Have you ever had reason to complain about your phone bill?

Have you ever discovered that a friend insisted they called, but you didn't answer, even though you were right beside the phone at the time?

Has anyone ever mentioned, in passing, their amazement at how much time you spend on the phone, even when you know your phone hasn't rung for days and you've made hardly any outgoing calls?

Have prospective clients criticized you for being unprofessional and unreachable for days, even though your phone hasn't rung once in a week?

If you have ever experienced even one of these situations, then you will understand why I sometimes feel I have lived through a nightmare. I have experienced all these problems, and more, for over fifteen years.Unfortunately, I knew nothing of what was ahead of me when I bought my phone-dependent business in Cape Bridgewater, rural Australia.It wasn't until much later that I discovered the business was connected to an antiquated phone exchange, installed more than thirty years prior, and designed specifically for what the Australian telecommunications carrier (Telstra) categorized as 'low-call-rate areas'. This ancient telephone exchange was certainly never intended to handle the number of calls already being made by residents and holidaymakers in late 1987 when I arrived to take over the business, nor was it ever intended to handle the increased number of calls that occurred during peak holiday times in this holiday village.

This story could easily be your story: I know, because this nightmare was mine.

Back in December 1987, when I first fell in love with the small accommodation centre perched high on a hill above a picturesque bay on the south coast of Victoria, Australia, I knew this was a business I could run successfully.

My working life began in 1960 when, at age fifteen, I went to sea as a steward on English passenger and cargo ships. In 1963, I jumped ship and started work in Melbourne as an assistant chef, moving from one elite hotel to another: Hotel London, Australia Hotel, Menzies.

Two years later, aged twenty, I joined the Australian Merchant Navy, starting out on the Princess of Tasmania. By 1975, I had worked as a chef on many Australian and overseas cargo ships. This was followed by time spent learning to manage hotels, motels, and restaurants around Victoria.

By 1979, married to Faye and with two children, I was working freelance in both the catering industry and on Melbourne tug boats, while studying for a Hotel/Motel Management Diploma.I had already rescued a hotel/motel from receivership and restored it to profitability, allowing the owners to sell it successfully.

By 1987, I had enough experience to know I possessed the skills, expertise, and knowledge to transform a simple school camp into a successful venue for social clubs, family groups, and schools.Unfortunately, my wife and I were unprepared for the problems that would arise from the area's 'elderly' phone system.

This local, unmanned phone exchange had only eight lines. Even in 1987, it served 60 resident families (120 individuals) in addition to the school camp I was running.Because the exchange was so small and old, if just four residents were on the phone simultaneously, only four lines remained available for the other 116 people and my business. My business was connected to this outdated telephone exchange for the first three and a half crucial years after I moved in—years during which I had expected to establish it on firm ground.

In February 1988, before we moved in and in preparation for the camp's planned expansion, I had two thousand glossy, colored brochures printed and distributed.We expected the phone to ring off the hook with inquiries. Even a conservative estimate would suggest at least a one percent inquiry rate from this direct marketing, especially when coupled with my personal visits to almost 150 schools and shires to extol the camp's virtues.

By April 1988, Faye and I were becoming seriously concerned about the telephone system.People began asking accusingly why we never answered our phone, while others suggested we install an answering machine for when we were away from the office.Even after we installed a new answering machine, the complaints persisted, now joined by reports of incredibly long intervals when the phone was apparently engaged.We both knew the phone had not been engaged for such long periods, and often it didn't ring at all for days on end.These complaints continued for years, and as a result, the business floundered.

Long after our initial complaint to Telstra, we discovered that the business's previous owner had been unsuccessfully complaining about these same phone faults long before we purchased the camp.This was proved by a document I obtained through Australia's Freedom of Information Act (FOI), which, for a small fee, allows any citizen to request copies of documents pertaining to themselves or their business from any government department or instrumentality.Over the ensuing years, I accumulated thousands of FOI documents.The document that revealed the previous owner's struggles indicated that Telstra had been aware of the phone faults as far back as 1987—prior to our move to Cape Bridgewater and my initial complaint, which is recorded in Telstra's archives on April 26, 1988.

However, when Faye and I contemplated buying this business, we were unaware of the existing phone problems. Consequently, we proceeded with the sale of our Melbourne home, and I took early retirement benefits to raise the capital for what we expected to be a new and exciting venture.

Understandably, Faye became increasingly frustrated with the complaints we were receiving about the phone system.We began to doubt ourselves.Were we talking too long on the phone?Were we not hearing the phone ring?Had we forgotten to switch on the answering machine?

Call 'drop-outs' occurred frequently; the line would simply go dead.Mostly, if we had a contact number, we had to ring the caller back, though sometimes people rang us back.If the caller had not yet given us contact information and didn't ring back, we lost that contact.

This new venture was not turning out to be quite as much fun as we had anticipated.

However, the real extent of the phone problem didn't truly hit us until well into the Christmas period of 1988, when we hosted a Christmas dinner for the locals in Cape Bridgewater.During this dinner, I mentioned the phone problems we were struggling with.Our next-door neighbour sympathized; his daughter, calling from Colac, often complained about how difficult it was to reach her parents.Another neighbour, once the owner of the 'Tom the Cheap Grocery' chain, concurred.His comment was, "After all, what can you expect from Telstra when we're in the bush?"He had suffered from similar problems over many years and later happily supplied a written statement to that effect.

As we rolled into the dawn of 1989, we became increasingly aware of what was to become our great nightmare.The failing phone system became the straw that broke the camel's back of our twenty-year marriage.I was beginning to run the business from a position of continual anger. Certainly, I couldn't blame anyone but myself when the gas bottles ran out in the middle of serving a meal for guests—some of the few who had managed to get through on the phone and make a booking.

My advertising campaign didn't work. I began to feel I hadn't properly researched the pros and cons before moving to Cape Bridgewater.I started to question my decision to ask Faye to leave her friends in Melbourne and agree to sell the family home, solely to satisfy my blind ambition to run my own business. As bookings dwindled instead of increasing as we had expected, our negativity grew proportionally.

We toured South Australia, promoting our camp in the Wimmera area and to numerous schools.Nothing seemed to work as it should have; while there were occasional inquiries, they were far from frequent.

The closest local township to the Cape Bridgewater camp was Portland, twenty kilometres away.While there on a shopping expedition one day, I realised I had left the meat order list behind.I phoned Faye only to get a recorded message from Telstra telling me that the number was not connected!I phoned again.Same message.

Telstra's fault centre said they would look into the matter, so I continued with the rest of the shopping, leaving the meat order to last. Finally, I phoned the camp again; this time, the phone was engaged.I decided to buy what I could remember from the meat order list and hope for the best.

Faye was not happy when I returned. "The phone hadn't rung once while I was away," she said, "and how come you left the meat order behind anyway?" She thought I was supposed to be such an efficient catering manager.My poor wife's frustration was aimed straight at me; she didn't stop to wonder why I couldn't ring her from Portland.

According to one of the Telstra FOI documents I later received, between April 19th, 1988, and January 10th, 1989, I phoned from the camp to complain about the phone service on nine separate occasions.Add to this the letters of complaint I wrote, plus my complaint from Portland when the recorded message told me my own phone had been disconnected, and a clearer picture begins to emerge.

 

CHAPTER 2

Anyone who uses a telephone has at some point heard a recorded voice announcing, 'The number you are calling is disconnected' or something similar.Within the telecommunications industry, these messages are referred to as Recorded Voice Announcements or RVAs.Among the multitude of FOI documents I received in 1994 was a copy of a Telstra internal email dated September 26th, 1993, and numbered A03544, which refers to the need to "have a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied." The email continues: "... I am sure when we start to scratch around we will find a host of network circumstances where inappropriate RVAs are going to line." Telstra was obviously aware of RVA problems long before I experienced them.

Another internal Telstra document, number C00757, notes: "As a result of the investigations into difficult customer complaints and associated reports it has become apparent that the present RVA for incorrect numbers requires revision."This memo refers in particular to the message: "The number you have called is not connected or has been changed.Please check the number before calling again.You have not been charged for this call."This confirmed Telstra's acknowledgement that serious faults existed, particularly since the author of this memo went on to say, "...this message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader."

For a newly established business like ours, so dependent on phone contact with our client base, this was a major disaster. Telstra, however, was unwilling to acknowledge the problem and certainly not prepared to do anything about the situation Faye and I found ourselves in.

By mid-1989, our finances had dwindled, and bookings were still not coming in.We decided to sell some of our shares on the stock market.The best price we could get was around $1.60 each for about four thousand shares.Those shares were worth $17.00 each in July 2004.

Where had our savings gone?The sale of our home in Melbourne had raised $140,000 of the $280,000 investment we needed for the camp, leaving a manageable mortgage of $140,000.I had believed we were set for life: with a little hard work, we should have been well under way and running smoothly by July 1989. Instead, here we were in July 1989, fifteen months after taking over the business, actually beginning to sell off our assets instead of reducing the mortgage.

I knew our marriage was suffering, and my self-esteem was lower than it had ever been; I felt like a total failure.But things got worse, even though I didn't think they could.Faye fell and broke her leg. Frequent trips to the hospital added to the stress and, worse, the leg wasn't setting as it should.A couple of short trips to visit friends in Melbourne cheered Faye up immensely, and on the second trip, I used the time to do some marketing for the camp around Caulfield and Huntingdale, and further into the city.I had decided to give it all I had.

At one point, I rang the camp's answering machine, which had a remote access facility—allowing me to check the machine for any recorded calls.At least, it should have allowed me to check it, if I had been able to get through, but I couldn't.All I could get was the same recorded message: "The number you are calling is not connected or has been changed.Please check the number before calling again.You have not been charged for this call."

I decided not to tell Faye.She didn't need to be reminded of our phone problems at this stage.

On the way home, just outside Geelong, Faye asked if I had checked for messages at the Camp.A white lie seemed appropriate.We stopped at the next phone box, though, and rang home.The line was engaged.Somebody must be leaving a message on the machine!Or were they?

The only message recorded on the machine turned out to be from our friends in Melbourne, a call made the day we left, saying something like, "Must have just missed you — see you when you get here."Why had I received an engaged signal if there were no messages on the machine, other than one from days before?My previous call obviously wouldn't have registered because I couldn't get past the Telstra recorded message anyway.How many calls had we lost during the three days we were away?How many frustrated prospective clients had given up trying to get through because they also reached a recorded message telling them the phone was no longer connected?

Faye continued her regular hospital visits and, unable to participate in any work around the property, found herself with nothing to do but think.She discovered more and more reasons to travel away from the business: to her elderly parents, to the hospital, to see friends. Finally, the burden of a failing business and the slow, difficult recovery from her broken leg became too much to bear: our marriage ended on October 26, 1989.

I had already been taking prescribed drugs for stress; that afternoon, I added a quantity of Scotch and locked myself in one of the cabins on the property.Faye, understandably, became seriously concerned about my welfare and called the local police, who broke into the cabin to 'save' me from myself.This was one of the many low points I was to suffer as I battled to retain my sanity, my business, and my standing in the local community.And still, Telstra denied there were any phone problems at Cape Bridgewater.

At this point, I need to provide some details regarding an incident that occurred in 1967. Many young Australians were being conscripted by the Liberal Government to support the American fight against Communists in Vietnam, at a time when China sympathized with the Vietcong.While this was happening, I, a young man, had signed international papers to work on a foreign ship, believing it was headed for Vancouver, Canada. I only discovered after signing that the ship had been chartered by the Australian Liberal Government to trade with the People's Republic of China – and that was where I was now headed.The Americans had refused to trade with China at this time, and the Australian Labor Party (and probably most Australians) did not want to trade with China either.Many protests were held all around the country, but they didn't manage to stop my ship from leaving. We sailed from Port Albany in Western Australia with a cargo of wheat, bound for the Yangtze River.

During our time in China, I briefly and innocently ran foul of the Red Guards. Fortunately, I still managed to depart with my ship, believing I had left those troubles behind me.Apparently not.When I took refuge in my cabin at the camp on the afternoon of October 26, 1989, only to find it attacked by a Police rescue team, I was instantly transported back to China in 1967.After intense discussions with my wife and my 'saviours' – who, in my confused state, seemed more like Red Guard soldiers than anything else – I was taken to hospital in a straitjacket.

I will be forever grateful to the doctors who confirmed that I wasn't losing my mind and who allowed me to return to the camp the following day, accompanied by my mate's wife, Margaret.I will also be forever grateful to Jack for sending Margaret to 'bail me out,' so to speak.The fun, however, had only just begun.

Since returning to Australia in September 1967, after my experiences in China between June 29th and September 18th of that year, I have consistently questioned the Liberal Government's involvement with Communist China. I questioned why they continued to trade with China in 1967 when Australia didn't even have an embassy there, making it impossible to monitor the process.I also questioned why the government supported Communist China, a known Vietcong sympathizer, at a time when our young conscripted soldiers were fighting—and many dying—against the Vietcong. As a Trade Union Member, I have also since questioned why a Liberal Australian Government would use Australian servicemen in the Maralinga experiments in South Australia and why it would conceal the truth about the Voyager sea disaster for thirty years.I have to wonder if my outspoken protests over the years have somehow rebounded, compounding the problems I have experienced since 1988, even down to simply getting my phones to work properly. And I wonder: will the Australian Government properly investigate the serious issues raised in this book, or will they bury the truth again?

 

CHAPTER 3

 

Margaret and I arrived back at the Camp to be confronted with a disaster area. Faye, of course, had left the night before, following advice from various 'do-gooders' and welfare people who insisted she needed to be in a 'safe house'.Various doors had been left unlocked; meat had been taken from the deep freeze and left on benches; the freezer itself was gone.Every time we turned around, we were confronted by another problem. According to my diary, seventy or more students from Monivae Catholic College in Hamilton were due to arrive in two days, on the twenty-ninth. The students were booked for five days and four nights.Without Margaret's unfailing assistance, I would have been overwhelmed.

Cleaning and shopping were at the top of the agenda.In my heartbroken state, mourning the end of a twenty-year marriage, the shopping list alone was a mountain I had to climb.What would we feed seventy students and staff? Finally, I managed to calculate how much meat and dry goods to order, but it was already Sunday evening. The Monivae group was due the following day, and their first meal would be dinner.

Then the hot water service broke down.The staff were less than thrilled about cold showers!Even so, from that point until 1994, Monivae College returned to the camp two, and sometimes three, times a year.Their support throughout this awful period was much appreciated: it kept me trading.

I realised that Margaret was becoming increasingly worried about my mental health when she invited Brother Greg, one of the Monivae teachers, to the house to talk to me. I later discovered that I had been rambling in my sleep the night before, and Margaret, listening from the next room, had become concerned.

I knew Brother Greg reasonably well. With Margaret holding my arms and Brother Greg holding my hands, we talked well into the night, working through everything from my experiences in China to the end of my twenty-year marriage.Margaret had been thrown in at the deep end and carried so much through those six or seven days; her support was invaluable.

Religion also played a part in bringing me back from the brink to face the task ahead.Many of the women from the local church came to help me keep the camp running and to hold me back from tumbling into despair again.But I missed Faye.Like anyone who has separated after so many years, I missed the touch and the caring of another close human being.

Through all of this, the phone problems continued.Around mid-November 1989, Chris, one of the women from the church, mentioned in passing that I must have forgotten to switch on the answering machine the day before; she'd rung, but the call just rang and rang before finally cutting out.By this time, I had already lodged complaints with Telstra's fault centre in Hamilton and had begun to keep a log of phone faults, recording all complaints in an exercise book, complete with names and contact information. I also noted the effect these lost calls were having on the business and on me.

That same day, Chris went to the phone in the Kiosk at the camp to make an outgoing call. The line was dead.My first thought was, 'A loose wire somewhere,' so I removed the cover from the phone connection box to locate the loose wire. Both Chris and I checked the socket, but everything seemed intact. Still, the line remained dead.

At this point, I had a brainwave.I would try the customer's coin-operated gold phone in the main dining room.This phone had a normal dial tone and was apparently working OK, so I dialled my office number, only to hear the dreaded voice again: "The number you have called is not connected or has been changed.Please check the number before calling again.You have not been charged for this call."Of course, I actually had been charged for the call because the coin-operated gold phone certainly did not return my coins.

Five minutes later, after a trip to the main office for more change, I tried ringing again from the gold phone.This time, the office phone appeared to be engaged (although, of course, it wasn't), and the phone happily regurgitated my coins.

I used this testing routine, and others invented along the way, increasingly frequently over the coming months, but the situation was beginning to tell on me.Why was this still happening after so many complaints to Telstra? Was no one paying any attention in there?

 

CHAPTER 4

No longer one half of a working husband-and-wife team, I continually had to dig deep into my almost non-existent financial reserves to cover labour costs, or risk losing everything.With Faye gone, I was suffering what is commonly known in finance as a 'consequential loss.' Not only did I now have to pay Faye a yearly dividend on her financial investment in the business, even though she was no longer contributing her unpaid labour, but I also had to find the money to pay staff.

As 1990 progressed, the future looked grim. Phone faults continued, and it was impossible to know how many prospective customers were lost because they couldn't reach me. Located in a fairly remote area, the camp's phone line was the only means of access for visitors from the city.

By now, legal vultures were circling.I hadn't been able to abide by the original financial agreement with Faye, and her solicitor was demanding more money for his client. When my first payment to her came due, I couldn't raise the funds to cover it. I was already struggling to meet my own legal costs, let alone find extra for Faye. I thought the outlook couldn't get any bleaker. How wrong I was!

To pay some of the mounting debts, I had sold the twenty-two-seater school bus I originally used to ferry customers around and purchased a small utility vehicle in its place.

Through mutual friends, I had met Karen, a divorcee from Warrnambool, about a hundred kilometres away. The small ute, at least, allowed me to see Karen a couple of times a week, and our relationship quickly became quite serious.When Karen learned that Faye's solicitor was about to wind up my business, forcing a sale due to my inability to make further payments to Faye, she put her house up as security for a loan. This gave me two years of breathing space.

At about the same time, I again contacted Telstra's fault centre in Hamilton to inquire about the continuing phone problems at Cape Bridgewater.As usual, I was given the run-around, but I was eventually informed that a new exchange, scheduled for installation at Cape Bridgewater, would alleviate all the problems I had suffered in the past.

Some four years later, as a result of an FOI request, I acquired a copy of a three-page, handwritten file note dated August 15, 1991. This note documented my discussions with Telstra regarding these faults.The date, however, did not correlate with my own records; I knew early in 1991 that Telstra was installing a new exchange and had, in fact, told Karen that this improvement would solve the phone problems and assure us of a bright future.

The file note, surprisingly, recorded my complaint on August 15, 1991, noting, almost in passing, that this had been "...a continuing problem" and even recording that I was "...losing a lot of business." It also clearly stated that I had been told the problem might have been caused by the age of the existing telephone exchange and that the new exchange, to be installed shortly, would solve these issues. Furthermore, the file note confirmed Telstra's commitment to try to get my phones working correctly before then.

---

 

CHAPTER 5

My relationship with Karen continued well as we worked together to pull the business out of the doldrums.Karen finally sold her house, raising a bit over $80,000, sixty-five thousand dollars of which immediately went to pay my legal fees and most of what I owed Faye. It took me another twelve months to finally pay Faye in full. Karen's name was now officially on the title to my business.

Still, very few new bookings were coming in, and the camp was badly in need of maintenance. This created a negative cycle: without necessary painting and upgrading, the business looked sad and bedraggled, deterring passers-by. Consequently, with no new guests, there was no money for repairs, and no 'word of mouth' recommendations were being generated.

On those rare occasions when a school or club did manage to get through and book, we had insufficient cash flow to secure credit for even the necessary food to feed clients upon their arrival. The operational side of the business began to look even grimmer.

Karen and I began to argue, just as Faye and I had earlier. Karen saw her investment rapidly diminishing and began to ask why I hadn't told her the truth. "It's now twelve months since I moved here," she said, "and nothing has changed — the phone faults are no better!"

During all this time, I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay at the camp.I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets. These groups then simply used the camp facilities; it didn't actually cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas.

At one point around this time, in May 1992, I had organized a charity week for children from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton, and Portland.This group was organized by Sister Maureen Burke, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. I am sure she would not be offended if I thought of her as the "mother" of the project.

Much of the organization for this week—including arrangements regarding food, organizing a bus to collect the children, deciding on collection points, and discussing any special needs the children might have—had to be handled over the phone. Ballarat was a three-and-a-half-hour drive from Cape Bridgewater, so Sister Burke, of course, faced enormous problems trying to contact me due to the phone issues.

Finally, after trying all through one whole week, Monday through Friday, and not getting through even once, Sister Burke decided to drive the three and a half hours to make the final arrangements.

At this same time, Karen and I had also been attempting to organize a series of "get-away" type holidays for over-forties singles clubs.These plans were not going very well; the response to our ads had been very poor (or was it just that no one could get through on the phone?).

On the Saturday that Sister Burke decided to drive to us, just as she finally arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a very irate man who wanted information about the singles weekends.This caller was very angry and quite abusive, and Karen took the full brunt of his fury.He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answering the phone.

Karen burst into tears; this was just the final straw as far as she was concerned.I tried to make a joke of it to relieve the tension by saying something about the problems we have dealing with the public.Now, Karen was then, and still is, a fine "horse lady." She rode in cross-country races and played polo, amongst other things; she's not someone you cross unthinkingly.And she can sure pack a punch!I know, because she almost flattened me that day.Not only did my legs fold under me, but my ego went the same way.And Karen continued to sob.Right at that moment, Sister Burke appeared in the office.

I decided that absence was the better part of valour, and I removed myself, leaving these two fine ladies together.Finally, quite some time later, Sister Burke advised me that she thought Karen should leave Cape Bridgewater.It would be in the best interest of both of us, Sister Burke believed, and she would arrange counselling for Karen back in Warrnambool — here we go again, I thought.

The charity camp went ahead in April 1992: thirty-five children for five nights.It was a great success all round.While she was at the camp, I asked Sister Burke to describe the phone faults she experienced in that dreadful week before Karen left.She described calls either ringing out or simply getting a dead line — no sound at all. This happened for an entire week. Later, I sent Sister Burke a very early draft of this book; after reading it, she wrote back, saying, "Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, I would find it difficult to believe."

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact to arrange an annual camp.Sister Donnellon later wrote:
"During a one-week period in March of this year, I attempted to contact Mr. Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.In that time, I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled, I was met with a line that was blank.Even after several re-dials, there was no response.I then began to vary the times of calling, but it made no difference."

Twelve months had passed, and still there was no improvement to the phone system, even with a new exchange now installed in Cape Bridgewater.

Back in May of 1992, however, we could not know, of course, that the stress created by the faulty phone system would continue for so long.

Karen was hospitalised as a result of this stress, added to the worry that she would lose her investment in my business.She had come to believe that I had lied to her when I reassured her that the phone problems were over.I later learned not to believe anything I was told by Telstra.

After she left the hospital, Karen settled in a rented house in Portland.Without her assistance at the camp — which had, in the past, given me space to travel around — my promotional tours to schools dropped to almost nil. Still, I continued to complain to Telstra about the phone faults, which seemed to me to be getting worse, not better, since the old exchange had been demolished and replaced.From August 1991 through May 1992, more and more complaints of recorded voice announcements came in.

Again, I began to question my decisions.Why had this move to Cape Bridgewater been so disastrous?Everyone takes a working phone as a given, but a faulty phone system had now ruined at least three lives: mine, Faye's, and Karen's — and, indirectly, my two children's as well.

 

CHAPTER 6

In July 1992, Karen mentioned a friend who knew of someone in Melbourne experiencing the same phone problems that were crippling my business. Karen's friend believed this was the proprietor of "The Society" restaurant in Bourke Street, in the city center.

Predictably, making phone contact with the restaurant was enormously difficult, but eventually I got through to Sheila Hawkins, who ran it. We arranged to meet, and I traveled to Melbourne.

Sheila was very interested in gathering a group to tackle Telstra head-on.She already knew of Ann Garms, who ran the Tivoli Theatre Restaurant in Brisbane and was also experiencing serious phone problems.

Armed with this knowledge, I rang Ann. As it happened, she was coming to Melbourne the following week.It was arranged that, while in Melbourne, Ann would meet with the General Manager of Consumer Affairs for the Australian Telecommunications Regulator (referred to throughout this book as 'the Regulator') and with Sheila.

Sheila, Ann, and I had an enthusiastic meeting. Ann mentioned she knew of at least one other Brisbane business facing similar phone troubles: a Japanese car spare-parts company run by Maureen Gillen.Like Ann's, Maureen's business was trunked off the Fortitude Valley Exchange.

By this time, Sheila had contacted Graham Schorer, who ran the Golden Courier Service out of North Melbourne.Like the rest of us, Graham had a very bad phone service. Finally, our little group gathered at The Society Restaurant in Bourke Street, though Maureen couldn't make the journey from Brisbane.

During the following week, I spoke to Sheila a couple of times on her mobile, typically while she was on her way to her office.It was Sheila who suggested we call ourselves C.O.T. — The Casualties of Telstra (jokingly, 'the Cotcases'). We believed we were on our way down the path to justice, but we were wrong; our battle had only just begun.

I still don't know how I managed to drag myself through the final months of 1992. Yet, it was then that the lies and corporate cover-up perpetrated by Telstra began to be exposed.

In October 1992, at the Ibis Hotel in Melbourne, the COT group held its first official meeting with Telstra, presenting a united front of small-business telephone users.

The Regulator was now involved, concerned by facts the COT group was unearthing about Telstra.We were seen not just as a group of hotheads out to make trouble, but as concerned small-business people who had been continually squashed and ignored by Telstra. Finally, we felt our claims were being taken seriously and our complaints seen as valid.

Also at this time, in July/August 1992, I lodged the first of many FOI requests for documents from Telstra. However, a letter dated July 2, 1992, from Telstra's management team at the Warrnambool exchange, stated that Telstra had 'no past fault records prior to June 27, 1991'.It later became apparent that documented fault records did exist in Telstra's archives, dating back as far as 1987 and continuing for many years thereafter. Why did Telstra deny the existence of these records, and what else could be lurking in these archives, I wonder?

During a visit to the camp, a local Telstra technician casually remarked that congestion was a well-known problem in my area.His attitude suggested that this was simply something country people had to learn to cope with.I found this a very strange perspective, particularly since my business was 'going down the tubes' fast.Why should I have to put up with a faulty phone service simply because I ran a country business?

In mid-1994, during an FOI release, I came across four documents, all related to this congestion problem. Of particular interest were a 'minute' document, referring to a test carried out in July 1991 and titled "Subject PORTLAND - CAPE BRIDGEWATER PCM HBER," and another document marked as FOI number A40558. The 'minute' document detailed Telstra's discovery of eleven thousand errors per hour in telephone traffic in one direction and two hundred and sixteen errors per hour in the other.Interestingly, the same document noted that seventy-two errors per hour was the specified acceptable error rate.

Document A40558 revealed that some sections of Telstra had been aware of phone problems in my area as far back as early 1990 but did not pass on that information until October of that year.Document A40558 went on to say that the Cape Bridgewater lines were upgraded between July and December the following year, 1991, and that "The Cape Bridgewater customer..." (clearly me!) "... had documented complaints of call dropouts from 12/1989 to 12/1992, the latter date being some 7 months after the repairs had been carried out at the exchange." Furthermore, this Telstra employee even expressed frustration at the repair delays in my area, questioning why the upgrade didn't occur until "... a whole year..." after the work specifications had been issued!

 

Clearly, technicians were uncovering faults and problems with the Cape Bridgewater phone system at least as far back as 1990, likely due to my continual badgering. Yet, I was being told one thing while Telstra knew another.Here I was, with a business 'bleeding to death' and no treatment available to stop the 'bleeding'.If the business wasn't bleeding, I certainly felt as if I was.

The third of these four significant documents was titled "Portland — Cape Bridgewater — RCM System" (an RCM is one of Telstra's local telephone exchanges), and it reported that: "Initial reports were of a vocal customer at Cape Bridgewater complaining of ... cutoffs in one direction. The customer had been transferred off system one onto systems two and three on the 24th February '93 and had experienced no further problems."

I must admit that my sense of humour did manage to surface for a moment when I read this—'vocal customer' indeed!Maybe this is why my voice had lost its customary strength.The important point, of course, is the reference to switching the 'vocal customer' from system one to systems two and three.Since Telstra was aware of this problem—11,000 errors per hour in one direction and 216 per hour in the other—when I complained, first in 1988 and again in 1990/91, why didn't this changeover occur then?

As if all this wasn't disturbing enough, a letter dated July 12, 1993, referred to events of March 2, 1993—nineteen months after Telstra discovered the massive fault rates recorded above, which included 'error readings' in the three systems at Cape Bridgewater. The letter noted: "At this stage we had no idea over what period of time these errors had accumulated"and further stated that attempts to test part of the system were not successful, apparently due to missing records.Then, on the second page, came the amazing admission: "The alarm system on all three RCM systems had not been programmed.This would have prevented any local alarms being extended back to Portland."

In other words, they didn't know how long these errors had been accumulating because, from August 18, 1991, when the new exchange was installed at Cape Bridgewater, the fault alarm system had not been connected. Since this was an unmanned exchange, no one would know when a fault or faults occurred—except, of course, the poor, defenceless customers.Other FOI documents show that thousands of errors continued to plague my service.It seemed nothing had changed—just more excuses from Telstra's corporate management.

This 'not connected' alarm was not discovered until March 1993. Yet, in September/October 1992, Telstra senior management had written to me stating that they believed the quality of my telephone service could be guaranteed to meet network standards. This was despite the fact that, just five kilometres down the road from my business, the exchange continued to accumulate errors with no alarms going off at the manned Portland exchange.What a farce!

No wonder my potentially thriving business was sinking so fast.It seems that most of the local telephone technicians were oblivious to the continuing call loss, which was due directly to this 'not connected' alarm system at the exchange.

I was scratching the bottom of the financial barrel, selling off my remaining saleable possessions to keep the business afloat and buy food for the next group that managed to book. This was because many schools and other organizations did not pay upfront for their bookings.

Meanwhile, until a group actually paid their bill, I had no money for catering costs or wages.I was now borrowing from friends just to keep the camp operating daily. Karen, with three children to think about, was devastated by her financial losses and had lost all faith in my judgment. By this time, I had lost faith in my own judgment too, having now let down two different partners who had trusted me. Throughout this period, of course, the phone faults persisted, and Telstra's useless 'guarantees' sat on my desk, a constant reminder that they had arrived too late.

The COT group continued to negotiate with the Regulator and Telstra, and this pressure finally produced results: Telstra approached me with a proposal for a compensation payout which included a confidentiality agreement stating that I would not disclose the value of any resulting settlement. I signed on December 11, 1992, and have honored this agreement not to disclose the payout amount without Telstra's prior approval.

That same day, in Telstra offices, Telstra's area general manager and I had a long discussion about what Telstra believed I had lost financially over the preceding four and a half years since my initial phone complaint. This manager and I were the only people involved in this discussion.I provided her with copies of numerous letters from clients and tradespeople, describing their experiences with my phones.I clearly explained my calculated losses. On several occasions, the manager left me alone to examine the documents she had provided. As she left on the first occasion, she explained she would close the door so I could read in private. She added that if I needed to discuss anything with my advisors, I was free to use the telephone, as a direct outside line was available at all times, meaning I wouldn't need to speak to an operator within the building.I used the phone a couple of times to call Karen and discuss the offer. We calculated how much she would need to buy a relocatable house for her home, thereby at least partly restoring her financial position to what it was before she met me.

The documents provided by the manager were mostly handwritten and included copies of the so-called 'guarantees' I had received.One handwritten document stated that there had only been a single fault, lasting three weeks, which caused the RVA message (indicating my number was not connected) to be heard by incoming callers. This document also suggested that the RVA message probably caused me to lose about fifty percent of all incoming calls over this three-week period.Other documents referred to one minor fault in the Heywood phone exchange plus some other minor faults, which may have contributed to some call loss.Telstra agreed to accept responsibility for these 'minor' faults, without admitting to anything in writing, if I accepted their offer.

Naturally, I protested. Again, I reviewed the continuing and constant complaints I was receiving from customers and asked how a few 'minor' problems could possibly cause so many difficulties. However, I had nothing to bargain with, and the manager simply took a 'take it or leave it' position. She commented that this was Telstra's last offer and advised me that court proceedings were the only other avenue I could pursue. Her final comment was along the lines of, 'Telstra has more time than you have money to fund court proceedings.'These wonderful customer relations, I believed, left me with no other option, and so, finally, and with some regret, I accepted their 'final offer'.

Later, during 1994, I was provided with a copy of a document showing that, while out of the meeting room, this same area general manager had made notes regarding our discussions, including a reference to the fact that I had rung my advisors on a number of occasions while she was out of the room.If the phone line I was using was a direct line to the outside, how did she know whether I used it or not?And how could she know who I rang if I did use the phone?I have since, unsuccessfully, asked Telstra to explain this on a number of occasions.This issue has also been raised with the Senate and with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).So far, there has been no satisfactory answer.The question remains: were my private phone discussions that day listened to by someone, and is this how the manager knew exactly how much to offer me, because she had heard the discussions I had with Karen regarding how much we would need to buy her a relocatable house?

Telstra officials later provided the Australian Federal Police with documents that confirmed Telstra had listened to my private and business phone conversations (called 'voice monitoring') for some time.Was this one of those occasions when Telstra people were listening in?

In 2001, I received more FOI documents from the Regulator and discovered they had written to Telstra during the subsequent arbitration procedure. This letter noted that Telstra had seriously misled me during the initial settlement, as the Regulator believed the faults had actually lasted significantly longer than I had been officially advised.The Regulator was also concerned that this misinformation would have led me to accept the settlement, believing (incorrectly, as it turned out) that the faults were less severe than I had initially thought.Even after Telstra received this advice from the Regulator—confirming their awareness of having misled me regarding the severity of two major faults (the RVA fault and the Heywood fault)—they still, two years later, provided the arbitrator and the TIO-appointed arbitration technical unit with the same faulty information previously given to me, omitting any mention of the Regulator's letter. The technical unit then accepted Telstra's assessment of the minor nature of both faults and included Telstra's estimation of the faults' 'severity' in the official findings for the arbitrator. So, I was duped by Telstra twice – once during my settlement process in 1992 and again during the arbitration in 1994/95!

 

CHAPTER 7

 

As I collected FOI documents, I began to discover that, over the years, Telstra issued numerous documents marked 'Secret', particularly concerning the 'guarantees' I received. Some of these documents referred to "RVA on congestion" which, as noted earlier, was the message indicating that my phone had been disconnected. Alarmingly, in 1993, the Regulator confirmed that Telstra's 'congestion' tone was very similar to an engaged tone. Unless callers were aware of the subtle difference (which most ordinary people certainly wouldn't be), they would believe they were hearing an engaged signal when it was actually a 'congested' signal.Because the local Cape Bridgewater exchange used such old technology with so few lines, it was, of course, frequently congested—probably nearly always! This likely meant that many prospective customers gave up trying to reach me because they believed I had ceased trading.No wonder I didn't have many new bookings.

In another 'Secret' document (C04007), there is a reference to "... Mr Smith's service problems" being"network related" and spanning "a period of three to four years." Document C04008 also notes: "Overall, Mr Smith's telephone service had suffered from poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last eight months."

According to the handwritten note at the bottom of document C04008, which was signed by the area general manager I had dealt with before,these were "...preparatory notes recorded at the time of settlement.Alan Smith was not prepared to provide better substantiation of his claim."This suggests the writer was quite clear about the severity of the faults I had suffered. Since she obviously already knew about the"poor grade of network performance"spanning "a period of three to four years," how could she possibly have provided the two guarantees I received three months before this?This is even more astounding because of the reference, in document C04008, to "... some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last eight months."This means that the 'difficulty to detect' the problems dated back at least to April of 1992.As a responsible corporate senior manager, how did this person ever allow those two 'guarantees' to leave her office?

 

 

CHAPTER 8

By this stage of the battle, with two partners lost and my health deteriorating, my business began to suffer even more.

The members of COT continued to draw strength from each other.We had many group discussions as we tried to find a satisfactory way to deal with the deception of Telstra management, but we were, after all, simply five small-business people struggling against the might of a huge corporation.Not very good odds!

As we struggled from the end of 1992 to the New Year of 1993, I began to wonder if 'settling' with Telstra (via the area general manager) had been such a good idea after all.Nothing had changed.Phone faults continued to ruin all my attempts to keep the business going.How could this still be continuing?The new telephone exchange was supposed to have rectified all the problems.

By this stage, my mortgage payments were a huge headache.I had been forced to refinance, incurring more set-up fees, and because I couldn't afford to maintain the camp buildings properly, the place was beginning to look abandoned.

Ann Garms and Graham Schorer had, by now, become 'comrades in arms' in this war we were fighting.We wondered if we could ever be in a position to expose Telstra's unethical corporate strategies and their continued and apparently deliberate mishandling of our complaints.Ann had also begun to suspect that, on the rare occasions that our phones actually worked properly, the lines were being bugged.

 

 

CHAPTER 9

 

On 19th August 1992, around the same time the COT group was first formed, a Telstra document referred to Ann Garms's business, The Tivoli Theatre Restaurant. It noted, among other things: "Description:Line 1 NDT NRR suspect sabotage ?????". The 'NRR' stood for 'not receiving ring'. Further puzzling comments at the bottom of the document noted: "...maybe the bug has slipped off"and "Looks like a job for super sleuth Sherlock Kelly?????". These comments will be covered more fully in Chapter Eighteen.

Another document, B00474, also discusses Ann's business and raises even more questions.It mentions "...3 particular customers" and goes on to complain about the writer being "...continuously bombarded by these allegations from customers..." which the writer had "...shrugged off".Who were these three people?Does another reference, this time to "Compass Security", refer to Compass Airlines, who were linked to the same exchange as Ann, in Fortitude Valley, Queensland?Compass Airlines, a small company that tried to break into the Australian airline system, eventually went bankrupt.The airline's owner always insisted that continual phone problems were one reason the company never 'got off the ground', and media at the time widely speculated that some form of sabotage had been involved.This document certainly does nothing to dispel that rumour.

Another question this document raises is: why was a 'bug scanning device' requested by someone in 'protective services'?

After reading these two documents, it is easy to understand how Ann Garms and I felt every time we used the telephone.Who was listening to us, and why?

Graham Schorer was elected as spokesperson for COT, and early in 1993, he met with the chairman of the Regulator's organisation.By February or March of that year, following that meeting, a number of politicians had become interested in our situation.The question remained: would these politicians actually take action on behalf of small-business people, or would they protect the 'milking cow' of the Telstra Corporation?With these questions still unanswered, the COT group began their push to get the Australian Senate to pay attention to our plight.We were forced to finance our travel to and from Canberra, the seat of power, from our own already depleted pockets.

At this stage, I was still suffering from major problems with the phone system at the camp, though I had at least managed to stave off a repossession order through some fancy footwork with the banks.

I had now accumulated more than seventy separate letters of complaint from customers who had been unable to reach me by phone.One of these, dated 5th February 1993, came from a Mrs. Elsie Teer of the Werribee Outreach Centre in Victoria, who wrote to say they would have to cancel their booking due to 'poor membership response'. Mrs. Teer also noted that she had tried to ring me over the past five days but added, 'it appears that you don't answer your phone'.

Since Graham Schorer was now the official spokesperson for COT, we needed to speak on the phone frequently.On one occasion, when I phoned Telstra's 1100 number to report difficulty getting through to him (even though he had thirty-seven lines into his courier business), I was told that Telstra would immediately have Mr Schorer's lines tested.Some months later, I came across FOI document K00045.In this document, the Telstra person I spoke to had made a handwritten note to the effect that, once it 'clicked' that this was a COT member, Graham's service was not tested.

In a second, similar incident, I have an unnumbered FOI document regarding a complaint I lodged about my own phone service, this time to a different Telstra worker.In reference to the telephone exchange, his handwritten notes state: "Probably caused by 'RCM'.No need to investigate, spoke with Bruce, he said not to investigate also." (RCM being a particular type of Telstra exchange.)Either Telstra had decided that the members of COT were fools, or their fault centre knew the faults we were reporting were common and could not easily be rectified. Consequently, they decided to ignore our complaints rather than attempt to fix the problems.

 

CHAPTER 10

 

In the first five months of 1993, I received another eleven written complaints.The faults had now plagued my business, unabated, from April 1988 until mid-1993.

By June 1993, things began to warm up for COT: the then-Shadow Minister for Communications was showing an interest in our claims, and a National Party Senator, who obviously had no political gain in mind, also became involved. Even though the National Party Senator was based in Queensland and most of the members of COT were in Victoria, at the other end of the country, he has continued to offer his support.

My local Member of Parliament was another who saw his 'duty of care' to his constituents and so answered our call for help.He has continued to advocate on my behalf for more than fifteen years now, but as of July 2004, he has unfortunately never been able to resolve even one of these Telstra issues.

During political campaigning in June 1993, both the Opposition Senator and the National Party Senator pushed for a Senate Inquiry into our claims. As I have recently been told by an ex-Telstra employee, they were so close to pulling it off that it was not funny.If this Senate Inquiry had gotten off the ground, heads in Telstra would have rolled. However, since this didn't happen, many of those same 'heads' continue to control Telstra to this day.

While the politicians and Telstra conducted their secret deals behind closed doors, I continued to lobby the Regulator for assistance.Between February and June 1993, I provided increasing evidence of incorrect charging on my 1800 freecall service, as well as on all other lines servicing my business. Finally, the Regulator's General Manager of Consumer Affairs asked me to record all the short-duration calls and RVAs that were still being charged to my 1800 account and also appearing on the testing machine Telstra had installed at the local exchange.Short-duration calls were particularly irritating – the phone would ring once and stop or, if we picked it up after that first ring, we would just find a dead line, with no way of knowing who had tried to get through.

By this time, not only was the Regulator involved in our battle, but we were also dealing with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office. Both organizations were aware that I had continued to ask Telstra, under FOI rules, to provide copies of the data from the testing equipment at the phone exchange to which the camp was connected, for the period of May to July 1993. Despite my persistent requests, and even fifteen years after my initial request for this data, I have so far received only information covering a single six-day period in May 1993 – evidence I obtained accidentally.

 

CHAPTER 11

As a result of my constant complaints to the Regulator regarding the many phone faults I had suffered, including the incorrect charging, Telstra's 'Network Investigations' department was finally involved, and for the first time, Telstra investigators were sent to Cape Bridgewater.At last, I thought, I would be able to speak directly to people who knew what they were talking about, and that I was finally getting somewhere.

Two members of Telstra's National Network Investigation Division arrived at my office on 3 June 1993, with what later proved to be a briefcase full of magic tricks.Over the ensuing years, this incident has come to be referred to as 'The Briefcase Saga'!At first, we spent considerable time 'dancing around' my summary of the phone problems, with little input from either of them and with growing anger and frustration on my part.With nothing resolved, they prepared to leave and head back to town. By this time, my own transport was long gone, sold to pay mounting debts, so I also needed to go into town.The Telstra people offered me a lift.Along the way, they stopped briefly at the local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater where one of them took a tape from one of Telstra's machines and replaced it with a new tape, which he then threaded into place.

After spending some time in Portland, I got a lift back to Cape Bridgewater with a neighbour.In my office, I found that, lo and behold, Aladdin had produced one of his treasures: an unfamiliar, unlocked briefcase. This was the beginning of what I would come to call 'The Briefcase Saga.' I opened it to determine its owner, discovering it belonged to one of the Telstra technicians who had recently left. With no phone number in the case, I couldn't contact him directly and was forced to wait until the next morning to ring my local exchange.

Imagine how I felt when the first thing I saw after opening the briefcase was a file titled "SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER." After five gruelling years fighting with Telstra and being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, as seen from Telstra's perspective.Some of the documents in this file were much too technical for me to understand or interpret.Some of those I could decipher, however, dated back to the ex-gratia compensation payment I received on 11th December 1992.Then I froze, confronted by the words "Problem 1" on the next page.

This document indicated Telstra was aware that the alleged three-week RVA fault in March 1992 had lasted for "eight months," not the three weeks I had been told when I accepted the compensation payment.By hiding this information from me, Telstra deliberately misled me — this type of deception, under these conditions, is illegal.

Dated 24th July 1992, and with my phone number in the top right corner, this document referred to my complaint that people ringing me received an RVA "service disconnected" message. Other faults were also listed, including one dated 22nd July 1992 from Station Pier in Melbourne, and a"similar fault reported" on 17th March 1992.The final sentence read: "Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for eight months."

The next document in the case I could decipher was a Telstra 'minute' dated 2nd July 1992.This document shows that local Telstra technicians believed my complaints were correct regarding the 'service disconnected' RVA on my line. Furthermore, they also believed the problem was "... occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected..."

In November 1992, after I had received Telstra's written guarantees that my service was up to network standard and just before the settlement arranged by Telstra's area general manager, Telstra again wrote to me, insisting the RVA fault had only lasted for three weeks and stating it caused an average loss of fifty percent of calls during that time.

On one hand, Telstra reports indicated the RVA fault occurred for only a single three-week period. Yet, other Telstra documents, including a report I discovered in this briefcase, stated the RVA fault had existed for eight months and that technicians believed I was correct.Which version are we to believe?

I submitted several Statutory Declarations explaining what I had seen in the briefcase. Later, the Regulator was informed that Telstra had provided copies of all the information originally in the briefcase left at my office that day; however, this claim was incorrect. In late 1994, among a belated release of FOI documents, I discovered that the Regulator had not received some very sensitive material from the briefcase.

After discovering this information in 1994, I sent a copy to the TIO's office with a covering letter, explaining the significance of Telstra having misled the Regulator into believing they had received all documents from the briefcase.

A separate letter, dated August 27, 1993, from Telstra's Corporate Secretary to me, referring to the briefcase documents, stated:
"Although there is nothing in these documents to cause Telstra any concern in respect of your case, the documents remain Telstra's property and therefore are confidential to us.

I would appreciate it if you could return any documents from the briefcase still in your possession as soon as possible."

Telstra's Corporate Secretary carefully omitted any reference to vital evidence withheld during compensation negotiations with me. The briefcase information proved that senior Telstra management had deceived me during these negotiations. Concurrently, they provided letters claiming my business's phone system was up to network standard, despite the briefcase contents clearly proving it was far from 'up to standard'.

On June 17, 1993, the General Manager of Telstra's Commercial division for Victoria and Tasmania wrote a confidential internal memo to the Manager of Network Investigations. This memo clearly indicated that Telstra's area general manager was fully aware, at the time of my December 11, 1992, settlement, that she was providing me with incorrect information. Furthermore, the Commercial General Manager for Victoria and Tasmania (the memo's author) also knew of this deception, which seriously influenced my judgment of the situation at the commercial settlement.

Such misleading and deceptive conduct, particularly in a commercial settlement, directly contravenes the Australian Trade Practices Act. Yet, this issue remains unaddressed by Telstra.Even more alarming, the arbitrator issued his award on May 11, 1995, without questioning Telstra's unethical behavior. This was despite my having raised the issue in my claim documents, providing proof that Telstra had knowingly deceived me at the previous settlement meeting, thereby placing me at a commercial disadvantage.

Here is the corrected text, with improved clarity and flow:

In another letter dated June 8, 1993, the Regulator explained to Telstra that I had complained of continuing phone faults, even after the 'settlement.' This letter went on to state:
"Further, he claims that the Telstra documents contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telstra has given to the customers concerned.

In summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that in the context of the settlement Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision.They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information.

I ask for your urgent comment on these allegations.You are asked to immediately provide the Regulator with a copy of all the documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith's premises for its inspection.This, together with your comment, will enable me to arrive at an appropriate recommendation for the Regulator's consideration of any action it should take.

As to Mr Smith's claimed continuing service difficulties, please provide a statement as to whether Telstra believes that Mr Smith has been provided with a telephone service of normal network standard since the settlement.If not, you are asked to detail the problems which Telstra knows to exist, indicate how far beyond network standards they are and identify the cause/causes of these problems.

In light of Mr Smith's claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism which will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made."

It appears the Regulator's concerns were indeed warranted regarding the sensitive information I had found in this briefcase!

 

CHAPTER 12

By April 1993, numerous articles had appeared in my local newspaper, and interstate gossip about the COT group was beginning to grow.As a result, the Channel Nine 'Sixty Minutes' program attempted to contact me by fax. They, too, had been battling with the phone system! In fact, on my 1800 freecall line, they had only managed to reach a recorded message stating that the 1800 service "...was not available"; on my direct line, they encountered a continuously engaged signal.When they complained to Telstra, they were told the lines to Cape Bridgewater were congested.Surprise, surprise!

By June that year, the public was becoming interested in what they were hearing about our battle.

At the camp in Cape Bridgewater, we acquired a logo especially for the over-forties singles club, which we called "Country Get-A-Ways." I then hit the road with a vengeance, marketing a range of different weekend holidays.We had organized an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River, a Saturday dress-up dinner dance with a disco, and trips to the Coonawarra Wineries and Mt Gambier for a Saturday morning shopping tour, both in South Australia.This allowed us to market the holidays in both Victoria and South Australia.

A special feature in The Melbourne Age gave the project a great write-up, and I began to feel things were finally looking up for the camp.My spirits rose, at least temporarily, only to plummet into despair again on October 26th. That day, a fax arrived from a relative of the journalist who had written The Age feature, stating: "Alan, I have been trying to call you since midday.I have rung seven times to get an engaged signal.It is now 2.45 pm."

These attempts were made on my 1800 freecall line, causing my spirits to sink once more.

Later, I checked this fax against Telstra's own data for that day.Telstra's records showed a six-minute call at 12:01 and an eight-minute call at 12:18. There were no incoming calls at all between 12:30 and 2:44 that day.Where had these calls been going?I was devastated, but I decided not to let the bastards get me down.Their continuing lies and assertions that no faults had been found on my service line needed to be exposed.

So, I stepped up the marketing of the camp and the singles-club weekends, calling on numerous well-known social clubs around the Melbourne metropolitan area and speaking personally with the people in charge.Over the next few weeks, I spoke to the Phoenix Social Club in Camberwell, the Australian Social Centre in Hartwell, Frenze-In-Deed in Mont Albert, and Capers in Knox City.I also visited other singles organizations in Ballarat and Warrnambool, major regional centers in Victoria.

Further newspaper advertising followed, with ads placed with the Leader Newspaper group in Melbourne.This local newspaper group covers twenty-three different metropolitan areas around Melbourne. Advertisements also appeared in the local newspapers for a number of major regional centers around Victoria and South Australia, including the Geelong Advertiser, the Warrnambool Standard, the Ballarat Courier News, the Horsham Wimmera Times, the Colac Local News, the Mt Gambier-Border Watch, and others.

Complaints about the phones continued.People had enormous trouble getting through to the camp; and while some clearly persevered, countless others likely gave up.

I received two letters from the TIO, both indicating Telstra's less-than-enthusiastic response when the Deputy TIO attempted to extract an explanation for my missing White Pages telephone directory entries in 1993.These entries were specifically for my Country Get-a-way Singles Club holidays. Assuming the phone number would be in the directory, I launched an extensive advertising campaign, unaware the entries were missing. I now wonder if there is more to these missing entries than meets the eye. If there were a simple, above-board reason for my advertisements being omitted from eighteen major phone directories, why has Telstra never offered an explanation? Eventually, even the Deputy TIO gave up, noting in his letter of March 29, 1996, that his office would simply "be flogging a dead horse trying to extract more" from Telstra on this matter.

One Saturday evening, a couple of Scotches left me in tears of complete frustration.I knew I was easily capable of running the camp as I pictured it, but I was trapped, like a rabbit in car headlights, with no way to turn.It was a vicious merry-go-round.Without customers, I would go broke quickly, and the customers couldn't reach me because the phones didn't work. Just then, Graham Schorer, the COT spokesperson, rang.He kept urging me to hang in there, convinced that we would win out in the end.Later, even Ann Garms, who is usually so strong and determined, broke down over the phone, crying that it was impossible to go on.This time it was my turn to be strong: "Hang in there, Ann,"I told her. "We'll beat the bastards yet, you'll see."

The process became even more of a roller-coaster ride.My spirits rose once I had hosted a few successful Country Getaways in the following few months. However, these were only a few, far fewer than I knew should have been responding to my advertising and marketing. Inevitably, my spirits sank again as bookings dwindled.

Finally, in desperation, I remembered a clinical psychologist the COT members had contacted back in 1992, when we were first formalizing the group.At the time, this psychologist had written a report assessing our individual psychological conditions. He noted the breakdown in our psychological defenses and referred to the excessive and prolonged pressures we were being forced to endure.All of us, he said, had "...been subjected to persistent environmental stress as a result of constant pressure in their businesses and erratic patterns of change in the functioning of their telephones, which were essential to the success of their businesses."

Now it was May 1993, and nothing had changed.I rang the psychologist's office, looking for support.My conversation with his office was interrupted three times by phone faults. Later, I received a letter from his office, saying:"I am writing to you to confirm details of telephone conversation difficulties experienced between this office and our residence mid-morning this day, 5 May 1993.At approximately 11:30 am today Mr Alan Smith telephoned this office requesting to speak with (the psychologist). (The psychologist) was not available to take his call.During this time the telephone cut out three times.Each time Mr Smith telephoned back to continue the call."

Between May and October of 1993, I received many letters from schools, clubs, and singles clubs, each one detailing the difficulties they had experienced trying to contact the camp by phone.The executive officer of the Camping Association of Victoria wrote on May 6, 1993, to say that ten thousand copies of their 'Resource Guide', in which I had advertised, had been distributed, many of which were direct-mailed to schools.Most of the other advertisers with advertisements similar to mine, he went on to say, had experienced an increase in inquiries and bookings after the distribution of these books, and it was clear to him that the "malfunction of your phone system effectively deprived you of similar gains in business."He also noted that he had himself received complaints from people who had been unable to phone my camp after seeing my advertisement.They were asking him why I was not answering my phone. All in all, during this period, I received thirty-six letters from different individuals, as well as more than forty other complaints from people who had tried, unsuccessfully, to respond to my advertisements.

The Hadden & District Community House wrote in April 1993:
"...problems with contacting you by phone.Several times I have dialled (my phone number) and received no response—a dead line.I have also experienced similar problems on your (1800 freecall) number.

Our youth worker experienced similar problems while organising our last year's family camp over a six-month period during 1991–1992."

In August of 1993, the Chilean Social Club wrote:
"I tried to ring you in order to confirm our stay at your campsite. I found it impossible to get through.I tried to ring later but encountered the same signal on August 10 around 7–8:30 p.m. I believe you have a problem with the exchange and strongly advise you to contact Telstra.

Do you remember the same problem happened in April and May of this year? I apologise, but I have since made arrangements with another camp."

As more and more letters like this arrived in my office, I became convinced that Telstra senior executives were hiding the truth about the problems at the Cape Bridgewater exchange. Surely, they must have been aware by now that I was not inventing the problems I was complaining about?

The Regulator's General Manager of Consumer Affairs was becoming increasingly concerned by the evidence COT members were producing: continuing complaints, such as those from the Chilean Social Club and the Hadden Community House, and instances of incorrect charging.These two problems — people not being able to get through and calls being charged incorrectly — came together in a note from a lady in Croydon who wrote about her problems getting through on May 22, 1993. She explained how she continually reached a recorded voice announcement saying that her phone had been disconnected, and commented that she thought this message was 'quite strange'.My own Telstra 1800 account for that day also showed a number of very short calls. Apparently, I was being charged for RVA messages, short-duration calls, and faults that Telstra calls 'post-dialing delay faults'.

Even as far back as the late 1980s, Telstra had technology that could divert faxes, print them, and then resend them without the sender's knowledge or permission.If faxes can be diverted in this way, then it is not a stretch to assume that phone calls can also be secretly diverted, though, of course, phone calls would need to terminate at the phone they were diverted to. Were all the short-duration calls I was continually receiving actually calls that began to ring at my business and were then caught and diverted to another number?In the early days, it didn't even occur to me that this could be the explanation. Now, however, so much further down the track, it seems to be a very likely scenario. If I am right, what are the ramifications for other telephone subscribers too?

I informed the Regulator of my suspicion that Telstra was intercepting COT members' phone calls. I also suspected that some of the short-duration calls I had been billed for, but not answered, were actually incoming calls being diverted to an unknown location.The Regulator did not agree with these suspicions. Yet, an internal, in-confidence Telstra memo dated November 25, 1993, regarding short-duration calls on my phone lines, stated:
"Mr Smith is obviously well aware that customer premises equipment (CPE) is a significant cause of charging and billing disputes, particularly those involving short calls that the customer believes were unsuccessful and should not be charged.Telephone answering machines, facsimiles, and call diverters typically are at the center of these disputes."
I have evidence that proves neither my answering machine nor my fax machine could have answered many of these short-duration calls.This leaves call diverters as the only possible 'culprit', and since I had not authorized any call diversion on any of my lines, this raises the question: who had authorized the diversion of at least some of my incoming calls?

The true level of short-duration and post-dialing delay faults was well known to Telstra as early as October 1993. Yet, they chose to conceal the problems and continue collecting revenue from their customers (you and me), despite numerous customer complaints.In some cases, Telstra forced customers to pay incorrect accounts by threatening to disconnect their phone lines, even when those complaints were entirely legitimate.

A Telstra FOI document (H36291), dated October 11, 1993, reveals: "I am receiving a disturbing number of instances where the 1800 prefix 'does not work' in the network.Given we are now part way through a major (direct mail) national campaign launching Freecall 1800 statewide, I need to know the extent of the problem of missed areas across the country."

Another FOI document (H36293), dated November 1 of the same year and also from Telstra, further illustrates the issue: "All administration groups are being inundated with complaints from customers who have advertised their numbers as 1800 but their customers are simply unable to get through to them.I have spoken to our fault staff at Waverley who are also being inundated with the same complaints."

An even more alarming Telstra FOI document (H36178) indicates that, despite full awareness of promoting a faulty system incapable of delivering advertised services, Telstra continued to charge customers for calls they knew were not connecting correctly. This occurred even when the caller reached a dead line, believed they had misdialed and hung up, and yet the charge still registered on the 1800 customer's account. Document H36178 even shows Telstra discussing concerns:"...that the matter requires fixing at a National level, not just on a fault by fault basis" and notes that someone had also asked: "...whether we should be actively promoting 1800 in the circumstances."

 

CHAPTER 13

Later in 1993, a lady from the Daylesford Community House contacted me, reporting that she had unsuccessfully tried to phone me on August 17, 1993, at 5:17 pm, and again at 5:18, 5:19, and 5:20 pm. Each attempt resulted in a dead line.After the fourth unsuccessful attempt, she reported the fault to Telstra's Fault Centre in Bendigo via 1100.She spoke to an operator, Tina, who then rang my 1800 Freecall number only to find she also couldn't get through.

Telstra's handwritten memo, dated August 17, 1993, reports her attempts to contact me and references the Community House's complaint to 1100, recording the times they had tried to reach my phone.A copy of my itemized 1800 account (R11519) for August 17, 1993, clearly shows I was charged for all four calls, despite the customer never reaching me.All this information was subsequently passed to the Regulator.

After the Community House reported their experience to the fault centre, Telstra began to take a proactive approach and arranged for tests to be carried out on my line from a number of different locations around Victoria and New South Wales.Telstra then notified the Regulator that one hundred test calls would take place on August 18, 1998, to my 1800 freecall service.

That morning, I answered two calls from Telstra Commercial, one lasting six minutes and another eleven minutes. These two occurred first thing in the morning as they set up for more test calls throughout the day. However, over the rest of that day, I only answered eight or nine calls in total. Certainly, I was stressed by then, and possibly I wasn't thinking entirely clearly, but even so, I am sure I would remember if I had answered a hundred calls, or even twenty or thirty for that matter.

Some days later, my 1800 phone account arrived, and, lo and behold, approximately sixty short-duration calls had been charged to my service!I queried this with Telstra Commercial, asking how I could be charged for so many calls which did not connect and which I certainly did not answer.Telstra wrote to the Regulator on November 8, 1993, noting that I had queried the accuracy of the data regarding sixty-seven calls made in a 54-minute period.The Regulator did not believe I had answered all the calls I was charged for, but Telstra insisted that all the evidence indicated that "someone at the premises answered the calls." Although the Regulator asked for the name of the Telstra employee who made these so-called successful calls to my business, and I also requested this information, Telstra has so far refused to identify the employee.

The phone faults had started a snowball rolling down the mountain.The lack of customers, of course, meant a lack of income. My financial situation deteriorated, and with my marriage also ending, my health suffered significantly. Friends began to notice the change in my personality, and those few clients who did manage to make contact were also commenting on my apparent ill health.

The group from the Daylesford Neighbourhood House finally arrived for their holiday in January 1994.Later, two letters arrived from members of this group, complaining that my customer coin-operated gold phone service was most unsatisfactory.They wrote that the phone was taking money "under false pretences" and not connecting long enough for the caller to properly complete their calls.Both wrote that the line kept "going dead," and both also supplied their names and addresses.

Late in 1994, I was supplied with some documents in response to one of my FOI requests.This batch included two documents of particular interest regarding the Telstra test calls of 18th August 1993.These documents, numbered K03433 and K03434, showed forty-four test calls, numbered from eight to sixty-three (with some numbers missing), to the Cape Bridgewater exchange. Given that I believe I only answered eight or nine of these test calls at most, and only nine of the calls recorded on these two documents had tick or arrow marks beside them, I have continually asked Telstra what these marked calls represent. However, I have not received any response to my questions.Surely this cannot be mere coincidence?

Document K03434 includes a note referring to Cape Bridgewater that states: "Test calls unsuccessful.Did not hear STD pips on any calls to test number. ... I gave up tests."It seems obvious that this remark refers to the test calls meant to have been made to my phone on that day.

Later in this story, I explain how these 1800 calls—characterized by post-dialling issues and short durations—were never investigated or addressed in the report supplied to my arbitrator by the TIO-appointed technical unit. This was despite the Regulator continually asking Telstra about these same faults throughout my 1994 arbitration. In August of 1996—three years later—the Regulator was still asking Telstra what they were doing about short-duration faults. Meanwhile, Telstra continued to charge my 1800 line for calls they knew were not getting through.

Another FOI document, numbered A03254, was a copy of a Telstra e-mail dated 28th September 1993.This e-mail referred, in part, to a recognition of the "...duress that the COT members are suffering" and went on to say:"... perhaps I am getting too legalistic and defensive but we can't afford to let anything get away.However, our best option is still to force these cases down a legal structured path."

Also curious is FOI document C04094.This document further indicates that Telstra's management team was trying to force the COT members into a court situation, even though they were fully aware that their highly paid lawyers would 'eat us alive.' The aim seemed to be to 'hang us out to dry' as an example to others who might complain about Telstra services in the future.

On April 21, 1993, a document titled "COT cases latest" was forwarded between Telstra employees. This document confirmed the COT members' growing belief that Telstra intended to use their claims and potential court cases to prevent any further claims against the company. The author of this document stated: "...Thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they'll end up as lawyer fodder.Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complainants remain vexatious..." Clearly, Telstra management intended to decide when claimants were becoming 'vexatious,' at which point they would threaten them with legal action. This decision came from a corporation continually portrayed as a benevolent organisation, acting for the good of the Australian public. Yet, behind closed doors, Telstra management intended to turn legitimate claimants into 'lawyer fodder' if they persisted with their claims.

During September or October of 1993, I advised the Regulator's General Manager for Consumer Affairs that Telstra's General Manager (Commercial) had instructed me to direct all my future phone complaints, in writing, to their outside solicitors. Much later, I was told that this strategy was intended to wear me out or force me to hire my own legal practitioner to deal with Telstra's solicitors.Sometimes I waited up to two weeks for a response from Telstra's solicitors, and the time and effort involved in documenting all the ongoing faults, while still trying to run a failing business, certainly worked in Telstra's favour. Despite these challenges, I struggled to keep focused on what the COT group was pushing for: a Senate inquiry into Telstra's unethical treatment of our small group of legitimate claimants.

A letter of support from a worker at D Madden & Co of Warrnambool (Lawyers), dated November 10, 1993, helped me feel less alone and confirmed my decision to fight on.Telstra had to respond regarding their treatment of customers' complaints; they must be stopped from continuing their bullying tactics.This letter from Madden's says, in part:

"I am writing in reference to the proposed Senate Committee Investigation into Telstra.

As you are aware, I am employed as a telephonist with a large legal firm in Warrnambool.In the course of my employment, and particularly during the months of July and August this year, numerous service faults have been brought to my attention.These problems include:

 

1. Calls being disconnected during conversation.

    

    

2. Recorded messages informing Melbourne clients and callers that the number has been disconnected when the correct number was dialled.

    

    

3. An engaged signal received by callers despite a number of lines being available.

    

    

4. Complaints from callers that the line has rung out when no ringing tone has been received at the number dialled.

    

   "

Our firm duly contacted Telstra on a number of occasions in an effort to have these faults rectified.However, Telstra technicians were consistently unable to identify the numerous problems or remedy our complaints."

The letter goes on to confirm support for the call for a Senate Inquiry into problems within Telstra's network and to advise that my name and address had been passed to Madden's by my local Member of Parliament, regarding a public meeting we were then organizing.

Like previous documents relating to phone problems in the area, I passed this on to Telstra's solicitors, together with more information showing incorrect charging on phone accounts.I then wrote to the solicitors on 12th November 1993: "On trying to fax you the information you received this morning, I had quite some difficulty getting all the pages through at once. Note the enclosed page errors."

By this stage, the Regulator was becoming more than a little concerned at Telstra's approach to our complaints, particularly their continual use of outside solicitors.In fact, during October 1993, while the Regulator was negotiating with Telstra for a commercial settlement proposal to be put in place for the COT members, the Regulator's chairman made it clear to Telstra's Commercial division that he would not be happy if Telstra used the same firm of solicitors in future COT matters.This request fell on deaf ears; however, through to 28th January 1994, Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through the very firm that the Regulator had protested about. Later, I discovered that one of the Prime Minister's own senior advisors is from this same firm.Members of COT have now spent thousands of dollars for a professional legal opinion regarding the use of 'Legal Professional Privilege'.This opinion names this same legal firm and notes that they acted "...spuriously, by unlawfully withholding the release of documents requested by COT members during their arbitrations" under the cloak of this "Legal Professional Privilege."I hope the advisor to the Prime Minister regarding my matters is not the same advisor who works with this legal firm, given its 'spurious' and 'unlawful' behavior. What chance would I have?

Later, when Telstra submitted their defence of my arbitration, I learned that this same legal firm also acted as Telstra's defence counsel.By this time, I was able to provide the arbitrator with clear proof that Telstra had provided incorrect written statements to the Regulator and to me regarding incidents that occurred between January and August of 1993.

On 28th January 1994, during my arbitration, I received a letter from Telstra's appointed legal firm (the same one!) in response to a letter I had written challenging Telstra for incorrectly charging me for non-connected, short-duration calls. In response to one part of my letter, these solicitors wrote that "...customers will be charged only for calls that are answered" and "...unanswered calls are not charged."

The malicious-call-trace equipment, which Telstra placed on my service without my knowledge, caused my line to lock up after each successful call was answered.This lock-up occurred after I had hung up, preventing any further incoming calls for the following ninety seconds.

At the beginning of this chapter, I recounted an incident involving the Daylesford Community House. On August 17, 1993, they rang my 1800 number four times, but the line was continually dead. Despite this, I was charged for all four calls, supposedly occurring within a single twenty-eight-second period.Since the malicious-call tracing equipment was not removed from my phone line until August 19, 1993, how could the Community House have been connected four times in such a short period? It is clear from other FOI documents, and supported by Telstra technical consultants, that no call could have connected under these circumstances at any time between May 26 and August 19, 1993, while the call tracing equipment remained connected.So, where were these calls diverted to?

Another previously described incident, concerning test calls supposedly carried out by Telstra, raises similar questions.How could sixty-seven test calls all be answered in a fifty-four-minute period when my 1800 account shows that some of these test calls connected within a single thirty-second period?In fact, some calls came through at a rate of three in a single sixty-second period.Again, where were these calls diverted to?If they weren't diverted, were they the same post-dialling and short-duration faults that were still occurring at my business as late as December 1997 – four years after Telstra first acknowledged that the fault actually existed?Whatever the cause of these faults, I was still being charged for calls that never reached my business.

 

CHAPTER 14

My local Member of Parliament, part of the Liberal Coalition, wrote on December 9, 1993, to congratulate me for my "persistence to bring about improvements to Telstra's country services"and to express regret "that it was at such a high personal cost." The then-Minister for Communications in the Labor Government also wrote, stating: "Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telstra has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith's, there has been great personal and financial distress.This is of great concern to me, and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted."

Negotiations continued as we lobbied for a commercial assessment—a binding agreement decided without legal intervention—for the members of COT. We hoped this assessment would examine the financial losses we had all suffered because of the faulty phone systems. Concurrently, the strong possibility of a Senate Inquiry being established caused our hopes to rise again.

Two Senators, in particular, were strongly advocating for a Senate Inquiry at this time: the then-Shadow Minister for Communications (who later became the Minister for Communications) and the National Party Senator mentioned earlier.Senate Hansard records—the daily verbatim printed reports of Australian parliamentary debates—show that Telstra assured these Senators that the four main COT members would have their claims assessed commercially. This assessment would occur under a specially designed, non-legalistic settlement proposal, named the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP).

The FTSP was established because the four main COT members—Maureen Gillen, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I—had suffered considerable consequential losses. These losses stemmed not only from the faulty phones themselves but also from our many years of persistent efforts to bring these matters to the attention of the Government and to seek natural justice through Telstra.

With the sanction of the then-Labor Government, the Regulator arranged for an international expert to be brought to Australia to assess our claims.Bell Canada International Inc (BCI), technical telecommunications specialists from Ottawa, Canada, subsequently arrived to conduct tests on phones connected to various COT members' businesses. Allegedly, these tests were performed on my phone service between November 4th and 9th, 1993—a period when my phone faults were particularly troublesome, a fact the Regulator was well aware of.

At the conclusion of these tests, BCI produced a report that, unfortunately, was unacceptable to the Australian Regulator. This was because the BCI technicians had not tested the actual line between my business and the nearest connection to the local exchange, known as the Customer Access Network (CAN).FOI documents (numbered A00404 to A00407) reveal that Telstra's Commercial General Manager for Australia responded by letter to the Regulator on December 15th, 1993, stating:
"The conclusion to be reasonably made from these events is that the Regulator publicly judges the BCI report "Fails to live up to the expectations raised by the terms of reference."

Reasonable inferences might be drawn about deficiencies in the competence, professional standing and integrity of BCI, and the competence and integrity of Telstra and myself in the conduct of the study and representation of the findings."

In the same letter, Telstra further discussed the COT Settlement Proposal (FTSP), stating: "Considering the above circumstances, Telstra cannot agree to attach a copy of the Regulator's letter of 9 December to the BCI report if the latter is made available to the assessors nominated for the COT cases."

A handwritten note at the bottom of the last page of this letter states: "There is a multitude of inaccuracies." This note is linked by an arrow to a reference to a letter dated December 9, 1993, from the Regulator to Telstra. Sometime later, I received a copy of this December 9 letter under FOI (numbered K47052 to K47054).The summary at the end of this letter stated: "Having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that the BCI report should not be made available to the Assessor(s) nominated for the COT cases without a copy of this letter being attached to it."

It is quite clear, however, from information I received in response to my FOI request of October 18, 1995, that Telstra did not supply a copy of the Regulator's letter to my arbitrator or anyone else, for that matter.This issue has not been properly investigated either by the Minister for Communication or by the TIO, despite both being fully aware that Telstra used the BCI report to support their defence of my claims and that the arbitrator acknowledged in his May 11, 1995 award that he had accepted the BCI report into my arbitration.

One week after Telstra wrote this letter to the Regulator, a Telstra email (FOI document A00354) discussed a new tariff filing that was to be lodged on December 20, 1993.This new tariff was to include new performance parameters, one of which committed Telstra to a 98 percent call completion at the individual customer level.This email also referred to experiences with customer disputes and the Bell Canada International Study, commenting that: "...this is a cause for concern — Telstra will not meet this 98 percent figure in many exchanges around Australia, particularly in country areas."

Apparently, Telstra was quite aware that their rural subscribers were not being properly looked after.

FOI document A09392 raises even more concerns regarding problems with rural exchanges when it states: "Parameters for Cape Bridgewater RCM have been obtained, but I do not believe them — I am attempting to check them — some of the people supplying this information live in 'old Telecom.'" (Telstra was previously known as 'Telecom'.)

Clearly, the parameters for Cape Bridgewater exchange posed a problem for Telstra. Could this be why Telstra would not supply this information in response to my FOI requests?

It is difficult to describe the anguish suffered by the four COT complainants as we continued to battle Telstra.For many years of this fight, Telstra was entirely government-owned, and Australians were exhorted to trust it completely, bombarded day and night by radio and television advertisements. How could we have been treated so badly?

In late 1993, Telstra commissioned the international audit company Coopers & Lybrand to report on Telstra's fault handling procedures, especially concerning complaints similar to the issues raised by the COT members.Coopers & Lybrand's report indicated they were, to say the least, shocked at the evidence supplied by the COT cases. Telstra's unethical management of our complaints, over so many years, deeply concerned Coopers. Telstra's initial reaction to the Coopers report revealed management's attitude toward their subscribers.On 9th November 1993, the Group Managing Director of Telstra wrote to another Telstra manager, stating: "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 Telstra may be irreparably damaged."

These were strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the country's largest telecommunications corporation, which then held a monopoly on the Australian industry. This was not an empty threat. However, it seemed to have little effect, as Coopers tabled their report in the Senate and released it into the public domain with no significant changes, as far as I can tell.

The following points have been taken directly from Coopers' report:

 

• 2.20Some customers were put under a degree of pressure to agree to sign settlements which, in our view, go beyond normally accepted fair commercial practices.

   

• 2.22Telstra placed an unreasonable burden on customers experiencing difficult network faults to provide evidence to substantiate claims, even though Telstra should have held all telephone fault information necessary to reasonably determine loss.

   

• (2)Fault handling procedures were deficient in terms of escalation criteria and procedures, and there is evidence that at least in some cases, this delayed resolution of these cases.

   

• 3.5We could find no evidence that faults discovered by Telstra staff that could affect customers were communicated to the staff at business service centres responsible for responding to customers' fault reports."

   

With Bell Canada International and Coopers & Lybrand producing their individual reports on the COT allegations, the four of us finally felt vindicated; we were not paranoid after all.Telstra really did have a case to answer.

As a result of its own investigation, the Regulator concluded there were problems in the Telstra Network and that the COT Four had, for good reason, been diligent in bringing these issues into the public domain.It looked like four Australian citizens, without any financial backing (and now nearly broke), had won a significant battle.Sometimes, we thought, David could win over Goliath, even in the twentieth century.

Because we were all in difficult financial positions—a direct result of phone services that were still not up to network standard—and because I had demonstrably proved my phones were not working properly, the Chairman of the Regulator pressured Telstra into appointing a commercial loss assessor to value our claims.This was to be the non-legal Fast Track Settlement Process, designed to give the COT four prompt access to any discovery documents needed to complete our claims as quickly as possible.

Telstra agreed to rectify any ongoing phone faults before the assessor made any decision regarding payouts.After all, what good would a commercial settlement be if the phone faults continued? Our spirits rose again, and we began to feel we were finally making progress. We discussed this with the Regulator's Chairman, who verbally assured us that any preparatory costs we might incur would be considered part of our losses, provided we proved our claims.

This same Chairman would not confirm this assurance in writing because, he explained, it could set a precedent.Telstra's Corporate Secretary had written to him on November 18, 1993 (FOI document number R10799), stating:
"... only the COT four are to be commercially assessed by an assessor.

For convenience, I have enclosed an amended copy of the Fast Track Proposal, which includes all amendments.

To facilitate its acceptance by any or all of the COT members, I have signed it on behalf of the company.Please note that the offer of settlement by this means is open for acceptance until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 1993. After this time, it will lapse and be replaced by the arbitration process we expect to apply to all carriers, following the Regulator'srecommendations stemming from this and other reviews."

The letter concluded with a request for advice:
"COT wants your advice on whether it should demand that clause 2(c) include a broader definition of losses, specifically to encompass consequential losses.

COT hoped for your advice by tomorrow."

 

CHAPTER 15

Graham, Ann, Maureen, and I signed the FTSP the following day, November 23, 1993, trusting in the Regulator's verbal assurances that consequential losses would be included.The agreement was forwarded to Telstra's corporate secretary.I included a letter with the agreement, clearly stating my expectations for the process:
"In signing and returning this proposal to you, I am relying on the assurances of ..., Chairman of the Regulator, and ..., General Manager of the Regulator's Consumer Affairs Department, that this is a fair document.I was disappointed that ... was unwilling to put his assurances in writing, but I am nevertheless prepared to accept what he said.

I would not sign this agreement if I thought it prevented me from continuing my efforts to have a satisfactory service for my business.It is my clear understanding that nothing in this agreement prevents me from continuing to seek a satisfactory telephone service."

The four COT members felt a sense of achievement, although Maureen's health was beginning to fail.The rest of us tried to call her as often as we could, as she was receiving little support from her business partner. He often seemed annoyed when we rang Maureen to check on her.

The pressure on all four of us had been immense, with TV and newspaper interviews, as well as our continuing canvassing of the Senate.The stress was taking its toll by now, but I continued to push hard for improvements to rural telephone services.

A number of other small businesses in rural Australia had begun to write to me regarding their experiences with Telstra's poor standard of service. Other ordinary subscribers were also writing of problems they had had with their phones, including various billing issues.I contacted Telstra management myself on several occasions, formally requesting that these matters be resolved.I believed then, and I still believe, that this was a responsible reaction to the letters I was receiving.Telstra didn't even offer a 'thank you,' however, leaving me with only one option: to continue to seek media publicity for our fight.

Other rural subscribers wrote to various TV stations and newspapers, supporting my allegations that, with regard to telephone services, rural small-business people—as well as the rural general public—were not being supplied with a level playing field when compared to our city cousins.One of these letters is particularly interesting.It came from a company of Insurance Loss Adjusters in Ballarat, a rural city in Victoria, and was sent to the producer of Real Life, a TV current affairs program then being broadcast on Channel 7.The Loss Adjusters wrote, under the heading 'Re Problems with Telstra':

I have watched with interest the short segments leading up to tonight's program as I have similar problems to the man at Cape Bridgewater.

Our office is located in Ballarat and, due to Telstra's structure, the majority of our local calls are STD-fee based. (STD calls are charged by time)

On many occasions we have been unable to get through to numbers we have dialled, often receiving the message "This number is not connected" or similar messages which we know to be untrue.

Clients report that they often receive the engaged signal when calling us and a review of the office reveals that at least one of our lines was free at the relevant time.

We have just received our latest Telstra bill, which in total is up about twenty-five – thirty percent on the last bill.This is odd because our work load in the billing period was down by about twenty-five percent and we have one staff member less than the previous billing period.

Another letter, sent in April 1993 to the Editor of theHerald Sun newspaper in Victoria, read, in part:I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday's Herald Sun (2 April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I have had problems contacting Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past two years.

I have also experienced problems organizing our family camp for September this year.On numerous occasions, I called from both my business number... and my home number, receiving no response—a dead line.

Around the end of February (1993), I also called and was twice subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax.I reported this incident to Telstra, who also encountered the same noise when testing.

Due to multiple reports of this 'piercing noise,' a worker from Telstra's Country Division arranged for my service to be switched to another system. Unfortunately, this did not help.

Various TV stations reported that their phones ran hot whenever they aired stories about phone faults.People called from all over the country with complaints about Telstra's service.This support from the media and general public boosted our morale and energized us to continue our collective efforts. We continued to advocate for these matters to be addressed in the Senate.

FOI documents show that, around this time, a number of Labor Party Senators were becoming increasingly concerned by what COT members were uncovering.Other FOI documents show that Telstra was not accurately reporting the truth of the situation at the end of 1993. Further FOI documents also make it clear that it is highly likely some newspaper journalists were approached by Telstra and asked to 'kill' a story about our problems with phone faults.

FOI document C04054, entitled "Cot Wrap-Up," states, in part: "I think it should be acknowledged that these customers are not going to become delighted.We are dealing with the long-term aggrieved and they will not lie down.

Further, I propose that we consider immediately targeting key reporters in the major papers and turn them on to some sexy "Look at superbly built and maintained network" stories.

I advise that Clinton be targeted for some decent Telstra exclusive stories to get his mind out of the gutter."

We are left to wonder who 'Clinton' was and why his mind was considered to be 'in the gutter'!

One of the TV news programs was clearly a target in this attempt to muzzle the media.FOI document A04646 reports: "Good news re Channel_..._News.__Haven't checked all outlets but as it didn't run on the main bulletin last night, we can be pretty certain that the story died the death._I wish I could figure which phrase it was that convinced (reporter's name deleted) _not to proceed._Might have been one of (name omitted) _pearls."

The last person referred to in this e-mail was Telstra's then Corporate Secretary; the reporter worked for the TV station mentioned at the beginning of the e-mail.The identity of the TV station and reporter, clearly shown in the original e-mail, has deliberately been omitted from this book.

Again, we can only wonder what could convince a respected journalist to drop a story.Furthermore, had Telstra met with COT members from the outset, listened to their complaints, and acted on them, there would have been no need to interfere with media stories, and the Casualties of Telstra group would never have formed. After all, we were only asking Telstra to rectify our phone issues so we could operate our businesses like any other small enterprise.

Many Telstra documents have been censored before being released under FOI, with names blacked out. Other documents, however, clearly refer to Telstra's area general manager as one of the individuals appointed to 'deal with the media/politicians' regarding COT issues.I have previously recounted one of the stories related to this same area general manager.As I explained then, it seems quite clear that this manager had deliberately misinformed me during a settlement process in 1992/93.Now we discover that she was one of only two people appointed to speak to the media about COT matters. Would she have misinformed the media the way she misinformed me, I wonder?And, just as worrying, why was the author of this memo so worried about 'tripping up'?

 

CHAPTER 16

On January 17th, 1994, the then-TIO distributed a media release.An assessor had been commissioned to process the four COT Fast Track Settlement Proposals. The release, however, omitted to mention that Telstra was already failing to abide by the original FTSP agreement, as it was not supplying us with the discovery documents (documents relating to compulsory disclosure of facts) we had requested under FOI.

By this stage, we had lost any chance of a Senate Inquiry into what COT members considered Telstra's unethical treatment of them. By late January 1994, it appeared that Telstra was not only treating us with sheer contempt but was doing so brazenly, in full view of the Senate.The COT members were beginning to believe that no individual or organization in Australia had the courage to instigate a Judicial Inquiry into Telstra's continued defiance of the Government.

Imagine having to write to Telstra's solicitors to lodge my phone complaints!Was this Telstra's way of breaking my morale?Imagine having to report a telephone fault, in writing, to a solicitor!

We learned from the TIO that the commercial 'assessor' had drawn up a set of rules for handling our cases.Then, to add insult to injury, we learned that Telstra had badgered him into converting the commercial assessment into an 'arbitration' procedure (a legal hearing to settle a civil dispute).COT members registered our disagreement with this through the TIO, who had been appointed as an independent administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Process.We made it very clear to the TIO that the four of us were already involved in a signed and agreed commercial process and saw no clear reason for changing the situation.We believed an arbitration process would certainly never be 'fast-tracked,' as it was bound to become legalistic and drawn out, and none of us had the finances to go up against Telstra's high-powered legal team in such a process.We believed the entire arbitration idea had been raised simply to suit Telstra's agenda.

Somewhere between the 6th and 8th of February that same year, Graham Schorer had a telephone conversation with the TIO to discuss why the COT Four were rejecting the arbitration process.Our reasons were immediately dismissed.The TIO explained that his primary role was Telecommunications Ombudsman and that he had been spending too much time focusing on his secondary role as administrator of our FTSP.He was concerned that his office had already incurred considerable expense because of this administrative role and made it clear to Graham that Telstra had refused to reimburse those expenses.He also indicated that his office had no intention of continuing to incur expenses on our behalf. Furthermore, he told Graham that if the COT Four did not abandon their commercial agreement with Telstra, Telstra would pull out all stops with the aim of forcing them into a position where they would have to take Telstra to court to resolve their commercial losses.Telstra, the new arbitrator, and the TIO were all aware that none of us had the financial resources to enter into a court case.

As if this wasn't shattering enough, the TIO then stated that if we decided to take legal action to compel Telstra to honor their original commercial assessment agreement, he would resign as administrator of the procedure. His resignation would have forced the conclusion of the FTSP, leaving us with no alternative but to individually pursue conventional legal action to resolve our claims.Simply put, it seemed that the TIO had sold us out.The new assessor also seemed to be selling us out before he even got properly started.

We asked to see Telstra's preferred rules of arbitration, which had already been supplied to the TIO's office, but the TIO refused our request.We had been assured that these rules had been drawn up independently of Telstra by the arbitrator and Minter Ellison, the legal counsel for the TIO's office.We were also told that one of the partners in Minter Ellison had consulted with the arbitrator over these rules.This partner was also the president of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, a fact that, we were told, would lend the arbitration extra credibility. This same man later went on to become a County Court judge.

Whenever we asked to see a copy of these rules, we were told to trust the arbitrator.And so we did.In retrospect, we were fools to accept such a compromise; however, after struggling through the nightmare of the years leading up to this point, we were all exhausted, stressed, and clutching at straws.Singly and as a group, we were vulnerable to the trickery of Telstra's corporate power.

Even so, we continued to implore the TIO to reconsider and allow us to continue under the original FTSP agreement.On 16th April 1994, we faxed him again, stressing our request. Again, this fell on deaf ears.By the following Thursday, 21st April 1994, we had given up and abandoned the FTSP without ever seeing Telstra's preferred rules of arbitration. Later, we discovered that the copy of these rules supplied to the TIO's office was actually headed "Telstra's preferred rules of arbitration."We simply wanted to ensure that the rules we were signing were different from Telstra's 'preferred rules'. Why should Telstra be allowed to dictate to us?

On February 17th, Graham Schorer and Ann Garms met with the arbitrator and legal counsel for both Telstra and the TIO.The TIO had previously advised me that I wasn't needed at this meeting, so I reluctantly agreed not to attend.Graham and Ann stressed our alarm at Telstra's continuing delays in supplying FOI documents. Telstra's minutes of the meeting clearly showed the arbitrator was adamant he would not conclude the process or hand down his decision based on 'incomplete' information. He reassured Graham and Ann that, once the arbitration got underway, he would be in a position to force Telstra to supply all the documents we needed because he would be backed by the official Arbitration Act. Later in this book, you will find that the arbitrator never followed up on his promise to 'force' Telstra to supply our documentation.

After this meeting, it was agreed that a set of rules would be drawn up and provided to both sides for assessment. The COTs were still reluctant to abandon the previous settlement process, but the TIO continued to assure us that all the most important clauses in the original agreement would be included in the new arbitration rules.We explained that we were mainly concerned about one particular clause, 2(f), from the original agreement – we were determined that this clause be included in the new rules. Again, the TIO told us we didn't have to worry. Clause 2(f) would certainly remain in the new agreement. This assurance finally won us over, and we reluctantly agreed to at least review the new rules.

When these rules were provided to us, sure enough, the important Clause 2(f) was included, word for word, as promised.The only change was that it was now called Clause 10.2.2.We relaxed a little and then sought legal advice to ensure the rules were truly fair.We were assured by the arbitrator that no other changes would be made.In fact, the arbitrator even wrote to the arbitration project manager on February 27th, insisting that there should be no changes, particularly to Clause 10.2.2.

On 24th March 1994, unknown to us, a secret meeting was held. This occurred after our legal advisors had reassured us that the rules were truly fair, and Ann, Graham, and I had officially accepted them (though we had not yet signed the full arbitration procedure). The attendees—the arbitrator, the TIO, members of Telstra's Legal Directorate, and Telstra's lawyer—met to discuss further alterations to the agreed-upon rules.This meeting took place without the knowledge or consent of anyone from COT.

Telstra's minutes of the meeting clearly show that the TIO was adamant once again that he would not agree to any changes to clause 10.2.2, even stating that he would not endorse the process at all if clause 10.2.2 was not an exact duplicate of the old clause 2(f).Some time later, however, again without the knowledge of the COT claimants, five important words were removed from clause 10.2.2.

These words, "... each of the Claimants claims...", had originally been included because the COT claimants were each making multiple claims against Telstra, covering various types of faults and illegal events they had experienced since lodging individual complaints against the telecommunications giant. The removal of these words meant that the arbitrator would no longer have to prepare a written finding on each individual claim; he could selectively ignore claims. And so, he chose to ignore my 1800 billing fault claims and my claims regarding Telstra's illegal bugging of my phone calls.

We wonder who had the power to persuade the TIO to agree to this change, which he had so strenuously fought against initially. And when I finally signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994, why wasn't I alerted to this change?As you will discover, the plot continued to thicken.

We now know that, in a document dated 2nd March 1994 (D01166), a Telstra worker wrote:"My course therefore is to force (the arbitrator)to rule on our preferred rules of arbitration." Was Telstra really trying to force the arbitrator to change the rules to suit them? It certainly appears that way.Could you imagine, in any other legal process, the defendants dictating to the judge what the rules were to be and how he should make his decision in the case?

 

CHAPTER 17

On April 22nd, the day after I signed for arbitration, the Regulator received three blank fax sheets from my office.These documents lacked my fax identification across the top, which would have been present even if the pages had been accidentally inserted upside down.If I hadn't immediately followed up the fax with a phone call to the Regulator to discuss its contents, they would never have known where the pages came from. I also discovered a small icon in one corner of each of the otherwise blank pages. I suggested that the Regulator check their fax journal to confirm these were the pages I had sent, and I was correct: their journal showed three pages from my fax number at the same time these three 'blank' pages arrived. Tests have since proved that a blank faxed page takes about thirty seconds to send, but transmission time varies with content: the more information, the longer a page takes to send. According to the Regulator's fax journal, these 'blank' pages took between one minute and forty seconds and two minutes and twenty-two seconds to transmit – yet arrived without the information they started out with.Where had the information disappeared to in the interim? This occurred on the first day of my arbitration, despite no changes or improvements to the phone system.

On April 26th, my son attempted to phone me from his mother's house, where he was living at the time.According to my billing records, he first tried at 12:55 PM. Because all he got was an engaged signal, he tried again and again.Document K37932, Telstra's fault report for that day, confirms fifteen calls from his mother's number. He insists that all of these calls resulted in an engaged signal or a dead line at my end, yet Telstra charged me for each on my 1800 line.Were these some of the 1800 calls that Telstra had labelled as post-dialling delay and short duration faults?

When copies of my Telstra accounts are compared to Telstra's own data, it is clear I was charged for all fifteen calls which didn't connect.Over the years, I have accumulated numerous documents that conclusively prove Telstra personnel were aware of the many problems my phone line suffered.For instance, in August 1993, I complained to Telstra that customers and friends alike were commenting on the peculiar behaviour of my direct outgoing line, which was also a fax line.People often remarked that after I had hung up, they could still hear me moving around the office.Because of all the other problems I was dealing with at the time, I didn't pay much attention to this minor fault until April 26th, 1994, the day my son had tried so hard to reach me by phone.

That day, I phoned one of the Regulator's senior engineers to discuss the 'hang up' fault.The engineer suggested that he and I carry out a series of tests on that phone line.His plan was that after we connected, I would hang up and count out loud, say from one to ten, while he listened at his end.This first test proved he could hear me clearly up to ten, so he suggested we try again, counting even further. The result was the same: he could hear me throughout the entire counting range. He then suggested I swap the phone on that line with the one connected to my other line (both were identical Telstra T200 models).I did so, and we repeated the 'counting' test with the same results.According to the engineer (and it was also apparent to me), this proved the fault was not in the phone itself, but somewhere in the Telstra network.The engineer's next suggestion was that I contact Telstra, which I promptly did.

I carefully explained the situation, adding that my experiments showed I could count for quite a long time—up to fifteen or more—and the person at the other end could still hear me clearly.I didn't mention testing two different phones, as I was well aware of Telstra's strong inclination to blame customer equipment first.I was interested to see what explanation they would offer this time.

So, I again performed the same tests for this Telstra representative, who then advised he would send a technician the very next day to collect the phone and have it tested in Telstra's laboratories.Documents K00940 and K00941, which I later acquired, show that he was fully aware, even before the phone was tested, that the fault was not with the phone but with heat in the Cape Bridgewater exchange.In these email documents, Telstra personnel discussed the likelihood of heat causing the problem and related a similar situation at an exchange in another Australian State, which had been definitively proven to be caused by heat inside the exchange.

On April 27th, when Telstra called at around nine in the morning to arrange pick-up of the faulty phone, I had just returned to my office. I had spent the previous twelve hours fighting a large bushfire with our local CFA (Country Fire Authority), as our records will show. I explained to the Telstra caller that I had been out since seven o'clock the night before and had only just arrived back. I asked if the pick-up could be arranged for some time after one o'clock that afternoon so I could get some sleep first. I later discovered, through an FOI document, that Telstra's records omitted the most important part of this conversation. They simply stated, "Mr Smith was tired, and wanted to go to bed," adding that I had asked not to be disturbed until after lunch.The omission of any reference to why I was tired is just another example of how some Telstra personnel twist words to suit their own perspective.

By then, I was trying to assess my situation and collate my own claim for arbitration, largely based on the Regulator's 'COT report,' which had just been released in April 1994. Even this report had required revision by the Regulator's chairman because Telstra threatened to enforce an injunction, a legalistic maneuver that would have tied the report up for years.

The Regulator had found a number of my claims to be proven. However, their conclusions were based solely on information supplied by Telstra, and it later became clear that Telstra had not provided the true facts regarding the age of the first exchange at Cape Bridgewater.I had hired a telecommunications expert from Queensland as my technical advisor, and he based his findings on the Regulator's report.This meant, of course, that his findings were also based on incorrect information.According to the Regulator's report, the first exchange in Cape Bridgewater was an ARK exchange. It later transpired that it was, in fact, an RAX exchange.The RAX was designed in the late 1940s or early 1950s, specifically for low-call-rate areas.The ARK was newer technology, designed some 20 years later.

The first part of my claim covered the initial three and a half years after I took over the camp at Cape Bridgewater (the entire claim totaled six and a half years).I later discovered that this ancient exchange had been in operation for years. However, my technical advisor, the Regulator (according to their report), and I all believed that the newer exchange was in place during the entire period of my claim. Thus, my technical advisor assessed my situation, unknowingly working from a false premise. This incorrect information downplayed the true fault loss suffered by my business.Was this incorrect information, provided to the Regulator by Telstra, just another deceptive move aimed at hiding the true extent of my continuing phone faults?

This began to resemble the tobacco companies' two decades of deceptive conduct, first concealing their knowledge of nicotine's addictive effects, and then the health risks to smokers. Telstra was no different. They were fully aware that many of their exchanges across Australia were outdated, causing enormous difficulties for subscribers, small-business owners, and the general public. Yet, they concealed these facts and did nothing to improve the system.For years, Telstra continued to charge me for calls that never connected, for RVA calls (delivering incorrect messages), and for short-duration (and therefore useless) calls.Why hasn't the TIO's office properly investigated my irrefutable evidence?After all, this evidence is supported by Telstra's own data.

In August 1993, after returning home from a COT meeting in Melbourne, I was confronted by a Sheriff from the Justice Department.He had a warrant demanding payment for an overdue account with one of my suppliers, or seizure of goods in lieu of payment.I asked him to wait fifteen minutes while I tried to contact the people I owed money to, but he refused. A fight ensued, and I threw him out of my office. Later, I was charged with assault in the Magistrate's Court. I successfully appealed the court action, defended the charge, and ultimately avoided conviction. It would appear Telstra's FOI Unit was also interested in this situation, as a copy of a newspaper article about the incident later emerged from Telstra's records, included in documents supplied in response to one of my FOI requests.What Telstra thought this had to do with my phone problems is anyone's guess, although I have since learned that Telstra was accumulating a significant amount of personal information about me. This file contained details of who rang me, when and from where, as well as when my staff left my business at the end of their working day. Apparently, they were not only interested in my complaints about phone faults.

And so, I battled on. Assistance from a law student would have been a blessing!The mountain of documents continued to grow, threatening to engulf me entirely, while Telstra's multiplying legal team stood by, waiting to pounce on the slightest crack they could manufacture in the claim documents I submitted.The knowledge that every document I sent would be pored over by highly qualified legal experts did not exactly boost my confidence. Finally, I sought out the TIO and his legal counsel, explaining my lack of confidence and reiterating their chairman's original rationale for requesting a non-legalistic hearing: he had always believed this would be the best and fairest way for us to present our cases.

The TIO could only console me by telling me to 'do the best you can.' The TIO's legal counsel reassured me that the new process was fair and advised me to 'give it a go.' With no other option, I sought help from professionals in the field.I began by approaching a local firm of loss assessors in nearby Mt Gambier, just over the border in South Australia, about one hundred and ten kilometres away.I spoke to the head of the organisation and explained who I was, my location, and what I hoped to have help with. After a long pause, he asked if I had suffered some storm damage at the camp about four or five years earlier.I remembered that I had.It turned out that he had acted as a loss assessor back then and recalled having a lot of trouble contacting me by phone, finally resorting to writing to inform me they were coming to assess the storm damage.

After discussing my current situation in more detail, the agent decided that my problems were outside their area of expertise. Imagine: Telstra and the TIO expected me to prepare my claim alone, yet even a professional loss assessor believed the case was too complicated for him to take on.Here I was, a marine cook, a chef, and the TIO and his legal counsel could only tell me to 'do the best you can'!

I continued my search for assistance in the Melbourne metropolitan area, approaching four different companies specializing in communications issues. Three didn't even respond, and the fourth simply wished me luck in finding someone brave enough to go up against Telstra.

At this stage, I approached the technical advisor in Queensland, who finally came on board.He was already working on Ann Garms's case, and she had suggested I talk to him.It was unfortunate that he was so far away geographically, as this, of course, complicated everything further. When Telstra discovered that we had secured this expert help, they approached him, offering work.It seemed they were still trying to close off all avenues for the COTs.This man, however, then seventy years of age, would have none of that.He made it clear that taking up Telstra's offer would create a definite conflict of interest and severely disadvantage the COT members. So, bless his beautiful heart, he declined their offer.It seemed that at least one Australian was prepared to put himself on the line and face up to Telstra's bottomless financial public purse.

Finally, after more searching, I located Freemans, a Loss Assessor company also 1,200 kilometres away on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland. I then spoke with an ex-National Crime Authority detective who agreed to help me, on the understanding that he would only be paid if I won my claim. His only expected payment along the way was reimbursement for out-of-pocket travel expenses to come to Cape Bridgewater from Queensland.

Once these professionals were in place, I then had to figure out how to raise the finances to bring the detective to Cape Bridgewater. With my business still in tatters, I felt caught like a butterfly in a spider's web: the consequential losses from the poor phone service meant my finances were spiraling downwards, yet I desperately needed money to continue the fight. Bankruptcy was the only alternative, and I was determined not to lose the camp due to Telstra's skulduggery.

Government Ministers, Coopers & Lybrand, and the Regulator all agreed that the COT cases were right and Telstra was wrong.Even Telstra itself, in a letter to the Minister for Communication, admitted my assumptions were correct, but we still had our backs to the wall.We still received no financial assistance from anywhere and were left to scramble for funds to organize our claims—claims that most loss assessors wouldn't even attempt to touch.

At about this time, 900 to 1,000 discovery documents arrived from Telstra in response to one of my FOI requests. "Wonderful," I thought. "Now we are getting somewhere."But, of course, I was wrong.Telstra may well have supplied the documents, but according to the FOI Act, they were required to supply them in some sort of order—preferably chronological and definitely with a numbering system in place.Not only were these documents supplied without any numbering system, they weren't even in chronological order. Furthermore, there was no explanation of what the documents actually represented.Many were unreadable, with so much information blanked out that they were totally worthless.This would have driven even the most hardened lawyer to despair. One particularly exasperating document began with the words:"Mr. Smith has recently reported further faults which have all been investigated, with some confirmed and corrected.Investigation into others continues."The entire rest of the A4 page had been blanked out with a wide black marker pen.How could I support my claim with material like this?

 

CHAPTER 18

 

Finally, I managed to raise enough cash to bring the detective from Queensland to the camp for a couple of days to observe what was going on with the phones.During his stay, he noted short-duration calls, dead lines, and problems trying to send faxes to Queensland.His previous experience also led him to believe I was being watched.He was sure I was being kept under some sort of surveillance, and documents later received under FOI (including document K01006) show that Telstra was aware of my movements at this time, as well as the movements of my staff.

Telstra email K01006, dated Thursday, April 7, 1994, and sent at 2:05 p.m., raises two issues. Firstly, this date falls during the time I was involved in the Regulator-designed commercial agreement with Telstra, making secret observations seem highly inappropriate. Secondly, this document refers to a time when I would be away from my business.The author of the email states (note that NRR in this memo refers to 'Not Receiving Rings'):
"Mr Alan Smith is absent from his premises from 5/8/94 - 8/8/94.On other occasions when he has been absent, there have been documented complaints received (usually months later) involving NRR and similar issues. I called the premises at approximately 4:55 p.m. on April 6, 1994.The answer time was forty-one seconds.

I intend, on this occasion, to document his absence and file all data I can collect for the period.That way we should be prepared for anything that follows."

Clearly, the writer knew in April 1994 that I planned to be away later that year, in August. In other words, he knew of my movements four months in advance.Telstra has never been able to explain how he came by this information. On other occasions, this same person also stated that he knew I had spoken to a former Australian Prime Minister on the phone and when that conversation took place.He insists I told him about this conversation, which is not true; I told him no such thing.Again, Telstra has never been able to find a convincing explanation for their employee having this information. Obviously, Telstra was still listening to my private and business calls, even though I was then involved in litigation with them and their lawyers.Another FOI document, not numbered, clearly shows that the writer knew where one of my regular callers usually called from, even though, on the documented occasion, the caller was phoning from a different number, "somewhere near Adelaide."How could the writer have this information if someone hadn't listened to this call to find out who the caller was?

The then-Minister for Communications, the TIO, and the Federal Police were all supplied with this document, along with a number of other documents indicating that my phone calls were being 'bugged.' I have had no response from any of them, and I have now been waiting for many years.

Listening to private calls is appalling enough, but the following information is even more frightening.Page A133 of the official Senate Hansard records from 25th February 1994 states that the then-Shadow Minister for Communications questioned the Regulator's Chairman, asking: "Why did not immediately refer the COT's allegations of voice recording to the Federal Police instead of waiting for the Minister to refer the matter to the Attorney General and then on to the Federal Police?"

FOI document K00701, dated 14th January 1994 and titled Voice Monitoring of Priority Investigation Services, states: "Described below are the details of any voice monitoring which has been carried out on the three Priority Case Investigation services in Country Victoria and Tasmania." This document goes on to say that calls to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had been voice-monitored at the Portland exchange where an alarm bell rang when calls came through for the Camp. This provides further proof that Telstra personnel listened to my calls over a long period.

FOI document A10148 is a copy of a letter dated 10th February 1994 from the Regulator's General Manager of Customer Affairs to Telstra's Group General Manager in charge of the COT arbitrations.It confirms a visit by the Federal Police.In this letter the Regulator notes: "Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT cases."

Another intriguing letter, which I received under FOI, was dated 28th January 1994 (within the COT litigation period) and was from none other than the Chairman of the Board of Telstra, writing to the then-Minister for Communications, and acknowledging that the Board were aware that Telstra technicians had listened to customers' conversations.He wrote: "Thank you for your letter of 20th January 1994 requesting a report on allegations regarding voice monitoring.

I have attached for your consideration a full report on Telstra's inquiries into this matter and the actions proposed to prevent its recurrence."

Other documents received by various members of COT also confirm this voice monitoring. These documents include one titled Corporate & Government Major Customer Group 19th August 1992 (also referred to in chapter nine) which relates to the Tivoli Theatre Restaurant (owned and run by Ann Garms in Brisbane) and, in relation to voice monitoring, there appears a comment asking if there could have possibly been some sort of "sabotage," along with other suggestions that this could be a "...job for super sleuth Sherlock Kelly." I found myself wondering: Was this an internal memo from Australia's largest telecommunications company I was reading, or a page torn from a spy novel?

FOI document B00474, a copy of a Telstra 'minute', also refers to Ann Garms and the Tivoli Restaurant. This document details questions raised during the Federal Police's investigation, including Telstra's queries about why a named Federal Police Officer initially stated a particular person was paying money for three people and others in Telstra to manipulate some services... Why was the Federal Police stopped from investigating the Tivoli Case...Why did (name deleted)start to deny everything and then volunteer for service in New Guinea for two years?

Why was AA of Protective Services investigated?And why did the investigation stop short of his bank account?

Why did AA of Protective Services initially accede to my request to borrow a Bug scanning device for the Twelfth Night and Tivoli, then suddenly change heart...?

 

CHAPTER 19

 

Telstra acknowledged that, during May 1994, I continued to report what is commonly referred to in communication circles as R00 faults — i.e., the phone rings only once or twice before stopping. Telstra officials tried to present these faults as my not understanding the operation of my new fax machine (in other words, they continued to blame the customer's equipment, referred to as CPE or customer premises equipment), even after Coopers & Lybrand's November 1993 report had advised that it was unacceptable to simply blame the customer without proper investigation.

The Regulator also found that the R00 faults were continuing.In its COT report, under the heading "Telstra's fault reporting/recording & monitoring/testing system & procedures", it stated: "Network investigations had been working on the problem for an extended period of time with little success.This involvement was escalated in the past three months — this fault was in connection with cut-offs that had occurred previously."

The same report also commented: "It may be concluded from the above extracts from internal Telstra documents that Telstra knew for quite some time of general problems in its network that were affecting customers, and was unable to identify the cause of those problems."
Another section of the report stated: "AXE network fault — this is Portland's main telephone exchange (AXE).

From February to April 1993, Telstra staff responding to complaints lodged by Mr Smith of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp recorded notes indicating a known fault in AXE (digital) Switching equipment that could cause a single burst of ring, followed by a busy tone for the caller and a dial tone for the called party — for example:

"I spoke to Alan Smith... he received one burst of ring at 1.15 pm and 5.05 pm yesterday.When he picked up the receiver he heard dial tone.This problem occurs intermittently throughout the network and although it is recognized as a problem, no one person or group appears to be involved in resolving it."

In a document titled "Customer Complaint Form 25th March 1993," I found another interesting comment: "Visited Mr Smith 6th April to do end to end test calls.The first call, prior to me starting testing, gave two bursts of ringing, and when the phone was lifted there was only a dial tone.The receptionist said it was the second call that morning with the same result.She also stated that several people had commented they received a busy tone when they rang the previous evening, even though she knew the phone was free."

These statements are even more alarming when you realise they were collected from Telstra's own archives and records by the Regulator, an entity paid by the Australian Government. Yet, despite this, some Telstra officials were later prepared to sign Statutory Declarations covering information they knew to be untrue.This corporate culture at the management level of Telstra was what put the members of COT in the position they found themselves in: fighting an unfair arbitration. This was simply because we challenged the misleading and deceptive conduct of Telstra managers, simply because we were seeking the truth, and simply because we were prepared to stand up for our rights as Australian citizens—our rights to a telephone system comparable to that of our competitors.

During May 1994, the Queensland detective and I spent five nights toiling over the pile of Telstra discovery documents, attempting to decipher what they all meant.By this time, the detective was also experiencing phone problems similar to those I had been suffering from for all these years.I found some comfort in having someone of his standing stay with me, even if only for a short time.His background in the police force and the NCA was quietly reassuring.When he left to return to his office in Queensland, he took some of the FOI documents with him for further examination.

While he was staying with me, I discovered I could not locate a number of important camp documents.Missing were exercise books in which I kept official booking records—books I needed to support the few bookings that were still managing to get through. Also missing were a number of bank statements and my bank pay-in books for 1992/93.Also missing were two diaries that were keepsakes because they were in my ex-wife's handwriting (from the two years she spent at Cape Bridgewater before our marriage broke up). These diaries covered the period from 1988 to 1989 and have never been seen since.I was left with my rough diaries and the wall planners I used to register bookings as they came in, before they were registered in the official exercise books.This information is covered in more detail in the description of an oral arbitration hearing that occurred later, on October 11, 1994.

Because all these records went missing, I was hard-pressed to produce full and correct financial statements for my financial advisor.In fact, I had to resort almost to guesswork, based on information from my wall planners and diary, comparing it to the bank statements I still possessed. The whereabouts of these missing records remain a mystery.

Graham Schorer found himself in a similar position.A concrete pillar at the side of his office was shattered, allowing thieves to gain access to his business.Interestingly, only documents were stolen.

My stress levels rose enormously over this period. Producing a readable claim was extremely difficult, given the story's complexity and my limited technical knowledge. When they worked, my phone and fax lines became lifelines, connecting me to the detective in Queensland.By this time, I was not only relying on the phone lines; I was also, unfortunately, relying more and more on the Scotch bottle, consuming up to three or four scotches a night to vainly calm my nerves.My private life was a mess; my partner was in Ballarat, and I turned, for a time, to another fine lady for comfort.Soon after she befriended me, she also began to experience problems with her business phones. Her customers started complaining that her phone was continually engaged.FOI documents indicate that Telstra investigated these issues.

Often I was aware of a particular car sitting on the road above my house.Were they admiring the picturesque view of Cape Bridgewater Bay, I wondered, or were they watching me?Even though I suspected my mind might be playing tricks on me, this observation was certainly a worry.

Even the local Telstra technicians seemed to be involved in this process. For instance, an internal Telstra memo (FOI document K03273) shows an unidentified writer offering to supply someone with a list of phone numbers I had rung. (I believe this was around the time of the 'briefcase saga' incident, described in chapter eleven.) Why were Telstra employees so willing to distribute this private information? Other FOI documents reveal that some Telstra officials were monitoring my calls and keeping records, including the names of organizations, clients, and friends I spoke to.Even my ex-wife was not spared; her name was also listed. As I uncovered more of this 'spying,' I became increasingly agitated.By May/June 1999, as I battled on with the preparation of my claim, I was sinking deeper into depression.

Much of this information was forwarded to the TIO, who was, after all, supposed to be the independent administrator of the arbitration. Yet, I never received a reply from the TIO's office regarding Telstra's apparent spying. Meanwhile, the phone and fax problems continued.Since the problems were still occurring, I was in a bind.Legally, Telstra had thirty days to respond to any FOI request I lodged. So, if they took the full thirty days, how could I provide evidence to the arbitration regarding faults that had only happened the previous day?The whole process was getting out of hand, and although I raised this issue with both the TIO and the arbitrator, I didn't get much help.The TIO would only reiterate that I should lodge my claim to the best of my ability.

The Queensland detective attempted to ring me on May 27, 1994, using my 1800 freecall service (this can be confirmed from Telstra's own records). Finally, he got through at 7:59 p.m. I was furious when I discovered he had tried at 7:51 p.m. and again at 7:55 p.m., only to reach a recorded voice announcement both times.On both occasions, he was told that my number was not connected.When he rang the Telstra fault centre to complain about these recorded announcements, the operator told him she could not register the fault because the complaint had to come from the customer.The detective's response was understandably rather abrupt. "How," he asked, "can the customer complain if he doesn't even know that I'm trying to reach him?How can he complain if he is not aware that his incoming callers believe he's no longer trading?"

When my telephone account for this period arrived, I was again stunned to see that I had been charged for both the detective's calls.The 7:51 p.m. call was charged at seventy-six cents, and the 7:55 p.m. call was charged at thirty cents.

By this stage, I had been fighting for six and a half years to have these matters addressed, and still I was caught in a game of 'catch-up.' As each new fault appeared, I had to lodge an FOI request, and each request would take thirty days to bring results.No sooner had I faxed information to the arbitrator detailing yesterday's faults than more would occur, and I had to wait yet another thirty days to get copies of Telstra's records.Many times, I sobbed in frustration. No one would listen, or if they did hear me, they apparently didn't care.Or was Telstra playing some sort of cat-and-mouse game with me?

On several occasions during 1994, I was interviewed by the Australian Federal Police regarding my issues with Telstra and my arbitration.During these interviews, I answered a total of more than ninety-six questions posed by the police interviewer.It was clear that the Federal Police were very concerned by the documentation I had provided. They were particularly alarmed by one document (referred to in Chapter Eighteen) and repeatedly asked, "How could a caller, who usually called from one number, be identified if he called from another number, apparently somewhere in Adelaide?"

If the Federal Police, Telstra, or the Government had provided me with answers to these mounting questions as they arose, I would not still be searching for those answers today.

---

 

CHAPTER 20

 

During one of my more severe bouts of depression, I re-read the Regulator's COT report and stumbled upon previously missed information concerning Bell Canada International (BCI) and Telstra NEAT testing conducted in November 1993. This information specifically related to BCI's testing procedures.Page 157 of the Regulator's report shows that Telstra carried out NEAT testing between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., from October 28th to November 8th, 1993, at the exchange test number in Cape Bridgewater.The BCI test report, dated November 10th, 1993, indicates that their testing occurred on the same dates and at the same times, except for November 9th, when NEAT testing was apparently not performed, yet BCI stated they conducted some of their tests.

Each NEAT test takes up to one hundred seconds, and while it is occurring, no other test of any kind can take place. Therefore, the BCI testing obviously could not have occurred simultaneously with the NEAT testing between October 28th and November 8th, as suggested in the BCI Addendum Report on Cape Bridgewater. However, even if we were to assume, for argument's sake, that all these tests could somehow have been performed at the same time, further issues arise. BCI tests required fifteen seconds between each call to reset the system; otherwise, the second call would receive a false engaged signal. Concurrently, NEAT tests each took up to one hundred seconds. Upon examining the test reports from both Telstra and BCI, it became glaringly apparent that there wasn't enough time between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. to accommodate nearly all the listed calls.

The BCI report shows calls made to the same number as the Telstra tests.These two reports indicate that a total of 1,675 calls were made from Richmond and 328 calls from South Yarra, over approximately the same time period, yet without clashing.Simple arithmetic, of course, reveals this to be impossible.

Telstra later used parts of the BCI report to prove that their network was operating up to expected standards.The BCI report was even released to the media and given to Parliament, but it was obviously falsified because the test calls couldn't possibly have been made in the time frame recorded.

Around June 1994, I challenged Telstra to prove I was wrong in my allegations about the inaccuracies of the BCI report.I had found a copy of a Telstra email (FOI document number A05254), which had been sent to several Telstra officials, including one whose name frequently appeared in documents I was uncovering. This email was highly significant in relation to the BCI report debacle.It stated that the writer had been involved in the preparation of a draft news release and was now raising the "merits/demerits of holding back the BCI info for a "cleansing" program immediately after the mess of Coopers."

Then I came across an undated Telstra minute titled "Grade of Service Complaint: Mr Alan Smith ..." and it reported, in part:"Congestion between Cape Bridgewater and Portland had been prevalent as only five junctions available.This situation was to be upgraded with the cutover of Cape Bridgewater RAX to an RCM parented back to Portland RAX 104."RAX and RCM refer to different types of Telstra exchanges.

Once I had these two documents in front of me, I reached for the Regulator's COT report and there, on page 165, at point 7.33, I found:"Telstra's more recent assessment of the effect of the Cape Bridgewater RCM fault on Mr Smith's service not only conflicts with the contemporaneous report quoted in paragraph 7.31 above, but also does not accord with Telstra's contemporaneous GAPS record for September 1992 which shows a significantly higher complaint rate of 'call drop out' and 'no ring received' for customers who were reliant on the defective plant than those dependent on the remainder of the Cape Bridgewater RCM."

It was no wonder I was confused.Even the experts were obviously confused.Was FOI document A05254 from one Telstra worker to another proof of an attempt to 'cleanse' an international test report?I struggled to understand.And still my fax line gave trouble.And still the phones played up.I sat and wrote and hoped some of the information I was sending to my advisors and to the arbitrator was actually getting through.The following quotes from two separate government documents demonstrate the problems the fax line was creating.The first document, dated 26th February 1994, was from the Telecommunication Policy Division of the office of one of our Members of Parliament, and said, in part:"Attached are copies of correspondence received by the Hon. ... MP, from Alan Smith, outlining FURTHER (my emphasis) difficulties he is having with his telephone and facsimile service."

The other document, dated 10th June 1994, was from the Regulator to Telstra's Group Manager.This document said, in part:"Mr Smith at Cape Bridgewater continues to express concern about his ability to receive and send facsimiles."

The Regulator remained concerned because I regularly contacted them with ongoing evidence of incorrect charges to my 1800 account.When I compared my 1800 accounts to Telstra's printed data records, it was easy to see that I was being incorrectly charged for calls that never connected.I was also forwarding to the Regulator evidence of numerous faxes which arrived at the recipient's end as blank sheets. Telstra, of course, charged me for these as if the recipient had received all the information, despite the pages being blank.

As just one example of these problems, consider what happened the day after I had agreed to abandon the original commercial agreement and sign for arbitration.By this stage, I had already discovered this 'blank fax page' problem and had also become aware that these blank pages often had a small, strange symbol at the top of each page, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right.Each of these pages appeared on my Telstra account as taking minutes to transmit, so I decided to time the sending of a blank page.When I finally got the fax to work properly, a blank page took only ten to fifteen seconds to transmit. Even more alarming was that these 'blank' faxes were being sent either to my legal advisors, my accountant, or someone else involved in my commercial assessment process.What did this strange little symbol mean, I wondered?

On 22nd April 1994, I sent three separate faxes to the Regulator.These faxes contained copies of my 1800 service billing records, comparing them with customers' statements regarding calls they had made to my number, and thereby proving the account was incorrect. I had previously conducted my own tests by sending complex documents, such as a Telstra account, and knew that each page would take between one and three-quarters of a minute and two and three-quarters of a minute to transmit.

In 2003, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office officially handed all my evidence to the TIO's office.Some of this evidence confirmed the problem with my faxes. It also showed that other faxes, which left my premises with information intact but arrived as blanks at the recipient's end, still displayed my fax identification across the top of each otherwise blank page (as expected).The issue was that I discovered the phone/fax number displayed was one that had been discontinued long before.More puzzling, when the exact same document was faxed to another number immediately after, it arrived with the correct number across the top, indicating it wasn't a problem with how I had programmed my fax machine with the new number.

Telstra's internal documents first acknowledged problems with "half-faxes" and faxes without identification in a fault report (K01489) dated October 29, 1993. The report recorded it as a "strange phenomenon," noting: "During testing of Mr Smith's fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception.Even on calls that were not tampered with, the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group Three fax rules.Even if the page was sent upside down, the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page; it wasn't."

This same problem was raised with the Regulator and Telstra during my arbitration in June 1994, after I had purchased another fax machine in April 1994, at Telstra's suggestion. The following month, Telstra personnel admitted that the arbitrator was not receiving faxes I had sent him.But was the problem fixed?No: it was still occurring as late as January 2003, as I have proved.

Why did the TIO not properly investigate this "phenomenon" during my arbitration, particularly once the arbitrator's secretary had confirmed that my faxes were not getting through?And why would the Regulator write to a Government Minister during my arbitration and INCORRECTLY advise him that: "... all six of the telephone services subjected to the verification tests have met or exceeded the requirements established" when they had already informed Telstra's arbitration liaison officer that the verification tests had not met the required standards?Why did the Regulator not advise the Minister of the "... potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers (complaints)" and, instead, tell him that there were only fifty or so COT-type customers?Could Telstra's COT liaison officer have forced the Regulator to alter his own findings?As it happens, this Telstra liaison officer is the same worker referred to by a Telstra whistleblower as having influenced and manipulated the release of FOI documents to COT customers by removing or changing information on Telstra's liability.This must raise questions about how much influence Telstra has over the Government Regulator.

Although I have asked repeatedly, in writing and through various legal processes, I have never received an answer to my questions regarding why these pages should arrive at the other end as blank pages, except for an unexplained symbol.In one instance, I sent similar documents to my accountant.When his fax journal printout was checked against my Telstra accounts, both showed the same amount of excessive time to send and receive the documents, even though they arrived blank.

I informed my arbitrator that I believed faxes were being lost in the system, preventing him from receiving everything I sent. I particularly raised one instance: May 23, 1994. Telstra informed the arbitrator that on this occasion, the problem arose because his fax machine was busy when mine attempted to transmit, causing my fax to fail. What happened to my fax receiving a busy signal and retrying? And if my fax encountered a busy signal multiple times and consequently ceased attempts to send, why was I charged for the call, and why didn't the documents remain in the fax's out-tray? Despite my phone account showing seven non-connected calls to the arbitrator's office on that day, and even though Telstra has since acknowledged this (in camera), the arbitrator showed insufficient interest to investigate.

At this stage, I began to suspect that the entire arbitration had been orchestrated by Telstra solely to obstruct an investigation into their questionable corporate conduct. The discovery documents that did reach me arrived in fragments, only a few at a time.I was being drip-fed information, a tactic clearly designed to impede the preparation of my claim.

Among the material drip-fed to me, I discovered FOI document K01489.This Telstra fax clearly indicates their awareness of the 'blank fax' problem and records their experience with unexplained anomalies during testing, particularly the receipt of blank pages lacking even the sending identification stamp at the top.How many of these unidentified pages did the arbitrator's office receive when I was attempting to send important claim documents? What would the arbitrator's office have done with blank sheets?They would have had no way of knowing the fax's origin, making it impossible to inform the sender (whoever that might be) of the problem.Over three years, I used three different fax machines, all of which apparently 'suffered' from this same fault.It seems clear that the fault must have resided in Telstra's network, yet the TIO still refuses to investigate properly.

Due to the constant need to contact my claim advisors in Queensland, my Telstra account for this period exceeded $16,000 by May 11, 1995.My home account incurred an additional $2,000.What an arduous way for an Australian citizen to have to prepare a claim against a corporation with armies of lawyers and staff at their fingertips. Indeed, by this time, Telstra had established a special office in their solicitor's building solely to manage the COT arbitrations, while claimants struggled to run the day-to-day affairs of their respective businesses and simultaneously prepare their claims, mostly without legal support.

During all this, Telstra knew its 1800 billing and short-duration faults were causing problems for the entire country, yet it still denied their existence, despite the trauma its cover-up inflicted on me and many other Australians.

However, back in June 1994, I asked the arbitrator for additional time to prepare my claim.He allowed only one extra week. Yet, as records show, Telstra was allowed an extra seventy-two days, in addition to the original six months already granted to them by the arbitrator.Did Telstra deliberately delay the supply of discovery documents to gain more time to prepare its defence?Or did it delay supply to give its defence unit more time to review the discovery documents before my advisors saw them?By this time, why hadn't the TIO contacted the Minister for Communications and had Telstra pulled into line?How, in the name of justice, were the members of COT ever going to be able to support their claims if Telstra refused to provide the discovery documents they were asking for under FOI?

These delays severely disadvantaged all COT members. The longer we, our advisors, and our researchers were kept waiting, the more it cost us to participate in this so-called 'fast-tracked' procedure.Personally, I began to wonder if Telstra wasn't working to a deliberate plan — a plan to simply bankrupt me before the arbitration was ever settled.

 

CHAPTER 21

 

Coincidentally, the American movie "Class Action" was released on video while I was preparing my claim. It depicted a pharmaceutical company that knew about the side effects caused by one of its drugs but continued to sell it anyway.A report commissioned by the company revealed a flaw in the drug's production, identified by the chemist who prepared it. If my memory serves me right, the parent company chose to 'lose' the report rather than spend money to correct the flaw.What particularly resonated with me was the pharmaceutical company's long and drawn-out process of releasing discovery documents to the lawyer representing a group of suffering patients. Ultimately, the company swamped the lawyer with thousands of documents at the very last minute, leaving him with only a short time to find the missing report.According to the movie, this process of burying important documents among numerous irrelevant papers is called 'dumping.' Shades of Telstra versus COT indeed!

In my case, another COT member discovered one of the reports I needed to support my claims regarding rural phone faults among her FOI documents. Telstra had not forwarded this report to me during my preparation time, when it would have been very useful.It was a report titled "Can We Fix The CAN". 'CAN' stands for 'Customer Access Network,' which is the line from the exchange to the customer's premises.This report highlighted numerous alarming facts that had come to Telstra's attention during their testing of the CAN.This is the last contact point where a call can be lost, and calls can be lost here without any faults registering at the exchange. Even so, Bell Canada International did not test the CAN at all when they carried out their original tests. Had I received this report at the beginning or even towards the end of my claim preparation, I could have raised many more unaddressed issues with the arbitrator — including instances where other rural Telstra customers were severely disadvantaged by 'poor' CAN lines.

The very first page of this 'CAN' report suggested that Telstra was certainly not playing fair with COT members. Similar to the movie "Class Action," Telstra chose to 'dump' approximately twenty-two thousand discovery documents on me (yes, twenty-two thousand!) eleven days after submitting their defense. They were well aware that I had only one month from the lodgement of their defense to reply.This left me with just over two weeks to sort through thousands of pages of information to find the 'missing link' that would support my case. This evidence would also prove that Bell Canada had not tested my phone service, despite their report claiming otherwise — a report Telstra then used to support their defense of my claim.It was Christmas Eve, the busiest period for my business, and with all these documents in front of me, I was at a loss as to where to even begin looking.

The "Can We Fix The CAN?" report is so important that I am including it here in its entirety.
"A selected group of staff in the New South Wales South and West Region (Consumer and Country Division) has recently conducted an intensive examination and testing of cables feeding out of eight rural exchanges.The initial aim was to gather information about the real level of transmission-related faults; however, the findings raised great concern over the degree of DC faults.

With over 350 working services, and as many spare cable pairs tested to date, it can be said that:

· Any customer beyond the 6.5 dB limit, and thus needing either loading or conditioning, is seriously out of transmission specification.Not a single service has been found that is even remotely close to correct.

 

• Any service operating on loaded pairs and terminating in a T200 handset suffers from serious deficiencies in the sidetone level.

   

   

• Any service connected via a rural distribution cable method has a 70% chance of experiencing a DC fault (e.g., earth, foreign battery, or loss-between) severe enough to significantly degrade service.An additional 20% have less serious DC faults, meaning 90% of services exhibit either a foreign battery, earth, or loss-between fault.

   

   

• Almost 100% of rural Elevated Joints (EJ) exhibit a multitude of DC faults caused by poor work standards.

   

   

• Unless a new customer is within a few hundred metres of the exchange, it is impossible to find a completely fault-free spare pair to use. In fact, the fault rate on spare pairs is even higher than on working services.

   

   

• Many lengths of cable are being replaced without justification.

   

   

• Faults are not being repaired at all; instead, the service restoration method involves transposing around the problem.This applies to faults in joints as well as cable lengths.

   

   

• There is no understanding among field staff of transmission testing techniques and operating principles.

   

   

• While modern testing equipment is adequately supplied, it is only being used by a minority of staff, and even then, only in limited variety and

   

  circumstances.

• Lightning strikes are exacerbated by our own actions.Our focus is on quickly getting to the fault rather than preventing it. Consequently, we are experiencing lightning strikes far more often.

   

(This document was hand numbered as 101043)

Telstra was clearly fully aware of the many problems encountered by its rural (country) customers; however, I did not receive this document until two weeks after Telstra submitted its official reply to my claim.I knew this information would be pivotal to my case against Telstra. Without any other evidence, this one report would likely be enough to support my ongoing complaints to the TIO, the Minister, the arbitrator, and the Regulator, asserting that the phone and fax faults were still occurring and insisting that the arbitrator could therefore not hand down a decision.The T200 handset referred to in the first point of this report was the same model of phone I used. A later comment in the report, noting that problems could be expected when these phones are further away than "a few hundred metres from the exchange," explained at least some of the faults I had been dealing with. My business is 6 kilometres from the local exchange. However, this did not stop the TIO-appointed technical unit from halting its investigations in October 1994, long before the arbitration was completed, even while the faults continued to plague me. More disturbingly, the technical assessors did not venture anywhere near my business until April 6, 1995.

The technical report presented to the arbitrator makes no mention of the "Can We Fix the Can"report, nor does it refer to my ongoing phone and fax faults. Is this what we expect from Australian justice?

Twelve months after my initial request for documents from Telstra, I spent Christmas ploughing through the latest batch of papers. Too late, I uncovered several documents that would have been invaluable to my technical advisor and me during the preparation of my interim claim. Again, I asked myself: did Telstra deliberately withhold this information?

The arbitrator, acting as the 'judge' in this matter, had a charter to facilitate the provision of requested documents. Yet, despite my repeated requests, none were fulfilled.I believe he never passed on any of my requests. Conversely, he directed me to provide some forty extra documents, plus numerous pages of attachments and further particulars that Telstra had requested through him.These requests directed to me were made under the same discovery process I had used to seek documents from Telstra.I complied on every occasion, incurring thousands of dollars in costs, but received nothing in return from the arbitrator or Telstra. Concurrently, I grew increasingly concerned that something was fundamentally wrong with the entire process.Were Telstra and their highly paid lawyers deliberately setting out to destroy me financially before I had even finished my submission?

An oral hearing had been convened for 11th October 1994 under the rules of the arbitration.These rules allowed me to have legal representation if Telstra had legal representation, but where would I find the money to pay a lawyer, particularly a lawyer who wouldn't buckle under the power of a corporation as huge as Telstra?By this stage, I had discovered that at least forty-three of Australia's largest legal firms were, at that time, on Telstra's payroll in one way or another.This meant that all forty-three of those companies were unavailable to me or to any of the COT members, as they would be caught in a conflict-of-interest situation if they took up our cases.In August, five months into the arbitration process and before this oral hearing, the TIO, who was acting as administrator to the arbitration, informed me that the arbitrator himself was a senior partner in a legal firm also working for Telstra. Although I raised the issue of conflict of interest, the TIO disagreed, stating that I should merely confirm, in writing, that I had been informed of this situation.What could I do?By this time, I had run up bills with advisors and secretarial assistants to the tune of $150,000.How could I then demand a new arbitrator be appointed, only to have to start the entire process over again? The administrator's approach was obviously months too late, as I had already submitted my interim claim two months before he made his announcement about the arbitrator.

At that stage, I felt I had no choice but to continue with the arbitration procedure and participate in the oral hearing. The arbitration rules stated that lawyers were not permitted at oral hearings unless both parties had legal representation.The arbitrator advised me that Telstra would not have a lawyer present, so I went to the meeting believing that this would be, more or less, a meeting of equals.I could not have known in advance how wrong I was — obviously, rules can be flaunted if one has enough power.

The drive from Cape Bridgewater to Melbourne took five hours. Since the meeting was set to start at ten in the morning, I set out at four a.m. to allow for unforeseen delays along the way. By the time the meeting actually started, I was already exhausted.I was certainly not expecting to find two of Telstra's top executives on their side of the table, both men with legal training. Not only did Telstra have these two legally trained individuals on their side, but they also had two representatives from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, the independent financial advisors to the arbitration. Again, I was in the position of a David up against the Goliath of Telstra, with no one at all to support me.

During this hearing, I produced four exercise books containing client records and requested their acceptance into the procedure.These books held the names and contact information of clients who had been unable to reach my business by phone.This was crucial information, as it demonstrated that I had been prevented from setting up the advertised over-forties singles club due to the phone problems.I had not submitted these books previously as part of my claim because, as I explained to the arbitrator, the information, including names and addresses of single people, had been given to me in confidence.I hoped that by submitting them directly to the arbitrator, the sensitive information they contained would remain secure.

On the day, however, Telstra insisted that the information was irrelevant and should therefore not be accepted into evidence.The arbitrator agreed with Telstra's suggestion, and I was not permitted to submit the four books, even though the information they contained conclusively proved that not only had I lost business calls as a direct result of a faulty phone service, but I had also missed the opportunity to establish a singles club, which would have been another business to augment my income and sustain the camp. It was at this point that I finally admitted to myself that the arbitrator was not acting impartially.

By the time Telstra lodged its defense of my claim on December 12, 1994, I had been fighting for justice for six and a half years. I was fighting a losing battle, not because of anything I had done, but simply because I chose to set up business in a rural hamlet with an outdated exchange that Telstra's senior board members saw no benefit in upgrading. During this time, I had lost a wife of twenty years, who had trusted my judgment that I could create a successful business at Cape Bridgewater, and my next partner had ended up in the hospital after also trusting my judgment. The oral hearing made me realize I was truly on my own in this: even the arbitrator could not be relied upon to be independent.The other COT members had not been at the oral hearing, so I warned them of what I had discovered, but they couldn't truly comprehend the gravity of the situation for us all.As it turned out, my gut feelings were correct: we had been conned by the TIO's office.The Senate had also been conned by the TIO's office, as it turned out, because the TIO's office had assured them that this would be a non-legalistic process.

Between October 11, 1994, the day of the oral hearing, and December 12, 1994, when Telstra lodged their defense of my claim, I continued to search through all the claim material I had, looking for something to improve my position and hoping to find the elusive discovery documents I needed.At the same time, I became even more aware of the enormous toll this was having on both my life and my business.I was suffering from frequent dizzy spells and stress-related pains. I couldn't swallow comfortably and continually felt as if there was a lump in my chest.

From the very beginning, Telstra had denied there was anything wrong with my phone lines. Now, although logically I was sure I was right, I began to have moments where I doubted my own sanity.Not only was my health suffering, but so was the health of all those in the small group who continued to support me.

It was at this low point that a letter of support arrived from a local farmer and businessman, stating that it was quite clear to him that the phone system was a disaster area.He referred to problems he had with the system going back six years.He had written this letter in June 1994; six years prior took me back to the time I first moved into the area.So here was someone else agreeing that the phones were rarely reliable and certainly not up to network standard.

Another incident that spurred me to keep fighting concerns a neighbour who had taken over the property next door after I moved to Cape Bridgewater.When my claim advisor was researching the phones in the area, this neighbour wrote of his experiences with the phones:
"I reported the faults many times to Telstra,"he wrote, "to no avail.I telephoned Alan Smith and obtained the Melbourne telephone number to ring.Having rung that number, I was informed that my number ... was not a business number.

I have questioned my telephone account on several occasions but have no option but to pay as no further account was provided."

He went on to say:
"Telstra service is extremely poor at the time of reporting this fault to Melbourne.Shearers were engaged, and I could not inform them whether sheep were dry. Nobody can run a business where the phone only works intermittently or is supposedly fixed on many occasions."

With regard to the shearing incident referred to, my neighbour was forced to drive a considerable distance from another property to speak to his son at the homestead because he could not reach him on the phone.

During this period, I continued to question Telstra. "How," I asked, "did they make their calculations for my phone account?" My bills were like a yo-yo—up one month and down another.My only tool was to refuse to pay the disputed account until it had been investigated. However, when I didn't pay, Telstra disconnected my service!

 

CHAPTER 22

 

Despite numerous letters from various locals and many similar submissions to arbitration for assessment, the report from the so-called 'independent' technical unit surprisingly stated: "...a comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist."The 183 separate faults I had documented, occurring between late 1989 and early 1994, seemed to be of no consequence.Most entries on this list included the names and addresses of those who had registered complaints with me.I also submitted copies of another 42 fault examples, logged by Telstra's own three fault centres during a single eight-month period, from January to August 1993. Additionally, I included over 70 letters received over the years from people describing difficulties in reaching me by phone.Some of these letters were even from Telstra employees who felt compelled to disclose what they knew about my phone problems. However, this made no difference, as the arbitration's technical resource unit later indicated these documents were not provided to them by the arbitrator for assessment.

The letters from Telstra employees prompted me to contact Telstra union officials, explaining that my complaint was not with individual technicians but with corporate management. It was evident that senior personnel within the organisation were creating problems by refusing to correctly address the persistent complaints from the Cape Bridgewater area. They apparently believed that ignoring these complaints would save money. These complaints were not only coming from Cape Bridgewater and other rural areas; many were also being lodged from metropolitan exchange areas. Clearly, until Telstra management addressed their organisation's corporate culture, the list of complaints would continue to grow.

During his tenure as Minister for Communications, a Labor Party Senator raised concerns about Telstra's Protective Services Unit. This unit spied on its own technicians and other employees, documenting their movements while on sick leave. Therefore, it was unsurprising that the COT members also believed they were being spied on. To this day, the Protective Services Unit has offered no explanation for information they seemingly fabricated. For instance, they have never explained how they knew my movements in advance, nor how they knew when my staff left my office.

One instance of Telstra's apparent ability to read 'between the lines' relates to a bus company I was planning to tender to.I had written to Telstra asking for a guarantee that the phone network would work correctly, so I could assure the bus company that they would be able to reach me to place bookings.I wrote this letter to Telstra without ever mentioning the name of the bus company I was tendering to, but in 1994, among documents sent in response to one of my FOI requests, I found a copy of my own letter with the company name scrawled across the top. Was Telstra intercepting my mail, listening to my phone conversations, or both?Whatever devious method they used to acquire this information, the fact remains that this was spying, way back in 1992, long before the arbitration process began in April 1994. This is only one example of the spying that took place; others will unfold as my story continues. However, the issue of spying on customers was a major factor in my decision to publish this story.Someone has to expose Telstra's power and alert the Australian public to the way Telstra manipulated the legal system.These issues of an individual's right to privacy and a corporation's manipulation of the system go to the very core of Australian democracy.

Documents later acquired under FOI and then provided to the Australian Federal Police show that Telstra officers also made a habit of documenting many of the private and business calls I received.This documentation included the names of the people who called me: my wife, my son, the Regulator, and the TIO's office, among others.Was nothing ever private during this saga?

I was becoming so frustrated about the whole situation that I finally commissioned a small, one-person company to conduct inquiries, interview Telstra senior executives and some politicians, and produce a documentary telling my story.When the Regulator and his legal counsel asked me to call a halt to the documentary before it was finished, I did, even though I had incurred a considerable debt to the company. It took me two years to pay off that debt. Despite this, I never received anything from the company—no interview transcripts, no half-made documentary, nothing.Only recently, eight years after I was forced to halt the documentary process, I discovered that the company owner is now working as an advisor to my local Liberal Member of Parliament. I wonder if my MP has the information this man uncovered and I paid for?All of which raises a general question about the quality of advice our government members, right up to the Prime Minister, are being given.

 

CHAPTER 23

 

Earlier, I recounted how one of the Regulator's engineers helped me test two different T200 phone models on a single line. The goal was to determine if the recurring 'lock-up' fault I had been experiencing was caused by the phone or the line.These 'lock-ups' meant that callers could still hear activity in my office after I had hung up. Following these tests, the engineer was adamant that the fault lay with the line, having occurred with both phones.Documents I later acquired further indicated that Telstra was aware this fault often occurred in moisture-prone areas like Cape Bridgewater, and also knew the local exchange suffered from 'heat problems'.

Later, upon receiving Telstra's defence of my claims, I discovered it included a twenty-nine-page report titled "T200".This document stated that laboratory testing had concluded the 'lock-up' problem with my T200 phone was caused by beer found inside its casing.

My phone was removed on April 27, 1994, but did not arrive at Telstra's laboratories until May 10, 1994—a delay of twelve days. According to photographs in the report, the phone's exterior was very dirty upon arrival. Technicians reported that upon opening the phone, they found the inside wet and sticky. Analysis confirmed the substance was beer, leading to the conclusion that it had caused the 'hookswitch' to lock up.The natural inference was that my drinking habits were responsible for my phone problems. What the technicians didn't know, however, was that I had tested two different phones on that line, both of which had exhibited the same fault.

This report immediately raised several questions. If the phone was clean when it left my office, why did it arrive at the laboratories in such a filthy state?How did the 'beer' get inside the phone? Was the addition of 'beer' deliberate, and if so, who would have done so and why? It certainly wasn't accidentally spilled by me; I rarely drink beer, and only in social settings. I typically drink Scotch or wine due to a medical condition that makes gassy drinks, such as beer, cause me acute discomfort.

As soon as I read the 'beer-in-the-phone' report, I requested from the arbitrator a copy of all the laboratory technician's handwritten notes, hoping to understand how they arrived at their conclusion.I had already appointed my own forensic document researcher to examine such documents once they were received; he had provided his credentials and signed a confidentiality agreement, committing not to disclose his findings. Despite relaying all this information to the arbitrator, the only response I received was a duplicate copy of the report I already possessed.

The arbitrator's lack of assistance was even more shocking given that, only a few weeks prior, he had allowed Telstra's forensic document researcher access to my personal diaries.It seemed there was one rule for Telstra and a different one for the COT claimants.My gut feeling after the oral hearing in October 1994 was increasingly proving correct: the arbitrator was clearly favouring Telstra, granting them access to any information they requested while denying me the same access to crucial information I needed.

I cannot begin to explain how angry I felt.If only I could expose the lengths Telstra had gone to regarding this 'beer-in-the-phone' episode.I knew they had faked the evidence, yet I couldn't prove it.What else would they do to defend their faulty phone network?It didn't seem to matter whom I contacted about this fax line—Senators, the arbitrator himself, the arbitrator's secretary—no one cared about the truth. Telstra management, it seemed, would do anything in their power to prove that there was nothing wrong with my business's phone lines.

As explained in Chapter Twenty, during the period when I experienced significant trouble sending and receiving faxes, I alerted the arbitrator to these issues. The arbitrator's secretary later acknowledged not receiving a number of faxes from me during my arbitration. Still, I was charged by Telstra for all faxes that left my office, presumably heading for the arbitrator's office, even though, on numerous occasions, they never arrived. In fact, Telstra's own records prove that some of these faxes never reached their intended destination.Where had they vanished to?My frustration increased further when I discovered that all these fax faults were supposedly caused by 'beer,' which I knew, without a doubt, could not have been spilled inside the phone before the Telstra technician removed it from my office for testing.

I began by accessing Telstra's technical analysis data, focusing on specific periods when the fax problem was most severe. These documents revealed that the 'lock-up' fault had been present in the network system since at least August 1993.This discovery prompted me to ask the arbitrator to question Telstra: how could 'beer' remain wet and sticky inside my phone, not only for the twelve days between its removal from my premises and the technicians' examination, but also from August 1993 to May 1994?

Telstra had provided a new phone to replace the 'drunken' one they took away. Surprisingly, their own data indicated that the same ten- to fifteen-second lock-up problem persisted until June 1994, five weeks after the original phone was removed and replaced.Perhaps the phone line itself was 'under the influence'? This was a regrettable episode for a company of Telstra's community standing. How desperate must they have been to resort to such deception, especially when merely defending themselves against one struggling cook and camp operator. Truly sad.

In their arbitration defense, Telstra acknowledged that this telephone arrived at their laboratories in a "very dirty condition." This, too, is untrue. The phone was certainly not "in a very dirty condition" when it left my premises.Before the technician took it for testing, we both used a nail to scratch our names into the (clean) cradle where the receiver rests. Much later, in a copy of Telstra's report on this phone, I encountered a photo supposedly showing my phone as it arrived at Telstra's laboratory—with a thick layer of dirt over the inscribed signatures.My suspicions about the lengths Telstra would go to discredit me seemed confirmed.

Neither Telstra nor the TIO has explained how all this dirt and grease appeared over our signatures.When the technician collected this phone from my business, had it been as dirty and greasy as depicted in the photo, our signatures would have been indented into the dirt, rather than covered by it. I must also ask: if the phone was that dirty, wouldn't both the technician and I have automatically wiped away the dirt before engraving our names on it?

These are just some of the many unanswered questions I have raised with the Government over the years.How can they continue to protect Telstra when presented with evidence of such unlawful conduct?The Government is fully aware that tampering with evidence in a legal process is a criminal act. First, we have dirt and grease splattered on a clean telephone, and then beer poured into the phone. The situation has become truly appalling.

Six months after my arbitration, I received Telstra FOI documents A64535 and A64559.These documents show that testing was conducted on my telephone on May 26, 1994, not May 10 and 12, 1994, as stated in the report. They also include handwritten notes, made by someone within Telstra, reporting that laboratory testing had indicated beer residue dried overnight.I believe this confirms my suspicion that the beer was placed inside the phone by someone within Telstra after it had been removed from my premises.Other Telstra FOI documents further reveal that the local Telstra technician who collected the phone tested it eighteen times before sending it to the laboratory, but found nothing wrong with it.

 

CHAPTER 24

 

There were many other misleading statements made under oath by Telstra's defence unit and their technicians, too numerous to list here. However, the most disturbing were the signed Statutory Declarations made by some local technicians.Even though they knew at the time that Telstra's network system into the local exchange was not up to standard, they signed these legal documents, blatantly ignoring the problems and insisting that everything had been satisfactory during the period covered by my claim, except for some minor, everyday faults.

Some of these signed statements would almost have been laughable, if the situation hadn't been so serious.One local technician even went so far as to say he knew of no other business in the Cape Bridgewater area that had experienced the type and number of phone problems I had reported.This statement even included the comment that the technician had a friend, a stock farm agent living at Cape Bridgewater, who had supposedly never experienced phone problems. When I checked Telstra's own fault data, however, this very friend had, in fact, complained seven times in a matter of weeks during early 1994, including issues with his fax line.

Further, between 1988 and 1993, I was the only tourist operator in Cape Bridgewater. The other residents were fishermen and farmers who did not generate any tourist activity in the area and, consequently, were not as reliant on the telephone as I was, particularly for calls outside the local area.

Another set of incorrect statements was lodged by three local technicians in charge of my service complaints.These men stated under oath that, in 1988 when I moved to the area, the original (old) exchange at Cape Bridgewater had five incoming and five outgoing lines, despite it later being proven that this old exchange actually only had four incoming and four outgoing lines.One of these technicians even went so far as to state that any congestion caused by this 'five in and five out' configuration would not have significantly affected my service during business hours.All my calls pass through the Portland exchange before traveling to their destination, and as we now know from Telstra's own archival documents, Telstra secretly knew that congestion was prevalent between the Cape Bridgewater and Portland exchanges.

The saddest thing about these technicians' statements is that if they truly believed the old exchange had five lines in and five lines out, they were not doing their jobs properly.Surely one of them would have noticed that there were only eight lines in total, not ten.In technical terms, ten lines will carry 41 percent more traffic than eight lines.

The Federal Police began showing more interest in the many issues I had raised with the Regulator, and finally came to interview me again.My friend Cathy managed the phones in the office for five hours while the police taped my interview. During this five-hour period, Cathy experienced a number of incoming phone faults—including the phone alarm bell ringing twice, then stopping, ringing once, stopping again, and finally a dead line.The visiting Federal police could see for themselves what was happening.Cathy then made her own Statutory Declaration, in which she told the police about a survey I had distributed some months prior, in late 1993, through the Ballarat Courier newspaper. I had received an enormous number of complaints from the Ballarat region after advertising my singles club project, and this survey was conducted to prompt people to write to me with their own experiences of phone faults in their area.I had asked newspaper readers to send their complaints to me, care of the newspaper, and Cathy (who was living in the area at the time) had agreed to collect the mail for me.The issue with this survey, which Cathy thought important enough to include in her Statutory Declaration, related to the collection of this mail.On two separate occasions, Cathy phoned the paper and was told that there was mail waiting for her to collect for me, but when she arrived at the newspaper's office, the mail had mysteriously vanished.Who had collected our mail, and why would the results of this survey be so interesting to someone else?What did they intend to do with the survey results?

Four years after this experience, in 1998, Cathy used Australia Post's Express Mail to send important Telstra-related documents to my solicitor in Melbourne.Even though Australia Post guarantees next-day delivery for Express Mail, both my solicitor and Australia Post itself confirmed that this letter took six days to reach his Melbourne office.Cathy detailed this experience in yet another Statutory Declaration to the Regulator.Between 1998 and the end of 2001, the Australian Tax Office in Geelong, Victoria; another solicitor in Kew (a Melbourne suburb); and my accountant in Melbourne all reported instances of overnight mail arriving four or five days after being sent. Notably, all these envelopes contained Telstra-related information.

 

CHAPTER 25

 

When I originally agreed to arbitration, the TIO confirmed that all the rules and regulations included in the original commercial agreement would remain in place.These rules included a confidentiality agreement stating that none of the claimants could disclose the value of their award, should an award be made. The COT Four signed for arbitration under severe duress, believing we had no other alternative and were running out of money to finance our fight.

Once I read Telstra's defense documents, I realized Telstra had failed to address the billing faults I had included in my written claim and raised at the oral hearing.At the oral hearing, the arbitrator had stated that if I included the phone interception (bugging) in my claim, it would be addressed; yet Telstra failed to defend the phone bugging issue. This raised significant concerns.

I had already provided the TIO and the arbitrator with evidence of how Telstra had altered FOI documents and rearranged information on faxes in an attempt to minimize its liability. However, unbeknownst to me at the time, a Telstra whistleblower had written to the Government on October 13, 1994, also alerting them to the alteration of COT FOI documents.He accused Telstra management of taking an "... unprofessional adversarial approach towards customers ..." and deceiving and lying to customers.He listed what he called "... three main areas where senior executives had sought to influence and manipulate..." These areas included: removing or changing clear information regarding Telstra's liability; diminishing the level of compensation payable to COT customers; and being dismissive of breaches of customer privacy.

Under the rules of the arbitration, the COT claimants should have been given a copy of this letter. The failure to provide this document was a clear breach of protocol. Furthermore, once the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office wrote to Telstra's CEO about documents Telstra had provided that were practically useless due to extensive redactions (with a copy of the letter sent to the arbitrator and the TIO), my arbitration should have been halted immediately.

I have now broken my silence due to the unlawful conduct of the arbitrator and Telstra, and the conspiracy between them. I am compelled by my strong belief in the legal rights of all Australians. While I also believe strongly that we should all respect the law, after everything I have suffered over these past years, I no longer believe that our Australian legal system will necessarily ensure justice for all.The COT arbitrations have proven to be a farce, and consequently, the rules ostensibly designed to ensure justice are equally farcical.

Christmas 1994 passed in a blur, and I found myself in the new year of 1995 with only two weeks left to submit my reply to Telstra's defence. I still had thousands of discovery documents to sort through.Once again, the stress was overwhelming, and my health was deteriorating rapidly. This not only affected the preparation of my response but also seriously damaged the running of my business.The festive season is always the busiest for bookings, of course, yet I was then suffering debilitating dizzy spells roughly twice a week. Fortunately, Cathy had, by this time, moved into the camp house.Without her assistance, I would never have survived this period.

The Queensland detective returned to Cape Bridgewater for a brief stopover. Together, we worked through New Year's Eve while Cathy went with her sister and brother-in-law to see in the New Year in Portland. Sometime after 1:30 on the morning of January 1st, as the detective and I were still labouring over my reply, the others arrived back from their celebrations, armed with a bottle of Scotch and a bottle of Port.After the hard work and long hours we had put in over the past two days, a couple of drinks quickly put the detective and me to sleep. He flew back home the following day.

February saw the camp fairly heavily booked, thankfully. The year seven coordinator for Hamilton High School (now Bainbridge College) brought his group along, a tradition he maintained annually from 1990 until 2003. Despite frequent difficulties contacting me, he remained a regular customer.His support, along with that of many other regular customers, played a big part in keeping me going through the worst times.

After his visit that February, and having experienced problems reaching me by phone since his very first contact in 1990, the coordinator wrote upon returning to school, describing his continuing concerns about not being able to contact the camp by phone.In this letter, he stated: "I wish to acknowledge in writing the repeated difficulty I have had contacting Alan Smith at the Cape Bridgewater convention centre by telephone.In the week March 1st to 5th, I made five or six phone calls to Alan but I was unable to get through; indeed, the line was 'dead'.This was extremely frustrating, and had I not been aware of Alan's phone problems, I would have used another campsite."

This group stayed for a full five days, following closely on the heels of a group from the Birchip Community Centre, who had been coming regularly since 1988.My records from this month show that members of the Birchip group continually complained that my coin-operated phone, installed for the campers to use, was 'always on the blink'.

The group left on a Friday. Lake Bolac Secondary College was due the following Monday, and I was now even closer to running out of time to submit any further supporting claim material.I felt like everything was conspiring against me.In 2002, I received a document from the TIO which confirmed that the arbitration project manager wrote to the TIO on 18th April 1995, noting: "It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."This letter was copied to the arbitrator and the TIO's Legal Counsel. Again, we must ask: Why wasn't the arbitration stopped immediately?Why did no one ask who or what the 'forces' were that were preventing the project manager from properly doing his work?Did this have something to do with the allegations made by the Telstra whistleblower regarding Telstra officials altering documents to minimise Telstra's liability?

Of course, the main problem—one that the TIO's office never seemed to grasp—was that I wasn't just 'running' my business; I was also working in my business, supported only by part-time staff.How could I successfully prepare such a complicated claim and response during the busiest period of the year for my business (November to May)?

If I had only had reliable phone service from the very beginning, I would by now have been in a position to hire at least three full-time staff, supported by daily part-time waitresses. However, since I was not in this position, I had very little time available to even think about my claim against Telstra, let alone prepare it. Consequential losses continued to mount, all because Telstra would not admit that the telephone exchange was totally outdated and unable to cope with the volume of calls in the area.I could not believe the position the COTs now found themselves in, through no fault of their own: a handful of small-business people pitting their wits against the legal minds of some of the largest corporations in the country.

Again and again, I was faced with the same tactics.Every request I made to the arbitrator continued to bring a roar of silence — certainly no documentation appeared.Worn out and frustrated, my irritation with the arbitrator grew more intense each day.

On 23rd January 1995, I finally received a response to an earlier letter I had sent to the arbitrator on 13th January 1995. In that letter, I had asked for information about how Bell Canada arrived at the findings in their report. The arbitrator's response noted that "Telstra does not consider it has any further information of relevance in its possession."The arbitrator then requested that I respond to this comment within twenty-four hours in order to "be certain that there is no confusion between the parties as to the documentation which is being sought."As requested, I responded the following day.My fax account shows that this two-page response left my office and took two minutes and nineteen seconds to travel to the arbitrator's fax.This length of time indicates that there were indeed two pages, as most faxes take about a minute per page to transmit successfully.

According to the rules of the arbitration, all documents sent to the arbitrator must be copied to the other party by the arbitrator (in this case, of course, that other party was Telstra).

Twelve months after my arbitration procedure was completed, and through the persistence and support of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office and under FOI, I was provided with information showing that Telstra did not receive my response of 24th January 1995, which had been faxed to the arbitrator. Additionally, forty-two other claim documents, sent via fax at various times, never reached Telstra's defence unit according to their records, even though my fax account indicates they reached the arbitrator's office.

Regarding the Bell Canada report and the tests they allegedly carried out at Cape Bridgewater, another similar FOI document, N00040, underscores my persistent requests for data proving that the Bell Canada tests were indeed conducted on the dates shown in their report.This document, dated June 20, 1994, clearly reveals an error in the tests conducted from Richmond to the Cape Bridgewater exchange, as detailed in the original BCI report.Unfortunately, I did not receive this document until three years after my arbitration was completed.It was supplied by another COT member.

Three weeks after my arbitration was completed and my appeal time had expired, I received three more FOI documents (N00005, N00006, and N00037).Document N00005, dated September 6, 1994, from Telstra to Bell Canada, states in its second paragraph:"Specifically, the start and finish times for the test run from Richmond digital..., to Portland exchange, Cape Bridgewater..., (detailed in section 15.23 of the report) are impracticable.The number of calls made during the test run could not have been completed within the time span shown and the test run would have clashed with other test runs performed within those times." Furthermore, document N00037, an internal Telstra email headed "Smith's Query on BCI Tests", states in part: "Mr Smith is correct in the suggestion implied in his query that the test results recorded in the 'Addendum - Additional Tests' part of the BCI report to Telecom, November 1, 1993, are impracticable."

Further information relating to the BCI report emerged much later.A copy of a report from Hansard, detailing discussions that took place in the Senate on September 26, 1997, was forwarded to me in late August 1999.This report clearly indicates that Telstra misled the Senate regarding the BCI report.

At that time, I was concerned that my phone faults, which had continued even after my December 1992 settlement, would persist, and I raised the issue with the Regulator. Having already refuted the results of the Bell Canada tests with the Regulator, Telstra finally visited my premises to conduct what they called 'verification testing' and provide the results to both the arbitrator and the Regulator.

On the day Telstra began its testing process, Cathy and I both sent Statutory Declarations to the arbitrator, believing the tests had not been conducted correctly.In early October 1994, I also wrote to Telstra's arbitration defense counsel (twice) regarding these concerns.The arbitrator did not reply, but Telstra stated in its later defense that all the tests it conducted at my business that day not only met the Regulator's specifications but exceeded them.This Telstra report (B004) was accompanied by a Statutory Declaration signed by one of the Telstra officers who had previously been advised by the Regulator that the tests carried out at my business were deficient. Nevertheless, he was apparently happy to sign a Witness Statement, under oath and in front of a Solicitor, stating that the tests had met the required standards.

An even more serious result of this cover-up plot became obvious when the TIO-appointed technical resource unit advised the arbitrator, in its technical report of April 30, 1995, that it had ceased its investigation of my claim documents at the end of October 1994.Although the unit did not explicitly state why, it could well be that it stopped because it believed the two signed and sworn statements provided by Telstra, which claimed my phone service was fault-free.

In February 1995, two arbitration project advisors visited my business, along with a representative from Telstra, to assess my financial losses resulting from the phone difficulties I had been suffering.Under the rules of the arbitration, neither the resource unit, the technical advisory unit, nor the financial unit (FHCA) was allowed to be alone with either Telstra or me. However, there was not much we could do about the two-hour delay between the arrival of the financial advisors and the arrival of Telstra, apart from the financial advisors' solitary inspection of the general area.When the Telstra representative finally arrived, we first visited a number of locations around Cape Bridgewater. It was then that I began to recognize the true nature of the financial advisors: they negated or ignored everything I said.It seems they already had fixed ideas about this case.

Perhaps it was my early years at sea as a fifteen-year-old, or perhaps I was just being 'streetwise'; whatever the reason, I was not going to ignore my feelings again.FHCA's attitude, and the way they played down my business in front of the Telstra representative, was a clear indication of what was to come.

Given that FHCA and Telstra were not supposed to meet without me, and since I couldn't leave the campsite (a group was in residence, and during the holiday period, passing tourists might need accommodation), I had arranged lunch there. Cathy had brought fresh bread rolls in town, and I provided fresh pasta and salad with three different cold meats.My offer of lunch was declined, however, and the others all adjourned to the Kiosk by the beach, in direct opposition to the arbitration rules. And what could I do?

They all returned later, but then stayed only another fifteen minutes before leaving for Melbourne.I tried to introduce evidence to support my position. However, because much of the information I was receiving from Telstra under the discovery process (in the form of FOI documents) was arriving months after my original requests were lodged, this belated information was never assessed by the arbitrator.Part of the information I attempted to introduce at this stage included copies of brochures and other details from businesses similar to the one I had hoped to build in Cape Bridgewater—businesses providing a guest-house setup for weekend getaways. Though many tourist industry professionals were convinced that my seaside location would be ideal for such a business, after all the energy I had spent just fighting for a decent phone system, I no longer had the energy or enthusiasm I once had, nor the will to struggle further, particularly when I looked back at the ruined lives scattered along the road behind me.

Although the brochures and other documents I provided to FHCA that day were not accepted into the arbitration process, I have never seen this information again, nor when some of my claim material was finally returned to me after the arbitrator issued his findings.

It wasn't until 2002 that I discovered FHCA had written to the arbitrator in August 1996—eighteen months after the so-called 'completion' of my arbitration—admitting it had withheld a number of letters exchanged between the Regulator, Telstra, and the arbitrator regarding the 1800 short duration faults.FHCA knowingly disadvantaged my claim by withholding these documents from both the arbitrator and me, even though it had advised the TIO (the administrator of the arbitration process).If the TIO had been truly independent, he would have investigated this matter at that time in 1996.As it was, I knew nothing about it until I was finally provided with the information six years later.

Since we now know that FHCA was aware of Telstra's initial intention to address the 1800 short-duration calls as part of their defence of my claims, we must ask why they withheld these documents during the arbitration and, more importantly, what prompted them to finally acknowledge their error eighteen months too late?If the TIO prompted this admission from FHCA, we must also ask why the TIO was reinvestigating matters associated with an arbitration that, as he was busy telling everyone, had been successfully completed eighteen months before.I believe this is further proof that the TIO was not impartial in relation to my claims against Telstra.

 

CHAPTER 26

 

With most of my days taken up with camp duties during this holiday period, I only had the evenings to work on my final claim material.Before I had even come close to completing the collation of the first twenty thousand documents that arrived after Telstra lodged their defence, more had been delivered.With all this paperwork, where was I to find enough space to sort it out so I could refer back and forth among the documents? The Australian public purse might well have been paying Telstra's legal bill, but I wasn't getting any support at all; I couldn't even afford to hire a law student to help.And all any of us in the COT group were trying to do was achieve simple justice for ourselves and, at the same time, alert the Australian public to the cover-up being orchestrated by Telstra. Telstra seemed to be doing everything they could to stop us.

So here I was, well into 1995, still struggling with the enormous task of attempting to collate all the FOI documents I was receiving so late in the process into some sort of sensible order.It seemed to me, given my lack of experience in legal matters, that the arbitrator was not accepting any more material in support of my claim. Therefore, I believed I could not lodge these new documents as further evidence, even though Telstra's technical data sheets, when compared to my Telstra accounts, clearly showed that I was still being charged for calls that never connected. Instead, I phoned the arbitrator to ask for another oral hearing.I wanted to ask the technical resource unit how best to lay out all this evidence. I was concerned that, because of my lack of technical expertise, they might not understand what I was trying to show.During this phone conversation with the arbitrator, I explained that I now owed my technical advisor $25,000 and could not afford to incur any more expense.

The arbitrator advised me to continue working as I had been because the technical resource unit would be visiting Cape Bridgewater shortly, and they could discuss the presentation of my material with me then.Before that visit occurred, however, the technical resource unit—an Australian company with a high reputation in the telecommunications industry—pulled out of the process.Telstra had offered them valuable contracts, creating a conflict of interest.This situation raises two questions: Did Telstra deliberately set up this 'conflict of interest' situation, and how could the Australian company pull out of a signed contract?

A new technical unit, run by a man who had previously worked for Telstra for twenty years, was commissioned by the TIO's office.Eleven months down the track, we were told there was a whole new ball game: a new resource unit was to assess our claims, and to add insult to injury, an ex-Telstra employee was to be the main player.Ann, Graham, and I made it quite clear to the TIO that we were not happy about this, and so a Canadian telecommunications company was brought into the process to alleviate our fears.

The TIO advised, in writing, that the new Australian company (with its ex-Telstra CEO) would only assist the Canadians, but as it turned out, the Australians actually did most of the assessments.This was not according to the written agreement forwarded to me by the TIO; once again, I was misled, this time by the TIO.All this was on top of having to cope with an arbitrator who was a partner in a law firm that was doing contract work for Telstra.It was almost too much to bear.I felt as if the whole world was ganging up on me, as if the whole world supported Telstra, and no one cared what happened to the COT four.Surely it couldn't get any worse?But it did.

As April 1995 rolled around, even more tricks of the justice trade were unearthed.On April 6, a Telstra official arrived at the camp, and we then collected a representative from the new technical unit from the airport. Together, the three of us inspected the exchanges at Cape Bridgewater and Portland and had discussions with the local technician—the same technician whose stock farm agent friend apparently never had problems with his phone, until I uncovered the agent's complaint records.

By this stage in the process, I had found a number of documents pertaining to congestion at the local exchanges.One of these FOI documents, numbered K01003 and dated April 7, 1994—twelve months earlier—stated: "At 4:55 p.m. on April 6, 1994, I was informed by Network Ops that the route into the Portland exchange would be increased by 30 percent.The work was to be completed prior to midnight that day.This should alleviate any problems Mr. Smith or anyone else in the area had been experiencing with congestion into the area for some time."

Another document, titled "Cape Bridgewater COT" and also dated 6th April 1994, stated:
"Following previous lost call analysis of the ... route between Warrnambool ... and Portland ... it was decided to increment this route from 30 to 60 CCTS.

I have reiterated to all parties concerned the importance of getting this project done ASAP.

Could you please 'fast track' this project due to the sensitivity of the current COT case at Cape Bridgewater ..."

This increase from "30 to 60 CCTS" represented an extra thirty circuits into Portland.This was a one hundred percent increase in the phone route into the Portland exchange, thereby reducing congestion, not the thirty percent reported in Telstra's FOI document K01003. Remarkably, when the new technical unit arrived at the Portland exchange, they quickly recognized that Telstra had underestimated this decrease in congestion by seventy percent.The Telstra officers on duty at the Portland exchange at the time seemed visibly embarrassed by the error uncovered.These officers were not aware of a phone call I had received the previous month from Telstra's CEO.Why would the top man in such a large organization take the time to phone a small holiday camp at the far end of the State, particularly if everything I had been saying to the Regulator and to the politicians was not considered relevant? Indeed, he called me, and I took the opportunity to assert my belief that both Portland and Cape Bridgewater exchanges had been suffering from congestion for some years.He gave me his word that he would investigate my theory.

FOI documents show that he was a man of his word. Moreover, his investigation proved I was right.The congestion was clearly confirmed in a Telstra internal memo dated 30th March 1994 (FOI document K01007), which states:
"On 27th March Mr Smith complained that he did not receive two calls on Sunday night from Melbourne.
The customers calling Mr Smith received "Busy Tone".
During the period 20:00 to 21:00, Telstra's traffic monitoring equipment indicated that the number of calls being made into Portland exceeded the available junctions.
It is probable that the callers to Mr Smith in fact received tone indicating congestion in the telephone network into the Portland area."

Aside from recognizing problems with congestion into the Portland exchange, this memo raises another question: would ordinary callers actually recognize the difference between a 'busy tone' and a 'congested tone,' which sound very similar to the untrained ear? The memo also indicates the technician's acceptance of congestion at the Portland exchange. For my business, this situation was compounded because, after first navigating the minefield of congestion at Portland, calls were then switched to the local exchange at Cape Bridgewater, where they encountered even more difficulties due to heat and other problems.No wonder my customers' complaints continued to mount, even while my arbitration was in progress—each call had to cross two separate hurdles before there was any chance of connecting to my phone!

On 6th April, while the new technical team was in Cape Bridgewater, I again attempted to raise the incorrect billing issues.According to the technical unit personnel, the arbitrator had instructed them not to assess any new claim material. Naturally, I was most irate.This was a complete turnaround by the arbitrator, who had assured me that any new information discovered among FOI documents, even those received late, could be presented to the technical resource unit upon their visit to the camp.I had burned the midnight oil preparing my evidence for the technical team's arrival, as it was clear this new information would further support my allegations.I was so angry, in fact, that I managed to have them at least look at one document while the Telstra official was still there.This was a copy of part of my 1800 call account. 'How,' I asked, 'could I be charged for a 9.49-minute call on 13th January 1995, at 11:50 a.m., and then for a 42-second call at 11:57 a.m. while I was apparently still on the phone with the previous caller?' It is certainly not possible to have two calls overlapping on the same line.

This caught the attention of the technical personnel, and I was able to offer further examples of incorrect charging on this 1800 account, on both 10th and 11th January.This account showed calls from my home number to the camp number.According to my diary notes, both those calls registered an engaged signal but were charged as having connected. On 13th January, there were again similar examples of incorrect charging. Clearly, incorrect charging had been pervasive within Telstra, as my account demonstrated. This document was included in my claim.

Neither the Telstra official nor the technical unit people were prepared to comment on this evidence at the time, although I was assured that the matter would be taken up and addressed as part of the arbitration.The Telstra and technical representatives left shortly after this—together. Their joint departure without me was, of course, a direct breach of the arbitration rules. What private conversations took place between these two?The answer to that question is probably known only to the participants themselves (and perhaps the arbitrator?). FOI documents received after the arbitration confirmed that the TIO-appointed technical consultant (an ex-Telstra employee) received information directly from this particular Telstra engineer. It also became clear that some information exchanged between the arbitrator's resource unit and Telstra—in both directions—was never made available to either my technical consultant or me.This same Telstra engineer also unlawfully provided the arbitrator with a sworn witness statement falsely claiming that the tests carried out at my business during my arbitration not only met the regulator's specifications but exceeded the required standards.

Both resource units (one technical, one financial) were now preparing their reports, and I had a gut feeling (which turned out to be correct) that the COT members had been sold more than a pup.I felt as if I had been crucified by the very person who was supposed to be delivering justice: my arbitrator.By this stage, he had not once investigated my questions about why both my fax and phones continued to malfunction. I was now convinced that the arbitration was just a sham, instigated with the single aim of 'shutting me up' by providing some sort of minimum award payment without fixing the ongoing faults.

Had the new technical unit known about the deficient verification testing and Telstra's reliance on false BCI test results to support the efficiency of its network into Cape Bridgewater, they might well have demanded that the arbitrator inquire about the true extent of the network's faults.

If the arbitrator had been aware at this point that Telstra was relying on deficient test results and an impracticable BCI test report to support its defence of my claims, he would have been legally duty-bound to ask Telstra for an explanation.The saga just goes on, and on, and on...

CHAPTER 27

 

Cathy was now involved in the business as a partner, but I had only been able to pay her minimum wages from early 1994.After the technicians and the Telstra people left, we had quite a disagreement about my next move.I believed I had a great idea (Cathy disagreed).My idea involved the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.They had been very supportive of my allegations regarding Telstra's defective supply of discovery documents requested under the FOI Act. Throughout this entire ordeal, they had repeatedly proved themselves to be truly impartial.What a breath of fresh, clean air!

It was perfectly clear that this government department operated strictly according to the principles of natural justice. Knowing that this office was then involved in preparing a report on Telstra's failure to provide the COTs' discovery documents under the FOI Act, I presumed they would retain copies of all documents I had faxed to them, as well as those they had faxed to me.I was confident this would prove beneficial. I asked the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office to use my 1800 freecall number for all future calls, knowing they would document the number of calls made in relation to my complaints.I was convinced that the Ombudsman's tally of those calls would not match my 1800 account.

Two years later, on February 28, 1997, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office presented Telstra with a document detailing all communications between our offices. This document formed part of their report to Telstra's Corporate Customer Affairs Office. The report showed they had received 315 faxes from me, with 1,369 attachments, and had sent me 21 faxes with 209 attachments. It also recorded 163 calls from my office to theirs, and 43 from their office to my 1800 account.Telstra, however, had charged my 1800 account for 92 calls from the Ombudsman during this same period (not 43).I have since lost another three pages of 1800 accounts for the same period but have not sought replacements until Telstra explains the discrepancy in these figures. The 43 calls registered by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office versus the 92 calls actually charged by Telstra clearly requires an explanation. By July 2004, Telstra had still not provided a rebate for these incorrectly charged calls, nor had they attempted to explain such a significant discrepancy.This matter has also not been properly investigated by the TIO's office.

The TIO's office and the Minister for Communications have been clearly shown that this incorrect charging, both on my 1800 line and my fax line, continued for at least four years after the arbitrator handed down my 'award'. Neither Telstra nor the arbitrator ever addressed this issue during my arbitration, and I have never been awarded anything in relation to this particular matter. However, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's information helped me prove, beyond any doubt, that considerable problems with Telstra's billing system persisted up to twenty months AFTER my 'award' had been handed down. This obviously indicates that the problem continued throughout the arbitration itself.

How could the arbitrator issue an 'award' when incorrect charging, one of the primary reasons for the arbitration, was still occurring regularly and had persisted throughout the arbitration period? Since this incorrect charging was a central issue raised in the arbitration and was never addressed or included in the 'award,' how can this procedure be considered complete?

I have written numerous letters to both the TIO's office and Telstra regarding this matter, yet neither has offered any explanation. Furthermore, the incorrect charging related to Commonwealth Ombudsman calls remains unaddressed.

May 11th, 1995, was D-day, the date the arbitrator was scheduled to issue his award.I had previously received a copy of the technical report on the losses attributed to the phone faults my business had suffered over the preceding six and a half years covered by my claim. To my horror, I discovered that this report had addressed only twenty-six of the points I had raised in my claim, leaving many very relevant claim documents unaddressed. In fact, calculations now show that the technical unit assessed less than half of the claim documents I submitted.This effectively gave Telstra a major advantage, as they therefore did not have to respond to the documents not covered in the technical report.The TIO has still not correctly investigated why both the arbitrator and the technical unit allowed so much of my claim material to be ignored.

The arbitrator's award did not address any of the incorrect charging issues, nor did it cover any of my questions about claim documents that had been lost between my fax and their intended destinations.The continuing phone faults had not been addressed either.Bile rose from my stomach.I had no money left to employ my technical advisor again.What could I do?This was clearly an attempt to 'wipe the slate clean' for Telstra. Obviously, the arbitrator thought he could get away with awarding me a minimum payment, without any compensation to cover all the consequential and resultant costs that had accumulated as I prepared my claim and then worked to bring all these matters to the attention of the Regulator and the Government.

The technical report found that a number of my claims were proven, and indeed, it did find against Telstra on a few issues, but nowhere near the extent of the problems that had been demonstrated by my claim documents.

Around 1995, reports circulated within the government that Telstra could not account for approximately one billion dollars' worth of 'network cabling' across Australia. Telstra not only seemed unaware of the cabling's location but also couldn't confirm its installation. The Group General Manager for Telstra Commercial Australia at the time—a position that made him ultimately responsible for this 'missing' cabling—was the same individual who suggested Telstra recommend the unfavourable Coopers & Lybrand COT report be softened before its release. He was also considered 'of interest' by the Federal Police regarding the bugging of COT phones. This individual has since been promoted and now holds a position placing him in charge of Telstra's entire rural network, encompassing both commercial and residential services. One hopes he eventually locates the missing billion dollars' worth of network cabling, as, according to many sources, problems and faults in rural areas are currently holding up the privatisation of Telstra.

 

CHAPTER 28

 

The following fault assessments are taken from the technical report, specifically from a section covering the local telephone exchange, RCM 1, to which my coin-operated gold phone was connected for most of the time.The technical report was compiled from Telstra's own data and records.

"2.2There were consistent problems with the RCM system.Mr Smith's services were carried on RCM 1 until February 1994.This system had a history of problems, and its components were subject to several design corrections (Work Specifications).These issues likely caused a range of reported problems during the 18-month period from August 1991 to February 1993, at which point Mr Smith's services were transferred off RCM 1 and service improved.Specific problems are covered in later paragraphs (refer to 2.8, 2.9, 2.21).**

ASSESSMENT: Service was less than reasonable.

2.8 RCM 1 failed due to lightning damage.Lightning damage to communications equipment would be expected from time to time in this area.Reasonable service relates to the time taken to return the service to normal.A reasonable expectation would be repair in less than the four days actually taken.

ASSESSMENT: Service was less than reasonable.

2.9Evidence of problems with services on RCM 1 had been sufficient to cause Telstra to move the CBHC (my business) services away from RCM 1 to RCM 2 and 3. Later, when the RCM equipment was examined by Melbourne staff, evidence of severe error levels had accumulated on the counters in the transmission equipment (particularly RCM 1).After corrective action, these severe error levels ceased accumulating.

ASSESSMENT: Service was less than reasonable.

This report then goes on to summarize the situation regarding the gold phone: "Intermittent effects on the gold phone resulted in it being removed from RCM 1 eleven days after potential cause (lightning strike damage to RCM 1).At the time of removal, the actual equipment fault had not been found, although testing was continuing.This seems to have been a reasonable action and timescale under the circumstances.

ASSESSMENT: A reasonable level of service was provided."

So, in their report, the technical unit stated that four days was a "less than reasonable" timeframe for fault repair, but in the summary of this section, they declared eleven days a reasonable timeframe for repair.

Furthermore, in their summary, they gave the gold phone a clean bill of health. However, the gold phone was connected to RCM 1 for most of its existence, so how could it possibly have been working well when the exchange (RCM 1, as referred to in point 2.2 above) "had a track record of problems"?

Bearing in mind that this report was compiled seven years after my first complaint was lodged with Telstra, it is concerning that the technical unit made no reference to the numerous diary notes and letters from customers that I lodged with the arbitration, many of which referred to continual problems with this gold phone. How could they possibly prepare a secret document for the arbitrator (which I was never intended to see), giving the system a clean bill of health, with all these complaints piling up?

It must be noted, however, that the technical unit did state they did not examine all my claim documents when assessing the phone faults at Cape Bridgewater. This naturally raises the question of why they didn't examine all these documents.Who in Australia had the authority to instruct an independent technical resource unit not to address issues raised in claim documents that had been presented in a legal procedure?Clearly, with sufficient resources and power to influence the judge (in my case, the arbitrator), one can hijack the system at will.

The 'lightning strike' referred to in the technical report raises further questions.According to FOI documents included in my claim, the exchange had received a lightning strike sometime in November 1992.This strike apparently damaged a 'bearer' at the exchange. The same document reports that it "appeared that the fault was rectified by late January 1993." According to my calculations, even if "sometime in November" was actually late in November, this is still two months, not eleven days as the technical unit had stated in their findings.To have a phone out of order for two months is certainly far from a reasonable level of service.

Other information that came to light during the Regulator's research for their COT report related to the fault alarm at the unmanned Cape Bridgewater exchange, which Telstra technicians had forgotten to connect. This alarm was vital, as it was the only way technicians at Portland would know if there was a problem or fault at the exchange.This alarm was not connected for eighteen months—from August 1991 through March 1993.Why hadn't the technical unit highlighted this error in their technical report? Evidently, many of the phone faults my business experienced during these eighteen months would have gone undetected by local technicians simply because the alarm was not connected.

I challenged the technical unit's assessment of my "gold phone," supplying both Telstra and the TIO's office with conclusive evidence, using Telstra's own documentation, that there had been continuing problems with the device over a period of years.These problems were corroborated by numerous letters from my customers.In December 1995, some time after receiving the technical report (dated April 30, 1995), I had finally had enough and refused to pay the "gold phone" account until its faults were acknowledged by Telstra.Telstra's response was to disconnect the phone, which remained so until I finally sold the business in 2001, with the TIO's office continually stating they were 'looking into the matter'.

As if responding to the technical report wasn't difficult enough, the financial report prepared by FHCA proved to be even more of a nightmare.On May 9, 1995, my forensic accountant wrote a 39-page report to the arbitrator, explaining the failings he had found in the financial report.Some of the points raised in that letter were:

"1.The FHCA report does not include any detailed workings. Therefore, we have endeavoured to recalculate the FHCA figures based on their assumptions and the base figures included in our report dated June 21, 1994.

Our recalculated figures are still higher than the FHCA figures, and we are unable to determine the reason for this.

2.We believe that the FHCA report contains many inaccuracies and, in the main area of loss quantification, is simply wrong.THE MAIN CALCULATION OF LOSS HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLY UNDERSTATED BY AN ERROR OF LOGIC.

The error of logic appears to arise from the fact that FHCA reduced the total bed capacity by the night utilization of forty-eight percent (to give available bed capacity) and then applied the bed occupancy rates to the available bed capacity.It is incorrect to reduce the total bed capacity by both of these factors."

My accountant never received a response from the arbitrator.Two days later, on May 11, 1995, the arbitrator handed down his award. In contrast to my accountant's calculations of the losses my business suffered due to the phone problems, this award provided only ten cents on the dollar. Once I accounted for all the expenses incurred to bring the phone problems to the attention of the Regulator and the Senate, as well as those for submitting my claim to the arbitrator, I was left with only four cents on the dollar.By this stage, I had been fighting for justice for seven years and was left wondering — what about my failing health?

Unbeknownst to me, my accountant was disgusted by the handling of the arbitration procedure. He contacted the project manager of my claim and asked how he had arrived at his findings.The project manager advised my accountant that, under instructions from the arbitrator, he had been forced to remove a large section of information from his final report, rendering the final report incomplete.My accountant was so incensed that he promptly wrote to the Minister for Communications and the new TIO, clearly expressing his disappointment with FHCA.He considered their conduct detrimental to my claim because, since their report was incomplete, he had no firm basis for formulating a response or, indeed, challenging the report.

Finally, the project manager called me directly. He said he had called to let me know that while he was aware things hadn't turned out quite as I had hoped, he believed I now had to put it all behind me, get on with my life, and show them what I could do.I am still wondering who 'them' was.

As if it weren't bad enough that the so-called independent arbitrator forced the so-called independent financial assessors to 'doctor' their report, it is even more disappointing that the project manager for the financial assessors would wait until after my appeal time had elapsed before speaking out. And why did he call then, anyway?I had only ever spoken to him once throughout this entire process, back on October 11, 1994, during the oral hearing.This phone call seemed totally out of character; or had he heard about my failing health and had an attack of conscience?Even more strangely, during this conversation, the project manager informed me that the Canadian executive manager of my case was also going to call me; and so he did.

The Canadian manager said something like: 'This has been the worst process I have ever been a party to.This sort of situation would never have happened in North America.'

I did not receive a copy of a letter dated February 13, 1996, until 2001-2002. This letter, from the project manager to the new TIO, concerned the removal of part of his findings and noted that he had informed my accountant: "...the final report did not cover all material and working papers."

On October 13, 1994, when a Telstra whistleblower alerted the Federal Government to alterations made to COT documents by two senior Telstra executives—an attempt to minimize Telstra's liability in the COT arbitrations—I realized I had also identified one of these executives to the Australian Federal Police. This was because, for the very same reason, he had altered documents I was viewing in Telstra's FOI room before they were officially presented to me. Intriguingly, board members of the same respected horse racing club in Melbourne included these two "fiddling" Telstra executives and the principal partner (and managing director) of the firm that supplied the TIO-appointed arbitration project manager.Even more intriguing, one of the "fiddling" executives also collaborated with an executive from the TIO-appointed arbitration project manager's firm on the collapse of the Pyramid Building Society.In that process, his role was primarily to minimize the adverse publicity generated against the government as a result of the collapse.It began to look like a very complicated spider's web, with the spider spinning faster and faster to minimize responsibility on behalf of either the government or Telstra—or perhaps both.Whatever was truly happening, the end result was that none of the billing faults I raised in my claim against Telstra were ever addressed during the arbitration.

 

CHAPTER 29

 

And, unbelievably, the plot continued to thicken...

On May 23, 1995, another seven hundred or so FOI discovery documents arrived.I couldn't imagine what Telstra hoped to achieve by this.Why now?Why not twelve months before, when I could have used the material to support my claim?Why not even ten days before—because two of the documents included in this latest batch proved particularly important. Had I only had them ten days earlier, I could have used them to support an appeal against the arbitrator's award.Even better, a month earlier, I could have amended the claim itself.By the time I had these documents, the only way I could have used them was to take the matter to the Supreme Court—an alternative entirely beyond my financial means at the time, as Telstra well knew.

The two documents in question were copies of letters exchanged between Telstra and Bell Canada International in August and September 1994.These letters acknowledged that the BCI tests, as reported in the addendum to their Cape Bridgewater report of November 10, 1993, were impracticable. Clearly, Telstra knew there were issues with the BCI report it had provided to the Senate in 1993, which was purportedly to support its assertions that its network into the Cape Bridgewater exchange met world standards. We now know that Telstra has continued to mislead the Senate for many years regarding the actual standard of this network.

On September 6, 1994, Telstra's letter to Bell Canada (FOI document N00005 and 6) specifically referred to the start and finish times for the tests conducted from the Richmond exchange to the Portland exchange test line.These tests, detailed in the BCI report, were deemed impracticable by Telstra. However, Telstra did not disclose that this impracticability was partly due to Telstra itself conducting Neat testing to the same Cape Bridgewater number, concurrently on the same day.

This letter to BCI was not the only document to refer to the impracticability of these tests; several inter-departmental documents within Telstra also acknowledged this issue.

FOI document L68979 is a copy of a letter from Telstra to my arbitrator, dated September 13, 1994. In this letter, Telstra acknowledged that the arbitrator had not issued any directives regarding the raw data from the BCI tests, which I had previously requested the arbitrator to obtain from them.I sought this raw test data to demonstrate to the arbitrator that my telephone service was so poor at the time that these tests could not possibly have been carried out as depicted in the BCI report.I have not yet received any documentation related to this testing; specifically, none of the raw data has been provided to me, either by the arbitrator (under the discovery process) during the arbitration or by anyone else since. Furthermore, I have not received any documentation showing how BCI arrived at the figures presented in their report.

Despite knowing the BCI report was impracticable and flawed, Telstra still used its test results in their defense against my claims, asserting that the network was working correctly.I know that at least one copy of this report was provided to Telstra's defense unit, as a clinical psychologist commissioned by Telstra to assess my mental health stated that he had read the BCI report before meeting me.

Of course, any ordinary person would believe that Telstra's phone system was working properly if they read BCI's report because BCI is an international, highly regarded, and qualified communications company. They clearly stated that thousands upon thousands of test calls were made to the exchange my phone was connected to, with a ninety-nine point five percent positive result.The first conclusion would then have to be that my claims were unsubstantiated and, following this, that I must somehow be out of my mind.

The fact remains, however, that Telstra knowingly provided a flawed document to support their defence.This act is illegal in this country and classified as perjury in a legal process.Why hasn't Telstra been held accountable for its actions by the Government?

For years, I have lobbied the Communications Minister and the TIO to have the BCI report withdrawn from Telstra's defence, but my requests have fallen on deaf ears. Telstra's own FOI documents clearly show that, for some six months before lodging their defence, they knew this report was impracticable.The TIO and the various Government Ministers, having been notified of the report's problems, have so far failed in their duty of care. They should have ensured its withdrawal from the public domain when first alerted to its impracticability and inherent flaws.

In a letter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Telstra has written:"The reference to documents relating to Mr Smith being lost or destroyed refers to a discussion I had with Mr Smith.Apparently Telstra had previously informed Mr Smith that specific documents had been lost or destroyed.I am not aware of the circumstances in which this occurred and will arrange for my staff to ascertain the details from Mr Smith and advise you of the circumstances."

Telstra's Commercial General Manager for Victoria and Tasmania has added a hand-written note to another document, asking, in relation to one of my FOI requests:"Should we make Alan pay, even if we can't provide everything he wants?Please prepare the letter as suggested."

Does this note indicate that Telstra was acting in good faith at all times?I think not.Imagine even contemplating taking my money for something they knew they could not possibly supply!And still, the phone and fax faults continued...

 

CHAPTER 30

 

By the end of May 1995, the daily running of the camp was almost beyond me, and my partner, Cathy, was handling the work almost entirely on her own.My self-esteem continued to sink lower, and all the marketing and promotional expertise I had built up over the years was of no help:I had no reserves of energy to call on, I couldn't even think straight anymore, let alone compose advertisements or talk to people about the camp.

Again and again, I found myself stewing over my situation.How could this be happening in Australia in the 1990s? Wasn't this supposed to be a democracy?How could the government continue to ignore me? And how could the lawyers get away with hiding the truth just to prop up Telstra? I couldn't work out which way to turn next.

Finally, I decided to ask for all my claim documents to be returned to me, a right covered by the rules of arbitration. I waited patiently for weeks before deciding to drive to Melbourne and collect them myself.I thought I had been as angry as it was possible to be, but by the time Cathy and I arrived in Melbourne, having spent the journey stewing even more about what was happening to us, I was ready to explode.I controlled my anger, though, as I walked into the arbitrator's reception area and spoke to his secretary.Looking back now, I wonder why I expected my request to be met this time; certainly, none of my previous requests had been met, but I suppose we can always hope.It was not to be, however.My documents were not ready, the secretary informed me, and the arbitrator was not available.

My emotions, already on a short fuse, finally took over, and I shouted at her, demanding she get my documents at once. I reminded her that I had put in my request three months before and had now driven for five hours to collect them. "I am not leaving this office without those documents,"I told her. "Call the police if you want to; I don't care.You have my property, and I want it back now."At last, a young lad appeared from the lifts, wheeling a trolley loaded with boxes of documents.He asked me to sort out which were my claim documents; I simply took the lot.

It took Cathy some time to find a parking spot near the busy city office, but finally, I loaded them into the car, and we headed off. We were unaware that, among my own documents, there were some I had never seen before.These proved to be documents that should have been forwarded to me under the rules of arbitration. They were very, very interesting, to say the least.

In any dispute settled by an umpire, such as an arbitration, it is mandatory for information supplied by one party to the adjudicator (or arbitrator) to be automatically circulated to the other party. This rule was certainly included in my arbitration.In my case, the information also had to be supplied to the TIO's legal counsel.

However, among the documents I took from the arbitrator's office that day, I found a brown envelope containing documents and loose papers, none of which I had ever received. This envelope contained copies of several letters from Telstra to the arbitrator, including one dated December 16, 1994. This letter indicated it had originally been sent with three other attached letters: one from the Regulator to Telstra on October 4, 1994; one from Telstra back to the Regulator on November 11, 1994; and another from the Regulator to Telstra on December 1, 1994.

In the first paragraph of this December 16 letter, Telstra stated: "You will note from the correspondence that the Regulator has requested Telstra to provide information relating to charging discrepancies reported by Mr Smith for short duration calls on his (1800 freecall) _service._These issues form part of the subject matter of Mr Smith's claim under the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure."Clearly, at that time, the Regulator was concerned about this incorrect charging. On page two, Telstra went on to state:"The simplest way forward may be for Mr Smith and Telstra and yourself to all confirm in writing that this information can be provided to the Regulator if this meets with your approval."

If this was the way to go, why didn't I receive some indication of this from the arbitrator? I certainly did not receive any correspondence from him referring to this arrangement. However, the Regulator apparently later wrote to the arbitrator, acknowledging receipt of Telstra's letter of November 11, 1994, and noting that Telstra had agreed to answer each of the questions put by the Regulator on October 4, 1994, as part of their defense against my claims.

In their earlier letter of December 1, the Regulator had indicated that a number of other Telstra customers in the Portland area had also complained about incorrect charging on their 1800 services. Their concern was reiterated in their letter of December 8: "A major consideration in the Regulator's pursuit of the issue raised by Mr Smith was the likelihood that these problems, if proved to exist, would almost certainly affect a number of other Telstra customers."

In direct breach of the arbitration rules, the arbitrator did not forward these letters to me during the arbitration.

Even more amazing, the Arbitrator made no written finding in his award regarding the massive incorrect charging I proved in my claim.In fact, Telstra had notified both the Arbitrator and the Regulator (in their letter of 11th November 1994) that they would address these incorrect charging issues in their defence. However, they failed to do so, and the Arbitrator, despite obviously knowing of this promise, still allowed Telstra to ignore the issue completely.I believe this constituted a conspiracy between the Arbitrator and Telstra during my arbitration. My suspicions were further confirmed when I inadvertently came across loose documents from the Arbitrator's office – documents so compelling they would surely convince the devil himself that a conspiracy was afoot.These documents relate back to the day the COT four signed for arbitration, on 21st April 1994.

As I have already explained, one of the main reasons for signing for arbitration, as opposed to the existing commercial agreement, was that Telstra's billing system would be brought under scrutiny.The members of COT believed this was a major issue that needed to be brought to the attention of all Telstra's customers, in the public interest.

I had been directed, you will recall, to lodge written details of any phone complaints with Telstra's solicitors. Specifically, in one of my letters to the solicitors, I had shown them that I was being charged incorrectly for short-duration calls on my 1800 account.

On 18th June 1993, the Regulator wrote to Telstra regarding these billing issues.Their letter, one of many the Regulator sent to Telstra on this particular matter, referred to numerous instances in my accounts where the time between calls, according to their start times, was less than one minute. It also asked for an explanation of the apparent discrepancies in my account.

Over the years leading up to my arbitration, I continually proved to the Regulator that Telstra was incorrectly charging RVA calls.In one instance, I used my claim advisor's case as an example, providing my 1800 account and Telstra's matching data records to prove my point.Finally, because these issues were not addressed in my arbitration, the Regulator visited Cape Bridgewater late in 1995 to examine a further six bound volumes of new evidence I had accumulated to support my case.Three of these volumes, which had been submitted into arbitration, had prompted Telstra to write to the Regulator on 11th November 1994, stating they would address these issues in their defence.

The Regulator's representatives looked over the six volumes I had and commented that they had never seen so much evidence, presented in such detail.They appeared quite stunned. Finally, they left, taking the volumes of evidence with them.Although all this evidence was returned to me some weeks later, I have never received any formal recognition of my efforts from the Regulator.

In a letter dated December 6, 1995, the Regulator wrote to me: "I refer to my recent correspondence advising you that the Regulator had again written to Telstra regarding the issues relating to charging discrepancies concerning its (1800 freecall)service originally raised by you in 1994.I write to request additional information from you to assist the Regulator in its investigation of charging discrepancies associated with Telstra's (1800 freecall)service.

Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated."

Among the 'loose documents' inadvertently provided to me by the arbitrator's secretary, I found three technical reports compiled from my claim documents.One, dated April 7, 1995, was headed "Draft for Discussion Purposes Only" and was written by the Australian component of the technical resource unit; the other two documents were duplicates of a report compiled by both the Canadian and Australian companies and dated April 30, 1995.Or were they duplicates?They certainly looked the same; they certainly both had identical covers; they certainly both had the same date, and neither of them was signed. But...?

In May 1995, when I received my copy of this technical report and needed to respond to it in writing according to the rules of the FTAP, I asked why it had not been signed off as a complete document.The arbitrator did not respond to my question.When I found these 'duplicates' of the report, I dug out my copy and compared all three.Lo and behold, a number of differences showed up, all in Telstra's favour.

Some of these differences were not apparent at first glance, but one was quite clear from the start: The page numbering on one of the forty-page documents (one I had not seen before) progressed normally up to page twenty-seven, but after that, with the exception of a page numbered thirty-one, all subsequent pages were also numbered twenty-seven.What on earth did this indicate? I had no idea.And there were other differences, the most alarming related to a part of the report headed "Scope of Report" in the early draft version, dated April 7, 1995.Part of this section states:"The report covers incidents and events potentially affecting the telephone service provided to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp during the period February 1988 to August 1994" and goes on to provide a list of documents that provided the information in the report.

When I compared my version of the technical report with this apparently 'secret' version of the same report and noted that they were both dated April 30, 1995, I first assumed they would turn out to be identical.Not so!A comparison of the documents listed shows that only twenty percent of my claim documents had been provided to the technical unit for their assessment.

Among the many documents I received from the TIO in 2001 and 2002, I discovered that the arbitrator had prepared a draft of his award before the technical unit was even provided with my claim documents. Consequently, the technical findings in his final award were not based solely on the official technical unit's report. This raises the question: who provided the arbitrator with the technical information he needed to prepare his draft?

Not only was the arbitrator clearly prepared to deceive me into believing his technical findings were based on the technical unit's report, but I also discovered similar deception from the project manager. On April 18, 1995, the project manager wrote to the TIO, stating that the director of the Canadian company "...arrived in Australia on April 13, 1995, and worked over the Easter Holiday period, particularly on the Smith claim."He further stated that "Any technical report prepared in draft by will be signed off and will appear on the letterhead of ." The Australian company had prepared its draft on April 7, and there were only cosmetic differences between this report and the final one dated April 30. However, the Canadian expert did not even arrive in the country until April 13. It is therefore obvious that the Australian company, with its ex-Telstra owner, carried out all the investigations and prepared the final report. This report was then placed on the Canadian letterhead, with the Australian firm's logo added, to create the impression that both companies had assessed my evidence and conducted the investigation. Furthermore, the Canadian expert never visited Cape Bridgewater. When I finally received a copy of this April 18 letter, it included a one-word, handwritten note in the margin, beside the instructions to make it appear that the Canadian company had been involved in the investigation. Clearly, the person who wrote the note was startled by the deception: the single word was "WHAT," followed by an exclamation mark. Indeed, we might all ask: what was truly going on?

The discrepancy in the number of documents assessed before August 1994 proves that not all my claim documents were forwarded to the technical unit for evaluation.How could they have correctly assessed all the faults prior to August 1994 if they only reviewed half my claim?Was this apparent attempt to cover up on behalf of Telstra and deprive me of a proper assessment part of a conspiracy?

Another problem with these two conflicting versions of the technical report appears on the page numbered one in my version and titled "Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report.Mr Alan Smith.CBHC.30 April 1995."The second paragraph on this page consists of only one short sentence: "It is complete and final as it is."The second paragraph on the equivalent page of the arbitrator's report (numbered page two), however, states: "There is, however, an addendum which we may find it necessary to add during the next few weeks on billing, i.e. possible discrepancies in Smith's Telstra bills."

Once more, the arbitrator's version contains more information than mine, and this again refers to billing problems.

In the arbitrator's copy (on the page numbered three), the fourth and fifth paragraphs state:"One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith's complaints about billing problems," and "Otherwise, the Technical Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete."This information is simply missing from my version of the report (page numbered two).Did the arbitrator and the technical unit think I would forget about the billing issues if they didn't remind me?

It was serious enough to discover that Telstra had not addressed the billing issues, even though they said they would; it is even more serious to discover that letters discussing this matter had been sent by Telstra to the arbitrator and the Regulator without being copied to me.If, as it seemed to me, the arbitrator chose to favor Telstra so that this billing issue would never be addressed in my arbitration, then he was clearly not as impartial as he was supposed to be.All this greatly disadvantaged me as a claimant in this matter. To then find that the technical resource team intended to address the billing issues but mysteriously omitted this from the final version of their report only proves my allegations of a conspiracy among various high-ranking people involved in this arbitration.

I returned to the documents, under the heading "Cape Bridgewater Documentation," and found, in the second line on both pages, a reference to more than four thousand pages of documents presented by both parties and "examined by us."In the arbitrator's 'award,' however, he states that he viewed more than six thousand documents.What happened to the other two thousand?

Let's assume, generously, that, say, four hundred pages of documents (out of the arbitrator's six thousand) were only related to the financial side of the dispute and therefore would not need to be assessed by the technical team.This still leaves sixteen hundred unaccounted for.Interestingly, this is approximately the number of claim documents the technical unit referred to (in their two source information documents) as not being assessed.Could this mean that the technical unit didn't see all my claim documents?

On the last two lines of this same paragraph, I found the following amazing statement:"A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist."

Fourteen days after Telstra had submitted its defence, it finally supplied me with another 23,000 documents that the arbitrator subsequently refused to allow me to submit.This meant Telstra did not have to address any of these 23,000 documents. Since I was only allowed thirty days to respond to Telstra's defence, I had only fifteen days left after the documents arrived at my office to incorporate them into my reply.How could the arbitrator later write, without perjuring himself, to the President of the Arbitrators Institute, alleging that the resource unit had viewed all these documents, when he himself had not? This all provides further proof that the technical team was not provided with my list of 183 logged faults from late 1989 to early 1994. Apparently, they were also not provided with a copy of the additional 43 logged faults I submitted, nor the approximately 70 letters of complaint I provided to support these two lists, totalling 226 logged fault calls.

Looking back now, it seems obvious that a conspiracy was underway to cover up at least some of the issues I had raised in my claim.I have evidence supporting my claims that Telstra 'bugged' my phone both before and during my arbitration. When this information is considered alongside what I now believe was happening with the incorrectly charged short-duration calls on my 1800 account and the diversion of phone calls and faxes (discussed in more detail earlier in this book), a conspiracy seems the only plausible explanation.

Back in early 1993, as I have previously related, I continued to lodge complaints with the Regulator about short-duration and non-connected calls.An FOI document dated September 23, 1993, from an internal Telstra source to Telstra's Corporate Secretary, discusses 'long held' and 'incoming unanswered' calls lasting 'four to eight seconds'.According to this document, it raised suspicions that these were 'diverted' calls.The writer noted that further investigation was to take place.

The following three incidents all relate to other businesses and situations where call diversion was highly likely to be the cause of the problem:

 

• A hairdresser in the outer suburbs of Adelaide, South Australia, known to the COT group, suspected that some of her incoming business calls were being diverted elsewhere. Both the Regulator and the police investigated her problem, concluding that her calls appeared to be diverted to another hairdresser. Telstra settled the matter out-of-court.

   

   

• A massage parlour operator in Melbourne, who also contacted the COT group, suspected some of her incoming business calls were being diverted to her opposition.Her suspicions were later confirmed following police intervention, revealing her calls were apparently being diverted to another massage parlour elsewhere in Melbourne.

   

On 3rd June 1994, during my arbitration procedure, I called Telstra's fault service to lodge a complaint after some of my customers experienced difficulty reaching my business by phone earlier that day. A bus charter operator was in my office at the time and witnessed the following events.

I used my fax phone to call Telstra.This line was separate from my 1800 freecall service, which was the subject of my complaint. I asked the Telstra 1100 fault operator to call my freecall number and check if she experienced problems connecting. Moments later, while I was still holding on the fax line, there was a faint, single ring on my freecall line.Both the charter operator and I heard this short ring. When I picked up the receiver, however, the line was dead, so I simply hung up. The bus charter operator has since confirmed this in a letter presented to the arbitrator.

A few moments after I had hung up the freecall phone, the Telstra operator returned to my fax phone and quite innocently announced that she had heard someone say something about a holiday camp on the freecall line.I certainly didn't say anything about a holiday camp, so who answered the call?The operator's version of events certainly doesn't match my version, nor does it match the description given by the witness, so where was her call answered? Later, I commissioned a professional video documenting my version of the events. This five-minute video clip, along with other documentation supporting my claims of illegal call diversion by persons with access to Telstra's network, was accepted as evidence in the arbitration. FOI documentation shows that the arbitrator passed all this information on to Telstra. However, like many other issues I raised in my claim, the issue of illegal call diversion was never addressed by the arbitrator.

Further information relating to this illegal phone interception and bugging, lost faxes, and intrusion into the private lives of COT members is detailed at the end of this book.You will be astonished at what the Telstra Corporation has resorted to in its efforts to conceal the truth.
 

 

CHAPTER 31

 

I wondered how much more confusion and deception I would uncover among the rest of the documents inadvertently supplied by the arbitrator's secretary.

The unethical behaviour by the FHCA project manager, specifically his removal of a large part of his financial report, was etched in my mind. This memory resurfaced sharply when I uncovered a document titled "Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory Working Notes." Reading it, I felt yet another blow, as if these people were determined to crush me.

Surprisingly, the FHCA draft report appeared to find in my favour. It included a section detailing tourist visits to the Portland region between 1991 and 1994: 1,396,000 tourists in 1991/92, increasing by 6.7 percent to 1,490,000 in 1992/93, and rising again by 5 percent to 1,565,000 in 1993/94. These increases matched those presented in my claim documents, supported by figures from the Department of Conservation and the Environment (now Parks Victoria), which manages many tourist locations and national parks in our area.My figures were further corroborated by information from the Victorian Tourism Domestic Monitor.

However, in his award document, when the arbitrator addressed tourism, he inexplicably stated that he 'had to take into account the decrease in tourism' in my area as a possible factor contributing to lost business at the camp.

The figures supplied by FHCA, Parks Victoria, and the domestic tourism monitor for the Great Ocean Road region were factual. What, then, led the arbitrator to conclude there had been a decrease in tourism in the area?

With all this information finally available, I challenged the arbitrator through the Institute of Arbitrators' president. His residence in Western Australia unfortunately meant additional expenses for faxes and phone calls in my pursuit of natural justice. Letters from the Institute's president indicated he was alarmed by the evidence I provided, which clearly demonstrated my arbitrator's unethical conduct. At the time, however, I was still plagued by sleepless nights and declining health, consumed by questions: How could a legal professional like the arbitrator conceal so much evidence?How could he allow Telstra to disregard so many issues?And why? Despite all this deception, it seemed no one in authority was truly concerned.

One of the few people who did express concern, however, was my local Federal Member of Parliament, David Hawker.As early as 1992, Mr. Hawker had supported me by writing to Telstra, expressing his concern about the phone faults I was experiencing and the resulting loss of business. The General Manager of Telstra's Australian Commercial division responded to Mr. Hawker on August 23rd, 1993, stating: "Mr Smith has had ongoing complaints and service difficulties over some five years.His services were initially provided from an exchange of older technology which had some faults and suffered congestion."

I spoke to Mr Hawker not only about my own phone service problems but also about those reported by other Telstra customers in our area. These customers were experiencing issues both when trying to contact me and with their own phones. Mr Hawker was so concerned that, late in 1995, before the Liberal Government came into power, he arranged a meeting in Canberra for some COT members with the then-Shadow Minister for Communications. The Senator seemed quite concerned about the conduct of my arbitration. He noted that, if he were still practicing law, he was confident he would win my case in the Supreme Court due to the fraud that had taken place. However, once the Coalition party won the next election, this same Senator, by then the Minister for Communications, chose not to instigate the investigation he had so strongly recommended while in opposition.Why?

According to my record of this meeting, the Senator asked me to supply further documents.He was interested in my claims regarding unethical conduct by various parties associated with the arbitration's administration. He also showed interest in my references to Telstra's disregard for my claims of incorrect charging and billing problems. My allegations that Telstra had been listening in to my private phone calls during the arbitration seemed to particularly worry him.It also seemed that, when we agreed to arbitration, the Senator shared the same illusions as the COT four: he believed the process would be non-legalistic and fast-tracked. A National Party Senator who had supported us along the way had expressed the same beliefs.

Throughout mid-1995, immediately following the handing down of my arbitration 'award,' the Shadow Minister for Communications also appeared very concerned. FOI discovery documents had not only shown that Telstra knowingly used flawed and fabricated test results to support their defence of my claim, but also that they had allowed the flawed BCI Addendum Report on Cape Bridgewater, dated 10 November 1993, to remain publicly accessible. Telstra was, in fact, using this flawed report to publicly support its assertions regarding the high quality of its telephone network, including its use, in one instance, on the Channel Nine program 'A Current Affair.'

Following a request from the Senator's office, I sent additional documents demonstrating that Telstra technicians had been listening to my private calls during the arbitration process.The Senator's office became even more concerned when my FOI discovery documents revealed that Telstra continued to monitor my private phone calls for months after reassuring both the Australian Federal Police and the Chairman of the Telstra Board that this practice had ceased. As a former practicing lawyer, the Senator fully understood the implications of Telstra's actions. He clearly recognized the significant advantage Telstra would gain in preparing their briefs and defending against my claims if they possessed inside knowledge obtained by listening to my phone calls with my claim advisers.

The ease with which inside information could be uncovered became apparent. My movements were monitored by the very corporation I was engaged in a legal dispute with, and some of my important claim documents simply vanished while being faxed. Knowing my whereabouts and timing would have been immensely useful for Telstra. Even more valuable, perhaps, was the potential to inspect the information I was lodging with the arbitrator and then make the most damaging elements disappear before they reached him.

In December 1994, I received FOI documents R11612 to R13587. These included questions for the Senate Estimates Committee, posed by the Shadow Minister for Communications for Telstra to answer. Specifically, Document R13587 states: "According to an ex-Telstra employee who had responsibility for security and file management in the period from 1987 until 1992, Telstra installed some computer links between its billing computers — a database system containing customer details, and computers in other organisations, i.e. Australia Post."This document then posed the following questions (among others):

 

1. Could you name each and every organisation which is linked to Telstra's billing computer?

    

    

2. Does (the Intelligence Service) have access to personal files kept by Telstra?

    

    

3. Can each and every one of these organisations access Telstra's files containing billing details?

    

    

4. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians, who have had dealings with "COT" members, have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?

    

    

5. Who authorised this taping of "COT" members phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?

    

    

6. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?

    

    

7. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990?

    

   
   (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex-Telstra employees, against Telstra?

 

12. An internal Telstra minute regarding Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater states: "Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in his complaints that callers to his number receive a recorded voice announcement stating the number is disconnected.They believe this problem is occurring with increasing frequency as more customers connect to the AXE.

     

    "

This document, and questions asked of Telstra in the Senate by the Shadow Minister, make it clear that the Senator was, and remains, aware that Telstra taped and intercepted private phone calls made by COT members, who, even in 2004, still feared their calls were being monitored. Anyone with access to the numerous documents I have reviewed during my years of battling for justice would share these fears.

Regarding point 11(A) above, I possess a copy of a letter dated February 10th from the Regulator to Telstra (FOI number A10148), which reports: "Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police regarding the tapping of COT cases' telephone services. The nine tapes previously supplied by Telstra to the Regulator were made available to the Commissioner of Police."As of July 2004, none of the four COT claimants had been provided with copies of the transcripts of these nine unlawful tapes, made without our knowledge or consent, despite being advised that this information would be made available to us once we had signed for arbitration.

Following the Coalition Government's victory in 1996, the Shadow Minister became Minister for Communications and the Arts. His office then requested a comprehensive report detailing my claims and allegations against Telstra over the years, as well as any concerns I had regarding the arbitration's conduct. I set about producing the required report. Merely compiling a chronological listing of events resulted in an eighty-two-page document, which I bound into a book. This was supported by a separate bound volume of attachments, with each document indexed to corroborate the information in the eighty-two-page listing.A copy of this two-volume report was sent to the Senator, and another was forwarded to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office.

This report has since been assessed by several technical and legal experts, who have noted that any honest Minister, regardless of political affiliation, would surely have felt compelled to act on the detailed information I supplied.My local Federal Member of Parliament even phoned me one day, just as he was departing the country on government business, to express his anger that not a single Senator had yet adequately responded to the report's information. It would seem obvious that my local Minister did not consider me a 'nut,' even if others did.

Despite the then-Shadow Minister for Communications having the power to instigate a full inquiry into the many issues raised in my report, the only outcome has been a letter of acknowledgement dated September 4, 1996.Even though I have provided the Senator and his staff with evidence that the TIO and the arbitrator conspired to provide the President of the Institute of Arbitrators with incorrect information in an attempt to prevent an investigation into my matters, the Senator's office has continued to accept only the TIO's false version of events.

The Minister has also been reminded that, during the Royal Commission into corruption in the New South Wales Police, the Judge noted that the New South Wales State Ombudsman's Office had been 'less than effective' at a time when the current TIO served as deputy State Ombudsman.In my case, this same individual has lied to and withheld documents from both the Minister and my solicitor.What would a Royal Commission uncover regarding the TIO and the arbitrator if these matters were ever properly investigated?

 

CHAPTER 32

 

In Chapter Twenty-Three, I recounted the 'beer in the phone' story.This issue resurfaced on November 28, 1995, six months after my award had been handed down and almost twelve months after I first asked the arbitrator to access the actual T200 phone from Telstra's defence unit. Telstra had taken this phone from my office for testing due to what they called a 'lock-up fault,' implying the fault with my fax line was in the phone, not the network. As I stated in Chapter Twenty-Three, someone outside my office must have introduced the beer into the phone after it left my premises. However, the arbitrator would not allow my forensic document researcher to examine the draft of the T200 technical report.If he had been permitted to see this draft, my researcher could have ascertained how Telstra's technical unit had fabricated this 'phoney' report.

Upon receiving another bundle of late discovery documents from Telstra, I was surprised to find Telstra laboratory reports revealing that, while my T200 fax/phone was at their laboratory for testing, they also conducted tests to determine how long beer would remain wet inside the phone casing.The report's remarks on this particular test indicated that, when left overnight, the beer was either almost dry or completely dry the next day. Apparently, Telstra laboratory staff concluded that beer could not have remained wet and sticky for twelve days (the period between the phone leaving my premises and arriving at the laboratory).Would a corporation as large and powerful as Telstra truly stoop so low as to stage the 'beer in the phone' incident merely to defend the quality of their network?

Of course, I didn't see this document until six months after the arbitrator had handed down his award. Still, I was incredibly excited to be proved right. Around eight o'clock one evening, in the heat of the moment, I grabbed the phone and dialled the arbitrator's home.His wife answered and told me the arbitrator was overseas and not due home for a few days.I quickly reasoned that he would probably have discussed at least some aspects of my arbitration with his wife. If I told her who I was, she might be afraid I was trying to cause trouble.I didn't want to risk upsetting her unnecessarily, so I decided to use someone else's name.I quickly settled on a name that would be familiar to the arbitrator—someone he was friendly with.The first name that popped into my mind was that of the FHCA project manager.

According to my telephone account, this call was made at 8:02 p.m. on 28th November 1995 and it lasted a mere twenty-eight seconds.

Later, after I had calmed down a bit, I told the TIO about my exciting find—a document I had long sought, and which finally proved my innocence regarding the 'beer in the phone' matter.I asked the TIO what he would do with this information.After all, he was the official administrator of the arbitration, and this Telstra document showed that not only did Telstra use the flawed BCI report in its defence, but we could now also prove that it used a fabricated T200 report. This, of course, was a very serious matter.Tampering with evidence in a legal arbitration is a chargeable offence.

I also told the TIO that I had tried to contact the arbitrator to pass on this news, explaining that I had rung at eight o'clock on the night of the twenty-eighth because I had only just uncovered the laboratory documents. I was convinced these documents proved serious unlawful behaviour: someone must have introduced the 'beer' into my phone after it was taken from my office. Surely, tampering with defence material was a matter that needed to be looked into at once.I explained to the TIO that the arbitrator had been overseas when I rang, and I also explained why I gave his wife the project manager's name instead of my own, so as not to alarm her.

The TIO's response was a flat statement that my arbitration had run its course and he did not intend to involve his office in any further investigation.He added that my best option was to go to the Supreme Court (as if I had the resources to do that!).

This incident heightened my concerns about the TIO's independence. My alarm grew some time later when I received a letter from the President of the Institute of Arbitrators (Aust), which included a copy of a letter he had received from the TIO. Apparently, after I had spoken to the TIO about my attempt to reach the arbitrator at his home, the TIO wrote to the Institute President, presenting an entirely different version of the story.In his letter to the President, the TIO stated that I had called the arbitrator's home at two o'clock in the morning (he also noted that I had used a false name, which I do not deny).This letter from the TIO could well have been interpreted as questioning my motives.Although the TIO did not actually ask the question, it implied a question regarding why anyone would make a phone call at two in the morning, except in an emergency or if the caller was trying to be intimidating.The TIO was well aware of how badly I had been treated by the justice system, yet he seemed to be trying to blacken my name.Why else would he take a perfectly innocent incident and try to turn it into something sordid?

Furthermore, what gave the TIO the right to produce this letter in the first place?The TIO is supposed to be unbiased: how could he sit down to write this letter knowing he was about to present a version of events completely different from the truth?He must have known that his correspondence would bring my character into question.If he was prepared to do this in relation to my arbitration, it also raises questions about his behaviour in later arbitrations for other members of the COT group.Who is he actually supporting here: the innocent Australian public or the telecommunications carrier?

This letter to the Institute President raises another question: the TIO forwarded a copy to the arbitrator simultaneously. Surely the arbitrator would automatically check with his wife for her version of the incident? If he did, I believe his wife would agree that I called at eight in the evening and not two in the morning.I also believe she would say that I was perfectly polite. Why has the arbitrator not come forward with the true facts?

At least the Institute President was giving me the opportunity to defend myself to him. I did so. Because the TIO's letter had also been copied to the arbitrator, I believed he would confirm that I had spoken quite politely to his wife when I called. I also believed he would confirm that I called at eight o'clock at night, not two in the morning, as the TIO had stated.

As detailed in Chapter 23, I have proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that someone within Telstra tampered with my Exicom T200 touchphone after it left my office to be examined at Telstra's laboratories.The TIO should have taken this into consideration before he wrote to the Institute President. Even more alarming, as also explained in Chapter 23, Telstra was again prepared to sign a Statutory Declaration attesting to the authenticity of their report concerning 'beer' in my phone, despite knowing the report was fraudulent. Furthermore, one of Telstra's technicians knowingly signed a false Statutory Declaration in Telstra's defence regarding my fax machine.In this declaration, the technician blamed 'customer operator error' for the continuing faults with the equipment, even though he was well aware the faults were actually network-related.

FOI Document D01026 directly relates to the Exicom T200 touchphone problem.This document shows that not only was Telstra clearly aware of moisture problems associated with this brand of phone, but they also knew that these moisture problems caused short-duration/incorrect charging faults on customer accounts.These were the very same short-duration/incorrect charging faults that both my arbitrator and Telstra conveniently chose not to address during my arbitration, despite Telstra advising the Regulator (11th November 1994) that they would address both problems as part of their defence of my arbitration claims.

Even more disturbing, Document D01026 suggests that Telstra re-deployed these known faulty phones, returning them into service to 450,000 unsuspecting customers.Did Telstra employ someone with the meteorological expertise to decide where these moisture-prone phones should be sent?Cape Bridgewater, for example, is a known moisture-prone area. As a result of my continual complaints, the local exchange there was finally sealed to prevent moisture from affecting the copper components inside this unmanned exchange. But what about protecting innocent customers from their own moisture-prone phones?Has anything been done about this?I think not.

If Telstra did indeed have a meteorological wizard on staff deciding where these faulty phones would be best sent, I wonder if it occurred to him to contemplate the atmosphere inside the buildings where these phones were installed.I can imagine a considerable moisture content in the air in, for instance, a fish and chip shop, a bakery, an industrial kitchen, a restaurant, or a heated swimming pool. The humidity in all these places would be higher than in other locations in the same geographical area, likely exceeding even the outside atmosphere. I also wonder how many of these faulty T200 phones are still being used by unsuspecting Telstra customers, and how many of these customers have been continually incorrectly charged for calls they did not receive—as I was for so long.

Another point for discussion is the legality of redistributing known faulty products. Irrespective of the Australian Trade Practices Act's provisions on such situations, FOI document D01026 (point one) states that Telstra decided its faulty phones would "still have to be deployed in areas of lower moisture risk."It appears that Telstra Corporation is exempt from the Trade Practice rules applicable to other Australian corporations and businesses, as well as from a number of Acts of Parliament.It also seems that Telstra, its agents, and its employees are exempt from being charged for carrying out illegal activities in Australia. I certainly hope no Australian business executives expect our government to protect them from Telstra's thuggery; it certainly hasn't protected me or my associates.

Considering that 450,000 TF200 phones likely remained in use for years after Telstra knew of their potential problems, especially in moisture-prone areas like Cape Bridgewater, one must question how much extra revenue Telstra earned. This revenue came from phones locking up at the end of conversations, leading to customers being charged for extra minutes each time this occurred. Telstra was fully aware that the accounts it sent out were incorrect. Clearly, Telstra was the beneficiary of massive overcharging, particularly in my case.

One of the documents I received from the Regulator in 2001 confirms that the Regulator agreed Telstra had wrongly billed me on my 1800 line during my arbitration.The TIO also knew what was going on because he wrote to Telstra on October 3, 1995 (with a copy sent to me), to ask why Telstra had still not investigated and addressed the 1800 faults I had raised in my claim.

CHAPTER 33

 

When the TIO and his legal counsel first began to pressure the COT Four into abandoning the commercial process (the FTSP) and signing for arbitration (the FTAP), no one bothered to inform us that the appointed arbitrator had not been qualified (graded) by the Institute of Arbitrators.This meant that, technically, he was not fully qualified to handle any arbitration, let alone one as complex and far-reaching as ours.This was just another part of the 'comedy of errors' that entangled us. In 1996, the President of the Institute wrote to me, confirming our belief that the appointment of a non-graded arbitrator was 'always a risk.' To add insult to injury, I was later informed that the arbitrator, while involved with the COT case arbitrations, actually sat—and failed—his grading examination. Had he passed, he would have been admitted to the Institute's register as a graded arbitrator.This information was passed to the Minister for Communications and the TIO as it came to light. Yet, no one has been able to explain why such an ungraded arbitrator was chosen to oversee such a vast process.

The arbitrator was not fully qualified, but we believed we could always rely on the TIO as an unbiased observer. Once again, we discovered (too late to help me) that we were wrong.The TIO's office is supervised by a board whose members are drawn from the country's leading communications companies, including Telstra.In fact, the very person responsible for authorizing the supply of Telstra discovery documents to COT members under FOI was also the Telstra representative on the TIO's board.

This was a highly legalistic arbitration, which cost Telstra well in excess of eighteen million dollars to defend.What chance did COT members have when we had to rely on Telstra documents to support our claims, and the person responsible for distributing those documents also sat on the TIO board? This gave Telstra private access to the TIO, without needing to include COT members in those discussions.No wonder we felt so hopeless.

I later discovered that in January and February 1996, after I had complained to the Institute of Arbitrators about the failings of my arbitration, its President wrote to my arbitrator requesting an explanation.On January 23, 1996, the arbitrator wrote to the TIO, expressing concerns about how he should reply to the Institute's President, particularly if he were to: "... make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to (the President)".What was he so concerned about?Not long after finding this document, I found a TIO fax cover sheet dated June 26, 1995—just six weeks after my arbitration—indicating that the TIO's office was concerned about letters I had sent to the arbitrator.This fax asked: "... what the approach should be re parties seeking to revisit issues past arbitration" and noted: "... this position is not to open the 'can of worms'."What 'can of worms,' we must ask?This was supposed to be an independent ombudsman administering a legal arbitration!There should not have been any area that would cause such concerns.

Then there is a letter the arbitrator wrote to the TIO on May 12, 1995, the day after he deliberated on my award, in which he noted that the arbitration had not been a 'credible process'.If the TIO had passed this letter on to me at the time, I could have successfully challenged the arbitrator's findings.After all, how could an appeal judge in the Supreme Court rule against the arbitrator's own advice to the administrator that the process was 'not credible because the rules had not allowed sufficient time for delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars, and the preparation of technical reports,' particularly since the project manager had also complained of 'not enough time'?

On May 12, 1995, the arbitrator wrote: "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."So, did anything change in the rules?No, both the arbitrator and the TIO's office continued to arbitrate the cases of other COT members, under rules they both knew were not credible.

On the very day the arbitrator wrote to the TIO explaining serious problems with the arbitration process, the TIO issued a media release announcing the successful conclusion of the "...first COT case arbitration." According to this official release, the TIO noted that: "...the findings of the Resource Unit, the specialist technical advisers to the arbitrator, indicated that the claimant had suffered considerable technical difficulties during the period in question.It found that faults existed which caused the service to fall below a reasonable level, and that, apart from some customer premises equipment..., most of the problems were in the Inter Exchange Network."And was there ever an announcement to the public regarding the arbitrator's assessment that the process used to arrive at this conclusion was itself faulty?No, of course not.And did I ever get the opportunity to let the public know that the comment about 'customer premises equipment'—probably referring to the infamous TF200 beer-in-the-phone report—had been based on a manufactured and totally incorrect report?No, of course not.And did this announcement make any mention of the fact that, regardless of the findings, the faults continued to plague my business?No, of course not!

The project manager wrote to the TIO twice in three months, explaining that he didn't have enough time to complete his work.In one of these letters, he also noted that he had suffered damage to his private property in Brighton and added that the local police planned to interview me in relation to this damage.This letter was later passed to the President of the Institute of Arbitrators by the arbitrator, in a clear attempt to damage my reputation.Once he received this letter, the President refused to investigate my matters any further.Years later, when I uncovered the project manager's lies in this letter, I phoned the Brighton CIB and asked them to check their records. They informed me they had never heard of me and had never intended to interview me on any matter.And why, when the arbitrator wrote to the President of the Institute (who lived in Western Australia and was probably therefore not familiar with suburbs and country towns in Victoria), did the arbitrator fail to mention that I lived almost five hundred kilometres from the project manager?

In his letter to the President of the Institute, the arbitrator asserted that he had 'viewed' all twenty-three thousand of my claim documents, and that the project manager and technical unit had also 'viewed' them. We now know this to be a lie. If the arbitrator is willing to lie to the President of his own Institute, can he be trusted not to lie in other situations? Upon discovering this document, I felt, if possible, even more deceived.Both the arbitrator and the TIO were seemingly siding with Telstra, against me. How much can one small business endure before going under?

As more and more documents arrived, I found it increasingly difficult to simply shut the door on the problem and walk away.I became convinced that I had been the victim of a deliberate act of sabotage, particularly concerning the 'beer in the phone' episode, but also in relation to other incidents.Why, I wondered, did the arbitrator make no finding regarding lost faxes, both before and during the arbitration process?These lost faxes included valuable evidence, yet they had somehow disappeared within Telstra's network, en route to the arbitrator's office for assessment by the resource and Telstra's defence units. These two episodes became my focus and the driving force behind my persistence in trying to uncover the truth. I still couldn't understand why the arbitrator had apparently failed to see through Telstra's attempt to portray me as a drunk by claiming my fax problems were caused by alcohol in the fax/phone.Wasn't it obvious to the arbitrator that Telstra wanted to hide the faulty line from the resource unit, lest they discover the truth – that Telstra's lines were the source of the problems?

The only way for any COT member to prove their case was by using documents buried in Telstra's archives; how likely were we to gain access to them?

During question time at a Senate meeting on the environment, recreation, communications, and the arts on June 24, 1997, Telstra was asked several questions concerning their provision of discovery documents to the COTs under the FOI Act.By this time, the Commonwealth Ombudsman had completed her findings regarding Telstra's flawed administration of discovery document supply to Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me. The repercussions of this flawed documentation supply had obviously severely disadvantaged me during the preparation of my claim.Months after the arbitrator had handed down his decision in my arbitration, I was still receiving hundreds, even thousands, of discovery documents.Among these, I often found items that would have been most useful in supporting my claim's information. By then, of course, they were no longer useful.

The public record of Parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, shows that, at a meeting on June 27, 1997, a Telstra whistleblower made a number of alarming statements to the Senate, including details about the group he worked with while assessing the COT FOI documents.According to the whistleblower, this group was originally housed in the same building as Telstra's solicitors.He said that, early in his involvement, there were four technical specialists and about six Telstra accountants helping the Telstra team.The documents that were finally forwarded to the COT members all underwent this process first, he told the Senate.

According to the Hansard report of this question time, the following exchange then took place. The National Party Senator asked the whistleblower—"So Telstra had masses of documents relating to each of these cases.Your job in this team was to interpret those documents and explain to—what lawyers—what those documents meant?"

The whistleblower replied—"They were entered into an Excel file.My job was to determine what the documents were, who they were from, who they were to, and their value. They were entered into an Excel file and uploaded to the Telstra mainframe system.The legal team used them; the accountants, I imagine, extracted what they needed. What happened to them after I had processed them, I do not know."

The Senator then asked—"Are you aware of any of those listings, those explanations of the FOI documents, ever being made available to the complainants?" The whistleblower responded, "It was not part of my responsibilities."

Certainly, in the time leading up to my arbitration, or during the arbitration itself, I never received any Excel file lists related to my FOI claim documents.These documents were not forwarded to me until two and a half years after the arbitrator had issued his findings. Yet, the TIO and the Minister continued to cover up the unethical way in which the COT arbitrations were handled.

Returning to the Senate debate on June 24, 1997.The then Shadow Minister for Communications raised the question of the $18 million that Telstra had paid out in legal fees during the COT arbitrations.In relation to the $1.74 million that the COT claimants had collectively received to that date, he asked Telstra's Group Director and Regulator of External Affairs: "The thing that really is annoying is that the lawyers got millions, you paid them millions to go through all of this process and the claimants got $1.7 million—we know who won this case."The Shadow Minister for Communications later added, "Yes, but you went through a process of hanging people out to dry for a long time."

After this statement from the Shadow Minister, a Labor Senator commented to the whistleblower: "Regarding the particular matters I raised concerning Alan Smith, I have seen documents—purporting to be from the (technical resource unit) and dated 30 April (I believe it is their document, though I am not entirely certain, so please correct me if I misrepresent it)—that contain your own advice. These documents, along with another I possess, headed 'TELSTRA SECRET,' suggest that some time ago you were being advised Mr Smith was likely to secure a substantial payment through a legal arbitration process. Given this, would it not have been in your commercial interest to have settled long before you did?"

This question was answered by the Telstra COT co-ordinator, who had been in charge of the COT arbitrations and, as mentioned previously, was also a member of the TIO's office board. He replied:"Negotiations were held with Mr Smith before the matter went into arbitration, but we could not reach a final settlement with him. The matter was then taken over by the Regulator as part of its investigation, which eventually became the COT Report."

The Telstra COT co-ordinator, however, was among those who, on October 1, 1993, received a high-priority email, later designated FOI document A04483, from another Telstra worker.This email concerned an article scheduled for publication in The Melbourne Age newspaper the following day.The email noted, in part, that a journalist: "...is to publish a story concerning Alan Smith, who has called for a public jury to hear his complaint.If we win—he shuts up!If he wins, the WFB... resign. is aware that this is just a media stunt given the extensive initiatives currently under way to resolve the COT matters.

I am currently discussing the matter with prior to responding to , who rang me with the news.

This will blow away or certainly diminish Mr Smith's call for a public jury to resolve his complaints."

Later, at a Legislation Committee meeting in the Senate, the Shadow Minister noted that another Senator had received proof that Telstra had falsified defence documents during another COT arbitration.Other similar documents show that Telstra's COT co-ordinator, who also supplied our FOI discovery documents, was well aware of many different aspects and issues surrounding our case, a level of awareness he did not seem to convey to the Senators.

With phone faults continuing to plague my business, I had requested that an independent person, perhaps appointed by the Regulator or the Government, take over my office for a week.I stated then that if that person could survive just one week with the phones in my office without becoming exasperated, I would be amazed and would walk away from the entire dispute. Conversely, I suggested that if this independent person found my complaints to Telstra were valid, then the Chairman of the Board of Telstra should personally oversee the resolution of my case. My suggestion was not accepted.

The Telstra COT co-ordinator's statement, suggesting that Telstra had been unable to reach a final settlement with me before arbitration, implies that my stubborn refusal to negotiate created the need for arbitration.In fact, the Regulator's General Manager for Consumer Affairs was well aware that I had been advocating for a commercial assessment from the very beginning.The last thing the COT members ever wanted was a legal process. However, it is clear from many of the FOI documents I now possess that, from the start, Telstra was only interested in forcing the COT members into a legal process. They were fully aware that, even if we won our cases, the prohibitive cost to each of us would ultimately mean our group would be defeated by the enormous expense of litigation, while Telstra continued to draw from the public purse.

There are still many questions waiting to be answered by Telstra.For many years after my arbitration, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office continued to endeavour to extract replies from Telstra on my behalf.In one instance, I asked the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office to provide a copy of a letter from Telstra to my arbitrator, dated January 25, 1994, and copies of subsequent fax documents sent by the arbitrator to Telstra on February 11, 1994.In response to a request from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Telstra wrote that it had finally located the documents in question in a file belonging to a past senior Telstra executive. It then forwarded the required letters to the Ombudsman.This was a small win, but it was far outweighed by all the other documents that were never supplied and were of no use for an arbitration that was already over – unless, perhaps, I used them to produce a book detailing the whole ghastly battle for justice.For instance, early in the arbitration process, I had asked, under FOI, to see documents explaining how the rules of the arbitration had been arrived at, particularly the first draft of these rules.When the Commonwealth Ombudsman passed this request to Telstra, she received the following reply:"Telstra has been unable to locate Mr (name deleted)'s further general files which include copies of the correspondence received from (the arbitrator's firm)in relation to the development of the Fast Track Arbitration Process and I am told that these files, along with other documents, were disposed of by his personal assistant sometime after he left Telstra's employ."

So, it seems that everyday letters can be located, but important evidence relating to a legal process, such as my arbitration, was lost forever.This missing evidence could well have proved that the so-called 'independent' rules that the members of COT had signed were not so independent after all.

Many documents mysteriously disappeared, and many organisations disassociated themselves from my arbitration over the years.When I raised issues with the Institute of Arbitrators in a letter dated January 18, 1995, I was advised by the then-President of the Institute that: "The Institute of Arbitrators Australia has absolutely no connection with the arbitration between Telstra and yourself."

This arbitration was plagued by confusion and complications from the very beginning, and even now, no one seems willing to explain why so many of my claim documents disappeared during the process.When I discovered that the technical resource unit only assessed my phone and fax faults from February 1988 to August 1994, I became even more convinced of a conspiracy of immense proportions: one not only involving the arbitrator, Telstra, and those who administered the procedure, but also people higher up within Telstra – individuals who had the power to hide evidence.Either my faxes were being intercepted en route to the arbitrator's office, or the arbitrator's office was not passing them to Telstra's defence unit so they could be addressed as part of the arbitration procedure.

Telstra, its lawyers, and several independent technical experts have stated that between May 26 and August 19, 1993, no incoming call could have been answered on my 1800 line for ninety seconds after the completion of each successful call. This was due to the malicious-call-tracing equipment locking up the line. This, of course, proves that at least some of my calls were answered elsewhere, not at my business.According to Telstra's own data, at least eighty separate incoming calls were diverted during this period, not including Telstra's test calls.So, were my faxes, originally intended for the arbitrator's eyes only, also ending up at this unknown location?

How many Australian businesses have fallen victim to aggressive and unexpected takeovers when they were in a vulnerable position?How many of these businesses were surprised by a takeover bid because they believed no one knew their situation?How many were hijacked because someone had access to their telephone conversations?

How easy has it been to target my business, right under the nose of the Government?How many legal battles in Australia have appeared to be open-and-shut cases, with clear evidence for a win, only for the case to be lost at the last moment because the opposition unearthed sensitive information?How much information, entrusted to the Telstra network by Australian citizens and businesses, believed to be a private exchange between two people only, is actually being hijacked via the telephone network?

As an example, in my case alone, Telstra has listed the documents it received as part of my arbitration claim, but this list is forty-three documents fewer than the number I forwarded to the arbitrator for Telstra's lawyers.Even the most unscrupulous arbitrator in the country would not withhold this many claim documents. So, where are these documents?

Beyond the lost faxes, my lost incoming phone calls represent a significant amount of lost revenue.Although some of my customers returned annually for more than ten years, I still couldn't afford to lose eighty calls in three months—eighty prospective new customers.Perhaps these people are now regularly visiting another holiday camp somewhere and recommending it to all their friends—who knows?What we do know, however, is that the Australian Government so far seems powerless to tackle the 'big brother' of Telstra's corporate management team.

In Chapter Thirty-Four, you will see how little our government cared when a small business operator highlighted the dangers of documents lost in Telstra's network.If I were representing the Ford Motor Company, BHP, or any number of other multinational companies in Australia, I am sure these complaints would have been properly investigated.

This situation is interesting on multiple fronts, particularly because the TIO would not exist without the COTs. In 1992, following our numerous and persistent complaints to the Regulator about Telstra's unwillingness to investigate our problems, the Regulator and the then-Labor Government collaborated to establish a dedicated telecommunications industry ombudsman's office.Even Telstra management admits that pressure from the COTs created this important position.Unfortunately, since late 1994, the COTs have received more complaints about the TIO than they ever did about the Regulator when it handled Telstra-related issues. More disturbing is that 95 percent of the members of the TIO Board and Council are drawn from Telstra and other telco industry players, all of whom have a vested interest in smothering adverse publicity.I have personally provided all fifteen members with irrefutable evidence of the cover-up of my phone and fax faults; however, the only responses I have received have come from the Chairman of the Board (a senior officer with another major non-Telstra telco) and the Chairman of the Council, who is an ex-Liberal government minister.

The Minister for Communications has been writing to the TIO and all TIO Board members since 1996, seeking clarification on when my outstanding billing matters would be properly addressed—to no avail.As recently as May 12, 2004, I received a letter from the TIO's office informing me that my evidence "will be passed on" to the Board "by hand at the Council meeting scheduled for May 19, 2004." At the time of writing, it is almost August 2004, and still no word has come back regarding this evidence.Who is covering up for whom here? Do the international parent companies represented on the TIO Board and Council know about this cover-up?

 

CHAPTER 34

 

My patience, already stretched past normal endurance, snapped.Where had all the documents relating to problems after August 1994 vanished? After all, these problems persisted relentlessly, week after week and month after month. People were still writing to me, describing faults they encountered when trying to send or receive faxes from me.

Around June 1998, I received letters from five different businesses, detailing fax problems they had encountered. All these letters were forwarded to the TIO's office.One of these letters, from a Secretarial Service, detailed the problems they had encountered, including:

 

• Blank paper appearing in the middle of

   

  a transmission.

• Only a strip of approximately 3 cm

   

  appearing.

• Distorted figures, resembling stretched letters, appearing at the end of a

   

  page.

• A page with black lines running all the way down, as

   

  previously described.

The agency went on to say:

"As you can appreciate, being the only secretarial service in (the area), my fax machine is a valuable tool in my office, and to date I have never experienced problems with any of my other clients."

Then, to compound my despair, the Australian Federal Police wrote on July 30, 1998, to inform me they were unable to assist further, stating my allegations were not important enough.If the Federal Police cannot grasp the importance of forty-three faxes failing to reach the arbitrator, what other avenues remain to ensure these matters are properly investigated?For example, if documents are sent by courier and do not arrive, we have recourse through the courier company.If documents sent by fax through Telstra's network are lost, however, it would seem there is no recourse and no one will investigate.

Shortly after this, I received another setback. In a letter dated August 18, 1998, the Attorney General stated he "cannot be of assistance ... in this matter."If the Attorney General's office is unconcerned about the loss of legal documents transmitted via fax, and the Federal Police are also unable to help, then who can?

I believe that the piracy of faxed documents may be widespread in Australia, affecting not only documents directly related to Telstra but also business documents in general.

On July 1, 1998, I wrote again to the Deputy TIO, expressing my concern that not only were some of my faxes being 'lost' in transit, but others were also disfigured and rendered unreadable.I provided him with copies of a number of documents I had received from the arbitrator's office when my claim documents were returned after the arbitration. These documents were later forwarded to the Federal Police, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Justice.They were documents originally faxed to the arbitrator but which had arrived in his office as half-pages or blank pages, even though my Telstra fax account indicates I was still charged for sending these illegible documents.The TIO's office still refuses to properly address these issues.

Bank statements I faxed to the project manager's office arrived at their office devoid of detail, yet still clearly identifiable as bank statements.In fact, some of these mostly-blank pages bear a handwritten note stating, 'Smith's Bank Statements.' Since this is not my handwriting, I have asked the TIO to identify the handwriting's origin, but I have, once again, received no reply.

When I saw these peculiar faxes, I asked the TIO how the project manager's office could accurately assess my financial position if some of the documents I sent arrived lacking the necessary information for their valuation. Again, no answer from the project manager or the TIO.

On April 22nd, 1994, the Regulator also received blank pages when I attempted to fax copies of my Telstra accounts, which showed massive incorrect charging.When I checked my phone accounts for April 22nd, it was clear that I had been charged for many minutes of transmission time for the fax from Cape Bridgewater to the Regulator in Melbourne.Even the Regulator's fax journal recorded that these blank pages took minutes to arrive.I have since tested this phenomenon by sending blank sheets to a Melbourne address; they took only ten to twelve seconds to go through.These 'blank' faxes, characterized by unusually long transmission times for blank pages, continued to arrive when sent from my office at least until June 1998, spanning four years of fax faults.

The 'blank pages' that arrived over the years all had a small, unidentified symbol or icon in the top corner of each page.I have pointed this out to the Federal Police, the Attorney General, and other relevant parties. On June 29th, 1998, my solicitor also received two blank pages sent from my office.These two pages both had strange, square symbols, which were similar to, but not exactly the same as, the earlier 'blank page' symbols. Therefore, the issue affecting my faxes during the arbitration process appeared to still be occurring in 1998.

Another fax fault, which I discussed during the arbitration, occurred when the TIO's legal counsel attempted to send me a copy of the arbitration rules.In this instance, I received pages that were blank, except for a smaller version of the mysterious 'blank fax symbol'. At that point, I had already complained that these fax problems — the pages with only the 'blank fax symbol' — had only begun after I signed the original commercial process (the FTSP), and that my accountants, solicitors, and other advisors had received these strange pages.

Following these events, I did not see a full copy of the FTAP rules until I signed the agreement on April 21st, 1994. Could it be that my copy of the rules for the arbitration had been lost because of these fax problems?Like several Senators, I was misled by the TIO and his legal counsel.The Senators and I believed the rules to be non-legalistic, and trusting the TIO and the arbitrator, I signed the document to accept them. Once again, my trust in the TIO let me down.

A letter from Telstra, dated June 21, 1996, stated they would provide copies of "all the FOI documents and correspondence" received from the arbitrator between January 1, 1994, and April 30, 1994, and again from September 1, 1994, to May 31, 1995, regarding my FTSP and FTAP.This statement implies that no copies of correspondence received from the arbitrator between May and August 1994 were provided. Despite my Freedom of Information (FOI) request for this information, Telstra maintains that the volume of documents is too extensive.

It is notable, however, that Telstra referred to "all the FOI documents and correspondence" when considering a list of faxes I sent to the arbitrator.This list, compiled from my phone account, indicates that forty-three more faxes were sent from my office to the arbitrator's office than Telstra claims to have received from the arbitrator.Where are these forty-three faxes?Why did Telstra not address them in their defense of my claims, and why were they not assessed by the resource units attached to the arbitration?

The FTAP rules are clear: all material I submitted to the arbitrator during the procedure was to be forwarded to Telstra and subsequently to the TIO's legal counsel (appointed as special counsel).This ensured that everybody would possess copies of everything I sent to the arbitrator, whether by mail or fax. Yet, Telstra's list of documents they purportedly received from the arbitrator did not include the forty-three missing faxes, even though Telstra charged me as if these faxes had arrived at the arbitrator's office. Furthermore, Telstra's list failed to include several bound copies of documents I had sent via mail.

Under the rules (point 25), I should have received a complete copy of all my claim material, including the forty-three missing faxes, from Telstra's defense counsel. To date, the TIO has not instructed Telstra or their legal counsel to supply me with these documents.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the TIO must be aware that the majority of my claim documents never reached Telstra's defense unit or the legal counsel. If this is the case, then directing them to return these documents is futile, as they do not possess them and never have. Why did the TIO not uphold his "duty of care" during the administration of my arbitration?

In an effort to retrieve all my claim documents, I have contacted the Minister for Communications, the Minister for Justice, the Attorney General, the Federal Treasurer, and the TIO. I have asked all these individuals to instruct the parties involved in this process to return all my documents, not just a select few.

According to a reliable source, both the TIO and the Minister for Communications visited Atlanta in the United States during those Olympic Games, with their fares and accommodation paid for by Telstra. While I believe this was not illegal, it does raise questions about impartiality.After all, both men were highly involved in the COT versus Telstra issue, a process in which Telstra was a major player.I cannot understand why they didn't do everything possible to be seen as completely impartial. Had I been in the TIO's or the Minister's position, I certainly would not have accepted such a trip from Telstra. My conscience would not have allowed me to accept such a gift, especially knowing how badly COT members had been treated by Telstra in their quest for justice.

The TIO forced the COTs to abandon a perfectly workable commercial assessment process (the FTSP) in favor of an arbitration procedure that the TIO and his legal counsel had incorrectly assured us would be non-legalistic.The TIO, as administrator of the arbitration procedure, failed in his duty of care to ensure the commissioned arbitrator was suitably qualified to preside over a complex process like the COT arbitrations.From the perspective of the TIO, the Minister for Communications, and others involved in drafting the procedure, this should have been evident as a disaster from the outset. COT members were advised by the TIO that the original arbitration rules were drafted by the arbitrator in consultation with the then president of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, now a County Court Judge. Given that the Institute's presidency changes annually, it was alarming to later be advised, first by the president at the time of our arbitrations, that: "The Institute of Arbitrators Australia has absolutely no connection with the arbitration between Telstra and yourself..." Later, in a letter dated September 10, 1996, another president further advised that the Institute was not asked to supply a graded arbitrator when the COT arbitrator was appointed.In his letter, this second president stated that "there is always a risk" when using an arbitrator who is not correctly graded.

Since one of the two individuals drafting the arbitration rules was, at that very time, president of the Institute of Arbitrators, did he not have a duty to alert the TIO that the selected arbitrator was not sufficiently qualified for the role? Notably, the arbitrator actually sat for his qualification exams during the arbitration procedure—and failed.

Over the many years I have been involved in this debacle, the COT members have continually ensured that the TIO, the Minister for Communications, and the Minister for Justice all received up-to-date information to support our various claims.In my case, I have provided documented proof, again and again, that my arbitration was not carried out according to the principles of transparency that should regulate any legal process.

As previously mentioned, one of the many issues raised with these three people relates to the completed financial report, prepared by the arbitration project manager. He had been appointed to assess the effect of Telstra's defective service on my financial losses. However, on instructions from my arbitrator, he withdrew a large part of the final report, including all the figures showing how he arrived at his final assessment.Both the project manager and the arbitrator must have been aware that removal of this information would seriously disadvantage my forensic accountant in the preparation of his reply: the missing information left him unable to understand how the project manager reached his findings.Not only were the TIO, the Minister for Communications, and the Minister for Justice all alerted to this situation, but the issue was also raised with the Attorney General.All these people were also alerted to the fact that the project manager's company was advising the Government and was also overseeing the investigation into Christopher Skase's financial situation (Christopher Skase was, at the time, a fugitive from Australian justice living in Spain).If this company could be influenced to hide its calculations in my case, could it be influenced to do the same in other, larger cases?We also have to wonder about earlier major public cases this same firm had advised.

Although I understand the position the project manager found himself in, I cannot condone his actions in withdrawing information from the finished report at the request of the arbitrator.We must also seriously question the firm's ethics in allowing this situation to remain in place.Why did the firm not raise the matter of an arbitrator influencing the outcome of their investigation?If such a highly regarded organisation can be swayed to change a completed legal report, then it raises doubts about how often this could happen in the future, and how often it had happened before.

Lost documents and changed reports have plagued my arbitration from the beginning, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) seemed to echo my feelings in their press release of 20th September 1998, titled "QAI says Telstra hid report." In this press release, the ABC stated: "A prominent Australian telecommunications company has accused Telstra and the Federal Government of a cover-up for failing to make public a report on billing problems at Telstra.

QAI Australia Limited is suing Telstra for $14 million in damages and is attempting to get a copy of the report, commissioned by Communications Minister Senator ..., through the Freedom of Information Act.

The Government has agreed to release an edited version of the report, but Telstra has appealed this decision.

QAI's Managing Director ...

argues for its release. "If the report is not material, if it has little relevance or significance, why the big secret?" he said.

"What we have here in my view is something that's akin to a fairly substantial cover-up, so if it is harmless, release it."

On June 17, 1998, my office received a letter from the Minister for Communications' office. It addressed my claims of incorrect charging, detailed in both my interim submission and final claim documents, which neither Telstra nor my arbitrator had addressed. The Minister's letter stated, in part:

"The TIO is currently investigating your claims of overcharging on 1800 numbers.It is also investigating the disconnection of your gold phone service.

The Government has no jurisdiction to intervene in matters being examined by the TIO.

The TIO scheme applies in addition to the general rights consumers of goods and services have flowing from contract law and forms of consumer protection such as under the Trade Practices Act 1974, and does not take away from those existing rights.

A complainant may elect within twenty-one days whether or not to accept the decision of the TIO.In accepting a decision, a complainant releases the member carriage service provider from all claims, actions, etc., in relation to the complaint.

In the event that the complainant does not accept the decision of the TIO, he or she may elect to pursue another forum.The member is then fully released from the TIO's decision."

In the last paragraph, the Communications Minister's office reiterated: "The Government has no jurisdiction to intervene in matters being examined by the TIO.The Minister also wrote to Mr David Hawker MP as a result of representations you made to his office.The Minister has informed Mr Hawker that it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in this matter, particularly while it is still under investigation by the TIO." Yet, at about the same time, this same TIO wrote to Mr Hawker, advising that I had only just raised the issues of incorrect charging on my 1800 service.In response to this statement, I supplied Mr Hawker with a copy of one of the first letters I had written to the TIO regarding incorrect charging, dated September 3, 1995.I also sent Mr Hawker copies of another ten letters I had written directly to the TIO, the last dated October 31, 1995. This totaled eleven letters to the TIO between September 3 and October 31, 1995, all relating to incorrect charging. How the TIO could possibly think I had 'only just' raised this issue in 1998 is beyond understanding, especially since I have continued to write to him regarding this matter ever since.According to records compiled by my secretarial service, I have written over one hundred and twenty letters to the TIO, most of them related to incorrect charging.

I received this letter on June 17, 1998, but I have still not heard what the TIO intends to do regarding the incorrect charging on my 1800 line. However, in December 1998, I was advised that the TIO had sought legal advice on this matter six months previously.

The TIO himself replied to some of these letters.One of his replies, dated November 28, 1995, stated: "The resource unit has provided clarification of the reason for deletion of references to a potential addendum on possible discrepancies in your Telstra bills from the final technical report as follows:

'At a late stage of the arbitration process, at the time of preparation of the technical evaluation report, there were discussions about billing issues which had been raised by Mr Smith.A draft of the technical evaluation report therefore included references to the billing matters, which it was thought might require further work beyond the time of issue of the report.'"

Later in the same letter, the TIO went on to say: "A second matter involved (1800 Freecall) calls. Again, this matter was current at a late stage (April 1995) of the arbitration process.This matter concerned possible overlap in the records of (1800 Freecall) calls made to Mr Smith, and for which he was billed."

On February 17, 1998, I sent the TIO, by registered mail, a 49-page bound submission detailing examples of incorrect charging. This submission included copies of pages from the transcript of the oral hearing conducted on October 11, 1994, between Telstra, the arbitrator, and me. I reminded the TIO that a representative from his office also attended that oral hearing.Pages 92 to 94 of the transcript clearly show that my claim documents relating to Telstra's incorrect charging were accepted into the arbitration procedure at the oral hearing, having been previously submitted in my interim claim.Pages 91 to 93 cover my explanation of the significance of the material I was submitting, and on page 94, the arbitrator is reported as stating, "I don't think we need any further examples." Given all this, and with the TIO clearly possessing extensive evidence of incorrect charging from the day of the oral hearing at the latest, how can he state that the 1800 incorrect charging matter was only 'current at a late stage (April 1995) of the arbitration process'?

On October 28, 1997, the TIO wrote to Telstra regarding the incorrect charging on my 1800 line.This letter shows that the TIO finally (two and a half years later) asked Telstra to advise whether they "...agree that this matter was not addressed..." in my arbitration.I have never received a copy of Telstra's response to the TIO's October 1997 letter.

According to information provided on good authority, a judgment against Telstra for regularly incorrectly charging its customers would set a dangerous precedent. Therefore, even though my evidence clearly shows this has been occurring for some time, it seems Telstra is determined to avoid addressing the issue at all costs.

Other pages from the oral transcript have also been sent to the TIO, the Minister for Justice, and the Attorney General.Pages 37 to 38 and 40 to 41 are particularly interesting. These pages clarify that, at least at that time, the arbitrator intended to address Telstra's unethical tapping of my phone lines, particularly their eavesdropping on my private phone calls during the arbitration procedure.On pages 31 and 32, the arbitrator is reported as confirming that Telstra would have a right of reply if I included my allegations of telephone bugging in my claim. It is clear from my reply that I wanted these matters addressed as part of my claim.The transcript states: "Arbitrator to Smith: ...and again, I make sure Mr. Smith understands what it means—is that effectively any reference in your claim documents to date regarding unlawful phone tapping will be treated by me and the resource unit as unsubstantiated and therefore not relevant for the purpose of determining whether you are entitled to compensation?"

My reply is recorded as being:"No, I will leave it in the claim because..."

To which the arbitrator responds: "You understand if you leave it in your claim, Telstra is

entitled to ask what is the basis for this allegation?"

My reply:"Right, Okay, yes, all right."

The arbitrator:"So you want to leave the allegation in?"

My reply:"I will leave the allegation in."

If Telstra is allowed to get away with not addressing past eavesdropping on businesses while it was government-owned, then what does the future hold for Australia once it is completely privatised, with no government control at all?Security for all Australian businesses is at risk.

In my own situation, legal documents were 'lost' between my fax transmission and their intended destination, and my private and business arrangements were known by Telstra well in advance of the actual event, even while I was in litigation with them.These issues, although raised again and again with the appropriate people, have still not been explained.How many other businesses are having their private documents intercepted?How many overseas investors are being 'bugged' without their knowledge?How many businesses fighting a takeover bid have their private information passed around to whoever might benefit from a bit of inside knowledge?How many faxes are copied and passed to someone other than the intended recipient, thereby illegally providing information that could be used to the original sender's detriment?

An article on electronic security in The Melbourne Age newspaper dated October 10, 1998, reported that, even then, it was possible for anyone with access to the phone network to monitor faxes as they were sent and to keep copies, without the sender's knowledge.This article also pointed out that telephone operators could eavesdrop on calls and Telstra had the ability to access all calls, despite supposed strict controls.The Age article went on to ask questions regarding this apparent easy access to our personal and private information:What could someone use this information for?What if it is misinterpreted?Where might this information end up?

How can the Government privatise an organisation that has run vicious and vindictive campaigns against a group of its own customers simply because those customers took up their right to challenge the service provided to them? Before the Bill to sell off the remainder of Telstra is passed, this question needs further investigation by the Senate as a matter of priority.

Had everyone involved abided by the rules of transparency when I first raised the issue of my faulty phone services, I would have reluctantly accepted the arbitrator's award. However, I couldn't simply walk away once I discovered that the arbitrator himself had breached not only these most basic legal rules but also the rules of the arbitration procedure itself. Indeed, had I not seen the documents inadvertently given to me by the arbitrator's secretary, and understood what they proved about the unjust handling of my case, I would probably have reluctantly accepted the award he handed down. My acceptance would also have been more likely if Telstra officials had addressed the issues of lost faxes, billing problems, and eavesdropping, or if the arbitrator had taken these specific concerns into account.

The lost faxes, in particular, raise several questions. Since many of these missing faxes were my actual claim material and therefore never reached the arbitrator, how could he arrive at a fair decision without the information contained in those important documents?

Many questions also remain unanswered for the members of COT:

 

• Why didn't the TIO check the credentials of the appointed arbitrator to determine if he possessed the necessary qualifications—that is, if he was a graded arbitrator acknowledged by the Institute of Arbitrators as best suited for such a complex case?

   

   

• Why didn't the president of the Institute of Arbitrators alert the TIO to the appointed arbitrator's lack of appropriate qualifications?

   

   

• Why didn't the TIO's legal counsel, who were supposed to advise the TIO on legal matters, advise the TIO that the appointed arbitrator was insufficiently qualified?

   

   

• Why did the Institute of Arbitrators, in its letter of 19 January 1996, deny any connection with the arbitration?

   

As it happened, neither the rules of transparency nor the rules of the arbitration procedure were abided by. After the arbitration had been 'completed,' I inadvertently saw sensitive documents that had apparently been hidden from me during the process. If the arbitrator had raised the issue of Telstra using falsified and impractical documents as part of its defense, his integrity would not be questioned, as it would be clear he was not influenced by Telstra. As this did not happen, another question arises:

 

• Was the arbitrator unduly and illegally influenced and therefore no longer an independent adjudicator in my arbitration?

   

Australian citizens have a duty of care to expose unlawful conduct that could harm the welfare of other Australians. Though I once identified as a 'Pommy', I now consider myself a 'true blue Aussie' and have dedicated many years to exposing the fiasco in which I became entangled. My motivation stems from a firm belief that the law must be observed at all costs, for without a democratic society, we risk losing the freedoms we often take for granted—freedoms many young Australians fought to preserve.The law exists to protect all Australians, not merely those politicians and corporate lawyers who manipulate the system for personal gain, often at the expense of others, as this story clearly illustrates.

On page twenty-eight of his award, under the heading 'Faults Caused By Claimant', the arbitrator appears to have partially based his findings on the belief that Telstra's defence documents were factual. He states:

(c)Telstra nevertheless maintains that most reported faults were attributable to mis-operation by the claimant or by his callers or to normal wear and tear on the equipment they were using.

(d)In this regard I have noted for example, the Statutory Declaration by (name deleted)*, a senior technical officer grade 1, who concluded that specific fault allegations involving the claimant's answering machine, cordless phone, and facsimile machine could only be attributable to operator error.I have also noted that statement by (name deleted)*, senior Telstra technician officer grade 2, to the effect that reported facsimile machine faults were attributable to customer error."

* These names have been deleted by the author to protect individual Telstra employees. The author and other COT claimants believe that a number of Telstra employees were pressured by the Telstra Corporation into giving false statements in support of Telstra's defence.

However, the following statements, taken from Telstra's own archival material, directly contradict the Statutory Declaration made by the Grade 1 technical officer mentioned in point (d) above.

1. An early fault report dated March 5, 1993, states: "Rang Cape Bridgewater but Mr Smith was out, his assistant stated she had received several calls where on lift off all she heard was dial tone, this is after we shifted (my phone numbers) into system three in the RCM.I believe this may be tied up with the Portland AXE Network problem."

2. FOI document K00960, dated January 31, 1994, concerning my fax line, further states: "Fax tests to Cape Bridgewater needed as Telstra's (name deleted) had problems faxing Smith Telstra information."

3. Similarly, FOI document R37914, dated March 19, 1994, also regarding my fax line, states: "Found fault to be in RCM at the Cape Bridgewater.Common equipment card due to data corruption."

I wonder if the TIO failed to correctly investigate my fax problems because he believed this perjured information, even though the problems with my fax line were still being experienced long after my arbitration was completed. It seems clear to me that he, too, believed there were no problems with my fax, simply because the technical officer's Statutory Declaration suggested that I was the problem, not Telstra.

It is important to remember that the TIO Board is made up of representatives from a number of telecommunications carriers, including Telstra.Since the TIO's office acted as administrator for my arbitration and should therefore have been aware of the unlawful way this procedure was conducted, they should have convened their own investigations into the serious matters raised by false statements or Statutory Declarations provided to my arbitrator. All this information was supplied to the TIO Board and their lawyers in August/September 1999. Consequently, from 1999 to 2004, I continued to wait for developments.

Some issues surrounding the COT arbitrations also appear to have been deliberately covered up by the Australian Government to avoid proper investigation before the partial sale of Telstra.My evidence conclusively proved that Telstra continually incorrectly charged me on all three of my service lines over a prolonged period.This practice is against the Australian Trade Practices Act.If this incorrect charging occurred on my phone lines, how many other lines had the same problem?Surely the Australian Government should have notified the share-buying Australian public that it appeared some of Telstra's profits were derived from incorrect charging on customer accounts?

Questions must be asked about the alarming connections between Telstra's lawyers and some high-profile politicians.I alerted a high-ranking member of the Liberal Party, who was also the Chairperson of the TIO Council, to this alarming situation, but received no response.Surely these individuals are now aware of the conspiracy and cover-up that has taken place? Most of them have certainly been given ample information that should prompt deeper investigation.

This book was written not only to alert the public to the treatment meted out to COT members, but also to raise the issue of the cover-up carried out by legal vultures and large corporations and, hopefully, to prevent such a situation from ever arising in Australia again.

Some documents I recently received from the TIO under the new Privacy Policy Act indicate his serious concern about my allegations regarding Telstra's billing process.Many of these are letters I wrote to the TIO, now bearing handwritten notes, apparently made by the TIO himself.In one instance, the TIO wrote: "These are quite serious allegations.We need to respond to specific letters Smith says weren't forwarded or received, and provide answers on each." Despite this, I never received this information from the TIO, and the phone and fax lock-up and billing faults continued unabated.

A signed document, later supplied under FOI by a Telstra senior executive, acknowledges that seven faxes from my office did not reach the arbitrator's office. The arbitrator's secretary stated their fax line was engaged when I sent them. Upon receiving this document, I requested Telstra's technical data printout for that day. Surprisingly, these seven faxes appear as having arrived at the arbitrator's office. Predictably, my Telstra account includes a charge for these faxes as if they reached their intended destination. This is similar to a fax I attempted to send to another COT member four and a half years later, on February 26, 1999, for which I was also charged.

I have already recounted the story of forty-three faxes that 'went missing' over the months I was lodging my claim with the arbitrator.The seven missing faxes mentioned above are included in this total. When I examined the list of documents Telstra's defence unit received from the arbitrator, it was clear they had not received any of these forty-three faxed claim documents. Yet, Telstra charged me for all of them, with some transmissions lasting up to eight minutes (long-distance).The length of transmission time indicates that many pages were sent.I would like to know the current whereabouts of these forty-three documents and if they share the same fate as the more recent fax that didn't reach the other COT member.

If you are still not convinced that something unusual is occurring—either a serious fault in Telstra's network or some underhanded skulduggery—I have yet another story to add. In March 1996, my secretarial agency in Melbourne phoned to discuss a document faxed to me earlier that day.My fax journal for this period clearly shows the fax did not arrive at my office, yet the Telstra account for the agency indicates it did. They were charged for a long-distance transmission lasting four minutes and twenty-five seconds.

One must also wonder how many other similar occurrences have gone unnoticed over the years, and how many individuals or businesses send faxes, never discover they didn't arrive at their intended destination, and subsequently pay their Telstra accounts without question.

Neither Telstra nor the arbitrator addressed the incorrect charging on my 1800 and fax lines, nor the problems associated with my gold phone and its subsequent disconnection. At least some of these issues persist to this day, yet remain unaddressed by Telstra or the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).

Over the years, I have attempted to raise these issues with the Australian Government through various channels. I have written to numerous politicians and senators who possess the authority to initiate an investigation into these matters. These include the Prime Minister, the Federal Treasurer, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Communications, the Minister for Justice, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, the Minister for Small Business, the Federal Member for Wannon, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Despite numerous pleas to each of these individuals, none has succeeded in compelling Telstra to account for its incorrect charging or for faxes that fail to reach their destination. In August 1998, I forwarded to the TIO's office copies of letters from four different professional organizations, each detailing experiences of faults related to my fax line in the years following the 'completion' of my arbitration.Some of these letters refer to incidents ranging from 1994 to 2003, and each organization states that, despite regularly sending and receiving many faxes, mine is the only one that has caused them such significant trouble.

On January 14, 1998, Telstra sent two officers to meet with me. My accountant/business adviser was present at this meeting to take the minutes and observe the process. These two executives made it quite clear that they were, at that time, negotiating with the TIO's office regarding a proposed assessment of the incorrect charging issues I had raised. During this meeting, I showed the Telstra representatives a fax that had arrived on my machine from the Crown Casino in Melbourne. This fax was clearly not intended for me, and it was one of many I would receive over the following months, all originating from within the Crown Casino complex. I finally complained to the TIO in July 1998 and, although the TIO's office never responded to my complaint, these faxes from the casino subsequently stopped. I have never been able to understand how these faxes, originating from the casino, reached my fax machine. Not one of them was addressed to a fax number remotely similar to mine; they were not even in a similar range.In fact, most of the numbers the faxes were intended for were 450 kilometers away.

After the meeting with the two Telstra officers, I waited for some resolution to the faults I had raised, but nothing occurred until October 1998.At this stage of the proceedings, I was only paying part of my fax account to highlight the unaddressed problems. Even though the account for this fax line was still in dispute, Telstra disconnected the line. I continued to pay off the account, even though this meant paying rental for a service that no longer existed.The final payment was made on March 20, 1999, six months after the line was disconnected. Consequently, from October 1998, I was forced to move most office duties to my residence to connect my fax machine to a working phone line. My faxes were all sent from my residence from then on. Although some faults continued to occur, the number of faults was significantly reduced compared to prior to July 1998.

On January 28, 1999, I sent a fax to a business associate some distance away. My Telstra fax account shows charges for two fax calls to his number on this date: one at 8:23 p.m., lasting for 40 seconds, and a second call at 8:24 p.m., lasting for 3 minutes and 31 seconds.According to my fax journal, the first call was not answered—so why was I charged for this call?Remember, these were all long-distance, timed calls, not a single 25-cent local call charge. Furthermore, according to my associate, the second fax never arrived—so where is it?

If these examples of missing faxes seem like mere system glitches of little importance, there are even more astounding and as-yet-unexplained events.On March 19, 1999, my secretarial agency in Melbourne sent a six-page fax to my office.My fax machine does not cut off each page; consequently, a multi-page fax comes off the machine as one long strip of paper.As I watched this fax roll off the machine, it began to ring as if a new call was coming in, even though the line was fully engaged at the time. The fax from the secretarial agency stopped, and a two-page fax from my solicitor, in a completely different part of Melbourne, followed. While I stood gaping in surprise, the phone rang again.The fax from my solicitor ended, and the final three pages from the secretarial agency rolled out of the machine—all in one continuous strip. This strip contained: three pages from the first address (the secretarial agency), two pages from a second, totally unrelated address (my solicitor), and then another three pages from the first address. Notably, all pages, including the fax identification, were in an unusually small print.

And so we arrive at the question: are yourfaxes also being lost or intercepted?Who knows?What we do know is that the technology exists to divert calls from one phone (or fax) to another, and what we must now ask is: How is that technology being used?

Telstra FOI document number A03610 states that Telstra believed that some of my problem calls were being diverted. Let me assure you now: I certainly did not have a call diverter on any of my lines back in 1994, not even to divert calls to Telstra's message bank; I had my own answering machine. So, if these calls were being diverted, where were they being diverted to?Who arranged for them to be diverted?And why were they being diverted?Again, I don't have the answers.

I do know, though, that I am not the only Telstra customer suffering from this 'phantom diverter' problem.The members of COT have provided the Victoria Police and Telstra with the name of another Telstra customer who contacted our group some time ago.As I have previously explained, it has been proved—and Telstra has acknowledged—that some of this customer's business calls were being diverted to her competitor. Again, we must ask how many other customers suffer from unrecognised interference with their phone calls and faxes? Why haven't the TIO or the Federal Police fully investigated any of these issues? How long is the Minister for Communications going to continue to ignore these issues? Telstra's enormous profits continue to grow, and Telstra shareholders continue to reap the benefit, which is a good thing—unless, of course, these profits come from faulty billing procedures and 'ripped off' customers.

After meeting with me on January 14, 1998, Telstra's representatives recorded the meeting in the form of 'file notes'.I received a copy of these notes from the TIO's office in 2002 and, surprisingly, found attached to the notes a copy of a letter from Telstra to the TIO, dated February 4, 1998, acknowledging that it seemed some of the billing faults I had raised in my claim had continued, even after my arbitration.When he received this admission, why didn't the TIO immediately instigate an inquiry into why the arbitration hadn't fixed the problem?

Other documents from the TIO's office confirm his letter to Mr Hawker, my local MP, claiming that all billing faults had been investigated during my arbitration. This assertion contradicted the arbitration project manager's advice, who stated that no billing faults were investigated due to lack of time. Why has the TIO's office continued to mislead so many people? And why hasn't the TIO advised the Government that my ongoing complaints are not related to the initial settlement I received (though it was certainly nowhere near enough at the time), but instead relate to the TIO's refusal to correctly investigate the continuing 'lock-up' faults? These faults translated into major billing errors, which Telstra itself admits continued after my arbitration.

Over the eight years between 1995 and 2003, I provided the TIO with irrefutable evidence of lost faxes, lost calls, and billing problems. Years later, I could still stand in my office with my caretaker, watch him call my business phone from his mobile, and hear him confirm an engaged signal when the phone sat on my desk, silent and unused.Try to imagine how this feels: you know with certainty that there is nothing wrong with the way you operate your telecommunications equipment, but Telstra insists the only faults are with you and your staff, not with Telstra lines or equipment.Perhaps I would have had a better chance of getting the problems fixed if I were related to a Senator or other Government Minister – or if I were a large corporation instead of a small rural business.

By the time 2000 drew to a close, I was even more despairing. Little seemed to have changed. Although the phone problems had somewhat diminished after the new optical fibre was installed in April 2000, Telstra still refused to reconnect my phone lines, and no one had yet come to my premises to investigate the wiring on my property, despite my complaints about the poor workmanship during my arbitration.Once new FOI documents began arriving from the Regulator in 2001, however, I began to find proof that the members of COT had been correct all along regarding the billing faults in Telstra's network.Even Telstra's own Board now agreed that the rural network was in need of repair.So what had my arbitration been about?Why had Telstra spent so much time ducking and weaving and telling lies under oath when the Board was ready to admit the problems I had raised were serious and the system needed upgrading?

My life was still 'on hold'. I had poured what little remained of my settlement back into my business, putting in new cabins and completing urgent maintenance, but it seemed the TIO had always known the arbitration failed to address or fix the billing faults. How could my telephone-dependent business be expected to survive with a failing telephone system still in place?

Yet another electrifying document arrived in 2001.Telstra had written to the TIO on January 11, 1994, noting that details of the arbitration would only be released "...after consultation with the TIO."This meant that the TIO, having already allowed the rules of my arbitration to be changed without my knowledge or consent, then misled me into signing the arbitration agreement. Crucially, the TIO failed to disclose that every discovery document would be vetted by their office and released only if both the TIO and Telstra agreed. How could the TIO represent his office as independent?

As stated before, the Senate finally began to investigate how Telstra had (or had not) supplied FOI documents to the COT claimants.The decision was to first examine the cases of five of the COT claimants (from an original list of twenty-one), with the remaining sixteen (including me) to follow. The COT claimants hoped this investigation would compel Telstra to supply the previously withheld documents, thereby giving the claimants an opportunity to decide whether to appeal the arbitrator's awards or challenge Telstra's defense of their claims.Twelve months after the Senate began its inquiry, Telstra still wasn't following the Senate's instructions, nor was it abiding by the directions of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office. This was despite secret in-camera Senate Hansard reports clearly indicating that numerous Senators believed Telstra was 'thumbing its nose' at the Senate. One Senator went so far as to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman: "...so Telstra is not only ignoring you, but also ignoring the arbitrator?" and subsequently whether this meant Telstra had "...ignored the parliament."This comment, along with numerous similar remarks by other Senators recorded in various Hansard documents, confirms that the Government knew the COT claimants had not been treated fairly by Telstra in their respective arbitrations, yet took no action. In fact, the Coalition, then in opposition, called for an immediate inquiry, and the Labor party, then in government, allowed the motion.Shortly thereafter, the Coalition came to power in Australia, and it can only be assumed that the Labor party expected the inquiry to proceed. The COTs are still waiting.

One of the in-camera Hansard documents included Telstra's annual report—surely a public document—which prompts the question of why it was designated 'in-camera' or secret.Could this be because it records numerous Senators expressing their belief that Telstra had acted appallingly during the COT arbitrations?

The COTs on the first list finally saw some of the documents they needed, under scrutiny and in Telstra's own office.One claimant later told me they had also seen proof that Telstra had withheld numerous fault data documents from me, designating them as 'under legal professional privilege'. These documents, however, should never have been subject to legal professional privilege because all the data related to faults at my local exchange, and such documents cannot be legally withheld from a claimant. It is now obvious that the Senate knew Telstra was illegally withholding documents in a legal arbitration. The Minister for Communications knew the Telstra arbitrations were descending into farce. The Federal Police had reported on the illegalities they had uncovered. Yet, no one did anything.

Although I have copies of these two in-camera Hansard reports from this Senate inquiry, I am not allowed to reveal their exact contents (under threat of a jail term).I can say, however, that these documents show at least one Senator insisting that if the five claimants on the first list were to receive compensation, it would be entirely unfair if the remaining sixteen did not. As it happens, as a direct result of the Senate investigation, the first five did receive large compensation payouts, but the other sixteen have not received a cent.

While the COT arbitrations were underway, the Australian Federal Police produced a report (the Oregon Report) on aspects of its investigation into the COT members' claims regarding Telstra's refusal to supply documents under FOI.This report has since been buried in government archives, not to be made public for thirty years.If the Government and the Federal Police had nothing to hide, why bury the report?

Again and again during the arbitration, there were indications of the lengths to which Telstra was prepared to go in its efforts to stop me from pursuing justice.When Telstra discovered I had supplied some FOI documents to the Federal Police during its investigation into Telstra's illegal tapping of my phone, it promptly refused to supply any more FOI documents, even though it did not have the power to make such a decision.I complained to both the TIO and the arbitrator about this latest refusal to supply legally required documents, but there is no record of anyone, other than me, asking Telstra to explain or instructing it to resume supplying the documents it was legally bound to supply.Why didn't the TIO and the arbitrator call a halt to the arbitration process until all the material I had requested was supplied by Telstra?The Federal Police was shocked at Telstra's decision to refuse to supply these documents.Why weren't the TIO or the arbitrator shocked too, and why didn't they suspend the process until Telstra supplied the information it was legally obliged to supply?

The arbitrator's comments about serious problems with the credibility of the arbitration process have still not been addressed. On the very day the arbitrator wrote his letter to the TIO explaining these serious problems, the TIO issued a media release announcing the successful conclusion of the "... first COT case arbitration"and noting that "... the findings of the ... technical advisers to the Arbitrator indicated that the claimant had suffered considerable technical difficulties during the period in question.It was found that faults did exist which caused the service to fall below a reasonable level, and that apart from some customer premises equipment..., most of the problems were in the Inter Exchange Network."

Was there ever an announcement to tell the public that the process used to arrive at this conclusion (the arbitration) was faulty?No, of course not.

Did I ever get the opportunity to let the public know that the comment about 'customer premises equipment' – probably referring to the infamous TF200 beer-in-the-phone report – had been based on a manufactured and totally incorrect report?No, of course not.

Did this announcement make any mention of the fact that, regardless of the findings, the faults continued to plague my business?No, of course not!

While the Senate was investigating Telstra's conduct during the COT arbitrations, the phone faults at my business continued unabated. Concurrently, the TIO advised the Minister's office that he was still investigating billing faults which, as we now know, were never investigated at all.In fact, on January 29, 1999, the Minister's office wrote to the TIO, noting that the TIO had not made a decision as to whether he would investigate my claims of overcharging on my 1800 line.The Minister added that this matter had then been before the TIO "... for some years."

In response, the TIO wrote to the Minister and my Federal Member of Parliament, stating that "... the only matter outstanding which the TIO is considering is whether the arbitrator considered Mr Smith's claim for overcharging on his ... (1800 freecall)line." This was despite the TIO having already been advised by the arbitration project manager, four years earlier, that none of the billing claim documents I submitted to arbitration had ever been investigated or addressed.This is supported by letters from the TIO-appointed resource unit and the Regulator, all confirming that the billing issues were never addressed. Despite this, the TIO chose to mislead the Minister, and my phone and fax faults continued.

Following the arbitrator's award, my allegations regarding Telstra's unlawful conduct during the arbitration were taken most seriously by the then Labor Government, who invited me to a Senate Hearing in Parliament House in Canberra.A number of Senators questioned me extensively, and in response, I provided numerous documents to support my claims against Telstra. One Federal Police investigator and the senior telecommunication engineer from the Regulator's office were also present at this meeting. It was during this meeting that I discovered serious problems in the Bell Canada report concerning Telstra's telephone network into Cape Bridgewater (see start of chapter twenty). The Regulator's engineer told me, in front of another senior officer from their office, that the Bell Canada tests — which Telstra had used to defend my claims, asserting the report proved the telephone network was working exactly as it should — could not possibly have been carried out, particularly not on the dates and at the times shown in the report.

An official Senate Hansard report, titled "Matters of Public Interest (Telstra)" and dated September 20, 1995, records a Senator's long speech expressing his horror at Telstra's conduct during the four COT arbitrations.So incensed was this Senator that he was almost in tears by the time he finished.In this speech, on pages 1083 to 1085 of Hansard, the Senator discussed "... the Federal Police investigations into Telstra's monitoring of COT cases services," noting that "... the Federal Police found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telstra." He also noted that "The COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telstra to comply with the law." The Senator added, "Not only were they being denied all necessary documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration's rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all."

The Senator then stated that the arbitration "... has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it." He recalled, "The assurance was given by Telstra to the Deputy Liberal Party Senate Leader ...and me, the leader of the National Party, late in 1993, that it (the arbitration) would be fast tracked and non-legalistic and would facilitate FOI documents." Furthermore, he highlighted that "They (the COTs) have complained to the point of not paying their bills and having their phones cut off, which they desperately needed for their businesses, all in a desperate plea to Telstra to fix their lines."

In December 1995, only months after this speech was delivered in the Senate, Telstra cut off my coin-operated customer phone because I argued with them about the bill, even though the arbitration technical unit had told the TIO that the line for this service was fault-ridden.Then, in October 1998, Telstra again cut off my designated fax line because I challenged the bill. This occurred eight months after Telstra had written to the TIO, accepting that the billing faults I had raised in my claim had continued beyond my arbitration.

In 1999, another Senator, after reading the first draft of this book, wrote that he believed Telstra had infringed "... upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable."

While the Senate was investigating the COT issues, the son of one of the Senators, who had reviewed much of my evidence, became so incensed at Telstra's treatment of me that he offered to help in any way he could.Although I was most grateful for this offer, I couldn't accept it. His own father, in his official capacity as a Senator, appeared to be supporting only the five COT members whom the Senate had helped access documents Telstra had previously withheld.

The months and years dragged on, and finally, after investing the last of my award back into a business still plagued by an unworkable phone system, I was forced to sell the business. By this stage, I believed Telstra was deliberately manipulating the situation in an effort to drive me out of business. I hoped that selling the business would finally allow the phones to work properly. I was wrong, because most of the problems were caused by faulty telephone wiring inside the camp perimeters, wiring installed by Telstra themselves in 1991.

In the Portland Observer on November 8, 2002, a journalist reported on telephone problems experienced by the new owners of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (who had bought the business from me and taken over at the end of 2001)—the same problems I had been complaining about for so many years.On November 11, a technician visited the camp, removed a telephone alarm bell and replaced the incoming wiring.He confirmed that the old wiring, together with the alarm bell, had caused the faults.Since then, the new owners report that their incoming call rate has more than doubled.

The Government clearly possesses proof that Telstra has flouted direct legal instructions, indicating Telstra acted unconscionably.This is substantiated by the Federal Police's Oregon report, which detailed Telstra's illegal blacking out of relevant information in documents supplied to claimants. Further support comes from Telstra whistleblowers who risked much to expose the company's appalling treatment of its customers. Despite this evidence, neither individual Senators nor the Government as a whole have taken action. The Minister's office, for instance, refuses to properly investigate the remaining sixteen members of COT who were never given the chance to access Telstra's archival documents that would support their cases. Furthermore, the Government has not explained why, after the Senate intervention in 1998/99, only five COT members were granted access to Telstra documents originally withheld from all twenty-one claimants. This raises the question of why five claimants were granted access while the other sixteen were denied the same rights, especially after at least one Senator expressed concern about this unfair and discriminatory practice.

Why has there never been even one official inquiry into the Casualties of Telstra and their claims of Telstra's mistreatment of customers?The Australian Government is clearly denying some members of the Casualties of Telstra any chance of achieving true justice in their fight for recognition of the problems stemming from Telstra's cavalier attitude.

How could the Shadow Minister for Communications assume the position of Minister in the new Government and completely ignore all his own previous statements, and those of his fellow Senators, regarding Telstra's 'disturbing and unacceptable' behavior towards its customers and the serious infringement of our 'civil liberties'?When I supplied this same new Minister with fresh evidence received in 2001, despite his reply that he would investigate on behalf of the Federal Government, nothing was done.This new evidence proved that at least eighty percent of my claim documents were never investigated. It also showed that Telstra had admitted to the TIO that, during my arbitration, they had withheld at least forty percent of the documents I had a legal right to see.

I later received a letter dated July 17, 2002, from the Minister's office, asking me not to provide any more documentation until the Minister had received advice from the TIO.I have provided the President of the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party with evidence regarding the involvement of a senior Howard Government Minister in this affair.The President replied on November 21, 2002, that he would pass my evidence on to the Chair of the Constitutional Committee.This senior Minister has since assumed the Communications portfolio, yet still, nothing has been done!

Over the years, new evidence has also been submitted to the CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, but I have never received a response.The arbitrator who decided my case is now the President of the Law Council of Australia and also advises the Federal Government on legal issues related to communication and technology. If this is an example of the calibre of the Government's advisors, is it any wonder that the Government apparently receives inaccurate information on issues like the infamous 'Children Overboard' story and the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?If the July 'Flood' report on Australia's involvement in the Iraq war so clearly identifies serious flaws in reports provided to the Prime Minister by his advisors, there must be a risk that information passed to him regarding the privatization of Telstra, and all the related COT issues, is equally flawed.Is the Prime Minister's decision to continue pushing for the privatization of Telstra based on flawed information?

In January 2003, the new owner of the Camp wrote the following letter to our local Federal Member of Parliament. Like me, they have also suffered because Telstra and the TIO still refuse to correctly investigate their valid claims.

"Dear Mr Hawker,

I am reluctant to write to you again so soon after my last letter and your prompt response, especially at a time when Australians are facing such trauma from drought, bushfires, and the threat of terrorism. However, although my wife and I are proud of our Australian heritage and never for one moment expected to challenge 'the system', the experiences we have suffered since we purchased Alan Smith's business have left us with our own profound difficulties. This is why I find myself writing this letter at three o'clock in the morning.

The final straw came yesterday (January 20th) when I made five, or possibly even six, separate attempts to fax the letter to which you so promptly responded. Since then, I have spoken to ..., my Telstra fault liaison officer, who tells me he believes the fault was with your fax, not ours. If I wasn't already so stressed, I would have laughed! Has he conveniently forgotten the similar problems other Telstra employees experienced when I tried to send them faxes just a few weeks ago? Does he not understand the evidence I have sent, which proves that a number of schools and tradespeople have all experienced the same problems, either when sending faxes to us or trying to receive faxes from us?

Mr. ... and another Telstra technician, ... (level 3), offered three different theories for yesterday's fax problems between our service and yours, although it remained unclear which fax service they were referring to – yours or mine. Their theories were as follows:

 

• The fax machine sending the document (ours) was at fault;

   

   

• The fax machine receiving the document (yours) was at fault; or

   

· The local cable in the Cape Bridgewater area was the culprit.

Mr ... informed me yesterday that my fax machine passed all transmission tests 'with flying colours'. This suggested the problem was either with your machine or the local cable. However, Alan Smith has experienced the same type of problems (both at his camp and residence) since April 1994, even after purchasing three different types of fax machines. Alan also reported similar transmission problems from his home when attempting to send faxes to prominent individuals, including the Hon. Peter Costello, Senator Len Harris, the Hon. John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia), Mr Tony Shaw (Chairman of the ACA), and the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group. He later accessed these faxed documents, either directly from the recipients or under the TIO Privacy Policy Act. These were not the only faxes Alan had problems with, which makes it clear that not all these prominent individuals could possibly be experiencing the same problem with their fax machines. This is further supported by a copy of a letter, which I believe Alan Smith forwarded to you, that he received earlier this week from the ACA. The letter acknowledges receipt of an unreadable fax from him as recently as 23rd December 2002.

It seems that, of the three theories put forward yesterday by Mr ... and ..., the only one not yet eliminated is a problem with the Cape Bridgewater local cable.

If I might now be so impertinent, I would like to ask both you and Senator ... ... (the Minister for Communications) the following questions:

· How would you feel if, in a 'cliff-hanger' election, you discovered that someone was crossing the tick against your name off every second or third ballot paper and unlawfully ticking your opponent instead?

· How would you feel if you also knew:

o You could do nothing to avoid this, and

o You would therefore lose your seat?

Until Telstra rewired my business on 9th December 2002, that is exactly how I felt — totally helpless. And now I am being told the problem lies with the fax in the office of my Federal Member of Parliament!

Mr ..., how much longer is this Telstra charade going to continue?"

As the former owner of the business I was forced to sell (now being run by the author of this letter), I have to ask: does Telstra really expect me to give up?

When the TIO released his media report in 1995, the day after my arbitration award was handed down, he admitted I had '... suffered considerable technical difficulties...' regarding my appalling phone service. Yet, his accompanying comment—that most of the problems were known to be in Telstra's telephone network—made it appear as though the issues had then been fixed. We know now, and can prove with documents discussed in this book, that the problems were not fixed, and that the TIO, the arbitrator, and others were fully aware of this. Did any of them warn me the faults had not been fixed? After I used my award to settle all my debts, did any of them fulfill their clear duty of care and prevent me from pouring the rest of the award back into my business, knowing nothing had changed and that customers would still be unable to phone my business to place a booking? No, they didn't. Instead, they simply allowed me to continue my descent into despair. They sat back and watched until I was finally forced to sell the business. Then, when the new owners began to experience the same phone problems, still no one did anything until they, too, reached a point of desperation. To quote the new owners: '...how much longer is this Telstra...'