arbitration Service Verification Tests (SVT) conducted at my Cape Bridgewater business on 29 September 1994 (see Open Letter File No/23 and Absent Justice Part (2)/Chapter Eight. Altering the facts of their findings is appalling enough but, according to the Telecommunications Act 1991, AUSTEL was duty-bound, under Section 342 of the Act, to provide the Communications Minister (the Hon Michael Lee MP) with all of their findings regarding the deficiencies in their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT process. On page 23 of AUSTEL’s 2 February 1995 COT Cases Third Quarterly Report regarding the SVT testing (see Open Letter File No/23) AUSTEL notes:
“Service Verification Tests have been compiled for seven customers. Reports have been completed and forwarded to six of the cusomers, and the seventh report is in prepartion. All six of the telephone services subjected to the Service Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements etsablished”.
This statement on page 23 of this AUSTEL COT Cases report does not coincide with the advice AUSTEL gave Telstra on 11 October and 16 November 1994 concerning the deficient SVT testing by this illusive ‘Peter’. (see Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B).
We will never know what action the Hon Michael Lee MP might have taken in 1994, had the government bureaucrats advised the Minister that the SVT testing at my Cape Bridgewater business had not occurred according to mandatory government communications regulatory specifications. On 12 December 1994, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence, it was stated under oath to the arbitrator in my case, that all three of the service lines tested at my holiday camp on 29 September 1994, had exceeded all of AUSTEL’s specifications. However, the person who made this statement (Peter Gamble) could not get the SVT monitoring device to work in conjunction with its sister device installed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned road-side exchange.
It is clear from the arbitrators’ technical findings in his award that he believed this ‘Peter’s’ version as well as he did AUSTEL’s regarding the SVT events and NOT my arbitration response. Bad Bureaucrats /Chapter One through to Chapter Four clearly show that by Telstra not conducting the government regulatory mandatory SVT process at my business it allowed my ongoing telephone problems to continue for years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
In simple terms, when AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) acted in concert with this ‘Peter’ in order to coverup his deficient SVT arbitration testing they too perverted the course of justice and in doing severely disadvantaged me as a claimant in my arbitration process.
Please note, this is the same Peter Gamble that Absent Justice Part (1) shows was aware that the Ericsson AXE equipment being used during my arbitration at the Portland telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater switching facilitator suffered from line lock-up problems with a (call loss) between 15% and 50% (see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E) and yet he still lied under oath concerning his SVT testing process conducted at my business (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).
This was the same ‘Peter’ who received an apology from one of Australia’s richest billionaire families and who, back in 2001/02, owned an Australian television station that actually broadcast a documentary about some of the COT case allegations against this same ‘Peter’.
As part of the process of making that documentary, and after spending two days filming at my premises in Cape Bridgewater, the producer of the show commented, in front of a number of witnesses, that he believed that they ‘had the story of the century’ and, also at the end of the shoot, even the cameraman, who had told us that he had spent sixteen years looking down a lens’, explained that he believed that this account of how a falsified report had been deliberately used to change the course of a legal arbitration process, was ‘absolute dynamite’. And remember, this was an apparently ‘official’ report, that had been produced by the same ‘Peter’.
Eventually, however, the record of my story was replaced by a documentary about another member of COT. This story, however, did not contain the detailed, documented evidence that my story had provided, and it did not have any of the exhibits that are now freely available on our website, at Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report, Tampering With Evidence – TF200/Chapter One. All of these sections of the website include numerous documents, none of which can be refuted in any way.
This Peter Gamble evidence was then provided to the DCITA assessors as further evidence Telstra and representatives of ACMA had indeed acted unlawfully during my arbitration.
Rorted millions from the government coffers - no one has been jailed
Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after Lindsay White informed the above aforementioned Senate committee that he was told by Telstra he “had to stop the COT Cases at all cost” from proving our claims page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.
A covert arrangement entered into by Warwick Smith the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and my business Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases singled out for this special unlawful treatment as TIO Evidence File No 3-A) so clearly shows.
These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was used during the first four arbitrations (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)
Before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra and copying the same to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by AUSTEL. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
Even worse, another Alan Smith who used to live in Brifgewater Road Discovery Bay, on the other of Cape Bridgewater like me before and leading up to my arbitration, had been battling Telstra over many months receiving legal letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnambool law firm) acting for a financial debt collector issuing summons (two I still have) for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehills Hollingdale & Page fax identification stamp is visible on these documents. This is the same Alan Smith who later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and road mail deliveries, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra's arbitration defence unit Freehills mistakenly sent some of my arbitration material to this Alan Smith. I use the word mistakenly because I have no proof it was a deliberate part of Telstra's COT Cases strategy to 'stop me at all costs' from proving my claim.
No control over the arbitration process
On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, and three months after the Senate had been told that we COT Cases had ‘to be stopped at all cost’ as well as having been shown evidence that Telstra’s lawyers had devised a spurious legal paper directing their client how to conceal technical data under Legal Professional Privilege even though it was NOT privileged the second-appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia) that:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—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.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the above-mentioned 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 under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?
On page 62 in the same Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr Barry O’Sullivan who was the original arbitration claim advisor to COT Case Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me advised a Senate Committee, under oath, 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 [TIO Legal Counsel] 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 [the arbitrator] 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”
As has been further confirmed above on page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, before I and the other three COT Cases signed for arbitration, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and Dr Hughes all assured us the documents we required from Telstra would begin to flow through to us once our signatures were on the agreement. The Arbitration Agreement was secretly altered just 36 hours before we were told if we did not sign this altered agreement, Telstra would walk away.
I have long maintained that when the discussion of the altered arbitration agreement was raised I was of the opinion that the TIO Legal Counsel and COT Cases spokesperson was referring to clause 10.2.2 being removed after we and Graham's lawyers had assessed it. I did not understand that clauses 24 had been re worded and clauses 25 and 26 removed completly so as to exonerate the two resource units. I would never have agreed to the rmomoval of the $250,000.00 liability caps being removed from clauses 25 and 26.
The inference was we could not afford to take Telstra to court so we had better sign it, or suffer the consequences of a long court and expensive legal battle. We signed it under duress, after being told if we did not sign the attached media release that stated we were happy little chappies then the same scenario applied. Almost crying with frustration and anger at having reached this gate which was half-open we did what we were told.
In my case, Barry O’Sullivan and his partner, Garry Ellicott (ex-Queensland Police Detective Sergeant and ex-National Crime Investigator) met with me in Maroochydore (Queensland), during my arbitration, to discuss the threats that Telstra had made to me concerning the assistance I was providing to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into Telstra’s unauthorized interception of my telephone and fax transmission (see Australian Federal Police Investigations).
After visiting my business in May 1994, Garry Ellicott had made it clear that he could see that my business was under constant surveillance. He also noted that this was alarming, particularly since these threats were now causing me so much stress.
Telstra’s threats continued to impact on my ability to submit a full and concise arbitration claim. This was clearly intimidation by Telstra (the defendant), but still, the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes and administrator of the process Warwick Smith refused to convene a hearing to discuss these threats even though exhibit GS-CAV 205 shows I tried to have these document issues investigated.
Threats made and meticulously carried out
A concerned Senator Ron Boswell discussed in the Senate, the type of threats that had been made against me by Telstra senior executives while the Australian Federal Police investigated Telstra’s unauthorised interception of my telecommunication services. Page 180 (see Senate Evidence File No 31), shows that, during a Senate committee debate on 29 November 1994, the senator challenged Telstra’s legal directorate concerning these threats:
“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 the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration Page Part One File No/14)
NONE of the COT Cases was ever on a terrorist list in 1994 (or since, for that matter) and nor was any of us ever listed as suspects in relation to any crimes committed against any Australian citizens. This means that we must, therefore, ask: why were these innocent claimants’ in-confidence arbitration and Telstra-related documents hacked by Telstra while Telstra was defending the various COT cases arbitrations?
Why didn’t the arbitrator and administrator investigate why so many arbitration documents were just not reaching their intended destination? Most, if not all of those lost and unaddressed arbitration documents were related to the complaints raised by the claimants that their phone problems were still ongoing.
What the government and their bureaucratic minders do not want to acknowledge, is the everlasting effect these crimes committed against the COT cases have had on our psychological wellbeing.
Major Fraud Group – Victoria police
Three of the five COT Cases mentioned by Telstra ‘whistleblower’ Lindsey White, who “had to be stopped at all cost” from proving her arbitration claims took their matters to the Major fraud Group Victoria police in 1999. The following two links Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)), because Fraud Group Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra.
What these transcripts do not reveal is that two Telstra senior technician’s investigating my complaints on 3 June 1993, inadvertently left their briefcase at my Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, see Senate Evidence File No 20 letter from Senator Barnaby Joyce 15 Sept 2006 our claims would be finaly investigated. Senator Coonan broke her commitment to Senator Joyce which is discussed in this letter.
The important documents left in that briefcase provided evidence that discussed the manner in which they settled with me in December 1992. Telstra had known that major faults still existed in their network at the time of the settlement (see Main Evidence File No 26) but they did not disclose this to me during the settlement process. The documents quickly exposed that Telstra was fully aware of their inadequate service and the major communication problems that were affecting the viability of my business endeavours.
Telstra’s FOI document dated 23 August 1993 and labelled as ‘folio R09830’ with the subject listed as ‘The Briefcase’ is alarming, to say the least. This document, which had been copied to Telstra’s Corporate Secretary, notes:
“Subsequently it was realised that the other papers could be significant and these were faxed to (name deleted) but appear not to have been supplied to Austel at this point.
“The loose papers on retrofit could be sensitive and copies of all papers have been sent to.”(See Arbitrator File No 62)
These same papers on retrofit in 1994 and 1995, were also concealed from the arbitrator hearing mt case. To have investigated my arbitration claims would have uncovered at least one major crime was committed against me and other Telstra subscribers going back before 1993. An investigation into this terrible crime committed against so many Australian small business operators would have clearly impeded the privatisation of Telstra.
This matter was again raised with Senator Barnaby Joyce during a COT meeting in July 2005, one of the main reason’s Senator Joyce brokered a deal with The Hon Senator Helen Coonan (seeSenate Evidence File No 20 letter from Senator Barnaby Joyce 15 Sept 2006 our claims would be finaly investigated).
The Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group’s own investigations into claims the five litmus test cases registered concerning Telstra committing fraud. Page 11 of Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) Sue Owens stating I am “extremely intelligent” and that police also thought the same concerning my ability to detect wrongdoing. I raised the 1993 briefcase affair with the Major Fraud Group because the information in that briefcase was also relevant to their now 1999 investigation.
At the request of Ann Garms and her lawyer Sue Owens and in the presence of Neil Jepson, barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, I submitted the draft of the three reports (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report, Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and Tampering With Evidence – TF200) to assist the fraud group in their investigation of Ann’s claims of fraud against Telstra. Ms Owens attested that Mr Jepson considered my reporting in these reports were authentic.
I ask you to consider two witness statements, dated 8 and 10 August 2006, referring to the 1999 and 2001 Major Fraud Group investigations: one statement was prepared by a government public servant/ex-police officer and the other by an ex very-senior Telstra protective services officer (later promoted to the principal investigator). Both statements are discussed on our Absentjustice Preface page AFP Evidence File No 13. Members of the current government were provided with copies of these witness statements, without redactions. Sadly, the information in these two witness statements, to date, has not been acted upon.
The Telstra ex-senior protective service officer’s witness statement discusses a then still senior detective sergeant of the then Major Fraud Group, Victoria Police. The ex-police officer’s witness statement also describes the anguish experienced by the senior detective sergeant while he was investigating alleged fraud within Telstra during the COT arbitrations and the fears he had after being subjected to intimidation. Consider this: if this feeling of being got at by the Telstra Corporation can reduce a fully trained senior police officer to the condition Telstra’s ex-senior protective service officer alleged, just think how this continued and unaddressed harassment, by Telstra officials, left the COT cases during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations.
I again raise this witness statement by this Telstra’s ex-senior protective service officer because points 20, 21 and 22 in his statement support how important the withheld Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book during my arbitration was:
(20)”…I had cause to travel to Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland telephone exchange.
(21) As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.
(22) When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by the local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater area south of Portland was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation”.
What was in the logbook that a government regulator, Telstra’s own protective service officer and the commonwealth ombudsman’s office have been unable to gain access to it? Like much of the Cape Bridgewater fault data that AUSTEL failed to obtain from Telstra during their investigations into my complaints (see Main Evidence File No 15), I was also unable to get my hands on the Cape Bridgewater/Portland exchange logbook – not even with the help of John Wynack, Director of Investigation from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
On 11 November 1994, John Wynack, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office wrote to Telstra’s CEO noting:
“At the request of (name deleted), I am notifying you of the details of the complaints made to the Ombudsman by Alan Smith;
Telecom claimed that documents given to Telecom by Mr Smith in 1992 had been destroyed or lost.
Telecom has lost or destroyed a number of files relating to his contacts with Telecom prior to 1991.
Telecom unreasonably delaying providing access to many documents.
Telecom unreasonably refused to provide the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book associated with the RCM at Cape Bridgewater’ for the period 2 June 1993 to 6 March 1994″
Could this be the reason why the logbook vanished? Perhaps Telstra feared a class-action lawsuit in the future. All I wanted was to prove my case and get on with running my business.
This one ‘logbook’ document on its own, from amongst thousands of other, related documents, would have completely proved my case because it showed that my complaints about ongoing telephone problems, and the complaints of other Cape Bridgewater and Portland residents also, were all based on fact, as the daily recording of those faults, penned into the logbook each day by the various technicians, would have shown.
Surely it has always been the government’s responsibility to have ensured the COT arbitrations were conducted according to the law, as well as the promises were given to to the COT cases before they signed their individual arbitration and mediation agreements 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.” (see pages 109 to 110, Senate – Parliament of Australia).
Next Page ⟶
