My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


Bad Bureaucrats


The 24 January 1995 letter was faxed to the arbitrators’ office. Is there a connection between the loss of my faxed arbitration documents and the TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter stating that his office has no record of my 24 January 1995 letter to the arbitrator requesting him to seek various documents from Telstra under the discovery process? My 24 January 1995 letter requesting a copy of the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada information to be provided from Telstra through the arbitration process was received (see Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E).

Why did the TIO advise me that records in his office did not record receiving my 24 January 1995 letter? “Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further,”  When my letter was returned to me, the fax footprint indicates it was received at the arbitrator’s fax machine. The TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter is possibly one of our most damning pieces of evidence, showing that “forces at work” were able to conceal essential arbitration material from being addressed during my arbitration process.

If the arbitrator had acted on my requests for the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada test information, which I was legally entitled to have, I could have proved the Bell Canada International could not possibly generate the alleged 13,500 test calls through a Tekelec CCS7 system that they and Telstra stated was installed at the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange. There was no equipment in place at the Bridgewater exchange to facilitate such tests. The nearest Telstra exchange that could facilitate a Tekelec CCS7 monitoring system in November 1993 was the Warrnambool exchange, which is 112 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater. The TIO and Commonwealth Ombudsman records will confirm I requested the BCI information on at least four occasions.

It is serious enough that an Australian corporation knowingly provided false answers to questions on notice during a Senate committee hearing, however, consider: if the TIO is telling the truth that the arbitrator did NOT receive my 24 January 1995 BCI letter, then who did? And why do the markings on this document show that it arrived at its intended destination? My own BCI report shows Telstra even went as far as knowingly providing false  Cape Bridgewater information to the Senate in October 1994. As a result, the Senate estimates committee did not investigate the fundamentally flawed BCI Cape Bridgewater report.

Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E shows this important arbitration documents, faxed by me to the arbitrator on 24 January 1995did reach the arbitrators’ office. As we have shown on this website other similar documents faxed from my office were never received (assessed) by the arbitrator.

What is essential to add here is by reading Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued and scrolling down to 10 and 17 March 2006, you will learn that government public servants agreed to investigate any proof of unlawful conduct used against me by Telstra during my arbitration. 

the following block image has been taken from Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued which notes:  

In my 10 March 2006 letter to Liz Forman (one of the government assessors appointed on behalf of the government to assess my privacy issues and my claims Telstra had perverted to course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration I stated that:
"Although you have stated in your letter that “...the assessment process will not extend to an examination of whether the law was broken by Telstra....” I have been advised that it is mandatory, under Commonwealth law, for DCITA and/or the Minister to notify the Attorney General of any unlawful activities they may uncover during official department investigations". (Refer to exhibit AS 614 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647
17 March 2006:  On the 17 March 2006 David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman noting:
"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700
The information in our story on this website indicates that Telstra employees have committed criminal offences in connection with my arbitration as our  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  page so clearly shows. Yet these three reports were NOT taken into consideration by the government bureaucrats namely Liz Forman and David Lever.
A further Pen Pusher powerful - Bureaucrat  Nikki Vajrabukka from the Department of Communications, Environment, Technology and the Arts (DCITA sent an internal email to David Lever on 3rd March 2006, informing him that she had emailed David Quilty (a previous government Pen Pusher power - Bureaucrats who were now a Telstra Government Liaison Officer (AS 1042) at asking for his assistance in addressing my March 2006 DCITA submission which described how, during my arbitration, Telstra had knowingly submitted three fundamentally flawed reports as official defence documents namely  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  and the  Tampering of Evidence .  Sending this email is much like asking a criminal if they should be charged in relation to crimes they have committed after being caught with the stolen goods. 
It is also interesting to note that, before Mr Quilty moved to Telstra, he was Chief of Staff to the DCITA Minister (then Senator Richard Alston) during the time that I was requested to provide the Minister with any further damning evidence against Telstra and the unlawful way in which they had been allowed to conduct their arbitration defence of the COT Cases claims. In fact, when I wrote to Philip Gaetjens (Principal Advisor to The Hon Peter Costello, who was then the Federal Treasurer) on 12 November 1997, I provided conclusive evidence of the way Telstra had perverted the course of justice during their defence of my arbitration claims which included the evidence now attached to  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  the  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  and the  Tampering of Evidence  reports.
On 3 December 1997, documents show that Mr Gaetjens passed my evidence on to Mr Quilty (in his position as Senator Alston’s Chief of Staff). How could the DCITA process remain independent if Mr Quilty was evaluating the claims against his new employer (Telstra), particularly since:
In some cases, those claims were that persons with access to Telstra's network had continued to intercept my faxes after the conclusion of my arbitration.  The evidence to support those allegations had previously been supplied to the DCITA in January 1999 prepared had been signed under oath in January 1999 by two renowned technical consultants (see Open Letter File No/12 ,  Senate Evidence File No 31 ) and was now supplied again by me in my March 2006 submission.
It is also important to note David Quilty was once Chief of Staff of DCITA to the Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston, as well as an advisor to the Prime Minister, John Howard? This seems to demonstrate that public officials i.e., the pen-pushing powerful - bureaucrats live in a different world to most of Australia – a world where there is no meaning to the term “conflict of interest” and/or mutual respect for a fellow Australian citizen.
The final DCITA assessment on my submission found in favour of Telstra, and lo and behold, David Quilty ended up with a senior executive position in Telstra.


Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13 prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations. In my own case I provied futher evidence to the DCITA assesors that Telstra had tampered with evidence released by me to Telstra technicians during my arbitration as the Tampering With Evidence reporting shows.

I also provided the DCITA assessors with the following two reports: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.

These three named reports above show Telstra knowing perverted the course of justice on three separate occasions and having submitted several witness statements signed under oath that derailed my arbitration. Yet, with all that evidence before them, the DCITA assessors did not provide it to the appropriate authorities. 

In simple terms government Bad Bureaucrats for a second time, first in 1994 when they withheld AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that between points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. 

And yet, government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show AUSTEL’s adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

How could the DCITA assessors not use AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings and the Tampering With Evidence reporting, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report evidence to the promises authorities? Who had the power to stop the DCITA assessors from transparently investigating my claims registered to the government in 2006? 

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

Other independent business people similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telstra, or the COT cases. All we wanted was for the government owned telecommunications carrier Telstra to admit there was problems, and fix them.

Worse, we had been tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered all of our efforts since to have our claims transparently investigated.

What do you think? Are we imagining it or has there really been massive corruption and collusion on the part of public servants, politicians, regulatory bodies and Telstra themselves, to protect Telstra to the detriment of it's customers?

Quote Icon

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

– Edmund Burke