The first remedy pursued

 

For anyone who reads Parts One, Two, and Three—which I have meticulously outlined in "The First Remedy Pursued"—it will become abundantly clear that I have made numerous claims to various authorities. Over the years, I have approached four different government agencies, as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, seeking resolution and accountability. Additionally, I brought my concerns to the attention of three successive Presidents of the Institute of Arbitrators Australasia (IAA) in 1996. This institution, devoted to arbitration and mediation, eventually evolved into the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australasia (IAMA) in 2002, and then underwent another transformation in 2009.

In 2009, the IAMA indicated a willingness to evaluate the latest body of evidence I had submitted during the second investigation. However, it is disheartening to note that no findings came forth from the third investigation, leaving my claims unresolved and my concerns unaddressed.

This frustrating journey has compelled me to share my story, not only to articulate my experiences but also to provide some sense of closure for my partner, Cathy, and me as we face an uncertain future. Please take a moment to read the following pages below.

PART ONE 

OPEN LETTER dated 25/09/2025

 Five Chapters: The Officials Who Misrepresented Justice

In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

A Sinister and Calculated Smear
In what can only be described as a calculated and treacherous manoeuvre, a false and deeply defamatory allegation was circulated in an attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal. The claim — that I had verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case — did not arise organically. It was manufactured. It originated from none other than John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was delivered directly to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was not an error. It was a deliberate act.

I categorically deny the allegation contained in Pinnock’s letter of 27 February 1996 — a letter crafted to mislead, to smear, and to poison the well just as my appeal threatened to expose the truth. Pinnock falsely informed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am, implying harassment, instability, and misconduct. Yet my telephone account — the cold, indisputable record — shows only one call ever made to the arbitrator’s residence between the day I signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994 and the date of Pinnock’s letter.

That call occurred at 8:02 pm on 28 November 1995, not at 2 am, not in the dead of night, and certainly not in the manner described by Pinnock.
The truth is far more straightforward — and far more inconvenient for those who sought to bury it.

On that evening, I phoned Dr Hughes because explosive new evidence had arrived. Evidence proving that Telstra had fraudulently fabricated its TF200 arbitration report. Evidence sourced from Telstra’s own laboratory shows that the test results provided to the arbitrator were false. I called to alert him that I had couriered this material to his office via Golden Couriers Messenger Services of North Melbourne. My intention was simple: to ensure he was aware of the evidence and to arrange a meeting after my five‑hour train journey from Melbourne.

When Mrs Hughes answered and informed me that Dr Hughes was overseas, she asked who was calling. In that moment, fearing that my real name might alarm her — particularly after Senator Ron Boswell had publicly condemned Dr Hughes on 20 September 1995 for allowing himself to be forced into using Telstra’s arbitration rules rather than the government‑endorsed agreement — I gave the name of someone she would recognise: John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager.

I later wrote to Pinnock explaining exactly why I had used Rundell’s name and why the call had been made. The evidence I was trying to deliver was dynamite — and they knew it.
Yet Pinnock’s statement to Laurie James was not merely misleading. It was a fabrication designed to discredit me and to shield the arbitration process from the truth.
His claim reads:

“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

PLEASE NOTE:

If I actually wrote to the TIO, as he claims in his letter to Laurie James, why hasn’t he produced my letter?

It is clear this letter was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.

The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.

Amid the complex web of my pending appeal, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that underpinned my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it that could serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.

As Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—were provided with an additional 13 months to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence. In my case, however, I was not granted the same 13-month extension.

In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:

"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. … I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office". (Open Letter File No 57-C)

This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.

Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.

By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.

The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.

That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.

Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.

Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident. 

The Disclosure That Never Came

On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:

“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

That sentence stopped me cold.

What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?

On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-

“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”

“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206

This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?

If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?

This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.

I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He decided to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.

What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?

Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, then a partner at KPMG and involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me about property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.

Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.

Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal, which the Institute of Arbitrators was considering.   

Public Interest and Ongoing Influence

It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.

This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.

I refuse to be silenced.

Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration

 

 

Part Two

 

The Cape Bridgewater Technical Evaluation Report, dated 30 April 1995, and provided to the arbitrator, was, according to DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia)'s alleged combined finding, an incomplete report. Paul Howell (DMR Canada) refused to sign off on it with the arbitrator because it did not fully record my losses. The report states:

"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."(Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

and

"Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain 'open',"_(Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

Arbitrator False Evidence File 1) One possible explanation for DMR and Lane's failure to diagnose my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone billing problems is that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was already in negotiations to sell itself to Ericsson, which it eventually did in 1996, and may have pressured DMR Group Inc (Canada) to refrain from investigating.

Alternatively, Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, may have rejected DMR and Lane's request for additional time to investigate these billing issues, which they advised him of on 30 April 1995. They suggested more time was needed to investigate these faults, as Telstra had informed Dr Hughes that the billing issues were widespread across Australia. Dr Hughes may have been reluctant to officially rule on my claim because it could have opened the door for similar claims from the 120,000 other COT-TypeTelstra customers complaining of the same faults, as discussed in Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

During my phone conversation with Dr Hughes on 4 May 1995, and in my fax of 5 May 1995, I inquired why DMR and Lane had not investigated my ongoing billing issues in their final report of 30 April 1995. Both reports also state:

"A comprehensive log of Mr. Smith's complaints does not appear to exist."

However, my Letter of Claim dated 7 June 1994, submitted to arbitration on 15 June 1995 (Open letter File Nos/46-A to 46-J), demonstrates that a comprehensive log of my complaints did exist.

Forces at Work - Part 1

 

 

There are discrepancies between the arbitrator's and my versions of Lane's technical consultant report titled "Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report." Mr Alan Smith. CBHC. 30 April 1995. In my version, the second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence: "It is complete and final as it is" (Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator's report, also dated 30 April 1995, 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)

The arbitrator's report contains more information than mine. For example, while my report mentions that extra weeks were required to complete the investigation into my ongoing billing problems, the arbitrator's report does not specify those additional weeks.

Specifically, page two of my final report (Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) makes no mention of the billing claim document under discussion. However, page three of the arbitrator's report states:

"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)

This discrepancy is striking: How could two technical reports, prepared by the same consultants, containing the same 23 technical assessments, and both dated 30 April 1995, differ so significantly? One version states, "... remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks," while the other omits any mention of the case remaining open or requiring additional time.

This raises a critical question: What hidden factors might have prevented the arbitrator from fully investigating and providing transparency regarding the ongoing phone and fax issues affecting my business? The failure to thoroughly address the billing problems, as per the agreed arbitration procedure, resulted in an incomplete report, a point acknowledged by DMR & Lane. Given this, I question the finalisation of my claim, as DMR & Lane explicitly indicated that their findings remained inconclusive.

Both reports acknowledge the apparent absence of a comprehensive log of my complaints. However, such a log did exist, along with 76 letters. AUSTEL acknowledges that these letters could have been from clients, and all serve as individual testaments. These included the Cape Bridgewater Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, which exposed the degraded state of the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment. These same Ericsson AXE telephone problems persisted for years, even after my arbitration was completed.

Furthermore, a fault complaint log was provided to the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, on 15 June 1994, and is attached to pages 19 to 34 of my Letter of Claim (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

Corruption continued in the government-endorsed arbitration process.

 

For additional context, please see my letter dated July 15, 2009, addressed to Paul Crowley, the CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (Exhibit 13-B and 13-C → Burying The Evidence File 13-H). This letter includes correspondence from Graham Schorer, spokesperson for COT Cases and a former client of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).

Exhibit 13-H Burying The Evidence File 13-H is a letter dated August 4, 1998, with an attached statutory declaration from Mr. Schorer, also exhibited as 13-H. In the declaration, Mr Schorer detailed a phone conversation with the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, regarding lost Telstra COT-related faxes during the 1994 arbitrations. Three years after my arbitration concluded, a pending appeal revealed that 41 of my faxes, sent during my 13-month arbitration, were not included on the arbitrator's schedule of received documents, despite my fax billing account confirming they had been sent. Mr Schorer and Dr Hughes both alerted the Senate to this issue, and Dr Hughes's response offered hope that these lost arbitration fax matters would be investigated. During his conversation with Mr Schorer, Dr Hughes explained:

"Hunt & Hunt(The company's)Australian Head Office was located in Sydney,and(the company)is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on dut_y. There ar_e occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles."_ Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr Hughes's failure to disclose these faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning, especially given the AFP's investigation into the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. This critical issue, a significant aspect of my claim, was neither addressed in Dr. Hughes's award nor mentioned in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

Even more troubling is that Dr Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices before his appointment as an arbitrator in seven arbitrations, all coordinated within 12 months. During this period, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently expressed frustration that the arbitrator's office was not responding to their faxes. This raises alarming questions about potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process.

John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, acknowledged that 41 of my claim documents, which were also mini-reports, had not been investigated by Dr Hughes. Despite Dr Hughes admitting that these documents might have been lost by his Sydney office, I was denied the opportunity to have the 41 claim documents evaluated on their merits.

Forces at Work - Part 2

In Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, a little more than two hours after Warwick Smith received Dr Hughes's 12 May 1995 letter, he issued a media release stating:

The Administrator stated that the arbitration process, overseen by independent Arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes, who was appointed with the agreement of all parties, was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice (see Open Letter File No 55-B).

Warwick Smith's media release, "1st Telecom COT Case Arbitration Finalised," misled and deceived the public. While the release did not name the claimant, it is widely known that I was the first to undergo this process.

Eight Damning Letters

Letter One

The first of these eight damning letters, dated 18 April 1995, came from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager. It advised the TIO, the arbitrator, and the TIO counsel that: "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). The letter also stated:

"It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."

When Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett—all legal experts—allowed this critical letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, they directly assisted the "forces at work" disrupting those arbitrations. Had John Rundell sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four claimants could have approached the Federal Government collectively.

With Mr Rundell's letter as evidence, we would have had a reasonable chance of having all four processes reviewed and, at the very least, amended. It is worth noting that the Federal Government initially endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.

"Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

On 26 September 1997, John Pinnock, the second TIO appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, alerted a Senate Estimates Committee (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) that:

"... Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures."

Neither the government nor the arbitration administrators acted on this information. This inaction supports the claim that providing the COT cases with John Rundell's letter of April 18, 1995, and informing them that their arbitrations were being conducted outside established procedures and without Dr Hughes's oversight, would have empowered them to persuade the Federal Government to abandon the flawed process and design a new one. Furthermore, the arbitration process was administered under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria, raising concerns about how the Court would have reacted had it been aware of the egregious behaviour of Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith throughout the COT cases' arbitrations, specifically:

1. Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith allowed Telstra to manipulate the process without oversight.

2. Secret "forces at work" infiltrated the arbitration process for their own benefit, to the detriment of the claimants.

DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia) submitted the Cape Bridgewater Technical Evaluation Report to the arbitrator on April 30, 1995, presenting it as a combined finding. However, this report was incomplete. Paul Howell (DMR Canada) refused to sign off on it because it did not fully record my losses. The report stated:

"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."( Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

and

"Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHCservice is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain 'open',"(Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

Arbitrator False Evidence File 1) I suspect Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd pressured DMR Group Inc (Canada) to avoid diagnosing my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone billing problems. Lane was already in negotiations to be acquired by Ericsson, a deal finalised in 1996.

Alternatively, Dr Hughes, the arbitrator, may have rejected DMR & Lane's request for more time to investigate the billing issues they flagged on April 30, 1995. They indicated that further investigation was needed, as Telstra had informed Dr Hughes that these billing issues were widespread across Australia. Dr Hughes may have been reluctant to rule on my claim because it could have opened the door for similar claims from the 120,000 other COT-TypeTelstra customers experiencing the same faults, as discussed in Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

 

 

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he provided the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Thus, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

 

 

Next Page ⟶