Chapter 6 Coopers & Lybrand
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries.
Leading up to this Senate hearing 0n 20 August 1997, in parliament house Canberra, Steven Boswell (sadly now deceased) provided his father, Senator Ron Boswell, a fax he had just received from my lawyers, MICHAEL BRERETON & CO (File 51-G Open Letter File No/51-A to 51-G), confirming how the arbitration process had been unlawfully conducted. Steven also reminded his father in the company of several other COT Cases that it was he, his father, who had first raised these unlawful issues on my behalf on 29 November 1994 concerning the threats I had received from Telstra because I had assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services.
Threats made
Threats Carried Out
Threats were made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues. Refer page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false; the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” Senate Evidence File No 31
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
This harassment by Telstra and their internal security division continued for years. No one in government or the arbitration process would investigate the devastation these threats, harassment combined with corporate thuggery, had on the lives of the COT Case members.
As shown in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, one of the four mentined arbitration professionals on our Home Page mislead and deceived John Pinnock, the newly appointed administrator to my arbitration concerning the conduct of my arbitration while this arbitration professional was a partner of KPMG (see Eight damning letters below.
Eight damning letters
Letter One
The first of these eight damning letters was from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, on 18 April 1995, advising the TIO, the arbitrator, and the TIO counsel who the four arbitration professionals mentioned on the Home Page). In this letter John Rundell wrote to Warwick Smith, copied to Dr Gordon Hughes and Peter Bartlett that:
“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.
“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
The four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and (me) were never told about any of these so-called “forces at work” and nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the TIO, the TIO’s legal advisor and the Arbitrator, these un-named “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process wherever and whenever they desired, but always with the aim of helping Telstra to defeat the COT claimants.
When these three legal experts, (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts’ directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. If John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once because, with Mr Rundell’s letter as evidence, we would certainly have had a very reasonable chance of being granted the rights to have all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least. And don’t forget, it was the Federal Government who had originally endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.
Also in this 18 April 1995 letter, the arbitration project manager John Rundell (FHCA) was so openly deceptive he wrote to the first administrator of my arbitration TIO Warwick Smith, copying the same to arbitrator Dr Hughes, stating, “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
Please at least click on the first five minutes of this KPMG documentary because doing so will help you understand that my story and fifteen other Casualties of Telstra stories are true (see Australian Federal Police Investigations-1 /An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
On the 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:
“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.
“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.
“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
On the 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock, noting:
“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.
“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …
“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
During the COT arbitrations, when the first appointed Telecommunicatiuons Industry Ombudsman (TIO) who was also the administrator to the arbitrations himself, and other TIO officials, threatened the last three COT claimants Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me that, if we did not formally agree to exonerate the arbitration financial advisors, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), from any liability in relation to their involvement in the arbitration process, as well as the arbitrators technical consultants DMR, Australia (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct then there would be no arbitration and we would therefore be left with only one alternative, the enormous costs involved in taking Telstra to court for not providing us with a decent telephone service, even though Telstra (as a government organization) had a legal responsibility to provide us all with a service comparable to our competitors.
The fact that Coopers & Lybrand (now PWC) COT found Telstra had mislead and deceived the COT Cases over an extended period but changed that finding in the report proved to the arbitrator is alarming enough. But worse is the arbitrator making strong comments in his findings (the award) that he saw no deliberate deceptive conduct by Telstra. Had the arbitrator deliberating on my arbitration claims been aware the Coopers/PWC report had been altered to protect Telstra in regards to their misleading and deceptive conduct towards the COT Cases, he would not have made those statements in his findings. He might well have further investigated and found Telstra had, in deed, mislead and deceived me during my first 11 December 1992 settlements process with Telstra.
This, coincides with what Ann Garms is saying in her YouTube. At points 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 in the arbitrator's award handed down on 11 May 1995 regarding my arbitration claim, he states, respectively, the Bell Canada Report, the Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL Report were used by him and his arbitration unit to determine their findings.
Delloits were Telstra's arbitration financial accountants in Ann's and my arbitration, where our accountants strongly refuted many of Deloitt's' arbitration findings. While I am not saying Deloitt's acted unlawfully during my arbitration but what was most concerning was the statement made by one of their witnesses under another concerning my ongoing telephone problems because that statement, there was nothing wrong with my telephones, did not match the governments report from their findings (refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings,) at points 2, 212,
Most importantly, Telstra funded all three auditing companies who particpated in our government endorsed arbitration instead of the government who endorsed the arbitrations. How can the government endorse a process if they have no input?
The following Kangaroo link, https://shorturl.at/wRT57 has
Ann's Garms; was prepared to go live on her YouTube video below concerning her arbitration and appeal process which coincides with her letter discussed below.
This same letter is discussed in more detail on National Television as the YouTube video shows see (File 942 to 946 - AS-CAV 923 to 946).
The number exhibits beside the various statements made in the various paragraphs can be obtained from the evidence list below.
I have reported below in a chronology style of events so as the reader can see for themselves how it was from the very begining when I purchased the holiday camp to the present day.
It is important to Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. I Highlight the following statement shown on a Telstra internal memo of 9th November, from the Group Managing Director of Telstra Mr Doug Campbell to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial Mr Ian Campbell (AS 942), saying:
"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged." (File 942 to 946 - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
- Coopers & Lybrand
- Tamper with Evidence - EXICOM TF200 touchphone
Coopers & Lybrand Report
Towards the end of 1993 Telstra commissioned an international audit company, Coopers and Lybrand, to report on Telstra’s fault handling procedures, particularly in relation to complaints like those raised by the members of COT. In a letter dated 17 September 1993 (AS 1010) to AUSTEL’s Chairman, Mr Robin Davey, the then-Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, wrote:
"Finally I note that Telecom propose to engage one of the "Big Five" accounting firms to audit its handling of the COT cases with Austel merely having unspecified access to the consultants and its output.
If such an audit is to have any legitimacy it is essential that it should be commissioned and paid for by Austel. To allow one party to litigation to select and pay - undoubtedly generously - for the judge would not be tolerated in any judicial proceedings. It should not be tolerated here."
Regardless of the concerns expressed by various government ministers, including Senator Alston, it was Telstra alone who paid Coopers & Lybrand and Bell Canada International Inc. to carry out that work. Then, in the case of the COT arbitrations, Telstra paid for the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s helpers who were then also exonerated from all liability for anything untoward that they might be involved in.
Senator Alston’s objections to Telstra being allowed to pay for both the Coopers & Lybrand audit of Telstra systems and the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) audit of the main COT claims, and the telephone exchanges that the COT businesses were connected to, was particularly alarming because, as is now known, both those reports were not only orchestrated by Telstra, but were orchestrated by AUSTEL too, as their April 1994 ‘COT Cases Report’ clearly shows. (Note: these Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) tests are discussed in the next chapter)
This is even more alarming because, although all this auditing was carried out on behalf of the Government Regulator, Telstra was still able to manipulate the results by hiding any findings that went against them, whether those findings were reported by Coopers & Lybrand or BCI, and they accomplished this with even more manipulation, this time by using various exemptions in the FOI Act, such as Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) or adverse findings against Telstra marked as (ADV), as (AS 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and AS 1019) AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019) so clearly show.
A further alarming aspect of Telstra’s interference in the official auditing process is that any adverse findings could also be deliberately omitted from the formal Coopers and BCI reports that AUSTEL and the TIO had already agreed would be provided to the COT arbitrator. This meant that the arbitrator would never know what it was that Coopers and BCI found wrong with Telstra’s processes.
Since Alan has since proved that both the Coopers & Lybrand and BCI reports were fundamentally flawed and exhibits (AS 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and AS 1019 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019 ) show that not all the adverse findings against Telstra have been revealed – even now – how then can the present Coalition Government condone the behaviour that led to the arbitrator not only accepting two thoroughly flawed reports as arbitration evidence, but then basing his final decisions, in part at least, on those flawed reports?
How can the results of the COT arbitrations still stand, as they have for the last twenty years, when it has been obvious for some time that these were not the only findings against Telstra that Telstra has kept hidden, and that some of those hidden findings included technical documents that were falsified so the arbitrator would not uncover the truth about Telstra’s failing telecommunications network? How could Telstra get away with manipulating the law as it stood back then, in 1994, without even being asked to explain what really went on during the COT arbitrations?
It is important to note that when Coopers & Lybrand investigator, Robert Nason, and his secretary, Sue Hurley, met with me at his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on 13 October 1993, I supplied them with evidence supporting his claims that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my 11 December 1992 settlement. I explained that two technicians visited my businesses on 3 June 1993 to investigate his continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. When Robert Nason and Sue Hurley saw this evidence they were shocked and likewise convinced that Telstra had clearly disadvantaged my previous settlement claim.
A letter dated 3 November 1993 to Mr Robert Nason, (Coopers & Lybrand) from the Hon Senator Richard Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications (AS 938) notes:
"I have at last received a copy of your terms of reference and these make it clear that the review requires Coopers & Lybrand to "conduct an independent audit of (the) adequacy, reasonableness and fairness (of) Telecom's approach to Difficult Network Faults reported by customers over the last 5 years".
The review also explicitly requires Coopers & Lybrand recommendations to take "into account Telecom's legal obligations".
Despite the clear nature of these terms of reference I am disturbed to learn from several COT members that your review will not deal with questions of misleading and deceptive conduct".
While the final public Coopers & Lybrand report is almost identical in regards to Telstra's previous settlements with the COT Cases at point 2.20 to that as shown in their draft at point 2.20, it is important we highlight one particular variation
Draft
"We have found evidence that an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process." (File 939 - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
Final
"We believe that in some cases an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process’s" (File 940) - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
I have always been convinced that the segment referred to in the Coopers & Lybrand draft "have found evidence" was the same evidence I provided Robert Nason and Sue Hurley during their visit to my business on 13 October 1993 which shocked them and left them both speechless. At point 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 Nason clearly articulates he placed the Bell Canada International Inc Report, Coopers & Lybrand Report and the AUSTEL COT Cases Report into evidence.
Had Dr Hughes (the arbitrator hearing the COT arbitrations) been provided the true findings in this case, those of Coopers & Lybrand as well as AUSTEL's secret findings on this settlement issue, as arbitrator he would have had to find against Telstra regarding these settlement issues instead of finding in favour of Telstra.
When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct, but all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting the COT Cases belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the evidence that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.
Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed, because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9th November, from the Group Managing Director of Telstra Mr Doug Campbell to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial Mr Ian Campbell (File 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946), saying:
"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."
These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country; a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.
Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they really uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft it is noted (File 943- AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:
"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."
In the same section of the final version (File 944 - AS-CAV 923 to 946 ) however, there is no mention of ensuring they that
“…the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act.”
The draft report, at point 23 under ‘Other Recommendations’, notes (File 945 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:
"Fitness for Purpose: Telecom needs to issue, inter alia, instructions to sales, installation, maintenance, fault investigation and repair involved with PSTS and/or CPE work that checks must be made to ensure the PSTS will meet or continue to meet the "fitness for purpose" requirements of the 1974 Trade Practices Act for the circumstances they are dealing with."
In the final version Coopers & Lybrand have again left out the major issue of the service provided being ‘fit for purpose’ according to the1974 Trade Practices Act (File- 946), the very issues that AUSTEL advised the Government would be addressed by Telstra in a commercial settlement process, with no need for an arbitration if it was proved that Telstra had acted outside of the 1974 Trade Practice Act. But once again, here we have the arbitrator accepting the Coopers & Lybrand report, even though it did not include any reference to what Telstra should be doing according to the Trade Practice Act.
Robert Nason has now been a senior executive in the Telstra Corporation for some time, including holding the position of Group Managing Director, Business Support and Improvement in 2014. In 2013 he was also appointed as Chairman of Foxtel, but before that, back in June 2010, I provided Mr Nason with a condensed draft version of this story and most of the Exhibits it refers to, in the hope that he could facilitate a resolution to my matters. Mr Nason has never responded.
Channel Nine Small Business - National Television show
Exposes Telstra's corporate thuggery, threats and shear evil business tactics used against the COT Cases
On 20 September 1995, four months after the conclusion of my arbitration in May 1995, a copy of this Telstra internal letter (File 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) was provided by me in the company of my Federal Member of Parlaiment David Hawker MP to Senator Richard Alston which notes
"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged.".
The Coopers & Lybrand report was not removed from the COT Cases’ arbitrations, nor were the Bell Canada International tests.
When Senator Richard Alston did not follow up and ensure the Cooper & Lybrand report and BCI tests were removed from the COT arbitrations, this inaction stopped the COT Cases from being able to use these flawed reports as evidence to assist with their arbitration appeals.
These two fundamentally flawed reports, dated October 1993, and November 1993, have never been removed from the COT Cases arbitrations of 1994 - 1998. It was also uncovered in June 1995 that the AUSTEL COT Cases report (produced by the government communications regulator) was known by the government to be fundamentally flawed when they submitted it to the COT arbitrations in April 1994. Twelve years later, all three fundamentally flawed words were used to thwart a proper investigation into the COT Case claims.
This time, they were spuriously used again by the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) to help the government win their COT Case review process of March/April 2006. This conduct by the DCITA assessors to win against us COT Cases at all costs will go down in political history as the worse of, the worse abuse of power against ordinary citizens of Australia who have been crying out for justice for more than thirty years.
I reiterate, even though the above YouTube video is of poor quality, as discussed elsewhere on this website, it still does not take away the fact that at least three of the Nine businesses people shown in this video have since died and did not get the justice I am asking the current government to provide by viewing each case on their merit which includes my case. The government should read absentjustice.com along with the rest of my statements on absentjustice.com, to determine if the remaining COT Cases have valid claims against the Commonwealth
The fact that Coopers & Lybrand (now PWC) COT audit was used by the arbitrator deliberating on my arbitration claims as evidence, not knowing it had been tampered with, coincides with what Ann Garms is saying in her YouTube. At points 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 in the arbitrator's award handed down o 11 May 1995 regarding my arbitration claim, he states, respectively, the Bell Canada Report, the Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL Report were used by him and his arbitration unit to determine their findings.
