Australian Federal Police Investigations
Senate Records do not lie.
The following Senate Hansard records expose criminal conduct or the worse possible kind that happened more than two decades ago during a government-endorsed legalistic arbitration process. Criminal conduct which is exposed in these official Hansard records has still not been investigated. This part of our COT story is a continuation of what I have exposed on our Home page.
Two years after these crimes were committed the Senate was informed on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia by an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:
“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.”
Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate learned we COT Cases “had to stop to be stopped at cost” from proving our claims they also uncovered see page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, that Telstra employees were rorting millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. NSW was not the only state where this rorting had taken place. Threats were now being made against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully receive functional phone systems, was about to expose how dilapidated the Telstra network was. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (see page 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted. Telstra's lawyers were brought in to stop the COT Cases from exposing the truth surrounding the unethical conduct of those within this government-owned
A covert arrangement entered into by the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and the name of my business the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases that had been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) that had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents.
These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but had also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was later used during the first four government-endorsed arbitrations (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)
Even worse as shown on the Home page, before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with this same legal firm. This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by the Australian government. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged
Even worse, another Alan Smith who used to live in Discovery Bay, on the other of Cape Bridgewater like me before and leading up to my arbitration, had been battling Telstra over many months receiving legal letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnamboollaw firm) acting for a financial debt collector issuing summons (two I still have) for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehills Hollingdale & Page fax identification stamp is visible on these documents. This is the same Alan Smith who later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and road mail deliveries, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra's arbitration defence unit Freehills mistakenly sent some of my arbitration material to this Alan Smith. I use the word mistakenly because I have no proof it was a deliberate part of Telstra's COT Cases strategy to 'stop me at all costs' from proving my claim.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL had already found against Telstra that I had been profoundly misled and deceived by Telstra concerning my ongoing telephone problems. To further support those claims were valid can best be viewed by reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.
Regardless of this evidence (see C04007 and C04008 Front Page Part Two 2-B, I was still forced to register my complaints with these same lawyers. It has also been shown on this website that Freeill's also knew my complaints were valid. So why did Telstra and Freehill's continue to harass me into writing so many letters and when received write back in response declaring my claims were fictitious? Why hasn't the Australian government reprimanded Telstra and Freehill's demanding answers to why I was so profoundly misled concerning my valid claims?
To add further insult to these injustices, on 12 September 1994, as part of the arbitration process, I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims. I found the process of being interviewed by a psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process.
I reiterate as I have already explained on the Home page one of the most important issues I raised with this psychologist was the trauma I suffered at the hands of this legal firm that ohired him. He appeared to listen carefully to what I described and he said being directed to register phone complaints, in writing, with Telstra’s lawyer, before they would be investigated, was most disturbing. I provided confirmation that losing six incoming calls in a single day was common. Writing to a lawyer, explaining lost six telephone calls, was more than just soul-destroying, it just about broke my willpower to carry on. He said he was shocked Telstra and its legal firm forced this on me and agreed this would certainly affect my mental state over the many months I had to do this.
However, when this legal firm, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by a lawyer from this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist and didn’t contain his concerns regarding me having to first contact this legal firm, in writing, before Telstra would address my telephone problems.
The most alarming points about this unsigned witness statement are:
- Before the psychologist met with me, Telstra’s lawyers provided him with a copy of the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International (BCI) addendum report stating 13,590 test calls were carried out, over a five-day period, routed through to the Cape Bridgewater RCM unmanned switching exchange, using the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring equipment. This report stated the test calls had a 99.8 per cent success rate.
- Neither the psychologist nor the arbitrator was told tests through the Cape Bridgewater RCM switching exchange was impracticable: the nearest exchange that could accommodate the TELELEC CCS7 equipment was the Warrnambool exchange, 120 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater (see Evidence / Telstra's Falsified BCI Report)
Had the psychologist known the 13,590 test calls, allegedly carried out by BCI, could not terminate through the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring system at Cape Bridgewater, his assessment of my mental state would have been somewhat different. He, too, might have been distressed if he had been aware Telstra misled and deceived him prior to him assessing my mental state.
Even though the statute of limitations had not yet expired for the administrator of the arbitrations to investigate why Telstra had acted unlawfully during our arbitrations by using this spurious LPP advice to the detriment of the COT Cases no investigation ever took place why legal professional privilege was stamped on so many technical documents which are clearly not privileged?
Spurious Claims Of Privilege
In June 2000, renowned Legal Professional Privilege expert, Associate Professor Suzanne McNicoll, provided the COT claimants (see exhibit AS 924 AS-CAV 923 to 946 with the following legal opinion regarding Freehill's ‘COT Case Strategy’ i.e.
"There is also some potential prima facie evidence of (4) i.e. knowingly making false or spurious claims to privilege. For example, there is potential structure set up for the possible abuse of the doctrine of legal professional privilege in the faxed document entitled “COT” Case Strategy, marked “Confidential” dated 10 September 1993 from Ms Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale and Page, Melbourne Office to Mr Ian Row, Corporate Solicitor, Telecom Australia.”
Even with this legal opinion we COT Cases have been forced to live with the injustices bestowed upon us by Telstra and their lawyers.
Starting on page 5163, this link > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard) were being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.
Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE Official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and a number of senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants and our lives have been ruined, simply because we believed that what we were doing would eventually benefit all Australians.
COT members pleaded with the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) not to force us into arbitration with Telstra whilst Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for the unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations – this was undemocratic. The TIO ignored our concerns. What we did not know, was that the TIO and arbitrator had secretly agreed with Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement and NOT the independent agreement the government was assured would be used to assess our matters. Even worse, although the arbitrator wrote to the TIO, advising him the arbitration agreement was not credible to use in the arbitrations, it was still used. This letter from the arbitrator was then concealed from the claimants during their designated appeal processes, regardless of its value.
Even before the arbitrator brought down his first deliberation, both he and the TIO were warned, on 18 April 1995, that there were “forces at work” derailing the arbitrations. They both ignored this written advice. This letter to the TIO, from the arbitration project manager, was also concealed from the claimants during the same designated appeal process.
Both Telstra’s 14 April 1994 letter, to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), that admits at least one Telstra employee was intercepting my telephone conversations, and my 9 September 1994 response, concerning this unauthorised interception over an extended period, are now stamped “Protected AFP” material. The > SENATE official Hansard clearly refers to Telstra’s conduct, stand-over tactics and threats towards the COT cases. The Senate Hansard, AFP transcripts (of conversations with me concerning these threats) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s records, all confirm Telstra carried out those threats against; yet neither the arbitrator nor the TIO addressed this during my arbitration. Why has no one ever addressed this unethical conduct publicly? Why is there no record, in the arbitrator’s award, exposing these threats? Why was Telstra allowed to make these threats and commit similar unlawful acts against the COT cases during their arbitrations? Neither the TIO nor arbitrator came to my aid or demanded answers to why a corporation can take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process. This has been the hardest thing for the COT cases to accept, after having given so much to the people of Australia.
During the independent Senate Committee investigations of 1997 to 1999, there were twenty-three senators who were either directly involved or who were provided with regular updates in relation to those investigations into the COT arbitrations. Out of those twenty-three, the following six individual Senators all made official statements dated 6 March 1999 (See > Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris and Alston,Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations.
Furthermore, In-Camera Hansard records that were withheld under government privilege, but which I have discussed in evidence/government-communications-regulator-austelacma/An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens, show that a number of other Senators thought the same. Then we have one of two Telstra executives who, without being named by the Senate, were both criticised by the Senate committee because of their gross unethical conduct during the committee’s investigations: both have gone on to bigger and better things because one is now a most senior Telstra executive while the other operates a Dispute Resolution Centre in Melbourne.
It is therefore quite clear, from both official Government and Senators’ records, that the whole COT process has been seriously condemned by people who knew exactly what they were talking about, and that these two Telstra people in particular, both heavily involved in those same COT processes in the past, are now earning a very good living with one handling government and private disputes and the other working as a most senior Telstra executive. This would be worrying enough on its own but to add that both the administrator and the arbitrator to those same COT arbitrations have since been awarded Order of Australia medals, suggest fairly clearly that there is – still – something seriously wrong with Australia’s entire arbitration/dispute resolution process. Forcing citizens of any country into arbitration without the necessary documents they required to at least support some of their claims is grossly undemocratic but for this to have happened in Australia purports to be highly democratic is why my claims on absentjustice.com need to be investigated.
What the above and below Senate Hansard records shows is, that Telstra management and their day to day employees have been involved in illegal activities that have affected all Australian citizens.
Threats
Although these threats have been discussed on our Home page I considered it important I again raise them here.
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 the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration Page Page Part One File No/14)
NONE of the COT Cases was ever on a terrorist list in 1994 (or since, for that matter) and nor was any of us ever listed as suspects in relation to any crimes committed against any Australian citizens. This means that we must therefore ask: why were these innocent claimants’ in-confidence arbitration and Telstra-related documents hacked by Telstra while Telstra was defending the various COT cases arbitrations? In my own case, 42 separate sets of correspondence faxed to the Arbitrator’s office (some with attachments) are not listed on the Arbitration Schedules of Material received by the Arbitration process. It is clear from Front Page Part One File No/1 that even though the Arbitrator’s secretary advised Tony Watson (part of Telstra’s Arbitration Defence Unit) that on 23 May 1994, six of my claim documents were never received at the Arbitrator’s fax machine. It is clear from my Telstra account I was charged for those six faxes as having left my office, yet no one from the Arbitrator’s office nor the TIO’s office when this matter was exposed, allowed me to amend my claim so that these proven “non received” claim documents were valued by the Arbitrator in support of my claim.
I reiterate, why hasn't the Australian government renegotiated my arbitration matters on the grounds that Telstra illegally gained an advantage over my businesses and my claims against Telstra as they have renegotiated the Timor Leste/Australian oil deposit issues again?
This second Senate Hansard, link dated 20 September 1995, shows Senator Ron Boswell officially discussing the injustices the four original COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations noting:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. As a direct result, a telecommunications industry ombudsman has been set up and a complaints resolution process established. But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra.
"Then followed the Federal Police Investigation in to Telecom's monitoring of the
COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DP, in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding"“Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. . . . .
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all.
. . . .“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”
Senator Boswell’s statement that the claimants “were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all”, is related to the fact the arbitrator had no control over the process even before it began. Why weren't the COT arbitration's abandoned when it became obvious Telstra (the defendants) was controlling the arbitration process, and NOT the arbitrator?
To date, neither Telstra management nor its employees have been brought to account for the injustices that we four COT cases have suffered
The above Senate Hansard shows. Intimidation and other criminal activity from within the Telstra Corporation was real and not a figment of the COT Cases imagination
So, it is established that Telstra intercepted arbitration-connected faxes and documents, bugged complainants’ phones and interfered with evidence. One might expect that when going into arbitration against a telecommunications company. I’m amazed the government, who endorsed the arbitrations, didn’t expect this behaviour and put plans in place to prevent it! Oh, wait – the Australian government-owned Telstra back then...
Telstra took advantage of its network and Chapter 8 – Hacking / Unresolved Privacy Issues shows plans were underway to do this early on.
But, Telstra’s shady – criminal – behaviour went much further than that. There were burglaries (see throughout this chapter and Chapter 2 – I am not alone as well as Chapter 4 – What Privacy? and /.Chapter 5 – Defacing Requested Documents
These exhibits plus Home Evidence File No 5). Home Evidence File No 4) and the following 22nd April 1994 fax issue have been addressed throughout this website, they are also is directly related to AUSTEL only having received three blank pages, even though they appear on AUSTEL’s fax report as having taken between 1.20 seconds to 2.40 seconds to transmit. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)
None of those three blank pages had my fax identification displayed at the top of the received documents or the time and date that they had been sent. However, they all had a single, small square in the top right corner of the page, each with a number inside it.
In 1994, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and other COTs suffered break-ins and lost computers and business-related documents. I lost diaries covering 1987 to 1989, official booking records, bank statements and bank pay-in books for 1992/93. Without these records, it was difficult to produce full and correct financial statements for my forensic accountant. I had to move all business records off my premises after that. (see Chapter 4 - Government spying) below.
The stress of being forced into a highly legalistic government-endorsed arbitration in an attempt to have our ongoing telephone problems fixed was trying enough. But to be told by the same government we had to sign our arbitration agreements while the Australian Federal Police (ASFP) was investigating Telstra for the unauthorized interception of our telephone conversation as well as our fax lines which we needed to use so as we could fax our arbitration claims to the arbitrator brought the COT Cases to breaking point.
As I have explained in the body of this AFP segment, before the COT cased signed their arbitration agreements in April 1994, the government communications regulator AUSTEL [their represemnntatives] met with the COTs advising them that Telstra employees had been intercepting private and business telephone conversations and/or hacking into information faxed through Telstra's network. This was later confirmed after the completion of these arbitrations in January 1999 (see Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) shows. As discussed throughout the following seven chapters the AFP and AUSTEL found the Telstra Corporation had indeed intercepted my telephone conversations over an extended period (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
It is now In 2021, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:
