Corruption in the criminal justice system, when a government uses an arbitration process to address these criminal acts having implemented a very unhealthy confidentiality clause in the arbitration agreement to be used, which covered up these crimes that have been committed against many Australians and was still being committed during these arbitrations with the arbitrator allowing this terrible conduct to flourish is a direct assault on the principle of equality before the law, robbing individuals of their right to a fair trial. It allows money and influence to dictate the fate of cases, letting wrongdoers evade punishment while victims are denied justice. Fraud and bribery were rampant during the COT arbitrations, tainting the very foundation of our legal system in Australia. Is this happening in other arbitrations being conducted around the globe as I write this text?
The Casualties of Telstra Arbitration Project Manager, who later became a partner of KPMG, is not running an arbitration centre in Melbourne or Hong Kong.
Bribery and corruption are insidious, often orchestrated by a web of professional intermediaries such as bankers, lawyers, accountants, and arbitrators. These individuals operate within shadowy financial systems and anonymous shell companies, enabling the proliferation of corrupt schemes and shielding the most egregious crimes committed by public officials.
The combined impact of bribery, corruption, and political malfeasance is a grave threat to governmental integrity, vividly illustrated by the Casualties of Telstra government-endorsed arbitrations. In Australia and other Western nations, this form of political corruption undermines businesses of all sizes and erodes the bedrock of democratic justice.
Prior to signing their arbitration agreements, the COT Cases were assured that the process would adhere to the arbitration act. However, in a report to the government on 26th September 1997, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, revealed that the arbitrations "were conducted entirely outside of the arbitration procedures" and that the "arbitrator had no control over the process." This left the COT Cases seeking the justice they were denied during their arbitrations. The events during the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration and mediation processes were characterized by behaviours such as shamefulness, evil, treacherous, unscrupulousness, unconscionability, bias, and nepotism.
These descriptions vividly depict the nature of the conduct, including the intimidation experienced by the COT Cases, which ultimately denied them legal recourse. Each COT Case, upon signing their arbitration agreement, also consented to a confidentiality clause prohibiting them and the arbitration administrators from discussing the conduct of the arbitration process.
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A), and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted during my government-endorsed Fast Track Settlement proposal.
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
AUSTEL (now ACMA) writes to Telstra 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.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), 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).”
Faxed COT arbitration-related documents screened and intercepted
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, furthermore, it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process. This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:
- How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken by two organisations simultaneously, i.e., an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
- 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?
- 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 many 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):
- Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
- 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?
- On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
- (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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts?
"... 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"
Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits'
The extortion continues
Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration, stating:
“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 the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.