Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our 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 this government-owned asset.

It is abundantly clear that the arbitrator and their advisors in the COT arbitrations engaged in corrupt, deplorable, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, scandalous, senseless, unlawful, and vicious behaviour when delivering the natural justice promised to the COT cases through government-endorsed arbitration. This egregious conduct has never been addressed.

Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

 

 

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearings, conducted on 3 October 2008, indicate that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) was the respondent in my case (Case No. V2008/1836). The presiding judge, Senior Member G. D. Friedman, did not classify my Telstra-related arbitration claims as vexatious or frivolous. This speaks to the seriousness with which the tribunal evaluated my allegations. My comprehensive 158-page Statement of Facts and Contentions, which I submitted to both the ACMA and the AAT—two key government agencies—can be found on my website, absentjustice.com. Additionally, the various exhibits referenced by Judge Friedman to assess the validity of my claims are available for public viewing through numerous mini-reports on the same website including Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued.

Despite Judge Friedman’s acknowledgement of the merit in my claims and his positive assessment of my character, it appears that other government agencies have unfairly labelled me as vexatious and my claims as frivolous. This negative characterization seems to arise from these agencies' vested interests in concealing the facts surrounding my allegations. I contend that the international arbitration process in Australia has been legally manipulated to protect the Telstra Corporation at all costs, and this effort to mislabel my claims serves to shield that truth.

During the AAT hearing on that significant day in October 2008, Judge G. D. Friedman addressed me directly and openly in court. His statements were made in full view of two ACMA lawyers and the witnesses in the AAT gallery, lending weight to the seriousness of the proceedings and the implications of my claims. The context of this public discussion is critical, as it highlights the attention given to these issues at the tribunal level, noting:

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

Criminal Conduct Example 1

“COT Case Strategy” 

Also shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 percent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated. "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such important friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest chance of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

Freehill Hollingdale & Page 

The Firm - John Grisham 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

If this situation wasn’t already disheartening enough, imagine discovering that the lawyer you were compelled to work with for your phone complaints had created a legal document titled “COT Case Strategy” (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). This document instructed their client, Telstra, on how to hide the very technical information I was being asked to include in my fault complaint. During my government-endorsed arbitration, Telstra intended to withhold this fault information from me under the pretext of Legal Professional Privilege, even though it was clear that this information was not actually privileged, as indicated on page 5169 of the official Hansard record from the Senate of Australia. The situation only worsened later during and after the 1994/95 arbitration. 

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that the lawyer with whom you were being forced to register your phone complaints devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same technical information I was being requested to add as a fault complaint was about to withhold that fault information from me during my government-endorsed arbitration under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged (as page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows. The worst was to come later during and after the 1994/95 arbitration, as the following narrative shows.  

 

More Threats 

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.

Additionally, the loss of legally prepared documents related to Telstra occurred when the new owners of my business attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).

When Telstra suggested that I would regret my choice to assist the Australian Federal Police, it struck me as strikingly ironic. Seven years later, my partner Cathy began experiencing serious phone issues with her business, highlighting the validity of my decision in the face of their threats. These issues started shortly after Cathy opened a six-bedroom bed and breakfast next to the holiday camp in December 2001, a business venture we embarked on after selling the camp to Jenny and Darren Lewis. The continual telephone problems not only hindered the operations of the Lewises at the holiday camp but also began to significantly affect the services and customer communications at Cathy's new bed and breakfast.

Recognizing the severity of these disruptions, it was Cathy and the Lewises who decided to reach out to the Honorable David Hawker MP, who served as the Speaker in the House of Representatives. They sought his assistance, urging him to intervene and press Telstra to finally address and resolve the long-standing systemic telephone problems affecting their businesses. This appeal for intervention highlighted the urgency of the situation, especially since David Hawker had been advocating on my behalf to Telstra since 1993 when I was the holiday camp owner. His ongoing correspondence with Telstra has made it clear that my struggles were not isolated, and it underscores the responsibility that Telstra has in providing reliable service.

document , dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 and 212, the government investigation into my ongoing telephone issues substantiated my claims against Telstra. The findings documented the inadequate phone service in Cape Bridgewater and recognized that my persistent reporting of these issues benefitted many residents who, like myself, experienced inferior service. It is evident that had the arbitrator been presented with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings as the government covertly provided it to Telstra, which assisted Telstra in their arbitration defence of my claims, the financial compensation awarded by the arbitrator for my business losses would have been considerably higher than the amount ultimately determined over the six-year duration of my claim.

On 28 January 2003, a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) officer Gillian McKenzie, representing the new owners of my business, was sent to Telstra.

“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:

That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.

That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have fixed as part of that agreed process – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?

This is the same Tony Watson who is referred to in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (Front Page Part One File No/1) who states my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I tried to send my faxes. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines because. This statement by Tony Watson does not match Telstra's billing records for those six faxes where I was charged for all non-connected faxes (see Front Page Part One File No/1). 

This is the same Tony Watson who is referenced in Telstra's arbitration defence report (Front Page Part One File No/1). In that report, Watson claimed that my faxes did not successfully reach the arbitrator's office on May 23, 1994, because the fax lines at the arbitrator's office were busy when I attempted to send them. He asserted that there were no faults on the lines during that time. However, this assertion is inconsistent with Telstra's billing records, which indicate that I was charged for all six faxes that failed to connect (see Front Page Part One File No/1).

The consequences of Watson's threats were deeply distressing; they brought Jenny Lewis, Darren's wife, to tears. This was particularly troubling because Darren had no feasible way to avoid seeing me regularly. He relied on my electricity system which pumped water into the holiday camp, as I had 'my own water bore' that supplied the necessary water.

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the types of threats issued by Tony Watson mirror those that the Lewises experienced during 2002 and 2003. I faced similar intimidation tactics from Telstra during my arbitration proceedings. Additionally, another resident, Alan Smith, who also lived in Cape Bridgewater, encountered the same aggressive behaviour solely because he challenged Telstra regarding their inadequate telecommunications service. This pattern of threats and harassment highlights a troubling approach employed by Telstra against individuals who stood up for their rights and sought better service.

 

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Threats made during my arbitration 

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

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

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

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

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

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in investigating Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.

As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.

Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details that were shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete? 

This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?

STEVE BLACK - PAUL RUMBLE 

On 25 March 1994, Ms Philippa Smith wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, stating:

“It was unreasonable for Telecom to require the participants to make further assurances while Telecom was considering the Agreement and thereby denying the participants the opportunity to consider the rules that Telecom wished to have included in the Agreement.” (Home Page – Part One File No/2-B)

Ms Philppa Smith also stated on page 3 of this letter that Telstra's Steve Black had advised Mr Wynack (the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations) that Telstra was vetting the supply of sensitive documents because I had previously released misused them, which had embarrassed Telstra. These documents I had supplied to the AFP exposed Telstra's listening to my telephone conversations, intercepting my faxes, or both. 

In straightforward terms, Telstra was selectively vetting the sensitive information that I required to substantiate my claims. This practice hindered the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Arbitrator, who were jointly tasked with investigating these claims, from fully validating their legitimacy.

In her correspondence, Ms. Philippa Smith specifies that Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the settlement proposal, communicated to her office that the delays encountered during the process were solely due to the actions of Telstra. Nevertheless, this assertion is only partially accurate.

Crucially, the letter does not mention that Warwick Smith was covertly sharing internal government political information that could potentially aid Telstra in their defence against the claims related to the COT Cases. The information provided by Warwick Smith, which Telstra appeared to value highly, was directly causing the delays in resolving these claims.

In March 1994, Ms. Phillipa Smith could not have anticipated that five years later, almost to the day after most of the COT cases, businesses—including mine—would be destroyed by the government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes. An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the statements of six senators in the Senate in March 1999:

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

 

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford as shown in an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The six senators mentioned above formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' leading up to and throughout the COT arbitrations; however, where were Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the arbitration administrator) when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was being carried out?  

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

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

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

 

 

Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith made the concerning decision to remove the $250,000 liability clauses, specifically clauses 25 and 26, from the arbitration agreements of the last three claimants involved in the COT Cases on April 21, 1994. This action is particularly noteworthy, as it took place after the first claimant, Maureen Gillan, had signed her arbitration agreement on April 8, 1995, which included these critical liability clauses.

At that time, our legal representatives, alongside Senator Richard Alston and Boswell, operated under the assumption that the arbitration agreement we were signing—with Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and myself—would incorporate the same liability limitations that were present in Maureen Gillan's agreement. Regrettably, this was not the case. Furthermore, two months after we were compelled to sign a revised arbitration agreement, it became apparent that the previously removed $250,000 liability caps were reinstated in the agreements of the other twelve COT Cases.

This situation raises significant concerns regarding equity and fairness within the arbitration process, as the actions taken by Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith seem to have resulted in discriminatory treatment against the three of us named claimants. The ramifications of these decisions extend beyond our individual cases, highlighting a broader issue of inequality within the arbitration framework.

In light of these serious injustices, it is imperative to inquire when the Australian government will take the appropriate measures to address this egregious denial of justice and ensure accountability for those involved in these actions. (Refer to Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct).

 

 

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A provides crucial evidence that just two weeks before the official appointment of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP)—which subsequently evolved into the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP)—the TIO engaged in providing privileged government part-room confidential information to Telstra. This entity would soon find itself as a defendant in this process. This course of action not only constituted a serious breach of the TIO’s professional duty of care to the Claimant of the COT (Companies and Other Telecommunications cases) but also represented an apparent conflict of interest that compromised his integrity and future role as the so-called independent administrator of the arbitration process.

The TIO’s discussions with Telstra’s senior executives included critical insights regarding the sentiment within Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party room, particularly their lack of enthusiasm for pursuing a Senate inquiry into the COT matters. This insider information likely influenced Telstra's decision-making process, leading them to transition from the original non-legalistic commercial assessment framework of the FTSP to a more defensible legalistic arbitration approach. Armed with the knowledge that the threat of a Senate inquiry was significantly diminished due to the TIO’s disclosures, Telstra felt empowered to pursue a strategy that would better align with their interests and desired outcomes. 

How is it possible that Warwick Smith, who served as the administrator of both the settlement and arbitration process, was able to work closely with the defendant in a way that allowed them to acquire critical information from government discussions? This information had the potential to directly influence and alter the outcome of the initial settlement proposals. If such actions are not deemed criminal conduct that facilitated Telstra's claims against us in the four COT cases, then one must question what other category of misconduct would accurately describe this behaviour. Additionally, it raises important concerns as to why numerous government entities have chosen to overlook this blatant conflict of interest. Could this negligence be linked to Warwick Smith's elevation to a front-bench politician during John Howard's government in March 1996? This connection warrants a thorough investigation, considering the implications it holds for fairness in the arbitration process.

 

Who Paid Grant Campbell?

Given the importance of the issue surrounding "Who Paid Grant Campbell," I want to highlight this at the beginning of this segment, as I have also done at the end. Interestingly, while all other TIO employees are listed in the 1993 to 1994 TIO Annual Report, Grant Campbell’s name is notably absent from the employee list. This is curious because he was involved in various billing issues during Alan Smith's arbitration and accepted my initial FTSP claim, which was lodged with the TIO office on January 27, 1994. I have never seen this portion of my claim, as it was never provided to the arbitrator. Additionally, it is not included in the arbitrator's schedule of documents received during my FTSP assessment process or my FTAP arbitration procedure.

10 January 1994: This TIO document (File 56-B - Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D) confirms that Grant Campbell was handling my related FTSP and (Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory) the TIO-appointed Resource Unit correspondence to Telstra on behalf of the TIO.

I was never informed before his arbitration that Grant Campbell had been seconded from Telstra or that he had defected back to Telstra, all within a twelve-month period. The following exhibits confirm that an unhealthy relationship between the TIO office and Telstra certainly existed during Alan's arbitration period.

Interestingly, the 1993/94 TIO Annual Report does not list Mr Campbell as having worked for the TIO office, even though Mr Campbell held a senior managerial position with the TIO office. Please consider the following points:

1. TIO documents dated 9 February 1994 (File 55-B Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D  confirm that Grant Campbell was signing letters on behalf of Warwick Smith, particularly regarding the fax billing and lock-up complaints included in my FTSP claims.
2. Telstra FOI documents H00027 H36279, and H36280 (File 56 GOpen Letter File No/56-A to 56-D) confirm that, in January and February 1995, Grant Campbell and Ted Benjamin were addressing the same types of 008/1800 billing issues on behalf of Telstra’s Customer Response Unit. This is the same Unit that Ted Benjamin headed when he wrote to Dr Hughes on 16^th December 1994 to confirm that Telstra had advised AUSTEL, in writing, that they would address my 008/1800 billing issues as part of their defence of his claim, as per the arbitration agreement. I have always been concerned about Grant Campbell’s handling of my 008/1800 arbitration materials that went through the TIO’s office in 1994.

During the early stages of the COT arbitration process, the COT claimants were told that Pia Di Mattina had been seconded from Minter Ellison by the TIO to assist him in the COT Arbitration Process. Miss Di Mattina’s name, understandably, does not appear in the TIO 1993/94 employee list included in the 1993/94 Annual Report (the report can be supplied on request). However, all the other TIO employees are listed there, it is also interesting to note that Grant Campbell’s name is not included on the employee list either, even though he dealt with a number of the billing issues during arbitration, as well as accepting part of my Alan original FTSP claim lodged with the TIO office on 27 January 1994.

This Telstra internal email FOI folio 000973 (AS 542-E) notes:

"The ex-employee’s name is Grant Campbell. Grant then worked as the Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and then on a senior management review team".

On 9 February 1994, Mr Campbell wrote to Telstra’s Fiona Hills, under the heading Loss of Fax Capacity, noting:

"I spoke with Alan Smith on the 9 instant following our discussion on the 8 instant. He has agreed that this is a new matter and may indicate some ongoing problems, but it is not a matter that relates directly to the preparation of his material to be presented to the Assessor".

Mr Campbell’s statement to Fiona Hills that “He  has agreed that this is a new matter” does not match the information in (AS 767-A, 768, 769, 770, 771, and AS 772-A) which confirms that local (Portland) Telstra technicians were aware of the significant problems associated with the faxing capacity issue, at least as far back as October 1993. Mr Campbell’s correspondence was, therefore, clearly misleading fellow Telstra employees and, possibly, Warwick Smith about the ongoing problems. This adds even further weight to my claims that there needs to be a transparent investigation into the TIO-administered COT arbitrations.

It is fantastic enough to find that Grant Campbell was seconded from the employment of the defendants during the COT arbitrations. Still, it is even more amazing to learn that, while he was wearing his TIO hat, he was also working on 1800 problem claims lodged by another COT claimant but, in this instance, he was wearing his Telstra hat!  These two different ‘hats’ must lead directly to an understanding that no one may ever know how many claim documents the COT cases sent to the TIO’s office while Grant Campbell was wearing his TIO hat but being paid by Telstra.

We may never uncover how many arbitration procedural documents never made it to the viewing room that the TIO-appointed, secretly-absolved-from-risk arbitration Resource Unit appeared to have access to.

Who sanctioned additions to the Confidentiality Agreement?

The arbitrator and administrator are still hiding behind this tainted Agreement 

The same arbitrator secretly sanctioned alterations to the arbitration agreement after the claimant's lawyers had accepted the unchanged version. These secretly altered clauses 24, 25 and 26 severely affected the claimant's chances of appealing the arbitrator's findings. 

On the day we signed the arbitration agreement (see Open letter File No 54-B), clause 10.2.2 and the $250,000.00 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 had been removed, and clause 24 had been modified. We were told there would be no arbitration if we did not accept these late changes. 

When visiting Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct—Part 2, it will be apparent to the reader that not only were the $250,000.00 liability caps removed from our arbitration agreements before we three signed them, but two months later, they were replaced on all future arbitration agreements. I was never informed of this, nor were those removed clauses reinstated on my arbitration agreement.

I have always maintained our lawyers thought we were signing the arbitration agreement COT Case Maureen Gillan had signed on 8 April 1994, two weeks before. I only agreed to clause 10.2.2. being removed. With banks declaring they were ready to take over our assets if we could not show imminent settlements, I buckled to removing only that clause.

No matter how much pressure was applied to them, no one in their right mind would have accepted a compromise of such magnitude. Modifying clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 meant we could not sue anyone for acts of negligence. This meant the legal counsel to the arbitration and the professional consultants were now bulletproof. They could freely do whatever they liked when they liked, and there was nothing anyone could do. This website absentjustice.com shows this is precisely what happened. 

During my pending arbitration appeal, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Mr Pinnock (who was also the administrator to my arbitration), refused to provide any documents held by his office showing who authorised the removal of the $250,000.00 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement, which had they not been, I could have sued the arbitration consultants for negligence. As the following segment suggests, this refusal to provide me with documents after my arbitration alarmed the Commonwealth Ombudsman. 

Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations, on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under FOI, a copy of their arbitration file on my matters from Telstra. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file. I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the TIO office, which, as the administrator of my arbitration – under the law – had to retain a copy for at least six years, until 2002. Mr Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1997, in response to my request, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

Criminal deceit.

During the tumultuous period when all forms of deception and manipulation were transpiring, I found myself utterly exhausted, both mentally and physically, due to the relentless pressure applied by Denise McBurnie and the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page. In the midst of this overwhelming fatigue, I couldn’t help but reflect on the ruthless legal firm portrayed in John Grisham's 1991 novel, *The Firm*, which seemed to mirror my own experiences of intimidation and subterfuge.

On April 14, 1994, Telstra issued a letter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) revealing that at least one employee had been involved in unlawfully intercepting my private telephone conversations without my consent. This acknowledgment raised serious ethical and legal concerns. My subsequent response, dated September 9, 1994, directly addressed the issue of this unauthorized interception, which had persisted over an extended and distressing period. Both these significant documents are now classified as "Protected AFP" material, indicating their sensitive nature.

In the Senate Hansard records and within the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, there are documented conversations pertaining to the serious threats made against me. These documents, along with the records from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, unequivocally confirm that Telstra acted on those threats. Despite this clear evidence, neither the arbitrator overseeing my case nor the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) chose to address these significant concerns during my arbitration proceedings. This raises critical questions: Why has this unethical conduct been left unaddressed in the public eye? What accounts for the glaring absence of any mention of these threats in the arbitrator's final award? How is it that Telstra was allowed to engage in such threatening behaviour and commit various unlawful acts against the COT cases, both in the lead-up to our arbitration sessions and during the arbitration itself?

How does one weave together a narrative so remarkable that it raises even the author’s eyebrows, prompting a detailed investigation of records before proceeding with the story? What strategies can we employ to unravel the intricate web of conspiracy that existed between an arbitrator, various governmental entities, and the defendants in this case? How can we illuminate the shocking reality that these defendants, during the arbitration process, intercepted and misappropriated confidential materials to fortify their defence while jeopardizing the claimants' chances for justice?

Furthermore, how prevalent is the issue of compromised arbitration processes across Australia? Are instances of electronic eavesdropping and covert alterations to the arbitration agreements that, when executed, change the confidentiality clauses in that agreement still commonplace in the realm of legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

Once Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith removed the $250,000 liability clauses 25 and 26 in the last three arbitration agreements but left those two clauses intact in the Maureen Gillan arbitration agreement, our lawyers and Senator Richard Alston and Boswell believed the agreement being adhered to my Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me, and two months after we had been forced to sign this altered agreement then placed the removed $250,000 liability caps back onto the other twelve COT Cases arbitration agreement both Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith discriminated against the three named claimants.

This thuggery continued to affect the COT Caes 

 

 

The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12, shows I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose the 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansard, which secretly exposes Telstra's unethical conduct to the COT Cases, the Senate Chair will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though these Hansards could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals. These secret government-privileged reports named the Senators who said only supplying justice to the five COT Cases currently under investigation and not all of the remaining sixteen COT Cases would be an injustice to us sixteen. Cases, nothing has been done to rectify this injustice.  

The letter dated 4 September 2000 from the Chair of the Senate to the Major Fraud Group addresses the confidentiality issues surrounding the Hansards from 6 and 9 July 1998. This information is included in the Introduction 1 of the Not Fit For Purpose page to keep that section streamlined and focused. 

The following exhibit (Senate Evidence File No 12) illustrates that I have received threats on two separate occasions, specifically on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004. I was advised that should I disclose the In-Camera Hansard from 6 and 9 July 1998, which reveals Telstra's unethical conduct concerning the COT Cases, the Senate Chair would pursue contempt charges against me, which carries a two-year jail term. This situation is particularly concerning given that these Hansards have the potential to influence the outcomes of sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals.

These confidential government-privileged reports underscore a significant assertion made by Senator Chris Schacht to Telstra: the decision to compensate only the five cases currently under investigation while dismissing the remaining sixteen cases represents a profound injustice to those individuals affected by the latter group. This situation becomes even more concerning when one considers the lack of corrective measures taken to address this disparity. It raises crucial questions about the reasons behind Senator Schacht's reticence to vocalize his concerns, particularly now that he has transitioned away from his political career.

The five Cases of Telstra (COT) were collectively awarded $18 million in compensation. Additionally, these cases were privy to 150,000 discovery documents (refer to an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens that Telstra had previously withheld during their arbitration proceedings. However, the remaining sixteen COT Cases have not only been denied monetary compensation but also deprived of access to their original requested crucial documents. This withholding of information has severely hindered their ability to explore the possibility of an appeal. The equitable treatment of all parties involved is essential, and this marked inconsistency in compensation and access to information must be urgently addressed to uphold principles of fairness and justice.

Where is justice being served by throwing me in jail for exposing the truth surrounding what the Senate found regarding Telstra's unethical conduct perpetrated against the COT Cases appears to conflict with the reason Australia has a senate. I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing these Australian In-Camera Senate Hansard of 6 and 9 July 1998, which the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me, thinking my releasing them publically would bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against when supplying Senate and technical assistance to part of the Australian community and not the other. Hence, my quest via the absentjustice.com website to have this discrimination by the government rectified. 

Organized crime via the Telstra network, i.e. telephone calls and faxed documents intended for one business being redirected to another, with the proceeds of that directed information earning the criminals millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. Refer to Chapter 4 - Government spying and Australian Federal Police Investigations   

Fraud allegations against Telstra during the COT arbitrations were registered with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police by Barrister Sue Owens, only to be squashed under pressure by the Australian government (refer to transcripts Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

 

The Major Fraud Group 

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

From 1998 to 2001, an extensive investigation was undertaken by the Major Fraud Group of the Victoria Police at the same time (but not collectively) by the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA). These two investigations were prompted by serious allegations raised in various COT (Customer-Owned Telecommunications) cases, which accused Telstra of committing fraud during their arbitration processes.

During the years 1998 and 1999, the Major Fraud Group reached out to me with a specific request: they asked if I could provide any evidence of fraudulent activities by Telstra that could bolster their defence in my arbitration case from 1994 to 1995. It was already well-known within government circles that Telstra had engaged in fraudulent practices, particularly in the defence documents they submitted. Additionally, there were instances where misleading information regarding these fraudulent activities was presented to the Senate in September and October 1997. Given my previous involvement during the 1994 arbitration, where I assisted the Australian Federal Police in their investigation of Telstra's unethical behaviour towards me, I felt compelled to help the Victoria Police in their efforts to investigate similar misconduct that impacted other Australian citizens.

Throughout the same period and extending into 2010, the IAMA conducted a second and a third investigation into the fraud issues I had initially highlighted to their President, Laurie James, in late 1995. Despite the passage of time, there has been no resolution; as of 2024, the IAMA has not issued any formal findings regarding these investigations. During their third inquiry, which took place between July and November 2009, the organization repeatedly sought additional information concerning the conduct of the COT arbitrations. I complied with their requests, providing substantial evidence; however, disappointingly, no conclusions were reached, and none of my 23 bound claims documents—critical pieces of evidence in my case—were ever returned to me. This lack of resolution and accountability continues to be a source of frustration and concern. (Refer to Chapter 6 - The sixth remedy pursued and Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued).

In late 1998, following the submission of fraud complaints by Sue Owens, barrister for four COT cases (not including my own), I received a significant telephone call from Neil Jepson, the barrister representing the Victoria Major Fraud Group. During this conversation, Mr. Jepson inquired about my willingness to assist the Victoria Police in their investigation concerning the allegations raised by Sue Owens. He had been informed of my compilation of two comprehensive reports detailing instances of fraudulent conduct by Telstra directed against me throughout my arbitration process. Moreover, I possessed substantial evidence indicating that the arbitrator and his arbitration unit had colluded with Telstra by unduly minimizing my losses incurred due to their failure to provide adequate service. Dr Gordon Hughes did not disclose This crucial evidence to Laurie James in January 1996 when Mr James embarked on a preliminary investigation into my claims as President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

Mr. Jepson discovered two letters authored by Dr. Gordon Hughes to the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock (TIO), dated 23 January 1996 and 15 February 1996, as discussed below. These letters were written when Mr. James was considering an investigation into my claims concerning the overall conduct of the process. The first letter from Dr. Hughes clearly outlines essential points relevant to my arbitration matters. 

23 January 1996:  notes:-

“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.   I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:

• the cost of responding to the allegations;
• the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James. (File 205 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - 

15 February 1996: states:-

“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”

“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” ( )

Barrister Sue Owens, representing COT Cases clients Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer, along with Mr Neil Jepson, highlighted that if Dr Gordon Hughes had no concerns about his conduct in the COT Cases arbitration process, he would not have made the statements in his two letters. Following their comments, Mr. Jepson praised my reporting on Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2, Tampering with Evidence and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. This led me to agree to assist the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, similar to when I began helping the AFP with related inquiries between the second week of February 1994 and March 21, 1995.

The Major Fraud Group expressed a pressing need for my assistance in compiling the evidence for their ongoing investigations. I acquiesced to their request, dedicating two full days during two separate visits to the Major Fraud Group's offices on St. Kilda Road in Melbourne.

The significance of my engagement with the Major Fraud Group cannot be overstated, particularly concerning the litmus test cases. The group was genuinely astonished by the weight of the evidence I presented, which convincingly demonstrated that Telstra had perverted the course of justice in my arbitration, which they believed would lead to them finding similar to the four cases they were about to investigate. 

In addition, as elaborated in Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File, 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 comprise a witness statement dated August 10, 2006. This statement was submitted to the DCITA and authored by Ann Garms. It was formally sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who eventually achieved the status of Principal Investigator. Mr Direen has demonstrated considerable bravery by revealing that, in the years 1999 and 2000, after he departed from Telstra, he played a crucial role in assisting the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group—particularly Rod Kueris—in their investigations into the allegations of fraud associated with COT. I was subsequently called upon to participate in this investigation as a witness. This role underscores the seriousness of the claims being addressed (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

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

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

Within a few weeks of Mr Direen assisting the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.

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

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

Points 21and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also records how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate

 “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements of 8 and 10 August 2006 released in full as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) confirm how Telstra and their corporate employees bullied and harassed a fully trained senior police officer to breaking point during his official investigations into the COT Cases claims.

It will be on record, within the archives of the Major Fraud Group, that both Mr Neil Jepson and three officers with whom I had worked and lunched were able to confirm that at least two sets of documents I had faxed from my residence to Mr Jepson's office facsimile service line 0395266614 (see File 800B in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 never arrived at his office. This is despite my fax journal showing it had connected to that number 0395266614. It is also on record at the Major Fraud Group that on one of my visits to Melbourne, my apartment had been entered, and certain documents in my bedside drawer had been shifted around in a manila folder where there was chalk dust, which I placed in my folder in said drawer which contained the folder. 

Document File 643 in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 is a letter written by a previous resident of Cape Bridgewater who, after viewing the Sunday Television program now attached to this website as a YouTube video (see Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte), explained that he had been contacted by the Major Fraud Group concerning a Telstra employee by the name of Anderson. He noted the police would not elaborate on what they were investigating, and I will not do so here. I have only attached this letter as confirmation that the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were concerned about my claims.

However, I will disclose here that after the arbitrator and his technical arbitration resource unit ignored my ongoing 008/1800 billing faults, the government communications regulator AUSTEL allowed Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer to my arbitration - Steve Black, to address these unaddressed ongoing arbitration billing faults in secret on 16 October 1995. This was five months after the completion of my arbitration process without the arbitrator.   I did have a legal right under the arbitration agreement to challenge Telstra's late submission to the Government. (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

What was so troubling about the address of legal documents without the claimant and arbitrator being present is that Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, resubmitted Mr Anderson's original arbitration witness statement dated 12 December 1994 to support Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission to AUSTEL. He knew that Mr Anderson's 12 December 1994 witness statement contained false and misleading statements concerning the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network.

This is why the Major Fraud Group was so interested in Mr Anderson. Using witness statements twice—aware that some of the statements in them were false—was why the government communications regulator sent a representative, Darren Kearney, to my business on 19 December 1995 (a twelve-hour drive there and back) to collect my unaddressed arbitration claim evidence, which proved that the billing faults Telstra stated were non-existent were still affecting my business.   

Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group's investigations into the four claims registered by Barrister Owen concerning alleged fraud by Telstra. Page 11 shows Sue Owens stating I am "extremely intelligent" and that the police also thought the same concerning my reporting, i.e., why I was asked to assist with their fraud investigations.  

In the lead-up to the Federal Government’s decision to intervene and prevent the Major Fraud Group from issuing a finding against Telstra, I found myself reflecting on a prior situation where the Director of Public Prosecutions intervened to stop the Australian Federal Police (AFP) from pursuing their findings related to Telstra’s interception of the COT Cases telephone conversations and associated arbitration faxes. During this time, the Major Fraud Group team reached out to me, seeking detailed information regarding the timeline and nature of the threats I had received from Telstra. They were particularly interested in my discoveries related to Telstra’s utilization of their intelligence network to delve into the circumstances surrounding my experience with Red China.

Furthermore, the team sought clarification on how Telstra was able to record my private telephone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. My role also included providing any evidence I possessed that confirmed the AFP had recordings of our COT Cases conversations yet still chose not to issue a finding against Telstra.

In 2000, as discussions unfolded among myself, Ann Garms, and Graham Schorer, we began to express our growing suspicions that we were once again under surveillance by Telstra, mirroring our experiences during the 1993 to 1995 arbitration process. Notably, one officer from the Major Fraud Group expressed their own concerns regarding potential surveillance, a sentiment that is documented in the two witness statements I have attached.

In light of these events, I took the initiative to compile a detailed record, tracing back to 1993 when the AFP first informed me that they had obtained evidence indicating that my phone lines had been bugged. This compilation includes various incidents and findings pertinent to the ongoing issues I faced with Telstra, which I have summarized below for further clarity and context.

Doctored and falsified 

Rotten - tainted 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

 

Deliciousness and wickedness 

Double-dealing duplicity 

Furthermore, the arbitrator assigned in April 1994 was tasked with examining the same issues. It is alarming that despite the involvement of two supposedly highly trained entities—the AFP and the appointed arbitrator—no documented findings were submitted regarding the severe breaches of privacy rights experienced by the COT Cases. This is particularly perplexing given that the arbitration process was designed to address these concerns and incorporate the findings from the AFP’s investigation.

Question 81 in the AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, clearly confirms that the AFP informed me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and government communications authority, provided evidence to the AFP indicating that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. It's baffling why the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, especially after being presented with these AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, 

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

When the COT Cases formally requested an immediate and transparent investigation into the ramifications these fax interceptions had on the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process, which was intended to protect citizens' rights in government-endorsed arbitration, their calls went unanswered. This lack of action undermines the trust in these institutions and highlights a disturbing failure to protect the rights of individuals in a system meant to safeguard them.

Debauched, demoralized and broken 

Shadiness, venality, degeneration 

The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 provide crucial insights into their observations regarding my communications with a bus company named O'Meara. In September 1992, I negotiated with O'Meara to arrange transportation for students and single club members travelling from Melbourne to my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. A Telstra file note from that time includes a handwritten annotation in the top right-hand corner, where "Meara" is noted as the bus company I was interacting with. It is essential to highlight that my letter has no formal identification. I simultaneously dealt with four other bus companies during this period regarding the same transportation tender.

The document's significance, dated September 9, 1992, became apparent to the AFP when they later examined a separate fax document from October 29, 1993. This second document was processed ten months after the O'Meara negotiations concluded. The accompanying attachment to the October 29, 1993, Telstra fault record indicates that faxes exchanged between my office and the office of the COT spokesperson—designated as a test station by Telstra due to my reported issues with fax communications—were documented and retained by Telstra after going through a screening process. (Additional details can be found in the attached evidence labelled File 9-C - Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C).

Given these circumstances, the AFP began to speculate about the possibility that the faxes pertaining to the COT Cases arbitration, specifically those exchanged with their advisors and various government ministers, may have been intercepted through this fax screening device. This concern raises critical questions about the security and confidentiality of sensitive communications during a pivotal time in the arbitration process.

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

When these fax and phone interception issues were discussed in the presence of two Telstra executives, Steve Black and Ted Benjamin and two arbitration consultants, Sue Hodgkinson and John Rundell, with the transcripts of this oral arbitration showing Pia from the Legal Counsel overseeing my arbitration, Dr Gordon Hughes advised all parties including me if I submitted evidence to prove these privacy issues were genuine he would address them as part of my arbitration claim. Dr Hughes never commented anywhere in his 42-page findings that I had been subjected to this intrusion by Telstra. 

Dr. Hughes chose not to investigate my claims regarding the interception of arbitration-related faxes, along with those of other COT Cases who raised similar concerns. If he had initiated such an investigation, it would have revealed significant issues that I brought to the attention of the IAMA in 2009. Notably, the IAMA was supposed to pursue these matters but ultimately halted their investigation.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

 

 

But let's take a moment to consider the gravity of the situation: how does the author of this narrative, Alan Smith (me) delve into a far more complex and alarming story that involves government officials who, much like those in the COT (Communications and Technology) story, were willing to jeopardize the lives of their fellow Australians? They concealed even more pressing public interest issues that unfolded over thirty years prior to the events surrounding Telstra and COT. Indeed, some aspects of my story trace back to significant dates between June 28, 1967, and September 18, 1967, when the People's Republic of China arrested me on dubious charges of espionage. My alleged crime stemmed from being seen with a notebook and a pen, where I took meticulous notes about times and dates.

My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on a British tramp ship, the Hopepeak. Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Vietcong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong).

As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible. 

The following three statements taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly) only tell part of this tragic episode concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on 18 September 1967 as Minister for the Army.

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569 

"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam".  It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"

If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."

Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."  

Fast forward more than sixty years, and the same bureaucratic patterns persist. Although the individuals in government may have changed, the same public servants continue to shield the misconduct of governmental entities, such as the Wheat Board, which ignored the ethical implications of trading practices. This ongoing trading continued even after I took proactive steps, writing directly to government officials to report my concerns about the misallocation of this vital humanitarian aid.

Arbitration Flashbacks

My arbitration with Telstra was particularly challenging, as it reignited painful memories I had buried over the years. The Freedom of Information documents I received from Telstra at the start of this process served as a trigger, bringing back flashbacks of my experiences, including being held under armed guard. This traumatic experience profoundly impacted my well-being and state of mind during the arbitration proceedings → British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman.

Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra, I found one particularly alarming file I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contained 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, the document and hundreds of requested FOI documents remain withheld from me in 2024.

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, 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 pertaining to unauthorized 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.

This situation illustrates a disregard for protocol on the part of Telstra and the individuals overseeing the various COT arbitrations. The processes involved were conducted in a manner likened to a Kangaroo Court.

As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible. The remaining details of my Telstra story, which intertwine with these grave concerns, can be explored more deeply by clicking on Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong.

Offences that undermine the administration of justice pose a significant threat to the integrity of our judicial system, which is foundational to the principles of democracy and rule of law. Ensuring public confidence in this system is paramount, as it underpins the legitimacy of legal proceedings and the accountability of those in power. Consequently, it is crucial to implement robust measures that protect the judicial process from interference or attack.

This leads to a critical inquiry: how can one effectively substantiate the allegations that public servants transferred privileged information to the then Australian Government-Owned telecommunications carrier, known as the defendants, while concurrently concealing this sensitive documentation from the claimants, also citizens of Australia? The individuals involved in disrupting the course of justice during the COT arbitrations must face stringent penalties; however, it is disconcerting to note that no such consequences have been enforced to date. Criminal offences were indeed perpetrated during these government-managed arbitrations, and alarmingly, those who committed these transgressions continue to hold influential positions of authority in Australia and Hong Kong.

It is evident that on 23 May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration concluded, the arbitrator and administrator were provided with internal Telstra documents that clearly demonstrate Telstra's use of falsified test results from Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc. as part of their defence against my claims. These documents, which should have been disclosed during the arbitration discovery process and were also required under the FOI Act in May 1994, would have robustly supported my assertions regarding the ongoing telephone issues. However, the arbitrator and the administrator ignored this crucial evidence and refused to reopen this part of my arbitration reply to Telstra's defence.

To be continued: