The eighth remedy pursued

15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Once Senator Joyce cast the pivotal vote—one that was teetering precariously in the balance—he etched his name into the annals of history for both the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government. However, in a surprising turn, Senator Coonan quickly reneged on her prior commitment, executing a decisive back-flip that many of the letters collected on this website starkly illustrate.

To salvage some semblance of integrity from this unfolding situation, Senator Joyce initiated a compromise with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA), aimed at assessing the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking involvement. Nonetheless, after securing Senator Joyce's crucial vote, the government inexplicably backtracked, insisting on employing only its government-assigned assessors. This was a stark deviation from the original promise of an independent assessment.

Had I been permitted to utilise the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim could have undergone a far more favourable evaluation. Instead, the DCITA’s narrow reliance on its internal archival information dramatically distorted the assessment process. This gross misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the bureaucrats within the DCITA during the independent evaluation process—most notably their dependence on exhibit AS 639, titled “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers' Office”—demonstrates a glaring conflict of interest.

The situation was further exacerbated by the neglect of a critical document dated March 1994, which validated my claims against Telstra. This document confirmed that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my assertions to be credible. The deliberate withholding of this logbook, despite being legally requested, not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT cases spanning from 1994 to 1996, but it also deprived the DCITA assessors in 2006 of the essential information needed to accurately value the claims of those who chose to participate in the review process initiated by Senators Coonan and Joyce.

This internal Coalition government email dated 22nd September 2005, concerning the agreed-to COT commercial settlement proposal, from Nikki Vajrabukka notes:-

“Key issues for consideration include:

• Analysis of Senator Joyce’s request, and Minister’s response
• What the Minister can and can’t do
• Whether there is any basis to re-open the investigations/appoint an independent assessor
• If so, who will that be?
• What powers does the Minister have to direct a person to do so (for example direct the TIO to revisit the cases?)
• Whether there were any compensatory commitments or warrants of compensation given by the Minister, the Department or Telstra.”​ (Refer to GS 420 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Please note the question as to whether the Minister had the power to grant a Commercial Assessment was only raised with Senator Joyce after the Coalition Government secured his crucial vote for the complete privatisation of Telstra.

29 September 2005, David Lever, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, sends an internal email to some Department Personnel regarding an Independent Assessor:-

“Matt Stafford rang to say that the Minister wants a draft letter to Senator Joyce by Friday next week that:

• re-states what she said she would do in her last letter to him;
• demonstrates that processes are in place to meet her commitment;
• indicates the cases/persons who the independent assessment would cover, and
• asks Senator Joyce whether this should meet his needs. …”

“I suggest that we do all we can to restrict coverage to the 16 COTs that were considered by AUSTEL in its 1994 report as inclusion of any others without some justification, eg that they were mentioned in the Senate’s 1999 report on COTs, would risk irresistible pressure to extend to numerous others who have had disputes with Telstra over the past 10 years. …”

“I also suggested that there may be advantages in appointing ACMA as the independent assessor rather than a consultant to the Department. He has not opposed to this idea.”
(Refer to GS 421 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Bullet point 2 above confirms there was a process in place to meet Senator Helen Coonan’s commitment given to Senator Joyce for his vote to allow the government to privatise Telstra. So why did the Minister’s Department not honour that commitment once Senator Joyce cast his vote?  This misleading and deceptive, unconscionable conduct caused the COT Cases and their families immeasurable grief, trauma and heartache.

This internal email, dated 18 October 2005, to Senator Helen Coonan states:-

“Senator Joyce has written to you seeking urgent advice on your proposed approach to the conduct of independent assessments of various claims against Telstra by customers or former customers or contractors of Telstra.

We propose you ask the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to conduct the assessments. …

There is significant risk for the Government if expectations in relation to compensation are created among claimants that cannot be met by the Government.” (Refer ro GS 422 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447

Exhibit GS 423 is an unsigned Government memo from Senator Coonan’s office, received by the Cot cases during their FOI requests to the Minister’s office regarding this assessment process.

“According to Minister’s understanding, assessor to:

• review the status of all outstanding claims and
• provide a basis for any sustainable claims that have not been resolved through earlier processes to negotiate a possible settlement with Telstra”

“Possible Loopholes

‘sustainable claims not resolved through earlier processes’ – on the basis that information provided by the claimants raises no new issues, particularly regulatory issues that require addressing by the Minister or the ACA/ACMA.

If concerns relate to conduct of Telstra, then these should be raised with the Commonwealth Ombudsman?

If the CoTS have evidence of unlawful activities, these should be brought to the attention of the police or relevant law enforcement authorities.” Refer to GS 423 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

19 October 2005,  David Lever, advisor to Senator Coonan, emails Departmental Personnel:-

“As discussed with Andrew yesterday, the minister has signed and sent a letter to Barnaby Joyce that deals with the above and local presence plan issues. We have not seen it but I made comments on the draft sent yesterday afternoon by matt, seeking to retain the tight constraints on the scope of the assessment, which he had relaxed.”

Simon Bryant responds:-

“I think Jodi maybe getting confused about what the assessment is meant to do (or at least what we are recommending) ie an assessment of process and what further resolution channels may be available to people. We are arguing strongly that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case.” (Refer to File 424 GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

My question here is:

1. Who was Simon Bryant, to argue strongly “that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case”?
2. How can an independent commercial assessment process be independent if those administering the process seek to retain tight constraints on the scope of the assessment process?
3. Why did the Federal Government give Senator Joyce its commitment, in exchange for his vote to allow the Telstra privatisation bill to be passed? Then, as soon as they secured his vote, renege on that commitment?

It is essential to think about the statement made by Simon Bryant, that: 

“I think Jodi maybe getting confused about what the assessment is meant to do (or at least what we are recommending), i.e. an assessment of process and what further resolution channels may be available to people. We are arguing strongly that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case.” (GS 424 File  [document|1248] does not exist)

Shows how far these government bureaucrats went to discredit the merit of our claims.

2 December 2005:  David Lever emails TIO John Pinnock:-

“Subject: independent assessment of claims against Telstra …

“Some of the former ‘COTs’ are among the 22 who will be asked if they wish to participate in the process. …

“The assessment will focus on process rather than the merits of claims, including whether all available dispute resolution mechanism have been used.” (GS 425)

This email from David Lever does not match the promises given to Senator Barnaby Joyce by Senator Helen Coonan.

The Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, assists me in my independent assessment process.

As shown below, worse was to come, however. I received a copy of an email, dated 3 March 2006, after completing my 2006 government-endorsed assessment process. This email was initially sent to a senior ex-government communications bureaucrat who was a government liaison officer for Telstra for his advice on how to go about assessing my 2006 claim (see Senate Evidence File No 18).

10 March 2006:  The Hon David Hawker writes to me:-

“I wish to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 23 February and 27 February along with your facsimile transmissions of 6 and 9 March. I will ensure this material, including the corrected version, is forwarded to Minister Coonan…” (Refer to GS 442 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 ). 

In my 10 March 2006 letter to Liz Forman (one of the government assessors appointed on behalf of the government to assess my privacy issues and my claims Telstra had perverted the course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration I stated that:

"Although you have stated in your letter that “...the assessment process will not extend to an examination of whether the law was broken by Telstra....” I have been advised that it is mandatory, under Commonwealth law, for DCITA and/or the Minister to notify the Attorney General of any unlawful activities they may uncover during official department investigations". (Refer to exhibit AS 614 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

17 March 2006:  On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

The information in our story on this website indicates that Telstra employees have committed criminal offences in connection with my arbitration as our  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  page so clearly shows. Yet these three reports were NOT taken into consideration by the government bureaucrats, namely Liz Forman and David Lever.

A further Pen Pusher powerful - Bureaucrat  Nikki Vajrabukka from the Department of Communications, Environment, Technology and the Arts (DCITA sent an internal email to David Lever on 3^rd March 2006, informing him that she had emailed David Quilty (a Bureaucrat who were now a Telstra Government Liaison Officer (AS 1042) at david.quilty@team.telstra.com asking for his assistance in addressing my March 2006 DCITA submission which described how, during my arbitration, Telstra had knowingly submitted three fundamentally flawed reports as official defence documents namely  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  and the  Tampering of Evidence .  Sending this email is much like asking a criminal if they should be charged for crimes they have committed after being caught with the stolen goods. 

It is also interesting to note that, before Mr Quilty moved to Telstra, he was Chief of Staff to the DCITA Minister (then Senator Richard Alston) during the time that I was requested to provide the Minister with any further damning evidence against Telstra and the unlawful way in which they had been allowed to conduct their arbitration defence of the COT Cases claims. When I wrote to Philip Gaetjens (Principal Advisor to The Hon Peter Costello, who was then the Federal Treasurer) on 12 November 1997, I provided conclusive evidence of the way Telstra had perverted the course of justice during their defence of my arbitration claims which included the evidence now attached to  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  and the  Tampering of Evidence  reports.

On 3 December 1997, documents show that Mr Gaetjens passed my evidence on to Mr Quilty (in his position as Senator Alston’s Chief of Staff). How could the DCITA process remain independent if Mr Quilty was evaluating the claims against his new employer (Telstra), particularly since:

In some cases, those claims were that persons with access to Telstra's network had continued to intercept my faxes after the conclusion of my arbitration.  The evidence to support those allegations had previously been supplied to the DCITA in January 1999, and had been signed under oath by two renowned technical consultants (see Open Letter File No/12 Senate Evidence File No 31) and was now resupplied by me in my March 2006 submission.

It is also important to note that David Quilty was once Chief of Staff of DCITA to the Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, as well as an advisor to the Prime Minister, John Howard. This seems to demonstrate that public officials, i.e., powerful bureaucrats, live in a different world to most of Australia – a world where there is no meaning to the term “conflict of interest” and/or mutual respect for a fellow Australian citizen.

The final DCITA assessment on my submission found in favour of Telstra, and lo and behold, David Quilty ended up with a senior executive position in Telstra.

Peta Credlin is clearly showing by the content of her May 2021 newspaper article that the Australian public has a right to know that incidents like mine, which I have proved did happen during my official DCITA assessment process, should be exposed as I have done on this website.

Telstra’s unlawful conduct towards Australian citizens has been proved, but Government Ministers and officials have concealed those crimes from the public under Parliamentary Privilege and then written to the victim of the crimes, advising that the best thing that victim can do to find any justice is to personally take the huge Telstra Corporation to court have already proved Telstra’s guilt as shown in our story.

19 April 2006: my letter to the Hon Senator Helen Coonan (Refer to exhibit AS 615-A File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

"In regard to my current claim, Mr Lever of DCITA had notified me that, if DCITA found I have proved that Telstra had carried out any unlawful acts during my arbitration, then the evidence would be provided to the relevant authority. Then in a later telephone conversation with Mr Lever, I was told that he had not found any evidence in my claim to show that Telstra had perverted the course of justice".           

29 April 2006: my letter to the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, notes:

"Over the years however I have explained to you some of the problems I have encountered with faxes and emails that ‘go missing’ or arrive late or faulty. The apparent interference in my emails has now forced me to arrange for Ronda Fienberg, my Melbourne editing service to send emails out on my behalf, from her computer and email address, because emails often don’t arrive at their  correct destination when I attempt to send them from my emails address.’

 Please note the footnote in Alan’s letter from Ronda Fienberg states:

Mr Hawker, I feel obliged to add to the information Alan has provided here. I have run a small editing support business from my home since 1991 and first began assisting Alan in mid-1994. Until then I had never had a problem receiving or sending faxes for myself, or on behalf of my clients, to anywhere in the world, but I continually (still) have problems with Alan’s faxes which often come through with the words drawn out down the page and therefore unreadable, or with the page cut off half way down. 

24 May 2006,  Senator Coonan responds to Hon David Hawker MP:-

“Mr Smith has indicated that he would like the terms of reference for the assessment to be wider, requiring the Department to make judgements about the fairness of the arbitration process undertaken by Dr Gordon Hughes, under the administration of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, in 1994. While this is understandable, it is not reasonable to expect the Department or indeed any other person at this point in time to make judgements about the circumstances surrounding Mr Smith’s arbitration. The terms of reference for the assessment are therefore more forward looking, aimed at identifying whether any further dispute resolution processes may be available to be pursued by claimants and Telstra in order to resolve their disputes.” (Refer to exhibit GS 445-b File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

This statement by Senator Helen Coonan:-

Does not coincide with the commitment given by Senator Coonan’s advisor, David Lever, 17th March 200,6 to me, before I signed the agreement that:-“

If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority.” (Refer to exhibit AS 321 File  AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323  

Does not coincide with her commitment given to Senator Barnaby Joyce:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provide a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.”
(GS 432)

The one crucial vote the Government needed to pass the Telstra privatisation – Senator Barnaby Joyce’s vote – was given based on a commitment that Senator Coonan had no intention of honouring – that an independent assessor would be appointed to assess the merits of each COT case’s claims.

27 March 2006,  The Hon David Hawker writes to me:-

“A note to acknowledge receipt of your letters dated 24, 25, & 26 March pertaining to your request for an independent assessment. Thank you also for forwarding Darren Lewis’ letter of 25 March consenting to being interviewed under oath to support your claim that the phone and fax faults continued long after your arbitration.”

“Please be assured representations have been made today to the Minister for Communications and I have supplied Senator Coonan with copies of all above-mentioned letters.” (Refer to exhibit GS 443 File  GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 )

17 July 2006:  In this letter to Senator Helen Coonan, I note:

"I will not attempt to include all of the numerous other alarming incidents that have occurred in relation to my battle with Telstra, but you may be interested to know that when the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were investigating my complaints between 1999 and 2001, I sent a number of faxes to the Police Barrister, Neil Jepson where on at least two occasions they did not reach his office even though Telstra included them on my subsequent bill, and my fax journal print-out shows they were sent successfully.   

Documented evidence now included in my current submission to the DCITA independent assessment confirms that other faxes sent from my office between 1994 and 2002 were still being intercepted by unknown parties, before they arrived at their intended destination". (Refer to exhibit AS 615-B File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

31 August 2006: David Hawker MP wrote to me, noting:

Many thanks for keeping me informed. As requested, issues concerning privacy breaching have been raised with Senator Coonan’s office for your meeting with the Minister set for 6 September 2006".  (Refer to exhibit AS 578 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588  

My privacy concerns were not addressed during this meeting. However, as shown below for the date of 17 May 2007, Senator Helen Coonan did write to me on this matter noting:

"...I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option" (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B) File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 )

4 September 2006 Darren Lewis (the new owner of my business) provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, a two-page statutory declaration noting:

"After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job. Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems".  (Refer to exhibit AS 520) File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 )

 

If the arbitrator had conducted my arbitration with the diligence and thoroughness required by the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, and had taken the time to meticulously investigate all of my ongoing claims related to telephone and fax issues, Darren and Jenny Lewis would have been spared the profound heartache they endured after purchasing a business that relied heavily on telephone communications. Both John Pinnock from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and Telstra failed to disclose the critical findings from their investigations—carried out after my arbitration on January 14, 1998—which clearly indicated that the phone problems I had reported continued to impact Darren’s business. Had the TIO and Telstra been transparent and diligent in examining my valid claims, the Lewis family would likely have avoided the anguish they faced.

What makes Darren Lewis’s situation especially distressing is the fact that he grappled with suicidal thoughts during one of the most traumatic periods of his life. He believed that the persistent phone and fax issues had directly led to the loss of two significant bookings—one in late 2006 and another in early January 2007—each involving around 120 guests who would have stayed for six or seven nights over the bustling Christmas season. The cancellation of these lucrative bookings weighed heavily on him and drove him to seek assistance from Portland Health Services.

A revealing document titled "Risk Management Plan," dated February 23, 2007, and prepared by Barbara Howard of Portland Psychiatric Services, underscored the gravity of Darren’s mental state. She recommended that he confide in his wife, Jenny, as well as their neighbour, Alan (ME), should he ever feel overwhelmed by despair. After Barbara Howard met with Alan and reviewed the compelling evidence—including that the Telstra Corporation had intentionally submitted misleading test results to support their assertions that the Cape Bridgewater network was functioning adequately—it became evident that local Telstra technicians had lied under oath regarding their claims about the same network. This mounting evidence confirmed that Darren’s experiences with the phone and fax issues were far from imagined; they were real, distressing challenges that had deeply affected both his business and personal life.

1 October 2006: Darren Lewis wrote to the Hon David Hawker MP, Speaker in the House of Representatives (Refer to exhibit AS 682 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 ) noting

"The technician, who comes from Colerain (also part of your electorate) advised me that he was aware that the problems I am experiencing now are the same problems experienced by the previous owner of the business (Alan Smith). When I asked him why this would be, he replied that the problems were caused because the wiring was so old that it was now totally incompatible with all the new technology (‘totally’ was his exact word).

I then described to him the latest fax problem – the one that I raised with you last Wednesday – when Alan Smith’s fax (intended for a destination in Melbourne) arrived at my business, cutting off my conversation with Cathy (Alan’s partner) as it came through".  

3 November 2006: Senator Helen Coonan wrote to David Hawker, Speaker In the House of Representatives, stating:

"Thank you for your representation of 17 August 2006 on behalf of Mr Alan Smith regarding Mr Smith’s allegations that Telstra monitored his phone calls and emails during an arbitration process with Telstra. The interception of emails and monitoring of phone calls is an offence under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Mr Smith should consider his dispute through the dispute resolution bodies, including his State Office of Fair Trading, the Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications and Media Authority state, and the courts". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

Following the advice given to me by Hon Senator Helen Coonan, I contacted Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) through his advisor, who also assisted him in the preparation of a claim to be provided to Peter Hiland, Barrister for the CAV. From October 2007 through to late 2008, this advisor (whom I have not named in this story) was a very high-ranking police officer who had many discussions with Mr Hiland, who then proceeded to assess the various claims provided by me.  Altogether, some thirty relevant submissions were provided to the CAV during the period up to 2008. While I was seeking FOI documents for my 3 October 2008 Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it became evident that the CAV had stopped providing any assistance in these matters.

On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman, noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts, that David Lever from her office had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities concerning the screening on my faxes to Federal government ministers and the submission of fraudulently submitted claims during my arbitration Senator Coona wrote back to me noting:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B  File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

 

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.

The gravity of the situation raises essential questions: Why was it deemed acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, how could Telstra justify interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration? These actions violate individual rights and undermine the integrity of the arbitration process itself, warranting immediate attention and rectification from government authorities.

The Hon Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA government bureaucrats abused their power during the DCITA Independent review assessment exhibit AS 639 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, headed “Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background And Information For Ministers Office” was used as a guide to validate the COT case issues including their previous arbitration and fax interception issues, but Exhibit (AS 639) does not include what we have shown here on this website. This government archive document was prepared to confuse those reassessing the COT Cases claims in 2006. The protectors of Telstra and the arbitrators who arbitrated on the COT Cases claims are protected by Australia's public servants, who do not understand by fudging the government's assessment tools 'false information'; they are acting outside of the rule of law.

The document dated March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a disconcerting reality: government officials responsible for investigating my ongoing telephone issues concluded that my claims against Telstra were valid. This finding transcends mere oversight and indicates a systematic pattern of misconduct that occurred between Points 2 and 212. It is profoundly unsettling to contemplate that, had the arbitrator been presented with this critical evidence, he would likely have awarded me considerably greater compensation for the significant business losses I incurred. Instead, the efficacy of my claims was diminished due to the absence of a comprehensive log covering the six-year period that AUSTEL misleadingly utilized to formulate its findings, as noted in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

Moreover, government records (Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) indicate that AUSTEL's damaging findings were relayed to Telstra, the defendants, one month before the signing of the arbitration agreement. This deliberate action ensured that Telstra was equipped with information that I, as the aggrieved party, remained unaware of until November 23, 2007—twelve years after the conclusion of my arbitration. This manipulative strategy effectively prevented me from challenging the arbitrator's decision, as I became ensnared beyond the statute of limitations. Such blatant misconduct not only obstructed my pursuit of justice but also casts significant doubt on the integrity of the entire arbitration process, suggesting a coordinated effort to safeguard Telstra's interests at the expense of fairness and accountability. The situation reflects deeply ingrained issues of corruption and betrayal, leading me to question the foundational principles of a system that is intended to uphold justice.

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated September 22, 1994, comprises a transcript of an oral interview conducted at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives, Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, posed the question, “What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report?” Mr. Matthews replied, “The final report was issued in April; I cannot recall the precise date in April, but it was indeed April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received its copy at that time.”

I express profound frustration and concern regarding the necessity of investing over $300,000 in arbitration fees to substantiate a case against Telstra—a case that AUSTEL/ACMA had already established. This predicament arises from essential information documented in Telstra's Portland telephone exchange logbook, which AUSTEL had successfully obtained. Alarmingly, AUSTEL was fully aware that this critical evidence was being willfully withheld from me during the arbitration process. This deliberate concealment not only undermines the integrity of the proceedings but also imposes an unjust financial burden upon me. AUSTEL/ACMA has thus failed in its statutory obligations to me as a citizen of Australia, aggravating the sense of injustice I experience throughout this process.

Having doctored information in the government archives has once again denied the COT Cases the justice they deserve.

How can the non-reporting of these facts be seen as supporting Honest History?

Next Page ⟶