My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Absent Justice - The Continuing Saga


Absent Justice - Different Rules for those in Power

Beware The Pen Pusher

On 23 May 2021, Peta Credlin, Barrister, Solicitor and onetime Chief of Staff to The Hon Tony Abbott (Prime Minister of Australia), now a high profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article, in the Herald Sun newspaper, under the heading:  "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:

“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.

Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter.

When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country.  

Since the start of 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”

I found this article most relevant to the matters raised by the COT Cases and their dealings with 'the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.'  Peta Credlin has hit the nail squarely on the head in this article. I can not only relate to the information she writes about, but I can also link it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have met since this debacle first began, i.e., before, during and after my government-endorsed arbitration (see, who have continued to ignore the evidence now attached to this website.

Absent Justice - Bernard Collaery

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers at point 7 of his 12-page paper noted:

On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition.

The fact that the two main players in the government-endorsed COT arbitrations namely the Arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes and the Administrator of the arbitrations Warwick Smith have since been awarded Australian Medals of Honour even though they allowed the COT arbitration's to be conducted outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures refer to page 99 to 100, Senate – Parliament of Australia, suggests there is more truth in what Peta Credlin has stated above: 

"...When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country."  

Chapters one and two in our Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman page show Warwick Smith, in his role as administrator to my arbitration, allowed two of Telstra’s most senior executives to attend monthly TIO board meetings, where it has been proven in Senate Hansard (dated 26 September 1997) that COT cases’ arbitrations were discussed.

Warwick Smith also allowed another senior executive – Telstra’s arbitration FOI officer in charge of concealing requested FOIs from COT cases – to attend TIO council meetings. This executive admitted under oath that he never advised the council members of his conflict of interest. This executive concealed relevant FOI documents until after the arbitrator handed down his findings. The same executive passed on confidential financial COT-related information, which he had gleaned from the TIO council COT meetings to Telstra refer to TIO Evidence File No 3-A

These chapters on the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman page also show Warwick Smith allowed Telstra to have first access to my claim material before it went to the arbitrator. He allowed a particular Telstra employee to view and assess some of my most relevant claim material before it was submitted for arbitration assessment. This material never reached the final arbitration assessment process.  

Warwick Smith was also passing on confidential COT case information, discussed in the Coalition Government Party Room, to Telstra’s hierarchy refer to TIO Evidence File No 3-A 

On 12 May 1995, the day after Dr Hughes prematurely brought down my award wrote to Warwick stating:

 “…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports…

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement” (Open Letter File No 55-A)

If I had received a copy of this letter declaring the agreement used in my arbitration process was not credible, then of course I would have appealed the arbitrator’s award. After all, how could an appeal judge argue against the arbitrator’s own findings that the agreement was not credible, even though he used it anyway?

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

Fax Hacking  

Australian Federal Police Investigations exhibit Open Letter Files Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13 prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations. So, with that firmly in mind, first try to imagine the people assigned to intercept the many COT arbitration documents, as they left each of our individual premises, heading to the arbitrator, our financial advisors or our technical advisers. Try to imagine what it might have been like for those people, studiously chasing up and illegally intercepting our legal documents as they travelled around the fax circuit. Try to imagine doing this every single day because, particularly at the peak of our arbitrations, most of the COTs were constantly using the fax system to send documents all over the place! Then, change tack a bit, and try to imagine you are one of us, a member of the COT group, just an ordinary Australian citizen, running an ordinary Australian small business: an ordinary person who trusts the government to do the right thing by ALL Australian citizens. And, so, while you work at keeping your small business afloat, you also write up submissions, prepare legal documents (something you have never done before) and work hard to learn your way around complex technical documents, sometimes with an advisor at your side, but mostly alone.

Try to imagine what it would be like if, after all that effort, even before your documents reached their intended destinations, the defendant hijacks them as part of its reprehensible plot, so it could assess your documents before they reach their intended destinations. This enabled the defendant extra time and the critical advantage of knowing, in advance, what was to come in the next part of the arbitration process. This gave a huge advantage to the defendant because, of course, that gave them time to decide which aspect of the claim would be easy to defend and which would be best to completely avoided. Try to imagine what that would have felt like for the claimants. You also need to remember, as we record elsewhere on, that some of those documents, which we sent off, through what should have been a secure fax system, never arrived at their intended destination at all.

I know this seems too fanciful to be true but I am not Robert Ludlum or John Grisham spinning a story here, not even vaguely, because all this really did happen here in Australia, a supposedly democratic country, not all that long ago – in the years between 1994 and 2001, as Letter Files Nos/12 to 20 show. In fact, our evidence shows that this fax hacking started at the very beginning of 1994, in January, during the first process, the Fast Track Settlement Proposal so, as you read on, imagine you are sitting at your desk in your office, just like the COT members often did. You’ve been up most of the night, working on your claim, and your privacy and fax system (which everyone used back then) are both about to be violated, yet again, by the defendant, without your knowledge or consent, and the government you pay your taxes to is NOT willing to investigate or assist you, as your business vanishes before your eyes. Wouldn’t you want to know why this was allowed to happen when all you asked for was a decent, properly working telephone system so you could operate your business as your competitors?

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 4

Mislead and Deceived

One of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman officials who himself was prepared to mislead and deceive me into believing the technical findings were done by the Canadian technical consultant flown in from Canada to assess my claim material when it had already been assessed by an ex-Telstra employee who was NOT the officially appointed technical principal consultant at all (refer to page two i.e.; which states

" I also advise that Mr Paul Howell, Director of DMR Canada arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995 and worked over the Easter Holiday period, particularly on the Smith claim. Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes [ex-Telstra employee] will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (refer to Prologue Evidence File No 22-A 

In other words, Paul Howell was flown from Canada to Melbourne, Australia, to sign off an official report that had already been completed in the draft by Lane, who was then sold off to Ericsson Telecommunications. 

I wonder if the Canadian government is aware that one of its countries most respected telecommunications company DMR Inc Group was used by the Australian Seat of Arbitration to cover reporting by a company that was later purchased by Ericcson's whose technical equipment was the very equipment under the microscope during the COT arbitrations as this part of our story shows further down the page.

In 2002 after the statute of limitations had expired for me to appeal the arbitration process, I finally received a copy of this letter Prologue Evidence File No 22-A. It had a one-word, handwritten note in the margin, beside the instruction to imply the Canadian company had been involved in the investigation into my claims. Apparently, whoever wrote the notation was startled at the skullduggery – the single word was “What?” The annotator recognised the technical resource unit should not have performed the investigation… but still allowed this cover-up to stand.

Worse if that is at all possible, in the 9 March 1995 letter to me from Warwick Smith (the first administrator to my arbitration) he noted:

“Messrs, Read and Souter will assist Mr, Paul; Howell of DMR Group In (Canada) in technical assessment under the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. Mr Howell the principal technical advisor to the Resource unit will be in Australia within two weeks. The technical enquiries will commence on Thursday 16th March, 1995.

As is shown in Prologue Evidence File No 22-A Paul Howell did not arrive two weeks later after the 9 March 1995 letter he did not arrive until 13 April 1995, after all of my technical claim material had been assessed. 

However, the author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A also advised the TIO that the director of the Canadian technical consultancy firm, appointed by the TIO as the Principal technical consultant and who was supposed to take charge of the technical side of the arbitration, arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995, not in March 1995 as promised by Warwick Smith in his 9 March 1995 letter. I reiterate true colours of the author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A were exposed when he stated any reports prepared by Lane (who we didn’t trust, would be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Group Inc (the Canadian technical consultancy that we were sure we could trust).

In simple terms, all of the technical assessments of my claim had already been assessed by the time Paul Howell had arrived in Australia.

Chapter 1 to Chapter 3 - The collusion continues clearly shows that the same author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A continued to mislead other various authorities (after the completion of my arbitration) concerning the conduct of my arbitration. The author of this letter refer again to document|61) in 2021 still operates an arbitration (Chambers) in Collins Street Melbourne. 


Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 5

Reports Not Investigated?  

It is also important for anyone who reads our Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, to understand that although a copy of that report, was originally sent to Paul Fletcher at his request in June 1996, during the period he was an adviser to Senator Richard Alston (the then-newly appointed 1996 Minister for Communications and the Arts), it is clear from Open Letter File No/41/Part-One he declined to investigate this document and the second part thereof File No/41 Part-Two.

After reading Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it will become clear to the reader that the exhibits and evidence that were attached to the report show that, if Paul Fletcher, had properly investigated that evidence in June 1996 then most (if not all) of the issues that I have been trying to have investigated since then, would have been settled by1996/97.

On 26 May 2019, Paul Fletcher, became The Hon Paul Fletcher Australia’s Minister for Communications Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts (see  Media Release: Fletcher 'deeply honoured' to be appointed Minister for Communications, Cybersafety and the Arts.

In 2019 and 2020, via my then Federal Member of Parliament the Hon Dan Tehan MP, the Hon Paul Fletcher refused to reinvestigate Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, Exhibits Telstra’s Falsified SVT ReportTelstra's Falsified BCI Report and Tampering of Evidence show Telstra relied upon 3, not one but 3 falsified arbitration defence documents so as not to have to spend money fixing a network the government was hoping to offload to unsuspecting shareholders i.e.; let the shareholders pay for the upgrade. 

In other words, Paul Fletcher and the then Minister for Communications and the Arts Senator Richard Alston's knew back in 1996, Telstra was relying on falsified arbitration documents in which to hide the many communications faults it was experiencing within its copper wire network and did nothing to assist me in exposing this crime.

Just as important is, when the Hon Paul Fletcher became the new Minister for Communications Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts as a parliamentarian did he not consider appointing someone within the Scott Morrison government to revisit the FIVE REPORTS which he original asked me to provide him in 1996?

[had] the ability or power to get the government to investigate Telstra's corporate thuggery clearly shows how corrupt Australia's legal and political system is.  Peta Credlin and Bernard Collaery have since highlighted this flaw in their most recent public media releases.

It is also important to link Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2), because Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce AkehurstTelstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra. The Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group’s own investigations into claims the five litmus test cases registered concerning Telstra committing fraud. Page 11 of Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Sue Owens stating I am “extremely intelligent” and that police also thought the same concerning my ability to detect wrongdoing. This Major Fraud Group investigation is also discussed on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens, who, like me, were discriminated against by the government – because to have properly investigated our matters would have impeded the sale of Telstra.

If the Telstra network condition was as, as the privatisation sale prospectus states it was, then why did Telstra use three known fraudulently manufactured reports as arbitration defence documents during my arbitration?

The following two links Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) on page 4 of Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) and later Senator Barry O'Sullivan discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra.

A fair resolution of those sixteen COT cases has never been resolved, as can be seen by clicking onto An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The Australian government did not want to have to answer questions by the US Securities Exchange regarding the prospectus and the 'pink herring'  document that had been filed.

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me, in Melbourne, in an attempt to ensure our claims of discrimination against the Commonwealth were fully investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so badly discriminated against in such a deplorable fashion by the then-Coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

Between September and October 2002, after having been briefed by George Close, my previous arbitration technical advisor I provided Senator Len Haris further evidence supporting: the pair gain system which formed much of Telstra's existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers' phones had not been replaced regardless of the COT Cases exposing these deficiencies to the arbitrator in 1994 (see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two).

Absent Justice - Corroded Copper Wire Network

Corroded Copper Wire Network

At a press conference, on 14 November 2002 Senator Len Harris advised the media that all was not right with the selling off of the remaining Telstra network noting:

“The urgency of the Government to unload Telstra is the realisation that it needs a huge injection of capital expenditure just to remain operational.

“In other words, sell the whole shooting bag before it rains and let someone else worry about fixing it. …

Faulty materials such as Hi Gel 3M 442 that has corroded copper joints;
Contractors cutting corners with cable installation; …
Failure by senior personnel to recognise the magnitude of the impending networks implosion …

“The pair gain system forms much of Telstra’s existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers’ phones that ordinarily ought to be replaced.”

By this time, the Senate had already been informed on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

“In the first induction – and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill’s (Telstra’s Lawyers) area – there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we – we being Telecom – had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened.”

Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate learned we COT Cases “had to stop to be stopped at cost” from proving our claims they also uncovered see page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, that Telstra employees were rorting millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra.  NSW was not the only state where this rorting had taken place. Threats were now being made against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully receive functional phone systems, was about to expose how dilapidated the Telstra network was. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (see page 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted. Telstra's lawyers were brought in to stop the COT Cases from exposing the truth surrounding the unethical conduct of those within this government-owned

A covert arrangement entered into by the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and the name of my business the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases that had been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) that had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents.

These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but had also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was later used during the first four government-endorsed arbitrations (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)

Even worse, before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by the Australian government. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

Absent Justice - Prologue

Poor Grade Of Network Performance 

AUSTEL had already found against Telstra that I had been profoundly misled and deceived by Telstra concerning my ongoing telephone problems. To further support those claims were valid can best be viewed by reading Folios  C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.

Regardless of this evidence (see C04007 and C04008 Front Page Part Two 2-B, I was still forced to register my complaints with their layers Freehill Hollingdale & Page. It has also been shown on this website that Freeill's also knew my complaints were valid. So why did Telstra and Freehill's continue to harass me into writing so many letters and when received wrote back in response declaring my claims were fictitious?  Why hasn't the Australian government reprimanded Telstra and Freehill's demanding answers to why I was so profoundly misled concerning my valid claims? 

To add further insult to these injustices, on 12 September 1994, as part of the arbitration process, I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims. I found the process of being interviewed by a psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process.

One of the most important issues I raised with this psychologist was the trauma I suffered at the hands of Freeehill Hollingdale & Page the legal firm that hired him. He appeared to listen carefully to what I described and he said being directed to register phone complaints, in writing, with Telstra’s lawyer, before they would be investigated, was most disturbing. I provided confirmation that losing six incoming calls in a single day was common. Writing to a lawyer, explaining lost six telephone calls, was more than just soul-destroying, it just about broke my willpower to carry on. He said he was shocked Telstra and its legal firm forced this on me and agreed this would certainly affect my mental state over the many months I had to do this.

However, when Freehill Hollingdale & Page, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by a lawyer from this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist and didn’t contain his concerns regarding me having to first contact this legal firm, in writing, before Telstra would address my telephone problems. 

The most alarming points about this unsigned witness statement are:

  1. Before the psychologist met with me, Telstra’s lawyers provided him with a copy of the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International (BCI) addendum report stating 13,590 test calls were carried out, over a five-day period, routed through to the Cape Bridgewater RCM unmanned switching exchange, using the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring equipment. This report stated the test calls had a 99.8 per cent success rate.
  2. Neither the psychologist nor the arbitrator was told tests through the Cape Bridgewater RCM switching exchange was impracticable: the nearest exchange that could accommodate the TELELEC CCS7 equipment was the Warrnambool exchange, 120 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater (see Evidence / Telstra's Falsified BCI Report)

Had the psychologist known the 13,590 test calls, allegedly carried out by BCI, could not terminate through the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring system at Cape Bridgewater, his assessment of my mental state would have been somewhat different. He, too, might have been distressed if he had been aware Telstra misled and deceived him prior to him assessing my mental state.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock, Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (Telstra's arbitration officer to my 1994 arbitration (refer to File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

Even though the statute of limitations had not yet expired for the administrator of the arbitrations to investigate why Telstra had acted unlawfully during our arbitrations by using this spurious LPP advice to the detriment of the COT Cases no investigation ever took place why legal professional privilege was stamped on so many technical documents which are clearly not privileged?

Spurious Claims Of Privilege 

In June 2000, renowned Legal Professional Privilege expert, Associate Professor Suzanne McNicoll, provided the COT claimants (see exhibit AS 924 AS-CAV 923 to 946 with the following legal opinion regarding Freehill's ‘COT Case Strategy’ i.e.

"There is also some potential prima facie evidence of (4) i.e. knowingly making false or spurious claims to privilege. For example, there is potential structure set up for the possible abuse of the doctrine of legal professional privilege in the faxed document entitled “COT” Case Strategy, marked “Confidential” dated 10 September 1993 from Ms Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale and Page, Melbourne Office to Mr Ian Row, Corporate Solicitor, Telecom Australia.”

Even with this legal opinion we COT Cases have been forced to live with the injustices bestowed upon us by Telstra and their lawyers. 

t appears from this non-action The Brotherhood was still operating in June 2000..

Just as damaging if not perhaps even worse, is (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), a letter dated 8 April 1994 to AUSTEL’s Chairman from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggests that AUSTEL (now the Australian Communications Meda Authority-ACMA) was far from truly independent, but rather could be convinced to alter their official findings in their COT public released April 1994 report, just as Telstra requested the government regulator to do:

For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that on this occasion on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL public report is alarming, to say the least.

The 120,000 COT-type problems being experienced by other Australian citizens leading up to the selling off of Telstra was concealed from the pending shareholders prior to the Telstra sale prospectus being released. There would have been many shareholders who would not have purchased Telstra shares had they known the government communications regulator had misled them concerning the terrible state in which Telstra's network was.  

Absent Justice - Poor Copper Network

Hidden by the Government Regulator

The formal April 1994 COT Cases Report released into the public domain at point 2.71 states: "...the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom's original estimate of 50..." In other words, when the government regulator used the word substantially more than 50 instead of saying 120,000 or more COT-type complaints they knew they were misleading and deceiving the public (those purchasing the soon to be released Telstra shares).

Knowingly misleading and deceiving the public on issues such as discussed here is considered a criminal act Under Section 52 of the Australian Trade Practice Act 1974: 52. (1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerceengage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive.  

This is a story of my battle with Telstra, a battle that had 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. This is a story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. The story of how, for years, the Telstra Corporation failed to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the Casualties of Telstra businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents on this website show they were found to have existed. This evidence also shows that regardless of Telstra knowing the Ericsson AXE exchange equipment serviced those businesses was grossly deficient, they still used it when other countries were removing it or had removed it from their exchanges. Ericsson and Telstra believed the call loss surrounding this defective equipment was between 15% and 50%, as the following evidence file shows (Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f). 

Geroge Close my technical arbitration advisor refer to file number 4-D Introduction File No/4-A to 4-M shows using Telstra's own call data that the actual call loss to my business [the lock-up fault affecting my service line] was a blockage of 53.7%. Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd disregarded  Introduction File No/4-D even though my AXE Ericsson data accompanied George Closes finding's on this Ericsson blockage. When Geroge Close made those findings, he obtained them from Telstra's under the Freedom of Information Act which Mr Close numbered 0628 to 0660, representing 33 separate recorded faults as our Introduction File No/4-D shows. Whatever enticed Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to disregard Telstra's own fault data showing just how bad this lock-up fault was?   

Even though the arbitrator hearing my case was officially advised in writing by the arbitration technical unit on 30 April 1995 that:

"As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”

Why didn't the arbitration process diagnose these fault causes in the Ericsson AXE Portland exchange equipment that would remain open after the conclusion of my arbitration? In my case, an arbitration process that cost me well over $200.000.00 to participate in. As shown above, millions upon millions of dollars were made by the arbitration professionals at the expense of the COT Cases whose businesses had suffered years of financial loss due to Telstra's grossly deficient network. 

This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was referring to more than 200-years ago when he said:

'"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when governments falls into the hands of lending institutions and monied incorporations," 

Absent Justice - Thomas Jefferson

US Department of Justice 

It was important to link here the not diagnosed fault causes in the Ericsson equipment which serviced my business and the purchase by Ericsson of the COT arbitration technical unit Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd with the bribery and corruption charges lade against Ericsson by the US Department of Justice on 19 December 2019 (see Channel Newswhich notes:

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business"


Absent Justice - Renowned Australian Author

Missing Exchange Logbook

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and the Australian government (refer to 26 September 1997 Senate Evidence File Senate Evidence File No/61). It is clear from the available evidence on this website Telstra continued to mislead and deceive the claimants and the Australian public regarding their deficient Ericsson telephone exchange network. The fact that the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, would not allow me extra time to seek the Ericsson telephone exchange logbook, which would have proved my telephone faults were still ongoing, is proof enough as an arbitrator; he was biased and discriminative, as the following segment shows. 

For Dr Gordon Hughes AM to have favoured his previous client Graham Schorer by allowing him 34-months longer to submit his arbitration claim and answer Telstra’s defence and granting me only one extra week even though both Graham Schorer and I were seeking the same type of Ericsson technical documents confirms my claims against Dr Hughes are justified (see Chapter 3 - 4 Conflict of Interest

In this 18 April 1995, letter John Rundell (the Arbitration Project Manager) advised the administrator Warwick Smith (copying the same to Dr Hughes) refer to Absent Justice - Arbitrator File No/17 that the Director of the Canada technical consultancy firm was appointed by Warwick Smith as the Principal technical consultant who was to take charge of the technical arbitration side of the operation arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995, and had worked over the Easter Holiday period, particularly on the Smith claim [my claim] where John Rundell’s true colours were exposed when he noted: "Any technical report prepared by a draft by Lanes (the company which was soon to be purchased by Ericsson) will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Group Inc".

This deceit took place by John Rundell regardless of the fact that all four COT Cases had been promised in writing by Warwick Smith [the Canadian technical consultancy who the COT Cases trusted] would be the principal technical consultants.

Here is clear proof that even before the arbitrator brought down his technical findings on 11 May 1995, the arbitration resource unit was prepared to mislead him into believing DMR Group Inc (in Canada) had designed all the technical findings on my claims when Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd had secretly assessed them without making a finding against Ericsson who not long after purchased Lanes 

It is most important we attach here the following link although dated 1996 all Ericsson exchanges had their own logbooks i.e.; at this point of time because, even though I asked the arbitrator to access the Portland AXE telephone exchange logbook, this logbook discussed on page 20 of this link was never accessed or provided to me under FOI or the arbitration discovery process.

While this sworn witness statement (dated 10 August 2006) by an ex-Telstra protective service officer has been addressed elsewhere in refer to GS-CAV 522 to 580. and my secondment by Barrister Neil Jepson of the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police (see Chapter One and two An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens), I again raise this statement here because points 20, 21 and 22 support how important this withheld Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book was:

(20)”…I had cause to travel to Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland telephone exchange.

(21) As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.

(22) When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by the local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater area south of Portland was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation”.

Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman tried to access this same logbook via writing to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount on 11 November 1994, asking why it was never provided to me under FOI (refer to File AS-CAV 114 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127). Why has it never been released? What does it reveal?  Having spent more than two decades as a seafarer I know the importance of a logbook and how the daily entries are so important at running a tightly controlled ship. This is why I was so adamant that all of the COT Cases should have been provided with a copy of their telephone exchange logbooks under the supervision of the arbitrator so as they could not be tampered with or removed from the arbitrator's office. Without this logbook is why all of the COT arbitrations failed to provide the claimants with the justice the government promised they would receive.

Please read on and find out how the unaddressed COT Cases arbitration telephone problems continued to affect not only their telephone dependent businesses but hundreds of thousands of other businesses because Telstra's board of management decided not to upgrade its telecommunication infrastructure. With Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd bought off by Ericsson and the arbitrator, and his arbitration unit having also concealed how severe the telephone problems were.

Below are just five of more than two dozen media releases dated between June 2013 and August 2019 showing that if Dr Gordon Hughes and his arbitration unit had done their jobs democratically under the ambit of the arbitration procedures and allowed the COT Cases evidence to be viewed on its merit by the government who had endorsed those arbitrations the cost blow out of the NBN network would not have reached the level they have.

Had he investigated ALL of my submitted evidence he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing telecommunication problem affecting thousands upon thousands of citizens telecommunication services NOT just past problem now fixed as part of the government endorsed arbitrations but problems destroying small businesses all around Australia. It is clear from the following 23 June 2013 link > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can which was released in March 1994, these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.

Telstra concealed this type of sensitive material from AUSTEL and this years later led to a huge blowout in Australia's National Broadband budget roll-out as this public 3 December 2015 media release shows.  The total bill to fix the faulty copper lines was estimated last year at $641M. “[N]ow we find out the cost of upgrading the copper has blown out by almost 900 per cent”. ( If Telstra, the TIO and the COT arbitrator had not concealed the truth surrounding what the COT Cases had uncovered surrounding Telstra's ailing copper-wire network, the cost would have been significantly (millions upon millions) less than what it has cost the current government.

Many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. See this ACCC public media release dated 9 November 2017 and page.

Almost two decades after this cover-up had been executed, with the government spin doctors successfully branding my claims as frivolous and me as a vexatious litigant, I have been left the government stopped financing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which still utilises part of the existing, seriously degraded copper network. In fact, the “… state of the copper network is considerably worse than expected, leading to extensive work beyond the node,” say leaked documents.

Sadly, the ongoing news dated 28 April 2018 regarding the NBN refer to >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story because had these lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) really was. 

In fact, 'A Current Affairs' Australian television programme shows small business operators were still in August 2019, trying to run a telephone dependent business without a reliable phone service

Absent Justice - Concealing A Crime

It is also clear from this ACCC (Australia's Corporate Regulator) news article dated 7 July 2021 that Telstra is once again being accused of misleading their customers regarding their deficient NBN network.  Ziggy Switkowski mentioned in our Absent Justice Introduction has been at the helm of the NBN network since April 2014. The following link the NBN is not up to the efficiency as it is purported to be. 

On 30 September 2021, a number of senators branded the NBN as substandard as the following link shows.  

How can Andrew Penn Telstra's CEO and Ziggy Switowski previous CEO back in 1999 and 2004 continue to state Telstra does not mislead the Australian public concerning their network when evidence above and in the following Absent Justice Introduction page.

For example, were the relevant ministers involved in the most recent August 2021 appointment of the newly elected Crown Casino Chairman Ziggy Switkowski informed that on 19 May 1999 (when he was Telstra’s CEO), I faxed him conclusive documented evidence (see Open Letter File Nos/3637 ) which had been derived from Telstra’s own investigations proved Telstra officials had tampered with arbitration evidence after that evidence left my business premises (see Bad Bureaucrats / Tampering of Evidence page)?

This tampering with evidence, after a claimant has provided it to an arbitration process, including (again, in my case) changing that evidence into a different format, must really be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) could have committed against an Australian citizen.  So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – eighteen years ago to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (John Pinnock), the Chair of the TIO’s Counsel (The Hon Tony Staley), the Chair of the Telstra Board (David Hoare), and Telstra’s then-CEO (Ziggy Switkowski AO), was that evidence not investigated immediately?  

It is important to note: that the person Ziggy Switkowski is replacing is Helen Coonan. The Herald-Sun newspaper has been commenting over recent weeks on the findings of a Royal Commission investigation into alleged corruption within the Crown Melbourne casino during part of the period when Helen Coonan was on the board. On 27 August 2021, the Herald Sun noted:

“Ms Coonan, a former Howard government minister, managed to convince NSW regulators she could turn the Crown around, following explosive revelations it facilitated money laundering and other crime at its flagship Melbourne casino.

“But it was a different story in Victoria, with counsel assisting the royal commission into the group declaring she was not suitable to helm the company, putting at risk its 27-year stronghold on the state’s only casino.” 

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 8

In 2005, the Hon Senator, Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, made a commitment to the new Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who was then a senator assisting the COT Cases (n.” (Senate Evidence File No 20 that if he would cast his crucial vote for the privatisation of Telstra, she would appoint an independent assessor to value the 14 Cots’ claims. However, as soon as Senator Joyce cast his vote, Senator Coonan reneged on her commitment (refer to Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued).

The Hon Barnaby Joyce is the current Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, who on 6 September 2006, admitted in front of 13 witnesses in parliament house Canberra that my evidence, including similar evidence submitted by the other COT Cases, should have been addressed as part of the agreed-to commitment given by Senator Helen Coonan for his crucial vote needed by the Howard government to privatize Telstra. 

In simple plain English, the government sold off the third part of Telstra on a single lie told to the now current Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon Barnaby Joyce.

the conclusion to this reneged deal by the government can be viewed by clicking onto Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued.

It is again important we link below the issue of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, and the actions of John Rundell (the arbitration project manager assigned to my arbitration) as the following segment shows

John Rundell the arbitration project manager to my arbitration was fully aware that representatives of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd were not supposed to investigate any actual on-site telephone equipment either at my actual business or Telstra's Ericsson AXE telephone exchange at Portland or the Ericsson testing equipment used at the unmanned Cape Bridgewater switching facilities without a representative of DMR Group Inc (Canada) being present. 

Six months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Rundell’s letter, dated 15 November 1995, to Mr Pinnock [refer to document|68] states that:

“Discussions were held with Telecom (Mr Peter Gamble) in Mr Smith’s presence during the visit to Cape Bridgewater in April 1995 which provided the following information.

“A second matter involved 008 calls. Again, this matter was current at a late stage (April 1995) of the Arbitration process”.

Mr Rundell’s statements, in the four bullet points on page two of his letter (see File No/45-A), alleges that during this site visit Peter Gamble and I discussed issues concerning the 008/1800 faults and that I and Lanes (the arbitration technical consultants) agreed with Peter Gambles many explanations concerning the 008 issues I had raised in my claim. These statements to Mr Pinnock are a total fabrication and they suggest Mr Gamble’s assertions, that there was nothing wrong with Telstra’s 008/1800 Freecall services, were correct and my arbitration claims, concerning a deficiency in the 008/1800 service, were a figment of my imagination.

If Mr Rundell had told the truth, in his 15 November 1995 letter to Mr Pinnock, he would have admitted my claims were true and acknowledged that I had first raised the ongoing telephone billing problems as a major issue, affecting the viability of my business, in my 27 January 1994 Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) interim letter of claim. This claim was jointly addressed to Warwick Smith (the first TIO), Dr Hughes (then the assessor) Peter Bartlett (the TIO’s counsel) and Mr Rundell. A 37-page chronology of evidential material, Arbitration Reference Number-P-1289, attached to my submission, was proof enough that my business was experiencing a major telecommunications problem that needed a full investigation. Warwick Smith, the first administrator to my arbitration after having just spoken to AUSTEL about the same ongoing 008/800 billing problems, advised me to sign for the arbitration process because, he assured me, the ongoing billing issues would be addressed as part of that process.

The Peter Gamble to which John Rundell appears to have accepted Mr Gambles point of view concerning the on-site visit to my business is the same Peter Gamble referred to in the following Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997.  

If you click on Summary of events, you will notice that I have gone to great lengths to NOT name various Telstra employees that knowingly made false witness statements to the arbitrator concerning my telephone problems. However, it has been almost impossible not to name one employee on this page (see below), as pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia show, because he was named by Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White as having officially advised him five of the COT cases (and naming me as one of the five) had to be stopped “at all costs” from proving our arbitration claims.

Although the following 24 and 25 June 1997 Senate Hansard discussed immediately below is also discussed elsewhere on this website we ask that you also read this version again because it further confirms we were COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from receiving out legally requested arbitration FOI documents. As stated in the introduction above, without discovery documents there is no justice for those denied access to them as was in the case during the COT arbitrations.

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Blowing The Whistle 

It was important to discuss this 24 June 1997 Senate Hansard pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia again. An ex-Telstra employee and then-Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

“In the first induction – and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill’s (Telstra’s Lawyers) area – there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we – we being Telecom – had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened.”

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White – “Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said ‘stopped at all costs”

Mr White – “Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the introduction process. (See Front Page Part One File No/6)

It is clear from Mr White’s statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. The named Peter Gamble, in this Senate Hansard, is the same Peter who swore under oath, in his arbitration witness statement to the arbitrator that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Arbitrator File No/110 that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatorily required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267, 055 267230 and 055 267260 were generated into my business and held open for the required period of 120-seconds for each completed call. In simple words, the SVT process at my business was not carried out according to the government communications regulatory mandatory specifications (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra is fully aware that this named Peter Gamble (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, regarding the Service Verification Tests (SVT) being grossly deficient. AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended doing about this deficiency see Front Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B

In response to AUSTEL’s 11 October and 16 November 1994 letter, this Peter replied in his own letter dated 28 November 1994 letter stating:

“As agreed at one of our recent meetings and as confirmed in your letter of 16th November 1994, attached please find the detailed Call Delivery Test information for the following customers. …

“This information is supplied to Austel on a strict Telecom-in-Confidence basis for use in their Service Verification Test Review only and not for any other purpose. The information is not to be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Telecom.” (Arbitrator File No/98)

By what legal authority could this Peter insist what the government regulator could or could not disclose to a third party, in this case, a claimant whose business was about to be destroyed because this Peter had not conducted the agreed to Service Verification Tests process at this claimants premises using only the Ericsson faulty NEAT testing equipment instead of the agreed-to more updated SVT testing device (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report)?

It is most important we link the above wrongdoings by various government bureaucrats to the following episode where, on 2 February 1995, AUSTEL (the Government Communications Regulator) public servants decided to withhold their true findings from the then-Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, regarding the deficient arbitration Service Verification Tests (SVT) conducted at my Cape Bridgewater business on 29 September 1994 (see Open Letter File No/23 and Absent Justice Part (2)/Chapter Eight. Altering the facts of their findings is appalling enough but, according to the Telecommunications Act 1991, AUSTEL was duty-bound, under Section 342 of the Act, to provide the Communications Minister (the Hon Michael Lee MP) with all of their findings regarding the deficiencies in their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT process.  On page 23 of AUSTEL’s 2 February 1995 COT Cases Third Quarterly Report regarding the SVT testing (see Open Letter File No/23) AUSTEL notes:

“Service Verification Tests have been compiled for seven customers. Reports have been completed and forwarded to six of the cusomers, and the seventh report is in prepartion. All six of the telephone services subjected to the Service Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements etsablished”.

This statement on page 23 of this AUSTEL COT Cases report does not coincide with the advice AUSTEL gave Telstra on 11 October and 16 November 1994 concerning the deficient SVT testing by this elusive ‘Peter’.  (see Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B).

We will never know what action the Hon Michael Lee MP might have taken in 1994, had the government bureaucrats advised the Minister that the SVT testing at my Cape Bridgewater business had not occurred according to mandatory government communications regulatory specifications. On 12 December 1994, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence, it was stated under oath to the arbitrator in my case, that all three of the service lines tested at my holiday camp on 29 September 1994, had exceeded all of AUSTEL’s specifications. However, the person who made this statement (Peter Gamble) could not get the SVT monitoring device to work in conjunction with its sister device installed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned roadside exchange.

It is clear from the arbitrators’ technical findings in his award that he believed this ‘Peter's version as well as he did AUSTEL’s regarding the SVT events and NOT my arbitration response. Bad Bureaucrats /Chapter One through to Chapter Four clearly show that by Telstra not conducting the government regulatory mandatory SVT process at my business it allowed my ongoing telephone problems to continue for years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Absent Justice - Of Public Concern

In simple terms, when AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) acted in concert with this Peter in order to cover up his deficient SVT arbitration testing they too perverted the course of justice and in doing severely disadvantaged me as a claimant in my arbitration process.

Please note, this is the same Peter Gamble that Absent Justice Part (1)  shows was aware that the Ericsson AXE equipment being used during my arbitration at the Portland telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater switching facilitator suffered from line lock-up problems with a (call loss) between 15% and 50% (see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E) and yet he still lied under oath concerning his SVT testing process conducted at my business (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

This was the same ‘Peter’ who received an apology from one of Australia’s richest billionaire families and who, back in 2001/02, owned an Australian television station that actually broadcast a documentary about some of the COT case allegations against this same ‘Peter’.

As part of the process of making that documentary, and after spending two days filming at my premises in Cape Bridgewater, the producer of the show commented, in front of a number of witnesses, that he believed that they ‘had the story of the century and, also at the end of the shoot, even the cameraman, who had told us that he had spent sixteen years looking down a lens’, explained that he believed that this account of how a falsified report had been deliberately used to change the course of a legal arbitration process, was ‘absolute dynamite’.  And remember, this was an apparently ‘official’ report, that had been produced by the same ‘Peter’.

Eventually, however, the record of my story was replaced by a documentary about another member of COT.  This story, however, did not contain the detailed, documented evidence that my story had provided, and it did not have any of the exhibits that are now freely available on our website, at Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report, Tampering With Evidence – TF200/Chapter One.  All of these sections of the website include numerous documents, none of which can be refuted in any way.

This letter dated 13 February 1996, from Mr Rundell to Mr Pinnock (see point 2 above) was written in response to Mr Ryan’s allegation. Mr Rundell states, “I did advise Mr Ryan the final report did not cover all material and working papers.” (See Open letter File No/45-E). But instead of Mr Pinnock providing this letter to me, within the statute of limitations period so I could use it in an appeal against Dr Hughes’ award, Mr Pinnock concealed it until 2002 – outside the statute of limitations.

However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, director of investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under FOI, from Telstra a copy of their arbitration file on my matters. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file. I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the TIO office, which, as the administrator of my arbitration – under the law – had to retain a copy for at least six years: until 2002. Mr Pinnock’s letter, of 10 January 1997, in response to my request, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

I was aware Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory and Dr Hughes also collaborated with Telstra in ensuring my singles club (my second business) would not be assessed as a separate business loss and did not take into account the higher revenue loss of my single club dollar, but only valued my losses at the lower tariff I charged for school groups. However, I wanted something more substantial – perhaps the actual working notes, which were removed from the FHCA report under instruction by Dr Hughes (see Open letter File No/45-E, and would have detailed my singles club information that I provided FHCA in February 1995. This single club material was never returned to me after my arbitration was finalised. The losses associated with my singles club patronage (which were never taken into account by the arbitrator) are also discussed in this website.

Absent Justice - Prologue Singles Club

The final FHCA financial report referred to by Derek Ryan and John Rundell only provides statistics from the school-camp bookings for valuing my losses. There is no reference, at all, to profits from the adult social club and singles-club bookings, even though they made up 47 per cent of my business and were charged more than four times the school rate. I discovered, when FHCA eventually returned my claim documents, FHCA had a number of my singles club flyers, along with copies of various newspaper adverts regarding the adult weekends and copies of numerous testimonials from prospective adult patrons explaining their frustration at not being able to contact my venue by phone to make bookings. But, the more detailed calculation of the type of revenue earned from these single club weekends were not amongst that returned information.

On page seven of its final, 3 May 1995, financial-evaluation report, which both Telstra and I received, FHCA state:

“An analysis of the clientele of CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] shows that only 53% were in fact schools.” (See Open Letter File No 57-A to 57-D)

There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent criminal conduct.

The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report, of 3 March 1994:

“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (See p33, point 85, Open Letter File No/6)

I was also able to demonstrate to AUSTEL, when their representatives visited my venue, that singles club customers would regularly buy souvenirs before they left: purchasing printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA ignored all the income I lost from lost singles-club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs as well as the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.

John Rundell’s statement to Derek Ryan (see Open letter File No/45-E) that “FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator”, ties in with the excluded single club material and my Echo tourism venture losses which I provided, under confidentiality, to FHCA in February 1995, when it visited my business. The submitting of this singles club evidence into arbitration under confidentiality is discussed in this website.

The arbitration project manager, who we were forced to exonerate from all liability in connection with our arbitrations, allowed an ex-Telstra employee from Lane Telecommunications to prepare the majority of the technical findings, despite the four claimants being promised someone from DMR Group Inc (Canada) would be the principal consultant. This is damning enough but, in my case, this same exonerated arbitration project manager also advised the TIO the billing issues were not left open, when DMR and Lane did leave them “open” and didn’t investigate the fault cause of those billing problems (see Arbitrator Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen also discussed on this website and Introduction File No 1-B). The project manager advised, in his 15 November 1995 letter (Introduction File No 1-A), the reason these billing faults were not investigated was because “this matter was current at a late stage (April 1995) of the Arbitration process”.

However, the project manager knew I submitted these billing claim documents on 27 January 1994 (see Open letter File No/46-A) and was aware the government communications regulator demanded advice from the arbitrator, on 8 December 1994 (Open letter File No/46-I), as to whether I raised these billing issues as a claim. Evidence confirms Dr Hughes did not respond to the regulator on this matter. Further confirmation, in Open letter File No/46-J, confirms Telstra also discussed these billing issues with Dr Hughes, on 16 December 1994. Pages 91 to 94 in the transcripts of my oral arbitration hearing of 11 October 1994 (see Open letter File No/45-B) confirm I discussed these same billing claim documents at great length with Dr Hughes. I state, on page 93 and after I used Telstra’s own call analysis data for a 10-second call, “…I was charged for 4 minutes and 15 seconds”. Dr Hughes then states, “I don’t think we need any further examples.” John Rundell attended this five-hour meeting. Had Mr Pinnock been told the truth all those years ago, i.e., that NONE of my billing claim documents was addressed (through NO FAULT of my own), Mr Pinnock could have asked the arbitrator to reopen this part of my claim.

Let us put aside the arbitrator's misleading and deceptive conduct which has clearly been addressed in Chapters Two to Five in our Home / Prologue page and concentrate on John Rundell the Arbitration Project Manager and once again throw out a challenge to him as I have over the past two decades asking why he has never come forward and explained his position in this terrible saga that left two other COT Cases (now both dead) their lives in tatters as well as my own. John Rundell FCA FCPA operates an arbitration centre in Collins Street Melbourne. If Mr Rundell states the confidentiality clauses in the three COT Cases mentioned here, that is not correct because the Arbitration Agreement [the process] I signed for was to be conducted under the ambit of the agreed-to Arbitration (Commercial) Act. 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, and three months after the Senate had been told under oath by Lindsey White, an ex-Telstra arbitration official we five COT Cases who had "to be stopped at all cost" from proving our claims naming me as one of the five, John Pinnock (the second-appointed administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?

So John Rundell FCA FCPA, cannot continue to hide behind a continentality clause in an agreement that was not adhered to by the arbitrator and administrator who conducted our arbitrations.

Since the end of our disastrous arbitrations, we, the claimants, have found other information that shows how way back John Rundell on 18 April 1995, advising the arbitrator (Dr Gordon Hughes) the first administrator (Warwick Smith), as well as the legal counsel to the process that:

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A).

The four COT claimants to the first of many arbitrations which followed, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and I were never told about these “forces at work”, nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the same administrator, the administrator’s legal advisor and the same illusive arbitrator, that these unnamed “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process to the detriment of the four claimants.

Is this same 18 April 1995, letter John Rundell advised the TIO (see Arbitrator File No/17) that the Director of the Canada technical consultancy firm which was appointed by the administrator as the Principal technical consultant who was to take charge of the arbitration technical side our claims arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995. He worked over the Easter Holiday period, particularly on the Smith claim (My Claim) where John Rundell's true colours were exposed when he stated on page 2 of this letter that:  "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes (Ex-Telstra technicians) will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Group Inc [the Canadian technical consultancy the four COT Cases had officially agreed would be the Principal technical officer as the original DMR Australian consultant was found to have had a conflict of interest where Telstra was concerned].

The COT cases were fully aware of Telstra’s corporate power over most of the Technical Telecommunication Consultants in Australia.  Our research showed that DMR Group Inc (Canada) was possibly the only offshore organization that would handle our matters independently.  

Warwick Smith’s (the first of two administrators of my arbitration) on 9 March 1995 wrote to the four COT Cases Introduction File No/1-A to 1-G showing we were promised DMR Inc. Canada would be the principal Consultant

In my case, all the draft Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd technical findings, shown in their report of 6 April 1995, were prepared by Lane seven days before Paul Howell of DMR Inc Canada arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995. The same findings in that 6 April 1995 draft were used in the combined DMR and Lane final report of 30 April 1995 which was used by the arbitrator to determine his technical findings on my case. I was given only five days to respond to this 30 April 1995 DMR & Lane report that exhibit [download|58] shows were still incomplete. 

Spurious Claims 

On 12 May 1995 (see Open Letter File No 55-A), wrote to advise the administrator but did not copy the letter to the Special Legal Counsel of the arbitrations that the agreement should never have been used in my arbitration, noting:

"the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight optimistic”;
we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the productions of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports.

There are some other procedural difficulties which revealed themselves during the Smith arbitration and which I would like to discuss with you when I return".

Why didn't the arbitrator copy this letter to the Special Legal Counsel of the process? Had it been copied to the Special Legal Counsel to the process he would have been duty-bound to have officially advised me during my designated appeal period that my arbitration agreement had been found to have contained many deficiencies in the process, A process that cost me well over $200.000.00 in professional and legal fees in which to participate in. 

The advice and trickery exposed in John Rundell's letter of 18 April 1995 ” (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A), should also have been provided to me during my designated arbitration appeal period, it was not. That advice and the advice in Dr Hughes letter of 12 May 1995 letter damning the whole arbitration agreement as not a credible document to have used in my arbitration was never released to me until 2002 (Seven Years Later) after the statute of limitations had expired.

Had an appeal judge seen this damning information they would have had to have given grounds for an appeal.

Furthermore, almost all the officials involved in these matters are now claiming that our arbitration matters can never be reopened because of a confidentiality clause in the original agreement but, perhaps deliberately, it seems that all those parties have somehow managed to miss the fact that the confidentiality clause was attached to an agreement that had been, illegally, drafted by Telstra’s own defence lawyers as well as being attached to a different agreement to the one the government and claimants thought was being signed. In simple terms, the arbitration was not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedure as the following official advice given to the government shows. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitration's were concluded, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations, John Pinnock, officially advised a Senate Committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) that:

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

Even though this official Senate Hansard record shows our arbitrations were not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures, no one in government dares to find against Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) or Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations).

If using this grossly deficient arbitration agreement which the arbitrator, himself, condemned as not a credible document (to have used in my arbitration) but he used it regardless of this knowledge wasn’t the worst type of despicable conduct by an arbitrator, then what is?

Was there a more sinister reason why Telstra accepted Dr Hughes as the COT arbitrator? The following An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens / Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest suggests this might have been the case. 

This letter dated 19 May 1995, is from Robyn Waters (on behalf of Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer Steve Black) to AUSTEL see Exhibit 3 - held in government archives discusses that a later document would be provided to the government regarding Telstra’s legal liability and the arbitrator’s comments on my arbitration process.

A second damning letter, dated 24 May 1995, from Warwick Smith (the administrator) to Telstra’s Steve Black see Exhibit 4 - Held in TIO archives  also discusses the arbitrator’s decision and the reconciliation of the arbitrator’s comments on Telstra’s legal liability regarding my claims (i.e., my claims of ongoing billing problems that were still affecting the viability of my business).

When we consider the following letter of 18 of April 1995 (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A),  which shows there were "forces at work" that had derailed the arbitration process, Dr Hughes' letter (see Open Letter File No 55-A), that condemned the arbitration agreement used by the arbitrator as not a credible document to have used and the statement made in the 24 May 1995 letter from the administrator to Telstra (who after all were the defendants in my arbitration), stating: “Other matters relating to liability will be dealt with separately. Dr Hughes is in his office from 30 May 1995,” it becomes obvious my arbitration was certainly not conducted transparently. For, Telstra to meet with Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) secretly in his office to discuss issues concerning liability that could have been relevant for me to secure an appeal. These four letters show that justice was denied during my arbitration, as well as after my arbitration.

The ex-parte clandestine meeting discussed directly below is just further proof that the pending arbitrator Dr Goron Hughes and the then first administrator to the arbitrations Warwick Smith, allowed only the defendants to be present with their lawyers and not the claimants whose lives (indeed their business lives) were about to be destroyed using an arbitration agreement which the defence had crafted to benefit the defence to the detriment of the COT cases (refer to the arbitrator's comments regarding the gross deficiencies in this agreement Open Letter File No 55-A,

Absent Justice - Clandestine meeting

Secret Meeting 

We need to go back to 22 March 1994, using the ex-parte secret clandestine meeting with the arbitrator, Telstra, Telstra's lawyers, and the administrator and his lawyer because this private meeting was concealed from the COT cases prior to arbitration and for years after the conclusion of their arbitrations which commenced on 21 April 1994.

Ex parte is a Latin phrase meaning on one side only or by or for one party. An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or involved with a party, talks, writes or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about issues in the case without the other parties’ knowledge. Under the Judicial Code of Conduct, judges may not permit or consider ex-parte communications in deciding a case unless expressly allowed by law. This helps judges decide cases fairly since their decisions are based only on the evidence and arguments presented to the court, and the applicable law. It also preserves trust in the legal and court system.

Points 4 and 5

The 22 March 1994 transcripts of a clandestine gathering, where the COT cases were not represented (see Open letter File No 54-A), shows Telstra’s Mr Chalmers, the author of the minutes, has left out points 4 and 5. Point 6 follows point 3. Where are points 4 and 5?

In attendance at this clandestine meeting were Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black; Telstra’s general counsel, David Krasnostein; Telstra’s lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Simon Chalmers; TIO special counsel, Peter Bartlett; arbitrator, Gordon Hughes; and TIO Warwick Smith with his secretary Jenny Henright. Except for Jenny Henright, all were lawyers and therefore all knew this was an illegal gathering. What was so important about this meeting that only the arbitrator and defence attended it?

The missing discussion material or questions raised at points 4 and 5 may well be why the parties present agreed to Telstra lawyers drafting the agreement, instead of the independent arbitration agreement the government and claimants were assured would be used. It could also be where Telstra and arbitrator Dr Hughes agreed Telstra would allow the arbitration resource unit first access to all arbitration procedural material (see Arbitrator Part Two Chapter Seven). This allowed the arbitration resource unit to decide which documents Dr Hughes and the claimants would be allowed to see, and which would be discarded. Telstra’s Steve Black wrote to Warwick Smith on 11 July 1994 acknowledging the resource unit would be allowed to vet which documents Dr Hughes would see and which he would not (see Prologue Evidence File No 7). The arbitration resource unit, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, admitted, in writing, to Dr Hughes that they concealed at least four relevant billing claim documents from the arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H). This is discussed more fully below.

Points 4 and 5 in the minutes of this clandestine meeting could be linked to the arbitrator and his arbitration resource unit allowing for the more adverse findings against Telstra to be covertly addressed outside the legal arena of the COT arbitration process. If the addressing of non-addressed arbitration issues had nothing to do with points 4 and 5, then what was so detrimental to the arbitration process that these points were excluded from these minutes? What information was exposed in those two points that Telstra’s lawyers thought it necessary to hide, in case this document, Open letter File No 54-Aever surfaced, as it has?

Why weren’t the COT cases or their lawyers advised of this meeting? We will never know what was concealed from the COT cases during this clandestine gathering. Dr Gordon Hughes should have never allowed this secret meeting to take place without the COT cases being represented. Most, if not all, Western democracies would expect both the defendants and claimants – and their lawyers – to be present in the judge’s chambers or arbitrator’s office.

This clandestine meeting also covered how to protect – to exonerate – the arbitrator’s consultants from incurring any liability for negligence or being sued. Of course, this was to the detriment to the COTs and our legal right to have recourse over the arbitration consultants if the resource unit was negligent in their duties. The arbitration resource unit was negligent during my own arbitration process and I was unable to hold them to account for those actions, due to those clauses being removed from my arbitration agreement.

It is important I highlight here below our Second Authors Note because when the Arbitration Agreement was faxed by Caroline Friend, secretary to Dr Hughes in the afternoon of the 19 April 1994, to the COT Lawyers, Mr Alan Goldberg (now and Supreme Court Judge) and William Hunt (now deceased) our lawyers were told it was the final; agreement which we were literally forced to sign under duress on 21 April 1994.  The following three clauses are included on page 12 of this version of the agreement received via Caroline Friend:-

In the agreement presented to the COT claimants for signing two days later, on 21st April 1994, clauses 25 and 26 were removed, and only some of the wording was added to clause 24.

The final version of Clause 24 reads: “Neither the Administrator, the Arbitrator, the Special Counsel, a partner or employee of the legal firm of which the Special Counsel is a partner, a member of the Resources Unit, Ferrier Hodgson or a partner or employee of Ferrier Hodgson, DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd shall be liable to any party….”

Clause 24 now had a different meaning to that presented by the original three separate clauses, and it freed Minter Ellison from any risk of being sued for misconduct in their role as Legal Advisors to the TIO (the administrator of the process).

The altered clause 24 also has the original $250,000 liability cap against FHCA and DMR removed from the Arbitration Agreement after it was faxed to Mr Goldberg and William Hunt on 19th April 1994. In other words (it was altered between 19 and 21 April 1994. 

The COT Cases sought a legal opinion from Mr Goldberg, through Mr Hunt, regarding what the COT claimants were led to believe was the final version of the Arbitration Agreement.  Changes were later made to that agreement: i.e., the removal of clauses 25 and 26 and alterations to clause 24.  This meant the legal opinion given to the COT Cases was provided on a document that was later secretly altered, apparently by the Legal Counsel who would most benefit from the alterations.

On 19th April 1994, when Mr Goldberg and Mr Hunt were assessing the not-yet-altered version of the agreement, they could not have known alterations would be made AFTER they had completed their assessment, neither did they know that another clause, 10.2.2, had already been changed by the removal of the words “each of the Claimants’ claims”.  None of the COT Cases knew of this change either.

On 21st April 1994, the day we COT Cases signed the FTAP in the Special Counsel’s office; no reference was made to who authorised the alterations to the agreement after it had been faxed to oot lawyers 30-hours previous.  As claimants, we were told we had to sign the agreement before the close of business that day because the Special Counsel's instructions were that the TIO would not administer the already-signed Fast Track Settlement Proposal – the earlier commercial agreement if we did not sign this altered agreement


Absent Justice - TIO

This very important exhibit Open letter File No 54-A details a meeting attended by Telstra’s general counsel, the TIO Special Counsel, the arbitrator, the TIO and the TIO secretary. The meeting discussed various changes to the arbitration agreement although no COT claimants or their representatives were advised of this important meeting and/or proposed changes to the agreement. Telstra’s transcript of this meeting (see Open letter File No 54-A notes at point six that:

“Peter Bartlet [TIO Special Counsel], stated that he was unhappy that Telecom did not appear prepared to allow his firm an exclusion from liability.”

“Warwick Smith [TIO], stated that he thought it was reasonable for the advisers to incur some liability, and that the only matter left to be negotiated on this issue was the quantum of the liability caps.”

“Steve Black [Telstra] said that he thought the liability caps proposed by Telecom in the amended rules were already reasonable.”

The TIO has, to date, declined to explain what circumstances occurred to change this. Who pressured the TIO to allow the advisors (see below) to be exonerated from all liability in relation to my arbitration? Why would the TIO Special Counsel be so “unhappy that Telecom did not appear prepared to allow his firm and exclusion from liability”.

It is therefore quite clear that the arbitrator’s main concern was always with the welfare of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the financial arbitration consultants and DMR the technical arbitration resource unit) rather than with the claimants, who had, by then, been battling Telstra for years. Lane Telecommunication Pty Ltd did not become involved in being secretly appointed as the Principal technical consultants unit in March 1995. 

Telstra’s FOI folio number A59256/7 (see Open letter File No 54-B) which is recorded on this letter dated 12 April 1994, from Dr Hughes to the TIO’s special counsel, indicates that Telstra received their copy of that letter either before or during the arbitration process and that simply shows, once again, that even before we signed the agreement the arbitrator and Telstra (the defence) had already set up a system that would allow them to work together to achieve their aims, right throughout the arbitration process, regardless of how that would affect the claimants’ cases.  This letter clearly discusses the same exoneration issues that Dr Hughes and the TIO’s Special Counsel tried to have included in the arbitration agreement during the 22 March 1994 clandestine arbitration meeting that is discussed above (see Open letter File No 54)

Open letter File No 54-A to 54-B, which is further discussed below, also shows that, even before Dr Hughes’ involvement in the deliberate deception that is discussed in his 12 April 1994 letter, he was already colluding with the defendants (Telstra) and the TIO so that he could use Telstra’s version of the arbitration agreement instead of an independently drafted version. This is further proof of the ongoing, deceitful collusion that existed between Telstra, the TIO, and the Arbitrator, and a clear indication that this collusion began well before the arbitration agreement was executed. So why is Dr Hughes, Telstra? and the TIO continuing to tell the current government that the confidentiality clause in the agreement forbids discussion about our arbitrations when all this deceit and collusion clearly began well before we signed the agreement and therefore well before the confidentiality clause came into play at all?

It is clear from the first two lines of Dr Hughes’ last statement on page-two in this that he knew the arbitration agreement as it stood was the agreement that had been finally agreed to as his statement shows  (see Open letter File No 54-B) which notes: “…I appreciate that one claimant has already executed the agreement in its current form. The others will no doubt be pressed to do likewise over the next few days”.  Maureen Gillan was the claimant referred to as having already ‘executed the agreement in its current form. Maureen had signed the agreement four days previous, on 8 April 1994. Why was it so important to remove the $250,000.00 liability caps from the Arbitration Agreement in my case, and those of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer? Why was this such a big deal when the $250,000.00 liability caps were going to be replaced on the new Arbitration Agreement for the other twelve COT Cases as Chapter Seven below shows?

Why did it not occur to either the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) or the Arbitrator that, once the directions regarding liability were removed; this would allow complacency to creep into the arbitration process? This is exactly what our website pages show did happen.

Why is the government allowing the TIO to use the confidentiality clause added to the COT arbitration agreement after sending it to the COT Cases lawyers? 

Tampered with an arbitration agreement to benefit the defendants in the case

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

Buy Now

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents linked in the text.

Clicking on these links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit/evidence that a crime was committed. Using this method and following the various file numbers discussed in our various pages, you will verify our story. Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence the way we have is possibly a world first.


Quote Icon

“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

“…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

“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

“…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

“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

“…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

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

– Edmund Burke