oOo
Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.
If you are seeking an honest and comprehensive account of the arbitration process in Australia—particularly in instances where individuals or entities challenge government-owned corporations—then your exploration of this troubling denial of justice begins here. By engaging with these links, you can gain insight into the systemic issues that plague the arbitration process and uncover the obstacles faced by those fighting for their rights.
ge|214]Before reading the story below, it's important to know that I spent thirty years at sea as a cook and steward-cook. This narrative is just one of many I have to share, particularly regarding my experiences after purchasing the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. This part of my story became significant during arbitration with the government-owned Telstra Corporation, where things deviated from the typical court case pattern.
During this process, conversations I had with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser about a trip to China came to light through requested Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. My near-death experience in 1967, when I was almost executed as a spy, is a separate issue. However, the discussions I had with Mr Fraser in 1993 and 1994 concerning China were recorded, but the details about China and North Vietnam were redacted.
It is vital to highlight that on September 18, 1967, the Commonwealth Police—then commonly known as COMPOL—had a unique practice of initialling documents with "COMPOL" following an officer’s signature. This signature protocol was observed when two officers from COMPOL conducted an official visit to the Hopepeak ship, where I was serving as a crew member. During their visit, I presented the officers with a letter I had meticulously crafted, addressed to The Hon Malcolm Fraser, who was the Minister for the Army. This particular letter, written on the same day, became the focus of discussions I later had with Mr Fraser in April 1993 and again in 1994. It contained crucial information that had been removed from official records, and its significance cannot be understated.
Moreover, John Wynack, the Director of Investigation at the Commonwealth Ombudsman, made considerable efforts over a two-year period to obtain access to this letter. However, he faced significant obstacles, as Telstra informed him in writing that my arbitration file had been destroyed. In response to this alarming revelation, Mr Wynack expressed his disbelief in correspondence to Telstra, reflecting his conviction that something was amiss in the handling of the evidence. The officers I encountered during this process are now recognised as part of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file.
It is on record that I fully cooperated with the COMPOL officers in September 1967, who reviewed my statement concerning my time in China. Later, in 1994 and 1995, I again assisted the AFP with their investigations into my Telstra-related phone and fax hacking episodes.
I have always discussed the AFP issues in the AFP segments, but I am now writing a book on this part of my COT story. I am introducing the China-Australian wheat saga as the spearhead of my story regarding the COMPOL/AFP issues, as this was when the AFP was genuinely horrified by what I told them and by the statement I made concerning my time in China.
This is why I am starting the AFP part of my COT story with episodes where they were human beings in shock, as most Australians were, when I told them of this China saga. It is important to note that on 18 September 1967, the Commonwealth Police, then known as COMPOL, often initialled documents with "COMPOL" after the officer's signature. This was the case when two COMPOL officers visited the Hopepeak ship, where I was a crew member at the time. These officers are now referred to as the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
It is on record that I fully cooperated with the COMPOL officers in September 1967, who reviewed my statement concerning my time in China. Later, in 1994 and 1995, I again assisted the AFP with their investigations into my Telstra-related phone and fax hacking episodes.
I have always discussed the AFP issues in the AFP segments, but I am now writing a book on this part of my COT story. I am introducing the China-Australian wheat saga as the spearhead of my story regarding the COMPOL/AFP issues, as this was when the AFP was genuinely horrified by what I told them and by the statement I made concerning my time in China.
It is essential to note that this firm is responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator overseeing my case. However, a significant concern arose during this process: the witness statement was signed only by Maurice Wayne Condon, a representative of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, and it notably lacked the signature of Mr Joblin himself.
1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.
2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.
Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the extent of Telstra's legal team's influence and power over the arbitration process in Australia.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
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 that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, 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?”
The most alarming aspect of Telstra's intelligence networks in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the necessary expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidence information is there in my telephone conversations with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser, held by Telstra officials?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this susceptible material which Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to above, on 24 June 1997, the Senate - Parliament of Australia - my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
🔄 From 1993 to 2025: The Echoes of a Whistleblower’s Warning
ACMA was the respondent in both my Freedom of Information and government document requests, and the matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal between February and October 2008, and again from October 2010 to May 2011.
I was seeking Ericsson-related documentation that Telstra had retained—information that, after Ericsson acquired Lane, was reportedly used to assist Telstra’s arbitration defence against the COT Cases. We had alleged that Ericsson’s telephone exchange equipment was responsible for widespread call dropouts and outages.
To this day, I have not received the requested Ericsson data from the government ACMA.
Hovering your cursor or mouse over AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings confirms that government public servants investigating my ongoing telephone issues supported my claims against Telstra, particularly between Points 2 and 212. It is evident that if the arbitrator had been presented with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, he would have awarded me a significantly higher amount for my financial losses than he ultimately did.
Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not receive a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.
AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated 4 March 1994, confirmed that my claims against Telstra were validated (see points 2 to 212) before I was forced into arbitration under threat of the then Telecommucations Industy Ombudsman (TIO) Warwick Smith and Telstra that unless I sign for arbitration then Telstra and the TIO would collectively decline to further investigate my telephone faults which I alleged had been apparanty since February 1988, when I purchased the business.
Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of these findings AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at points 2 to 212 until November 23, 2007, 12 years after the termination of my arbitration process. In simple words, the government had already validated my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before April 21, 1994, when I signed the arbitration agreement.
But despite this proof, I was still required to endure 13 months in a gruelling arbitration process that cost me well over $300,000 in professional fees to prove something the government had already established 6 weeks earlier.
On October 3, 2008, in a chilling moment that felt surreal, senior AAT member Judge G.D. Friedman confronted the haunting truths of my case during the AAT hearings. In the glaring light of the courtroom (Case No. V2008/1836), he declared, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, that the government had egregiously failed to provide me with the crucial documents necessary for them to form their findings in a covert report. This insidious report, crafted by AUSTEL (now ACMA) and handed over to Telstra in March 1994, had been a weapon used against me, aimed at dismantling my claims against the government-owned Telstra corporation.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
In 2025, both electronic media and various newspapers reported that Optus is now blaming Ericsson for the same outages and call dropouts that we COT Cases first exposed, beginning with the briefcase left open at my Cape Bridgewater premises on June 3, 1993.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
I am beginning my sea-going journey as part of my COT story, with episodes that reflect how the Australian Federal Police were once human beings in shock—just like most Australians—when I shared what I witnessed in a starving communist China. How could I turn away from the Chinese Red Guards when they took over the HopePeak ship?
Their eyes were filled with concern when a crew member accidentally dropped a slice of meat and bread into the harbour while eating off the wooden railings surrounding the ship. This act was not one of anger or aggression; it stemmed from a lack of understanding.
There was an internal struggle among the crew, a sense of shame for their thoughtlessness. Once they learned about the suffering of the Chinese people, they realised that a slice of bread—a trivial loss to them—could represent a day's worth of food for the Red Guards. It was the sorrow reflected in those sunken eyes that triggered flashbacks of what I had witnessed, not any resentment directed at me for having what I did.
My time on the Merchant Navy training ship, the "Vindicatrix," moored on the River Severn in Sharpness, taught me the importance of compassion.
⚓ Life at Sea: The Truth Behind the Romance
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the image below.
I went to sea with my head full of foolish dreams. I imagined moonlit beaches, nightingales singing from palm trees, and rugged sailors belting out sea shanties with half their teeth missing and twice the charm. I thought I’d be stepping into a grand adventure—sun‑kissed, heroic, and maybe even a little poetic.
What I got instead was a galley the size of a coffin and a crew of madams who could have run the Royal Opera House with their demands.
My first voyage cured me of romance faster than a bucket of cold seawater down the back. The sea didn’t care about my daydreams. It heaved and rolled and slapped the hull like it was trying to shake us loose. And inside that steel box, I was juggling pots, pans, and personalities that made the weather look tame.
There I was, a greenhorn seaman, elbow‑deep in garlic and chaos, cooking for a troupe of diva‑madams who treated me like their personal chef. If I’d worn a frilly apron, I could’ve starred in The Galley and the Glamour Girls.
But the sea has a way of toughening you. Between the tantrums, the rolling decks, and the pots that slid across the stove every time the ship lurched, I learned to survive. I learned to chop onions fast enough to hide the tears. I learned to brace my legs against the swell while stirring a pot big enough to drown in. And I learned that sometimes the greatest adventures happen in the places you least expect—like a galley that smelled of onions, diesel, and desperation.
⚓ The 1960s–80s: A Different World Entirely
Back then, gay men at sea lived in the shadows—mocked, misunderstood, and only “interesting” when a lonely sailor had been too long away from home. I learned early to defend myself. A long‑neck brandy bottle with a manila rope through the neck became my makeshift handcuff and my best friend. Admirers sometimes mistook my steward’s uniform for an invitation. It wasn’t.
But here’s the truth most people never hear:
Some of the finest seafarers I ever sailed with were gay men. Loyal. Fierce. Hilarious. And when trouble brewed—whether in a bar ashore or on a dark deck at sea—they were the ones you wanted beside you.They could fight like alley cats. Pick one of our crew, and you’d better be ready for flying hairpins.
⚓ Europe, Nightclubs, and the Brotherhood of the Sea
After running from New Zealand to Europe—our holds packed with butter and wool—we’d step ashore in Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Rotterdam, Dunkirk, Antwerp, and London. The nights were wild. Music spilled from taverns. Laughter rolled across cobblestones. And my gay shipmates lit up every bar we entered.
They played pianos, strummed guitars, sang like angels or devils, depending on the hour, and earned us free beer with their performances. They made the loneliness bearable. They made the world feel less cold.
⚓ The Harshness No One Talks About
But life at sea wasn’t all music and mischief.
There were nights when the wind screamed like a living thing, and the ship rolled so hard you had to lash yourself to the rail to stay aboard. I remember standing in a gale, a rope looped over and under my wrist, hauling in a heaving line with another crewman. I was the cook—but at sea, titles mean nothing when the ocean decides to test you.
That’s the truth of it:
At sea, you are a team, or you are nothing.On one ship alone, we had two Irishmen, two West Africans, two Dutchmen, four British trawlermen, a Welshman, a Chinaman, two Romanians, and one gay man. It didn’t matter. Not one bit. When the sea rose, we rose together.
⚓ Dockside Lessons: No Place for the Faint‑Hearted
Life ashore in the 1960s was no gentler than life at sea. The ports were alive with noise—seagulls screaming, winches clattering, ships groaning under their loads. And the bars along the waterfront were their own battlegrounds.
One night, in a smoky, rowdy bar, a young lad barely out of childhood found himself cornered by a local tough who enjoyed picking on fresh faces. There were no “Mr Nice Guys” in those places. You either stood up or you were trampled.
A seasoned sailor saw what was happening and stepped in. The air thickened. Trouble came fast. And by the end of it, twenty‑six stitches were needed to close the night’s lesson.
That was the waterfront: raw, unforgiving, and honest in a way the world rarely is now. You learned to look after each other. You learned that mercy was a luxury. And you learned that loyalty mattered more than anything.
⚓ What the Sea Really Taught Me
Life aboard those ships was a balancing act between laughter and hardship. Between the madness of the galley and the terror of a storm. Between loneliness and the strange, fierce brotherhood that only sailors understand.
It taught me that respect is earned, not assumed.
That difference is strength, not weakness.
And that the sea—like life—doesn’t care who you are, only how you stand your ground.So read on.
Because the story you’re about to enter isn’t polished or pretty.
It’s real.
It’s rough.
It’s funny, brutal, and unforgettable.It’s life at sea.
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman. → → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2
Echoes of Betrayal: Wheat Sales to China - and the Government bureaucrats who continued to tell Australia's politicians what several other seamen and I had witnessed in China was a lie. The following information shows we risked all to expose the truth.
The People's Republic of China
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting
In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.
It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.
As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.
A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange
After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.
Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.
At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.
To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”
And maybe, just maybe, that was enough.
In essence, the Australian government faced an agonising moral dilemma — weighing the lives of its soldiers engaged in the conflict in North Vietnam against the desperate need to provide sustenance for an entire nation teetering on the brink of starvation. This heart-wrenching choice highlights the often-unseen complexities of international relations and humanitarian crises, revealing the painful calculations made in the pursuit of survival.
Footnote 83, 84 and 169 → in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021
Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83, 84, 169:
In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said, “I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.”
84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”
169. "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the others were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time, a grain ship usually had crew members of about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship."
The Canadian Government and Its Moral Code of Ethics
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image below, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China — especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or maimed — was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have continued.
Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about supporting a nation that opposed Australian, New Zealand, and US forces.
Examining this wheat agreement made with the People's Republic of China during the Menzies government in the mid‑1960s is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications that were obscured by a government campaign to discredit British and Canadian merchant seamen — including me. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam.
• Frog‑marched off the ship under armed guard by Red Guards, accused of being a spy.• Forced to write letters under threat of execution.• Commonwealth Police met the ship in Sydney on 18 September 1967, confirming the seriousness of what had occurred.• British crew members refused to sail the ship back to China, fearing for their lives.
• Wheat shipments had gone ahead despite warnings.• Australian conscripts had fought and died in Vietnam.• Bureaucrats and ministers had ignored both political foresight and lived testimony.
Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569
"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"
If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."
Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."
OPEN LETTER dated 25/09/2025
The five chapters mentioned above, while confirming that the arbitration officials deliberated on my claim, the misrepresented justice leading up yo my arbitration including during my 13 months arbitration and the proceedigs years after the conclusing of my arbitration on 11 May 1995. The still remain unaccountable for their actions.
To derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated, claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator overseeing my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
A Sinister and Calculated Smear
A false and deeply defamatory allegation was circulated in a calculated and treacherous manoeuvre to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal. The claim—that I had verbally harassed the wife of Dr. Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case—was not spontaneous; it was manufactured. It originated from John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was delivered directly to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
This was not a misunderstanding or an error, but a deliberate act.
I categorically deny the allegation in Pinnock's letter of February 27, 1996—a letter crafted to mislead, smear, and poison the well as my appeal threatened to expose the truth. Pinnock falsely informed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator's wife at 2 a.m., implying harassment, instability, and misconduct. However, my telephone account—the indisputable record—shows only one call ever made to the arbitrator's residence between April 21, 1994, the day I signed the arbitration agreement, and the date of Pinnock's letter.
That call occurred at 8:02 p.m. on November 28, 1995—not at 2 a.m., not in the dead of night, and certainly not in the manner described by Pinnock.
The truth is far more straightforward—and far more inconvenient for those who sought to bury it.
That evening, I phoned Dr Hughes because explosive new evidence had arrived, proving that Telstra had fraudulently fabricated its TF200 arbitration report. This evidence, sourced from Telstra's own laboratory, showed that the test results provided to the arbitrator were false. I called to alert him that I had couriered this material to his office via Golden Couriers Messenger Services of North Melbourne. My intention was simply to ensure he was aware of the evidence and to arrange a meeting after my five-hour train journey from Melbourne.
When Mrs Hughes answered and told me that Dr Hughes was overseas, she asked who was calling. Fearing that my real name might alarm her—particularly after Senator Ron Boswell had publicly condemned Dr Hughes on 20 September 1995 for allowing himself to be forced into using Telstra's arbitration rules instead of the government‑endorsed agreement—I gave the name of someone she would recognise: John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager.
I later wrote to Pinnock, explaining why I had used Rundell's name and made the call. The evidence I was trying to deliver was dynamite—and they knew it.
Yet Pinnock's statement to Laurie James was more than merely misleading; it was a fabrication designed to discredit me and shield the arbitration process from the truth.
His claim reads:
- "Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes' home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes' wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit."(File 209-AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
If I actually wrote to the TIO, as he claims in his letter to Laurie James, why hasn't he produced my letter?
Clearly, this letter was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity, allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.
Amid the complex web of my pending appeal, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that underpinned my agreement. They had uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it that could serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.
As detailed in Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—were provided with an additional 13 months to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence. I, however, was not granted the same 13-month extension.
Dr. Gordon Hughes's decision to deny me the same thirteen-month extension not only hindered my case but also represented a significant act of discrimination. This decision was a deliberate and unjustifiable departure from the principles of fairness, fundamentally undermining the integrity of the arbitration process and the equitable treatment that all claimants deserved.
By denying me the opportunity to fully present my case, Dr Hughes effectively discriminated against me. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra could definitively verify that no further systemic phone issues were impacting my business. This oversight not only undermined my claims but also left my business vulnerable to ongoing, unaddressed problems.
Dr. Gordon Hughes
To be clear: had Dr Gordon Hughes granted his own arbitration consultants the additional weeks they explicitly requested in their evaluation report dated April 30, 1995, the outcome of my arbitration would have been entirely different. The consultants—DMR & Lanes—recognised the complexities of the case and understood that the evidence required diligent, in-depth examination. They were fully aware that the material was intricate and critical to uncovering the truth.
However, Dr. Hughes callously refused their request. He shut down the investigation, preventing them from accessing the very documents that later enabled Darren Kearney to expose the shocking reality. This was not a mere administrative blunder but a calculated act—an intentional manoeuvre to bury the truth and protect Telstra from the consequences of their malfeasance.
The evidence Darren Kearney of AUSTEL (now ACMA) ultimately unearthed came from the very documents Dr. Hughes denied his own experts the additional time they requested in their written statement of April 30, 1995. This isn't merely a coincidence; it's a violation of justice—discrimination that denied me my rightful chance to prove my case.
By denying the consultants the time and resources they needed, Dr Hughes effectively orchestrated my downfall. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra provided clear evidence that no further systemic faults were undermining my business. Instead, he recklessly barreled ahead, fully aware that network issues were ongoing and unresolved, inflicting devastating damage on my operations.
This was not just a procedural lapse; it was a profound betrayal of the arbitration process meant to deliver justice. His refusal left my business vulnerable to the relentless problems the arbitration was meant to resolve. It allowed Telstra's deep-rooted faults to fester unchecked for years, ensuring that the truth—the truth those consultants were poised to uncover—remained hidden.
In the end, the message is clear: the system was never designed to protect me; it was a construct intended solely to shield Telstra and its actions.
In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:
- I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. I will not be providing you with copies of any documents held by this office Open Letter File No 57-C.
This marked the beginning of a long and troubling chapter marked by deceit. Lies became intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery at the heart of the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes was at the centre of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the "assessor" in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he approved Telstra's self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren't mere oversights but calculated, conspiratorial moves to bury the truth.
By October 1995, five months after my arbitration concluded on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to bring this shadow play to the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I contacted Mr John Wynack, the Ombudsman's Director of Investigations. Together, we peeled back layers of Telstra's deception, confronting claims that the file had been "destroyed"—a blatant lie designed to shield the rot beneath.
The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.
That alone wasn't enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.
Even now, in 2026, I stand on the precipice of history empty-handed, blocked from accessing the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it's woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.
Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2026, three decades after the incident.
The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
I enclose copies of letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I want to discuss several issues arising from these letters, including:
the cost of responding to the allegations;
the implications for the arbitration procedure if I fully and frankly disclose the facts to Mr. James.
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence gave me pause.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr. Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft letter he intended to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan's complaints. He stated:
- "I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations."
- "You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion."AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233- See AS-CAV 206
This Wasn't a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would have been necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn't about procedure; it was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process and became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence, chose containment, and chose to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, then a partner at KPMG and involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me about property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell's financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr Hughes weaponised Rundell's false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect, and Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB's involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Despite this, Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the pending arbitration appeal before the Institute of Arbitrators.
Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to disregard the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations casts a shadow over their credibility and raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As Dr Hughes continues as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave Lawyers and Mr Rundell manages arbitration centres in two major cities, their silence and apparent lack of concern regarding the potential repercussions are concerning. This negligence paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be concealing.
This is not just my story, but a warning, a call to action, and a demand for accountability.
I refuse to be silenced.
Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process, which became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.
Our website grants access to over 56,000 arbitration files, many of which have been grotesquely tampered with by the defendant, Telstra, before entering the arbitration process. These files have been rendered indecipherable, deliberately designed to thwart any attempt at justice.
Witness the lengths to which the government will go to protect its own corrupt interests, ruthlessly allowing its citizens to suffer and remain voiceless in a labyrinth designed to entrap them in despair. The truth is chilling, and the betrayal runs deep.
A Story of Despair and Heartache
Within the convoluted five-volume arbitration dossier, I confronted Mr Kearney, the government investigator, with undeniable evidence that Dr Hughes insidiously refused to grant his arbitration technical consultant the necessary time to uncover extensive billing discrepancies. This obstruction likely forced Mr. Kearney into a rushed and precarious position, culminating in a hastily written report in February 1996. Regrettably, amidst this disquiet, the report validated my arbitration claims.
That summary report meticulously identified 23 examples of fabrications in Telstra's covert submission to AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, a mere five months after my arbitration concluded. AUSTEL, the government Communications Authority, revealed that the arbitrator had failed to scrutinise these glaring discrepancies, allowing Telstra to manipulate the narrative. This collusion exposed the staggering scale of the ongoing billing debacle and underscored the dire need for accountability in an environment where misconduct festers unchecked.
This subversive manipulation of the arbitration process by AUSTEL and Telstra—the defendants in my arbitration—was unethical and duplicitous. They orchestrated this conduct in secret, denying both the arbitrator and me the right to respond to Telstra's late submission of deceit to AUSTEL. The entire affair reeks of betrayal—of trust, justice, and the principles that should govern our systems.
The original arbitration claim information, which AUSTEL secretly allowed Telstra to submit on 16 October 1995, contradicted Mr Kearney's findings from data he collected from my business on 19 December 1995, and presented in February 1996. AUSTEL's decision to permit Telstra to address my arbitration billing claims in secret, without an arbitrator present, was inappropriate. This secretive manoeuvring by AUSTEL and Telstra significantly compromised my ability to make future complaints regarding ongoing telephone problems.
Absentjustice.com reveals that John Pinnock, the second-appointed arbitration administrator, continued to inform my Federal Member of Parliament, David Hawker MP, the Communications Minister, and Telstra, until I sold my business to Darren and Jenny Lewis in December 2001, that my ongoing telephone and faxing problems had been addressed and fixed as part of my 1994/95 arbitration.
How could problems still experienced in 2001 have been fixed in 1994/95?
Documentation in Files 221, 222, and 223 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 suggests that Paul Howell of DMR Group Inc., Canada, allegedly authored a cover letter claiming his technical report concerning the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp Evaluation of Call Losses and the non-addressed RVA billing faults, dated 30 April 1995, was complete (refer to File 223). However, John Pinnock, the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, stated in correspondence dated 16 August 1996—sixteen months after the date on Paul Howell's cover letter—that the arbitrator (refer File 221) was not obligated to provide me with Paul Howell's cover letter during the arbitration process, despite my requests to present it to my technical advisors for an informed written response to the purportedly complete report.
In section 2:23 of his report, Paul Howell asserts that the report remained incomplete and required additional weeks to ascertain the reasons my business persistently experienced billing-related complaints (Refer to Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues).
On 5 May 1995, the arbitrator denied my request for extra time to submit an addendum and did not explain why Paul Howell's technical report had not been formally endorsed as complete. Despite requests from both Paul Howell and his colleague at Lane Telecommunications for an extension, the arbitrator refused additional time. Consequently, I had to respond to Paul Howell's report without his signature indicating its completion (Refer to Arbitrator File No/48).
In my 1997 statutory declaration (File 222 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233), I recount a significant conversation with Paul Howell, who contacted me by telephone after my hospitalization for a suspected heart condition. Howell revealed that he had not finalised or signed off on his report because it was incomplete. This disclosure highlighted Howell's integrity and reflected the Canadian government's commitment to upholding the rule of law. The chief Canadian technical consultant evaluating my claims withheld endorsement of the report, citing Canada's commitment to this principle. Howell thoroughly explained his decision, clarifying the complexities of my situation. For more on the implications of the Paul Howell DMR and the Lane report, see Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues.
Throughout this period, I documented my struggles in correspondence with Denise McBurnie. Despite assurances from Telstra and Ms. McBurnie that no systemic billing issues affected my 008/800 services, the reality was different and distressing. In late 1999, former Telstra CEO Frank Blount co-published "Managing in Australia" (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran), available online. Pages 132 and 133 candidly address the systemic issues within Telstra's 1800 service—the same challenges I faced.
Despite the gravity, when Freehill Hollingdale & Page endorsed Telstra's arbitration defence, they failed to accurately depict the prevailing circumstances regarding these systemic issues to the arbitrator. This occurred even though they had submitted nine witness statements supporting my position on December 12, 1994. Furthermore, on October 16, 1995—five months after my arbitration concluded—AUSTEL covertly permitted Telstra to address the systemic billing fault at issue in my arbitration. AUSTEL, not a party to my arbitration with Telstra, was unaware that the witness statements dated December 12, 1994, used by Telstra in this underhanded AUSTEL process, had been condemned by two senior Queensland detective sergeants as grossly inaccurate. This clandestine action enabled Telstra to rely on falsified arbitration witness statements, barring me from responding and denying the arbitrator the opportunity to adjudicate this vital aspect of my claim.
The Appeal That Never Came
On December 13, 1995, Gene Volovich, my appeal lawyer from Law Partners Melbourne, delivered a devastating blow. Sitting across from me, he stated with certainty something I will never forget: he believed my appeal had no chance of success.
He wasn't guessing. Volovich had reviewed the documents and transcripts. He understood the rules and recognised they had been broken during the arbitration process.
Ten days later, I handed Volovich the complete set of evidence I had previously shown to Darren Kearney from AUSTEL. Kearney's five-hour drive from Melbourne to my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp spoke volumes. It suggested that, at least for a moment, the truth mattered to someone.
The October Betrayal
The core of the problem stemmed from AUSTEL's decision to allow Telstra to respond to my billing evidence outside the formal arbitration process. On October 16, 1995, Telstra was permitted to rewrite the narrative in private, with no arbitrator or claimant present.
Instead of clarifying the issues, Telstra misrepresented facts and distorted information, failing to disclose crucial details.
Later, AUSTEL officials contacted me to request a review of my claim materials. They were astounded to find that the documents had not been adequately investigated. Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, and his technical team had disregarded established procedures, a point already highlighted in AUSTEL's April 1994 COT Cases report. AUSTEL officials were incredulous that Hughes had repeated this error.
The Vanishing Findings
On December 19, after reviewing my materials, Mr Kearney requested that they be returned to Melbourne. He provided written assurances, promising findings and closure.
I am still waiting.
In August 1997, Michael Brereton & Co. wrote to Senator Ron Boswell, confirming that I had a substantial case against Dr Hughes. However, I was unable to secure legal representation, neither from them nor from any other firm. The system had worn me down, and the legal gatekeepers had effectively locked me out.
The Freehills Conflict
Back in January 1994, the COTs (Casualties of Telstra) were assured by Robin Davey, AUSTEL's Chairman, that Freehills would no longer be involved in our Fast Track Settlement Proposal.
Despite this assurance, Telstra reappointed Freehills as its defence counsel for the FTAP (Fast Track Arbitration Process). Warwick Smith, the TIO (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman), dismissed the conflict of interest, stating it was Telstra's prerogative.
Meanwhile, I continued to register fault complaints through Freehills, and I was
consistently denied access to technical data, facing continuous stonewalling.
An internal Telstra email (FOI folio C02840) confirmed their awareness of the situation:
They knew it was a conflict of interest, but they disregarded it.
During arbitration, Telstra submitted witness statements signed only by Freehills, not by the actual witnesses. When I challenged this irregularity, the response was absurd. The statements were simply sent back to the witnesses for signature, with no investigation or accountability.
Gene Volovich was astonished. He couldn't believe I hadn't received any of the fault correspondence exchanged between Telstra, Freehills, and me. He suspected Telstra had deliberately appointed Freehills as my fault managers to shield all correspondence under Legal Professional Privilege.
The Arbitrator Who Wasn't
Dr Hughes's failures went beyond simple rule-breaking. He wasn't even a registered arbitrator, not even a graded one, and was unqualified to oversee such a complex and consequential process.
And yet, he presided, ruled, and ultimately buried my case.
On October 19, 1993, Denise McBurnie of Freehills sent a document, marked "Legal Professional Privilege In Confidence," to Telstra's Don Pinel. This document outlined how Telstra could shield technical fault data—data crucial to my case—from disclosure under the guise of legal privilege.
It wasn't privilege; it was concealment.
"Duesbury & FHP continuing of evaluating (blank) claim - final report to Telecom will be privileged and will not be made available to (blank)."
Reflection: A System Built to Exhaust
My fight wasn't just for service; it was a battle through a maze designed to wear me down. Every letter to Freehills became another brick in a wall. Each delay, denial, and invocation of privilege formed part of a broader strategy: to keep the truth out of reach.
And yet, I persisted—documenting, pushing forward. Because I believed that one day, someone would read these chapters, not just as history, but as a warning.
Exhibit AS 767-A: The Smoking Gun
Then came the document dated October 29, 1993—Telstra FOI folio K01489, Exhibit AS 767-A. It laid out the strategy in plain terms, revealing not only the use of privilege but also its intent.
This wasn't a misunderstanding; it was by design.
"During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception. Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules."
A handwritten note in the bottom right corner of Exhibit AS 767-B, which reads, "Stored in Fax Stream?" suggests that faxes intercepted via Telstra's testing process were stored in Telstra's Fax Stream service centre. This would have allowed anyone with access to Telstra's fax stream centre to read the documents at any time. The Scandrett & Associates report confirms that numerous COT arbitration documents were intercepted, including faxes to and from Parliament House, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office (COO), and the COTs themselves. In my case, this interception continued for seven years after the arbitration concluded. This means Telstra had access to confidential documents that claimants believed they were sending only to their accountants, lawyers, and/or technical advisors (as well as Parliament House and the COO). These documents could have included information that the claimants wanted to keep from the defendants.
Was the engineer pressured to remain silent during my arbitration? I don't know. What is certain is that not all Telstra engineers or technicians handled COT complaints in good faith. Another Telstra technician, who encountered significant problems during his official fax testing process on October 29, 1993, nevertheless advised the arbitrator that I had no problems with that service, despite Telstra's own document noting these faults:
Back to the Briefcase
Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)
I should have known better. It was just another case of "No fault found." We spent considerable time dancing around a summary of my phone problems, and their best advice was to continue doing exactly what I had been doing since 1989: meticulously recording every fault. I could have wept. Finally, they left.
A little while later, back in my office, I discovered Aladdin had left behind his treasures; the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.
The briefcase wasn't locked. I opened it, discovering it belonged to a Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait until business hours the next day to track him down. Inside, however, was a file titled "SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER." After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra and being told various lies, here, possibly, was the truth from an insider's perspective.
The first thing that raised alarm bells was a document revealing Telstra knew the RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted at least eight months, not the three weeks on which they based their settlement payout. Dated 24/7/92 and bearing my phone number in the top right corner, the document referenced my complaint that callers received an RVA "service disconnected" message. The "latest report," dated 22/7/92, came from Station Pier in Melbourne and noted a "similar fault reported" on 17/03/92. The final sentence read: "Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months."
I copied this and other documents from the file on my fax machine and faxed them to Graham Schorer. The next morning, I telephoned the local Telstra office, and someone came to collect the briefcase.
The information in this document, dated July 24, 1992, proved that senior Telstra management had deceived and misled me during previous negotiations. It showed their guarantees that my phone system was up to network standard were made knowing it was nowhere near "up to standard."
Telstra's area general manager was fully aware at the time of my settlement on December 11, 1992, that she was providing incorrect information. This information influenced my judgment of the situation, placing me at a commercial disadvantage. The General Manager, Commercial Victoria/Tasmania, was also aware of this deception.
The use of misleading or deceptive conduct in a commercial settlement, such as mine, contravenes Section 52 of the Australian Trade Practices Act. Yet this deception has never been officially addressed by any regulatory body. Jumping ahead, even the arbitrator who handed down his award on my case in May 1995 failed to question Telstra's unethical behaviour.
Previously Withheld Documents
I presented this new information to Austel, along with documents previously withheld from me during my 11 December 1992 settlement and found in the briefcase. On 9 June 1993, Austel's John MacMahon wrote to Telstra concerning my ongoing phone issues post-settlement and the briefcase documents' contents:
Further he claims that the Telecom documents contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customers concerned.
In Summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that in the context of the settlement, Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information.
I ask for your urgent comment on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation, which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith's premises for its inspection. This, together with your comment, will enable me to arrive at an appropriate recommendation for AUSTEL's consideration of any action it should take.
As to Mr Smith's claimed continuing service difficulties, please provide a statement as to whether Telecom believes that Mr Smith has been provided with a telephone service of normal network standard since the settlement. If not, you are asked to detail the problems which Telecom knows to exist, indicate how far beyond network standards they are and identify the cause/causes of these problems.
In light of Mr Smith's claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism that will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made.
Presumably, Telstra did not comply with the request 'to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the available documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith's premises,' because on 3 August 1993, Austel's General Manager of Consumer Affairs again wrote to Telstra, requesting copies of all briefcase documents not yet forwarded to Austel.
I also sent Austel several Statutory Declarations explaining what I had seen in the briefcase, which Telstra had since retrieved.
The copies I made of just one-third of the documents contained enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware that AXE Ericsson lock-up faults were a global problem, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls made through this AXE exchange equipment. These lock-up flaws also affected the billing software.
A story of despair and heartache.
Since the installation of Ericsson AXE equipment—in my case, in August 1991—thousands of Telstra customers across Australia had been wrongly billed, and these billing problems persisted in 2002. While other countries were removing or had already removed this equipment from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), Telstra continued to deny to the arbitrator that there were any issues with the equipment. These denials were lies told by Telstra to minimise its liability in the COT Cases (See Files 6 to 9, AXE Evidence File 1 to 9).
Was this the reason the Australian government permitted Ericsson to purchase Lane during the government-endorsed COT arbitration, while these arbitrations were still underway?
When COT arbitration documents demonstrated that the Ericsson AXE lock-up call loss rate was between 15% and 50%, as shown in File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f , AUSTEL launched an investigation into these AXE exchange faults. This investigation uncovered approximately 120,000 COT-type complaints nationwide. According to Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), Telstra's Group General Manager (who also served as Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer) suggested to AUSTEL's Chairman, Robin Davey, that he alter the finding of 120,000 COT-type complaints to just one hundred. When the public AUSTEL COT Cases report was released on April 13, 1994, it stated that AUSTEL had identified upwards of 50 or more COT-type complaints across Australia.
Was this the major problem Julian Assange wanted to share with the COT Cases? He claimed the corruption was significant. How much greater would the impact have been if this had been exposed during the COT arbitrations?
In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson, whose official arbitration records were numbered A56132, were investigated, including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignore this evidence against Ericsson?
Even more concerning, when my arbitration claim documents were returned to me after the arbitration concluded, NONE of my Ericsson technical data was included.
I believe the Australian government should answer the following: How long was Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in contact with Ericsson before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a connection between Lane's ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Laneby Ericsson during the COT arbitration process?
Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator, ACMA, denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation, which I lawfully sought during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued)?
A story of despair and heartache.
Telstra's 2019/2020 5G partnership with Ericsson is relevant to all Telstra subscribers in Australia. These subscribers should also be aware of my claims against Telstra and Ericsson, which I believe are substantiated on my website, absentjustice.com (see Bribery and Corruption - Part 2).
It is important to highlight the Ericsson bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice, which were discussed in Australian media reports on December 19, 2019.
One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
On August 27, 1993, Telstra's Corporate Secretary, Jim Holmes, wrote to me regarding the contents of a briefcase:
Although there is nothing in these documents to cause Telstra any concern in respect of your case, the documents remain Telstra's property. They, therefore, are confidential to us ... I would appreciate it if you could return any documents from the briefcase still in your possession as soon as possible.
He conveniently omitted any reference to vital evidence withheld from me during compensation negotiations.
Flogging a Dead Horse
By mid-1993, public interest in our battle was growing. Several articles had appeared in my local newspaper, and interstate gossip about the COT group was spreading. In June, Julian Cress from Channel Nine's 'Sixty Minutes' faxed me:
Just a note to let you know that I had some trouble getting through to you on the phone last Thursday. Pretty ironic, considering that I was trying to contact you to discuss your phone problems.
The problem occurred at about 11 am. On the 008 number I heard a recorded message advising me that 008 was not available from my phone and your direct line was constantly engaged.
Indeed, quite ironic.
A special feature in the Melbourne Age gave my new 'Country Get-A-Ways' program a positive review. The program marketed weekend holidays for over-40s singles in Victoria and South Australia, including an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco, and a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries in South Australia with a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier. I began to feel optimistic about the Camp's prospects.
However, my telephone saga was far from over. A fax arrived on October 26, 1993, from Cathine, a relative of the Age journalist who wrote the feature:
Alan, I have been trying to call you since midday. I have rung seven times to get an engaged signal. It is now 2.45 pm.
A story of despair and heartache:
Cathine had been calling my 1800 free-call line. I was in my office that day, and no calls came through between 12:30 and 2:45. According to Telstra's data, however, there was a six-minute call at 12:01 and an eight-minute call at 12:18. This was incredibly frustrating, and the problem seemed endless. But I was determined to expose their lies and incompetence.
I intensified my marketing efforts for the Camp and singles weekends, personally visiting social clubs in metropolitan Melbourne, Ballarat, and Warrnambool. I followed up with advertisements in local newspapers throughout Melbourne and in many major regional centers in Victoria and South Australia. I also attempted to place ads for the Get-Away holidays in the 1993 White Pages, but the entries were never published. I complained to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who tried to get Telstra to explain why my advertisements were omitted from 18 major phone directories.
The Deputy TIO wrote in his letter to me of 29/3/96, that he believed his office would simply "be flogging a dead horse trying to extract more" from Telstra on this matter. (The TIO, in fact, is an industry body supervised by a board whose members are drawn from the leading communications companies in the country: Vodafone, Optus, and, of course, Telstra.)
A story of despair and heartache:
Between May and October 1993, I received numerous letters in response to my request for feedback, many detailing difficulties contacting the Camp by phone. These came from schools, clubs, and singles clubs. On May 6, 1993, Mr. Don MacDowall, the executive officer of the Camping Association of Victoria, wrote that 10,000 copies of their Resource Guide, in which I had placed an advertisement, had been directly mailed to schools and distributed. Mr. MacDowall noted that other advertisers with similar ads had experienced increased inquiries and bookings following the distribution of these guides. He believed that the malfunction of my phone system had "effectively deprived of similar gains in business." He also mentioned receiving complaints from people unable to reach me by phone. In total, I received 36 letters from individuals, as well as over 40 other complaints, from people who had unsuccessfully tried to respond to my advertisements.
The Hadden & District Community House wrote in April 1993:
Several times I have dialled 055 267 267 number and received no response— dead line. I have also experienced similar problems on your 008 number.
Our youth worker, Gladys Crittenden, experienced similar problems while organising our last year's family camp, over a six month period during 1991/1992.
In August 1993, Rita Espinoza from the Chilean Social Club wrote:
I tried to ring you in order to confirm our stay at your camp site. I found it impossible to get through. I tried to ring later but encountered the same signal on 10 August around 7 – 8.30 pm. I believe you have a problem with the exchange and strongly advise you contact Telstra.
Do you remember the same problem happened in April and May of this year?
I apologise but I have made arrangements with another camp.
A testing situation
Later in 1993, Mrs. Cullen from Daylesford Community House informed me that she had unsuccessfully tried to phone on August 17, 1993, at 5:17, 5:18, 5:19, and 5:20 pm, each time encountering a dead line. She reported the fault to Telstra's Fault Centre in Bendigo on 1100, speaking to an operator named Tina. Tina also attempted to call my 1800 number but was unable to connect. Telstra's handwritten memo, dated August 17, 1993, records the times Mrs. Cullen tried to reach me and documents Tina's unsuccessful attempt to contact me.
A story of despair and heartache:
My itemised 1800 account showed charges for all four of Mrs Cullen's calls, even though she never reached me. I passed this information to John MacMahon at Austel. Soon after, Telstra arranged to test my line from various locations around Victoria and New South Wales. They notified Austel that approximately 100 test calls would be made to my 1800 free-call service on August 18, 1993.
That morning, I answered two calls from Telstra Commercial, one lasting six minutes and the other eleven, as they prepared for the day's test calls. Throughout the rest of the day, I answered another eight or nine calls from Telstra. Days later, my 1800 phone account arrived, listing charges for over 60 calls. I questioned Telstra about this, asking how I could be charged for so many unanswered calls and why I should pay for test calls. In retrospect, I should also have asked how more than 60 calls could have been answered in just 54 minutes, given that the statement showed calls coming through at a rate of up to 3 per minute.
On November 8, 1993, Telstra wrote to Austel's John MacMahon, stating that I had acknowledged answering a "large number of calls" and that all evidence suggested "someone at the premises answered the calls." Austel requested the name of the Telstra employee who supposedly made these successful calls to my business. I also requested this information, but Telstra never responded.
Then, on January 28, 1994, I received a letter from Telstra's solicitors mentioning "malicious call trace equipment" that Telstra had installed on my service—without my knowledge or consent—between May 26 and August 19, 1993. This was the first I had heard of it. They explained that this device caused a 90-second lock-up on my line after each answered call, preventing incoming calls for that duration.
This information further complicated matters regarding Mrs Cullen's four calls, for which I was charged within 28 seconds, and the 100 Telstra test calls. Even if I could answer calls that quickly, the malicious call tracing equipment, which was supposedly attached to my line at the time, would have imposed a 90-second delay between calls, making most of those calls impossible. Telstra management, unsurprisingly, offered no explanation.
What was really happening? It seemed to me that most of those 100 test calls were never made and, in fact, could not have been.
A story of despair and heartache.
Late in 1994, I received two FOI documents, K03433 and K03434, pertaining to these calls. These documents listed 44 calls, numbered 8 through 63, to the Cape Bridgewater exchange. Nine of these calls were marked with either a tick or an arrow. Despite repeated inquiries, Telstra never explained the meaning of these marks. I presume a technician made them to indicate the calls I received and answered. A note on K03434 stated:
Test calls unsuccessful. Did not hear STD pips on any calls to test no. The TCTDI would not work correctly on the CBWEX (Cape Bridgewater Exchange). I gave up tests.
Evidently, the technicians abandoned their testing procedure. A second series of tests, conducted in March 1994, fared little better. Telstra's fault data indicated only 50 of 100 test calls successfully connected. This information, however, was useless to me at the time, as it was withheld until September 1997. In 1994, I kept hearing the same refrain: "No fault found."
Only one official document acknowledged the inadequacy of Telstra's testing regime: the Austel Draft Report regarding the COT cases, dated 3 March 1994, which concluded:
Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of services difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991, it is apparent that the Camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years, which has impacted on its business operations, causing losses and erosion of the customer base.
In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.
This conclusion would have been a triumph for all COT members, including myself, had we known about it. However, this draft report, based on the evidence we provided to Austel, was withheld from COT members until 2007, long after it could have been of any use.
By law, this Draft Report should have been presented to the Minister for Communications; however, it was never tabled or made public. The following month, the "final," edited report was released, with significant alterations made at Telstra's insistence, including a general and sometimes specific watering down of findings and the deletion of this conclusion.
The details of this draft report and the ramifications of withholding it are discussed in depth later. For now, it is sufficient to say that access to its findings in March 1994 would likely have resolved my case quickly. Instead, like my fellow COT members, I was drawn into a legalistic process in which Telstra, with its teams of lawyers, held all the cards.
Chapter 4
Towards a Settlement Proposal
Telstra management, aware of its financial advantage, appeared deliberately trying to force COT members into costly court battles. This suspicion was later confirmed by internal documents that surfaced years later.
For example, an internal Telstra memo to senior executives, dated 21 April 1993, discussed raising the issue of court with the COT members, stating:
That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they'll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complainants remain vexatious...
This strategy seemed designed to wear down claimants and discourage others from pursuing complaints. Reinforcing this interpretation, a Telstra email dated 28 September 1993, acknowledged the 'duress that the COT members are suffering' and continued:
... we can't afford to let anything get away ... our best option is still to force these cases down a legal structured path.
Evidently, once Telstra management deemed claimants 'vexatious', they would threaten legal action. This contrasted sharply with the public image Telstra cultivated as a benevolent, government-owned corporation acting in the public interest – a message relentlessly promoted through radio and television advertisements. Behind this facade, Telstra management was prepared to turn legitimate claimants into 'lawyer fodder' if they persisted.
Despite these challenges, I remained focused on COT's primary goal: a Senate Inquiry into Telstra's unethical treatment of our small group of claimants. We finally achieved this in 1997. A letter of support for the Senate Inquiry, dated 10 November 1993, from an employee at D. Madden & Co of Warrnambool (Lawyers), provided further encouragement. (Mr David Hawker, the local Member of Parliament, had provided my name to Madden & Co in relation to a public meeting COT was organising.) The letter stated:
I am writing in reference to the proposed Senate Committee Investigation into Telstra.
As you are aware, I am employed as a telephonist with a large legal firm in Warrnambool. In the course of my employment, and particularly during the months of July and August this year, numerous service faults have been brought to my attention. These problems include:
1. Calls being disconnected during conversation.
2. Recorded messages informing Melbourne clients and callers that the number has been disconnected when the correct number was dialled.
3. An engaged signal received by callers despite a number of lines being available.
4. Complaints from callers that the line has rung out when no ringing tone has been received at the number dialled.
A story of despair and heartache.
We contacted Telstra repeatedly to have these faults rectified. However, Telstra technicians consistently failed to identify the problems and resolve our complaints.
On November 12, 1993, I faxed a copy of this letter to Telstra's solicitors, along with additional information regarding incorrect charges. When I wrote to the Collins Street solicitors, I noted:
"I experienced considerable difficulty faxing you the information you received this morning, with pages failing to transmit completely. Please note the page errors I have enclosed."
By this point, Austel was concerned about Telstra's handling of our complaints, particularly their reliance on outside solicitors. In October 1993, Austel's chairman, Robin Davey, informed Ian Campbell of Telstra's Commercial division that Austel disapproved of using outside solicitors for future COT matters. However, this suggestion was ignored, and Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through their solicitors until January 28, 1994. Later, these same solicitors acted as Telstra's defense counsel during my arbitration.
In late 1993, the COT group actively lobbied on two fronts. First, we advocated for settlements in the form of a Commercial Assessment, a non-legalistic process designed to address the financial losses our businesses had incurred. The Labor government had endorsed this approach as the most appropriate path to justice in our cases.
Simultaneously, a Senate Inquiry seemed likely. Senators Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, and Ron Boswell were particularly supportive of this. We informed Senator Alston's office that we had received reports from numerous other dissatisfied Telstra customers across Australia. These reports indicated that problems within the Telstra network were more widespread than Telstra was willing to admit to the government. We shared all of this information with Austel and Senator Alston.
The BCI report, November 1993
As an initial step toward a commercial settlement, Austel arranged for Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), a technical telecommunications specialist from Ottawa, Canada, to review our claims. BCI conducted tests on phones connected to the businesses of various COT members. In my case, these tests were reportedly conducted between November 4 and 9, 1993, a period marked by particularly severe faults on my line.
A story of despair and heartache:
As the record shows (see below), the Canadian Government had long stood as a vigilant guardian of its nation’s reputation within the global telecommunications arena—a steady, dependable policeman protecting the integrity of Canada’s good name. It should have remained a shining light. It could have remained a shining light. Yet the moment Bell Canada International stepped into the COT Cases testing, that light dimmed.
Had BCI upheld the honesty Canada was known for, they might have been celebrated. Instead, once the truth of their conduct seeped through, the stain spread quickly. Give a dog a bad name, and soon the entire kennel is condemned. That is precisely what happened: the moment BCI helped bury the appalling state of the Australian Telstra network, the rot clung not only to them but to the very institutions that had trusted them.
What should have been a testament to Canadian integrity became a quiet tragedy—one in which a respected name chose concealment over candour and, in doing so, dragged its own legacy into the shadows.
BCI's report concluded that Telstra's network exceeded global performance standards and possessed "all the tools, skills, and procedures it needs to detect and locate troubles reported by COT customers." Based on over 15,950 test calls using artificial call-generating and answering equipment, BCI deemed the faults found during their Cape Bridgewater testing insignificant, unlikely to cause the problems reported by COT customers. In short, the lines into the Cape Bridgewater exchange were supposedly up to world standards.
However, BCI technicians, despite travelling across the globe to
assess the Cape Bridgewater issues, failed to test the line running to my business, located 18.5 kilometres from the Portland exchange (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report).
In fact, their equipment proved incompatible with the Cape Bridgewater exchange, preventing them from testing the lines into it. Instead, they tested lines into a different, unrelated exchange. Consequently, any conclusions drawn had to be fabricated.
Unaware of this at the time, I witnessed Telstra being questioned about the validity of BCI's testing during Senate Estimates in October 1997. Telstra affirmed the testing's validity, providing supporting documentation that I have since demonstrated to be fabricated, particularly given BCI's equipment's incompatibility with the exchange. Was Telstra held accountable for this deception? No.
Austel also rejected the BCI report on several grounds. Cliff Matherson of Austel outlined these deficiencies in a three-page letter to Telstra's Commercial General Manager, concluding:
... the BCI report should not be made available to the Assessor(s) nominated for the COT cases without a copy of this letter being attached to i
Telstra refused to comply, as evidenced by their letter to Austel's Robin Davey:
T********he conclusion to be reasonably made from these events is that Austel publicly judges the BCI report 'Fails to live up to the expectations raised by the terms of reference.'
Reasonable inferences might be drawn about deficiencies in the competence, professional standing and integrity of BCI, and the competence and integrity of Telstra and myself in the conduct of the study and representation of the findings ...
Considering the above circumstances, Telstra cannot agree to attach a copy of Austel's letter of 9 December to the BCI report if the latter is made available to the assessors nominated for the COT cases.
In my arbitration, Telstra used the flawed BCI report to defend itself against my claims, but did not provide my arbitrator with a copy of Cliff Matherson's letter. Despite my bringing this to their attention, neither the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communication, nor the TIO addressed the ethical issues in this situation.
The nature of the relationship between BCI and Telstra remains unknown to me. However, letters exchanged between them in late 1994 acknowledged the problematic nature of the BCI tests, as reported in their Cape Bridgewater report of 10 November 1993. (I only gained access to these letters several years later.)
In a letter to Mr Kealey of Bell Canada, Telstra referred to tests conducted from the Richmond digital exchange to the Portland exchange test line. Section 15.23 of the BCI report deemed these tests "impracticable," at least in part because Telstra was simultaneously conducting "NEAT" testing to the same test line in Cape Bridgewater. The BCI test report indicates that almost all of their testing occurred between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM from October 28th to November 8th.
Under these circumstances, neither set of tests could have yielded accurate results. As Telstra explained in a letter to Austel, each NEAT test takes up to 100 seconds, during which no other test can be performed. Furthermore, the BCI tests required a 15-second interval between calls to reset the system and prevent false engaged signals. A review of both Telstra and BCI test reports reveals that the listed calls could not have been completed within the given timeframe. The BCI report alone documents 1675 + 328 calls made to the Cape Bridgewater exchange test number from two Melbourne locations during this period. This suggests that the BCI testing did not occur as reported. Brian Hodge, a former senior Telstra technician of nearly 30 years who became a freelance telecommunications consultant, confirmed these conclusions in a 2007 technical report commissioned by COT, finding that the Bell Canada tests could not have been performed as stated for several technical reasons.
Whether the BCI report was deliberately falsified or whether its inaccuracies stemmed from confusion or incompetence is unclear. It is evident, however, that a climate of confusion permeated both BCI's and Telstra's reporting, extending even to Austel, as evidenced by the following excerpt from its COT Cases report:
A story of despair and heartacheTelstra's more recent assessment of the Cape Bridgewater RCM fault's impact on Mr. Smith's service contradicts both the contemporaneous report cited in paragraph 7.31 and Telstra's own GAPS record for September 1992. The GAPS record indicates a significantly higher complaint rate of "call drop out" and "no ring received" among customers reliant on the faulty plant compared to those connected to the rest of the Cape Bridgewater RCM.
In June 1994, I challenged Telstra to substantiate the accuracy of the BCI report, but received no response.
Two weeks after my arbitration concluded and the appeal period expired, I obtained FOI documents confirming my suspicions regarding the BCI testing. A letter from Telstra to Bell Canada, dated September 6, 1994, stated:
Specifically, the start and finish times for the test run from Richmond digital exchange (RCMX), test line 03 428 8974, to Portland exchange, Cape Bridgewater RCM (CBWR) number range, test line 055 267 211 (detailed in section 15.23 of the report) are impracticable. The number of calls made during the test run could not have been completed within the time span shown, and the test run would have clashed with other test runs performed within those times.
I believe this statement stemmed from my correspondence on the matter. An internal Telstra email (which I accessed years later), titled "Smith Query on BCI Tests," corroborates this:
Mr Smith is correct in the suggestion implied in his query that the test results recorded in the 'Addendum – Additional Tests' part of the BCI report to Telecom, 1 November 1993, are impracticable.
I contacted BCI in Canada three times regarding the errors in their test report, but received no reply.
Telstra was aware from the outset of the BCI report's unreliability, yet presented it to the Senate in 1993 to support their claim that the network into the Cape Bridgewater exchange met world standards. Telstra continued to mislead the Senate about the network's true condition for years (see Senate Hansard, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia). Furthermore, Austel, which had initially identified the BCI report's flaws, failed to publicly challenge Telstra's misuse of the report during the arbitrations.
Given BCI's reputation as a respected international communications company, an ordinary reader of the BCI report would likely conclude that Telstra's phone network was up to standard. The report indicated that thousands of test calls were made to the exchange, resulting in a 99.5% positive result for my phone line. This would lead a reader to believe that my claims were unfounded, even irrational.
A story of despair and heartache:
I have demonstrated that the alleged "thousands" of calls were never made and could not have been made. Telstra knowingly submitted a flawed document to support their defense, an act that constitutes perjury in a legal proceeding. Why, then, has Telstra not been held accountable?
For years, I have petitioned the Communications Minister and the TIO to withdraw the BCI report from Telstra's defence, but my pleas have been ignored. The TIO and various government ministers, despite being alerted to the report's serious flaws, have failed in their Duty of Care to ensure its removal from the public domain.
The Canadian government minister's office, in a letter dated 7 July 1995, responded to my concerns regarding the BCI report, stating:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
Furthermore, Exhibit 8, a letter from BCI to Telstra's Steve Black dated 11 August 1995, and Exhibit 36, a letter from BCI to Telstra's John Armstrong, are not on official BCI letterhead, unlike Exhibits 1 to 7, which are (see BCI Telstra's M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46). Telstra submitted both Exhibits 8 and 36 to the Senate Committee in October 1997, under oath, as authentic evidence supporting the validity of the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests. However, evidence presented on absentjustice.com and in Telstra's Falsified BCI Report confirms that this is not the case.
Telstra has relied on government ministers to ignore this fraud, and for over two decades, they have done so.
Simone Semmens of Telstra stated on Nationwide TV (see above) that the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) test conducted at the COT Cases telephone exchanges servicing their business proved there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network. This statement contradicts the evidence on my website, absentjustice.com, and the public statement made by Frank Blount, Telstra's CEO, during my arbitration. In his 2000 co-authored manuscript
Had Dr Hughes granted DMR & Lane the additional weeks requested in their April 30, 1995, report to investigate the ongoing 1800 faults (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues), they would have discovered what Frank Blount did. While Telstra misleading the arbitrator about these 1800 faults is concerning, misleading their 1800 customers is even more so.
Evidence confirming this can be found at Evidence-C A V Part 1, 2 and 3-Chapter 4 - Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. Frank Blount, Telstra's CEO, co-published a 2000 manuscript entitled "Managing in Australia." On pages 132 and 133, the author/editor discusses these 1800 network faults, stating:
-
"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)
Managing Australia by Frank Blount can still be purchased online: https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia ›
It is troubling that Telstra allowed Simone Semmens to state on national television that the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) test proved there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network during the four years of the COT arbitrations. It is even more egregious, given that other legal processes were underway regarding billing issues. This is a significant deception, especially after Senator Schacht advised Telstra's Mr Benjamin of his concerns about Simone Semmens's statement implying Telstra's network was of world-standard, when both Telstra and BCI knew otherwise.
Telstra's Mr. Benjamin's statement to Senator Schacht — "...I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report," — is also misleading. I had already provided Mr Benjamin (see AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233- AS-CAV 196, AS-CAV 188, AS-CAV 189, and AS-CAV 190-A) with proof that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed.
Senator Schacht further stated that major litigation running into hundreds of millions of dollars between various service providers involved complaints about the billing system. He questioned whether this indicated that Semmens might have been partly wrong.
Regardless, several of those business owners who made those complaints lost their court actions and their businesses.
FIVE YEARS ON
Telstra is in contempt of the Senate
On March 23, 1999, almost five years after most of the arbitrations had concluded, the Australian Financial Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing. The hearing addressed why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents to fully support their claims, describing it as
Senator Eggleston stated that a Senate working party's report on the COT dispute was highly critical of Telstra's conduct. The report highlighted the difficulties COT members faced in obtaining necessary documents from Telstra, concluding that Telstra deliberately withheld crucial network documents, provided them too late, or both. This forced COT members to proceed with arbitration without essential information. "They have defied the Senate working party," Senator Eggleston said. "Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves."
It is doubtful that many countries governed by the rule of law, as Australia purports to be, would allow small-business operators to be forced into a government-endorsed arbitration while the defence (the government-owned corporation) concealed documents needed to support their claims. Three previously withheld documents confirm Telstra knew the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada Internationals Inc (BCI) tests could not have occurred as described in the official BCI report, which Telstra used as part of its arbitration defence.
COT spokesperson Mr Schorer raised the issue of these deficient Cape Bridgewater BCI tests with Senators Ron Boswell and Chris Schacht on my behalf. Pages 108-9 of the Senate Hansard (refer to Scrooge - exhibit 35) show that Telstra deflected the issue of the impracticable tests by claiming that my assertion that the report was fabricated was incorrect, stating that the only problem with the report was an incorrect date for one of the tests. The Senate then requested Telstra provide evidence of this error.
The 12 January 1998 letter to Sue Laver, which included the false BCI information, should be sufficient evidence to convince the Australian Government that Telstra can no longer deny knowledge of the falsified Cape Bridgewater BCI tests. On 14 April 1998, Telstra and the Senate estimates committee chair were again notified that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were impracticable. When will Telstra admit to its board that my claims are correct, that using the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests as arbitration defense documents was unlawful, and that providing the Senate with this known false information when answering questions on notice was grossly unethical?
In a letter, pages 23-8, Graham used the Cape Bridgewater statistics to provide clear evidence to Sue Laver and the chair of the Senate legislation committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice in September and October 1997 was false (see Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One and exhibit 62-Part-Two). Telstra was in contempt of the Senate. To date, no one within Telstra has been held accountable for providing false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters I now raise on absentjustice.com in 2021.
A story of despair and heartache:
The falsified Bell Canada International (BCI) report provides compelling evidence that Telstra's arbitration lawyers presented false information to their arbitration witness, a clinical psychologist, during my government-endorsed arbitration. This same falsified BCI information was later submitted to the Senate on notice, two years after the arbitration.
Ironically, two Telstra technicians, in separate witness statements dated December 8 and 12, 1994, described the testing equipment used for overall maintenance. They stated that the nearest telephone exchange capable of supporting the TEKELEC CCS7 equipment required for BCI's alleged Portland and Cape Bridgewater tests was located in Warrnambool, 110 kilometres away. BCI claimed these tests were conducted via the Ericsson AXE exchanges trunked through the TEKELEC CCS7 equipment in Portland and Cape Bridgewater.
As demonstrated throughout absentjustice.com, including in the Brief Ericsson Introduction⟶, Ericsson telephone equipment demonstrably affected my telephone service (and therefore my business) in Cape Bridgewater. Despite this, Telstra was willing to lie and cheat during the arbitration defence of my claim, as well as during a Senate Estimates investigation into my Ericsson AXE BCI claims.
On January 12, 1998, during Senate Estimates Committee investigations into the Customer Owned Telecommunications (COT) Freedom of Information (FOI) issues, Graham Schorer provided Sue Laver (Telstra's corporate secretary at the time and in 2021) with documents. On page 12 of his letter, Schorer stated:
"Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra's Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT's written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International The report is fabricated or falsified."
Had Sue Laver advised the Senate of the merit of my complaints regarding the flawed BCI testing, the issues raised on absentjustice.com could have been resolved two decades ago.
Please review Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and assess its authenticity, which Telstra used as a defence document during arbitration.
Supporting evidence for the report is available in BCI Telstra's M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46.
On October 23, 1997, Senator Schacht's office, then Shadow Minister for Communications, faxed Senator Ron Boswell the proposed terms of reference for the Senate working party's investigation into the COT arbitration FOI issues. Sue Laver, Telstra's Corporate Secretary in 2001, was heavily involved in these Senate hearings on Telstra's behalf. The document outlines the two lists of unresolved COT cases with FOI issues slated for investigation. My name appears on the Schedule B list (see Arbitrator File No 67). Telstra's continued refusal to provide the promised discovery documents to these 16 COT claimants, initially requested four years prior, constituted a breach of the rule of law. Despite this, these 16 claimants received no assistance from the police, arbitrator, or government bureaucrats and were denied access to their documents, as documented on absentjustice.com.
A story of despair and heartache.
Exhibit 20-A, a letter dated 9 December 1993 from Cliff Mathieson of AUSTEL to Telstra's Manager of Business Commercial, states on page 3:
"...In summary, having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that the BCI report should not be made available to the assessor(s) nominated for the COT Cases without a copy of this letter being attached to it."
Had this letter, and the many others in BCI Telstra's M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46, been provided to the Senate as part of Telstra's response to questions concerning my claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were impracticable, the Senate might have demanded more information. This BCI 9 December 1993 letter is also discussed in the introduction toMy story-warts and all:
Following my arbitration, I alerted Mr. Tuckwell that Telstra had used these known corrupt Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) Cape Bridgewater tests to support their arbitration defence against my claims, without supplying AUSTEL's letter to the arbitrator (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report).
"The tests to which you refer were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be referred to those who carried them out or claim to have carried them out." File 186 -AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
If Neil Tuckwell, acting on behalf of the government communications regulator, had demanded answers in 1995 as to why Telstra used known falsified BCI tests, this falsification of arbitration defence documents could have been addressed in 1995, rather than being actively covered up as of 2022.
I reiterate that by clicking on the following link, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, you can assess the authenticity of the BCI report and/or my account, which demonstrates the Cape Bridgewater test was impracticable.
The evidence supporting my report (46 exhibits) is available at BCI Telstra's M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46.
COT is partly vindicated by audit
Despite its shortcomings, Austel pressured Telstra to commission an audit of Telstra's fault-handling procedures. Telstra engaged Coopers & Lybrand, an international audit firm, to report on its handling of complaints, including those raised by COT members. Coopers & Lybrand's report expressed serious concerns regarding the evidence we presented of Telstra's unethical management of our complaints.
Telstra did not receive the Coopers & Lybrand report well. The Group Managing Director of Telstra wrote to the Commercial Manager, as detailed in Chapter 6 Bad Bureaucrats:
... it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, that their future in relation to Telstra may be irreparably damaged****.
A story of despair and heartache
These were strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of Telstra, which at the time held a monopoly over the Australian telecommunications industry. Austel presented the Coopers & Lybrand report to the Senate, albeit with significant alterations from the draft version. Despite these changes, Coopers & Lybrand's assessment of the COT Cases remained highly critical.
The following points are taken directly from the Coopers & Lybrand report:
2.20 Some customers were put under a degree of pressure to agree to sign settlements which, in our view, goes beyond normal accepted fair commercial practices.
2.22 Telstra placed an unreasonable burden on difficult network fault cases to provide evidence to substantiate claims where all telephone fault information that could reasonably determine loss should have been held by Telstra.
(2) Fault handling procedures were deficient in terms of escalation criteria and procedures, and there is evidence that in some cases at least, this delayed resolution of these cases.
3.5 We could find no evidence that faults discovered by Telstra staff which could affect customers were communicated to the staff at business service centres who have responsibility for responding to customers' fault reports.
We, the COT four, finally felt vindicated; we were no longer alone in asserting that Telstra had a case to answer.
A Fast Track (Commercial Assessment) Settlement Process
In summary, Senators Alston and Boswell had taken up the COT cases with Telstra and Austel in August 1993, warning that a full Senate Inquiry would be launched if the issues were not swiftly resolved. Telstra agreed to cooperate, and Austel was authorised to conduct an official investigation into our claims.
As a result of their investigation, Austel concluded that problems existed within the Telstra network and that the COT four had acted diligently in bringing these issues to the public's attention. It seemed that four Australian citizens, without any financial backing, had won a significant victory. It felt like a modern-day David-and-Goliath story.
Given our precarious financial situation, Austel's chairman, Robin Davey, recommended that Telstra appoint a commercial loss assessor to evaluate our claims. These claims had already been generally validated in Austel's report, The COT Cases: Austel's Findings and Recommendations, April 1994 (public report). All that remained was for an assessor to determine appropriate settlements based on a detailed quantification of our losses.
This 'Fast Track Settlement Process' was to be conducted strictly on non-legal lines. This meant we would not be burdened with providing exhaustive proof to support our assumptions, and we would be given the benefit of the doubt when quantifying our losses. Austel specifically deemed this process appropriate for our cases. Telstra was to grant us prompt and speedy access to any discovery documents needed to complete our claims.
Telstra agreed to rectify any phone faults before the assessor made a decision regarding payouts. After all, a commercial settlement would be of little value if the phone faults persisted. At last, we felt we were making progress. Robin Davey also assured us that costs incurred in preparing our claims would be considered as part of our losses, provided our claims were validated. However, he refused to confirm this assurance in writing, explaining that it could set an undesirable precedent.
Telstra was clearly concerned about setting precedents. On 18 November 1993, Telstra's Corporate Secretary wrote to Mr Davey, stating:
... 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 Austel recommendations flowing from this and other reviews.
Effectively, the four of us COT members were receiving special treatment by undergoing a commercial assessment instead of the standard arbitration process. Austel was, by this time, managing around a dozen other COT cases. We four were seemingly being 'rewarded' for our protracted suffering and business losses. However, this rush also put us under pressure: we would lose the option of a commercial assessment if we did not sign by 23 November, just five days away. Our reliance on Telstra's goodwill for the necessary supporting documents compounded the problem, as their past behaviour inspired no confidence. The lack of written assurance regarding compensation for preparatory and other expenses also deeply concerned us.
On 22 November, we sought advice from Senator Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications. His secretary, Fiona, sent him an internal memo titled 'Fast Track Proposal', outlining our concerns:
Garms and Schorer want losses in Clause 2(c) to include its definition, 'consequential loss arising from faults or problems' although Davey verbally claims that consequential losses is implied in the word 'losses' of which he has given a verbal guarantee he will not commit this guarantee to writing.
COT members are sceptical of Davey's guarantee given that he will not commit it to writing. On top of this, COT alleges that Telstra, in the past, has not honoured its verbal guarantees and so does not completely trust Davey.The Committee of Tendering (COT) seeks your advice on whether it should demand that clause 2(c) include a broader definition of losses to encompass consequential losses.
COT requires your advice by tomorrow.
Senator Alston did not respond.
The following day, Graham, Ann, Maureen, and I signed the FTSP, trusting Robin Davey's verbal assurances that consequential losses would be included and that Telstra would honor their agreement to provide the necessary documents. I included a letter with the agreement, clearly stating my expectations:
By signing and returning this proposal, I am relying on the assurances of Robin Davey, Chairman of Austel, and John MacMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs, Austel, that this is a fair document. I was disappointed that Mr. Davey was unwilling to put his assurances in writing, but I am prepared to accept his word.
I would not sign this agreement if I thought it would prevent me from continuing my efforts to obtain satisfactory service for my business. It is clearly understood that nothing in this agreement prevents me from continuing to seek a satisfactory telephone service.
Despite nagging doubts, we felt a great sense of relief after sending the agreement off. The pressure on all four of us had been immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our ongoing canvassing of the Senate. Furthermore, I never stopped advocating for change in rural telephone services, at least in Victoria.
In December 1993, David Hawker MP, my local federal member, wrote to congratulate me on my 'persistence in bringing about improvements to Telecom's country services' and to regret 'that it was at such a high personal cost.'
This was very affirming, as was a letter from the Hon. David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications in the Labor Government, which stated, in part:
The Government is most concerned about allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I acknowledge that, in a number of cases, including Mr. Smith's, there has been great personal and financial distress. This is of great concern to me, and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.
Subsequently, a number of small businesses in rural Australia began writing to me about their experiences with poor service from Telstra, detailing problems with their phones and various billing issues. On several occasions, I contacted Telstra management myself, formally requesting that these matters be resolved. I believe this was a responsible reaction to the letters I was receiving.
After I alleged that rural small-business owners and residents faced inequities in telephone services compared to their urban counterparts, rural subscribers wrote to TV stations and newspapers in support of my claims. For example, David M. Thomson & Associates, Insurance Loss Adjusters in Ballarat, wrote to the producer of Channel 7's 'Real Life', a current affairs program:
I have watched with interest the shorts leading up to tonight's program as I have similar problems to the man at Cape Bridgewater.
Their letter detailed a story of frustration:
Our office is located in Ballarat, and due to Telstra's structure, most of our local calls incur STD fees.
On many occasions, we have been unable to connect to numbers we have dialled, often receiving the message, "This number is not connected," or similar messages, which we know to be untrue.
Clients report frequently encountering an engaged signal when calling us, yet our office records indicate that at least one of our lines was free at the time.
We recently received our latest Telstra bill, which is about 25–30% higher than the last one. This is surprising because our workload during the billing period decreased by about 25%, and we have one less staff member than in the previous period.
Another example is a letter to the Editor of Melbourne's Herald-Sun, which stated:
I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday's Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.
I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.
I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions, I have rung from both this business number, 053 424 675, and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.
I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra, who got the same noise when testing.
(Due to multiple reports concerning this 'piercing noise', Ray Morris from Telstra's Country Division arranged to switch my service to another system. Unfortunately, this did not resolve the issue.)
TV stations reported a surge in calls whenever they broadcast stories about phone faults, with people from across the country sharing their complaints about Telstra's service. This support from the media and the public significantly boosted our morale and energised our group's efforts to have these issues addressed in the Senate.
AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, investigated my ongoing telephone problems and compiled adverse findings (points 10-212). According to government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495-551), these findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. This gave Telstra the opportunity to conceal the AUSTEL documents before my arbitration began. I did not receive a copy of these findings until November 23, 2007, 12 years after my arbitration concluded.
Point 115 –
"Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilizing his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being "Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93. The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith's complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years."
Point 130 –
"On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by "increased customer traffic through the exchange." On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith's persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area".
Point 153 –
"A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes "down" the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes "down" an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable."
Spoliation of evidence – Wikipedia
By providing Telstra with a copy of AUSTEL's adverse findings in March 1994, AUSTEL assisted Telstra not only during my 1994/95 arbitration defence but also in 2006. In 2006, the government could assess my claims only on a sanitised report prepared by AUSTEL, rather than on AUSTEL's original adverse findings.
Muzzling the media
Despite receiving considerable media coverage, it appeared Telstra may have been pressuring journalists to suppress certain stories.
A Telstra internal memo from July, titled 'COT Cases Latest', stated:
I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carried an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they will end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly, that can be a message to give face to face to customers to hold in reserve if the complainants remain vexatious.
This raises the question: How many Telstra customers, like the COT Cases, found themselves entangled in legal battles after entering arbitration or mediation, ultimately leading to broken homes and destroyed businesses?
A television news program was also seemingly targeted. Another internal memo stated:
Good news re Channel —— News. Haven't checked all outlets but as it didn't run on the main bulletin last night, we can be pretty certain that the story died the death. I wish I could figure which phrase it was that convinced —— not to proceed. Might have been one of (name deleted) pearls.
The deleted name was Telstra's Corporate Secretary at the time. The identity of the TV station and reporter has been omitted here. One can only speculate what convinced a respected journalist to abandon the story.
It later came to light that the same area general manager who deliberately misled me during the 1992-93 settlement process was appointed as one of two Telstra staff members to 'deal with the media/politicians' regarding COT issues. This raised concerns that she would misinform the media, as she had me.
Another Telstra memo from July 1993, titled 'Cot Wrap-Up', stated:
I think it should be acknowledged these customers are not going to become delighted. We are dealing with the long-term aggrieved and they will not lie down.
Further, I propose that we consider immediately targeting key reporters in the major papers and turn them on to some sexy 'Look at superbly built and maintained network' stories.
I advise that Clinton be targeted for some decent Telstra exclusive stories to get his mind out of the gutter. Prologue Evidence File No 24 to 39
This leaves the "long-term aggrieved" to wonder who "Clinton" was and why his mind was perceived to be in the gutter.
Finally, a document received long after my arbitration, Telstra FOI folio 101072 to 10123, titled "In-Service Test Performance for The Telecom Australia Public Switched Telephone Service (Telecom Confidential)," reveals:
"The performances tabulated below have been formulated to aid dispute investigation and resolution. The information contained herein is for internal Telstra Corporation use only and must not be released to any third party, particularly AUSTEL."****(refer 101072 Arbitrator File No 63)
Had AUSTEL known this document contained the explicit instruction, "must not be released to any third party, particularly AUSTEL," perhaps its public servants would not have perjured themselves defending Telstra's arbitration claims. These claims asserted that all Service Verification Testing at my business on 29 September 1994 met AUSTEL's specifications. I believe this perjury occurred not only in their 2 February 1995 letter but also in the third COT cases quarterly report to the communications minister, the Hon Michael Lee MP. As confirmed in Main Evidence File No/2 and File No 3, Telstra did not carry out its arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) to AUSTEL's mandatory specifications at my premises.
Throughout this narrative, and on my website, I address the government communications regulator's pre-arbitration warning to Telstra. The regulator expressed serious concerns about a specific legal firm's continued involvement in the COT settlement/arbitration process. I also question why the arbitration agreement faxed to the TIO's office on 10 January 1994 bore the abbreviated name of this same firm, despite assurances from the government that it would not have a continuing role.
This FOI document (refer to Arbitrator File No/80), dated September 1993, was released by Telstra under FOI, but was too late for use in my arbitration claim. Had it been available earlier, it might have persuaded the arbitrator to grant me more time to access Telstra's documents. The document, released post-arbitration, appears to relate to my ongoing telephone problems:
"All technical reports that relate to the customer's service are to be headed "Legal Professional Privilege", addressed to the Corporate Solicitor and forwarded through the dispute manager."
This Legal Professional Privilege designation seems connected to threats from Telstra, stating that they would only investigate my phone complaints if registered in writing with these same lawyers.
Chapter 5
TIO Evidence File No 3-A contains an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993. Sent by Chris Vonwiller to Telstra's corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell, and other key figures within the then government-owned corporation, the email concerns Warwick Smith and the COT cases and is marked CONFIDENTIAL:
"Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell's call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
"Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require endorsement in the Party Room and approval by the Shadow Cabinet.
The intermediary would raise the matter with Boswell, suggesting Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO saw no merit in a Senate Inquiry.
He undertook to keep me informed and confirmed his view that Senator Alston would not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report was tabled.
Please keep this information confidential.
A Story of Despair and Heartache:
Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he was providing Telstra, the soon-to-be defendant in that process, with privileged government party room information about the COT cases. The TIO not only breached his duty of care to the COT claimants but also appears to have compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.
It is highly likely that the confidential advice the TIO gave to Telstra's senior executive—that Senator Ron Boswell's National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry—later prompted Telstra to transform the FTSP's non-legalistic commercial assessment process into their preferred legalistic arbitration procedure. They now had privileged government information indicating that there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.
Did this secret government party-room information, passed on to Telstra by the administrator of our arbitrations, have anything to do with the child sexual abuse and the cover-up of paedophile activities by a former Senator who had been dealing with the four COT Cases? The fact that Warwick Smith, the soon-to-be administrator of the COT settlement/arbitrations, provided confidential government in-house information to the defendants (Telstra) was a very serious matter.
On 17 January 1994, Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), distributed a media release announcing that Dr. Gordon Hughes would be the assessor for the four COT Fast Track Settlements processes. The TIO did not mention that, as I had feared, Telstra was not abiding by their agreement and was not supplying us with the discovery documents critical for establishing our cases. The TIO also failed to inform the Australian public in this media release that he had agreed to secretly assist Telstra by providing them with information about the COT Cases issues being discussed in the Coalition government Party Room.
Telstra and the TIO were treating us with sheer contempt, in full view of the TIO and the assessor. We were beginning to believe that no single person, and no organisation, anywhere in Australia, had the courage to instigate a judicial inquiry into the way Telstra steamrolled their way over legal process.
Despite Austel's chairman, Robin Davey, expressing his frustration to Telstra regarding their failure to provide the necessary documents, his efforts proved fruitless. In February 1994, Senator Ron Boswell questioned Telstra in the Senate, but, as before, no practical outcome was achieved. (Over the following years, various Senators repeatedly raised questions in the Senate about the failure to supply FOI documents. While their persistence eventually benefited some COT members, I was not among them.)
Compounding the existing difficulties, a new problem emerged for the COT Four. The assessor, initially engaged to conduct a commercial assessment, was somehow persuaded (presumably by Telstra) to abandon that process in favour of an arbitration procedure mirroring Telstra's own. This shift guaranteed a protracted and legalistic process, far from the promised "fast track." Telstra was well aware that none of us possessed the financial resources to challenge their powerful legal team in such a setting. This was the antithesis of what we, the COT members, had wanted. We had agreed to a commercial assessment, and that was what we expected.
Graham Schorer, the COT spokesperson, contacted the TIO to explain the COT Four's rejection of the arbitration process. However, our concerns were dismissed. The TIO stated that he had dedicated too much time to his role as administrator of our FTSP, resulting in significant expenses for his office (expenses Telstra was slow to reimburse). He further stated that his office had no intention of incurring further expenses on our behalf. He informed Graham that if we refused to abandon our commercial agreement with Telstra, Telstra would exert every effort to force us into a position where we would have to take them to court to resolve our commercial losses.
Furthermore, the TIO threatened to resign as administrator if we pursued legal action to compel Telstra to honour the original commercial assessment agreement. He insisted that his resignation would effectively terminate the FTSP, leaving us with no option but to pursue individual legal action to resolve our claims.
The following excerpt from a Telstra internal memo, dated 30 November 1993 (FOI document folio D01248), reveals the extent of Telstra's involvement. The memo, written by Ted Benjamin, Telstra's Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member, to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive Office, is titled "TIO AND COT." It was written seven days after Alan signed the TIO-administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this memo, Mr Benjamin states:
"At today's Council Meeting the TIO reported on his involvement with the COT settlement processes. It was agreed that any financial contributions made by Telecom to the Cot arbitration process was not a matter for Council but was a private matter between Telecom, AUSTEL, and the TIO.
I hope you agree with this."
This demonstrates that Telstra was at least partially, if not fully, funding the arbitration process.
For true transparency, the claimants should have received detailed information about the funds allocated during the four COT arbitrations, specifically the amounts paid to the arbitrator, the Arbitrator's Resource Unit, the TIO, and the TIO's special counsel for their professional advice.
However, it remains unclear how the arbitrator billed Telstra for professional fees, or how the TIO billed Telstra for its own fees, as well as those of the TIO-appointed Resource Unit and special counsel. This raises critical questions:
-
Were the arbitrator and Resource Unit compensated on a monthly basis?
Did the Resource Unit receive additional bonuses for their undisclosed appointment as the second arbitrator, responsible for determining which arbitration documents the primary arbitrator could access (see Telstra's letter to Warwick Smith, dated 11 July 1994)?
Without full disclosure of how these payments were distributed by the defence to the involved parties in the initial four arbitrations, the TIO and AUSTEL (now ACMA) cannot credibly maintain that the COT arbitrations were administered independently.
In essence, during these four arbitrations, the defence was permitted to pay the arbitrator and other process participants. This arrangement is akin to a defendant in a criminal case paying the judge, representing a clear and deeply concerning conflict of interest.
Despite these concerns, Senator Richard Alston discussed the "Problem 1" document during a Senate Estimates hearing on 25 February 1994. Furthermore, another previously unseen document, dated 24 July 1992 and provided to Senator Alston in August 1993, includes my phone number and references my complaint about the "service disconnected" message callers received. A subsequent document, dated 27 July 1992, details issues experienced by potential clients attempting to contact me from Station Pier in Melbourne (see Arbitrator File No 60).
Some of these handwritten records date back to October 1991 and include numerous fault complaints that I did not personally record. Telstra has never explained who authorized the withholding of the complainants' identities from me. Had I known who was unable to reach me, I could have provided them with an alternate contact number. Could the withholding of these names and the unavailability of my historical fault documents be linked to the Jim Holmes issues referenced in documents A01554, A06507, and A06508 (TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C)?
The TIO betrayed us.
Our pleas to the TIO to continue with the original FTSP agreement were ignored. AUSTEL offered no assistance, leaving us with no alternative but to prepare for an arbitration process by April 1994. Our initial step was to familiarise ourselves with the rules of arbitration, unaware that Telstra's lawyers had drafted them.
A story of despair and heartache:
We were repeatedly assured, as were Austel and the Senate, that the arbitration agreement rules had been drafted specifically for this purpose, independently of Telstra, by the President of the Institute of Arbitrators of Australia. Despite the TIO's office apparently possessing a copy of these rules, our requests for one were denied, the TIO claiming it was 'irrelevant to our cause.' We asked the TIO multiple times, but to no avail. Instead, we were told to trust the arbitrator, and foolishly, we did. Exhausted, stressed, and desperate, we felt we had no other choice. Both individually and collectively, we were vulnerable to Telstra's overwhelming corporate power.
The rules included a confidentiality agreement that prohibited anyone involved from discussing the arbitration process. This meant that any criminal offences committed by either party would be effectively shielded from investigation, enabling a cover-up. In my case, despite the TIO and the arbitrator being aware that Telstra had perverted the course of justice during my arbitration, this confidentiality clause has, to date, prevented any investigation into this unlawful conduct.
The later revelation in the Senate that Telstra and their government minders had concealed the requested claim documents of the COT Cases highlights the ineffectiveness of the Establishment in searching for the FOI documents related to the COT Cases.
The Establishment
The Australian Establishment clearly viewed the arbitrator favourably, likely because they believed he was protecting the assets of the then government-owned telecommunications carrier, thereby safeguarding public funds and creating a beneficial outcome for all Australians. However, what the arbitrator and the government have consistently failed to acknowledge is that bending the law to protect Telstra and its shareholders constituted a breach of the rule of law. Telstra, the TIO (which also administered the arbitrations), and the arbitrator used their positions to mislead interested government ministers and the media, leading them to believe that, once an award had been handed down, the services investigated during the arbitration were operating efficiently and effectively.
Whenever a claimant disputed this or fought back, Telstra, the TIO, and the arbitrator would relentlessly contest the accusations, aiming to exhaust the claimant and eventually wear them down. As documented in Bad Bureaucrats, for six years after my arbitration, no one investigated my complaints of ongoing, unaddressed arbitration faults. I reluctantly sold my business to the Lewis family in December 2001, and their subsequent seven-year, unsuccessful struggle to resolve these problems is a recurring theme throughout our
story—a story of despair and heartache.
To understand the events surrounding this statutory declaration, it's necessary to go back to before April 1994. At that time, the appointed commercial assessor, along with the first TIO and Telstra (the defendants), decided to transform the commercial assessment, FTSP, into a highly legalistic arbitration process. Telstra's lawyers controlled at least 33 of Australia's largest legal firms and most, if not all, of Australia's technical resource units (see Senate Hansard for 24 June and 26 September 1997). By using Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement, faxed to the TIO on 10 January 1994, Telstra gained a significant advantage in controlling the entire arbitration process. Later, Dr. Hughes, in his letter of 12 May 1995 (see Open Letter File No/56-A), alerted the TIO that they had been misled by Telstra into using an agreement that did not allow enough time for the:
"inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports".
The only ethical course of action for these two lawyers would have been to admit they misled and deceived the four COT cases, the claimant's lawyers, and many of Australia's government ministers, including the Canberra Parliament House press gallery, into believing the arbitration agreement was prepared independently of Telstra. They knew this was false. Instead, they chose to conceal their actions, a decision that has, in effect, stolen 22 years of our lives.
Prior to this, on 18 November 1993, the Chairman of Austel refused to confirm in writing his verbal assurance that consequential losses would be included in the FTSP, explaining that doing so could set a precedent. Telstra's Corporate Secretary had written to him on 18th November 1993 (FOI D01274 to D01276), stating that:
"(3) Telecom does not accept the COT Cases' grounds for reviewing the earlier settlements. However, on the basis of a denial of liability and without any legal obligation to do so and purely as a matter of good faith and business expediency, Telecom is prepared to agree to the above-mentioned review.
(4) This proposal constitutes and offer open to all or any of the COT Cases referred to in Clause (1) (a), which will lapse at 5 pm Tuesday 23 November 1993. This offer may be accepted by signature below and sending advice of such signature to AUSTEL or the Telstra Corporate Secretary before that time."
On 23 November, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and I signed the FTSP, trusting in the Regulator's verbal assurances that consequential losses would be included. These signed FTSP agreements were then forwarded to Telstra's corporate secretary. Alan included a letter with his agreement, clearly stating his expectations of the process:
"In signing and returning this proposal to you, I am relying on the assurances of Mr. Robin Davey, Chairman of Austel, and Mr. John MacMahon, General Manager, Consumer Affairs, Austel, that this is a fair document. I was disappointed that Mr. Davey was unwilling to put his assurances in writing but am nevertheless prepared to accept what he said."
What follows is:
I would not sign this agreement if I believed it would hinder my efforts to secure satisfactory service for my business. It is my understanding that nothing within this agreement prevents me from pursuing a resolution to obtain satisfactory telephone service.A more precise chronology of events surrounding the Fast Track Settlement Proposal versus the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure, as well as information on who drafted the original FTAP, can be found by clicking on Evidence-C A V Part 1, 2 and 3-Chapter 3 - Fast Track Settlement Proposal.
Signing for arbitration, April 1994
On April 21, 1994, when we signed the documents to initiate the new arbitration procedure, we still had not seen the arbitration rules. We wanted to review the rules to understand the process and ensure they differed from Telstra's proposed rules. However, the TIO disregarded our concerns, and we signed the agreement without seeing the rules. We later discovered that the TIO's office had been supplied with a set of rules titled "Telstra Corporation- Limited 'Fast Track' Proposed Rules of Arbitration." It was clear why they had been withheld from us; the assurance we received regarding the drafting of the rules was false. Unsurprisingly, nobody seemed interested in addressing this deception.
At this time, my focus shifted to
preparing my case for arbitration. In April 1994, Austel released its report on the COT cases, and I used its findings and recommendations to support my claims. While I felt that Austel's findings regarding my case were less forceful than my original submissions, I later learned that Austel had toned down the report because Telstra threatened to file an injunction that would delay its release for years. To ensure the COT four could access the report's information for preparing our claims, Austel agreed to the amendments Telstra demanded. I was unaware of the "secret" draft mentioned at the end of Chapter Three until 2007.
Nevertheless, the Austel Report confirmed a significant point. Despite Telstra's constant "No fault found" response, technicians' records revealed the truth. For instance, on occasions when I reported the phone ringing briefly and then disconnecting, officials denied the fault. However, the Austel report indicated otherwise:
"In the period February to April 1993, Telstra staff responding to complaints lodged by Mr. Smith of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp recorded in their notes that there was a fault known to exist in AXE (digital) switching equipment which could give rise to a single burst of ring, followed by a busy tone to a caller and dial tone to the called party."
This is evidenced by comments from technicians on complaint forms:
"This problem occurs intermittently throughout the network, and although it is recognised, no single person or group appears to be responsible for resolving it."
"I believe this may be related to the AXE network problem, which results in only one ring burst and a busy tone for the calling party."
A New Fault
Even as I began compiling my claims, a new fault emerged: the "hang-up" fault. While Telstra refused to provide documentary evidence for my claims, I contacted their engineers to test the hang-up fault, inadvertently creating additional evidence that would likely be withheld.
Since August 1993, I had reported to Telstra that customers and friends had noticed unusual behavior on my direct line, which also served as a fax line. After I ended calls I had initiated, they could still hear me moving around the office if they were slow to hang up. Distracted by other ongoing issues, I hadn't initially focused on this, but now I needed to address it.
On April 26, 1994, I contacted Cliff Matherson, a senior engineer at Austel, who suggested a series of tests. First, I was to hang up and count aloud from one to ten while he listened from his end. He could hear me clearly through the number ten and suggested we repeat the test, counting even higher. Again, he could hear me throughout my counting. Next, he suggested swapping the phone on that line with the phone on my other line (both were identical Telstra Exicom T200 phones). We repeated the test, with the same results. According to Mr. Matherson, and as was also apparent to me, this proved the fault was not in the phone itself, but somewhere within the Telstra network. He then suggested I contact Telstra, which I did.
I explained to the Telstra engineer that I could count to 15 or more after hanging up, and the person on the other end could hear me. I deliberately omitted that I had tested two different phones, knowing Telstra's tendency to initially blame the customer's equipment. I was curious to see their initial diagnosis.
After performing the same tests as the Telstra engineer and obtaining matching results, he promised to send a technician to collect the phone the following day. However, an internal Telstra email from March 1994 reveals that their engineer was aware, even before these tests, that heat in the Cape Bridgewater exchange was causing the fault. This email, quoted below, further suggests Telstra was aware of phone faults in the exchange while I was preparing my claim for arbitration:
I am concerned to note that heat may be part of the problem. I had occasion earlier this year to get involved in another 'ongoing' case involving an RCM with a heat problem at Murrumbateman (just outside Canberra). I do note, that one of the symptoms from the Murrumbateman case was 'Not Receiving Ring,' something Alan Smith at Cape Bridgewater has been complaining about for some time.
Comparing my Telstra account with Telstra's data for the period shows that call hang-ups and incorrect charging occurred from at least August 1993 until the phone was removed on April 27, 1994. The phone itself, an Exicom manufactured in April 1993, later proved to be a significant element in this saga, a story I will recount later.
Preparational Costs
In May 1994, I finally received a large bundle of FOI documents from Telstra, which I had originally requested in December 1993. This was five months past the 30-day deadline mandated by the FOI Act. Despite the Act's clear requirements, Telstra seemed immune to government oversight. Initially, I was hopeful, thinking, "Now we're getting somewhere." However, the documents lacked any numbering system, were not in chronological order, and many were unreadable due to excessive redaction. This would have frustrated even the most experienced lawyer. How could I effectively support my claim with such deficient material?
Assistance from a law student would have been invaluable. The sheer volume of documents was overwhelming, especially given the knowledge that Telstra's extensive legal team was poised to exploit any weakness in my claim.
consulted with the TIO and his legal counsel, expressing my lack of confidence and reiterating Robin Davey's belief that a non-legalistic hearing would be the fairest approach. The TIO could only offer the unhelpful advice to "Do the best you can," while his legal counsel assured me the process was fair.
This is a story of despair and heartache.
I eventually realised I had no choice but to seek professional help. I started by contacting a loss assessor in Mt Gambier, a firm that had previously assisted me with storm damage at the camp. The assessor remembered difficulty reaching me by phone in the past. After discussing my current situation, he determined my problems were outside his expertise. I then broadened my search to the Melbourne area, contacting four communications companies. Disappointingly, three never responded, and the fourth wished me luck, stating they didn't want to challenge Telstra.
Following this, I contacted George Close in Queensland. George possessed technical expertise in telecommunications and was already working on Ann Garms's case. He agreed to take on my case as well, believing that working together would provide greater insight into Telstra's operations. Once Telstra learned of George's involvement, they offered him a job, seemingly attempting to eliminate our support. However, George, at 70, refused, citing a conflict of interest and declining their offer.
I still needed help assembling the entire claim. I found Garry Ellicott, an ex-National Crime Authority detective working with the loss-assessor company Freemans in Queensland. Derek Ryan, a forensic accountant, completed my team.
I felt cautiously optimistic. Government ministers, Austel, and even the auditors agreed that the COT cases were valid and Telstra was at fault. Despite this, we remained in a difficult position, facing financial hardship without any assistance. I was raising funds by selling camp equipment and borrowing from friends.
When I signed on for the FTSP in November 1993, it wasn't for a legal arbitration. The plan made no provision for the legal professionals needed to support our cases, either initially or after implementation. Had I known that professional fees would exceed $200,000, I would never have agreed to the arbitration, even under extreme duress.
Under Surveillance
Telstra email K01006, dated Thursday, April 7, 1994, at 2:05 pm, raises two key issues. First, the date falls during my involvement in a Regulator-designed commercial agreement with Telstra, making secret observations inappropriate. Second, the email refers to a period when I would be away from my business during the pending arbitration process. The email's author describes:
Mr. Alan Smith was absent from his premises from August 5, 1994, to August 8, 1994. In the past, his absences have coincided with documented complaints (typically received months later) involving NRR, etc. On April 6, 1994, at approximately 4:55 pm, I called the premises. The call was answered after 41 seconds.On this occasion, I intend to document his absence and compile all available data for that period. This will allow us to be prepared for any subsequent issues.
Evidently, in April 1994, the writer knew of my planned absence in August of that year—four months in advance.
This document, along with others suggesting my private telephone conversations were being 'bugged,' was provided to the then-Minister for Communications, the TIO, and the Federal Police. Another FOI document, Folio 000605, clearly indicates that the writer knew when "...Smith is in Melbourne." I visited Melbourne (see AFP Evidence File No 8) for promotional tours of individual clubs, advertising our packaged two- and three-night outdoor activities: horse riding, canoeing, caving, and bushwalking.
How could the writer possess this information unless someone had listened to my calls to determine my travel dates and which local staff member would be on duty at the camp? The AFP transcripts from my interview on September 26, 1994 (see AFP Evidence File No 1) reveal numerous instances in which the AFP documented information in these FOI documents that could only have been obtained by Telstra listening in on my private telephone conversations. Telstra has never adequately explained how they acquired this information.
Furthermore, this same individual stated that he knew I had spoken to Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian Prime Minister, by phone, and when that conversation occurred (AFP Evidence File No 7). He claims I told him about this conversation, which is untrue. Again, Telstra has failed to provide a convincing explanation for their employee's knowledge of this information. Clearly, Telstra was still monitoring my private calls, even though I was involved in litigation with them and their lawyers.
While listening to private calls is reprehensible, the following information is even more incriminating. Page A133 of the official Senate Hansard records, dated February 25, 1994, documents the then-Shadow Minister for Communications questioning the Regulator's Chairman:
"Why did not Austel immediately refer COT's allegations of voice recording to the federal police instead of waiting for the minister to refer the matter to the Attorney-General and then on to the federal police?"
A letter dated 2 March 1994, from Telstra's Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (see Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C), indicates that Mr. Penrose was misled regarding the faxing problems I was experiencing. Comparisons between exhibits numbered (File No/9-C) and the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 have led many to conclude that had Ian Row not misled the AFP about my faxing issues, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, before any damage occurred.
This document, along with others suggesting my private telephone conversations were being monitored, was supplied to the then-Minister for Communications, the TIO, and the Federal Police. Another FOI document, Folio 000605, shows the writer knew when "...Smith is in Melbourne." I used to travel to Melbourne (see AFP Evidence File No 8) for promotional tours to single clubs, advertising outdoor activities with two and three-night stays. This information could only have been obtained by monitoring my calls to determine my travel dates and which staff member would be on duty at the camp. The AFP transcripts of my interview on 26 September 1994 (see AFP Evidence File No 7) document many instances where Telstra must have listened to our private telephone conversations to gather the details included in these FOI documents. Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 demonstrate that COT cases' faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations.
The section Australian Federal Police Investigations details how Dr Hughes, the arbitrator, interrogated me for five hours in front of two of Telstra's arbitration defence officers. These questions were clearly aimed at discovering the progress of the Australian Federal Police investigation into whether my faxes were being intercepted, as requested by the then-Government Minister, Michael Lee MP. This type of interrogation was forbidden by the signed arbitration agreement.
In January 1999, the arbitration claimants provided the Australian government with a report confirming confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before reaching their intended recipients. In my case, despite the arbitrator's secretary advising the arbitration process that six of my faxed claim documents never reached the arbitrator's office, I was not allowed to resubmit this material for assessment. My fax account confirms that I dialled the correct fax number on all six occasions.
A story of despair and heartache:
In 1994, none of the Customer Owned Telecommunications (COT) cases, including mine, involved individuals on any terrorist list, nor were we ever suspects in crimes against Australian citizens. Why, then, did Telstra hack our confidential arbitration and Telstra-related documents? For example, 43 sets of my faxed correspondence to the arbitrator's office, some with attachments, are missing from the Arbitration Schedules of Material. Front Page Part One File No/1 shows that the arbitrator's secretary informed Tony Watson of Telstra's arbitration defence unit on May 23, 1994, that six of my claim documents never reached the arbitrator's fax machine. Yet, I was billed for these faxes. Despite this evidence, neither the arbitrator's office nor the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) allowed me to amend my claim to include these proven "not received" documents, preventing them from being valued in support of my claim.
I managed to bring Garry Ellicott to my camp for a few days in May 1994 to observe the phone situation. Based on his experience as a bodyguard for former US President Jimmy Carter during his Australian visit, Garry believed I was being watched, or rather, that my conversations were being monitored.
I had already experienced several instances of Telstra collecting my personal information: details of my incoming calls (who called, when, and from where), staff departures from my business, and even my movements. In April 1994, a Telstra fault reporting officer in Melbourne seemed to know my movements four months in advance. In an internal memo to a colleague, he wrote:
Mr Alan Smith is absent from his premises from 5/8/94 – 8/8/94. On other occasions when he has been absent there have been documented complaints received (usually months later) involving NRR etc ...I intend on this occasion to document his absence and file all data I can collect for the period. That way we should be prepared for anything that follows.
Telstra has never explained how this fault officer obtained this information, nor how he knew about my phone conversation with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, including when it occurred.
The officer claims I told him about the conversation, but this is untrue.
Around the time of the "briefcase saga," an unidentified Telstra technician offered to provide a list of phone numbers I had called. I had previously learned that this technician was listening to my private conversations. When confronted, he admitted to eavesdropping and informed me that he was not the only technician in Portland doing so.
A story of despair and heartache:
Early in our arbitrations, Graham Schorer, in his role as COT spokesperson, received two phone calls within a few days of each other. Both calls were from young people who claimed to have hacked into Telstra's email network. They told Graham they knew we were in arbitration with Telstra and wanted to alert him to documents they had found that confirmed unlawful actions were being taken against us by people close to both our arbitration and Telstra. On both occasions, they offered to send us this evidence.
Graham and I discussed the offer after the first call, but after the second, we declined. Although we were interested in what Graham had heard, we were concerned it might be a set-up by Telstra. We feared that accepting this evidence, however promising, could lead to our arbitrations being declared null and void.
Since then, Andrew Fowler and Suelette Dreyfus have published books referencing Julian Assange's hacking into Telstra's Lonsdale Telephone Exchange in Melbourne, through which Graham's and my businesses were trunked. Could it have been Julian Assange and his associates who contacted us? His well-known concerns about the COT cases not receiving due justice certainly align with his profile.
In hindsight, we likely should have accepted their offer. We might have been able to use that evidence against Telstra at the time, and perhaps we wouldn't be writing our story 20 years later.
More on this aspect of the COT story can be found on our website, absentjustice.com, on our Hacking - Julian Assange page.
Between February and September 1994, I provided documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that I had obtained under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. These documents showed that Telstra knew more about my private and business affairs than it should have. On June 3, 1990, while Telstra claimed it had found no network faults affecting my businesses, "The Australian" newspaper published an article titled "Telecom 'spying' on its employees." This article supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The article stated:
"She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom's Protective Services branch.
"Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:
He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. ...
He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
Claimants have had a 'C.CASS run' on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone." (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)
Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week that Telecom's activities included bugging workers' homes.
A story of despair and heartache:
In February 1994, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) visited my business in Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that recently obtained Freedom of Information (FOI) documents suggested Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned about Telstra's practice of writing the names of individuals and businesses I had contacted on CCAS (Customer Call Accounting System) data records. These records, which compiled all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20), contained handwritten notes in the right-hand column. These notes included, alongside specific dates, the names of people I had called or faxed. For example, entries such as "31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL, and the Ombudsman" appeared. In one instance, the name "Faye Smith" was noted when I called my ex-wife. This mirrored Senator Jenkins' earlier statements regarding Telstra's alleged secret surveillance of its own employees in 1990, suggesting Telstra employed similar tactics in January 1994, even while engaged in litigation with me.
The pressure on the four of us involved in the COT (Cable Optimisation Technology) cases was immense. We were constantly engaged in TV and newspaper interviews, as well as actively lobbying the Senate. The stress was significant, but I continued to push for improvements in rural telephone services. Unlike the other three COT cases, which were based in central Brisbane and Melbourne, my business was in a rural area. The Hon. David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me for some time, expressing concern that people in his electorate were being treated as second-class citizens. On July 26, 1993, Mr. Hawker wrote:
"A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. ...
"I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one." (See Arbitrator File No/76)
On August 18, 1993, The Hon. David Hawker wrote to me again, stating:
"Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr. Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.
"I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing." (SeeArbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)
An internal, handwritten Telstra memo (see AFP Evidence File No 8) discusses two of my singles club clients (I have redacted their names for privacy). The memo describes the constant engaged signal one of the clients experienced when trying to book a weekend during April and May 1993. AFP Evidence File No 8), dated June 17, 1993, records the personal phone numbers of these two women and confirms that Telstra was aware of when my office assistant left the business while I was away.
In my 26 September 1994 AFP interview, the transcript states that Telstra recorded my phone and fax activity, including who I contacted and when. The AFP believed Telstra monitored these calls because the recorded individuals were associated with the COT issues. Pages 3-5 of that AFP transcript, along with other documents I provided between February and November 1994, demonstrate that Telstra had listened in on private conversations.
My telephone faults in early 1993 were so chronic and serious that Telstra threatened—in the first of two such instances—that I had to register my ongoing telephone/faxing problems with their external lawyers, or they would refuse to consider my complaints as genuine.
By July/August 1993, the communications regulator was becoming concerned about Telstra's approach to our complaints, particularly their persistent use of outside solicitors. In October 1993, while the regulator was negotiating with Telstra to establish a commercial settlement proposal for the COT members, the regulator's chairman made it clear to Telstra's commercial division that they would not be happy if Telstra's solicitors were involved in future COT matters. This request was ignored, and Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through their solicitors, even though I was already in litigation with Telstra.
This was a dirty and controlled fight.
Later, when Telstra submitted their defence for my arbitration, I discovered that Telstra's solicitors also served as their defence counsel. By this time, I could provide the arbitrator with clear evidence that Telstra had provided incorrect written statements to both the regulator and me regarding incidents between January and August 1993. However, the arbitrator refused to investigate this information.
One document I provided to the AFP in 1994 mentions a visit to Melbourne but does not specify Adelaide or any other location. From 1991 to 1993, I regularly visited both Melbourne and South Australia. Did Telstra even know where I stayed and with whom? It's important to remember that I was not suspected of any crime, let alone a serious one, nor was I a suspected terrorist. So why were the communications carrier and/or their government minders interested in my contacts and movements?
When I showed AFP Evidence File No 8 to Margaret, my office assistant, she told me that she had not spoken to anyone about leaving the holiday camp (which occurred at 5:30 pm, as described in the Telstra memo). This section of our Hacking-Julian Assange page strongly suggests that my daily activities were monitored by someone and/or some organisation with ready access to Telstra's network.
A story of despair and heartache.
After the AFP discussed a Telstra file note with me, it became clear that Telstra knew I was receiving regular phone calls from an Adelaide contact who typically called from his pizza restaurant. However, the note indicated that he had called from a different number on one occasion. AFP transcripts suggest their concern that Telstra must have been monitoring all my telephone conversations, both regularly and over a considerable period, to have obtained this knowledge. I subsequently alerted AUSTEL to this situation. Documents I retained recorded eighty or more calls that should have connected to my business but were illegally diverted to another number. This was also happening to other businesses around Australia, and AUSTEL and the AFP could see that all the calls were being diverted to the same business.
Federal Police investigation
Other members of COT also experienced this 'voice monitoring'. In a Telstra internal memo relating to the Tivoli Theatre Restaurant, owned and run by Ann Garms in Brisbane, is the comment:
Tests looped ... maybe the bug has slipped off. Looks like a job for super sleuth Sherlock Kelly? (See exhibit 2 file Phone/fax bugging 1 to 8)
An ongoing Telstra fault record relating to the Tivoli Restaurant provides surprisingly interesting reading when it makes reference to the Federal Police investigation:
John Brereton (Fed Police) initially stated a particular person was paying money for 3 people + others in Telstra to manipulate some services ... Why was Federal police stopped from investigating the Tivoli Case ...
Why did John Brereton start to deny everything and then volunteer for service in New Guinea for 2 years ..."
Why did AA of Protective Services initially accede to my request to borrow a Bug scanning device for the 12th Night and Tivoli, then suddenly change heart (See exhibit 1 file Phone/fax bugging 1 to 8)
In January 1994, COT members informed the Minister of Communications of our suspicions about Telstra's bugging, and events then unfolded rapidly. The Minister ordered an investigation by the Federal Police (AFP), and on 10 February 1994, Austel wrote to the Telstra Manager in charge of the COT arbitrations:
Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT cases****.
On 25 February, Senator Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, questioned Austel's Mr Robin Davey in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on COT issues:
Mr. Davey, why did not Austel immediately refer COT's allegations of voice recording to the Federal Police instead of waiting for the Minister to refer the matter to the Attorney General and then on to the Federal Police?
Regardless, when the AFP interviewed Austel, they were provided with documents proving that Telstra had listened in to my phone conversations.
A story of despair and heartache:
In February 1994, John MacMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs at Austel, acknowledged in a letter to Telstra that he had received nine audio tapes from the company. MacMahon noted that these tapes, related to the "taping of the telephone services of COT Cases," had been passed on to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). No warrant was ever issued by the Federal Court for this taping, nor were any issued in either of the Australian states where it occurred. This indicates that the taping was unlawful and took place during a legal resolution process involving the COT members.
Despite these investigations, no official findings regarding Telstra's surveillance or monitoring activities have ever been presented. At the time of writing, Telstra has not been held accountable, even for surveillance that occurred while the company was in arbitration with me. Had the AFP or the government pursued these questions, I would not still be seeking answers today.
In 1994, I was interviewed by the AFP on several occasions regarding this matter. Although they were unable to show me the documents and tapes Austel had provided, I felt that they were taking my problems with Telstra and my arbitration seriously. In one interview, I showed them a Freedom of Information (FOI) document indicating that the writer knew where a caller usually rang from, even though on this occasion, the caller was phoning from a different number, "somewhere near Adelaide." The police were concerned about how a caller could be identified when calling from a different number.
Constable (name deleted) of the AFP confirmed that Telstra had provided evidence of this "live monitoring," which had been ongoing for some time:
"... you were live monitored for a period of time. So we're quite satisfied that, that there are other references to it."
Senator Alston also submitted several questions on notice to the Senate Estimates Committee, to be answered by Telstra. The following questions are most pertinent to the COT claimants:
Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with 'COT' members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
Who authorised this taping of 'COT' members phone conversations, and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings, or analysing the tapes?
On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
(A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990?
(B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex-Telstra employees, against Telstra?
Despite extensive searches of FOI documents, I have never found answers to these questions.
According to other FOI documents I presented to the Australian Federal Police, Telstra officials were keeping records of my phone calls, including the names of other organisations, clients, friends, and even my ex-wife. Despite informing the TIO of these developments, I never received a response.
An extraordinary intervention
In late March 1994, I received an unexpected phone call from Frank Blount, Telstra's CEO. He inquired about the cause of my ongoing telephone problems, presumably taking it upon himself to investigate my complaints. He was understanding, respectful, and courteous. I explained that I believed the Portland and Cape Bridgewater exchanges had been suffering from congestion for years. He promised to investigate my theory, and he kept his promise.
The impact of his
intervention is evident in an internal Telstra email dated April 6, 1994, titled '_Cape Bridgewater COT Case':
Following previous lost call analysis of the Z route between Warrnambool node and Portland AXE–R (PORX) it was decided to increment this route from 30 to 60 CCTS ...
Could you please 'fast-track' this project due to the sensitivity of the current COT case at Cape Bridgewater (off PORX)?
Another email, dated April 7, 1994, followed:
At 4.55 pm on 6/4/94 I was informed by Network Ops that the route into the Portland exchange would be increased by 30%. The work was to be completed prior to midnight that day. This should alleviate any problems Mr Smith or anyone else in the area has been experiencing with congestion into the area for some time.
Adding 30 circuits to Portland (increasing the route from 30 to 60 CCTS) effectively doubled the phone route into the Portland exchange. Regardless, the increased capacity was appreciated, as it finally allowed more 008/1800 customers to connect to my business.
It is important to remember that the loss of business income from my social and singles club was directly related to the ongoing problems with my 008/1800 free-call service. Many of the potential patrons, unable to get through to book, were calling from Ballarat, Melbourne, and South Australia.
On one occasion, AUSTEL investigated my long-standing complaint to Telstra regarding Ballarat's public telephone system, a problem that had persisted for over two years. AUSTEL's Adverse Findings (point115AUSTEL's Adverse Findings) state that my persistence in demanding a Telstra investigation, even though I was no longer living in Ballarat, was crucial. Without it, the fault in Telstra's public phone system would have continued to affect the Ballarat region long after the initial two years.
Break-ins and losses
In March 1994, Graham Schorer and another COT member experienced break-ins and the loss of business documents, increasing our vigilance. Although I found no evidence of a break-in at my premises, I noticed that two diaries covering 1987 to 1989 were missing. Consequently, I began removing my official business diaries from my office, transferring information from my wall calendar and unofficial notebooks to them weekly.
Also, in February 1994, the AFP visited my business in Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that recently received FOI documents suggested Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned about handwritten notes on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). These notes included the names of people and businesses I had called, for example, "31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL, and the Ombudsman." In one instance, the name "Faye Smith" appeared when I phoned my ex-wife. This mirrors Senator Jenkins' statements regarding Telstra's secret surveillance of its own employees in 1990, demonstrating that Telstra used similar tactics in January 1994 while engaged in litigation with me.
The uncovering of Telstra employees stealing millions of dollars—not just from the COT Cases—by knowingly charging for calls not made or that had terminated prematurely, created immense pressure. TV and newspaper interviews, along with our continued lobbying of the Senate, added to the stress. Despite this, I continued to advocate for improvements in rural telephone services. The other three COT Cases businesses were located in central Brisbane and Melbourne.
A Telstra internal memo (see AFP Evidence File No 8), dated 17 June 1993, discusses issues experienced by two of my singles club clients (their names have been redacted for privacy). The memo describes a constant engaged signal one client encountered when attempting to book a weekend in April and May 1993. This memo also includes the personal phone numbers of both women and confirms Telstra was aware of when my office assistant left my employment while I was away.
My 26 September 1994 AFP interview transcript Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 indicates that Telstra recorded my incoming and outgoing phone and fax activity. The AFP believed Telstra monitored my communications because the recorded parties were associated with the COT issues. Pages 3-5 of this transcript, along with other documents I provided to the AFP between February and November 1994, demonstrate that Telstra had been intercepting private conversations.
Question 81 of the AFP transcript Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms the AFP
informed me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon, of the Australian government communications regulator, had provided evidence of an extended period of phone bugging, noting that the supplied information:
".****.. does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it".
The telephone faults I experienced in early 1993 were so frequent and severe that Telstra threatened (in the first of two series of threats) to disregard my complaints unless I registered them with their external lawyers.
By July/August 1993, the communications regulator was becoming concerned about Telstra's handling of our complaints, particularly their repeated use of external solicitors. In October 1993, while negotiating a commercial settlement proposal for the COT members with Telstra, the regulator's chairman made it clear to Telstra's commercial division that they disapproved of Telstra's solicitors' involvement in future COT matters. This request was ignored, and Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through their solicitors, even though I was already in litigation with Telstra.
Later, when Telstra submitted their defence to my arbitration, I discovered that Telstra's solicitors were also acting as their defence counsel. By this point, I was able to provide the arbitrator with clear evidence that Telstra had provided incorrect written statements to both the regulator and myself regarding incidents occurring between January and August 1993. However, the arbitrator declined to investigate this information.
A story of despair and heartache:
A document I provided to the AFP in 1994 mentions a visit to Melbourne but doesn't specify Adelaide or any other location. From 1991 to 1993, I regularly visited both Melbourne and South Australia. Did Telstra know my accommodations and companions? It's important to remember that I wasn't suspected of any crime, let alone a serious one, nor was I a suspected terrorist. So, why were the communications carrier and/or their government overseers interested in my contacts and movements? When I showed AFP Evidence File No 8 to Margaret, my office assistant, she said she hadn't spoken to anyone about leaving the holiday camp, which aligns with the 5:30 pm departure time noted in the Telstra memo. This section of our Hacking-Julian Assange page strongly suggests that my daily activities were monitored by an individual or organization with ready access to Telstra's network.
The AFP's discussion of the Telstra file note revealed that Telstra knew I was receiving regular calls from someone in Adelaide, typically from his pizza restaurant. However, on this occasion, they noted that he had called from a different number. AFP transcripts indicate their concern that Telstra must have been monitoring ALL my telephone conversations, regularly and for an extended period, to obtain this knowledge. I reported this to AUSTEL because I had retained documents showing that eighty or more calls intended for my business were illegally diverted to another number. This was also happening to other businesses across Australia at the time, and both AUSTEL and the AFP could see that all those calls were being diverted to the same business.
During the February 1994 AFP hearing (before the break-ins and losseswere uncovered), Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the AFP, after reviewing the information I presented, suggested that I copy information from my wall planner diaries, including handwritten client reports, into my diaries. He reasoned that, given my involvement in a commercial settlement process with Telstra and the assessor's need for booking and general camp information, this information would be relevant to both the AFP investigations and the appointed assessor.
Following the AFP's departure, I began transcribing client information and notes from the extensive wall planners into my diaries as a secondary backup.
A story of despair and heartache:
In May 1994, my arbitration advisor, Garry Ellicott, visited me, and we spent five nights trying to decipher the pile of Telstra FOI discovery documents. During that visit, I discovered further losses: exercise books containing official booking records, several bank statements, and my bank pay-in books for 1992/93. I cannot account for these missing items and it's possible they disappeared in March, but I didn't notice at the time. Without these records, I struggled to produce complete and accurate financial statements for my forensic accountant, Derek Ryan. I was reduced to piecing together information from wall calendars and other unofficial sources, which I had begun copying two months earlier, as Jeff Penrose had advised me to do. When Garry returned to Queensland, I entrusted my work diaries to him for safekeeping.
The consequences of these events became clear weeks after my oral arbitration hearing in October 1994, when the arbitrator requested my annual diaries for assessment. Garry Ellicott sent them directly to the arbitrator's office. Soon after, Telstra submitted its defence against my claims. Then, two months later, in February 1995, Telstra informed the arbitrator of alleged discrepancies in my diaries, claiming I had added entries after the recorded calls and incidents occurred.
Over the years, I have explained how and why I had to copy fault complaint records from exercise books into the diaries, while maintaining that my chronology of fault events was accurate. I have since reminded both the arbitrator and the arbitration project manager that, during my oral hearing, I practically begged to submit these fault complaint notebooks, as the transcripts show. However, Telstra objected to their submission, and the arbitrator, without reviewing them, found them irrelevant.
Nevertheless, in his summary regarding these diaries, the arbitrator stated:
... I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant's diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability.
I contend that if the arbitrator had admitted the notes taken from my exercise books as evidence and provided them to Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland would have understood the true nature of the exercise books and realized there was no intent to deceive. Similarly, I understand some readers may be skeptical of my account, recognizing that parts of it may seem unbelievable.
A story of despair and heartache:
Senator Kim Beazley, as Minister for Communications in the early 1990s, expressed concern over Telstra's Protective Services Unit spying on its own technicians and employees, documenting their movements while on sick leave. Given this, it seemed reasonable to us COT members to believe we were also under surveillance.
For example, in July 1992, I requested a written guarantee from Telstra that my phone service met network standards. I sent this request without mentioning the name of the bus company that had requested the guarantee. However, in 1994, among documents received in response to an FOI request, I found a copy of my letter with the name "O'Meara" scrawled on it. This raised the question: was Telstra listening to my phone conversations? If so, this constituted spying, and it occurred in 1992, well before the arbitration process even began. These issues of individual privacy rights and corporate manipulation strike at the heart of Australian democracy.
Compiling a coherent claim proved extremely difficult due to the
story's complexity, its multiple layers, and the prolonged delays in accessing necessary information. My phone and fax lines became lifelines, connecting me to Garry Ellicott in Queensland.
On May 27, 1994, when Garry attempted to call my 1800 service, he twice encountered a recorded message stating that my number was disconnected before finally getting through. When Garry contacted Telstra's fault center to report these messages, the operator informed him that she could not register the fault unless the complaint came directly from the customer. Garry's response was understandably blunt: "How can the customer complain if he doesn't know I'm trying to reach him? How can he complain if he is not aware that his incoming callers believe he's no longer trading?" Upon receiving my telephone bill, I was, of course, charged for both failed calls.
Regarding these recorded announcements, the Austel report stated:
Monitoring equipment at the exchange will not identify this condition as the call will either not be received at the terminating exchange or it will be seen as a call existing from the exchange. Complementary equipment at the customer's premises will not record a call being received in either of the above circumstances.
After fighting for over six years, I remained trapped in a game of "catch-up tennis." Each new fault required an FOI request for Telstra data, with each request taking at least 30 days to process. No sooner had I faxed information about the previous month's faults to the arbitrator than more occurred, forcing me to wait another 30 days for copies of Telstra's records. Despite sharing my frustrations, no one seemed to care.
Hackers For Justice
A Man With A Conscience
A story of despair and heartache:
Andrew Fowler notes in his novel, The Most Dangerous Man In The World (page 15):
"The Lonsdale Telephone Exchange in the centre of Melbourne with its black marble facade, is an eye-catching building. In the late 1980s it was the gateway to other telephone exchanges and organisations linked to super computers around the world."
The information presented in Bad Bureaucrats - Taking on the Establishment and Chapters 1 to 9 Julian Assange Hacking relates to a discussion between Graham Schorer (a COT spokesperson) and a group of young hackers, now believed to be Julian Assange and his associates. These individuals contacted the COT group during the early stages of the arbitrations, claiming that they had breached the security of the Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchange.
Prior to Andrew Fowler or Julian Assange becoming aware of the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange, in June 1993, Telstra left an unlocked briefcase at my premises. The contents revealed both poor programming within the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange and known, significant faults affecting the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment Telstra used.
On June 4th and 5th, 1993, I provided this evidence to AUSTEL (the government communications regulator at the time). Due to limited copying facilities, I did not retain extensive copies. While the facsimile machine was adequate for receiving faxes, it lacked advanced copying capabilities. Subsequently, AUSTEL's Melbourne office discovered that other countries were in the process of removing, or had already removed, the Ericsson AXE equipment. This raised the question: why was Telstra continuing to use equipment known to be detrimental to businesses across Australia?
Further damaging information was provided to AUSTEL concerning the weaknesses in Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Exchange. This information demonstrated that 50% of telephone calls from Melbourne to my business in Cape Bridgewater (430 kilometers away) were routed through the Lonsdale Exchange. Telstra had apparently failed to program the first six digits (055 267) of the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange into the system for at least eight months, resulting in callers receiving a recorded message stating that my business was no longer operating.
Consequently, when we were offered documents from an unknown source alleging that hackers had accessed Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchange (which we knew was linked to the outside world), this raised concerns. The emails and faxes offered suggested that Telstra and other parties had placed the COT Cases under electronic surveillance during the arbitration process. We suspected a potential setup: was the Lonsdale Exchange being used as bait to entice us into accepting documents outside of the formal arbitration process? Therefore, we declined the offer.
On July 7, 2011, Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) group, provided a statutory declaration to the Victorian Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert Clark. In this declaration, Schorer recounts how three young computer hackers contacted him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. According to Schorer, the hackers claimed to have discovered unlawful activities by Telstra and others involved in the arbitrations, directed towards the COT group. Schorer's statutory declaration includes the following details:
"After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994, I received a phone call after business hours while I was working late in the office. The call was to my unpublished direct number.
"The young man on the other end asked for me by name. After I confirmed my identity, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra's records, including internal emails, memos, and faxes. He said they were disturbed by what they had uncovered and suggested I speak directly with Frank Blount. He offered to provide Blount's direct lines in his Melbourne and Sydney offices.
"The caller emphasized that they were trying to bring Telstra's conduct towards me and the other COT members to our attention.
"When I asked if he was aware that Telstra had a Protective Services department responsible for network security, they laughed and said they were, and that they were watching Telstra looking for them (the hackers).
"Following this call, I discussed the matter with Alan Smith. While the offer was tempting, we decided that we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement."
Chapter 6
Arbitration
Now, I'd like to introduce Cathy. We met in 1993 when she brought a group of underprivileged children from Ballarat to the camp. She was a very capable and compassionate coordinator in family support. We remained in contact, and over the next year or so, she assisted me from Ballarat with various camp operations. In May 1994, she agreed to work at the camp while I focused on my arbitration. By the end of that year, we had become partners.
Her assistance came at a crucial time, as preparing for my arbitration brought new challenges. I discovered that documents I believed I had faxed to my advisors or the arbitrator had not been received. I regularly contacted Austel's two nominated representatives with evidence of faxes that arrived at the receiver's end as blank pages, often with a small symbol at the top, either on the left or right.
What follows is a story of despair and heartache:
Telstra, of course, charged me for these blank fax pages, billing me for the transmission time. They also continued to charge me for unconnected 1800 calls. Despite repeated written inquiries and legal challenges, Telstra never explained why these faxes arrived blank.
suspected my arbitrator wasn't receiving all my faxes. For instance, on May 23, 1994, Telstra claimed the arbitrator's fax machine was busy. But why wasn't my fax programmed to retry after encountering a busy signal? And why was I charged for a failed transmission? My phone bill that day showed charges for seven unconnected calls to the arbitrator's office. Where did those seven faxed claim documents end up? While the beneficiary of their disappearance seemed obvious, the arbitrator showed no interest in investigating.
Constant contact with my claim advisors in Queensland, Garry Ellicott and George Close, drove my Telstra bill to over $16,000 by May 1995. My home account added another $2,000. Meanwhile, Telstra had established a special office to handle the COT arbitrations, admitting in 1996 that they had already cost over $18 million. All this to fight a small group of small business owners seeking only Australian justice!
Simultaneously, we asked the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate Telstra's refusal to provide our discovery documents. The delays kept our advisors and researchers waiting, increasing our costs to participate in this so-called "fast-tracked" procedure. It seemed Telstra deliberately delayed supplying these documents, either to buy time to prepare its defence or to give its legal unit more time with them before our advisors saw them. To me, the entire arbitration felt orchestrated by Telstra to thwart any investigation into their dubious conduct. It was certainly a power imbalance, with the arbitrator consistently siding with them in numerous ways.
In June 1994, I requested and received a one-week extension from the arbitrator to prepare my claim. In contrast, Telstra was granted an additional 72 days. On June 15, 1994, when Graham Schorer and I delivered my interim claim documents to the arbitrator's office, a Telstra representative was present, and Telstra's defence counsel took possession of my documents. I questioned how the arbitrator could allow Telstra access to my interim claim documents, given that he knew I was still awaiting crucial discovery documents to finalise my submission. Furthermore, despite the arbitration rules stipulating that Telstra had only one month to prepare its defence, it did not present it until December 12, 1994, six months later.
On July 11, 1994, Steve Black of Telstra's arbitration resource unit wrote to Warwick Smith, stating:
Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request
"if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator."
This confirms that both the TIO and Telstra were aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit was assigned to vet arbitration procedural documents before they reached the arbitrator.
If the resource unit deemed a document irrelevant, it would not be forwarded to the arbitrator or other parties. This arrangement may have facilitated other undisclosed dealings, which are further detailed on our website (see Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman/Chapter Four). Could this arrangement be linked to the crucial arbitration letter dated January 24, 1995, discussed later in this narrative? The TIO claims this letter did not exist, yet our exhibit file shows it did and was received at the arbitrator's office, as evidenced by the January 24, 1995, fax footprint.
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) is an Australian National Telecommunications Industry Regulator. While seemingly beneficial, this Ombudsman is funded by the telecommunication carriers themselves, raising concerns about impartiality, especially when they are involved in an arbitration and their salaries are paid by the defendants in that arbitration.
It is also important to note that page 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, under Part 11 – Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires states:
(6) Presumption of single arbitrator
An arbitration agreement shall be taken to provide for the appointment of a single arbitrator unless –
(a) the agreement otherwise provides; or
(b) the parties otherwise agree in writing.
The arbitration agreement signed by the four COT Cases in April 1994 specifies only one arbitrator. No written agreement has ever been presented to them authorizing the second-appointed arbitrator to control the information seen by the first.
Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I discovered after our arbitrations concluded that Warwick Smith, with the approval of Telstra's arbitration defence officer Steve Black, had secretly authorised exonerated consultants to vet all arbitration material intended for the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes. These consultants were empowered to decide what information Dr. Hughes would see and what would be passed on to us three claimants.
Hiding behind a tainted confidentiality agreement - Section three
Although the 19th April 1994 Arbitration Agreement has been discussed elsewhere on absentjustice.com, it is important to connect it here to the instance when the arbitrator's secretary faxed a copy of the FTAP Agreement to lawyers Mr. Goldberg and William Hunt. Mr. Hunt sought a legal opinion on the agreement before Graham Schorer and I signed it on April 21, 1994. The version of the agreement faxed by the arbitrator's secretary included these three clauses on page 12:
Clause 24: Neither the Administrator nor the Arbitrator shall be liable to any party for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these Rules save that the Arbitrator (but not the Administrator) shall be liable for any conscious or deliberate wrongdoing on the Arbitrator's own part.
Clause 25: The liability of Ferrier Hodgson and the partners and employees of Ferrier Hodgson for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these rules (other than in relation to a breach of their confidentiality obligations) shall be limited to $250,000 jointly.
Clause 26: The liability of DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd and the directors and employees of DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these rules, other than in relation to a breach of their confidentiality obligations) shall be limited to $250,000 jointly.
However, in the agreement presented to the COT claimants for signing two days later, on April 21, 1994, clauses 25 and 26 were removed, and only a portion of their wording was incorporated into clause 24.
The final version of Clause 24 reads:
- "Neither the Administrator, the Arbitrator, the Special Counsel, a partner or employee of the legal firm of which the Special Counsel is a partner, a member of the Resources Unit, Ferrier Hodgson or a partner or employee of Ferrier Hodgson, DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd shall be liable to any party..."
A story of despair and heartache:
The revised Clause 24 differed significantly from the original three clauses, effectively shielding Peter Bartlett and Minter Ellison from liability for misconduct in their role as Legal Advisors. This removed any incentive for them to ensure a fair and just process for the COT claimants.
Furthermore, the altered Clause 24 removed the original $250,000 liability cap against FHCA and DMR, which had been included in the Arbitration Agreement faxed to Mr. Goldberg and William Hunt on April 19, 1994.
However, a letter from Telstra's Arbitration Liaison Officer to the TIO Special Counsel in June 1994 (the TIO Special Counsel had been exonerated from all liability for his part in the first four COT arbitrations) contained the new version of the arbitration agreement to be used for the subsequent 12 COT claimants. Point 11.2 of this new agreement stated:
"The liability of any independent expert resource unit used by the arbitrator, for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration, shall be limited to $250,000.00".
Therefore, a few months after the $250,000 liability caps were removed from my arbitration agreement, they were reinstated for the remaining 12 COT claimants. Why were we not informed of this reinstatement? Why were we not given the option to revert to the original agreement, as faxed to Alan Goldberg and William Hunt by the arbitrator's secretary and presented as the approved final agreement? Why were the three claimants (including myself) forced to proceed with an arbitration agreement that exonerated the Resource Unit from all liability, while the agreement used by 12 other COT claimants mandated that their arbitrations be conducted within the law? This discriminatory treatment of Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and me is undeniable. Exhibit Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42, the TIO's Standard Arbitration Rules used for other COT-type claims against Telstra Corporation, covers liability in Rule 31:
"The liability of any independent expert used by the Arbitrator is limited to $250,000 for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration".
This demonstrates that any Australian citizen entering a TIO-administered arbitration could sue an independent expert used by the arbitrator, up to $250,000, for any act or omission during the Arbitration. Graham Schorer and I were denied this entitlement, a discriminatory and potentially illegal act. The fact that Telstra, the defendant, could discuss the release of discovery documents or evidence with the TIO (the process administrator), even to the point of influencing whether documents were released to the arbitrator, illustrates Telstra's undue control over the arbitration process.
If selectively removing the $250,000 liability caps from one section of the COT cases, instead of all, isn't criminal discrimination by the Australian Establishment, what is?
Maureen Gillan was the first of the four COT Cases to sign her arbitration agreement, including clauses 10.2.2, 24, 25, and 26. COT Cases Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I informed our legal advisors that Maureen Gillan had signed her agreement. Our lawyers then requested a copy of Maureen's signed agreement from the arbitrator's office. Upon receiving the faxed copy, our lawyers compared it to Maureen's original, signed agreement and advised us to do the same.
I ultimately accepted the removal of clause 10.2.2 as a compromise, deciding it wasn't worth contesting.
However, the minutes of a secret meeting (see Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct) attended by Steve Black (Telstra's arbitration officer), Telstra's Mr. Krasnostine (legal directorate), Dr. Hughes (the arbitrator), and Peter Bartlett (TIO Counsel), also detailed in Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct, reveal discussions about altering the arbitration agreement without any claimant representation. Telstra's transcript of this meeting notes at point six:
"Mr. Bartlett stated that he was unhappy that Telecom did not appear prepared to allow his firm an exclusion from liability. ...
"Mr. Smith stated that he thought it was reasonable for the advisers to incur some liability, and that the only matter left to be negotiated on this issue was the quantum of the liability caps.
"Mr. Black said that he thought the liability caps proposed by Telecom in the amended rules were already reasonable." (See Open letter File No 54-A)
Warwick Smith's statement that "he thought it was reasonable for the advisers to incur some liability, and that the only matter left to be negotiated on this issue was the quantum of the liability caps" indicates that the liability caps were always intended to be included in our arbitration agreements, including the agreement Maureen Gillan signed.
Since my arbitration concluded, all parties involved—including Telstra, the arbitrator, Peter Bartlett, and TIO Warwick Smith—have cited the confidentiality agreement (attached to the altered agreement) as the reason for their refusal to discuss the secret alterations to clauses 24, 25, and 26, as well as the other unlawful conduct that plagued all the arbitrations.
This is a story of despair and heartache.
Document 866 contains a letter, dated April 12, 1994, from Dr. Hughes to a member of the TIO counsel. This letter addresses the issue that Maureen Gillan, one of the four COT cases, had already signed the arbitration agreement on April 8, 1994. This agreement was the version previously agreed upon by Senators Richard Alston and Boswell, all four COT cases, and their lawyers. However, John Rundell's arbitration resource unit now sought exoneration from all liability for any act or omission related to the remaining three arbitrations. Removing the $250,000 liability caps from the original agreement eliminated any incentive for the resource unit to act responsibly toward these three remaining claimants. As documents 868 and 869 demonstrate, the arbitration resource unit withheld crucial documents from my arbitration process, knowing it could not be sued for this unacceptable conduct.
Service Verification Testing, September 1994
On September 29, 1994, the scheduled date for my Service Verification Testing (SVT), , my partner and I each sent statutory declarations to the arbitrator, the TIO, AUSTEL, and Telstra. I continued to send letters regarding this flawed process until February 15, 1995 (see Bad Bureaucrats File No/15).
Following my letters to the TIO and arbitrator on October 2 and 10, 1994, I contacted the TIO's office to request that DMR Australia Pty Ltd, the organisation responsible for assessing technical matters, be called upon to fulfil its role in relation to the SVTs, as administrators of my arbitration. This request was denied.
A Telstra internal email, dated December 13, 1993, reveals that AUSTEL's deputy chair, Dr. Bob Horton, permitted Telstra to limit their mandatory parameter testing to only those customers Telstra deemed required testing:
"This E-Mail is to alert you to a possible regulatory interaction with the current work on 'COTS Cases' and ongoing work with AUSTEL on network performance.
"As you know, a Ministerial Direction gave AUSTEL power to set end-to-end network performance standards. ...
"The AUSTEL staff member leading the group originally wanted a very wide list of mandatory parameters but after discussion with Bob Horton and a presentation to the Standards Advisory Committee by , AUSTEL have agreed to limit the scope of the initial work to the few parameters our customer surveys had shown as being of most concern."****(SeeArbitrator File No/72)
Dr Horton was AUSTEL's acting chair at the time. The detrimental impact of this situation becomes clear when linking this limitation of mandatory testing with another Telstra internal email, dated November 15, 1993, which states:
"Parameters for Cape Bridgewater RCM have been obtained, but I don't believe them – I am attempting to check them. Some of the people supplying this information live in 'old Telecom'!" (See Arbitrator File No/73)
The following excerpt comes from the transcript of a September 22, 1994, oral interview conducted at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office with AUSTEL representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7, John Wynack asks, "What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report?"
An AUSTEL representative replies,"The final report was April – I can't remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received their copy at that time." (As demonstrated throughout this website, See Falsification Reports File No/4)
This statement confirms that Telstra received a copy of AUSTEL's draft findings. However, NONE of the information that enabled AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, to reach its adverse findings against Telstra, was ever made available to the COT claimants during arbitration. Moreover, the version received in 2007 was not the draft version viewed during the lock-up meeting.
NOTE:
Meanwhile, on September 29, 1994, Telstra's Chief Engineer brought Service Verification Testing (SVT) equipment to the camp, tasked with proving that the phone problems had been resolved. From the outset, the engineer encountered significant difficulties getting the equipment to function on any of the three separate lines. Despite this, the testing proceeded.
Because incoming calls could not reach the camp, Telstra technicians at the exchange generated test calls. Consequently, any results obtained were meaningless, as incoming calls were not being received. On October 2 and 10, complaints regarding these deficiencies in the verification testing were sent to Telstra, with copies to the arbitrator, the TIO, and AUSTEL. These statutory declarations received no response.
Six weeks later, AUSTEL responded by writing to Telstra, expressing concerns about the SVT testing conducted on September 29 and stating that it did not meet AUSTEL's mandatory specifications. Telstra's own CCAS data for that day confirms that none of the tests carried out on the three lines met AUSTEL's requirements.
Despite this, Telstra presented the test results in its arbitration defence, concluding that the services were now at network standard. The engineer even provided a sworn statement asserting that the tests had met all of AUSTEL's requirements, when in fact, they did not.
This blatant, intentional misrepresentation—surely unethical, and likely illegal—was not discovered until 2002, seven years later, well outside the statute of limitations.
A story of despair and heartache.
Had the arbitrator known about the deficiencies Austel identified in the SVT testing—specifically, that the testing could not have produced the required success rate—the arbitrator would have been obligated to rule in my favour. Telstra's failure to provide a level playing field for my business, operating on the same terms as my competitors, constituted a breach of its license agreement.
Austel, however, seemed to disregard its November 16 letter. In its February 1995 quarterly report to the Minister for Communications and the Arts on the COT Cases, Austel withheld its true findings, stating simply:
All six of the telephone services subjected to the Services Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements established.
What prompted Austel's change of heart?
My oral hearing was scheduled for October 11, 1994, following the submission of interim claim documents. The purpose of this hearing was to determine what additional information each party needed to provide to aid the arbitration process, including the documents I needed to access from Telstra and vice versa. I also requested that Telstra's delayed and inadequate provision of FOI documents be addressed.
The arbitration rules permitted me legal representation if Telstra also had legal representation. However, finding a lawyer who wouldn't be intimidated by a corporation as large as Telstra seemed impossible. At the time, at least 43 of Australia's largest law firms were on Telstra's payroll in some capacity, making them unavailable to any COT member.
In August, five months into the arbitration process, the TIO, acting as administrator, informed me that the arbitrator was a senior partner at a law firm that also represented Telstra. I protested, arguing this represented a conflict of interest. The TIO assured me this was standard practice and merely required my written acknowledgement that I had been informed. Five months too late, what choice did I have? I felt compelled to continue with the arbitration and attend the oral hearing.
The arbitrator had advised me that Telstra would not have legal representation at the oral hearing, which came as a relief. I attended, believing it would be a relatively even playing field. How wrong I was. Two of Telstra's top executives, both with legal training, sat on the other side of the table. I felt like David facing Goliath. How could I have been so naive?
A story of despair and heartache.
During the hearing, I presented four fault logbooks, which contained, among other details, the contact information of over-40s singles clients who had been unable to reach my business by phone. I requested that these logbooks be accepted as evidence. I explained that I had not submitted them earlier because the information had been given in confidence, and I trusted that submitting them directly to the arbitrator would ensure its security. These logbooks conclusively demonstrated that I had lost business calls as a direct result of the faulty phone service. They also detailed my missed opportunity to establish a singles club, which would have provided additional income and helped sustain the camp.
Telstra argued that the information was irrelevant and should be rejected. The arbitrator agreed, and I was not permitted to submit the logbooks. At that point, I realized that the arbitrator was not acting impartially, and likely had not been from the start.
The FOI issue was not addressed at all during the oral hearing. The arbitrator was responsible for facilitating the timely provision of requested documents, and despite my repeated requests for his assistance, none were fulfilled; I suspect he never even passed them on. However, he did direct me to provide approximately 40 additional documents, attachments, and further particulars requested by Telstra through the same discovery process. I complied fully at my own expense but received none of the requested documents. Something was clearly amiss with the entire process.
I had been fighting for justice for more than six years, a costly and losing battle, simply because I wanted to establish a business in a rural hamlet that Telstra's senior board saw no benefit in upgrading. The oral hearing made me realise I was truly alone in this fight: the arbitrator could not be relied upon to be independent. I warned the other COT members of the potential challenges they might face, realising we had been deceived. The TIO's office had assured us—and the Senate—that this would be a non-legalistic process. They were taking me to the cleaners.
In the two months leading up to Telstra's defence submission, I continued to sift through all my materials, desperately searching for anything that might strengthen my case, hoping to finally find the elusive discovery documents I needed.
Interim submission
A story of despair and heartache:
In my interim claim, I included a list of 183 separate faults reported between late 1989 and early 1994. This list included the names and addresses of the individuals who lodged these complaints with me. Additionally, I submitted copies of 42 fault reports logged by Telstra's fault centers during an eight-month period (January to August 1993). I also provided over 70 letters from individuals describing their difficulties in reaching me by phone over the years, including letters from Telstra employees who felt compelled to report what they knew about my phone problems.
Despite this substantial evidence, the arbitrator's "independent" technical resource unit claimed in their report that "... a comprehensive log of Mr. Smith's complaints does not appear to exist." Senator Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland National Party), current as of 2015, can verify that this material was submitted by his partner at the time, Garry Ellicott. What happened to it?
The list of letters of support submitted was also missing from the resource unit's list of received documents, presumably meaning the arbitrator never saw them either. This was devastating. What happened to them?
The AFP and Mr Rumble
In February 1994, the Federal Police interviewed me in Cape Bridgewater regarding Telstra's interception of phone conversations of COT case members. The evidence we COT members had compiled convinced Austel and the Minister of Communications that Telstra needed to answer for these actions. Under the Telecommunications Act 1991, Telstra was obligated to provide Austel (the regulator) with any data related to the interception of telephone conversations with the four COT cases. Telstra supplied nine audio tapes, which Austel then passed on to the AFP.
The Federal Police requested all documentary evidence I could provide regarding Telstra's interception of my fax or telephone conversations, and I supplied copies of several FOI documents. This decision would have serious repercussions.
At the end of June 1994, Telstra's main "thug" (whom we'll call "dog") contacted me regarding my complaints about the slow delivery of FOI documents required to prepare my arbitration claim. I had complained to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who was now pressuring Telstra. The "dog" shocked me by stating that the delay was due to Telstra needing to "vet" the requested documents for "sensitive material" because I had shared them with the Federal Police. This was absurd for two reasons: first, the slow delivery had been ongoing since my initial FOI request; and second, it was my civic, if not legal, duty to cooperate with any police investigation. A telecommunications corporation should certainly have no jurisdiction over such matters.
a story of despair and heartache
That wasn't all. The "dog" then threatened to withhold further documents if I continued providing them to the AFP. I understood this as a clear attempt to obstruct my arbitration claim by denying me critical FOI documents. I assured him I would comply, and a few days later, I confirmed this in writing:
I gave my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc., I shall honour this statement and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.
I had no intention of further assisting the AFP with FOI documents. When they visited me again in September 1994, I showed them a copy of my letter to the "dog." The AFP found this very interesting, as noted in their interview transcript:
**The thing that I'm intrigued by is the statement here that you've given 'the dog' your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police, etcetera.**Question 57, p. 12 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1
However, in July, I informed the arbitrator that Telstra had threatened to withhold documents because I had supplied them to the AFP to aid its investigation into the illegal interception of my phone conversations. The arbitrator neither responded to my letter nor commented when the issue was later raised in parliament.
Threats Carried Out
On November 29, 1994, Senator Ron Boswell questioned 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 investigations?
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?
The fact that Telstra's Legal Directorate had no answer for these questions was perhaps understandable. However, the arbitrator's inability to even question why I should be penalised for assisting an official police investigation was not. His silence, months before the award was handed down, signalled that my complaints about ongoing telephone and faxing problems would not be favourably addressed.
But the arbitrator wasn't the only one who failed me and the course of justice. No one in the TIO office, Austel, or the government was willing to investigate
Either the document withholding or the earlier threats made by Telstra management before arbitration:
that they would not investigate my phone complaints unless I first raised them in writing with Telstra's outside lawyers.
Why didn't the arbitrator consider these threats a serious breach of my civil liberties as an Australian citizen?
Why weren't these threats addressed in the arbitrator's written findings?
Chapter 7
Telstra's Defence
Telstra's response to my claim arrived on December 12th as a bound document entitled 'Telstra's Legal Submission (1994)'. I felt sickened even before opening it. I still hadn't received most of the FOI documents I had requested, yet they were responding based on barely half of my submission.
But that was the least of their offences. Here begins the infamous story of the sticky beer in the phone.
In Chapter Five, I described how Mr Mathieson of Austel helped me test two different Exicom model TF200 phones on the same line to determine whether the 'lock-up' fault I was experiencing was caused by the phone or the line. These 'lock-ups' allowed people on the other end of the line to hear what was happening in my office after I had hung up. After the tests, Mr Mathieson was adamant that we had proven the fault lay in the line, as it occurred with both phones. I later acquired documents showing Telstra knew this fault often occurred in moisture-prone areas like Cape Bridgewater.
However, my copy of Telstra's Legal Submission included a 29-page report titled 'T200'. This document argued that the 'lock-up' problem with my phone/fax had been caused by spilt beer found inside the phone's casing.
For the record, the phone was removed from my office on April 27, 1994, but not received into Telstra's laboratories until May 10, 1994. According to the supplied photographs, the phone's exterior was very dirty, and, according to the technicians, the interior was 'wet and sticky'. Analysis of the substance showed it was beer, and the conclusion was that the 'beer' had caused the 'hook switch' to lock up. So, my drinking habits were supposedly the cause of my phone problems. The technicians were apparently unaware that Mr. Mathieson and I had tested two different phones on that line and found the same fault.
Moreover, the phone was quite clean when it left my office—so how did it arrive at the laboratories in such a filthy state? If the 'beer' wasn't deliberately introduced, how did it get inside the phone? I certainly didn't spill it, accidentally or otherwise.
A story of despair and heartache:
I requested a copy of the laboratory technician's notes from the arbitrator, hoping to understand how they reached their conclusions, especially since I had engaged my own forensic document researcher to analyse the documents. Instead, I received another copy of the original report, a frustrating example of the double standard applied to COT claimants versus Telstra. Just weeks prior, the arbitrator had granted Telstra's forensic document researcher access to my personal diaries.
The anger I felt was immense. I needed to expose Telstra's elaborate "beer-in-the-phone" charade. I was convinced they fabricated the evidence, but I lacked definitive proof. Despite reaching out to various parties—Senators, the arbitrator, and the arbitrator's secretary—no one seemed interested in investigating.
Telstra even attributed my ongoing fax problems to the supposed "beer-in-the-phone." In response, I sought access to Telstra's technical analysis data from the periods when my fax issues were most severe. This data revealed that the "lock-up" fault had been occurring in the network system since at least August 1993. I then questioned the arbitrator, asking how beer could possibly remain wet and sticky inside my phone from August 1993 to May 1994.
Actually, this data wasn't even critical to proving my case. Telstra had replaced my original phone with a new one, and unsurprisingly, their own data showed that the lock-up problem persisted even after the supposedly contaminated phone was removed. It remained an issue when I sold the business in 2001.
Regarding Telstra's claim that the phone was "very dirty," it was fortunate that I had attached a white label to the front, instructing staff to use that specific phone, just before the technician took it for testing. The phone was perfectly clean, as evidenced by Telstra's own photo taken upon its arrival at their laboratory. They had failed to maintain their deception. The discrepancy between the two photos provided by Telstra (reproduced here as Main Evidence File No/17 and Arbitrator File No/30) is obvious, even without a forensic document specialist. Yet, I could not find anyone willing to challenge Telstra on what appeared to be evidence tampering in a legal proceeding, a criminal offence.
I had repeatedly and urgently requested the Exicom/TF200 laboratory testing results for my arbitration, but they were not provided by March 1995. Consequently, I approached Paul Westwood of Forensic Document Services to investigate my suspicion that Telstra's TF200 report was fraudulent. However, the arbitrator refused to appoint him, and the matter remained unresolved until November 1995, six months after my arbitration was declared final, when the "beer in the phone" saga resurfaced once again
Freedom of Information documents revealed that Telstra conducted two investigations into my TF200 phone. The second investigation (24–26 May 1994) occurred just two weeks after the first (10–12 May), and it demonstrated that the initial report—the one provided to the arbitrator—was completely fabricated. Someone within Telstra, realising the first report was somehow flawed, authorised the second investigation.
This second report, handwritten by Telstra laboratory staff, included graphs and photographs. It showed that beer introduced into the TF200 phone dried out completely within 48 hours. However, my phone, described as "wet and sticky" in the first report, wasn't tested until 14 days after it was taken from my office. It would have been impossible for the phone to remain "wet and sticky" after two days, let alone two weeks.
The tests proved the fault was in Telstra's network.
On 26 April 1994, I contacted Cliff Mathieson at AUSTEL, the government communications regulatory department, to discuss the persistent hang-up fault. Mr. Mathieson proposed a series of tests on the phone line. His plan involved me hanging up and counting aloud from one to ten while he listened. The initial test confirmed that he could hear me count to ten without interruption. He then suggested we repeat the test, counting even higher. The result remained the same: he could hear me clearly throughout the range. He then instructed me to swap the phone with one connected to a different line. We repeated the counting test with the swapped phone and obtained identical results. It became clear to both of us that the fault wasn't in the phone itself but in the Telstra network. Mr. Mathieson suggested I bring this issue to the attention of Peter Gamble, Telstra's chief engineer, given my ongoing arbitration. Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, identified Peter Gamble during a Senate estimates committee hearing as the individual who stated that he and Telstra had to prevent the initial COT five claimants (myself included) from proving their claims at all costs (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23 dated 24 June 1997).
A story of despair and heartache:
Unaware of the orders to stop the five COT cases "at all costs," I reconnected the phones to their original lines and called Mr Gamble, without mentioning that Mr Mathieson and I had already tested two phones on the 055 267230 line. Mr Gamble and I then performed similar tests on the 055 267230 line. Afterwards, Mr Gamble said he would arrange for someone to collect the phone the following day for testing. FOI K00941, dated 26 March 1994, indicates that someone (name redacted) believed this lock-up fault stemmed from a problem in the RCM exchange at Cape Bridgewater (see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C). Document K00940, dated the day of the tests with Mr Mathieson and Mr Gamble, suggests Mr Gamble thought heat in the exchange caused the problem (see File No-B), where document folio R37911 states:
"This T200 is an EXICOM, and the other T200 is an ALCATEL. We thought that this may be a design 'fault???' with the EXICOM, so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car, and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM, and the old phone was marked and tagged..."(see File No 1-C).
On 27 April 1994, Telstra collected my TF200 EXICOM telephone, which they claimed was faulty. Documents I later obtained under FOI revealed that Telstra knew this telephone fault often occurred in moisture-prone areas such as Cape Bridgewater and that the local exchange had heat issues. When I received my copy of Telstra's 12 December 1994 defense of my government-endorsed arbitration process, it included a 29-page report titled TF200, which stated that Telstra's laboratory testing showed the lock-up problem with my service lines was due to my actual TF200 phone.
Six years after my arbitration was supposed to have resolved this issue, I discovered the lock-up problem persisted, despite Telstra's claim to have investigated it on 27 April 1994. At that time, they disconnected the EXICOM TF200 phone from the fax machine and replaced it with another EXICOM TF200, which remained connected to the fax machine until August 2001, when Telstra and I retested the 55 267230 lines and confirmed that the lock-up issue was still present.
Photographs included in Telstra's report showed the phone's exterior was very dirty. The laboratory technicians reported that the inside was wet and sticky, and analysis of the substance revealed it was beer. The conclusion was that beer caused the hookswitch to lock up, implying that my drinking habits caused my phone problems. However, the laboratory technicians seemed unaware that the government communications regulatory department and I had already tested two different phones on that line and found the same fault.
A story of despair and heartache.
Telstra FOI folio D01026/27 (Tampering With Evidence File No 2) confirms that Telstra was aware of lock-up issues in moisture-prone areas affecting EXICOM T200 phones manufactured after week seven of 1993. This document also indicates that one side effect of this lock-up was that the line would remain open, even after the call was supposedly terminated, allowing one party to hear the room noise of the party whose phone had locked up. Instead of destroying these faulty phones, Telstra, according to document D01026, redeployed approximately 45,000 of them back into service, tasking their technical staff to place them in areas where local technicians believed moisture was not a significant problem.
During my government-endorsed arbitration, I received Telstra document R37911 via FOI. This document reveals that Ross Anderson, a Telstra technician from Portland, tested the TF200 EXICOM fax phone at least 18 times the day after retrieving it, and the lock-up fault did not occur once. Telstra FOI document K00942/3 Tampering With Evidence File No/1-C suggests that the lock-up problem could have been related to heat, moisture, or a combination of both. The document makes no mention of alcohol spillage as a potential cause.
Who poured the sticky beer into the EXICOM TF200 telephone?
Lies and more lies from Telstra
After Mr Anderson's testing on April 27th, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra's laboratory, arriving on May 6th. Testing did not begin for another four days. In the TF200 report, Ray Bell stated under the heading "Initial Inspection, at point 1.3:
"The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee."(See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)
However, a second photo I received via FOI, taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirms that a note I placed on the phone was quite clean when it arrived at Telstra (see Open Letter File No/37 exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6).
This discrepancy raises several questions. The phone was clean when it left my office. Why was it filthy when it arrived at the laboratory? How did beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone, and why? If the beer was not deliberately added, how did it get inside? The primary purpose of Telstra's report, which was submitted as evidence, was to prove that Telstra's service was not at fault.
A story of despair and heartache
Upon reading the "beer-in-the-phone" report, I immediately requested from the arbitrator a copy of the laboratory technician's handwritten notes to understand how Telstra reached its conclusion. I planned to have a forensic document examiner examine these notes. He provided his CV and signed a confidentiality agreement, promising not to disclose his findings outside the arbitration process. Despite forwarding all of this information to the arbitrator, the only response from both the arbitrator and Telstra was a duplicate of the original report included in Telstra's defense.
Six months after my arbitration ended, on November 28, 1995, I received Telstra's arbitration TF200 EXICOM report. This report confirmed that Telstra conducted two separate investigations of my EXICOM TF200 telephone, two weeks apart. The second test report, dated between May 24 and 26, 1994, demonstrated that the first report, provided to the arbitrator, was a complete fabrication and did not accurately reflect the testing process. Photos and graphs from Telstra laboratory staff proved that wet beer introduced into the TF200 phone dried completely within 48 hours. As mentioned, Telstra collected my phone from my business on April 27, 1994, but didn't test it until May 10—a 14-day gap. Various pages (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5) confirm that Telstra knew its second investigation proved the first arbitration report, dated between May 10 and 12, 1994, was fundamentally flawed. Yet, Telstra still submitted this flawed report to the arbitrator as its true findings.
The marked Telstra FOI documents, folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), clearly show that Telstra performed two separate TF200 tests on my phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 includes a handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated May 26, 1994, confirming that wet beer poured into a TF200 phone dried within 48 hours, escaping through the phone's air vents. Given that my TF200 phone was collected on April 27, 1994, how could it have been wet inside on May 10, 1994, when Telstra tested it in their laboratories?
My eyes were sore from fighting an out-of-control fire
Lies and more lies from Telstra
A story of despair and heartache:
Telstra's manipulation of arbitration evidence takes on an even more troubling dimension when viewed in light of my many years of volunteer work with the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) prior to these events. As the following chapters will illustrate, Telstra misrepresented the reason I was unable to attend the scheduled testing of my TF200 telephone on the morning of April 27, 1994. Their file notes, later presented to the arbitrator, only stated that I refused the test because I was tired. They omitted the crucial detail that I had informed the fault response unit I had been battling an out-of-control fire for 14 hours, from 6 pm the previous evening until 9 am that morning, and that my eyes were too sore to observe the testing.
As detailed on our Tampering With Evidence page, Telstra not only attempted to discredit me by implying I was simply too tired to cooperate with the TF200 phone test, but also tampered with the phone after it was removed. Someone at Telstra poured beer into it before it arrived at their Melbourne laboratories. Subsequently, Telstra claimed in their arbitration defense report that sticky beer, not the Cape Bridgewater network, was the cause of the phone's persistent lock-up issues. This act, coupled with the threats I received from Telstra during arbitration, underscores the need for a thorough investigation of my claims years ago. Despite fulfilling my civic duty as an Australian citizen, providing crucial evidence to the AFP, and fighting dangerous fires, I was penalised during my arbitration.
Adding another layer to this narrative is the absurdity of Telstra's claim that I spilled beer into my telephone. How could I have done so, as their arbitration defense documents state, when I was actively fighting a fire? Certainly, I would not have been permitted to drive the CFA truck or assist my fellow firefighters while intoxicated. This episode offers a glimpse into the appalling conduct the COT Cases endured while fighting for reliable phone service.
As if the unaddressed deceit and secret plotting of the past twenty-four years weren't enough, consider the senior Telstra engineer who removed my tampered-with TF200 phone. He then ensured it was held in his office from April 27, 1994, until it finally reached Telstra's laboratories on May 6, 1994. Examining this engineer is crucial because he was also Telstra's Chief Arbitration Engineer. In his Witness Statement of December 12, 1994, he swore under oath that the Service Verification Testing (SVT) process during my arbitration met all mandatory government requirements. Yet, the CCAS data for that day shows no SVT processes conducted at all, neither concerning my phone lines, according to government specifications, nor any specifications whatsoever. Furthermore, this same Telstra engineer was identified by an ex-Telstra employee, Lindsey White, during a Senate Committee hearing on June 24, 1997 (see pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia), as the person who told Mr. White that I was one of the Five COT Cases who had to be stopped at all costs from proving our arbitration claims. Astonishingly, this engineer also visited my business on April 6, 1995, with the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit but refused to conduct any suggested tests on the service line, at my business, that this tampered-with TF200 had been connected to.
Pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia prove beyond any doubt that systemic criminal conduct existed within the Telstra Corporation before and during our arbitrations.
After the four COT cases signed our arbitration agreement, neither AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, nor the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (administrator of our arbitrations) warned us that our arbitration fax and phone interception issues would be broadcast to the media and discussed in parliament.
Let me be clear: AUSTEL (now the Australian Communication and Media Authority – ACMA) was, and still is, promoted as Australia's independent communications regulator. I believed they would reveal the truth, not just for me but for all Telstra customers. However, that did not happen. Not one bureaucrat from AUSTEL/ACMA spoke up then, and none have commented on the COTs' situation since.
A story of despair and heartache:
If even one bureaucrat from AUSTEL/ACMA had been forthright about the cause of my ongoing telephone problems, as they should have been, I believe I would still own and operate my beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. All it would have taken was one brave and honest individual to enable me to appeal the arbitrator's appalling findings, which claimed there was nothing wrong with the phone system connected to my business, either then or at any time.
Beyond the "beer in the phone" deception, Telstra's defence unit and its technicians made many other misleading statements under oath, which were then included in their Legal Submission. Most disturbing were the signed Statutory Declarations from some of the local technicians, who knew from experience that Telstra's network system into the local exchange was substandard. Despite this knowledge, they insisted in these legal documents that everything (except for minor, everyday faults) had been fine during the period covered by my claim.
One local technician even stated that he knew of no other business in the Cape Bridgewater area that reported the type and number of phone problems I had. He even mentioned a stock farm agent friend who had supposedly never had phone problems in Cape Bridgewater. However, when I checked Telstra's own fault data, this very friend had, in fact, complained seven times in a matter of weeks in early 1994, including complaints about his fax line.
Furthermore, three other local technicians stated under oath that back in 1988, when I moved to the area, the old RAX exchange at Cape Bridgewater had five incoming and five outgoing lines, implying that any ensuing congestion would not have significantly affected my service during business hours. In reality, the exchange had only four lines in and four lines out, and Telstra's archives show that congestion was a problem between the Cape Bridgewater and Portland exchanges.
If these three technicians truly believed their story, it raises serious questions about their competence. Surely someone should have noticed there were only eight final selectors
My reply to Telstra's defence, January 1995
Around this time, I happened to see the American movie Class Action, which tells the story of a pharmaceutical company that knowingly continued to sell a drug with dangerous side effects. When a chemist preparing a report for the company discovered a flaw in the drug production, the company chose to "lose" the report rather than spend the money to correct the problem—business as usual. What struck me was how the pharmaceutical company overwhelmed the lawyer representing the patients with thousands of documents at the last minute, making it incredibly difficult to find a key report in time. According to the movie, this tactic of "burying" important documents is called "dumping."
A story of despair and heartache:
Just before Christmas, eleven days after I submitted my legal defense, Telstra "dumped" approximately 24,000 discovery documents on me. These were the documents I had been waiting for to complete my submission, but the relevant material was buried in a mass of irrelevant information.
This was clearly a ploy. Telstra likely believed that by supplying the documents after my initial submission, they could avoid defending them, especially since I only had two weeks to reply to Telstra's defence.
The Christmas season is always the busiest for bookings. Fortunately, Cathy had moved into the camp house by this time. Without her help, I never would have survived. Christmas passed in a blur, and I still had thousands of discovery documents to sort through—a miserable task.
On January 6th, I sent the arbitrator a list of procedural documents needed to support my response, requesting that he obtain them from Telstra. However, the deadline arrived, and I still had not received them. I had to file my response without the documents and felt lost, unsure of where to turn for help. I was repeatedly met with the same tactics: stonewalling and silence. (The documents I requested eventually surfaced two years later.)
However, the arbitrator did respond to my inquiry about the Bell Canada report. In his reply on January 23, 1995, he stated:
"Telecom does not consider it has any further information of relevance in its possession." He asked me to respond to this within 24 hours to "be certain that there is no confusion between the parties as to the documentation which is being sought."
I responded within 24 hours, requesting all raw data Telstra possessed concerning the BCI testing at Cape Bridgewater. I heard nothing further—no data, no response of any kind.
My fax account confirms that my response left my office and was transmitted to the arbitrator's fax machine. Twelve months after the arbitration concluded, I learned that Telstra had not received this response. Then, on June 28, 1995, I learned that the arbitrator, apparently, had not received the fax either. The newly appointed TIO wrote to me:
"Dr. Hughes provided you with a copy of this submission on January 23, 1995, noting that Telecom did not consider it had any further information of relevance in its possession." (The arbitrator) "then invited you, within twenty-four hours to respond to Telecom's submission. Our files do not indicate that you took the matter any further.
The extent of this deception is astonishing. What happened to my fax? I had almost resigned myself to the idea that it was lost. However, in August 1995, three months after my arbitration, a copy of the letter I sent to Dr Hughes, complete with the fax header '24-01-1995 – 15:12 – FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP TO 036148730', was included in a document bundle from the arbitrator's office. This confirmed that the arbitrator's office did, in fact, receive it, as Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E demonstrates.
Despite this undeniable proof, the TIO's office has refused to explain why this crucial BCI letter was never addressed. Had it been, the arbitration outcome might have been drastically different.
A visit by FHCA: The Independent Arbitration Financial Accountants
In February 1995, representatives from the financial arbitration unit (hereafter referred to as FHCA) visited to assess my financial losses stemming from the phone service failures. A Telstra representative arrived separately, delayed by adverse landing conditions at the local airport. FHCA was supposed to provide a list of interviewees and locations visited during their Cape Bridgewater trip; I was led to believe such a list was given to Telstra, but I never received a copy.
Arbitration rules stipulated that neither the resource unit, the technical advisory unit, nor FHCA were permitted to meet with Telstra or me in isolation. The two-hour gap between FHCA's arrival and the Telstra representative's, however, left little choice but to allow FHCA to conduct an unsupervised inspection of the area. When the Telstra representative finally arrived, FHCA's bias became clear: my statements were consistently ignored or contradicted, suggesting pre-conceived notions about the case. The dismissive way they treated my business in front of the Telstra representative foreshadowed the outcome.
Mindful of the rule prohibiting FHCA and Telstra from meeting without my presence, I offered to host lunch at the camp. This offer was declined, and they adjourned to the Kiosk by the beach, in violation of arbitration rules. Powerless to intervene, I could only watch as they returned later and left together for Melbourne.
Throughout 1995, I struggled to organise the influx of FOI documents, which were still arriving late in the process. I understood that the arbitrator was no longer accepting supporting material. However, I was still being charged for calls that never connected, and I hoped for another oral hearing. I contacted the arbitrator to request access to the technical resource unit and to seek assistance in presenting evidence of this ongoing problem, explaining that I could no longer afford my own technical advisor.
A story of despair and heartache:
The arbitrator informed me that the Technical Resource Unit would soon visit Cape Bridgewater, at which time we could discuss the presentation of my material. However, before that visit, DMR Australia withdrew from the process. Consequently, the TIO's office commissioned a new technical unit, LS Telecommunications, headed by a man with 20 years of experience at Telstra. DMR Australia's withdrawal stemmed from Telstra's offer of lucrative contracts, creating a conflict of interest. This raised two questions: Did Telstra deliberately engineer this conflict of interest? And, how could DMR break a signed contract?
As noted in the Prologue, the Ericsson v. Lanes Telecommunications ownership issue significantly impacted most, if not all, COT arbitrations, necessitating further emphasis here.
A TIO letter dated 16 July 1997, to William Hunt, Graham Schorer's solicitor, stated that Lane was involved in several arbitrations and noted the change of ownership was "of concern":
The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson....
The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.
It is my view that Ericsson's ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. ...
The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.****(See exhibit GS 296-a file GS-CAV 258 to 323)
Equally alarming is the question of how long Lane was in contact with Ericsson before the acquisition. Could Lane's neglect of my Ericsson AXE claim documents be linked to Ericsson's purchase of Lane's during the COT arbitration process?
In Chapter Seven of the AUSTEL COT Cases Report (April 1994), AUSTEL reported that my business and other COT businesses experienced significant network issues with Ericsson AXE equipment. Specifically, point 7:40 addresses my AXE Ericsson problems, noting:
"AUSTEL recently became aware that Telecom (Telstra) had prepared an internal document on the subject of this AXE fault and on 21 March 1994 sought a copy from Telstra."****(See Exhibit 9 -AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)
A story of despair and heartache.
I wanted Lane to investigate the Ericsson AXE problems at Cape Bridgewater. Only Lane, and perhaps the arbitrator and Telstra, could explain why these serious issues were never discussed. My claim documents clearly showed that the Ericsson NEAT testing equipment Telstra used at Cape Bridgewater produced readings that were impracticable. However, the evidence I considered crucial was never addressed during my arbitration.
Ann, Graham, and I informed the TIO that we did not want our claims assessed by a former Telstra employee. Consequently, DMR Group Canada was brought in to lead the assessment process, with Lane assisting. However, contrary to the TIO's written agreement, Lid conducted 99.5% of the assessments. Once again, the COT Cases had been misled by the TIO.
John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations, made a significant statement to the Senate Estimates Committee on 26 September 1997 (see page 96 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia
Lane Telecommunications, which is one part of the technical component of the resource unit, has withdrawn from the process as a result of a conflict or perceived conflict of interest after being purchased from Pacific Star by Ericsson Australia, the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance is central to some of the claim.
Why did Mr. Pinnock use the wording "perceived conflict of interest" in his Senate statement when he had previously written to the COT Cases' lawyer stating it was his "view that Ericsson's ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit?"
Senator Richard Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, had also raised concerns about Ericsson's AXE equipment. A month before I entered arbitration, he submitted a question on notice in the Senate on my behalf (see point 25, exhibit 4-B, in file Misleading and Deceptive Conduct File 4-A to 4-L).
The government should have stopped the sale of Lane. Exhibits 4-E and 4-D in Misleading and Deceptive Conduct File 4-A to 4-L reveal that Ericsson believed problems with its AXE equipment could cause between 15 and 50 per cent call losses in some exchanges, a damning admission.
Although it requires jumping ahead two years to 24 June 1997, it is important to revisit a Senate segment to examine statements made on pages 36 and 38 of the official Senate - Parliament of Australia/Hansard records. Lindsay White, a former Telstra employee and then-whistleblower, testified under oath that while assessing the relevance of technical information requested by the COT claimants, he found:
During the initial induction—and I was among the first, likely the earliest, in the Freehill's (Telstra's Lawyers) area—there were five complaints: Garms, Gill, Smith, Dawson, and Schorer. My induction briefing made it clear that Telecom needed to stop these people to prevent the floodgates from opening.
Senator O'Chee then questioned Mr. White: "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs—or what?"
Mr. White replied, "The words used to me in the early days were, we had to stop these people at all costs."
Senator Schacht further asked Mr. White, "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs'?" (See Front Page Part One File No/6)
Mr. White identified, "Mr. Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the introduction process."
From Mr White's statement, it's evident that I was one of the five COT claimants Telstra targeted to be 'stopped at all costs'from proving my claim against Telstra. One of the Peters named in this Senate Hansard is the same Peter Gamble who submitted a false witness statement to the arbitrator regarding the failed SVT testing at my premises on September 29, 1994. This is the same Peter Gamble who, on April 6, 1995, arrived at my Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, where we met a Lane representative at the airport.
The three of us inspected the exchanges at Cape Bridgewater and Portland, discussing matters with the local technician (the one whose stock farm agent friend supposedly never experienced phone problems, despite Telstra documents indicating otherwise).
While the Lane representative was in Cape Bridgewater, I attempted to address the incorrect billing issues. However, the arbitrator had apparently instructed Lane not to assess any new claim material. This angered me, as the arbitrator had assured me that any new information discovered among FOI documents could be presented to the technical resource unit upon their arrival at the camp. I had diligently prepared my evidence, working night after night, only to find that this new information clearly supported my allegations. My frustration reached a point where I excused myself to dry heave in my residence adjacent to the holiday camp.
Neither the Telstra official, Peter, nor the Lane representative was willing to comment on this evidence during my arbitration, despite assurances that the matter would be addressed. They departed shortly thereafter, together and without me, a direct violation of arbitration rules. Who knows what private conversations may have transpired between them? At this point, I was convinced that the arbitration was a sham, solely intended to silence me and prevent the floodgates from opening. The Ericsson problem was that serious.
After they left, I had an idea. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office had consistently supported my allegations regarding Telstra's delayed provision of discovery documents. Throughout this ordeal, they had repeatedly demonstrated impartiality and a commitment to natural justice.
Knowing that the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office was preparing a report on Telstra's delayed provision of COT's discovery documents under the FOI Act, I suspected they retained copies of all communications between us. Therefore, I requested they use my 1800 number for all calls to me, anticipating they would document these calls related to my complaints. My hypothesis was that the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office's call records would not align with my 1800 account.
Two years later, on 28 February 1997, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office submitted a document to Telstra's Corporate Customer Affairs Office, detailing all communications between my office and theirs, as part of their report. This report documented all faxes sent and received, and all calls made to and from my office—a total of 43 calls to my 1800 account.
Bingo! Over the same period, Telstra charged me for 92 calls from the Ombudsman on my 1800 account. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office confirmed these discrepancies in their investigation.
This turned out to be a sound idea, although it did not advance my case. At the time of writing, Telstra has neither refunded me for these incorrect charges nor attempted to explain the discrepancy. The TIO's office has also failed to investigate this matter. However, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's data demonstrated that incorrect charging on both my 1800 line and my fax line (always in Telstra's favour) persisted for at least 18 months after the arbitrator issued my "award." As this incorrect charging was raised during arbitration and neither addressed nor included in the "award," I believe the arbitration process remains incomplete. I have written to the TIO's office about this matter several times, without success.
The following statement made by Telstra in FOI folio A00354 reveals senior management's concern about the poor state of their rural network:
"I understand there is a new tariff filing to be lodged today with new performance parameters one which commits to 98% call completion at the individual customer level.
"Given my experience with customer disputes and the BCI study, this is a cause for concern. We will not meet this figure in many exchanges around Australia particularly in country areas."
A further Telstra FOI document folio P03022 is an internal email dated 23 September, noting:
In light of the current climate, Telecom must exercise extreme caution in its correspondence with CoT customers. To ensure appropriate handling of these communications, I have engaged to participate in this matter on an "as required" basis. All correspondence from CoT (and near CoT) customers should be channelled through . This individual will then coordinate either the drafting of a reply from Telecom or a direct response from acting as our agent.(Arbitrator File No/81)
The email continues:
Please ensure that all correspondence related to customers who are, or have the potential to become, serious complainants is processed through , with initial acknowledgement provided by the Region.
Chapter 8
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
The Final Insult
When I left Cape Bridgewater for the last time in February 2019, I carried the weight of decades of disillusionment. What began in March 1987 as a simple fight for a fair go had twisted into something far more sinister — a long, punishing struggle against a system that seemed determined to break me. The arbitration process, which should have delivered truth and justice, instead unfolded like a carefully staged performance, its outcome shaped long before I ever stepped into the ring.
Throughout that ordeal, seven employees stood before the arbitrator and swore that my business had always enjoyed the “world’s best rural telephone service.” Seven statements. Seven signatures. Each one felt like another layer in a web designed to obscure, confuse, and suffocate the truth.
As we turned onto the ring road out of Portland, hoping to leave the nightmare behind, a towering billboard rose above the highway — a final, mocking reminder of everything I had endured.
Its message sliced through me like a blade:
“We’ve expanded Australia’s best network to Cape Bridgewater.”
There it stood, bold and triumphant, completely at odds with the sworn statements that had shaped my arbitration. The billboard, erected in 2018, cast a long shadow over the entire process. It felt like a public contradiction, a silent revelation that the narrative presented during arbitration had never aligned with the reality on the ground.
In that moment, the façade cracked. The contrast between what had been said under oath and what now loomed above the highway was impossible to ignore. It was a chilling reminder of how easily truth can be buried, how effortlessly a narrative can be shaped, and how deeply betrayal can cut when trust has already been stretched to breaking point.
As of January 2026, Telstra and the government have still not released the promised FOI documents I needed to support my 1994/95 arbitration claims.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
