Privacy Policy

 

How can one publish an accurate and compelling account of the intricate events that transpired during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without attaching vital supporting evidence? We find ourselves in this predicament due to the pervasive corruption festering within the government bureaucracy. The challenge lies in establishing, beyond a shadow of a doubt and without risking legal repercussions, that government public servants illicitly provided privileged information to the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier—referred to as the defendants—while simultaneously withholding the same documentation from the claimants, who are, in essence, their fellow Australian citizens.

How does one narrate a story that is so extraordinary it causes even the author to question its validity, only to find reassurance through careful examination of historical records before continuing the narrative? How does one bring to light the troubling collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (often referred to as umpires), and the defendants? How can it be disclosed that the defendants, the Telstra Corporation, exploited equipment linked to their network to unlawfully screen and intercept faxed materials leaving your office? These documents were stored without your consent and redirected to their intended destination, effectively breaching confidentiality.

It becomes apparent that the defendants were using this illegally obtained information to fortify their defense in arbitration, ultimately undermining the interests of the claimants. This raises a pressing question: how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to similar forms of hacking and manipulation? Is this insidious electronic eavesdropping still taking place today during legitimate Australian arbitrations?

In January 1999, the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a crucial report detailing the alarming reality that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened prior to reaching Parliament House in Canberra. Will this damning report ever see the light of day and be made accessible to the Australian public?

 

 

How can one publish a meticulously accurate account of the events that unfolded during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations? What strategies does the author employ to substantiate, without risking legal repercussions, the claim that government public servants discreetly fed privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants), while simultaneously concealing the same critical documentation from the claimants, fellow Australian citizens who deserved transparency?

How do you expose that these defendants, during the arbitration process—which was once under government ownership—used sophisticated equipment linked to their network to covertly screen faxed documents leaving your office, storing sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to redirect them to their rightful destination—a route shrouded in secrecy?

Were the defendants using this intercepted material to bolster their defence during arbitration, undermining the claimants' rights? 

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been victims of similar hacking tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—this insidious breach of confidentiality—still a reality during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

In January 1999, the arbitration claimants submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, detailing how confidential, arbitration-related documents were surreptitiously and illegally screened before they reached Parliament House in Canberra. Will that explosive report ever be unveiled to the Australian public, allowing citizens to grasp the full extent of these occurrences?

 

 

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my relentless battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this conflict has taken me through the labyrinth of elected governments, various government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the colossal telecom entity called Telstra, which was called Telecom when my saga began. I am still pursuing justice today.

My journey began in 1987 when I made a pivotal decision to leave behind my life at sea, where I had spent the better part of twenty years. I sought a new path on land that would carry me through my retirement years and beyond. Among all the enchanting places I had explored around the globe, I chose the serene yet captivating coastal region of Cape Bridgewater, located in southwest Victoria, Australia, as my new home.

My passion lies in hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a holiday camp akin to the iconic Butlins in Bognor Regis. This place sparkled with joy during my childhood in England. Imagine my excitement when I spotted the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age, a well-respected newspaper. This facility was nestled in rural Victoria, near the quaint maritime port of Portland, surrounded by stunning natural landscapes. Everything seemed to align perfectly. 

To the best of my understanding, I diligently conducted my due diligence to ensure the business was financially sound. Little did I know that one crucial aspect I overlooked was checking the functionality of the phone lines.

Within just a week of taking over the business, alarm bells rang loud and clear. I received distressing calls from customers and suppliers who had made numerous attempts to reach me, only to find themselves thwarted by a dead line. Yes, here I was, tasked with managing a thriving business, yet my phone service was, at best, woefully unreliable and, at worst, completely nonexistent. As a result, we faced significant revenue losses as customers turned away in frustration.

And so, my quest began. Securing a dependable phone service at the property became a protracted saga filled with frustration and struggle. Along the way, I secured compensation for our business losses and encountered countless assurances that the issues were resolved. Yet, here I am, years later, still facing the same insurmountable problems. After selling the business in 2002, I learned that subsequent owners have endured similar plights.

I was not alone in this battle; many independent businesspeople adversely affected by poor telecommunications joined me in my efforts. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. Our shared goal was straightforward: we wanted Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our grievances, deliver solutions, and compensate us for our significant losses. After all, is it too much to ask for a functioning phone line?

Initially, we sought a full Senate investigation into Telecom to expose these pervasive issues. Instead, we were offered a commercial assessment process as an alternative to arbitration. This initially appeared to be a promising path toward resolution, so we gladly accepted. Yet, we were soon unceremoniously pushed out of the commercial assessment process, allowing Telstra's agreement to take precedence. 

Unfortunately, that hope proved to be in vain. Almost instantaneously, doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process began to fester. We had been assured that if we entered arbitration, we would have access to the crucial Telecom documents needed to support our case. Those documents, however, were never provided, despite the promises made. To compound our frustrations, we discovered that our fax lines were illegally tapped during the arbitration process. With the considerable weight of the Government aligned against us, we found ourselves at a significant disadvantage and ultimately lost.

To make matters worse, we had unwittingly signed a confidentiality clause that significantly hampered our ability to share our experiences. I may be risking the consequences of that clause by making this information public, but I feel I have no choice—my circumstances compel me to speak out.

The next chapter of our struggle focused on our relentless pursuit of the promised documents through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. We were confident that the evidence existed to validate our assertions that the phone lines were not functioning and had failed to meet the agreed testing protocols. However, for that evidence to be valid, we needed access to it.

Telecom engaged in a series of deceptive tactics, intercepting privileged faxes sent by COT lawyers, live-monitoring and tapping COT phones, and intercepting COT arbitration mail throughout the arbitration process. They resorted to threats against COT claimants, following through on those threats with alarming frequency. The Government had assured us that the arbitration would be straightforward, non-legalistic, and that the arbitrator could issue findings only once the issues were resolved. We were also promised access to the necessary Telecom FOI documents, yet the government-owned Telecom blatantly refused to comply. Many of the documents that were eventually provided were either defaced or irrelevant to our claims. Lacking a detailed schedule accompanying the FOIs, we wasted precious time deciphering the scant information handed over while under an unforgiving deadline.

By March 1994, during the investigation of this initiative, the Government Communications Regulator concluded that the government-owned telecommunications carrier could not locate the persistent faults plaguing my business. Alarmingly, they concealed their findings rather than sharing this critical information with the arbitrator overseeing my claim. This lack of transparency was nothing short of shocking.

It is utterly inconceivable that the Australian Government would endorse a legally binding Arbitration Agreement, supposedly drafted with independence by the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. In reality, this agreement was crafted by lawyers representing the defendants—the government-owned telecommunications carrier itself. To compound matters, the Government turned a blind eye to including a clause in this agreement, designed by the defendants, that severely restricted the time available for claimants to access vital discovery documents from the defendants. These documents were essential for supporting their claims.

The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) appointed a Project Manager to assist the arbitrator in navigating nine arbitrations, including mine. With the backing of his arbitration resource unit, the defendants, and the TIO, the Project Manager was empowered to scrutinise some of the most pertinent documents submitted for the arbitrations. Without notifying any of the claimants, he and his team decided which documents would be submitted to the arbitrator and which would be withheld, casting a shadow of secrecy over the proceedings.

This situation should raise serious concerns for organisations contemplating arbitration for commercial disputes in Australia or Hong Kong. The same Project Manager, now a practising arbitrator with offices in both locations, presides over such disputes. In my manuscript, "Absent Justice," I reveal how this resource unit deliberately withheld four critical documents from the arbitrator in my case. These documents had the power to alter the entire course of the arbitration and provide much-needed support to other Australian businesses grappling with similar long-standing telephone billing issues.

On November 15 1995, when the TIO sought clarification from the Project Manager regarding the missing billing claim documents, the project manager resorted to misleading and deceiving the TIO, further complicating an already convoluted process.

As my arbitration progressed, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) became aware of a chilling threat from the defendants: they would cease providing any further discovery documents if I continued to assist the AFP in their investigations into my serious complaints that those very same defendants were intercepting my phones and faxes. These discovery documents were vital to my case—I was at a standstill, unable to substantiate my arbitration claim without them.

Over the past two decades, I have meticulously gathered more than 2,230 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, extracted from a staggering total of over 48,000 documents related to five claimants of the Compensation for Occupational Therapy (COT) scheme. Each of these 2,230 documents is carefully numbered to align with specific statements in my detailed manuscript, creating a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence. I organised this substantial work into 153 mini-reports, accessible through the clickable links labelled Evidence Files 1 and 2. Without this concrete evidence backing my story, it would easily be dismissed as mere speculation.

From 2006 to 2018, I took the significant step of sending these files to various high-profile recipients, including the Prime Minister's office, the offices of four government ministers, the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group, and three pertinent government agencies. Remarkably, none of these authorities have challenged my claims or scrutinised the evidence that underpins them. Mr Neil Jepson, a barrister from the Major Fraud Group, commented that many recipients who received my submissions felt their jurisdictions did not allow them to investigate such matters. This left me perplexed. Mr Neil advised me to resubmit my evidence that the Victoria Police had been blocked from investigating to another government agency that had already indicated a refusal to look further into the issue. I went around and around in circles for eleven years with no one willing to take the Telstra Corporation to their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne)

Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues (refer to chapters 1 to 12, below). 

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my relentless battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this conflict has taken me through the labyrinth of elected governments, various government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the colossal telecom entity called Telstra, which was called Telecom when my saga began. I am still pursuing justice today.

My journey began in 1987 when I made a pivotal decision to leave behind my life at sea, where I had spent the better part of twenty years. I sought a new path on land that would carry me through my retirement years and beyond. Among all the enchanting places I had explored around the globe, I chose the serene yet captivating coastal region of Cape Bridgewater, located in southwest Victoria, Australia, as my new home.

My passion lies in hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a holiday camp akin to the iconic Butlins in Bognor Regis. This place sparkled with joy during my childhood in England. Imagine my excitement when I spotted the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age, a well-respected newspaper. This facility was nestled in rural Victoria, near the quaint maritime port of Portland, surrounded by stunning natural landscapes. Everything seemed to align perfectly. 

To the best of my understanding, I diligently conducted my due diligence to ensure the business was financially sound. Little did I know that one crucial aspect I overlooked was checking the functionality of the phone lines.

Within just a week of taking over the business, alarm bells rang loud and clear. I received distressing calls from customers and suppliers who had made numerous attempts to reach me, only to find themselves thwarted by a dead line. Yes, here I was, tasked with managing a thriving business, yet my phone service was, at best, woefully unreliable and, at worst, completely nonexistent. As a result, we faced significant revenue losses as customers turned away in frustration.

And so, my quest began. Securing a dependable phone service at the property became a protracted saga filled with frustration and struggle. Along the way, I secured compensation for our business losses and encountered countless assurances that the issues were resolved. Yet, here I am, years later, still facing the same insurmountable problems. After selling the business in 2002, I learned that subsequent owners have endured similar plights.

I was not alone in this battle; many independent businesspeople adversely affected by poor telecommunications joined me in my efforts. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. Our shared goal was straightforward: we wanted Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our grievances, deliver solutions, and compensate us for our significant losses. After all, is it too much to ask for a functioning phone line?

Initially, we sought a full Senate investigation into Telecom to expose these pervasive issues. Instead, we were offered a commercial assessment process as an alternative to arbitration. This initially appeared to be a promising path toward resolution, so we gladly accepted. Yet, we were soon unceremoniously pushed out of the commercial assessment process, allowing Telstra's agreement to take precedence. 

Unfortunately, that hope proved to be in vain. Almost instantaneously, doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process began to fester. We had been assured that if we entered arbitration, we would have access to the crucial Telecom documents needed to support our case. Those documents, however, were never provided, despite the promises made. To compound our frustrations, we discovered that our fax lines were illegally tapped during the arbitration process. With the considerable weight of the Government aligned against us, we found ourselves at a significant disadvantage and ultimately lost.

 

defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed. Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service and me at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 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’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at Graham’s office.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.

 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been victims of similar hacking tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—this insidious breach of confidentiality—still a reality during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

 

 

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

In question 81 of the AFP transcripts, refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1; the AFP disclosed evidence indicating that John McMahon of AUSTEL had provided information supporting the claim that my phones had been bugged. This question confirms that the AFP informed me about the evidence supplied by AUSTEL's John McMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and the government communications authority. It is perplexing that the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, particularly after being presented with the AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state,

"... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew, during the designated appeal time of my arbitration, that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

 

 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

I reiterate, it is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

To make matters worse, we had unwittingly signed a confidentiality clause that significantly hampered our ability to share our experiences. I may be risking the consequences of that clause by making this information public, but I feel I have no choice—my circumstances compel me to speak out.

The next chapter of our struggle focused on our relentless pursuit of the promised documents through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. We were confident that the evidence existed to validate our assertions that the phone lines were not functioning and had failed to meet the agreed testing protocols. However, for that evidence to be valid, we needed access to it.

Telecom engaged in a series of deceptive tactics, intercepting privileged faxes sent by COT lawyers, live-monitoring and tapping COT phones, and intercepting COT arbitration mail throughout the arbitration process. They resorted to threats against COT claimants, following through on those threats with alarming frequency. The Government had assured us that the arbitration would be straightforward, non-legalistic, and that the arbitrator could issue findings only once the issues were resolved. We were also promised access to the necessary Telecom FOI documents, yet the government-owned Telecom blatantly refused to comply. Many of the documents that were eventually provided were either defaced or irrelevant to our claims. Lacking a detailed schedule accompanying the FOIs, we wasted precious time deciphering the scant information handed over while under an unforgiving deadline.

By March 1994, during the investigation of this initiative, the Government Communications Regulator concluded that the government-owned telecommunications carrier could not locate the persistent faults plaguing my business. Alarmingly, they concealed their findings rather than sharing this critical information with the arbitrator overseeing my claim. This lack of transparency was nothing short of shocking.

It is utterly inconceivable that the Australian Government would endorse a legally binding Arbitration Agreement, supposedly drafted with independence by the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. In reality, this agreement was crafted by lawyers representing the defendants—the government-owned telecommunications carrier itself. To compound matters, the Government turned a blind eye to including a clause in this agreement, designed by the defendants, that severely restricted the time available for claimants to access vital discovery documents from the defendants. These documents were essential for supporting their claims.

 

 

The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) appointed a Project Manager to assist the arbitrator in navigating nine arbitrations, including mine. With the backing of his arbitration resource unit, the defendants, and the TIO, the Project Manager was empowered to scrutinise some of the most pertinent documents submitted for the arbitrations. Without notifying any of the claimants, he and his team decided which documents would be submitted to the arbitrator and which would be withheld, casting a shadow of secrecy over the proceedings.

This situation should raise serious concerns for organisations contemplating arbitration for commercial disputes in Australia or Hong Kong. The same Project Manager, now a practising arbitrator with offices in both locations, presides over such disputes. In my manuscript, "Absent Justice," I reveal how this resource unit deliberately withheld four critical documents from the arbitrator in my case. These documents had the power to alter the entire course of the arbitration and provide much-needed support to other Australian businesses grappling with similar long-standing telephone billing issues.

On November 15 1995, when the TIO sought clarification from the Project Manager regarding the missing billing claim documents, the project manager resorted to misleading and deceiving the TIO, further complicating an already convoluted process.

As my arbitration progressed, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) became aware of a chilling threat from the defendants: they would cease providing any further discovery documents if I continued to assist the AFP in their investigations into my serious complaints that those very same defendants were intercepting my phones and faxes. These discovery documents were vital to my case—I was at a standstill, unable to substantiate my arbitration claim without them.

Over the past two decades, I have meticulously gathered more than 2,230 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, extracted from a staggering total of over 48,000 documents related to five claimants of the Compensation for Occupational Therapy (COT) scheme. Each of these 2,230 documents is carefully numbered to align with specific statements in my detailed manuscript, creating a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence. I organised this substantial work into 153 mini-reports, accessible through the clickable links labelled Evidence Files 1 and 2. Without this concrete evidence backing my story, it would easily be dismissed as mere speculation.

From 2006 to 2018, I took the significant step of sending these files to various high-profile recipients, including the Prime Minister's office, the offices of four government ministers, the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group, and three pertinent government agencies. Remarkably, none of these authorities have challenged my claims or scrutinised the evidence that underpins them. Mr Neil Jepson, a barrister from the Major Fraud Group, commented that many recipients who received my submissions felt their jurisdictions did not allow them to investigate such matters. This left me perplexed. Mr Neil advised me to resubmit my evidence that the Victoria Police had been blocked from investigating to another government agency that had already indicated a refusal to look further into the issue. I went around and around in circles for eleven years with no one willing to take the Telstra Corporation to their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne).

 

The Secret State

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

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

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.  

This website highlights the compelling stories of whistleblowers, celebrated for their unwavering dedication to justice for all. At the onset of my narrative, it is crucial to introduce Bernard Collaery, the former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory. His story resonates deeply with mine, as it mirrors the experiences shared in the COT Cases, where our telephone lines were subjected to relentless hacking for several years, both prior to and potentially during our arbitration process. The government had endorsed this arbitration as a fair method for resolving our disputes, yet the troubling reality was far more complex.

The gravity of the situation becomes even more pronounced when considering the evidence that Bernard Collaery uncovered while negotiating on behalf of his clients, the Timore-Leste Government. In a similar vein, the arbitration faxes involved in the COT Cases were not only vulnerable but actively intercepted during their transmission. A covertly installed secondary fax machine within Telstra's network would capture sensitive information, duplicating it before relaying it to the intended recipient. This elaborate scheme underscores the lengths to which some entities will go to manipulate data and undermine trust in the pursuit of justice.

Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues (refer to the twelve mini reports below). 

Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues and because of tvolumenous nature of my evidence which does not only conclude a single document of proof but a briefcase full ofGiven the circumstances I found myself in, sharing my story in the expansive online realm emerged as my only viable option for delving into and exposing these pressing issues. The sheer volume of my evidence far exceeds a single document; it comprises an entire briefcase brimming with proof. I have crafted several mini-stories to effectively narrate my experiences using this substantial evidence, as detailed below. This structured approach allows readers to discern who in the government is a beacon of integrity and who operates in the shadows of corruption.

By weaving my narrative in this manner, I empower readers to form their conclusions about the validity of my experiences. Are they as relevant and truthful in 2025 as in 1990, when I first uncovered the deep-seated corruption within the Telstra Corporation and the complicit officials who supported it? This question lingers as I strive to shed light on the intertwined relationships between power and deceit.. Telling my story this way allows the reader to form their own minds as whether my story is as true in 2025 as it was in 1990, when I uncovered how corrupt the Telstra Corporation and its government minders are.