PLEASE NOTE: Manipulating the Regulator was created on 11 June 2018 and is a work in progress. Last edited December 2020
Why am I writing this story at the age of 76, when I should be relaxing and enjoying my retirement? Because, between 1992 and beyond, a group of small business owners were discredited by the Telstra Corporation and the Australian government in order to conceal what we uncovered: the truth surrounding Australia’s ailing copper-wire network. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed, as part of a government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of 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. One of the original four Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) group died in July 2018. The other has dementia. I have this intense feeling inside that I must tell our story the way it happened not the way the archives of the Department of Communications, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) and the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman office has recorded this event. Australia’s history regarding the COT Cases government-endorsed arbitration has been doctored. One of my many Freedom of Information (FOT) request to the DCITA asked for a copy of the archive records regarding by the government regarding my 1994 Telstra v Alan Smith (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) government arbitration process. What I received back from the government was a very, sanitized set of untruth about my arbitration and that of the man (my friend) who now has dementia. It is my moral duty as a loving citizen of this fine country of ours to keep fighting to have our issues addressed, to expose systemic corruption and to gain closure for events that happened over 24- years ago. This is a true story.
Worse, before the arbitrations began the arbitrator was provided with a report which was officially submitted to all parties involved in the first four arbitrations. This report dated 13 April 1994, stated at point 5.78: “an agreed standard of service, being developed in consultation with AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), to be applied to any case subject to settlement is essential”. It is clear from this 258-page report that no finding by the arbitrator can be brought down until proof that Telstra had fixed all of the ongoing telephone problems being experienced by these businesses. After all, what was the reason for an arbitration process if the claimant’s businesses were still affected by ongoing telephone problems?
In my case, regardless of the arbitrators own technical consultants advising him in their 30 April 1995 report their findings were still incomplete and they still needed extra weeks to investigate my ongoing telephone complaints that wording was removed from the draft and the draft still dated 30 April 1995 was submitted to the arbitration as the complete formal report.
AUSTEL COT Case’s formal public report
Point 5.46 on page 95 ‘
Where, as part of its direction, AUSTEL sought to obtain detailed information on each of the exchanges involved in terms of performance standards, actual performance, maintenance requirements and achievements, Telecom initially responded with advice in terms of a few generalisations. Very specific requests were necessary to obtain data which a co-operative approach may well have been expected to deliver. Indeed, throughout this inquiry, it has been apparent that Telecom has chosen to interpret AUSTEL’s request for information in the narrowest possible terms. The net effect of this was to minimise the amount of relevant data it put before AUSTEL and lengthen the process necessary to extract it.
On 21st November 2007, I received from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), under FOI, a copy of AUSTEL’s original draft findings dated 2nd / 3rd March 1994, regarding the telephone problems experienced by the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp during 1988 to 1994. Copied below are some of the page numbers and points in the report. The reason I am discussing these issues here in our Manipulating the Regulator page is to show the difficulties that AUSTEL as the Government regulator had in obtaining documents from Telstra (at the time a fully Government-owned Corporation). Given these difficulties, the non-supply of documents to the COT claimants during their respective arbitrations is one of the reasons I was unable to conclusively prove to the arbitrator my telephone faults were still ongoing. The following list identifies some areas (in the AUSTEL draft report) where AUSTEL had problems with access to Telstra records on the service provided to me:
Point 43 on page 20 “As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residents prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area.”
Point 48 on page 22 “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”
Point 71 on pages 28 and 29 “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault. It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary. It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”
Point 140 on page 49 “t should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM. The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”
Point 160 on page 55 “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”
Once AUSTEL was fully aware Telstra was refusing AUSTEL relevant information that would allow the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister after the regulator facilitated the arbitration and mediation processes that were to be based on information obtained from Telstra, it is obvious that AUSTEL should never have allowed those processes to proceed. AUSTEL breached its duty of care to the COT cases by permitting the arbitrations/mediations to proceed. After all, if the government could not officially order Telstra to supply records to the minister, then what hope did the COT cases ever have of obtaining the same documents?
Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript taken during an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And Mr Matthews replied: ‘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 of that at the time.’
In simple terms, by AUSTEL only providing Telstra a copy of their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings in March 1994, not only assisted Telstra during their defence of my 1994/95 arbitration it also assisted Telstra in 2006, when the government could only assess my claims on a sanitized report prepared by AUSTEL and not their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.
Minimizing Telstra’s liability
AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, 23, 42, 44, 46, 109, 115, 130, 153, 158, 209 and 212 (below), were compiled after the government communications regulator investigated my ongoing telephone problems. 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 get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
Page 10 – “Whilst Network Investigation and Support advised that all faults were rectified, the above faults and record of degraded service minutes indicate a significant network problem from August 1991 to March 1993.”
Point 23 – “It is difficult to discern exactly who had responsibility for Mr Smith’s problems at the time, and how information on his problems was disseminated within Telecom. Information imparted by the Portland officer on 10 February 1993 of suspected problems in the RCM [Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange]“caused by a lighting (sic) strike to a bearer in late November” led to a specialist examination of the RCM on March 1993. Serious problems were identified by this examination.”
Point 42 – “Some important questions are raised by the possible existence of a cable problem affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service. Foremost of these questions is why was the test call program conducted during July and August 1992 did not lead to the discovery of the cable problem. Another important question is exactly how the cable problem would have manifested in terms of service difficulties to the subscriber.”
Point 44 – “Given the range of faults being experienced by Mr Smith and other subscribers in Cape Bridgewater, it is clear that Telecom should have initiated more comprehensive action than the test call program. It appears that there was expensive reliance on the results of the test program and insufficient analysis of other data identifying problems. Again, this deficiency demonstrated Telecom’s lack of a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to resolution of Mr Smith’s problems.”
Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM. Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.”
Point 76 – “One disturbing matter in relation to Mr Smith’s complaints of NRR [not receiving ring] is that information on other people in the Cape Bridgewater area experiencing the problem has been misrepresented from local Telecom regional manager to more senior manager.”
Point 86 – “From examination of Telecom’s documention concerning RVA [a recorded voice announcement – not in service] messages on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp there are a wide range of possible causes of this message.”
Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau:
“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 disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. [AXE – Portland telephone exchange]”
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 utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “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.”
Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”
Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service 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 customer base.”
Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”
Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.
Point 212 – “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.”
Ballarat subscribers wrote to TV stations and newspapers supporting my allegations that, with regard to telephone services, rural small-business people, as well as the general public, suffered a very bumpy playing field compared to our city cousins. 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.
Our office is located in Ballarat and due to Telstra structure the majority of our local calls are STD-fee based.
On many occasions we have been unable to get through 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 that they often receive the engaged signal when calling us and a review of the office reveals that at least one of our lines was free at the relevant time.
We have just received our latest Telstra bill which in total is up about 25–30% on the last bill. This is odd because our work load in the billing period was down by about 25% and we have one staff member less than the previous billing period.”
Another Ballarat letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun, read:
“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.”
(Because of a number of reports regarding this ‘piercing noise’, Ray Morris from Telstra’s Country Division arranged to have my service switched to another system.” (See My Story Evidence File 10-B)
The pressure on all four of us COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews as well as our continuing canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling by now but I continued to hammer for a change in rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.
“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 18 August 1993 The Hon David Hawker MP again wrote to me, noting:
“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.” (See Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)
I ask that the reader takes into consideration the following very serious matter of AUSTEL secretly allowing Telstra to address some of my unaddressed arbitration claim documents without the arbitrator or I being involved (see Chapter Thirteen and Fourteen – Arbitrator / Part Three). That AUSTEL allowed Telstra to use the witness statement of Ross Anderson in order to address the ongoing RVA May 1994 issues is astounding, to say the least. Telstra and I signed the arbitration agreement, on 21 April 1994: there was NO amendment signed by me allowing the government to enter an assessment process with Telstra to address the more adverse findings without the arbitrator being present or me having any input in that process. There was no side agreement in the arbitration agreement Telstra and I signed that allowed any of my arbitration claim documents to be addressed by anyone other than the arbitrator. For AUSTEL to have ventured into such a process with only Telstra – when it accepted Telstra’s written response clearly addressing my previous May 1994 arbitration claims concerning RVA billing – on 16 October 1995, five months after my arbitration process was concluded, was a deplorable act. Telstra addressed some of my RVA May 1995 claim documents in secret with AUSTEL.
AUSTEL asked if it could view my arbitration claim documents that were not addressed by the arbitrator. I allowed this so the government could value what should have been investigated under the arbitration agreement. On 19 December 1995, AUSTEL’s Daren Kearney took five large spiral volumes of my evidence for the government to assess, telling me AUSTEL would advise me of their findings. I have never been advised of this 16 October 1995 issue nor provided with a written response to what AUSTEL thought of the evidence that was not investigated during my arbitration.
I have, however, in my reporting on commented that Mr Kearney’s mini three-page report, which I only received under FOI in 2002, agreed my unaddressed 008/1800 RVA billing claims were valid.
The statements made by the hackers to Graham Schorer – that both Telstra and the government are concealing relevant documents from the COT cases – are possibly some of the most important statements made during our four arbitrations. The damage done by withholding AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings from the arbitration process can, again, be seen in the following statements made by Sue Hodgkinson, the TIO-appointed resource unit’s financial officer.
Prologue Evidence File No/17 shows Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit, documented, in part, Telstra’s arbitration defence issues and my claim issues, such as evidence to support claims, while unaware of AUSTEL’s true findings (supplied ONLY to Telstra), which were completely different to the findings Telstra supplied the public and the arbitration process.
On page two of exhibit Prologue Evidence File No/17, when referring to my Telstra arbitration claim, Sue Hodgkinson (FHCA) states, in bullet form, her appraisal of the authenticity of my claim material:
- “Most of the allegations are unsubstantiated and many are not verified by statutory declaration.
- “Smith has relied upon records kept in his diaries as his primary record of complaints.
- “The magnitude of fault complaints reported is unsubstantiated and appears overstated.”
Ms Hodgkinson is correct: I did not supply all of the required technical information to support my arbitration claim. This, of course, is mainly due to Telstra’s unethical conduct of withholding that information from me during my arbitration, even though I made requests under FOI between February 1994 and April 1995.
Firstly, because I did not receive the promised documents to support my arbitration claim, I could not substantiate my claims. Secondly, how could I verify my claim in a statutory declaration under oath if I did not have the evidence to swear that the evidence is correct? “Smith has relied upon records kept in his diaries as his primary record of complaints,” is correct.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s director of investigations clarified, in many letters to Telstra, that Telstra was defective in its FOI responses. This resulted in Telstra refunding me approximately 70 per cent of the unnecessary costs involved in trying to obtain my FOI documents during my arbitration. Those costs had to be proven by me and assessed by loss assessors, GAB Robins, appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This was not a compensation payment: I had to support each receipt of cost involved in trying to access that information through lawyers and professional advisors.
And thirdly, FHCA could not have noted “The magnitude of fault complaints reported is unsubstantiated and appears overstated,” had the government communications regulator (AUSTEL) also provided the arbitrator and me with a copy of its AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings (see above), as it did Telstra. The arbitrator’s findings would then have been completely different, in regards to my claims.
How could anyone, from the arbitrator to Sue Hodgkinson and Telstra, have doubted the magnitude of my fault complaints or stated they were unsubstantiated when the government itself, using documents officially accessed from Telstra, showed my business suffered significantly due to Telstra’s deficient service? AUSTEL stated:
“Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service 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 customer base.” (See point 209 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings)
If this evidence had been available to the arbitrator, he would have had no option other than to pay me more than triple the amount in his award. The government communications regulator had already found in my favour before I entered the arbitration process.
As further testament to how badly Telstra’s defective FOI process affected my arbitration, 18-months after the arbitration was deemed finished the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s director of investigations clarified, in many letters to Telstra, that Telstra was defective in its FOI responses. This resulted in Telstra refunding me approximately 70 per cent of the unnecessary costs involved in trying to obtain my FOI documents during my arbitration. Those costs had to be proven by me and assessed by loss assessors, GAB Robins, appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This was not a compensation payment: I had to support each receipt of cost involved in trying to access that information through lawyers and professional advisors.
If Julian Assange was one of the hackers (and it appears that he was), then making such statements and accusations against governments, when those governments are wrong, appears to be what drives Julian Assange to seek justice when it’s been denied. In the case of AUSTEL concealing their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings from both the arbitrator and me during a government-endorsed highly legalistic arbitration process, yet provided it to the defendant (where it surely assisted them in their defence of our claims) was wrong and grossly discriminative in the most appalling way
(Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), a letter dated 8 April 1994 to AUSTEL’s Chairman from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggests that AUSTEL was far from truly independent, but rather could be convinced to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra has requested in many of the points in this first letter.
For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.
However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.
The fact that, on this occasions on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.
The 120,000 COT-type problems being experienced by other Australian citizens are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report either see Falsification Report File No/10 DCITA even though it was used by the DCITA to determine the validity of the COT claims of ongoing telephone problems that were destroying their businesses.
It is clear from the following three letters dated 3, 14 and 16 October 1995, that the most important part of my arbitration claim was addressed in secret by AUSTEL and Telstra. How many of the 120,000 previously concealed faults which should have been shown in AUSTEL’s COT Cases report were related to the 008/1800 faults which AUSTEL allowed Telstra to address outside of my arbitration arena?
This 3 October 1995 letter from AUSTEL to Telstra’s arbitration defence liaison officer and copied to the TIO, states:
“I write concerning charging discrepancies raised in 1994 by Mr Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp regarding his 008 service, and the wider issue these discrepancies raise for Telstra’s 008/1800 customers. These matters have been the subject of previous letters from AUSTEL to you and to [Telstra], dated 4 October 1994 and 1 December 1994, respectively. The charging discrepancies have again been raised with AUSTEL by Mr Smith following the conclusion of his Fast Track Arbitration Procedure.”
On 14 October 1995, AUSTEL’s Darren Kearney wrote to me under the subject heading Charging Discrepancies Related to Telstra’s 008/1800 Service:
“As noted in my letter to you of 4 October 1995, AUSTEL has written to Telstra regarding the issues originally raised by you in 1994. The letter refers specifically to charging discrepancies raised in 1994 by Mr Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp regarding his 008 service. …
“As previously advised, you will be informed of the outcome of this matter.”
Did the arbitration resource unit understand that when they failed to investigate the ongoing billing problems, they did not address the cause of the billing issues? The billing issues included calls registering into the holiday camp lines through Telstra’s Call Analyses Charges System (CCAS) that I was charged for, although the connection actually failed, and a fault where successful calls were terminated but the line remained engaged, thus prohibiting incoming or outgoing calls. The failure of the engaged line to correct itself, leaving the line effectively frozen, was significant.
This fault was only obvious when dialling out from the business office. From 1993 onwards, Telstra often advised us to disconnect the phone at the wall socket and then plug it back in to free up the line. This indicates the fault was in either the phone or the actual phone line. In order to dial out of the office when this particular fault was present (it was intermittent), we had to disconnect the line at the wall after every call.
Faults continued to occur. In January 2003 – seven years after the arbitration process – the new owners of my business wrote to David Hawker MP, seeking help (see Arbitrator File No/118). Ex-Telstra technical guru Brian Hodge, after viewing Telstra’s own fault material, confirms the problems were still affecting the business in November 2006. When the project manager admitted that NONE of the billing issues was addressed during my arbitration (see below), he also admitted to not investigating the faults that caused these billing issues. In fact, in both the draft and final 30 April 1995 technical arbitration evaluation Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp reports, the consultants state:
“2.23 Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHA (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain “open”(See Introduction File No/1-B)
The TIO-appointed arbitration project manager wrote to the TIO on 15 November 1995 advising them that NONE of my billing faults was investigated because the material was not submitted until April 1995.
“A second matter involved 008 calls. Again, this matter was current at a late stage (April 1995) of the Arbitration process. …
“As no further progress was likely to be made on these matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report did not leave the billing issue open.”(See Introduction File No/1-A )
Although the billing issues were certainly still “current” in April 1995, this letter implies that they were not referred to before: this is inaccurate as my billing issues were included in my letter of claim, which Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan lodged on 15 June 1994. The project manager, once again, misled and deceived the TIO. This same project manager was present at the oral arbitration hearing with the arbitrator and Telstra on 11 October 1994. I informed both the arbitrator and Telstra, in detail, as to the true extent of Telstra’s billing problems within their network. The transcript of this hearing shows that both the arbitration project manager and the arbitrator were given massive (and we repeat – massive) amounts of evidence in relation to wrongly calculated accounts charged to my phone services over many years recorded these facts. (See Open letter File No/45-B)
Amazingly, even though the arbitrator’s technical consultants – one from Canada, the other from Australia – warned the arbitrator, at point 2.23 in their final arbitration evaluation report, that there were “Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp]service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’,” the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes refused to allow these two arbitration consultants the extra weeks they needed to investigate these problems. Chapter One in our Prologue page shows the arbitration project manager John Rundell (who now operates an arbitration centre in Melbourne) knowingly misinformed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) in his 15 November 1995 letter concerning these faults being left open. So not only was I battling Telstra’s false witness statements in my arbitration and the concealment of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings against Telstra, but I also had to contend with the arbitration project manager’s false statements to the TIO (the administrator of my arbitration).
If my claim advisors, Garry and Barry, had provided me with the costs of the freight charges between Queensland and Victoria and the dates they sent the material on, I could have proved conclusively to the TIO that my billing claim documents were sent in June 1994, as the freight invoice would have shown when it left their Queensland office. No one has attempted to investigate why these documents were kept from the arbitration, not even my claim advisers. Senator Barry O’Sullivan has not replied to my questions as to why he won’t supply the freight costs.
If Mr Kearney is honest, then I am sure he remembers what he told me after I showed him point 2.23 (above). I remember, vividly, that he asked how the technical consultants could sign off their report as complete, when they had not even attempted to diagnose the causes of the faults that Telstra’s CCAS data showed were a major problem for my business. I told Mr Kearney the Canadian technical consultant had spoken to me on the telephone and informed me the report was not signed off because it had not been completed. We address this issue in more detail on another page.
While Mr Kearney was clearly shocked at the evidence contained in my comprehensive log of fault complaints and appeared to empathise with me regarding the arbitrator’s duplicity, he made it clear AUSTEL could not intervene. He requested, almost apologetically, that he be allowed to take the comprehensive log and its attachments – five spiral-bound evidence files compiled by Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan. I allowed Mr Kearney the privilege of taking this information to Melbourne. However, similar to when I ignored Telstra’s threats (see Senate Evidence File No/31) and continued assisting the AFP with their investigations, I was again deceived. AUSTEL (now ACMA) like the AFP, have refused to assist me when I needed the same assistance they had received from me.
Was it legal or illegal?
16 October 1995: Five months after my arbitration was deemed complete (and hence outside the arena of the arbitration process) AUSTEL allowed Telstra’s original arbitration defence liaison officer to address the 27 May 1994 recorded voice faults my claim advisor Garry Ellicott experienced (see also Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l). These were some of the billing RVA faults that the resource unit later admitted (2 August 1996) to the arbitrator and TIO that they had withheld from the arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H).
Trying to produce a readable claim when the story was so complex, multi-layered and obscured by long-delayed access to necessary information was extremely challenging. My phone and fax lines became lifelines to Garry Ellicott in Queensland. Ex-senior Queensland police officers Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan (now the Hon Senator Barry O’Sullivan) were heavily involved in my arbitration. Between May 1994 and May 1995, while working on my claim, Garry frequently experienced major problems when he tried to contact me by phone or fax (this was pre-email). Sometimes he attempted to phone me, but received an incorrectly recorded voice announcement (termed an RVA fault) telling him that my phone line was ‘no longer connected’; sometimes the line was simply dead. Sometimes he was unable to send faxes to me or I could not receive them; on other occasions when faxes did get through, if they weren’t completely blank pages, they were so distorted they were unreadable.
When Garry attempted to ring me on 27 May 1994 on my 1800 service, he twice reached a recorded announcement telling him my number was not connected, before he finally got through. When Garry rang the Telstra fault centre to complain about these voice messages the operator told him she could not register the fault because the complaint had to come from the customer. Garry’s response was understandably blunt. He asked, ‘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?’ When my telephone account arrived I had, of course, been charged for both failed calls.
AUSTEL, allowing Telstra to address arbitration issues outside of my arbitration, prohibited me from legally challenging (as part of the original arbitration process) Telstra’s response to the ongoing billing problems that still affected the viability of my business. AUSTEL did not alert me to this, which meant that I was unable to use my legal right to challenge Telstra on this matter.
When AUSTEL allowed Telstra to address these ongoing RVA billing issues covertly (see Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l) and without the involvement of the original ‘umpire’ (in my case, the arbitrator) AUSTEL could not have known that my claim advisors had already proved to the arbitrator that Telstra’s witness statement was full of inaccuracies. Telstra was able to submit this same witness statement to AUSTEL, fully aware that AUSTEL did not know what Gary Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan (my claim advisors) had proven.
Anyone who uses a telephone has at some time reached a recorded voice announcement (known within the industry as RVA):
‘The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.’
This incorrect message was the RVA people most frequently reached when trying to ring the Camp. While Telstra never acknowledged this, I discovered much later, among a multitude of FOI documents I received in 1994, a copy of a Telstra internal memo which explained, ‘this message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader’.
Another Telstra document referred to the need for:
‘a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied …I am sure when we start to scratch around we will find a host of network circumstances where inappropriate RVAs are going to line’.
It seems the ‘not connected’ RVA came on whenever the lines in or out of Cape Bridgewater were congested, which, given how few lines there were, was often.
For a newly established business like ours, this was a major disaster, but despite the memo’s acknowledgement that such serious faults existed, Telstra never admitted the existence of a fault in those first years. And with my continued complaints I was treated increasingly as a nuisance caller. This was rural Australia, and I was supposed to put up with a poor phone service — not that anyone in Telstra was admitting that it was poor service. In every case, ‘no fault found’ was the finding by technicians and linesmen.
NOTE: The arbitration confidentiality agreement, which both Telstra and I signed, prohibited us from exposing these types of documents outside of the arbitration process. Yet Telstra, on 16 October 1995, supplied AUSTEL some of their original arbitration defence documents. Telstra not only breached the confidentiality agreement, but they also used documents already proven false. If AUSTEL had gathered the main players together and insisted the arbitration issues be addressed because the systemic billing issues affected thousands of Telstra customers, the arbitrator would have been duty-bound to reopen the arbitration.
How can AUSTEL (now the ACMA) continue to state that they are independent of Telstra and did not compromise my position? Mr Kearney’s report, from the information I provided him on 19 December 1995 (see below), confirms Telstra incorrectly charged me for telephone calls for more than two years, both before and during my arbitration. Between June 1993 and December 1995, I provided AUSTEL with copies of Telstra System CCAS data, showing that Telstra had a systemic billing problem in their network. Over this period, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on numerous occasions regarding my claims. One letter, dated 4 October 1994, demanded answers (see Open letter File No/46-F to 46-l) and another letter, dated 2 August 1996, show AUSTEL was very concerned as it appeared this systemic billing problem still existed within Telstra’s network (see Arbitrator File No/115). Will the Australian public ever know how much extra revenue Telstra made during the period in which this systemic billing problem existed in their network?
Mr Kearney’s statements in his February 1996 report (see Arbitrator File No/109) support my original arbitration billing submission (which accompanied our arbitration chronology of faults submission and hence was hidden from arbitration) and show that the billing information that Telstra provided to AUSTEL on 16 October 1995 was fundamentally flawed. The information AUSTEL allowed Telstra to submit in secret did not match Mr Kearney’s findings. In essence, AUSTEL allowing Telstra to address some of my arbitration billing claims in secret, without an arbitrator present and disallowing me my legal rights to challenge Telstra’s submission, severely compromised my future complaints of ongoing telephone problems.
The TIO and Telstra both refused to properly investigate the ongoing problems until 16 January 1998, and then it was agreed (see Main Evidence File No 35 and File No 36) that these problems continued to haunt my business long after the end of my ‘completed’ arbitration. So, in 2015, how can the government say that the government communications regulator did not breach their statutory obligation to me as a citizen of Australia? Particularly, when they allowed Telstra to covertly address issues, which had cost me $200,000-PLUS merely to submit them to arbitration where ultimately only a part of my claim was assessed.
Concealing the truth (1)
One aspect of this more-than-twenty-two-years-old case is still very relevant today, and that is the fact that at least two of the public servants and/or bureaucrats who were heavily involved in concealing the truth about what the Communications Regulator had uncovered concerning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards their customers, were still senior bureaucrats within the current Communications Regulator, in 2015. Despite the fact that their behaviour, all those years ago, was clearly a breach of their statutory obligations, both to myself and the other COT claimants too, but still, no one has ever transparently investigated any of the claims now exposed on absentjustice.com, which suggest that nothing has changed within the Regulator’s Department. Just imagine what would have happened if the Regulator and their public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were being recorded in 1994! The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network really was, and that would have resulted in most of the millions upon millions of dollars (in fact it is probably more like a billion dollars or more), of what it has cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved, because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, twenty-three years ago. In other words, when the Regulator decided not to include the truth in their AUSTEL COT Cases Report of April 1994, those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blow-out related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia.
Falsification Reports File No/4 dated 22 September 1994 is a transcript taken during an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, with AUSTEL’s representatives, Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this transcript the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And AUSTEL’s representative replied:
“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 of that at the time.”
While it is clear from the statement made by one of AUSTEL’s two representatives at the hearing (see above), that Telstra received a copy of AUSTEL’s draft findings, ‘NONE’ of the information in this draft report, which enabled the Government Communications Regulator (AUSTEL), to arrive at their adverse findings against the Telstra Corporation, was ever made available to the COT claimants during their arbitrations.
The exhibit Falsification Report File No/8 and in our Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C contains two letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s group general manager to AUSTEL’s chair (see also Arbitrator Part One). These letters suggest AUSTEL was far from truly independent, but rather could be convinced to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this letter.
For example, at point 4, on page 3 on the 8 April letter, Telstra’s Steve Black writes to AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey stating:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.”
And, in the second letter, on 9 April, from Mr Black to Mr Davey he writes:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of ‘some hundreds’ of COT-type customers…”
And further, on page 3, Mr Black adds:
“Telecom is still concerned that … the proposed reference to ‘some hundreds’ of customers has the potential to be misleading.”
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
That Telstra (the defendant) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings for the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.
Because acknowledgement of the 120,000 COT-type problems, experienced by other Australian citizens, was removed from the AUSTEL formal report, which the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report referenced to determine the validity of COT claims of ongoing telephone problems destroying our businesses, the vastness of Telstra’s network issues does not appear in the DCITA report, either. How many other government-owned businesses have had reports cleansed to prevent the truth from being exposed? (See also Destruction of Evidence / Perverting The Course of Justice/Falsification Report File No/10 )
When is a Regulator Not a Regulator?
As the two letters of 8 and 9 April 1994 show, Telstra pressured AUSTEL, and AUSTEL agreed, to dramatically change the actual findings that were included in the first version of AUSTEL’s public COT Cases Report, which would then be used in the COT arbitrations. In response to that pressure from Telstra, AUSTEL removed all reference to the 120,000 COT-type complaints that they had located and included in the original version of their report and changed that figure to read instead that they had only found fifty or so COT-type complaints. Surely this was illegal, particularly since it is obvious that that one change would definitely provide considerable assistance for Telstra in their arbitration defence of the COTs’ claims?
At point 2.68 in the AUSTEL Cot report, the 120 thousand COT-type complaints were changed to read 50 or more, therefore the official AUSTEL COT report, provided to the minister, says 50 or more
9th April 1994: In this letter, Mr Black states:-
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of ‘some hundreds’ of COT-type customers.”
As noted immediately above, the official report refers to 50 or more COT-type faults, confirming that Mr Davey was further pressured to change his real findings.
Telstra FOI folio 101115 to 101117 states:-
“A total of 8% of all businesses stated they had experienced problems themselves; 5% had, by inference from comments made by callers assumed they had problems; and 8% claimed they had both experienced problems themselves and also received comments from callers regarding difficulties in getting through to the business. …
73% of customers who felt the problems associated with incoming calls has seriously affected their business had reported the problems to Telecom with varying degrees of success regarding resolution.”
On 6th December 1993 (see above), Telstra’s Ted Benjamin warned Telstra’s Group Managing Director, Harvey Parker, that 4 per cent of the 2,644 commercial business customers surveyed by TELCATS (on behalf of Telstra) reported experiencing significant phone problems that affected their businesses.
Four per cent of 2,644 means 106 businesses experienced COT-type problems – a significant number. Four per cent of all Telstra’s commercial business customers, nationwide, would be well over 120,000 – the number that AUSTEL’s chair, Robin Davey, wanted to include in the AUSTEL COT report, rather than the 50 or more customers Telstra insisted on. Robin Davey’s original calculations were correct.
Once the altered version of AUSTEL’s April 1994 report then indicated – completely falsely – that there were only fifty or so COT-type problems registered with Telstra, instead of the actual figure of 120,000, and this altered report was made available to the public, we must then ask what effect that hugely minimised figure would have had on the “value” of Telstra, when it was floated to the public. Surely the number of reported “problems” would influence that “value”? (see the comment, at the end of this, about share price fluctuations) Furthermore, when the Government/NBN later paid Telstra $11 Billion (see http://www.itnews.com.au/news/telstra-hands-over-copper-hfc-in-new-11bn-nbn-deal) for their network, just two years ago (in 2016), this same suppression of true information would also have been extremely useful in relation to the valuation, or the reliability, or the real value of the cable, to properly and effectively support communication systems around the country?
Forget the value of compromised network infrastructure, e.g. a seriously deficient system, and consider the other side of the equation, i.e. that it is not the value placed on the network that is most important per se, it is the capability of the network to be an efficient communications service for the customers that should be front and centre here.
If Telstra was such a terrific investment, then surely the value of the shares should have improved over the years, but they certainly have not! Moreover, the current value of Telstra is, in part, based on timed calls and mobile communication but, remember the uproar when timed fixed line calls were suggested!!!! This same business model is carried over to the NBN with the exception that there are retailers who take the profit while the NBN is just a “wholesaler” of infrastructure. We could have had this with Telstra, if only there was a true separation of the wholesale and retail arms.
We (i.e. the Australian Public) personally have some insight into the NBN through what has now been in the media of later, and so we know that there is a substantial investment in technology and expertise that is not evident to the population, and the NBN is actually like a parallel universe, where there is focus on NBN and the real world we live in, but it is almost totally disjointed and attached to the “old” network and to paying retailers for a less-than-adequate service. And the Chief Engineer/CEO has just been replaced by a marketing person – astonishing!
So, where will this all lead? We are, personally, no better off with the NBN compared to the ADSL service we had before. This could be due to the equipment we have, the network we use, the increased volume, the design of “new” websites, the equipment the retailer uses, or some other factor we don’t even know about. And we will never really know, just like the world will never know about the COT cases.
Actually, in today’s share market there only has to be a hint of controversy and the market value of an individual enterprise falls, at least momentarily, while the mathematical risk-analysis kicks in and is then followed by the human analysis of the reality. What would be the effect if the public knew about those 120,000 unhappy Telstra customers I wonder?
Fudged exchange reporting
In the same original, draft report of AUSTEL’s findings they acknowledged that, for the first three and a half years, my business was connected to an outdated RAX exchange with limited access lines. In the final, doctored version of the report, however, the one with the fudged fifty or so COT-type complaints, the government advised the arbitrator that my business was connected to an ARK exchange at that time: an ARK is a different and more modern exchange with space for more incoming circuits.
So now, how is it that the government can continue to get away with deliberately hiding such major discrepancies in a report that is so important, not only to the COTs but the entire Australian population?
One aspect of this over-22-years-old case is still very relevant today: at least two public servants or bureaucrats, who were heavily involved in concealing the truth about what the communications regulator uncovered concerning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards their customers, are still senior bureaucrats within the current communications regulator today, in 2017. Despite the fact that their behaviour, all those years ago, was a breach of their statutory obligations to the COT claimants, still, no one has ever transparently investigated any of the claims exposed on abesentjustice.com which suggests that nothing has changed within the regulator’s department.
As we have shown above– just imagine what would have happened if the regulator and its public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Minister for Communications that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were recorded in 1994! The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network really was and that would have resulted in the Australian government saving most of the millions (if not in the billions) of dollars spent to fight our legitimate claims. The problems should have been dealt with way back then, 22 years ago. When the regulator decided to retract the truth, from their AUSTEL COT cases report of April 1994, those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blowout related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia.
The failure of those same public servants to alert the relevant communications minister to ALL of the alarming facts they uncovered, during their official investigation into Graham’s and my telephone problems, ruined any real chance we had to restructure our businesses. AUSTEL’s investigation into our ongoing telephone problems was conducted under Section 342 of the Telecommunications Act 1991. This section provides that, after the conclusion of such an investigation, AUSTEL must prepare a report covering “the conduct of the investigation concerned” and “any findings AUSTEL has made as a result of the investigation” and provide a copy to the Minister for Communications and the Arts. However, AUSTEL did NOT report ALL of their findings to the minister, therefore, AUSTEL and its public servants breached their statutory obligation under section 342 to all of the COT cases involved in AUSTEL’s official investigation.
Concealing the truth (2)
On 15 July 1995 AUSTEL’s previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs provided me with an open letter noting:
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
Had the Government Communications Regulator AUSTEL/ACMA not concealed their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp covert report from the Minister for Communications and the arbitrator, the arbitrator would have been compelled to investigate as to whether my claims of ongoing problems was a valid claim. Below are just some examples of the information concealed from the arbitrator.
Although we have raised the following points in the introduction to introduction to Absentjustice / My Story because of the importance of what these various points show we have again added them directly below.
I also show below, that, instead of assisting me with deciphering this material, Dr Gordon Hughes and TIO John Pinnock embarked on a campaign of the deceit of the worst possible kind (see Open letter File No/45-D, E, F, G, and File No/49. We are talking about to people, two fellow Australian citizens who knew my quest for justice was my right and yet denied me that right and in doing so led me and my partner Cathy to where we are today with our lives totally destroyed. Twenty-Five years which we will never get back no matter how much compensation we might eventually receive.
During my second AAT hearing (No 2010/4634), Mr Friedman stated:
“Mr Smith still believes that there are many unanswered questions by the regulatory authorities or by Telstra that he wishes to pursue and he believes these documents will show that his unhappiness with the way he has been treated personally also will flow to other areas such as it will expose the practices by Telstra and regulatory bodies which affects not only him but other people throughout Australia.
“Mr Smith said today that he had concerns about the equipment used in cabling done at Cape Bridgewater back in the 1990s. He said that it should – the equipment or some of the equipment should have a life of up to 40 years but, in fact, because of the terrain and the wet surfaces and other things down there the wrong equipment was used.”
During this second AAT hearing in May 2011, I again raised the telephone problems that had affected my business from before my arbitration to 1995, stressing that the arbitrator had failed to investigate or address most of those problems, and therefore allowed them to continue for a further 11 years after the end of the arbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-2011 and is still continuing today, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my arbitration and both AAT hearings, have been found; this can be confirmed by a simple internet search for “Australia NBN”.
Therefore, I was right to demand that those in charge of my government-endorsed arbitration explain why they did not force Telstra to rectify the faults in my local Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange as part of my arbitration. There are numerous exhibits on this website, absentjustice.com, confirming the COTs and various ministers were told, in early-1994, that telephone exchanges servicing the COT claimants would be upgraded if arbitration SVTs revealed any problems still remaining.
If the arbitrator had conducted my arbitration according to the ambit of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 and investigated ALL of my ongoing telephones and faxing claim documents, then Darren and Jenny Lewis (the new owners of my business) would not have suffered. I was forced to sell my business because the TIO and Telstra did not transparently investigate my claims. Both the TIO and Telstra failed to divulge to me that their investigation conducted after my arbitration on 14 January 1998 showed it was apparent the phone problems would indeed continue.
If the TIO did carry out an in-house TIO investigation into my claims that some COT faxes were being illegally intercepted, but came to the conclusion that those faxes did not arrive at the arbitrator’s office because they had been lost as a direct result of faults in the network – the very network under investigation by the arbitrator – it would be deplorable if the TIO then decided not to respond to my interception claims. Deplorable because, either way, whether the missing documents were intercepted and not forwarded on or were lost because of faults in the network, it still comes down to the fact that certain claim documents of relevance to the COT claims were NOT assessed by the arbitration process as was intended by the Federal Labor Government when they endorsed our arbitrations.
Once again, during this second AAT hearing in May 2011, I raised the telephone problems that had affected my business, both from before my arbitration began in 1994 and during the arbitration itself, stressing that the Arbitrator had failed to investigate or address any of the ongoing telephone problems, and explaining that his failure, therefore, allowed all the problems to continue for a further eleven years after the end of the arbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-2011 and is still continuing today, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my 1994 arbitration, are still apparent. So here we are, in 2018, and people around the country are reporting faults just like those that the COTs experienced – and raised with Telstra – back in 1994, because now we not only have a faulty telecommunications system left over from last century, we also have a second-rate NBN system. You can read about some of those NBN problems at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-18/nbn-complaints-to-tio-surge-in-last-financial-year/9058336.
As a citizen of Australia, I was therefore quite right to demand that those in charge of my government-endorsed arbitration should explain why Telstra was not forced to rectify the faults in the local Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange before the arbitrator handed down his findings which, of course, were only based on anecdotal, historic, past telephone problems and not on any of those that were STILL affecting the viability of my business
A further example of the type of corroded copper wire follows > Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter
In the world of politics and media misinformation that is attached to the NBN, there is one important issue that hasn’t been fully addressed – Does Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements? If this question is answered honestly, it would directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending.
Please click on the following Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report link which was sent, in April 2016, to (1) the Government and (2) the two Telstra executives that are identified.
The other six links that are listed below are more documents that were also sent with the original SVT report and, while the report itself appears, at first, to be too technical for most people, it does show quite clearly that, with the assistance of a number of radical Government communications regulatory bureaucrats, Telstra knowingly perverted the course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration. Since then though, no-one has investigated this matter, regardless of the damage that Telstra’s perversion of the course of justice caused me.
The matters discussed on absentjustice.com are said in the public interest and therefore are made in accordance with the Victorian Defamation Act 2005 Defamation-division 1 Defamation and the general law see > www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web-Note.
© 2017 Absent Justice