My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


Telstra's Falsified BCI Report


Selling out the other side of politics—the money grubbers and career dogs, especially politicians—who have compromised their morals and the community's needs in pursuit of illicit personal gain is shaping Australia's legal process, but no one wants to admit it. 

Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, and international fraud against the government present significant challenges.

Regrettably, the corruption of federal public officials is prevalent, posing a threat to the integrity of our governmental bodies. The events surrounding the Australian government-endorsed Casualties of Telstra arbitrations prompt reflection. The conduct of specific public figures, notably politicians, who prioritize personal gain over ethical considerations and community welfare, exerts a discernible influence on the Australian arbitration and mediation system. This phenomenon warrants candid and comprehensive examination.

Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who covered up these atrocities 

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

It is also clear from Exhibit 8, dated 11 August 1995 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46), a letter from BCI to Telstra's Steve Black, and Exhibit 36 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46), a further letter from BCI to Telstra's John Armstrong, that neither letter is on BCI letterhead, as are Exhibits 1 to 7, from BCI to Telstra (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46). 

Both Exhibits 8 and 36 were provided by Telstra to the Senate Committee [on notice under oath as being authentic] in October 1997 to support that BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were genuine when the evidence on and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report confirms no such testing ever took place at Portland or Cape Bridgewater (Victoria) as described in the BCI report shows. The Report states that BCI used the updated CCS7 testing equipment to prove the tests were genuine when the nearest telephone exchange that could facilitate that testing equipment was the Warrnambool telephone exchange 1o0 plus kilometres from Portland and Cape Bridgewater. However, Telstra still provided a copy of this inaccurate report to one of their arbitration witnesses, a clinical psychologist before that psychologist interviewed me, believing I was insane and imagining the many proven faults that eventually forced me to sell my holiday camp six years after my arbitration failed to fix the faults as part of that agreed government endorsed process. 

Telstra has been relying on government ministers to ignore this fraud, which the government has been doing for the past two decades or more.  

As Telstra's Simone Semmens stated on Nationwide TV (see above), the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) test conducted at the COT Cases telephone exchanges that serviced their business proved there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network does not coincide with the evidence attached to my website or the public statement made by Frank Blount. The latter was Telstra's CEO during my arbitration. In 2000 in his co-produced manuscript.

On pages 132 and 133 in the publication, Managing in Australia (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), Frank Blounts reveals Telstra did have a systemic 1800 billing problem affecting Australian consumers across Australia. These 1800 billing problems were also linked to the Ericsson AXE locking-up problems that continued to charge customers for calls they had terminated but had not disconnected from Telstra's Ericsson telephone exchanges. The same billing faults the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, would not allow his two technical consultants, DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia), to investigate (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues). 

Had Dr Hughes given DMR & Lane the extra weeks they stated in their 30 April 1995 report was needed to investigate these ongoing 1800 faults, DMR & Lane would have uncovered what Frank Blount had uncovered. For Telstra to have misled and deceived the arbitrator concerning these 1800 faults is one thing, but to mislead and deceive their 1800 customers is another issue.

The fact that Telstra allowed Simone Semmens to state on Nationwide TV that the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) test proved there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network during the four years of the COT arbitrations is bad enough, but to have said it when there were other legal processes being administered where the billing was an issue is the deception of the worse possible kind, especially after Senator Schacht, advised Telstra's Mr Benjamin of his concerns regarding Simone Semmen's statement inferring Telstra's network was of world standard when both Telstra and BCI knew different.  

Telstra’s Mr Benjamin's statement to Senator Schacht "...I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report,'' is also misleading and deceptive because I had already provided Mr Bejamin (see AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - AS-CAV 196AS-CAV 188,  AS-CAV 189 and AS-CAV 190-A)with the proof the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed.

Senator Schacht's further statement — since then, of course—not in conversations but elsewhere— we now have major litigation running into hundreds of millions of dollars [my emphasis] between various service providers and so on, which are complaints about the billing system. which the Ericsson AXE locking up faults contributed to the lines remaining open and charged by Telstra accordingly even thought the line had locked up the system. 

This Ericsson AXE locking up fault indicates that Simone Semmen's statement should never have been made public.

Wrong or not, several business owners who made those complaints lost their court actions and businesses. 

It is now clear there were two different billing faults affecting the same Telstra network, one being the 1800 problem discussed in Franls Blount's book see File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127) and the known Ericsson AXE telephone exchange locking-up fault 


Regardless of Telstra’s two previous Corporate Secretaries, Jim Holmes and Douglas Grayson and now their third Corporate Secretary Sue Laver, all fully being aware that Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) could not have possibly performed their BCI Cape Bridgewater tests as shown in their report on the telephone exchange that serviced my business none of these three most senior Telstra executives have come forward to advise the government that this false information was provided to at least one of their arbitration witnesses before that witness submitted his findings.

The current 2024 secretary, Sue Laver, is also aware that regardless of the Senate Estimates Committee asking for proof to be provided by Telstra on notice that my claims concerning the deficient BCI test are false or frivolous, Ms Laver and Telstra’s previous arbitration consultants still mislead and deceive the Senate concerning the truth of my allegations when they submitted false written statements to the Senate concerning the validity of the BCI testing.

It was essential to address the issue surrounding Telstra's misleading of the Senate because to do so on notice is Contempt of the Senate, a chargeable offence punishable by two years in jail. 


Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Telstra in contempt of the Senate

On 23 March 1999, almost five years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to support their claims i.e. fully

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

I doubt there are many countries in the Western world governed by the rule of law, as Australia purports to be, that would allow a group of small-business operators to be forced to proceed with a government-endorsed arbitration while allowing the defence (the government which owned the corporation) to conceal the necessary documents these civilians needed to support their claims. Three of those previously withheld documents confirm that Telstra was fully aware that the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada Internations Inc (BCI) tests could not possibly have taken place, according to the official BCI report that Telstra used as arbitration defence documents.

On my behalf, Mr Schorer (COT. Spokesperson) raised the Cape Bridgewater BCI deficient tests with Senators Ron Boswell and Chris Schacht. Pages 108-9 of Senate Hansard records (refer to Scrooge - exhibit 35) confirm Telstra deflected the issue of impracticable tests by stating my claim – that the report was fabricated – was incorrect. The only problem with the report was an incorrect date for one of the tests. The Senate then put Telstra on notice to provide evidence of that error.

If the 12 January 1998 letter to Sue Laver, with the false BCI information attached, is not enough evidence to convince the Australian Government that Telstra cannot continue pretending. They know nothing about the falsified Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, Telstra, and the Senate estimates committee chair was again notified, on 14 April 1998, that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were impracticable. When is Telstra going to come forward and advise the Telstra board that my claims are right and that, indeed, it was unlawful to use the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests as arbitration defence documents as well as grossly unethical to have provided the Senate with this known false information when answering questions on notice?

On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the chair of the Senate legislation committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in September and October 1997, was false (see Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One and exhibit 62-Part-Two). Telstra was in contempt of the Senate. No one within Telstra has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters I now raise on in 2023.

Telstra's Falsified BCI Report is all the evidence necessary to show that arbitration lawyers provided false information to Telstra’s arbitration witness, namely the clinical psychologist, during my government-endorsed arbitration. Two years later, Telstra supplied that same BCI false information on notice to the Senate.

It is ironic that two Telstra technicians, in two separate witness statements dated 8 and 12 December 1994, discuss the testing equipment used by Telstra in overall maintenance and state that the nearest telephone exchange to Portland and Cape Bridgewater that could facilitate the TEKELEC CCS7 equipment was in Warrnambool 110 kilometres from Portland/Cape Bridgewater, where BCI alleged they carried out their PORTLAND / Cape Bridgewater tests via the Ericsson AXE exchanges trunked through the TEKELEC CCS7 equipment. 

On 12 January 1998, during the Senate estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer provided Sue Laver, Telstra’s corporate secretary, with several documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:

“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International The report is fabricated or falsified.”

Had Sue Laver advised the Senate that my complaints concerning the flawed BCI testing had merit, my matters raised on could have been resolved two decades ago. 

Please click on the following link Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and form your opinion on the authenticity of the BCI report that Telstra used as an arbitration defence document.

The evidence which supports the report is attached as BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46

On 23 October 1997, the office of Senator Schacht, Shadow Minister for Communications, faxed Senator Ron Boswell the proposed terms of reference for the Senate working party for their investigation into the COT arbitration FOI issues, which Sue Laver. Telstra's current Corporate Secretary in 2023, was heavily involved in these Senate hearings on behalf of Telstra.  This document shows the two lists of unresolved COT cases with FOI issues to be investigated. My name appears on the Schedule B list (see Arbitrator File No 67). Telstra, by still refusing to supply these 16 COT cases with promised discovery documents, first requested four years earlier, was acting outside of the rule of law and yet, regardless of Telstra breaking the law, these 16 claimants received no help from the police, arbitrator or government bureaucrats. They were denied access to their documents, as shows.

Exhibit 20-A, a letter dated 9 December 1993 from Cliff Mathieson of AUSTEL to Telstra’s Manager of Business Commercial, states on page 3,

"...In summary, having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that the BCI report should not be made available to the assessor(s) nominated for the COT Cases without a copy of this letter being attached to it."

Had this letter and the many other letters in BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 been provided to the Senate as part of Telstra's response to questions placed on notice concerning my claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were impracticable, the Senate might well have demanded more information regarding my claims. 

After my arbitration was concluded, I alerted Mr Tuckwell that Telstra had used these known corrupt Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) Cape Bridgewater tests to support their arbitration defence my claims without AUSTEL's letter being supplied to the arbitrator (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report).

“The tests to which you refer were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be referred to those who carried them out or claim to have carried them out.”  File 186 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

If Neil Tuckwell (on behalf of the government communications regulator) had demanded answers back in 1995 as to why Telstra used known falsified BCI tests, this falsifying of arbitration defence documents would have been dealt with in 1995 instead of still actively being covered up in 2022.

I reiterate: By clicking on the following link Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report, you can form your opinion on the authenticity of the BCI report and/or my version, which clearly shows that the Cape Bridgewater test was impracticable.

The evidence (46 exhibits) which support my report is attached as BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46

I reiterate: Sue Laver is currently (in 2024) Telstra's Corporate Secretary and is refusing to investigate these BCI issues

and is refusing to investigate these BCI issues.

On 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate committee was told that five COT cases had to be stopped at all costs from proving our claims, a number of senators discussed Telstra’s legal firm and its COT strategy, dated 20 September 1993. This strategy advises how Telstra can conceal technical information from the four COTs under Legal Professional Privilege, even though the documents were not privileged (see SENATE Hansard, page 5169). The COT strategy is available at Prologue Evidence File No/1-A.

The author of this COT strategy is the same lawyer with whom I was forced to register each of my phone complaints in writing before Telstra would address these problems. NONE of the fault information I provided to this lawyer concerning ongoing telephone problems and Telstra’s response to those problems was ever released to me during my arbitration.

To add further insult to these injustices, on 12 September 1994, as part of the arbitration process, I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of the arbitration process. One of the most important issues I raised with him was the trauma I suffered at the hands of the legal firm that hired him. He appeared to listen carefully to what I described, and he said being directed to register phone complaints, in writing, with Telstra’s lawyer before they were investigated was most disturbing.

 I confirmed that losing six incoming calls in a single day was common. Writing to a lawyer, explaining lost calls, was more than just soul-destroying; it just about broke my willpower to carry on. He said he was shocked Telstra and its legal firm forced this on me and agreed it would certainly affect my mental state over the many months I had to do this.

Absent Justice - Forensic Psychologist Meeting

However, when Telstra’s lawyers, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by a lawyer from this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist and didn’t contain his concerns regarding me having to first contact this legal firm in writing before Telstra would address my telephone problems. 

The most alarming points about this unsigned witness statement are:

  1. Before the psychologist met with me, Telstra’s lawyers provided him with a copy of the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International (BCI) addendum report stating that 13,590 test calls were carried out over a five-day period into the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange using the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring equipment. This report stated that the test calls had a 99 per cent success rate.
  2. Neither the psychologist nor the arbitrator was told tests through the Cape Bridgewater exchange were impracticable: the nearest exchange that could accommodate the TELELEC CCS7 equipment was the Warrnambool exchange, 120 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report ‘masked identities’)

Had the psychologist known the 13,590 test calls, allegedly carried out by BCI, could not terminate through the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring system at Cape Bridgewater, his assessment of my mental state would have been somewhat different. He, too, might have been distressed if he had been aware Telstra misled and deceived him before he assessed my mental state.

In the same Senate Hansard, dated 24 June 1997, in which Lindsay White says he was told to “stop these people at all costs”, similar injustices the COT case Sandra Wolfe experienced during a Mediation Process in 1997 are discussed. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her by Telstra employees under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had Sandra not acted in the manner she did, it is possible she could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Is this warrant issued under the Queensland Mental Health Act against Sandra Wolfe, akin to the false information provided by Telstra to the clinical psychologist before he assessed my mental health? In my case, the consultation by this psychologist was not conducted in a private setting but in the Richmond Henty Hotel’s saloon bar!

When Telstra’s lawyers (whom the government assured us COT cases would not be used in our arbitration) provided the witness statement prepared by this clinical psychologist, it was only signed by a lawyer, Wayne Maurice Condon, from this legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page on 6 December 1994. It bore no signature from the psychologist, Ian Jobin.


Absent Justice


Even worse, another Alan Smith, who used to live in 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 that I regularly receive my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and road mail deliveries, that investigation might have uncovered Telstra's arbitration defence unit. Freehills mistakenly sent some of my arbitration material to 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.

As mentioned above, Sue Laver knows that Telstra provided false information concerning these Cape Bridgewater BCI tests to the Senate (On Notice). Sue Laver and the Board of Telstra are aware that providing false information when that information has been requested on Notice by the Senate is Contempt of the Senate, as well as bringing a two-year jail term to any person who knowingly provided false information to the Senate. Sue Laver and the Board of Telstra have never transparently informed the Senate their use of these falsified Bell Canada International tests during my 1994/95 arbitration perverted the course of justice. 

The matters discussed on this website, are said according to my interpretation of the  Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

© 2021Absent Justice

Absent Justice Ebook

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Telstra threats carried out. 

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration. This issue arose from my assistance to the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's interception of my telephone conversations and related faxes. Notably, forty-three arbitration-related claim documents faxed to the arbitrator never arrived, as indicated in his arbitration document schedule. This alarming event, which has not undergone a transparent investigation as of June 1994, demands attention.

“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 mentioned on this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings have materialized, and the deliberate withholding of crucial documents is deeply troubling. Unfortunately, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor the government has taken steps to investigate the harmful effects of this misconduct on my overall case presented to the arbitrator. Despite my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their inquiry into the illegal interception of phone conversations and faxes related to the arbitration, I still await their assistance.

Quote Icon

“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

“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

“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

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

Hon David Hawker

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on
 Contact Us