Until the late 1990s, the Australian government held exclusive ownership of Telecom, the nation’s primary telephone network and communications carrier. This entity, which has since been privatised and rebranded as Telstra, historically enjoyed a monopoly over telecommunications across Australia. Unfortunately, this lack of competition led to a pervasive neglect of essential infrastructure maintenance and development, resulting in a marked deterioration in service quality that left many customers dissatisfied.

In a particularly alarming case, four small business owners found themselves facing debilitating communication issues that critically hindered their operations. Frustrated and desperate for a solution, they were forced to enter into arbitration with Telstra, hoping for a resolution to their pressing grievances. Regrettably, the arbitration process revealed itself to be deeply flawed. The arbitrator appointed to oversee the proceedings displayed a troubling bias in favour of Telstra, actively downplaying the claims and losses presented by the affected business owners, known as the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members. Instead of ensuring a fair and impartial process, the arbitrator effectively allowed Telstra to dictate the terms of the arbitration, robbing the plaintiffs of any realistic hope for a just outcome.

To exacerbate an already dire situation, Telstra was reportedly engaged in serious misconduct throughout the arbitration proceedings. This troubling behaviour raised significant ethical concerns, yet, despite the severity of the allegations, neither the Australian government nor the Australian Federal Police have taken action to hold Telstra or any other implicated parties accountable. This alarming inaction raises a profound question: why does it seem that Telstra operates above the law, enjoying an unsettling immunity from the consequences of its actions? 

It is crucial to expose the dark underbelly of the Australian authorities' failure to thoroughly investigate the chilling claims articulated on absentjustice.com. These allegations reveal a web of corporate treachery, including thuggery, unconscionable conduct, and a grotesque perversion of justice that unfolded both before and during the government-endorsed COT arbitrations. Such blatant corruption not only threatens the very existence of businesses, both large and small, but fundamentally undermines the democratic principles of justice that should safeguard our society.

The AFP unveiled a shocking reality: Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, had been systematically monitoring the activities of single-club members, compiling their names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extensive period. These records, meticulously collected and stored in Telstra's shadowy internal databases, had become pivotal to a troubling investigation that exposed egregious violations of privacy and corporate ethics. The enormity of this revelation sank in as the AFP urged that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) should halt the ongoing Communications Offset Claims (COT) arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO callously dismissed their recommendation, revealing a disturbing complicity among regulatory bodies in the face of these grave issues.

The investigation into Telstra's nefarious practices sought to expose the disturbing reality of how sensitive information about at least six of the COT Cases—including my personal phone communications—was illicitly obtained without our consent. 

While these telecommunications interception issues are tied to multiple COT Cases, I will focus on my case to shed light on the dark injustice we have endured since 1995. The 93 questions I was asked during the second AFP interview, referring to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), would have forced the public disclosure of their findings, a risk the government couldn't afford as Telstra prepared for privatisation. The evidence attached to absentjustice.com was not made available to those preparing the lawyers who were preparing the Telstra prospectus. The ramifications of these illegal activities would have had to have been revealed in the government’s prospectus for the sale of Telstra, a scandalous truth that they were desperate to keep hidden.

Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act (see File 114 → AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

It is noteworthy that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator operated in collaboration. Dr. Gordon Hughes supplied Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials months before Telstra should have received these documents, according to the terms of my arbitration agreement.

The document from March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212. It is chilling to consider that, had the arbitrator been furnished with this critical evidence, he would likely have awarded me far greater compensation for my substantial business losses. Instead, my claims were weakened because they lacked a proper log over the six-year period that AUSTEL deceptively used to formulate their findings, as outlined in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

Compounding this treachery, government records (Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) illustrate that AUSTEL's damaging findings were handed over to Telstra, the defendants, one month before the arbitration agreement was signed. This calculated manoeuvre ensured that Telstra was armed with information that I, the innocent party, was wholly unaware of until November 23, 2007—a staggering twelve years after my arbitration concluded. This insidious manipulation left me unable to challenge the arbitrator's decision, as I was now trapped beyond the statute of limitations. 

How do you expose that these defendants, during the arbitration process—which was once under government ownership—used sophisticated equipment linked to their network to covertly screen faxed documents leaving your office, storing sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to redirect them to their rightful destination—a route shrouded in secrecy?

Were the defendants using this intercepted material to bolster their defence during arbitration, undermining the claimants' rights? 

In the lead-up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration on April 21, 1994, a significant event took place involving AUSTEL and the COT Cases, the soon-to-be arbitration claimants.  On April 7 and 8, 1994, a two-day lockdown was implemented at the government offices located on Queens Road. During this period, the COT Cases, which consisted of individuals directly affected by ongoing telecommunication problems that impacted their telephone-dependent businesses, were subjected to searches as they entered and exited the premises, not unlike the Soviet Union and USA spy movies, except that this was real and not a movie. 

I must take the reader back eleven months from the time of this governemnt lockdown to the date of 3 June 1993. Telstra senior management finally visited my business, a five-hour drive from Melbourne, and within five minutes of saying hello, Mr Smith, I knew I was in for another round of untruths.

I should have known better. It was just another case of 'No fault found.' We spent some considerable time 'dancing around' a summary of my phone problems. Their best advice for me was to continue doing exactly what I had been doing since April 1988, which was keeping a record of all my phone faults. I could have wept. Finally, they left.

A little while later, in my office, I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.

Aladdin

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait until the next business day to track him down. However, what was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER'. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang alarm bells was a document that revealed Telstra knew that the RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement payout. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing me get an RVA' service disconnected' message with the 'latest report' dated 22/7/92 from Station Pier in Melbourne and a 'similar fault reported' on 17/03/92. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months.'

I copied this and some other documents from the file on my fax machine and faxed copies to Graham Schorer, the then COT spokesperson. The next morning, I telephoned the local Telstra office, and the Telstra technician who had been providing my private and business information to a person called Micky, who Telstra admitted to the AFP on 14 April 1994 had been chosen by Telstra to listen to my telephone conversations, came out and picked the briefcase up. 

The information in this document, dated 24 July 1992, proved that senior Telstra management had deceived and misled me during previous negotiations, the 11 December 1992 settlement. It showed that their 'written guarantees' that my phone system was up to network standard were made in full knowledge that it was nowhere near 'up to standard'.

I would like to emphasise that Telstra's area general manager was fully aware, at the time of my settlement on December 11, 1992, that she was providing me with incorrect information. This misinformation influenced my judgment of the situation and put me at a commercial disadvantage when I accepted compensation. Additionally, the General Manager of Commercial for Victoria/Tasmania, Rosanne Pittard, was also aware of this deception, as indicated by her handwritten statement at the bottom of Folio C04008.

I did not receive Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008 under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act during my arbitration until after Telstra submitted their defence. The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, refused to allow this vital evidence to be added as a supplement to my arbitration claim, as referenced in his May 4, 1995, letter (Arbitrator File No/48). These documents, labelled TELECOM SECRET, state the following: Front Page Part Two 2-B.

“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.”

It was this type of evidence that I had freely supplied to AUSTEL between 3 June 1994 and the lockup two-day meeting on 7 and 8 April 1994, although Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008 were not part of the information supplied.

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.