The fourth remedy pursued

Telstra’s Corporate Secretary wrote to AUSTEL’s Chairman on 18 November 1993, pointing out that:

“only the COT four are to be commercially assessed by an assessor. For the sake of convenience I have enclosed an amended copy of the Fast Track Proposal which includes all amendments.

To facilitate its acceptance by all or any of the COT members I have signed it on behalf of the company. Please note that the offer of settlement by this means is open for acceptance until 5 pm Tuesday 23 November 1993 at which time it will lapse and be replaced by the arbitration process we expect to apply to all carriers following the Regulator’s  recommendations flowing from this and other reviews.”

On 23 November 1993, Graham Schorer (COT Spokesperson), Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and I signed the FTSP, trusting in the Regulator’s verbal assurances that all of the ongoing telephone problems currently being investigated by AUSTEL and Telstra would be rectified/fixed and addressed by the assessor before his findings are handed down. The four signed FTSP agreements were forwarded to Telstra’s corporate secretary. I included a letter with his agreement, clearly putting my expectations of the process:

“In signing and returning this proposal to you I am relying on the assurances of …, Chairman of the Regulator, and …, General Manager of the Regulator’s Consumer Affairs Department, that this is a fair document. I was disappointed that … was unwilling to put his assurances in writing, but am nevertheless prepared to accept what he said.

I would not sign this agreement if I thought it prevented me from continuing my efforts to have a satisfactory service for my business. It is a clear understanding that nothing in this agreement prevents me from continuing to seek a satisfactory telephone service.”

• On 7 April 1994, AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey and GM John MacMahon confirmed that your claims about Telstra’s service failures were valid and substantiated.

• They assured you that Dr Gordon Hughes, the pending arbitrator, would be informed of these findings via the AUSTEL COT Cases Report.

• Yet, the critical document , which detailed 212 points validating your claims, was withheld during arbitration and only surfaced via ACMA in November 2007, long after the damage was done.

• Telstra’s Bell Canada testing was restricted at Cape Bridgewater, and AUSTEL allowed Telstra to substitute this with Service Verification Testing.

• However, without access to the full AUSTEL findings, the arbitration process lacked the technical foundation necessary to assess your business losses accurately.

• From 1994 to 1997, Commonwealth Ombudsman Philipa Smith and Director of Investigations John Wynack tried to obtain FOI documents promised to the COT Cases.

• Despite repeated efforts, Telstra refused to release key documents, including those you were told would be available if you entered arbitration.

• A 12 February 1997 letter from Telstra to Wynack confirms this obstruction, yet the documents remain unreleased to this day.

• The rule of law, as many Australians and international observers understand it, was subverted in your case.

• Government agencies, including AUSTEL and the TIO, failed to enforce transparency and fairness.

• Telstra operated with impunity, shielded by institutional complicity and legal manoeuvring.

Before sharing my account, which may seem implausible to many Australian and offshore readers who believe that the rule of law governs Australia, I recommend that you peruse the remarks presented below by some of the most distinguished politicians in Australia.

On April 7th, 1994, AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey, along with John MacMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs, personally interviewed me at AUSTEL's headquarters in Melbourne. They apprised me that AUSTEL had conducted an investigation into my claims regarding Telstra's inadequate supply of my telephone service and found that my assertions had been verified. They stated that the pending arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, would be officially informed of AUSTEL's findings, which would be explicitly defined in their AUSTEL COT Cases Report. Both officials recommended that I seek professional technical expertise to guide the arbitration process with the discovered facts.

AUSTEL had suggested that Telstra install a telecommunications tower at my business premises during the period that Telstra had agreed to resolve my ongoing telephone issues at my Cape Bridgewater business. The Service Verification Testing process that was conducted at my business during my arbitration was a recommendation agreed upon by Telstra because AUSTEL had permitted Telstra to restrict their Bell Canada testing (six months prior) at Cape Bridgewater.

The AUSTEL findings, which neither the arbitration resource process nor I received during my arbitration, were provided by ACMA in November 2007, thirteen years after my arbitration had concluded. The diluted version of AUSTEL's COT Cases findings, while damning enough, fails to mention that AUSTEL believed that Telstra would be able to locate the issues still being encountered at my business at the time of my arbitration (see points 2 to 212 in the withheld AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994. This secretly prepared report confirms that between Points 2 through to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period, which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.  

From January 10th, 1994, to October 1997, Ms Philipa Smith, Commonwealth Ombudsman, and her Director of Investigations, John Wynack, endeavoured in vain to access the FOI documents requested by most, if not all, of the COT Cases. We COT Cases had all been informed we would receive our documents if we went into arbitration.

A 12 February 1997 letter from Telstra to John Wynack (director of investigations in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office) concerns my original 1994 request for arbitration FOI documents (which I have still not received yet). This letter states:

“You comment that you believe Telstra ‘should have taken steps to protect documents covered by request whilst it consulted with Mr Smith in an attempt to scope down the FOI request’.

“It is the case that Telstra did indeed take such steps, as Telstra wished to retain all of the files created by Mr Black relating to the CoT claims. … As a result a large number of files (86 in all) were forwarded to the FOI Unit. Unfortunately, at the time the files in question were apparently not recognised as files relating to CoT matters, rather they were thought to be simply files of miscellaneous material.

“As you will see from the above these files were inadvertently disposed of.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

Mr Wynack wrote to Telstra, concerning my FOI issues, on 11 March 1997:

“On 7 March 1997, I sought information from three Telstra officers about one aspect of your response to that complaint, viz the disposal of some of Mr Black’s papers after Mr Black had left the employ of Telstra.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

A further letter from Mr Wynack on 13 March 1997 to Telstra concerning my FOI issues states:

“During the course of her interview, Ms Gill informed me that the papers dealing with Mr Black’s role in establishing the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure were on an ‘arbitration file’ and that that file is one that is missing. Ms Gill said that ‘.. I don’t recall having sent it to anybody and I don’t recall having put it in the bin..’. Ms Gill said that the ‘arbitration file’ was a manila folder ‘..but a fairly thick one.’ …

“On the basis of the information given to me by  and Ms Gill, it is extremely improbable that Ms Gill disposed of the documents in the ‘arbitration file’, or indeed any other documents from Mr Black’s office which would have been included in Mr Smith’s FOI application of 18 October 1995.″ (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

Telstra has still not provided me with a copy of their ‘arbitration file’ despite Mr Wynack’s letters referring to it.

The fourth 14 March 1997 letter from Mr Wynack to Telstra states:

“I refer to my letter of 13 March 1997 concerning the complaint by Mr Alan Smith alleging that Telstra unreasonably has delayed providing documents requested under the FOI application of 18 October 1995.

“I should be grateful if you would notify , Mr Kearny and Ms Gill of my opinion that ‘On the basis of the information given to me by and Ms Gill, it is extremely improbable that Ms Gill disposed of the documents in the ‘arbitration file’ or indeed any other documents from Mr Black’s office which would have been included in Mr Smith’s FOI application…’ ” (See Senate Evidence File No/59)

Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997, pages 76-77, shows Senators Kim Carr and Schacht discussing my still outstanding arbitration matters, including:

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him.” . . . .

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks this is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him.” … . . . .

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, (Telstra Executive) we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?” (See Senate Evidence File No 2A & 2B)

PLEASE NOTE. Regarding the newspaper clipping and charges against me, I did not throw punches during this altercation with the sheriff, who was about to remove the catering equipment I needed to keep trading from my property. I actually put this man in a ‘full Nelson’ and walked him out of my office. The Magistrates’ Court dropped all charges on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

 

Australian Senate Parliament House Canberra

Starting on page 5163, this link SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, dated June 25, 1997, shows that Telstra employees defrauded millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. It seemed Telstra could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence in gaining fully functional phone systems was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) were being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and some senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants, and our lives have been ruined, simply because we believed that what we were doing would eventually benefit all Australians.

COT members pleaded with the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) not to force us into arbitration with Telstra whilst Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for the unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations – this was undemocratic. The TIO ignored our concerns. What we did not know, was that the TIO and arbitrator had secretly agreed with Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement and NOT the independent agreement the government was assured would be used to assess our matters. Even worse, although the arbitrator wrote to the TIO, advising him that the arbitration agreement was not credible enough to use in the arbitrations, it was still used. Regardless of its value, this letter from the arbitrator was then concealed from the claimants during their designated appeal processes.

Even before the arbitrator brought down his first deliberation, on 18 April 1995, both he and the TIO were warned that there were “forces at work” derailing the arbitrations. They both ignored this written advice. The arbitration project manager's letter to the TIO was also concealed from the claimants during the same designated appeal process.

Both Telstra’s 14 April 1994 letter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), which admits at least one Telstra employee was intercepting my telephone conversations, and my 9 September 1994 response concerning this unauthorised interception over an extended period, are now stamped “Protected AFP” material. The SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia clearly refers to Telstra’s conduct, stand-over tactics and threats towards the COT cases. The Senate Hansard, AFP transcripts (of conversations with me concerning these threats) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s records all confirm that Telstra carried out those threats against me. Yet, neither the arbitrator nor the TIO addressed this during my arbitration. Why has no one ever addressed this unethical conduct publicly? Why is there no record in the arbitrator’s award exposing these threats? Why was Telstra allowed to make these threats and commit similar unlawful acts against the COT cases during their arbitrations? Neither the TIO nor the arbitrator came to my aid or asked why a corporation could take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process. This has been the hardest thing for the COT cases to accept after having given so much to the people of Australia.

 Melbourne lawyers, Michael Brereton & Co, sent this 20 August 1997 letter to Senator Ron Boswell, detailing how the process had failed me:

“The conduct of the arbitration which followed was highly dubious and open to attack as inviting questions of bias since the arbitrator ruled out many relevant documents to the detriment of Mr Smith’s claim… All of these circumstances and the fact that the entire arbitration was conducted in a highly legalistic manner much in favour of Telstra on rules it forced into place suggest that Mr Smith was less than fairly dealt with by Telstra and the arbitrator.” (See Senate Evidence File No/58)

Senator Ron Boswell’s son, Steven, immediately suggested that this letter clearly supported COT cases’ claims against the conduct of the arbitration process. By then, I was included as one of the groups that the Senate Estimates Committee working party was going to investigate. At this stage, however, in August/September 1997, the Senate working party had not yet divided the 21 COT claimants into two groups: A (or ‘litmus’) and B.

Again, on 4 October 1997, My Wynack (Commonwealth Mobudsman Office writes to Telstra stating:

“I refer to my letter to Telstra dated 13 March 1997 (copy attached for your convenience) in which I asked you to inform me of the specific file which Ms Gill described as the ‘arbitration file’, and whether Telstraasked  Mr Black whether he has any knowledge of the whereabouts of the file.

“I have no record of receiving a response to my inquiries. Please inform me when I might expect a reply.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

I’m still waiting for a copy of this ‘arbitration file’, despite discussing it with Senator Ron Boswell on 20 August 1997 and Graham Schorer and I being told it would be provided to us once the Senate estimates committee started their FOI investigations.

• The creation of Schedule A (5 cases) and Schedule B (16 cases) was framed as a practical solution—test a few, apply remedies to all.

• Yet, despite assurances from senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Schedule B claimants were denied equal access to documents and remedies.

• The investigation dragged on for 20 months, and the promised parity never materialised—raising serious questions about political interference and selective justice.

 

• The arbitrator’s letter acknowledging the agreement’s lack of credibility was deliberately withheld from the Senate to protect the TIO’s reputation.

• This act of concealment is not just unethical—it borders on obstruction of justice, especially given the public nature of the Senate inquiry.

• Independent technical support.

• FOI documents critical to their cases.

• Equal treatment under the Senate’s own Terms of Reference.

• The rule of law was selectively applied.

• Institutional actors—including Telstra, the TIO, and the arbitrator—colluded to suppress evidence.

• The Senate’s investigation, while well-intentioned, was compromised by political and bureaucratic constraints.

Questions on Notice (1)

Although we address this 24 October 1997 letter from the TIO to Ms Pauline Moore (secretary to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts legislation committee) elsewhere on absentjustice.com, we can link in another sinister set of ill deeds committed against the COT claimants. This letter, stamped CONFIDENTIAL, includes the following statement:

“The COT Arbitration Procedures contain provisions relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings, which bind the parties. Those provisions also bind the Arbitrators, the Resource Unit, the Special Council and the TIO in my role as Administrator. …

“Accordingly, I ask that the answers given below to the questions on notice be treated as confidential by the Committee and not be published. …

“9.      Yes, from time to time I have received complaints from foundation COT members, concerning a range of matters, including alleged non-compliance with the rules of the Fast Track Arbitration Procedures by Telstra and/or the Arbitrator and/or the Technical and Accounting Resource Unit. …

“10.    Yes, I have refused to provide COT members with a copy of Telstra’s Preferred Rules of Arbitration. A copy of this document was not provided because it was of historical interest only, and the COT members did not advance any argument as to why it was relevant to their arbitration.” (See Senate Evidence File No 14)

The TIO’s insistence that the agreement was not provided to the COT claimants because: “it was of historical interest only, and the COT members did not advance any argument as to why it was relevant to their arbitration”, is a misrepresentation of the truth – to hide the fact that it was Telstra’s arbitration agreement that was used to protect Telstra, to the detriment of the claimants.

Graham Schorer, as COT spokesperson, first asked for a copy of the Fast Track Proposed Rules of Arbitration sometime before 17 February 1994, so the decision that it would be kept from the claimants was made at least a full two months before we signed the final version of the arbitration agreement. It was, therefore, entirely “relevant to their arbitration”. The COT claimants were legally entitled to know whether the arbitration agreement was drafted independently or if the defence crafted it, in their favour.

The claimants should have been provided with that original version of the agreement before we signed for arbitration; it should have also been provided during the arbitrations and the arbitration appeal periods. At an official arbitration meeting on 17 February 1994, Mr Schorer said he wanted assurances from the TIO and the arbitrator that the agreement he and the other COT claimants were pressured to sign was not Telstra’s Proposed Rules of Arbitration. Telstra’s own transcript of this meeting (Senate Evidence File No/48) confirms the arbitrator and the TIO special counsel “both stated they had not received this document and had not read it and that it was irrelevant”. Documents (Senate Evidence File No 6 and File No/49) confirm the arbitrator was provided with (and read) a document called “Telstra Corporation Limited – ‘Fast Track’ Proposed Rules of Arbitration” sometime before 18 January 1994, a whole month before this pre-arbitration hearing on 17 February 1994.

Telstra’s Fast Track Proposed Rules of Arbitration, which the TIO was still refusing to supply us in October 1997, was the same arbitration file that John Wynack, director of investigations in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, was trying to access from Telstra on my behalf during 1995 to 1997 (discussed above). Powerful people amongst those administering the COT arbitrations wielded power within the establishment to conceal this very important pre-arbitration document.

How can the government, who initially endorsed the first four arbitrations, ignore that we were entitled to receive Telstra’s arbitration rules before we signed our arbitration agreement? Do not forget the TIO’s letter to me, dated 10 January 1996, stating, “I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office” (see Senate Evidence File No/50) – echoing the responses that Graham Schorer and I had received since February 1994, from the previous TIO, when requesting copies of Telstra’s proposed rules of arbitration and later my own Ericsson AXE claim documents.

Questions on Notice (2)

Further issues surround the TIO’s answers to similar Questions on Notice asked by the Senate committee. The TIO’s official response confirms that Ericsson purchased the arbitration main technical consultancy firm, Lane Telecommunications, during the COT arbitrations. All the technical information that I supplied to Lane Telecommunications during my arbitration, confirming the AXE Portland and Cape Bridgewater lockup problems were not just a local problem but a national and international problem affecting hundreds of exchanges worldwide, was acquired by Ericsson.

At least three other COT claimants also had businesses connected to Ericsson AXE exchanges, and their claim material was also on Lane’s computer data files when the company was sold.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered) to be purchased during a major litigation process, particularly when even the administrator advised the Senate committee of this, on 26 September 1997 (see Senate Evidence File No/61).

I believe the Australian government has to answer these questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, Telstra's major supplier of telecommunication equipment, before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lanes and DMR ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson's purchase of Lanes during the COT arbitration process?

In-Camera Hansard

Ms Sue Owen, the solicitor assisting the four litmus COT claimants who registered their complaints with the police, met with me after seeing one of the reports I originally prepared for my arbitration. This report examines the Telstra-commissioned Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) tests of the Cape Bridgewater network. Telstra submitted, and the arbitrator accepted, BCI’s official report – although the tests their report claimed they conducted were impossible.

After seeing some of the information I had uncovered, the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group asked me to meet with them at the police complex in St Kilda Road, Melbourne. This led to me spending a number of weeks going through documents and writing more reports.

During that process, at least one high-ranking police officer thought it was ironic that I was helping four people who, between them, had already collected some $15 million in compensation from Telstra, while I – left off the Senate’s Schedule A list of claims to be investigated – received nothing. The truth was that, by then, I was stone-broke and hooked up to two mortgages while I helped these four COTs with their fraud case against Telstra.

When the fraud group’s investigation fell through, I was called again into their offices to meet with two very senior detectives.

The Major Fraud Group were to courier my four storage boxes of evidence back to my residence. The two senior officers, however, wanted to make sure I personally took a half-size, cut-down, A4 storage box of documents, and although I said I was happy to pack the information into one of the four storage boxes, they were adamant that I should take this small parcel with me. They wished me well and apologised for how the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group had abruptly concluded their investigations without handing down a finding.

When I arrived back at Graham Schorer’s office and opened the box, we found a number of documents we had never seen before, including the in-camera Senate Hansard records of 6 and 9 July 1998.

Did the Major Fraud Group think it was undemocratic for the Australian government to help only one-third of a group of people without providing the same assistance to the other two-thirds when the whole group had suffered the same fate? Was I given these documents to help me achieve justice for the remaining COTs, who the government had forgotten?

Of course, I doubt the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group would have expected the Senate to threaten me with jail time for more than three years if I released those Hansard records.

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed on the difficulties COT members encountered 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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

As chairman of the Senate estimates COT committee, Senator Alan Eggleston’s statement that “The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents…” is clear. The TIO board and council also hid two important issues from the Senate estimates committee:

The board and council knew the TIO-appointed resource unit ALSO stopped the COT claimants from receiving relevant documents during the arbitration process; and
The TIO and the defendants (Telstra) allowed this to happen by secretly placing the resource unit in charge of deciding which documents they thought were relevant for the arbitrator to view and which should be withheld from the arbitration process. The links on absentjustice.com show this happened during my arbitration when the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit failed to address my claims of incorrect charging on my facsimile and 1800 service.

Neil Jepson (barrister for the Major Fraud Group) suggested I inform the chairman of the Senate estimates committee that I had proof that Telstra had deliberately provided false Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater information to Pauline Moore, secretary of the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts legislation committee.

On 18 August 2001, Senator Alan Eggleston wrote to me, noting:

“I am very concerned with your statement in the 6 August letter that you have two in-camera Official Committee Hansards relating to this issue, dated 6 and 9 July 1998. Furthermore, you intend to send these confidential Hansards to Mr Brian Pickard, Ms Sandra Wolfe’s solicitor.

“I wish to remind you that evidence or documents taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis cannot be disclosed to another person unless ordered by the Senate. This does not occur often, although the Senate, on 30 August 2000, did authorise the release of the Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998 to the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group to assist in their investigations.

“The fact that you have received unauthorised confidential committee documents is a serious matter, but if you disclose these documents to another person, you may be held in contempt of the Senate. I would remind you that section 13 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides for penalties in relation to these matters.” (See Senate Evidence File No 12)

While I have never released these two Hansards, in broad terms, they cover two important issues.

First, they prove beyond all doubt that one senator announced that it would be an injustice to the remaining COTs if Telstra paid compensation to only those currently under investigation but not the others. However, Telstra was allowed to compensate only those five litmus test cases.
Secondly, in October 1997, when Telstra provided the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, on notice, Telstra already knew it was false but still no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that decision, even though their actions were in contempt of the Senate.

Senator Kim Carr again criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as shown in the Hansard link. Addressing the government’s lack of power, Senator Carr stated:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled, demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” 

(See Parliment of Australia)

The Senate Hansard of 11 March 1999 includes quotes confirming just how scathingly critical several Senators were in relation to the way Telstra ran the COT arbitrations, and not the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, even going so far as to note that it was “a process subject to unilateral amendment by Telstra”. That the committee was able to state Telstra used their “unilateral” control of the arbitration process to avoid supplying the promised documents shows the arbitration process failed the COT cases.

Senator Schacht was also possibly more vocal when he stated:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan. Whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long. The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”.http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfochamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Mark Bishop’s statement, shown below also notes

Significant issues do arise. I think it is appropriate to refer to the final paragraphs of the committee report. In the second-to-last paragraph, the report of the committee tabled by Senator Eggleston says:

"Estimates of Telstra’s costs in relation to the CoTs issue since the claims were made exceed $20 million ($14.285 million to 1997 and rising). Most of the expenditure has been spent not on settlement but administrative and legal costs. It became quite clear early in the process that the claimants had, in fact, been disadvantaged by malfunctions in their telephone system. It is difficult to understand why Telstra appeared to prefer to deny that there was a problem and then prolonged the difficulties in establishing the extent of that problem."

The final sentence reads:

In the Committee’s view, Telstra should now seek a negotiated agreement with the interested parties.

If the fault is to be allocated at this very early stage of the final lap, that fault lies at the door of Telstra. It really is appropriate for Telstra, a $100 billion corporation, to stop using its monopoly power, to stop retaining the services of dozens of highly paid solicitors and to come to the table and to seek to reach a negotiated agreement with these four or five persons. It is simply outrageous that Telstra, which is still a public corporation, can spend $20 million – Senator Boswell – Some $24 million.

“Senator Boswell informs me it is 24 million – defending a claim when the claim before it is somewhere between $2 million or $4 million. This is simply an outrageous proposition and a waste of public money” (See Parliment of Australia)

The Senate intervention to stop this unlawful conduct only assisted the five ‘litmus’ COT cases (four) that had not yet reached arbitration. The remaining 16 COTs had already been through their government-endorsed processes without the bulk of their FOI requests/evidence. Because the Senate did not assist the remaining 16 in obtaining their FOI requests, those COTs could not secure settlements that reflected their actual losses. Why were the 16 cases that had gone through a disputable arbitration process not even looked at? This is certainly appalling discrimination by the LNP government. And our past and current government bureaucrats dare to downplay what Julian Assange tried to do for the COT cases, i.e., his fellow Australian citizens.

Senator Len Harris, who won his senate seat on 2 July 1999 for the One Nation party, then lived in Queensland, 2,977 kilometres from Melbourne. On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne in an attempt to ensure our claims of discrimination against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so badly discriminated against in such a deplorable fashion by the then-Coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. When Senator Harris read the 9 August 2001 letter from Senator Alan Eggleston, Liberal Party, warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (which supported my claims that sixteen Australian citizens had been discriminated against in the most deplorable manner) I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail, Senator Harris was distraught to say the least.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris asked questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“The media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants during litigation through the following questions.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?
Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?
Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?
Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out? (See Senate Evidence File No 56).

Senator Len Harris is possibly one of the most honest politicians I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, a true man that believes in justice for all, not just those with political clout. The senator could not understand how, despite various senators from both houses of parliament openly condemning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards those five litmus test COT claimants during their arbitrations and the Senate investigation itself, the other 16 were left to their own devices. The in-camera Senate Hansard records indicate that no one seemed to grasp the importance of Senator Schacht’s advice to the committee that if Telstra only provided compensation to the five litmus test cases and not the other 16, it would be an injustice because they had also suffered similarly at the hands of Telstra.

The Senate committee helped those five litmus test claimants gain access to documents previously withheld from them, as Senator Harris’ press release shows. These claimants, on top of receiving their long-awaited discovery documents, also received millions of dollars in compensation, not only as a result of their business losses but also because of the unethical conduct they suffered at the hands of Telstra. In 2015, however, the remaining claimants from the 16 on the B list (some have now died) are still waiting for the justice that was denied them.

Imagine how I felt on 6 December 2004 when I received the second threat from Senator Alan Eggleston on top of the threats I received from Telstra after I assisted the Australian Federal Police in their investigations into Telstra’s unlawful interception of my telephone conversations. All these threats are linked to the one single issue: the right of all citizens in a democracy to have access to documents classified as ‘discovery’, in any legal process.

The Major Fraud Group’s two senior officers were adamant that I take the small A4 storage box of documents with me after the police were pressured to close their investigations. Perhaps it had something to do with me being one of the 16 COTs who had still not received their documents, unlike the five litmus test cases who HAD received over 150,000 documents between them – documents that the TIO initially promised ALL of the COT cases they would receive if they signed the TIO arbitration agreement. That agreement appears to have been deliberately crafted by the defendants (Telstra) to include a limited period for producing documents and obtaining further particulars. These were the same issues the arbitrator confirmed had affected my arbitration (see Main Evidence File No 34).

Over the last 20 years, I have had a number of conversations with people who were closely associated with my arbitration; it appears the person who held the position of TIO during my arbitration claimed his political career would be over, along with the careers of some others associated with my arbitration, if my arbitration evidence ever surfaced as part of a Senate estimates investigation. That TIO later became a senior front-bench minister in the John Howard Liberal/Country Party Government.

So, is this only hearsay? Or could there be some truth to it, considering that the vacant position on the “A” list was never filled after Garry Dawson withdrew?

Author’s Note:

From 1993 through to 2008, the Hon David Hawker MP, Federal Member for Wannon (in South West Victoria), clearly knew just how badly corroded the existing copper wire was in telecommunication systems, particularly in his electorate, even while he was the Speaker in the House of Representatives. Mr Hawker was tireless in his attempts to ensure that his coalition colleagues in the Australian government saw the many documents I had given him over the years. Like me, most COTs wrote letters to the Australian government between mid-1996 and 2002. We warned that continuing to push to privatise the Telstra Corporation while the copper wire network was in such bad shape was almost criminal because the shareholders would be left with the bill to replace the ailing network in years to come. Senator Len Harris began accumulating evidence from different sources, including at least three COTs, as his 14 November 2002 media release shows (see Senate Evidence File No 57). As an independent senator, he tried to explain to the Minister for Communications that this information should be released into the public domain. No one seemed interested in listening to him or the COTs. The privatisation went ahead, and the rest is history.

In 2024, Telstra shareholders are footing the bill, and the NBN rollout is a disaster. On 21 January 2016, a Telstra shareholder told me that he was not informed that the Telstra network was in such a state, either in writing or at shareholders’ meetings, when he purchased his shares 10 years ago. The NBN rollout of 2014-2015 revealed the copper wire network to be far worse than the Telstra Corporation had ever acknowledged. How do Telstra’s shareholders feel about this non-disclosure by the government prior to the privatisation?

Many bureaucrats who commented on our fight for justice branded the members of COT as frivolous and vexatious litigants, but they missed a number of important facts. Firstly, most bureaucrats have never attempted to run a small business of any sort, particularly a business where the loss of four or five telephone calls a day is enough to completely destroy that business (especially if those lost calls continue to occur). The arbitrator handed down his findings based on Telstra’s claim, sworn to under oath that the complaints raised during arbitration were fully rectified. This was not the case.

Those same bureaucrats also failed to understand that my ongoing telephone problems were not investigated or fixed, even though the Australian government promised me that ALL the problems would be fixed as part of the arbitration process.

One of the founding four members of the Casualties of Telstra, Ann Garms, sadly passed away on 14 July 2018. Graham Schorer (COT Spokesperson) is ill and will no longer assist in telling our story. Maureen Gillan appointed a power of attorney to handle her COT matters long ago, which in August 2018 left me to take up the baton, so to speak.

Next Page ⟶