Hacked documents

Corruption hinders the rule of law and democracy, results in human rights abuses and economic stagnation, and permits organised crime, support for terrorism, and other significant threats to human security. The preamble of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) recognises that corruption undermines a country's security and stability and hinders institutions, democracy, sustainable development, justice, and the rule of law. 

A click on Absent Justice Book 2 is free; if you want to donate an appreciation to the publication, please send it directly to Transparency International

 

Arbitration documents blocked by Telstra's telecommunications network 

Telephone conversations tapped to gain an unfair advantage 

John MacMahon, General Manager of AUSTEL, the then government communications regulator (now called ACMA), wrote to Telstra's arbitration liaison office Steve Black 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.” Illegal Interception File No/3

These nine sets of tape recordings were to be given to the four original COT Cases, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me, because the information collected by Telstra and their thugs had been intercepted during the period we four set up the COT arbitrations. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman  (Deputy) Grant Campbell, who was my phone and faxing interception claim, was to be part of my arbitration submission. I also advised the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (Warwick Smith) that I had spoken to the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, concerning my claims that what I had exposed to the government on 18 September 1967 regarding Australia's wheat was being re-shipped to North Vietnam after it had arrived in Communist China. This had worried me no end because Australia and our allies were at War with North Vietnam, and here Australia was feeding the very enemy that was killing and maiming our young soldiers (Refer to Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong).

Collateral damage

As long as it was not your sibling

Here was AUSTEL/ACMA advising Telstra's Steve Black Illegal Interception File No/3 in February 1994 that they had handed over nine audio tapes, which were vital evidence that the COT cases would later need during their government-endorsed arbitrations. We COT Cases had been the victims of this abuse by Telstra. We were treated as second-class citizens, as had been the case when the Australian government continued to trade with China, aware that some of Australia's wheat may be feeding the Vietcong who were killing and maiming so many Australian, New Zealand and US soldiers. 

This was the same Steve Black Illegal Interception File No/3 who threatened me in February and March 1994; that is the reason why my Freedom of Information (FOI) documents were being vetted as File 64 AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91) shows i.e.; any sensitive documents could be scrutinised. Three months later, I was again threatened by Telstra's Paul Rumble, who relayed the same message to me as did Steve Black, i.e., that if I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police by supplying them with Telstra documents I had received under the Freedom Information (FOI Act), then no more documents would be provided to me during my arbitration Senate Evidence File No 31.

Ms Pillippa Smith (Commonwealth Ombudsman) wrote (see File 64 AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91) to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount advising that John Wynack, the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations, had been told that Telstra's Steve Black was vetting their release of documents to me. Ms Phillippa Smith then went on to say to Telstra's CEO: 

Please advise whether Mr Alan Smith also informed my officers that Mr Black had lost or destroyed a number of files relating to his contacts prior to June 1991 and also some personal files given to Telecom in 1992. File 64 AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91

The fact that Steve Black and Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations) covertly agreed to allow Warwick Smith's consultants to have first access to all relevant arbitration-related documents before they reached the arbitrator (Refer to File 62-B AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91) before it was provided to the arbitrator was terrible enough. But to have allowed the covert arrangement to have taken place after Warwick Smith's consultants were secretly exonerated from all liability for their part played in Ann Garms, Graham Schore,r and my arbitration was a terrible injustice imposed on the three COT claimants (Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct).

Mr Wynack (Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations) was still trying to gain access to these types of previously withheld documents as late as October 1997, more than thirty months after the completion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995, where the arbitrator made no written finding in his award concerning Telstra's threats or the hacking into my arbitration-related documents. 

On 25 February 1994,  an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to me to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (File 773 - AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 )

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (File 773-b) AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818) noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

On 18 May 1994,  I wrote to Dr Hughes, asking him to extend my arbitration preparation time to 15 June 1994 due to Telstra's delaying FOI tactics, which were directly related to both Steve Black and Paul Rumbles threats of no more FOI documents because of my continued supply of those documents to the Australian Federal Police (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1)

On 23 May 1994, Dr Hughes, in his role as arbitrator, replied to my 18 May letter advising me that Telstra had agreed to an extension until 15 June 1994 (one week) but said Telstra's

“Mr Rumble has indicated that Telecom would be opposed to a further extension of time beyond 15 June 1994.”  File 81 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91.

This allowed me only one week of extra time to access my FOI documents from Telstra, regardless of Dr Hughes being advised that Paul Rumble and Steve Black had now carried out their threats and stopped supplying any more FOI documents.

Amazingly, Dr Hughes and the newly appointed administrator to the arbitrations, John Pinnock, allowed Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer (who had signed the same arbitration agreement with me in April 1994) more than thirteen months to submit their claims. They cited the poor document time frame in the arbitration agreement as to why this extra time was granted to the remaining claimants (Open Letter File No 55-A).

It is confirmed in Part 4 Chapter 4 Government Spying that during my arbitration oral hearing on 11 October 1994, I advised both Telstra's Steve Black and Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) that they should not pressure me into disclosing what the Australian Federal Police had uncovered concerning Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telephone and facsimile transmission:  It is confirmed from question 24, in my original 20 September 1994 written answer to this line of questioning I state to the arbitrator and Telstra: 

“This matter is currently under investigation by the Federal Police. In the interest of fair justice I believe that I should not further comment apart from what I have already stated that it is true that I was told this by Detective Superintendent Penrose. It the Australian Federal Police are prepared to disclose the details of their investigations and of their conversations with myself, then Telecom will be able to obtain the same” 

Threats Carried Out 

Threats were made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues. Refer to page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which 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?” 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 Telstra's unauthorised interception of their telecommunication service lines, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Who in Telstra Corporation thought it essential to note that I had telephoned Malcolm Fraser? Page 12 in the 26 September 1994 transcripts of my interview with the AFP Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 show I also advised the AFP that I questioned Telstra's Paul Rumble regarding how Telstra came to document my telephone conversation with the former prime minister. I made it clear in this transcript I never told anyone about my telephone conversations with Mr Fraser. Those conversations were partly related to my time in The People's Republic of China, recorded on the nine tapes (See Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong). 

North Vietnam - Vietcong 

In relation to the above statements concerning the redeploying of grain to North Vietnam, the following three statements are taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965, father of the current Kim Beasly AC, who is Chair of the War Memorial in Canberra. 

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 September 1965) - National Library of Australiahttps://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"

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."  Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong

Why did the arbitrator ignore Telstra's fax (screening) of COT arbitration documents in his award?  

Also, in the AFP transcript of Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I discuss several Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations I had with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser. One such media statement notes: 

“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.” See Senate Evidence File No/53 

Fifty-six years ago, on 17 and 18 September 1967, I alerted the Australian government that some of Australia's wheat being sent to the People's Republic of China on humanitarian grounds was being redeployed to North Vietnam, where North Vietnam Vietcong guerrillas were slaughtering and maiming  Australian, New Zealand and USA troops.

Exposing what I thought was the right thing to do as an Australian has plagued my life ever since and appears to have affected my government-endorsed 1994/95 arbitration. The newspaper journalist who covered my story, telling me it was news that had to be exposed, was forced by the editor to pull the story > Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman record book R744269 <).

 

Fighting on two fronts 

Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases' businesses, and it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process. This didn't stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:

1. How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken by two different organisations at the same time, i.e., an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their individual small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with their investigations?
3. Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?

Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation, but these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being run concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act, 1984), for NOT supplying the COT cases with our promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. That investigation started before the COTs signed their arbitrations and continued for five years.

How have many other Australian arbitration processes been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration? 

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put several questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
2. Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
3. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
4. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
5. Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
6. Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
7. How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?

The tapes referred to by Senator Richard Alston at point 3 above were never provided to us in four COT Cases during our arbitrations. This would have supported our privacy issues, which were also part of our arbitration claims. 

Fax hacking by those who owned the telecommunications network

We COT Cases were sitting ducks   

My Australian Federal Police (AFP) interview transcript from 26 September 1994, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, describes Telstra recording who I phoned or faxed and when. The AFP believed Telstra monitored my calls because the people they recorded were associated with the COT issues. Pages 3-5 of the AFP transcript and other documents I provided to the AFP between February and November 1994 prove that Telstra had listened in on private conversations. 

Question 81 in the AFP transcript Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirm the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon (Australian government communications regulator) had supplied the AFP evidence my phones had been bugged over an extended period, noting that information supplied it; 

"... 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".

 

Who in government had the power to stop a third and fourth investigation into my valid claims

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers' office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

It is also clear from Exhibit 8, dated 11 August 1995 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 a letter from BCI to Telstra's Steve Black and Exhibit 36 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 a further letter from BCI to Telstra's John Armstrong that neither letter is on a BCI letterhead, as are Exhibits 1 to 7, from BCI to Telstra (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. 

Both Exhibits 8 and 36 were provided by Telstra to the Senate Committee [on Notice under oath as being authentic] in October 1997 to support that BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were genuine when the evidence on absentjustice.com and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report confirms it is not.

Fraudulent reporting by Telstra (the defendants) in the COT arbitrations destroyed the COT Cases' chance of fully proving their claims. If that fraudulent conduct was not bad enough, the COT Cases had to contend with Telstra tampering with arbitration material after it left the COT Cases businesses.

The Major Fraud Group wanted to use Telstra's fraudulent conduct to spearhead their investigations into the fraud allegations registered by Barrister Sue Owens. The following transcript, Major Fraud Group Transcript (2), shows that both Barristers Sue Owens and Neil Jepson thought my fraudulent reporting regarding the Bell Canada International testing was above average.

 

The saga continues 

It was important to raise my involvement with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police and my secondment as a witness for both Barristers, Mr Neil Jepson and Mrs Sue Owens. Both had heard that I supplied the Canadian and Australian Governments with irrefutable evidence that Telstra had used fraud, nine false sworn witness statements, and tampering with evidence after it had left my premises during my arbitration with Telstra.

The following exhibit was supplied to the Government in August 2006 by COT Case Ann Garms, one of the four COT Cases that the Major Fraud Group was investigating.

It is clear from the witness statement Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the government) by COT Case Ann Garms and sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. 

Des Direen notes that an unknown person targeted at least one Major Fraud Group officer during his Telstra investigations. He also states his belief, as a security officer with many years of experience, that officers of the Major Fraud Group were under electronic surveillance during the period he was investigating these fraud allegations.

This person, as well as other Major Fraud Group police officers and Barrister Mr Neil Jepson, knows I complained of my St Kilda Road accommodation premises being under physical surveillance while assisting the police. 

Des Direen's witness statement shows the power that 'forces at work' still had over the COT Cases in 2001, seven years after the Australian Federal Police began their investigations into the appalling conduct of Telsta having access to the COT Cases telephone service lines, including the fax service lines between the arbitrator, the COT Cases lawyers, and their technical advisor George Close.

George Cloase's combined residence and business situated in Budrim (Queensland), which was at least a thousand kilometres away for the seven COT clients he was advising, was easy prey to Telstra's fax screening process because Telstra knew all technical advice given to the COT Cases was via telephone or fax. 

These chapters, Chapter 1 - Hacked documents, Chapter 2 - Illicit screening, Chapter 4 Government spying and Rupert Murdoch - Hacked Documents, confirm Telstra intercepted relevant faxes during COT Case arbitrations and destroyed the abilities of the COT Cases proving their claims to the arbitrator. The Scandrett & Associates' report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) proves these interceptions, and one author reiterated on 19 January 2014, 15 years after he helped compile the report:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” Front Page Part One File No/14

I provided evidence to the Senate on 23 March 1995 that AFP records show Telstra knew my and my staff's daily movements when I was at my business and the dates that I would be away during my arbitration. On 24 June 1997, two years after the arbitrator ignored these privacy issues in his final award regarding my complaints against Telstra, Labor Senator Kim Carr asked Telstra during a Senate debate on Telstra's unethical conduct towards the COT Cases (refer to pages 76-78, Senate - Parliament of Australia)

“…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?”

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 Helen Handbury (refer to Rupert Murdoch - Hacked Documents, Senator Kim Carr 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.” 

This link, Rupert Murdoch—Hacked Documents, shows that Helen Handbury was shocked to read these Hansard statements and my draft Absent Justice concerning Telstra blocking certain arbitration-related documents en route to the arbitrator and COT Case technical consultant George Close. Mrs Handbury said she hoped to get Rupert to publish my story.

My story is the truth, as are my statements concerning the loss of many arbitration documents that did not get through to the arbitrator after being blocked and withheld from being investigated during a government-endorsed arbitration process.

Next Page ⟶