Yet, unbeknownst to Mr. Davey, the devious Denise McBurnie had orchestrated a nefarious scheme with her strategic document titled "COT Cases Strategy." This underhanded plan was meticulously crafted to undermine the first four COT Cases and their businesses, locking us out of essential technical information. Instead of transparency, all dialogue was redirected through their legal representatives, masking their duplicitous actions under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege.

In my own experience, when I submitted my flat data to Denise McBurnie in writing, it was under extreme duress. I was kept in the dark about the fact that Telstra’s testing outcomes would be cloaked in Legal Professional Privilege, effectively shrouding me from the truth → (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

The Senate Hansard from 24 and 25 June 1997 revealed a shocking discovery: over two years after my arbitration had concluded, the Senate exposed the unethical manoeuvres of Denise McBurnie and Freehill, Hollingdale & Page, both before the Telecommunications Industry's settlement proposals (TTSP) and during the subsequent Fast Track Arbitration process. With limited financial means to contest the unlawful arbitration, I had no alternative but to document this outrageous betrayal in a book and create this website to unveil the truth.

Tragically, in this battle against profound corruption, Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan are no longer with us, while Graham Schorer now suffers from advanced dementia. This heartbreaking reality leaves me as the solitary voice striving to expose the depraved dishonesty entrenched in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. What began as a promise for resolution has morphed into a twisted, overly legalistic arbitration farce. Throughout this dark chapter, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, shamefully facilitated changes to the arbitration agreement that shielded his consultants from accountability for negligence. I urge you to examine the twelve mini-reports, which provide detailed information about these occurrences, as outlined in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2.

“COT Case Strategy” 

As 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 pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."

27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."

28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.

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 per cent 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 vital 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 possibility 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.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

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 telephone 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.  

The actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, currently known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, before, during, and in some instances following their representation of Telstra in the government-endorsed arbitrations related to the COT Cases, have resulted in significant discontent and frustration among many participants in the COT Cases. These individuals were compelled to undergo a distressing experience throughout their arbitration and mediation processes, expressing concerns that their cases were severely mishandled and "bastardised." Even after the firm's rebranding, the company has not responded to the following question raised by the administrator of my arbitration, as referenced in the subsequent questions.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.

The situation involving Telstra's legal representative, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, raises significant ethical and legal concerns. Condon signed a witness statement that falsely claimed it was endorsed by a clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, despite Joblin's signature not being present at the time it was submitted to the arbitration consultant, rather than the appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes. This oversight—or potential malpractice—raises questions about the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

The TIO and Telstra had jointly appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory to oversee access to all arbitration documents. This firm bore the critical responsibility of determining which documents would be reviewed by the arbitrator and which would be excluded from consideration. This significant role placed immense power in their hands, as their decisions shaped the outcome of numerous claims, including those of individuals like Ann Grams.

On July 11, a letter from Telstra's Steve Black addressed to Warwick was concealed from COT Case Ann Grams during her appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This concealment occurred in the context of Garms’ challenge against Dr. Hughes, who was alleged to have committed gross misconduct in her arbitration. It appears that some of the grievances raised by Grams against Dr. Hughes may have stemmed from negligence by Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, rather than any malfeasance on the part of Dr. Hughes himself. The ramifications of the failed appeal were staggering, costing Ann Garms over $600,000 and leaving her unaware that she potentially had a valid claim against Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory for their role in this complex case.

Many individuals who have scrutinised various witness statements submitted by Telstra in multiple COT cases—my own included—are alarmed to discover that the Senate was also informed of falsified or altered signatures in my case. Altering a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes serious misconduct that extends beyond simple criminality. Maurice Wayne Condon’s assertion that he had witnessed a signature on the witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, given the absence of such a signature, further illustrates the urgent need for a comprehensive investigation into the broader implications of the COT cases.

The lack of response from Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, is troubling. Why have they not issued a formal apology to those affected, including Ann Garms? Their silence raises serious questions about their ethical standards and commitment to their clients' welfare. Particularly concerning is the discrepancy surrounding Ian Joblin’s witness statement; the firm endorsed a document lacking his signature yet attested to its legitimacy. Such a discrepancy not only undermines the integrity of the legal process but also leaves clients grappling with a myriad of unanswered questions, seeking clarity and justice.

Ultimately, Maurice Wayne Condon, as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed a witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature. This raises profound questions about the level of influence and authority that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia. The integrity of this process is paramount, and it is crucial for all parties involved to confront these issues directly, ensuring accountability and restoring trust among those they represent.

A Secret Deal

Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer wrote to the TIO on 11 July 1994 stating:

“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”. 

The statement in Telstra’s letter Exhibit 590 in File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647  “if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator” confirms that both the TIO and Telstra were aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had been assigned to vet most, if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to the arbitrator. If the resource unit decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed on to the arbitrator or other parties. This particular secret deal has been linked to further clandestine dealings and is discussed in more detail elsewhere on absentjustice.com.

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note that I have repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager of the need to solicit these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.

I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.

The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide the requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube video below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as Files 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.  

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?  How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed.

It is my sincere hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny. It is June 2025, and after several emails sent by me to Sandra's email address since the beginning of February 2025, the last email I received told me Sandra's cancer treatment was becoming intolerable. With Sandra living in far away Queensland, too far for me to travel, I can only assume the worst, or perhaps for the better, with Sandra now at peace.

Criminal Conduct Example 3

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 vital 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 confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, but he also appears to have compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information. There was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

Was this secret government party-room information passed on to Telstra by the administrator to our arbitrations have anything to do with the Child Sexual Abuse and the cover-up of the paedophile activities by a former Senator who had been dealing with the four COT Cases? The fact that Warwick Smith, the soon-be administrator of the COT settlement/arbitrations, provided confidential government in-house information to the defendants (Telstra) was a very serious matter. 

IMPORTANT AUTHOR'S NOTE

When three witnesses and I provided Senator Richard Alston conclusive proof that Warwick Smith had proved privileged COT Case government discussed party room information to Telstra, as the following TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms, he was shocked. Still, he did say he would follow up this issue with Warwick Smith as a matter of great concern. NONE of the four COT Cases received advice from either Senator Alston or Warwick Smith on why Warwick Smith had been allowed to get away with this matter when it was so important to all four commercial assessment processes, 

On 30 November 1993, this Telstra internal memo FOI document folio D01248, from Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member, writes to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive Office. Subject: TIO AND COT. This was written seven days after Alan had signed the TIO-administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this memo, Mr Benjamin states:

“At today’s Council Meeting the TIO reported on his involvement with the COT settlement processes. It was agreed that any financial contributions made by Telecom to the Cot arbitration process was not a matter for Council but was a private matter between Telecom, AUSTEL and the TIO.

I hope you agree with this.”

This shows that Telstra was partly or wholly funding the arbitration process.

If the process had been truly transparent, then the claimants would have been provided with information regarding the funds—specifically, the amounts provided to the arbitrator, arbitrator's resource unit, TIO, and TIO special counsel for their individual professional advice throughout four COT arbitrations.

It remains unclear how the arbitrator billed Telstra for his professional fees or how the TIO billed Telstra for his fees, including those of the TIO-appointed resource unit and special counsel. This raises the questions:

Was the arbitrator and resource unit paid every month?
Did the resource unit receive any extra bonus for being secretly appointed as the second arbitrator in determining what arbitration documents the arbitrator was allowed to receive and what was withheld (see letter dated 11th July 1994, from Telstra to Warwick Smith)?

Without knowing how the defendants distributed these payments to the parties involved in the first four arbitrations, it would be impossible for the TIO and AUSTEL (now the ACMA) to continue to state that the COT arbitrations were independently administered.

To summarise the issue: during these four arbitrations, the defence was allowed to pay the arbitrator and those involved in the process. How is this different from the defendant being allowed to pay the judge in a criminal matter? It is a clear and concerning conflict of interest.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, 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: 

“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.”  

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

These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process

Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?

Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?

Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?

Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)

Also, during this same press conference, Senator Len Harris asked many other questions, including why should an owner of a business such as the holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater be forced to sell that business because Telstra had still been unable to fix the ongoing telephone problems that Senator Richard Alston himself had investigated in 1992, ten years previous and concluded were affecting Mr Smith's holiday camp. The telephone problems Mr Smith raised in his 1993/94 arbitration were still being raised with Telstra in 2001, seven years after the arbitration process had failed to rectify those problems.

The COTs never had a chance.