Sea Training link → Vindicatrix: Vindi Boys tell their story of what it was really like!
My business was tied to an outdated telephone exchange for the first 3.5 critical years after my purchase—years essential to laying a solid foundation for my company’s future.
On June 3, 1993, I stumbled upon a briefcase left behind in my premises. Inside, I discovered compelling evidence that AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) would later investigate thoroughly. This evidence revealed a troubling truth: Telstra was charging customers 25 cents for every non-connected call made throughout Australia—a practice that affected many unsuspecting users.
By the time Telstra went public in 1997, this malpractice was already whispered about in certain government circles and among the administrators overseeing the COT arbitrations. The implications were far-reaching; it suggested that Telstra's actual market value was inflated by over 11 per cent due to faulty computer software deeply integrated into its network.
In late 1992, I took the initiative to present this evidence to Amanda Davis, who was then AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs. I vividly remember showing her two of her own non-connected calls to my business—calls that she personally recognised had not gone through. However, both her billing account and Telstra’s CCAS data clearly indicated that she had been charged for these failed connections (see Testimonial Evidence File 5). It was shocking to see that, despite holding concrete proof of Telstra's erroneous billing practices, Ms Davis's influential bureaucratic role was abruptly terminated shortly after she began pursuing this matter with Telstra and AUSTEL.
I also shared my findings with Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, who took these serious allegations to my Federal Member of Parliament, David Hawker MP.
In a letter dated July 15, 1995, found in Testimonial Evidence File 5, Ms Davis expressed her confidence in my judgment, further underscoring the significance of the evidence I presented.
Previously Withheld Documents
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.
I can only presume that 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,' on 3 August 1993. Austel's General Manager, Consumer Affairs, wrote to Telstra requesting a copy of all the documents in this briefcase that had not already been forwarded to Austel.
I sent off several Statutory Declarations to Austel explaining what I had seen in the briefcase. Telstra had returned and picked up the briefcase.
One-third of the documents that I managed to copy contained sufficient information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware that the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults were a global problem, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment. It was locking up flaws that affected the billing software.
Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries around the world were removing it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No. 10-A to 10-f), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator that there had ever been a problem with that equipment. Lies told by Telstra to minimise their liability to the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)
Was this the real reason why the Australian government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane during the government-endorsed COT arbitration while the arbitrations were still in progress?
When the COT arbitration documents submitted to arbitration proved that the Ericsson AXE lock-up call loss rate was between 15% to 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. AUSTEL then instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and found that some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being reported across Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's principal arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding for 120,000 COT-type complaints to show a hundred. In fact, when the public AUSTEL COT Cases report was launched on 13 April 1994, it showed that AUSTEL had located upwards of 50 COT-type complaints across Australia.
In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson, whose official arbitration record number was A56132, were investigated, including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignore this evidence against Ericsson?
Even worse, my arbitration claim documents were returned to me after the arbitration concluded. NONE of my Ericsson technical data was amongst the returned material.
I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra, before Ericsson purchased Lane's? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Lane by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process?
My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location
If only the telephones had been fit for purpose
On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:
“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.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
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.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”
Thus, the government was officially informed of the above concerning an arbitration process it endorsed and should have immediately appointed a review of the whole sordid affair. It never did.
