Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Chapter Four - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents

Deceptive conduct involves double-dealing, trickery, cheating, and betraying people's trust. This conduct festers corruption. It’s worse than double-dealing.

Example One

Exhibit GS 451 File GS-CAV 448 to 458 is Telstra’s principal Arbitration Submission submitted to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) in November 1996. This arbitration document clearly discusses issues relevant to Telstra’s Federal Court action, which Dr Hughes was party to in 1990/92 and again was party to when he became the arbitrator hearing these same issues again in April 1994.  

Example Two

The following eighteen-plus extracts have come from Telstra’s 26 November 1996 ‘B003 Arbitration Briefing Document regarding “Graham John Schorer and others’’.’  In this document, the word ‘Claimants’ refers to Graham’s other companies, which were also named in his interim claim.  The following 19 examples discussed in the B003 26 November 1996 arbitration issues are the same 1990/92 technical issues that Dr Hughes originally assisted Mr Schorer with his 1990 Federal Court Action.

  1. 14 February 1990: the Claimants complained of Intermittent Answering No Voice. The result of test was ‘A Reported Service Workable’ (ASW). The complaint was cleared 15 February 1990 with a clearance code of B53 which indicates that CPU PBU control board required reprogramming. Ref: C05281
  2. 21 February 1990: the Claimants complained that one of their keypads was damaged. The complaint was cleared with a clearance code of DO1jf after replacement Ref: C05281
  3. 26 February 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable to Transfer. A technician went to the Claimants’ premises but did not locate any fault and referred the complaint to the exchange. This complaint most likely related to the Flexitel as in fault below, call transfers at a customer’s premises do not use any function of an exchange Ref: C05281
  4. 5 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable To Transfer. A technician was displaced to the Claimants’ premises. The complaint was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of D53H replacing and reprogramming a Flexitel CPU Ref: C05281
  5. 6 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Not Receiving Ring, Unable To Transfer. The fault was cleared on the same day with clearance codes of D53H and D53J replacing and reprogramming a Flexitel CPU. Ref: C05281
  6. 19 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Out of Order. The service after testing was passed to a technician to visit the Claimants premises. The fault was then cleared on the 20 March 1990 with a clearance code of D06W indicating that the problem was in the Flexitel Power Supply. Ref: C05280
  7. 21 March 1990: the Claimants complained of intermittent Out Of Order. The complaint was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of D53H following the reprogramming of a Flexitel system CPU. Ref C05280
  8. 22 March 1990: the Claimants complained of Cut Off Speaking on line (03 329 0055. The fault was passes to NPAC as a technical assistance report for further investigation. Ref: C05287
  9. 30 April 1990: the Claimants complained of Transmission Noisy and Faint. A technician visited the Claimants’ premises. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of T31J which indicates the replacement of a minor item. Ref: C05280
  10. 30 April 1990: the Claimants complained of Unable To Transfer. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of D53J which indicates a Flexitel CPU was replaced. Ref: C05280
  11. 15 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Not Receiving Ring. The fault was cleared with a clearance code of D53J and D06J which indicates that a Flexitel’s CPU and power supply were replaced. Ref: C05280
  12. 17 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Out Of Order. The complaint was cleared with a clearance code on the same day of D00X indicating that no fault was evident within the Flexitel equipment and the complaint was passed to exchange staff for further investigation. Ref: C05280
  13. 18 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Busy Out Of Order & Out Of Order on line (03) 329 0055. The complaint was referred to the exchanges staff who, after investigation, could not locate any fault. Ref: C05287
  14. 21 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Out Of Order. The complaint, after testing was referred to a technician to visit the Claimants’ premises. The fault was then cleared with a clearance code of D31F, indicating a minor Flexitel item was repaired. Ref:C05280
  15. 21 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Crossed Lines in the (03 329 7355 the Claimants’ administration rotary group. After testing the complaint was passed to the exchange technician for investigation. The fault was cleared on the same day with a clearance code of XPBX which indicates an exchange fault was found in the PBX rotary group equipment of the (03) 329*** thousand group at NMEL. Ref: C05284
  16. 22 May 1990: the claimants complained of a faulty keypad. The service after testing was referred to a technician to visit the Claimants’ premises. The fault was then cleared with a clearance code of D01N which indicates the problem was suspected to be related to a Flexitel keypad, however, no fault was located. Ref: C05280
  17. 31 May 1990: the Claimants complained of Intermittent Not Receiving Ring on lines (03) 329 0055. The result of initial test was (RWT) Right When Tested. A hand written note indicates that between 4:00 and 4:30pm on 31 May 1990 a caller from Frankston experienced the reported problem. Frankston exchange staff were requested to investigate for any cause of the complaint and make test calls into North Melbourne exchange. Ref: C05287, 000710
  18. 20 June 1990: the Claimants complained of No Dial Tone, Not Of Order. The records were cleared with a clearance code of D31F and D00W3 indicating that 2 Flexitel stations were Ref: C05280.

Point 3 to point 8 on page 49‘On 10 October 1992 a LEOPARD record shows that (03) 329 0055 was reported as DAF (Does not Answer – Faulty). The fault report was referred NPAC. There is no further documentation located in relation to this fault report.’ Ref: 000401 & C05370

  1. On 21st October 1992, at 11:24 a.m., the Claimants allegedly attempted to ring (03) 329 7355 from (03) 828**** (Toorak) and received the engaged signal. Telstra has no information as to whether this number was, in fact, engaged.
  2. On 21st October 1992, between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm, a carrier driver made three unsuccessful calls from a mobile phone, 018547***, to Golden Messenger. The caller had received a ring tone, but calls dropped out. Call dropouts from mobile phones are commonplace. Telstra or any carrier cannot guarantee against dropouts due to the nature of radio signal strength variations and the diverse geographical locations of the users.
  3. On 22nd October 1992 at 7:40 am a carrier driver calling Golden Messenger from (03) 688*** (Footscray) had twice received an engaged signal, a third call was successful. Telstra has no information as to whether this number was in fact, engaged,’

Throughout Telstra’s defence, they say, ‘Telstra has no information as to whether this number was in fact engaged.’  Attached to Graham Schorer’s – CAV Relevant Information file Exhibit 6, Part 3, is a Telstra FOI schedule entitled Schorer FOI Data Base. This document confirms that non-legal documents pertaining to Graham’s business for October 1992 (the period under discussion in the B003 Briefing Report) were withheld under Legal Professional Privilege during Graham’s arbitration.

Claimants Complaints

(37) In the period July 1987 to date, Telstra has been able to locate records of 236 complaints made by the Claimants. This analysis does not include complaints relating to the Claimants’ leased line services. This is an average of 2.15 complaints per month or less than one complaint per service per annum.

(38) Of these complaints, Telstra was able to identify the cause or the probable cause of 88 complaints (37.3%). The causes of these complaints were as follows:

Therefore the majority of complaints with identified causes were either the Claimants responsibility (Claimants’ other CPE and Claimants’ misoperation or other conduct) or due to the Claimants’ Flexitels (which are excluded from this Arbitration) which when combined equates to 59 or 67% of the causes.

A comparison of Telstra’s November 1996 Arbitration Briefing Paper (B003) with the information so far documented in our report, Against All Odds, proves that, particularly in relation to the way Telstra had misled and deceived Graham over many years in relation to the well-known and ongoing exchange faults at the North Melbourne Exchange, not only did AUSTEL find heavily against Telstra in their draft Golden Messenger Report, but they were also aware that Telstra had knowingly submitted false information to the arbitrator on that same subject.  All of this makes it clearly important to note that, if AUSTEL had not concealed the draft Golden Messenger Report from Graham before he signed for arbitration (thereby clearly breaching their statutory obligations to Graham), then Telstra’s misleading and deceptive conduct would have been fully uncovered and addressed in 1994.

I reiterate, when Dr Hughes became Mr Schorer’s April 1994 to December 1998 arbitration, he, Telstra and Mr Schorer were again discussing the same technical issues they had previous discussed in Mr Schorer’s 1990/92 Federal Court battle with Telstra. It is clear after reading the exhibit Proof Hughes and Telstra raised the Flexitel issue in arbitration. that some of the faults relevant as well as being raised in Graham Schorer and Telstra’s arbitration process were linked to the Flexitel and North Melbourne telephone exchange problems that both parties, Telstra and Mr Schorer as well as Dr Hughes, were subject matters raised in both Mr Schorer’s Federal Court action and in his arbitration. 

The matters discussed on absentjustice.com are said in Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

© 2017 Absent Justice

Please note: The following exhibits (which we might have missed in the text of the chronology of events above) can be accessed by placing the cursor over the relevant number range.

AS – CAV 1 to 47 – AS-CAV 48-A to 91 – AS-CAV 92 to 127 – AS-CAV 128 to 180 – AS-CAV 181 to 233 – AS-CAV 234 to 281 – AS-CAV 282 to 323 – AS-CAV 324-A to 420 – AS-CAV 421 to 469 – AS-CAV 470 to 486 – AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E – AS-CAV 495 to 541 – AS-CAV 542 to 588 – AS-CAV 589 to 647 – AS-CAV 648 to 700 – AS-CAV 765-A to 789 – AS-CAV 790 to 818 – AS-CAV 819 to 843 – AS-CAV 923 to 946  AS-CAV 1150 to 1169 – AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 AS-CAV-1002 to 1019 – AS-CAV-996 to 1001 GS-CAV 1 to 88 – GS-CAV 89 to 154-A– GS-CAV 155 to 215– GS-CAV 216 to 257  – GS-CAV 258 to 323 – GS-CAV 410-A to 447 – GS-CAV 410-A to 447 – GS-CAV 459 to 489 – GS-CAV 490 to 521 – GS-CAV 522 to 580 – GS-CAV 581 to 609

Download Attachments

Proof Hughes and Telstra raised the Flexitel issue in arbitration. - See Exhibit GS 451 File GS-CAV 448 to 458 /Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan's book

 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats made and carried out.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate why were my FOI documents being withheld from me during my arbitration:

“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?” (Senate Evidence File No 31)

As I have reiterated throughout this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings came to fruition, and the withholding of pertinent documents is deeply concerning. Regrettably, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact of this malpractice on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Despite assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the illicit interception of phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, they never came to my aid.

Quote Icon

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
 Contact Us