Chapter Eight - The eighth remedy pursued

INTRODUCTION 

 

When the LNP government waited until Senator Barnaby Joyce had case his crucial 'one' vote that was needed for the government to pass the Telstra privatized sale Legislation in the Senate before telling him the government had no power over Telstra to force them into allowing an independent assessor to view the still unresolved COT Telstra issue the government sold Telstra knowing they could not honour their commitment to Senator Barnaby Joyce. 

The fact the government waited until Senator Barnaby Joyce had passed his vote before telling him shows the government was morally wrong and should have done everything in its power to assist Senator Barnaby Joyce in ensuring the 14 COT Cases' outstanding unresolved claims were valued on their merit.

The following shows this was never the case. The government and their minders set a course to sink the COT Cases even further than they had already been sunk.

                                                              

I did not understand that disclosing evidence to the government broke the confidentiality clauses in my arbitration agreement. AUSTEL's John MacMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs, and Bruce Matthes of AUSTEL's Carrier Monitoring Unit convinced me to report on the evidence I submitted to the arbitration process. It was a matter of public interest that I furnish AUSTEL with the proof I gleaned from Telstra under FOI as I was doing the same for the Australian Federal Police.

I was able to prove the government that Telstra knew that more than 11% of their revenue was from telephone conversations and fax lines staying open [locking up] after each terminated call.. Seven months after the conclusion of my arbitration and the arbitrator allowed Telstra not to have to address these billing issues in their arbitration defence of my claims that AUSTEL's Darren Kearney drove the five-hour drive to my business on 19 December 1995 to view the evidence Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) allowed Telstra not to address even though it formed the central part of my arbitration. 

How can one arbitration side be allowed to secretly submit information to a government regulator and not to the officially appointed arbitrator? Why was I disallowed my legal right of reply to Telstra's 16 October 1995 secretly prepared arbitration submission (see Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?)

Why was I disallowed my legal right of reply to Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission? A submission that does not match the findings of Telstra's CEO on pages 132 and 133 in his publication Managing in Australia (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

The above link confirms Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO, after leaving Telstra in he, co-published a manuscript in 1999. entitled, Managing in Australia. On pages 132 and 133, the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
• The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can still be purchased online. 

It was these types of unaddressed arbitration issues that prompted The Hon Barnaby Joyce to demand resolution by the government as part of his commitment to vote for the Telstra privatization legislation.

For reasons known only to the Hon Barnaby Joyce, his support to have the government explain why the COT Cases were treated so undemocratically before and during their arbitrations faded not long after he first became Australia’s, Deputy Prime Minister. 

After the release of Frank Blount's Managing in Australia in 2000, the government regulator AUSTEL should have demanded the Telstra board explain why Telstra misled AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, when they secretly addressed my arbitration billing documents without either the arbitrator or I present (see below).

Protecting Telstra the way AUSTEL's public servants did (see File 46-L (see Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l), allowing Telstra [the defendants in my arbitration] to secretly address arbitration claims without the arbitrator and claimant [me] being present, constitutes a radical attack on the fundamental principles of open justice.  In its flagrant disregard of constitutional and legal principles, the government regulator has abandoned its proper role as a model litigant and damaged the rule of law, i.e., my legal right to have been able to respond to File 46-L Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l under the agreed arbitration process. 

Before we commence discussing the Government-endorsed DCITA Independent 2006 assessment process we need to review the Sun Herald newspaper article used in our Absent Justice Introduction  page dated 23 May 2021, written by Peta Credlin, EX-Chief of Staff to The Hon Tony Abbott (Prime Minister of Australia) now a high profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article, in the Herald Sun newspaper, under the heading:  "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:

“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.

Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter.

When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country.  

Since the start of 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”

I found this article most relevant to the matters raised here in our eighth remedy pursued and my own dealings with 'the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.'  Peta Credlin has hit the nail squarely on the head in this article. I can not only relate to the information she writes about, but I can also link it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have met since this debacle first began, i.e., before, during and after my DCITA alleged Independent Assessment process that was certainly not conducted impartially by the DCITA  Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats who continued to ignore the evidence I submitted to the DCITA 2006 assessment process.

As one of the many examples, I have exposed on this website as a testament that in my case, these pen-pushing power - bureaucrats have not acted impartially when officially investigating my claims lodged with the government on this occasion under the direction of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). I have used here the letter dated 10 March 2006, from me to Liz Forman, Acting General Manager, DCITA who, along with her other DCITA pen-pushing bureaucrats, was one of the appointed assessors of my 2006 independent assessment process agreed to by then Hon Senator Helen Coonan so as to secure the one crucial vote needed from the then-Senator Barnaby Joyce (who is 2021, became the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia for the second time. My 2006 independent assessment process was one of the ten amendments agreed to by the John Howard government if Senator Barnaby cast his crucial vote in the Senate to pass the final vote allowing Telstra to be privatized. However, these DCITA bureaucrats (public servants) instead of impartially assessing my claims against Telstra, DCITA bureaucrats sort the advice from Telstra as to the validation of my official DCITA claim, which at that point if time in March 2006, had cost me above $12,000 in secretarial and professional fees as The Hon Barnaby Joyce Deputy Prime Minister is very much aware. 

On 27 August 2021, the Herald Sun newspaper commented on the findings of a Royal Commission investigation into alleged corruption within the Melbourne Crown Casino and Helen Coonan's role on the Board during her ten year period. Part of that period was Chaiman of the Board. The following statement by the Herald Sun is startling to say the least i.e.;

"Ms Coonan, a former Howard government minister, managed to convince NSW regulators she could turn the Crown around, following explosive revelations it facilitated money laundering and other crime at its flagship Melbourne casino. 

But it was a different story in Victoria, with counsel assisting the royal commission into the group declaring she was not suitable to helm the company, putting at risk its 27-yeard stronghold on the states only casino" 

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 had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.  

In an attempt to salvage something from this event, Senator Joyce came to a compromise with the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), who agreed that they would assess the claims of any of the 14 COTs who were interested in being involved. The Casualties of Telstra – chronology of events (see Absentjustice Part 1, 2 and 3 describes how, once the government secured Senator Joyce’s vote, they did a back-flip and refused to appoint anyone other than their own government-employed assessors, rather than the independent assessor that had been promised to Senator 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 full privatisation of Telstra.

29 September 2005, David Lever, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, sends an internal email to a number of 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 Graham and me further trauma

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 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?

The statement made by Simon Bryant, another DCITA bureaucrat's 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.” (refer to GS 424 File  [document|1248] does not exist ) shows how far these government bureaucrats went to discredit the merit of our claims.

Pete Credlin is right in her Herald Sun newspaper article to expose just how bad some of Australia's Canberra public servants are. 

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, sometime after the end of my April 2006 government-endorsed assessment process. This email was originally 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 )

As one of the many examples, I have exposed on this website as a testament that in my case, these pen-pushing power - bureaucrats have not acted impartially when officially investigating my claims lodged with the government on this occasion under the direction of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). I have used here the letter dated 10 March 2006, from me to Liz Forman, Acting General Manager, DCITA who, along with her other DCITA pen-pushing bureaucrats, was one of the appointed assessors of my 2006 independent assessment process agreed to by then Hon Senator Helen Coonan so as to secure the one crucial vote needed from the then-Senator Barnaby Joyce (who is 2021, became the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia for the second time. My 2006 independent assessment process was one of the ten amendments agreed to by the John Howard government if Senator Barnaby cast his crucial vote in the Senate to pass the final vote allowing Telstra to be privatized. However, these DCITA  public servants instead of impartially assessing my claims against Telstra, DCITA sort the advice from Telstra as to the validation of my official DCITA claim, which at that point if time in March 2006, had cost me above $12,000 in secretarial and professional fees as The Hon Barnaby Joyce Deputy Prime Minister is very much aware. 

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 to 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 the 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 previous government Pen Pusher power - Bureaucrats 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 in relation to 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. In fact, 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 prepared had been signed under oath in January 1999 by two renowned technical consultants (see Open Letter File No/12 ,  Senate Evidence File No 31 ) and was now supplied again by me in my March 2006 submission.

It is also important to note 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., the pen-pushing 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 incidences 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:-

1. Does not coincide with the commitment given by Senator Coonan’s advisor David Lever, 17th March 2006 to me, prior to me signing 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  
2. 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 on the basis of 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

8 and 10 August 2006: Exhibit AS 517 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541  is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the DCITA) by Ann Garms, and sworn out by Des Direen ex- Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status.  Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, in particular Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations.  I was called into that investigation as a witness (see  An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens ).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that

“From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".

Within a few weeks of Mr Direen having assisted the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham (COT Spokesperson, I also reported to Mr Kueris and Barrister for the Major Fraud Group that I believed I was also under surveillance during those investigations.

Exhibit AS 517 is also a witness statement dated 8 August 2006, prepared by Bob Hynninen, Public Servant (Australian Taxation Office) formerly Detective Sergeant of the Victoria police. At point 3 in this statement Mr Hynninen notes:

"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements were provided to the DCITA by Ann Garms, COT Case member after discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce.  

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 owners 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 )

Had the arbitrator conducted my arbitration as he should have according to the ambit of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, and had investigated ALL of my ongoing telephones and faxing claim documents Darren and Jenny Lewis would not have suffered the heartache they have suffered by purchasing a telephone dependant business that both John Pinnock (TIO) and Telstra failed to divulge to me that from their investigation conducted after my arbitration on 14 January 1998, that it was apparent that the phone problems raised by me in is claim documents had indeed continued to affect his business after his arbitration. We say the Lewis wouldn't have suffered the heartache because I would not have been forced to sell his business had the TIO and Telstra transparently investigated my valid claims.

What is so disturbing in Darren Lewis' case is that he contemplated suicide during what he considered the most traumatic period of when the phone and fax problems had in his opinion stopped at least two major bookings from being able to contact the camp so as to confirm those two bookings one in late 2006 and the early January 2007, two large bookings of some 120 persons per booking for six and seven nights over the Christmas period. A result of these lost bookings that drove him to contact the Portland Health Services. It is clear from this Exhibit titled Risk Management Plan dated 23 February 2007 (AS 913), prepared by Barbara Howard of the Portland Psychiatric Services that she had told Darren to speak to both his wife Jenny and Alan (who still lived next) if he had further thoughts of taking his life. It was after Barbara Howard had visited Alan and saw firsthand the documented evidence that the Telstra Corporation had knowingly submitted fundamentally flawed tests results to support their claims there was nothing wrong with the Cape Bridgewater network when their own documents showed otherwise and that local Telstra technicians had also lied under oath concerning the same Cape Bridgewater network that Mr Howard at least knew Darren had not imagined the phone and faxing problems.

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 (who I have not named in this story) was a very high ranking police officer who had a number of 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 and, 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.

17 May 2007: The 'so called' Hon Senator Helen Coonan wrote 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       

Surely it was Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to instigate an official enquiry into why Telstra continued to intercept in-confidence documents leaving either my office (or residence), the offices of various Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations? 

Why was it left open to a citizen of Australia to take Telstra to court for intercepting documents during and after their government-endorsed arbitration when the Senate Estimates Committee had also been advised that some of these faxes were also intercepted leaving Parliament house?

The Hon Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA bureaucrats who abused their power during the DCITA Independent Assessors used 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” as a guide to the validity of the COT case issues including my previous arbitration and fax interception issues, but Exhibit (AS 639) does not include what we have shown here on this website (see example below).

It is becoming increasingly apparent that due to Australia's spin-doctoring bureaucrats not reporting the truth in government archives for future reference purposes, many local and international students are not learning the truth concerning Australia's history.

It is clear from the Senate information below (which cannot be refuted) proves beyond all doubt that the report used by the DCITA assessors, namely AS 639 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, mentions what the nine senators found between June 1997 and March 1999. Had the DCITA assessors been provided with the following government records I and the other COT Cases whose 1994/95 claims were reassessed in 2006 by the DCITA assessors? Having doctored information in the government archives has once again denied the COT Cases the justice they deserve.

While no one is stating the wording on this blog, Supporting Honest History is misconceived or not important, quite the opposite. It is most alarming that the Australian government has not openly reported in the War Memorial North Vietnam War section concerning Australia's involvement in the North Vietnam Vietcong conflict. There is nothing openly reporting that while our soldiers were fighting this war; the Australian bureaucrats back home were knowingly involved in a chain of events that were feeding the enemy [the Vietcong] while Australians were dying or being maimed by the Vietcong.

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

Threats carried out 

Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues as page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Senate Hansard - 20 September 1995

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the above type of injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions], in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding.

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” 

The Unsigned Witness Statement 

When I first received a copy of this legal advice (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) years after the completion of my arbitration it took me back to my arbitration and the 12 September 1994, when I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims (see the above Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy).

I found the process of being interviewed by a forensic psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process. Was this his idea to unstabilize me during my arbitration or the company that had hired him? However, when this legal firm, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock, (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

I have never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, and three months after the Senate had been told under oath by Lindsey White, an ex-Telstra arbitration official we five COT Cases who had "to be stopped at all cost" from proving our claims naming me as one of the five, John Pinnock (the second-appointed administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 99, Senate – Parliament of Australia). that:

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

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can Dr Gordon Hughes AO [the administrator] continue to hide under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures? 

How can an arbitrator have no control over an arbitration process? If the arbitrator had no control over the arbitration process as confirmed by the TIO (see pages 109 to 110, Senate – Parliament of Australia, then who did have control over the COT arbitrations?

 

Infringe upon the civil liberties

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, 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 focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process

Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“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 when 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 parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“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 a 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.”

Exposing the truth meant jail for me.

Telstra still weilds this same power even in 2022.

Learn where witnesses had to swear, under oath on 6 and 9 July 1998, during an in-Camera Senate investigation into these corrupted arbitrations, that they would not divulge what the Senate investigations found against Telstra. 

In fact, after one National Party senator verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

Telstra privatized on a government lie!

After I advised the 'so called' Hon Senator Helen Coonan that NONE of my phone and fax hacking claim documents were addressed during my DCITA assessment process she back to me on 17 May 2007, 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       

Surely it was Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to instigate an official enquiry into why Telstra continued to intercept in-confidence documents leaving either my office (or residence), the offices of various Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations? 

Why was it left open to a citizen of Australia to take Telstra to court for intercepting documents during and after their government-endorsed arbitration when the Senate Estimates Committee had also been advised that some of these faxes were also intercepted leaving Parliament house?

That was until my DCITA advisor, Ronda, sent me the following two emails dated 1 February 2008 (see File GS 562 - GS-CAV 522 to 580. Those receipts from the DCITA dated were originally sent by Ronda on April 2006 and July 2006. This fresh evidence show those two claim documents had been deleted by the government on 1 February 2008 without ever having being read as part of my DCITA claim.

How can the Hon Senator Helen Coonan Minister in charge of my DCITA claim state the government had assessed my claims of phone and fax interception evidence when those claim documents had never been assessed as part of my DCITA claim? That part of my claim was deleted before being viewed.

It is clear from the above that Senator Barnaby Joyce (now Australia's current Deputy Prime Minister in 2022), has forgotten the promises he made to the COT Cases.

 

Next Page ⟶