Chapter Five - The fifth remedy pursued
This remedy pursued ran parallel with the Australian Securities Investment Commission ASIC during the period in 1998 when they agreed to investigate
Evidently, the June 1996 report failed to uphold the cornerstone of our legal system - the rule of law.
After reviewing both Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it's evident that the exhibits and evidence attached to the report prove that if Paul Fletcher had investigated the evidence properly back in June 1996, most, if not all, of the issues that I have been trying to have studied since then, would have been resolved in 1996. It's important to note that although a copy of the report was sent to Paul Fletcher when he was an adviser to Senator Richard Alston, it was initially provided to him at his request as a public servant.
Furthermore, Senator Helen Coonan, Minister of Communications, requested the same report when Paul Fletcher was a serving public servant in 2006 to review the COT case's previous arbitrations from 1994 to 1999. Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two were again provided to Senator Helen Coonan.
After reviewing both Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it's evident that the exhibits and evidence attached to the report that both the Hon David Hawker MP and I provided Senator Richard Alston, who then passed it on to his staff manager Paul Fletcher to investigate had been investigated back in June 1996, most, if not all, of the issues that I have been trying to have studied since then, would have been resolved in 1996. During the time when The Hon. Paul Fletcher was the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities, and the Arts in 2022 in the Morrison government. My Federal Member of Parliament, Dan Tehan, asked him to review my unresolved COT issues. However, Paul Fletcher declined to investigate.
Mr Alan Cameron was supplied with force information concerning this report by the arbitration unit when he first began investigating my claims. ASIC aborted their investigations, unaware they had been duped by the arbitration unit, who had been secretly exonerated from all liability for their part played in the COT arbitrations. In September 1995, the Hon David Hawker MP and I discussed this with Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) in Parliament House Canberra, who assured us he would have it addressed and asked me to provide further supporting material because the accompanying documents provided to him by the Hon David Hawker MP suggested that the whole arbitration process should be put on hold until after an investigation into my claims had been provided to the government.
In March 1996, Senator Richard Alston became the new Minister for Communications in the John Howard government, and Mr Fletcher became the Senator's communications advisor. Had Paul Fletcher and Senator Richard Alston investigated this report in June 1996, these arbitration issues would have been validated 24 years ago.
One must ask whether the appointment of Warwick Smith as Sports Minister in March 1996, who, as administrator to the first four COT arbitrations, had covertly used Telstra's arbitration agreement instead of an independent agreement which the government had been told would be used, did that unethical conduct by Warwick Smith prompt both Senator Richard Alston and Paul Fletcher into dropping their investigation when Warwick Smith became a minister in the John Howard Government?
In August, Telstra treated Warwick Smith as Sports Minister and Senator Richard Alston as one of Australia's sponsors of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. As soon as that happened, my correspondence to Senator Richard Alston regarding my claims that Telstra had perverted the course of justice on at least three occasions was not responded to in the vigour it once had been.
Hansard at (Senate Evidence File No 1-C) shows the Senate was concerned that several government ministers had taken kickbacks from Telstra, creating a conflict of interest in their ministerial roles. The ramifications would have been significant if the Senate had been quiet about who they were discussing and if some ministers had not conducted their government affairs honourable.
Questions raised during a Senate committee hearing
Senator ALLISON – Telstra was very reluctant to reveal the names of its other commercial customers that were sent to Atlanta. Why is this?
Senator – ALLISON – These customers are not, presumably, private individuals?
Senator – ALLISON – So they are in the position of being able to make decisions which could favour Telstra, that is what you are suggesting?
Senator – ALLISON – Are you familiar with Telstra’s employee code of conduct?
Senator – ALLISSON – So this is still a current code of practice? It would be familiar to those people who needed to know
Senator – ALLISON – It says, under ‘guidelines for expected behaviour — bribes, pay-offs or kick-backs': No bribes, pay-offs, kick-backs or other considerations will be paid or received directly or indirectly. In addition, such payments to domestic or foreign government officials to influence a decision or gain a benefit either directly or through a third party, are prohibited.
Senator – ALLISON – Would you like to give us a view about these trips to Atlanta and how they relate to expected behaviour in this sense?
Senator – ALLISON – With respect, a seat at the ballet is quite different from a $12,000.00 trip to the
Would you like to give us a view about these trips to Atlanta andAtlanta Games surely?
Senator – ALLISON – Are you suggesting that there is another code for corporate conduct?
Senator SCHACHT – So the invitations to people to go to Atlanta, whether they were politicians or corporate, were approved by the CEO.
Senator ALISSON – I just come back to this question of the sensitivity of your business customers. Since they represent corporations, and since Telstra is a corporation, why is the need for such secrecy? Why is it a sensitive matter?
What has been said above in several statements by various Senators concerning the documented kickbacks that several Senators stated were a disgrace? Creating a free $12,000.00 trip paid by Telstra is a situation that may be part of the reason if this named person was one of those mentioned who accepted this trip after having been part of my Telstra arbitration. This arbitration failed to investigate one ongoing telephone problem which was still affecting my business (as Telstra's own records show) in November 2006 (see main Evidence F, 11 years after my arbitration was set up to fix these problems. If the Australian Government were to ask me for the name of the “named” person, I would undoubtedly supply that name and other information which suggests this person knowingly misled numerous people in a statement he prepared on 12 May 1995 concerning my arbitration, which he knew was not the truth by a long way. I think by mentioning this issue in our Senate link here on absentjustice.com, someone in Government will be interested in researching back to this particular 27 February 1998 Hansard and the false statement made by this person as to whether this situation is part of the reason the Government has transparently investigated my valid claims.
ASIC - was the same, too.
To support my claims that Anthony Hodgson, Chairman of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), misled ASIC or his own company misled him regarding assessing less than 11% (eleven per cent) of my legally submitted claim, see the following points:
Point 1: There are discrepancies between the arbitrator’s and my version of the technical consultants’ report titled Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report. Mr A and Smith. CBHC 30 A ril 1995. The second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence: “It is complete and final as it is” (see Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator’s report, also dated 30 April 1993, says:
“There is, however, an addendum which we may find it necessary to add during the next few weeks on billing, i.e. possible discrepancies in Smith’s Telecom bills.” (See Arbitrator File No/28)
Point 2: The arbitrator’s version contains more information than mine. For example, the reference to my ongoing billing problems states that extra weeks are required to complete the investigation, but the arbitrator did not provide the extra weeks.
My page two of this report (see Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) shows no mention of my billing claim document in my version. However, page three in the arbitrator’s version notes:
“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.
“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” (See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)
How can two identical technical reports with the same 23 technical assessments, both dated 30 April 1995 and apparently both prepared by the same consultants, have one version noting that the “… case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks”, while the other has no mention of it still being open and needing weeks to complete?
Both documents state, “A comprehensive log of Mr Smith’s complaints does not appear to exist.” It did exist, as we have shown. Had this comprehensive log of fault complaints been provided to the technical consultants to assess, they would have had to overrule the arbitrator’s decision not to allow them the extra weeks they had requested to investigate my ongoing billing faults.
My claims to ASIC also raised concerns that FHCA did not provide my evidence showing that the TF 200 telephone beer in the telephone report was fraudulently manufactured by Telstra to the arbitrator for assessment.
Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan (my claim advisors) had definitely submitted a very comprehensive list of fault complaints as part of my submission (see Arbitrator File No/31 & 32). One of those reports was a complete chronology of events to assist with reading the comprehensive log of fault complaints. Were these documents lost en route to the arbitrator's office via Australia Post or the inadequate faxing system at Dr Hughes’ office (see exhibit G Schorer 717-G stat dec and letter to IAMA)? My request was denied when I demanded an arbitration meeting to discuss these missing reports (see Arbitrator File No/48).
A dated chronology of my 008/1800 billing issues existed before, during and after my arbitration. A comprehensive log of faults was submitted to the federal government before and during my arbitration. Still, this record disappeared, leaving only 11% of my claim documents to be assessed. Neither Telstra nor AUSTEL could allow my 008/1800 billing issues to be scrutinised and exposed. The implications of a systemic charging issue, which affected as many as 120,000 Australian households and businesses (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
The four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and (me) were never told about any of these so-called “forces at work” and nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the TIO, the TIO’s legal advisor and the Arbitrator, these un-named “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process wherever and whenever they desired, but always to help Telstra to defeat the COT claimants.
Point 4, When these three legal experts (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. If John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once because, with Mr Rundell’s letter as evidence, we would certainly have had a very reasonable chance of being granted the rights to have all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least. And don’t forget, it was the federal government that originally endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.
By viewing exhibits Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, as well as exhibits Open letter File No/45-A to 45-I and comparing them with Open letter File No/46-A to 46-L to Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D, it will be clear my claims against the conduct of the arbitrator and FHCA are valid.
I also hoped that ASIC, with its legislative powers, would order a quick assessment of the arbitrator’s written technical findings in his award and compare Telstra’s arbitration defence. ASIC would have proved beyond all doubt that Telstra defended NONE of my Ericsson AXE and NEAT faulty testing equipment procedures or commented on by the arbitrator. Lane Telecommunications (the TIO-appointed arbitration technical advisors investigated NONE of my Ericsson fault data. I can only presume Lane did not assess my Ericsson claims because Ericsson was already purchasing Lane. ASIC was misled and deceived by Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory as I had been during my arbitration.
Why then did Anthony Hodgson, the chair of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the arbitration financial resource unit), write to Alan Cameron, chair of the Australian Securities Commission (see Open letter File No/45-I), on 17 March 1998, advising that I was wrong: ALL of my claim documents were addressed during my arbitration when the above-aforementioned points and exhibits show they were not addressed at all. This statement by Mr Hodgson to ASIC was misleading and deceptive conduct. If he wrote on advice he received within his own corporation, then his own company members and partners within profoundly misled and deceived him and when this possibility was brought to his attention and the attention of John Pinnock (the second TIO), the truth of the matter was not relayed back to ASIC.
Had the Australian Securities Commission not been misled and deceived in March 1998, less than three years after my arbitration concluded, and instead made a finding that my claims were justified, as the attached exhibits on absentjustice.com show, then I could have challenged at least one of the sections in the arbitrator’s award, as 1998 was well within the statute of limitations time-frame allowed.
Next Page ⟶
