Chapter Six
Although we have addressed these threats elsewhere on the website I am going to link the threats we COT Cases Ann Garms. Graham Schorer and me with the other threats that several other COT Cases received during their arbitration and mdeiation processes.
Threats caried out
Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues as page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
My pleas to the arbitrator, to bring Telstra to account for their actions when I had still not received my requested discovery documents amazingly, he refused to take calls as his secretary Caroline Friend is aware. Even though the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be brought into the arbitration for Telstra to obey the Freedom of Information (FOI Act) and the government solicitors took control of the delivery of my arbitration documents, the delivery of all of my requested May 1994 FOI documents never arrived until 23 May 1995 twelve months after my original request. Worse, those newly released documents came two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration of 11 May 1995.
Inadvertently after the statute of limitations had expired for me to use this information, I received a copy of Dr Hughes's award he had the gall to write in this draft award at point 2.23:
"...Although the time taken for completion of the arbitration may have been longer than initially anticipated, I hold neither party and no other person responsible. Indeed, I consider the matter has proceeded expeditiously in all the circumstances Both parties have co-operated fully..."
That statement at point 2.23 in the final award was removed before I received it. There is no point 2.23 in the award. Likewise, the handwritten statement made by Dr Hughes states: “do we really want to say this”?
In simple terms, this spineless arbitrator (Dr Gordon Hughes), who is currently a partner at Davies Collison Cave lawyers (Melbourne), was nothing more than a puppet brought in by the government to protect the government-owned Telstra Cooperation - at all costs.
The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013
© 2021 Absent Justice
