Open letter to Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minster
I am making this public comment regarding the government's 25 June 2023 media release that they are providing extra powers to ACMA. The content of this Home Page letter and that on this website absentjustice.com
In January 2018 my partner, Cathy, was with me for my first appointment with our local doctor after I had survived a heart attack and double by-pass surgery. Although the doctor was very sympathetic to my situation (and he knows my COT story) he couldn’t help but ask: “Why am I not surprised?”
As I write this Open Letter it is now July 2023 and still, every time I go back to finalise various parts of my website at absentjustice.com, and I have to re-read all the complex details that make up the whole, true, terrible story, my anxiety levels instantly begin to rise alarmingly. The situation gets worse though because I also find I am just stuck; I seem to be unable to find the right words to finish off this dreadful story. It seems that, no matter what I do, I just can’t find a way to properly explain this disaster that we have all struggled with for so many years. One part of the problem is, of course, that none of the COT cases – all honest Australian citizens – should ever have been forced into a situation that would eventually leave us all dealing with so many still-unaddressed crimes; crimes that were committed against us while we were officially part of a government-endorsed, legal, arbitration process. There are two parts to this problem for the COTs, though: to begin with, there are those who are now identified on the website and below, who worked with Telstra to carry out those still-unaddressed crimes, and then there is Telstra, an organisation with so much power that they could stop any authorities (including government authorities) from investigating any of those crimes as my story so clearly shows.
It is important to stress here that every single detail recorded on this website is not only true but is also supported by irrefutable evidence that can now be readily accessed directly from the website. It is also important to note that, as the result of a recent discussion with other members of the COT group (even though two of them are very sick at the moment) we decided that, considering the stress that we are all still suffering, it would be better to release our stories to the public just as they are on the website now, even if this is not exactly how we had hoped to present them when we began to put the website together.
Today's letter is dated 3 July 2023.
I have written to every conceivable government agency in Australia see Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued because of the seriousness of what transpired prior to, during and after the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations.
Instead of the government communications regulator remaining independent of Telstra they shared evidence with Telstra (the defendants) that grossly affected the outcome of those arbitrations AUSTEL (now ACMA) had facilitated. Some, but not all, of the information that should have remained natural, was also concealed by government bureaucrats from the Canberra office of the Minister for Communications during the 1994 to 1998 arbitrations and the Senators Helen Coonan and Barnaby Joyce’s Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) reassessment of the COT arbitration in 2006 (see Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued)
As shown on this website some of the faxed claim information by the COT Cases, who were officially advised in writing would be viewed and assessed by the government-appointed assessors, was not assessed at all. In fact, in my case, my secretary had a security fax receipt system attached to her fax line that showed when her faxes were received and read. Showed on two occasions claim documents sent to the DCITA assessors were not opened or read and were deleted from the designated government Fax service lines fifteen months after the conclusion of the DCITA assessment process.
I believe even now, in 2023, if The Hon. Anthony Albanese, who inherited the very issues now being raised in this open letter, were to appoint a mutually agreed lawyer, retired judge and meet with me and were to listen to what I have experienced when dealing with government bureaucrats from the DCITA, AUSTEL, then the ACA and now ACMA, that professional person would see I am not a senile man of 79 years.
While I favour the new laws the current government proposes to bring in to protect Australians from misinformation being exposed on the web, empowering just one body, such as ACMA, as the policeman needs to be carefully considered. Should there be a second policeman watching the first?
The evidence on this website absentjustice.com
Some background information
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (respondents ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA (should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, because Telstra and AUSTEL (now ACMA) were still withholding from me Ericsson AXE data in 2008, [Judge] Mr G D Friedman, when telling ACMA they should provide me with the documents I am pursuing as a matter of fairness, considering the government documents promised me would be provided to me as part of my arbitration process. On bringing down his findings, Mr Friedman told me in an open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
In my second Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing on 26 May 2011 (No 2010/4634) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA (the respondants in that heating) that I should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, all of the requested information both Telstra and AUSTEL originally withheld during my government-endorsed arbitration process. Senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman also considered this AAT hearing and it is now apparent that Mr Friedman was unaware that the government solicitors (AGS) and ACMA based their defence of my claims on the inaccurate DCITA COT archival documents, including the sanitised public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994. Neither document includes the true (and very adverse) findings that AUSTEL had originally reached in relation to Telstra’s dealings with me (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
It is important to note that during this second AAT hearing (No 2010/4634), Mr Friedman (Judge) hearing my case stated:
“Mr Smith still believes that there are many unanswered questions by the regulatory authorities or by Telstra that he wishes to pursue and he believes these documents will show that his unhappiness with the way he has been treated personally also will flow to other areas such as it will expose the practices by Telstra and regulatory bodies which affects not only him but other people throughout Australia.
“Mr Smith said today that he had concerns about the equipment used in cabling done at Cape Bridgewater back in the 1990s. He said that it should – the equipment or some of the equipment should have a life of up to 40 years but, in fact, because of the terrain and the wet surfaces and other things down there the wrong equipment was used.”
During this second AAT hearing in May 2011, I again raised the telephone problems that had affected my business and over more that 120,000 other Telstra customers that AUSTEL (now ACMA) mislead the Labor governemnt about in April 1994. This collusion with Telstra by AUSTEL (now ACMA) effectively allowed these hidden unaddressed telephone faults and problems to continue for a further 11 years after the end of the COT arbitrations. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-2011 and continued for a further seven or more years, just like those that I raised during my 1994 arbitration.
One of the documents I provided both the arbitrator in 1994 and the AAT in 2008 and again in 2011 is a Telstra FOI (folio A00253) dated 16 September 1993 and titled Fibre Degradation. It states:
“Problems were experienced in the Mackay to Rockhampton leg of the optical fibre network in December ’93. Similar problems were found in the Katherine to Tenant Creek part of the network in April this year. The probable cause of the problem was only identified in late July, early August. In Telecom’s opinion the problem is due to an aculeate coating (CPC3) used on optical fibre supplied by Corning Inc (US). Optical fibre cable is supposed to have a 40 year workable life. If the MacKay & Katherine experience are [sic] repeated elsewhere in the network, in the northern part of Australia, the network is likely to develop attenuation problems within 2 or 3 years of installation. The network will have major QOS problems whilst the CPC3 delaminates from the optical fibre. There are no firm estimates on how long this may take. …
“Existing stocks of Corning cable will be used in low risk / low volume areas.” (See Bad Bureaucrats File No/16)
Were the citizens of Australia entitled to be advised by the Australian Communications Regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA), before it sold off the Telstra network, that, e.g., the aforementioned optical fibre with CPC3 coating, supplied to Telecom/Telstra by Corning Inc (USA), was installed in their area? How many people in Australia have been forced to live with a subpar phone system, i.e., a known poor optical fibre that Telstra should NEVER have installed? How many businesses have gone up against the wall due to Telstra’s negligent conduct of knowingly laying their existing stocks of Corning cable in locations that Telstra believed were low risk/low volume areas?
Chapters one to three in our
Five months after the conclusion of my arbitration, a representative of AUSTEL (mow ACMA), Darren Kearney, visited my business on 19 December 1995, telling me AUSTEL/ACMA would investigate this unaddressed moisture issue as part of their billing investigation into my claims and would respond after they had viewed my five spiral submission Mr Kearney took back to AUSTEL. I have yet to see an official finding by AUSTEL/ACMA from their investigations which might have assisted me in appealing my arbitration award.
On 21 March 1995, during my government-endorsed arbitration with Telstra, which had been facilitated by AUSTEL (now ACMA), I was asked to give evidence at the Legal and Constitutional Reference Committee and Legislation Committee (Interception)
Had I been provided copies, I could have proved this part of my claim to the arbitrator. The arbitrator's award mentions not one single comment about these interception claim documents. The attached AFP transcripts (Question 81 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 show the AFP acknowledged that John MacMahon from AUSTEL had proof my telephone conversations were intercepted without my consent. A Ballarat COT Case member (who I have not named here for a good reason) whose name will be recorded by the Committee hearing his evidence of what this unauthorised phone interception had on his well-being as a counsellor for young gay men broke down and, like me was unable to convey fully what this harassment into our lives by Telstra had caused us.
On 15 February 1994, prior to this Committee (Interception)
"On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping"?.
When the COT Cases jointly asked Telstra and AUSTEL (now ACMA) to provide a copy of those nine tapes to assist us in our arbitration claim, we were met with silence and excuses that the material was no longer available. Neither Telstra nor AUSTEL would write an acknowledgement to the arbitrator that Telstra had intercepted our telephone conversations without authorization.
For the government communications regulator, AUSTEL (now ACMA), to have refused this request leading up to and during the COT arbitrations shows their bias towards everyday Australians, where the Telstra Corporation is concerned. This was vital evidence that the government refused to supply its citizens. Evidence that the government promised the COT Cases would be provided to them if they agreed to arbitration instead of pushing for a Senate investigation into the conduct of Telstra.
Just prior to this Legal and Constitutional Reference Committee and Legislation Committee (Interception)
The arbitrator hearing my case later accepted these two falsified reports as factual and not fabricated because Telstra had sworn under oath in a witness statement that AUSTEL had guaranteed their testing at Cape Bridgewater, where my business was located, when AUSTEL had damned both tests one in November 1883 the other in September 1994.
After receiving these two fabricated reports, the arbitrator refused to give his two arbitration technical consultants DMR & Lane (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues} the extra weeks they advised him in writing were needed to investigate my ongoing billing problems, which these two falsified reports stated I did not have any ongoing faults.
That one action by those two government AUSTEL/ACMA
Major Fraud Group Victoria Police
The Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese, would not be aware that I was seconded by the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police to assist in their investigations initiated by Barrister Sue Owens on behalf of the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) Ann Garms, Ralph Bova, Ross Plowman and Graham Schorer regarding fraud claims against Telstra.
Major Fraud Group Barrister Mr Neil Jepson had read my book Ring For Justice and seconded me to assist. (Please note:- Senator Kim Car has also read this book.) I worked with four members of the Major Fraud Group from late 1998 through to 2000, attending three two full days of research during this time.
Transcripts taken during two meetings with a Senator, a senior Telstra executive, a Barrister and the COT spokesperson when discussing my documented evidence provided to Barristers Sue Owens and Mr Neil Jepson, by me was considered outstanding (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)
The NLP John Howard Coalition government applied pressure on the Victoria Police to abandon their investigations.
However, before this investigation was abandoned I uncovered evidence that AUSTEL (now ACMA) had acted in concert with Telstra several times leading up to and during the COT arbitrations (which included my arbitration) to ensure the then Labor Minister for Communications, the Hon Michael Lee MP, and the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes would not uncover the faulty Service Verification testing equipment used by Telstra as part of the agreed arbitration testing. In 1993 Coopers and Lybrand (now Pricewaterhouse Coopers audited Telstra network and found this equipment was grossly deficient and should not be used in the COT arbitrations and that Telstra should seek offshore for better equipment.
Regardless of this advice, Telstra still used this faulty equipment during the arbitration process.
In spite of this knowledge AUSTEL/ACMA wrote to the Hon Michael Lee MP, on 2 February 1995, attaching the third official COT Cases AUSTEL review stating all six COT Case businesses tested by the SVT process had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications. In my case (as one of the six businesses tested) documents uncovered during the Major Fraud Group investigations reveal AUSTEL/ACMA had already written to the Telstra Engineer Peter Gamble, who carried out these tests at my business on 29 September 1994, received two letters from AUSTEL/ACMA on 11 October and 16 November 1994 (see Exhibit 123 and 124 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 –, damning his SVT process and demanding answers from Telstra to what they intended doing regarding my arbitration testing.
This was the same Peter Gamble who was named in a Senate Committee hearing on 24 and 25 June 1997 by a Telstra whistleblower Lindsey White who advised the Committee he was told by Mr Gamble naming me as one of the five COT Cases who had to be stopped at all cost from proving my arbitration claims against Telstra (see:- pages 36 to 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia. Mr Gamble even went further by swearing under oath in his arbitration witness statement dated 12 December 1994 that his arbitration service verification testing at my business met all of AUSTEL’s mandatory requirements.
Further evidence is available and can be currently downloaded from my website, which shows AUSTEL/ACMA withheld damning information from the COT Cases and the arbitrator hearing those cases, and also various government Ministers who held portfolios of Communications concerning the actual state of the Telstra network.
Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript taken during an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon.
On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations Canberra John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report”? And Mr Matthews replied:
‘The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994 and Telecom received their copy of that at the time.’
These actions by AUSTEL/ACMA, providing evidence to one party (Telstra, the defendants in the COT arbitrations) and not the claimant, was an abuse of process.
When AUSTEL allowed me to spend more than $300,000 in arbitration fees, trying to prove something that AUSTEL had already proved against Telstra, this breached their statutory obligation towards me as an Australian citizen.
(AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), at points 2 to 212, were compiled after the government communications regulator investigated my ongoing telephone problems. 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 advantage to Telstra.
My website absentjustice.com can be viewed to substantiate further that AUSTEL/ACMA has been biased on many occasions against Australian citizens, and giving them more power without addressing their past unethical conduct is not the best way forward, but, indeed, dangerous.
On my website, under Chapter 2 - Bell Canada International Inc, we see that Telstra had the power to tell AUSTEL’s chair Robin Davey to alter the findings in AUSTEL’s COT Cases April 1994 draft public report, which stated there were 120,000 COT-type telephone problems affecting Australian citizens, to read “more than 50”. Providing the government and the arbitrator with such a sanitised report is beyond contempt. In my case, AUSTEL stated in the final report provided to the arbitrator and Minister Lee MP that when I purchased my business, it was connected to an modern ARK telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater, yet their draft findings (Point 6 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) show my business was connected to an Old RAX exchange, which was supposed to have been removed years before it was.
The Hon Anthony Albanese
Mr Prime Minister, Sir, please set up a meeting with a government representative to investigate further my claims concerning the unethical way AUSTEL/ACMA conducted itself during and after the completion of my government-endorsed arbitration when dealing with my arbitration issues.
Yours Sincerely
Alan Smith
Phone / Fax Interception
10th February 1994: AUSTEL writes to Telstra’s Steve Black (AS 52-B)
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 responsibility impose 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.
14th April 1994: This letter from Telstra’s Steve Black to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose states that Telstra only voice-monitored Alan’s telephone service from June to August 1993 (AS 558). This corresponds to Steve Black’s statement in a letter to Warwick Smith which is recorded, at Exhibit (AS 109). Exhibit (AS 559) attached here is page six from a transcript of an AFP interview with Alan on 29th September 1994, which records the AFP asking Alan about a hand-written reference to O’Meara, a bus company that Telstra appeared to have added in the top right corner of a letter Alan had written preciously, on 19th September 1992, to Telstra, when that name was not mentioned in that letter attached here at (AS 560). It is true that Alan was tendering to a number of bus companies during 1992, including Nuline Bus Services, Centre Road Bentleigh, Mooney Ponds Bus Lines, Warrnambool Bus Lines, and O’Meara’s Clayton Victoria (the name that had been hand-written in the corner of this letter). Alan had contacted all four companies for the same tender in an attempt to use one of their service to bring people from Melbourne to Cape Bridgewater but, since O’Meara was not mentioned anywhere in the letter it had been added to, it would seem that Telstra was actually voice monitoring Alan’s phone calls or intercepting his faxes, or possibly his road mail as early as September 1992.
14th July 1998: Alan faxed the first two pages of this exhibit to Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO.
The hand-written notes on these two pages explain that, on the 13/7/98, Alan had received, via fax, two receipts from Seiver’s Jewellers at the Crown Casino complex. Alan’s telephone account (attached) shows that Alan telephoned Seiver’s on 0396545100 on 14th July 1998 at 09:05am and spoke for 03:16 seconds: during this conversation Seiver’s advised Alan that they had certainly not faxed these receipts to a phone number with a prefix resembling Alan’s fax number of 55 267230 (AS 631)
This letter to Wally Rothwell, states:
So far I have been able to show that at least 43 documents and attachments which were faxed to Dr Hughes during my Arbitration did not reach his office. I have also sent you copies of faxes that I have received which consisted of pages which were blank except for a single symbol at the top as well as copies of faxes that have arrived through my fax but which were supposed to go to elsewhere from a variety of different sources in Melbourne
Exhibit (AS 498) dated 22nd January 1998, from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to John Pinnock (TIO), was sent in relation to a meeting with Telstra’s Lyn Chisholm at Alan’s business premises on 14th January 1998, to discuss the 008/1800 billing problems that had continued to affect the viability of Alan’s business. Ms Chisholm prepared the three file notes attached to the fax, which were prepared by Ms Chisholm as a record of the discussion she had with Alan on that day, support Alan’s claim that the 008/1800 problems continued after the end of his arbitration but does not record the evidence that Alan provided regarding a fax that had arrived at Alan’s business with birthday greetings for one of the Melbourne Crown Casino receptionists. Ms Chisholm could not explain how or why this fax ended up at Alan’s office, even though Alan pointed out that one of the members of COT, Ann Garms, was staying at the Casino at the time because of her Telstra related Supreme Court action against the arbitrator.
Are the Crown Casino two exhibits provided to Lyn Chisholm by Alan on 14th January 1998, related to the two Seiver’s exhibits also from the Crown Casino which arrived six months after Ms Chisholm’s 14th January 1998 visit?
16th July 1998: This letter from Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO, to Alan, notes:
I refer to our telephone conversation this morning and your serious concerns about the recorded message left on your answering machine. I spoke to Mr Pinnock this afternoon about this matter. I further outlined your concerns about the fax pages which you consider did not reach the arbitrator, during you arbitration, and the mysterious blank pages. Regarding the blank fax pages, I have asked Telstra, without mentioning your name, how this could happen.
Alan, however, has never received any further advice on this matter, not from Wally Rothwell and not from anyone else in the TIO’s office, so it seems that no-one can explain:
- How blank pages can be faxed from both of Alan’s fax machines, for more than five years;
- How his fax account from Telstra registered these blank pages as taking more than two minutes each to transmit;
- How these blank pages arrived without even a date or an identification regarding who sent them (AS 632)
30th July 1998: Alan’s letter to Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO, states:
A copy is now attached of a four page letter dated 25/5/95 to Sue Hodgkinson of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA). Please note that the pages are clearly numbered 1 to 4. The second attachment is a copy of three pages marked “extended page 3.1”. The first two pages are copies of part of the original letter I sent to Sue Hodgkinson via Dr Hughes’ office by fax on 25/5/95 at 02.10pm. The alarming thing about this letter is that it seems that only 1¼ of the original pages reached the Arbitrator’s office. Further, and even more alarming, the page marked “extended page 3.1” was not part of my claim at all. This raises the question of who this document belongs to or who it came from and this leads to the inevitable conclusion that someone else’s claim is probably incomplete.
I have left these three pages stapled in the original condition – as they were returned to me from Dr Hughes’s office after the completion of my arbitration, as part of my own documents.
A copy of this letter was later faxed by Alan to Graham Schorer, at 14:49 on 29th December 1998. It is clear from the wording on all three faxed pages that Alan’s business identification FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP was removed during transit and replaced with the wording: Fax from 055 267230 (AS 633)
COMMENT
When Alan and Graham Schorer began to suspect that Telstra was still intercepting their faxes Alan started faxing all his in-confidence documents from his residence (03 5526 7265) or from the Holiday Camp phone line (03 5526 7267), instead of using the designated business fax line (03 5526 7230). Exhibit (AS 563), Alan’s residence phone service account, for 03 55267265, confirms a fax sent to Graham’s fax number (0392877001) at 01:28pm and records that it took 3.55 minutes to transmit. Normal fax transmissions are recorded page by page at the receiving end, with the time that each page was received printed across the top of the page, but when a multi-page document has been intercepted the fax only records a single time for the entire, multi-page document. Each of the pages that Alan faxed to Graham on 1st December 1998, see (AS 564):
- Recorded the time that the first page left his fax machine, 12:27, but not individual transmission times for each page; and
- Showed that Alan’s business identification FROM/CAPE/BRIDGE/HDAY/CAMP’, had been replaced with the words: “Fax from: 0355267230”. (Alan’s fax machine was one hour out as it had not been re-programmed to the one hour day-light saving).
It is important to note that when Alan’s Panafax UF-123 facsimile machine was installed in March 1994, only Alan’s business identification – FROM/CAPE/ BRIDGE/HDAY/CAMP appeared on the received faxes. A new Xerox facsimile machine installed at Alan’s business in 1998 displayed the wording – CAPE/BRIDGE/CAMP – ID: 0355267230 on all the faxed documents received.
Important Comment Exhibit (AS 563) has no identification on this Telstra account advising Alan, that his private phone line 55 267265 had been connected to Telstra’s FaxStream service. In other words, Telstra deliberately concealed from Alan that they were intercepting his faxes.
7th January 1999: This report (AS 488) by Steven Scandrett of Scandrett and Associates Pty Ltd to Senator Ron Boswell states:
We were briefed on the background situation and made several tests of Tivoli services. The hard evidence given to us, showing possible interception related to unexplained changes in the header strip of some faxes sent between these parties and others with an interest in COT matters. These changes are not normal, as the header strip is a record of a handshake between the machines to enable setup of the calls, that is to say it indicates a conversation or exchange of information between fax machines and is not normal to be modified by the receiving party (the human). For example the receiver of a fax from say the Ombudsman’s office could not change the header information sent by the Ombudsman’s machine.
We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena they show that:
- The header strip of various faxes is being altered
- The header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.
We understand that originals of all the examples viewed are held along with many more.’
11th January 1999: The sworn testament by Peter Ross Hancock, Victoria, acknowledges he has given Telecommunications services to Golden Messengers since 1992. Mr Hancock concurs that
After extensive fax testing at Golden Messengers, Queensberry Street, North Melbourne on 4th January 1999, and 11th January 1999, (that he observed) “…the discrepancies (that is the second footprint) in the fax headers raised by the tests referred to above and the differences in the fax headers attached (marked “B”) relating to faxes”. Mr Hancock then investigated further exhibits of faxes that had either been received and/or sent between Golden Messengers and their Lawyers, COT case premises and “…Alan Smith at Cape Bridgewater.
In my experience there is no other explanation for the discrepancies in the facsimile footprints in question. I have read the report of Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd and concur with it’s findings”.
24th October 1999: A statutory declaration sent by Cathy Ezard Alan’s partner to David Hawker MP states
Mr John Pinnock (Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman) has refused to address a number of Alan’s complaints. Living with this type of no win situation has left both Alan and I exhausted and unsure if we can trust our business future. (AS 268)
8th November 1999: Alan’s letter to Roslyn Kelicher, ACA states:
In the attached AFP transcript dated 21/9/94 it can be seen that Constable Timothy Dahlstrom was aware of the previous material supplied by me to the AFP supported a number of separate issues where Telstra had breached the Privacy Act 1988.
i.e. Questions 16 to 20 contained in this transcript show the AFP had in their possession Telstra internal archive documents K01410 and K01411 which I had previously supplied to both the TIO Warwick Smith, the Arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes and the AFP. (AS 645)
The fax identification at the bottom of the transcripts referred to by Alan (AS 646) read: “Fax from” but Alan’s correct fax identification was “FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP”. According to the report prepared by Steven Scandrett (see above) this difference indicates that the faxes were intercepted and then redirected on to their intended destination.
4th July 2001: Alan’s fax identification on the first fax dated 8th May 2001, to Ms Kirsten Musgrove FOI Coordinator ACA (and two-page accompanying letter) see Exhibit (AS 514) reads: 18-5-2001 – 11:33 – FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP to 0262195499 P.01, is Alan’s correct fax identification;
The fax identification on the copy of Alan’s letter dated 4th July 2001, to Ton Shaw, Chairman of the ACA after it had been faxed to Mr Shaw’s Canberra office see Exhibit (AS 515) on 5th July 2001, reads: Fax from: 055 267 230 – 05/07/01 – 04:41, is incorrect because the FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP identification has been removed;
Alan’s telephone account Exhibit (AS 516) lists Exhibit (AS 515) as having transmitted successfully to Tony Shaw’s Canberra office, 0262195200 at 04:42am. The 4:44 minute transmission time shown on Exhibit (AS 516), confirms Exhibit (AS 515) (nine documents) were faxed from Alan’s private residence 03 267265. It is clear from the covering Telstra page to this account Exhibit (AS 516) Alan’s service was not on FaxStream.
Why was the Telstra Corporation intercepting faxes leaving Alan’s private residence (six years after his arbitration)?
29th April 2006: Alan’s letter to the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives notes:
Over the years however I have explained to you some of the problems I have encountered with faxes and emails that ‘go missing’ or arrive late or faulty. The enclosed email from Sandra Wolfe is another demonstration of the kinds of problems I have had to deal with, although the recent, different email problems have only arisen since the DCITA process began. The apparent interference in my emails has now forced me to arrange for Ronda Fienberg, my Melbourne editing service (rondaf@optusnet.com.au) to send emails out on my behalf, from her computer and email address, because emails often don’t arrive at their correct destination when I attempt to send them from my emails address.’
Please note the footnote in Alan’s letter from Ronda Fienberg states:
Mr Hawker, I feel obliged to add to the information Alan has provided here. I have run a small editing support business from my home since 1991 and first began assisting Alan in mid-1994. Until then I had never had a problem receiving or sending faxes for myself, or on behalf of my clients, to anywhere in the world, but I continually (still) have problems with Alan’s faxes which often come through with the words drawn out down the page and therefore unreadable, or with the page cut off half way down. Since I first began to use email, in August 1998, I have also never had problems with emails, either sending or receiving, except for those gong to Alan. Emails that don’t get to him don’t ‘bounce’ as they would if I had attempted to send them to an incorrect email address, they simply vanish into the ether for days at a time, before finally finding him! I find it difficult to believe that this is all simple coincidences or that nothing can be done to ether prove that someone is interfering in the transfer of faxes and emails between his office and mine, or to stop it occurring. (AS 574)
5th June 2006: Alan’s partner Cathy wrote to the Hon David Hawker, MP noting:
I am writing to you to voice my current unease due to information Alan Smith has forwarded to the DCITA claim process. As you are aware our emails have been going missing throughout the above process.
Mail and faxes have gone missing at other times when the Telstra matters have been under scrutiny by various sources in the past. Our phones have also been monitored.’ (AS 575)
13th June 2006: The Hon David Hawker, MP responded to Cathy’s letter (see above) noting:
Whilst I sympathise with your ongoing concerns relating to your phone, fax and email service, it is difficult for me to offer any fresh suggestions those we have already canvassed in previous letters.
As you would be aware there are avenues of recourse, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and in respect of your qualms about personal safety, the police.’ (AS 576)
23rd August 2006: Alan’s letter to the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, notes:
At our last meeting in Portland it seemed to me you were finding it hard to comprehend all that Cathy and I have had to deal with over the past years, in relation to our claims against Telstra and their Protective Services division. You will find attached a section of a recent fax journal printout from my fax machine. This is the third fax machine I have installed at my business since my arbitration – each one purchased in a futile attempt to improve the fax service. As I have explained to you, I still have problems receiving and sending faxes from my residence, even during my recent DCITA Independent Assessment Process during February to May this year. (AS 577)
31st August 2006: David Hawker MP wrote to Alan noting:
Many thanks for keeping me informed. As requested, issues concerning privacy breaching have been raised with Senator Coonan’s office for your meeting with the Minister set for 6 September 2006 (AS 578)
Alan’s privacy concerns were not addressed during this meeting.
1st October 2006: Darren Lewis wrote to the Hon David Hawker MP, Speaker in the House of Representatives noting:
The technician, who comes from Colerain (also part of your electorate) advised me that he was aware that the problems I am experiencing now are the same problems experienced by the previous owner of the business (Alan Smith). When I asked him why this would be, he replied that the problems were caused because the wiring was so old that it was now totally incompatible with all the new technology (‘totally’ was his exact word).
I then described to him the latest fax problem – the one that I raised with you last Wednesday – when Alan Smith’s fax (intended for a destination in Melbourne) arrived at my business, cutting off my conversation with Cathy (Alan’s partner) as it came through. (AS 682)
9th June 2011: Alan wrote to the Most Reverend and Right Hon Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury stating:
As you will find, from the documentation attached here and the information below, a small group of small-business-people, including me, have been pleading with the Government Telecommunications Regulators for years in an attempt to get someone to investigate our claims of harassment and ongoing, illegal interception of, in-confidence documents faxed between our offices to lawyer, but no-one has come to our aid.
I believe, unfortunately that you will probably not be able to assist me in this matter, my hope is that placing myself before you and the Church of England, the two Attorneys Generals that I am copying this letter to are more likely to believe my sincerity and the truth of my claims, eventually coming to believe me, rather than those parties who have, until now, protected the arbitrator, the TIO at all cost, to the detriment of my partner, myself and other COT members.
26th July 2011: Ms Sue Parks, Project Officer, Lambeth Palace wrote to Alan noting:
I have been asked to reply to your letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to acknowledge the receipt of the cd and other papers. Thank you for being in contact with the Archbishop.
In seeking to make known the facts of all that has happened to you – in the cause of public interest – it is probably better to look for ways to do so within Australia, as such cases tend not to ‘travel’ very well in terms of media interest. I am aware you have tried this avenue as your research is very thorough and your tenacity admirable. It may be, however, that when the matters have been fully resolved there might be interest in telling your saga more fully (AS 740)
12th October 2011: Alan received a letter from Susan Coleman, Acting Director Civil May Policy Department of Justice – Subject Interception of Facsimiles: noting
Thank you for your recent letters to the Attorney-General the Hon Robert Clark MP. The Attorney has asked me to respond on his behalf
I regret that the Department of Justice and the Attorney-General are not able to assist you with the facsimile interception matter outlined in your correspondence.
It appears from the extensive documentation you have included with your recent correspondence that you have exhausted all available avenues where your claims may be investigated.
Exhibit (AS 490), includes pages 36, 37, 38 and 39 from the transcript of an interview attended by Graham Schorer, Amanda Davis, (ex-AUSTEL General Manager of Consumer Affairs) and the Australian Federal Police on 10th February 1994. This transcript clearly records references to proof of Telstra’s interception of the telephone conversations of a number of people who had been in conflict with Telstra, including some who were quite prominent. Then we also have the Scandrett fax interception report (AS 488), which confirms that Telstra intercepted faxes both travelling to and from Parliament House during an official Senate Estimates Committee Hearing in 1998 and 1999, as well as other faxes travelling between the COT claimants and their Lawyers – proof of how badly some of the members of COT have been, and are still being treated, because neither the ACMA, the TIO or the relevant Government authorities will investigate these privacy issues
More Lost Faxes
22nd April 1994: The day after Alan signed for arbitration, Alan returned to Cape Bridgewater to find two notes on his desk, reporting that staff had registered two more phone faults. Alan also faxed AUSTEL three 008/1800 incorrectly charged billing accounts. AUSTEL’s fax journal registered three faxes from Alan as lasting from 1minute 40 seconds to 2 minutes 20 seconds, but only blank paper appeared. (AS 70) Where did the information on these faxes end up? How can a fax transmit through to the receiving end, without the sender’s identification (date and time the fax was sent) being displayed on the document received?
23rd May 1994: This fax account confirms there were five attempts from Alan’s office to fax this information to Dr Hughes failed. Telstra’s B004 defence document (AS 82) states that the fax couldn’t be delivered because Dr Hughes’ fax machine was busy. If this is so, why was Alan charged for the six ‘calls’? (AS 81)
10th June 1994: AUSTEL’s John MacMahon wrote to Telstra’s Steve Black stating
Mr Smith at Cape Bridgewater continues to express concern about his ability to receive and send facsimiles. Mr Schorer at North Melbourne continues to claim that customers are reporting an inability to make successful phone calls to his business.’ (AS 84)
4th October 1994: AUSTEL copied this letter from AUSTEL to Telstra’s Steve Black to Dr Hughes on 8th December 1994 noting:
Telecom is requested to respond to Mr Smith’s claim that on his 267 230 service he is being charged “on average 11% over charged calls (AS 126)
From January to October 1994 Alan continually complained to Telstra, the TIO and AUSTEL, about the ongoing lock-up problems affecting his 267 230 fax service. It can only be assumed that there were no investigations into these complaints because everyone believed Telstra would address all these problems as part of their defence of Alan’s arbitration claims. In fact, on 11th November 1994, Telstra’s Ted Benjamin wrote to AUSTEL, copied to Dr Hughes, advising that these same 008/1800 and fax billing issues, as raised in AUSTEL’s letter of 4th October 1994, would be addressed as part of Telstra’s defence of Alan’s claims (see Exhibit (AS 127 )
In the official arbitration report submitted by Alan’s claim advisors, George Close & Associates Pty Ltd (AS 75), Mr Close records the call loss “unavailability” on Alan’s 267 230 service at 46.7%.
17th November 1997: Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO, writes to Alan confirming that Mr Pinnock had written to Telstra on regarding charges related to Alan’s fax line (AS 236)
Exhibit (AS 250) is Telstra FOI document K01489 dated 29 October 1993 which states that
During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception. Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules. A half A4 page being transmitted from this machine resulted in a blank piece of paper 4cm long, the relevant protocol printout in sample #2 shows that the machine sent the correct protocol at the end of the page. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and
26th February 1999: Alan fax account (AS 265 ) confirms he faxed three separate documents to Graham Schorer’s office at 10:55 am, 11:20 am and 01:37 pm. Graham’s facsimile journal for this date confirms there was no 11:20 pm document received by Graham (AS 265).
Fax journal printouts taken from Graham’s fax machine (AS 255) do not match up in relation to faxes that they each were charged for as being sent and the Graham Schorer and Alan Smith fax interception files that Alan offered to the Australian Communications & Media Authority (the ACMA) on 9th February 2011, confirm frequent problems with faxes being sent between their offices. Their fax interception files also confirm that sensitive, legal, client to Solicitor, Telstra-related faxes were intercepted and then forwarded on, by Telstra, to the original intended destination.
9th March 1999: Alan writes to John Pinnock
As you can see from this one example, my fax problems continued for some considerable time after the completion of my arbitration. My main concern is not with the phone/fax line to my residence, since I have only experienced two faults since I connected the fax macine to this line. What does seriously concern me, are all the problems I experienced with the fax prior to July of 1998, when it was not uncommon to lose faxes on a regular basis, even after my arbitration had completed (AS 667-A)
17th March 1999: At the suggestion of David Hawker MP, Alan wrote to the Hon Ian Campbell, C/- Minister to Communications & Information Technology and the Arts noting:
In the course of preparing my last fax to you, as I watched the last draft arriving via my fax from my secretarial agency, the fax began to ring, even though a fax was rolling through. The fax from my secretarial agency stopped and a totally different fax, from my barrister in Melbourne, began to appear. The phone rang again and the barrister’s fax stopped. The last pages of the fax from my secretarial agency arrived. In other words, on a continuous strip of fax paper I have twp pages from my secretarial agency then two pages from my barrister and another three (the covering faxes to the three cc’s listed on your fax) from the agency.
I find this quite confusing. How can my fax machine have accepted two separate calls from two different addresses but at the same time? How could it be that the fax/phone actually rang as if a call was coming in when the second caller should have received an engaged signal?
All this is even more ironic when we remember that I was in the process of preparing my fax to you and that this fax was specifically related to past fax problems I had experienced!
Question
Are these strange faxing ‘capacity issues’ related to problems associated with documents that were being sent to Alan’s lawyer, his secretarial agency or Senator Ian Campbell, all related to the same sort of COT claimants’ faxes that were intercepted en route to and from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office and various Senator’s offices around the same time as those documented in the Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report? (AS 488 - Scandrett Report). We do know however that, not long after this incident, Alan personally provided Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO, with this particular fax roll, but nothing came of it.
21st September 1999: Alan again writes to John Pinnock concerning his continuing fax problems
Since the problems with my fax line were not addressed in my arbitration procedure I would be grateful if you would now ask Telstra the following questions:
- How can they charge me for a fax delivery to Mr Schorer’s office when it did not arrive there?
- Since, according to my Telstra account, I dialled the correct number when I sent this fax, and since it clearly did not go to that number, where did this fax go to? (AS 266)
It is important to note that Alan provided Mr Pinnock a copy of Graham Schorer’s fax journal and Alan’s Telstra account proving that Alan’s was charged for this non-connected fax.
30th January 2000: A general letter from, Dial-A-Secretary, reads
To Whom It May Concern
On the 28th December, 1999 I was contacted by Alan Smith from Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp re doing some computer work for him. … Alan rang and we organised for him to fax the work through. One page and a small portion of the next came through and then the line disconnected. Alan tried numerous times to get the fax through, but to no avail he eventually had to make other arrangements for the work to be done nearer to him.
On 5th January 2000 Alan again contacted me regarding doing some work for him. He tried so many times over a period of about 3 hours and finally the work came through. (AS 270)
Attached is Alan’s fax account for this period in question showing Telstra charged for these non transmitted calls.
7th September 2001: This hand written record, taken from the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp daily incoming / outgoing telephone call list by Alan’s partner Cathy calls notes:
Phone Fault Report Telstra 12pm Job No S109696122 Eileen – Fault centre Tuesday 9 – 12pm. Unplug each appliance & try line (AS 703-A)
PLEASE NOTE: Since late 1989 through to 2001, Telstra constantly advised Alan and his staff to carry out this ‘unplug and re-connect’ process whenever communication faults at the Camp were reported. On most occasions the ‘unplug and re-connect’ process did fix the line blockage, but nothing fixed the problem of the lost business calls caused by this blockage.
23rd January 2003: Darren Lewis, the new owners of Alan’s business wrote to the TIO John Pinnock noting:
As well as speaking to David Hawker’s representative this morning, I also had a disturbing discussion with Tony Watson, the Telstra fault technician assigned to my case. Mr Watson informed me (in a round-about way) that he is reluctant to supply me with any more information in relation to our phone faults because he knows I am in contact with Alan Smith, the previous owner of the business. Apparently Telstra is afraid that, when talking to Alan, I might bring up the phone problems and therefore provide him with information he could use in an attempt to reopen his arbitration
(AS 565)
1st September 2004: This letter to David Hawker MP, from Darren Lewis states:
I must also reiterate my thanks for the pressure you put on Telstra in late 2002 – I believed it was this that finally forced them to re-wirer the Kiosk at the Camp and disconnect the faulty telephone alarm bell which local Telstra employees believed could have been causing some of the problems with incoming calls. Although the incoming calls increased dramatically once the re-wiring had been done, the trauma of the first year we were here has not gone away (AS 704)
4th September 2006 Darren Lewis provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, a two page statutory declaration noting:
Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.
After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.
Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.
Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems.
The technicians then in hook up conversation with outside office guru’s did a fault graph reading on our 55 267267 line with the outcome that their office technical staff stated words to the affect the reading was impossible (couldn’t be correct). It was then that the local technician became quite annoyed when the technical guru insinuated that the equipment the local tech was using must be faulty. The local tech then informed the technical guru that there was nothing wrong with the equipment at all (AS 520)
The impossible reading reported by Darren Lewis (AS 520) is similar to the impossible equipment reading that Alan advised the arbitrator, Telstra and AUSTEL about during Telstra’s allegedly ‘successful’ arbitration SVT Testing on 29th September 1994 (AS 500-A).
Exhibit (AS 541) is Telstra’s own Call Charge Analysis Service data for the 29th September 1994 SVT process: it confirms that the SVT testing process also failed. Exhibit (AS 418) is a Telstra internal email (FOI folio R04205) dated 13th December 1993, which shows quite clearly that AUSTEL’s Deputy Chairman, Bob Horton (ex-Telstra Executive), allowed Telstra to limit their mandatory parameter testing to only those customers that Telstra stated required testing. It is easy to see just how bad this situation was for both Alan and the Lewis’ by simply linking this limiting of the mandatory testing with another Telstra internal email (FOI folio A09392) dated 15th November 1993, (AS 419) which states that:
…the Parameters for Cape Bridgewater RCM have been obtained, but I don’t believe them. I am attempting to check them. Some of the people supplying this information live in old Telecom.
Then, compare these exhibits (AS 500-a, AS 520, AS 418 and AS 419) with the secret findings included in AUSTEL’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp 2nd/3rd March 1994 draft report (see page 6, above), which notes, at Point 212 on page 69:
In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.
27th July 2007: In the Brian Hodge (MBA) technical evaluation report on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp he notes:
The failure of Telstra to carry out standard performance tests (e.g. bit error rate etc), at the multiplexer (RSM) at Cape Bridgewater is alarming & of concern. CCAS data over recent times (e.g. 2004-2006), indicate a continuing & worsening level of “Outgoing Released During Setup” calls (ORDS). These reports on the CCAS data indicate that the calls are not successful in the call set up stage of the connection or is lost in the network (AS 486)
Exhibit (AS 566), are four Telstra CCAS data records for the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp showing the (ORDS) faults experienced by the Lewis’ up to at least 29th November 2006.
