Chapter Three - The Sixth Damning Letter
Part 1
Corruption in Arbitration
On 17 February 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators (see point 3 above), attaching a copy of John Rundell’s letter of 13 February 1996 to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). In this letter, Dr Hughes advised Laurie James:
“I consent to you disclosing this letter to Mr Smith, save that I do not consent to the disclosure of the attached correspondence from third parties.” (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E)
Before Mr Rundell and Dr Hughes's February 1996 correspondence, AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, confirmed that my concerns were completely valid. Shockingly, none of the billing claim documents I legitimately raised during my 1994/95 arbitration process were investigated or addressed. The arbitrator and the official administrator of the arbitration process deliberately misled and deceived Laurie James, the only person who could have asked probing questions regarding why my arbitration was not conducted under the ambit of the arbitration procedures.
I must jump eighteen months here to the statement made on 26 September 1997, by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock, who formally addressed a Senate estimates committee, refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) that:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – 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 first four 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 in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside the agreed procedure?
My letter to Gareth Evans, dated January 4, 1996 (Open Letter File No/49), explicitly raised serious issues affecting all the arbitrations that were still in progress. Dr Hughes's letter to Laurie James, titled "Letter to Senator Evans" (see below), did not disclose to Laurie James that on May 12, 1995, he had already advised the first administrator involved in the first four arbitrations, including mine, that the agreement used in my arbitration was not credible. He indicated that for the arbitration process to remain credible, the arbitration agreement needed to be amended. I refer to that letter, attached as Exhibit (Open Letter File No 55-A).
Dr Hughes's letter to Laurie James note:
Why did Dr Hughes, the arbitrator, deceive Mr James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, about the 24,000 documents that Telstra withheld from me? They withheld these documents until after they submitted their defence, leaving me with little time to prepare an adequate response. I reported this issue to Sue Hodgkinson, one of the arbitration consultants, who advised Warwick Smith in writing on 30 March 1995 that I was unable to submit the documents to support my claim and respond to Telstra's arbitration defence.“Mr Smith provided you a copy of a letter to Senator Gareth Evans dated 4 January 1996. I presume you require me to comment on those aspects of the letter which reflect upon my conduct as an arbitrator.
“The letter to Senator Evans is littered with inaccuracies. Some examples are:
contrary to Mr Smith’s assertion on page 3, his 24,000 (sic) documents were all viewed by me, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, DMR Group Inc (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in accordance with the arbitration procedure.”
Mr Smith's assertions on page 4 that a technical expert, Mr Read refused to discuss technical information at his premises on 6 April 1995, is correct - in this regard.Mr Read was acting in accordance with his interpretation of my direction which prohibited him from speaking to one part in the ansence of the other party at any site visit. (Open letter File No/45-G and Open Letter File No/49)
Proof confirming Dr Hughes lied about these 24,000 documents to Laurie James is further addressed immediately below.
The Canadian and Australian technical consultants’ 30 April 1995 reports, under the heading “Cape Bridgewater Documentation,” state, “More than 4,000 pages of documentation have been presented by both parties and examined by us.” (See Arbitrator File Nos/29 and 30) These reports are covered in more detail on other pages.
At point 2.2 on page 4, in Dr Hughes’ final award, dated 11 May 1995, he notes, “In all, I have read in excess of 6,000 pages of documentary evidence submitted by the parties.” (See Prologue Evidence File No/9-A)
In simple terms, Dr Hughes' arbitration award indicates that, while determining his findings in my case, he considered 6,000 pieces of evidence that demonstrate he has been dishonest and should have been held accountable for those lies when they were presented to Laurie James.
I want to emphasise that this situation occurred thirty years ago, when my partner Cathy and I had the opportunity to rebuild our beloved holiday camp. If either Mr James or Senator Evans had received the truth regarding these 24,000 documents, my arbitration matters and the investigation into that portion of my claim would have revealed that the issues with my phone lines were still impacting the viability of my business. Had Telstra been compelled to address those problems back in 1996, Cathy and I would still own the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp.
Part 2
The Log Book
There was a notable absence in Dr Hughes' letter to Laurie James regarding the documents provided by Telstra, specifically that these documents were not meant for my use. Furthermore, Telstra had persistently withheld the critical arbitration document: the logbook for the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange at Portland/Cape Bridgewater. This logbook, which was crucial to my case, had been formally requested through both the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and the discovery process. Dr Hughes was fully aware that Telstra had not released this vital logbook, which contained detailed working notes of all my telephone complaints, as well as those from other local Telstra subscribers during the period covered by my claim. The authenticity of these logbooks is beyond dispute; however, Dr. Hughes chose not to pursue the acquisition of the Cape Bridgewater exchange logbook on my behalf. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office had requested this logbook but was unsuccessful in obtaining it. (See Home Page File No 10 -A to 10-B and Arbitrator File No/48)
On May 4 and 5, I reached out to Dr Hughes through faxes and follow-up telephone conversations, passionately expressing the chaos and frustration caused by the late arrival of the extensive 24,000 FOI documents. I urged an investigation into why so many of these FOI documents, which lacked proper schedules and organisation, were submitted to me too late for arbitration. These documents were irrelevant to my case as they actually belonged to Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan. Additionally, I informed Dr. Hughes that Telstra had withheld fresh evidence, likely as a consequence of my assistance to the Australian Federal Police during their investigations. I suggested that some of the faxed documents I had previously reported to him and his secretary, Caroline Friend, appeared to have been intercepted before reaching his office.
On May 5, 1995—just six days prior to Dr Hughes issuing his award—he disregarded my request for additional time, even after being informed on April 30, 1995, by DMR & Lane (the arbitration technical consultants) that their report required several more weeks to complete. In point 2.23 of the DMR & Lane report, it was explicitly noted that they had only investigated a mere 11% of my legally submitted claim documents. Despite receiving counsel from AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, regarding the public interest surrounding my ongoing phone and faxing issues—particularly the potential impact on countless other Australians experiencing similar problems—Dr. Hughes still opted to write the following:
“I refer to your telephone message of 4 May and your facsimiles of 4 and 5 May 1995 and advise I do not consider grounds exist for the introduction of new evidence or the convening of a hearing at this stage.”
He also reiterated his previous instructions:
“any comments regarding the factual content of the Resource Unit reports must be received … by 5:00pm on Tuesday 9 May 1995” (See Arbitrator False Evidence File 1).
Dr Hughes cared little about the justice he denied me by not allowing me to submit those of the 24,000 FOI documents I could decipher. He also refused to convene a hearing to determine why Telstra’s threats – to withhold all future relevant FOI documents from me – came to fruition. Two of the questions I raised in my telephone messages of 4 May 1995 and facsimiles of 4 and 5 May 1995 were why the arbitration technical report had not been signed off and had only assessed 11% of my claim documents. It is clear from this letter and Dr Hughes's 11 May 1995 award that he ignored both those questions.
Dr Hughes knew that he was saving Telstra thousands of dollars in compensation by not considering the grounds that existed for the introduction of the evidence initially disallowed from being submitted while the AFP was investigating Telstra’s monitoring of my single-club patrons.
What is so important concerning the two mini-reports I had compiled from these non-submitted 24,000 documents, which Dr Hughes would not allow me to submit into arbitration, is when Dr Hughes submitted his final findings in his award at 2.1 d, he notes:
"...I considered it essential that both parties had every reasonable opportunity to place relevant material before me, regardless of the time frame set out in the arbitration"
If this was true, why did Dr Hughes refuse to allow me the extra time on 4 and 5 May 1995 to submit these two mini-submissions?
As part of the submission I wanted to make to Dr Hughes, I included proof beyond all doubt that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests had never taken place at any time, as stated in the BCI report. I even discussed this latest BCI issue in my conversation with Dr Hughes on 4 May 1995. There is more to Dr Hughes' decision not to allow me to submit this late-received BCI material.
My pleas to the arbitrator to hold Telstra accountable for their actions, despite still not having received the requested discovery documents. Amazingly, he refused to take calls, as his secretary, Caroline Friend, is aware. Even though the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be brought into arbitration for Telstra to obey the Freedom of Information (FOI Act) and the government solicitors took control of the delivery of my arbitration documents, which then never arrived until 23 May 1995, two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration, the arbitrator had the gall to write in his draft award at point 2.23:
"...Although the time taken for comSenate Hansard Evidence File No-1 )
These official statements in the Senate occurred months before Dr Hughes and John Pinnock spread falsehoods concerning my FOI issues to Laurie James, as shown below in Chapter Four.
Next Page ⟶
