Chapter 4
Towards a Settlement Proposal
Telstra management was trying to force COT members into court, well aware that their highly paid lawyers would eat us alive. We became increasingly sure that this was their plan, and indeed, our suspicions were confirmed, years later, by some extraordinary documents which belatedly came our way.
The author of this internal Telstra memo to senior executives on 21 April 1993, for instance, referred to raising the issue of court with us:
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 …1
The aim could only be construed as to wear us down and ‘hang us out to dry’ as an example to others who might wish to bring future complaints. And a copy of a Telstra email dated 28 September 1993, while referring to the ‘duress that the COT members are suffering’, goes on to say:
… we can’t afford to let anything get away … our best option is still to force these cases down a legal structured path.2
Once Telstra management decided claimants were becoming ‘vexatious’, this was the time to threaten legal action. Behind its public face of a supposedly benevolent, government owned corporation acting for the good of the public — an organisation Australians were being exhorted to trust with radio and television advertisements bombarding us night and day — Telstra management intended to turn legitimate claimants into ‘lawyer fodder’ if they persisted with their claims.
And suppose there was any remaining doubt as to Telstra’s attitude to complainants. In that case, I offer this from an investigation by the Senate Estimates Committee into Telstra’s conduct during the COT arbitrations in 1994, where Senator O’Cheer and Senator Schacht are asking questions of Telstra whistle-blower Lindsay White:
Mr White: In the first induction – and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill’s area – there were five complainants. They were Garms, Gill, and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we – we being Telecom – had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened …
Mr White: There was never any reference to time, ‘as quickly as possible,’ but the induction process was, as I said before, that the first five had to be stopped at all costs.
Senator SCHACHT: … Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said ‘stopped at all costs’?3
Mr White named the same Telstra technician who, two years previously, had submitted false evidence to the arbitrator when advising him that Telstra’s service verification tests conducted at my business had met all of Austel’s requirements even though Austel had advised him the testing was grossly deficient.
But again I am getting ahead of my story. In November 1993 I complained to Austel’s John MacMahon that Telstra’s General Manager (Commercial) had instructed both Graham Schorer and me to direct all future phone complaints, in writing, through a firm of solicitors in Collins St, Melbourne.4 This strategy was intended to wear us down or force us to hire our own legal practitioner to deal with Telstra’s solicitors. The time and effort involved in documenting and following up the ongoing faults while trying to run a failing business certainly wore me down and therefore worked in Telstra’s favour. Sometimes I waited up to two weeks for a response from their solicitors.
In the meantime, I struggled to keep focus on what COT was pushing for: a Senate Inquiry into Telstra’s unethical treatment of our small group of claimants — which we finally achieved in 1997. A letter of support for the Senate Inquiry from a worker at D. Madden & Co of Warrnambool (Lawyers), dated 10 November 1993, gave added heart to my decision to fight on. (My name had been passed to Madden & Co by Mr David Hawker, the local Member of Parliament, with regard to a public meeting COT was organising.)
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 fault rectified. However, Telstra technicians were constantly unable to identify the numerous problems and subsequently remedy our complaints.
On 12 November 1993, I faxed a copy of this letter to Telstra’s solicitors, together with more information on incorrect charging, in the course of which having occasion to write to the Collins Street solicitors:
On trying to fax you the information you received this morning I had quite some difficulty in getting all the pages through at a given time. Note the page errors which I have enclosed.
By now Austel was concerned at Telstra’s approach to our complaints, particularly their use of outside solicitors. In October 1993, Austel’s chairman Robin Davey told Ian Campbell of Telstra’s Commercial division that Austel would not be happy if outside solicitors were used in future COT matters. Mr Davey’s polite suggestion fell on deaf ears, however and, through to 28 January 1994, Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through their solicitors. Later, when Telstra submitted their defence of my arbitration, these same solicitors also acted as their defence counsel.
At the end of 1993 the COT group was lobbying hard on two counts. First, we were pushing for settlements in the form of a Commercial Assessment that would properly address the financial losses our businesses had suffered. This would be a specifically non-legalistic process. The Labor government of the time had endorsed it as the most appropriate path towards justice in our cases.
At the same time it seemed that there was a strong possibility that a Senate Inquiry would be set up. Two Senators in particular were pushing for this, the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, and Senator Ron Boswell. We had informed Senator Alston’s office that we were hearing from many other unhappy Telstra customers around Australia. The faults they reported indicated that problems within the Telstra network were more widespread than Telstra would have the government know. All this information we passed to Austel and to Senator Alston.
The BCI report, November 1993
As an initial step in the process towards a commercial settlement, Austel arranged for an international expert to be brought to Australia to review our claims. Bell Canada International Inc (BCI), technical telecommunications specialists from Ottawa, Canada, arrived to run tests on phones connected to the businesses belonging to the various COT members. In my case, these tests were allegedly carried out between 4 and 9 November 1993, a period when faults on my line were particularly troublesome.
At the conclusion of their tests BCI produced a report which found that Telstra’s network more than met global performance standards and that Telstra had ‘all the tools, skills and procedures it needs to detect and locate troubles reported by COT customers.’ The report said that the faults found in the course of their Cape Bridgewater testing (involving ‘more than 15,950, test calls using artificial call generating and answering equipment’) were insignificant and would not manifest in the types of problems reported by COT customers. So, the lines into the Cape Bridgewater exchange were up to world standard. Terrific.
Incredibly, BCI technicians had come halfway around the world to give an expert opinion on the Cape Bridgewater problems, and they didn’t test the Cape Bridgewater line into my business 18.5 kilometres from the Portland exchange.
In the event, it turned out they didn’t even test the lines into the Cape Bridgewater exchange, as the equipment they brought was apparently incompatible for the task. (Instead, they tested the lines into another exchange nearby, but which had nothing to do with my line.) Therefore any conclusion they produced had to be a fabrication.
I did not have this information at the time. In October 1997, the issue was raised in Senate Estimates, and Telstra was questioned as to the validity of the purported testing. Telstra affirmed the validity of BCI’s testing with supporting documentation that could only have been fabricated as I have shown on a number of grounds, not least that BCI’s equipment did not work at that exchange.5 Was Telstra ever brought to account for this? No.
The BCI report was not acceptable to Austel on a number of grounds. Austel’s Cliff Matherson wrote to Telstra’s Commercial General Manager, spelling out its deficiencies over three pages, and ended:
… 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.6
Telstra, however, was not inclined to comply, and wrote to Austel’s Robin Davey:
The conclusion to be reasonably made from these events is that Austel 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 …
Considering the above circumstances, Telstra cannot agree to attach a copy of Austel’s letter of 9 December to the BCI report if the latter is made available to the assessors nominated for the COT cases.7
And, indeed, in my arbitration, Telstra did use the defective BCI report to support its defence of my claims and did not attach a copy of Cliff Matherson’s letter for my arbitrator.8 The ethics of this were never addressed, either by the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communication or by the TIO, though I made sure both were aware of the circumstances.
What level of shared interest may have existed between BCI and Telstra, I do not know. Letters exchanged between them in late 1994 acknowledged that the BCI tests, as reported in their Cape Bridgewater report of 10 November 1993, were problematic. (I did not, of course, have access to these letters then; it was several years later before they were provided to me.)
In a letter to Mr Kealey of Bell Canada, Telstra referred to the tests run from the Richmond digital exchange to the Portland exchange test line. These tests detailed in section 15.23 of the BCI report as ‘impracticable.’9 This was (at least partly) because Telstra were themselves conducting ‘NEAT’ testing to the same test line in Cape Bridgewater, at the same time on the same days. The BCI test report10 shows that all their testing took place between 28 October and 8 November, between 8 am and 10 pm, with the exception of a single day.11
Under those circumstances, it was not possible for either set of tests to provide accurate results. This is because, as Telstra’s letter to Austel itself explained,12 each NEAT test takes up to 100 seconds and, while it is occurring, no other test of any kind can take place. And, just for the sake of argument supposing it could, the BCI tests needed 15 seconds between each call to reset the system, otherwise the second call would get a false engaged signal. Examining the test reports from both Telstra and BCI, it is glaringly apparent that there was nowhere near enough time to fit in the calls listed. The BCI report alone shows a total of 1675 + 328 calls made to the exchange test number at Cape Bridgewater from two separate locations in the Melbourne metropolitan area, over the same time period. This means the BCI testing could not have taken place at the time claimed in their report. My conclusions here are confirmed in a technical report prepared at the request of COT in 2007 by Brian Hodge, who on a number of grounds concluded that the Bell Canada tests could not have been performed as stated.13 (Mr Hodge had been a senior technician for Telstra for nearly 30 years before becoming a freelance telecommunications consultant.)
Whether the BCI Report was falsified or its inaccuracies were the result of confusion or incompetence, I cannot say. Certainly, a culture of confusion surrounded both BCI and Telstra’s reporting. Even Austel was confused. In its COT Cases report 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.14
In June 1994 I challenged Telstra to prove that I was wrong in my allegations about the inaccuracies of the BCI report. Their silence was as usual deafening.
Two weeks after my arbitration had been completed and my appeal time had totally expired I received key FOI documents confirming precisely my suspicions about the BCI testing. A letter dated 6 September 1994, from Telstra to Bell Canada, states:
Specifically, the start and finish times for the test run from Richmond digital exchange (RCMX), test line 03 428 8974, to Portland exchange, Cape Bridgewater RCM (CBWR) number range, test line 055 267 211 (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.15
In fact, I believe the statement made was based on my correspondence on the matter. An internal Telstra email (which I did not see until several years later), headed ‘Smith Query on BCI Tests’, supports this:
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, 1 November 1993, are impracticable.16
I wrote to BCI in Canada three times regarding the errors in their test report but never received a reply.
Telstra knew from the start how unreliable was the BCI report they provided to the Senate in 1993 to support their assertion that their network into the Cape Bridgewater exchange was up to world standard. In fact, Telstra continued to mislead the Senate for many years about the true standard of their network.17 And it was not only Telstra. Austel had been the first to bring up the deficiencies in the BCI report. It could have spoken out publicly against Telstra’s misuse of the report in the arbitrations, but it never did.
Of course, any ordinary punter reading BCI’s report would be ready to believe that Telstra’s phone network was up to standard because BCI is an international, highly regarded communications company. Because BCI said that thousands and thousands of test calls were made to the exchange, my phone was connected to a 99.5% positive result. The first conclusion of the ordinary punter would have to be that my claims were unsubstantiated, even wacky.
But these ‘thousands’ of calls were not made, could not have been made as I have shown, and Telstra knowingly provided a flawed document to support their defence. This is classified as perjury in a legal process. So why hasn’t Telstra been brought to account for their actions?
For years I have canvassed the Communications Minister and the TIO to have the BCI report withdrawn from Telstra’s defence, but my requests have fallen on deaf ears. The TIO and the various government ministers I have notified of the problems with this report have failed in their Duty of Care — they should have ensured this report was withdrawn from the Public Domain as soon as they were alerted to the serious flaws it contained.
COT is vindicated by audit
For all its faults, Austel was trying to be the honest broker, and it pressured Telstra to commission an audit of its fault handling procedures. Telstra engaged the international audit company of Coopers & Lybrand to report on its dealings with complaints like those raised by COT members. Coopers & Lybrand’s report conveys serious concern at the evidence we presented of Telstra’s unethical management of our complaints.
The Coopers report did not go down well with Telstra. The Group Managing Director of Telstra wrote to the Commercial Manager:
… it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, that their future in relation to Telstra may be irreparably damaged.18
These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of a corporation that had a monopoly on the telecommunications industry in Australia. Austel tabled the Coopers & Lybrand report in the Senate, but with some significant changes to what had appeared in the draft report. Regardless of those changes, Coopers were still damning in their assessment to what had happened to the COT Cases.
The following points are taken directly from the Coopers & Lybrand report:
2.20 Some customers were put under a degree of pressure to agree to sign settlements which, in our view, goes beyond normal accepted fair commercial practices.
2.22 Telstra placed an unreasonable burden on difficult network fault cases to provide evidence to substantiate claims where all telephone fault information that could reasonably determine loss should have been held by Telstra.
(2) Fault handling procedures were deficient in terms of escalation criteria and procedures, and there is evidence that in some cases at least, this delayed resolution of these cases.
3.5 We could find no evidence that faults discovered by Telstra staff which could affect customers are communicated to the staff at business service centres who have responsibility for responding to customers’ fault reports.
We COT four at last felt vindicated; we were no longer alone in claiming that Telstra really did have a case to answer.
A Fast Track (Commercial Assessment) Settlement Process
To summarise. Senators Alston and Boswell had taken up COT’s cases with Telstra and Austel in August 1993, saying that if they were not swiftly resolved there would be a full Senate Inquiry. Telstra agreed to cooperate, and Austel was authorised to make an official investigation into our claims.
As a result of their investigation, Austel concluded that there were indeed problems in the Telstra network and that the COT four had been diligent in bringing these issues into the public domain. It looked like four Australian citizens, without any financial backing, had won a significant battle. Sometimes, we thought, David wins over Goliath, even in the twentieth century.
Because we were all in such difficult financial positions, Austel’s chairman, Robin Davey, recommended that Telstra appoint a commercial loss assessor to arrive at a value for our claims. These claims had already been found generally to be valid in Austel’s Report,19 and it only remained for an assessor to determine an appropriate settlement based on the detailed quantification of our losses.
This ‘Fast Track Settlement Process’ was to be run on strictly non-legal lines. This meant we were not to be burdened with providing proof to support all of our assumptions, and we would be given the benefit of the doubt in quantifying our losses. This was the process Austel specifically deemed appropriate to our cases. Telstra was to give us prompt and speedy access to any discovery documents we needed to enable us to complete our claims as quickly as possible.
Telstra also agreed that any phone faults would be rectified before the assessor handed down any decision regarding payouts. After all, what good would a commercial settlement be if the phone faults continued? At last we began to feel we were getting somewhere. Robin Davey also assured us that any costs we might incur in preparing our claims would be considered as part of our losses, so long as our claims were proved. However, he would not confirm this assurance in writing because, he explained, it could set an unwanted precedent.
Telstra was anxious about setting precedents. On 18 November 1993, Telstra’s Corporate Secretary had written to Mr Davey pointing out that:
… only the COT four are to be commercially assessed by an assessor.
For the sake of convenience I have enclosed an amended copy of the Fast Track Proposal which includes all amendments.
To facilitate its acceptance by all or any 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 pm Tuesday 23 November 1993 at which time it will lapse and be replaced by the arbitration process we expect to apply to all carriers following Austel recommendations flowing from this and other reviews.20
In effect, we four COT members were given special treatment in terms of having a commercial assessment rather than the arbitration process. By this time Austel was dealing with another dozen or so COT cases. We four were being ‘rewarded’ for the efforts we had made over such a long period of suffering business losses. On the other hand, we were also being pressured by this rush — we would lose the option for a commercial assessment if we didn’t sign by 23 November, a mere five days away. The problem was, we were reliant on the supporting documents we needed for our claims. For these we were dependent on Telstra’s good will, and their track record gave us no confidence in that. We were also concerned about the lack of written assurance regarding compensation for preparational and other expenses.
On 22 November we turned for advice to Senator Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications. His secretary, Fiona, sent him an internal memo headed ‘Fast Track Proposal’, in which she conveyed our concerns:
Garms and Schorer want losses in Clause 2(c) to include its definition, ‘consequential loss arising from faults or problems’ although Davey verbally claims that consequential losses is implied in the word ‘losses’ of which he has given a verbal guarantee he will not commit this guarantee to writing.
COT members are sceptical of Davey’s guarantee given that he will not commit it to writing. On top of this, COT alleges that Telstra, in the past, has not honoured its verbal guarantees and so does not completely trust Davey.
COT want your advice whether or not COT should demand that clause 2(c) include a broader definition of losses to include consequential losses.
COT was hoping for your advice by tomorrow.
There was no response from Senator Alston.
Graham, Ann, Maureen and I signed the FTSP the following day, hoping we could trust Robin Davey’s verbal assurances that consequential losses would be included and that Telstra would abide by their agreement to provide the necessary documents. I included a letter with the agreement, clearly putting my expectations of the process:
In signing and returning this proposal to you I am relying on the assurances of Robin Davey, Chairman of Austel, and John MacMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs, Austel, that this is a fair document. I was disappointed that Mr Davey was unwilling to put his assurances in writing, but 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 a clear understanding that nothing in this agreement prevents me from continuing to seek a satisfactory telephone service.
Despite nagging doubts, we felt a great sense of relief once we had sent off the agreement. The pressure on all four of us had been immense with TV and newspaper interviews as well as our ongoing canvassing of the Senate. And I had never stopped hammering for change in rural telephone services, at least in Victoria.
In December 1993 David Hawker MP, my local federal member, wrote to congratulate me for my ‘persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services’ and regretted ‘that it was at such a high personal cost.’
This was very affirming, as was a letter from the Hon. David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications in the Labor Government, which said, in part:
Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom 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.
A number of other small businesses in rural Australia had begun to write to me regarding their experiences of poor service from Telstra detailing problems with their phones and various billing issues. I contacted Telstra management myself on a number of occasions, putting on record my requests for these matters to be resolved. I believe this was a responsible reaction to the letters I was receiving.
Rural subscribers wrote to TV stations and newspapers supporting my allegations that, with regard to telephone services, rural small-business people and the general public suffered a very bumpy playing field compared to our city cousins. David M. Thomson & Associates, Insurance Loss Adjusters in Ballarat, wrote to the producer of Channel 7’s ‘Real Life’, a current affairs program:
I have watched with interest the shorts 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 structure the majority of our local calls are STD-fee based.
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 25–30% on the last bill. This is odd because our work load in the billing period was down by about 25% and we have one staff member less than the previous billing period.
A letter to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun, read:
I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.
I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.
I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.
I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.
(Because of a number of reports regarding this ‘piercing noise’, Ray Morris from Telstra’s Country Division arranged to have my service switched to another system. Unfortunately this did not help.)
TV stations reported that their phones ran hot whenever they aired stories about phone faults. People rang from all over the country with complaints about Telstra’s service. This support from the media and the general public boosted our morale and gave us more energy to keep going as a group. We continued to push to have these matters addressed in the Senate.
Muzzling the media
We were getting a good amount of media coverage, even though it appears likely that some journalists were being asked by Telstra to ‘kill’ certain stories.
A memo between executives within Telstra back in July, entitled ‘COT Cases Latest ’, states, in part:
I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carried an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they will end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face to customers to hold in reserve if the complainants remain vexatious.21
We are left to wonder how many Telstra’s customers like the COT Cases, who once they went into arbitration and/or mediation, ended up as lawyer fodder with broken homes and businesses destroyed?
A TV news program was also a target:
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 —— not to proceed. Might have been one of ‘(name deleted) pearls.22
The name deleted was Telstra’s Corporate Secretary at the time. I have omitted the identity of the TV station and reporter. We too can only wonder what it was that convinced a respected journalist to drop a story.
It transpired that the same area general manager who deliberately misinformed me during the settlement process in 1992–93 was one of the two Telstra staff appointed to ‘deal with the media/politicians’ regarding COT issues. Would she misinform the media the way she misinformed me, I wondered.
A memo between executives within Telstra back in July1993, entitled ‘Cot Wrap-Up’, states, in part:
I think it should be acknowledged 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. Prologue Evidence File No 24 to 39
We ‘long-term aggrieved’ are left to wonder just who ‘Clinton’ was and why his mind was considered to be in the gutter.
Another most startling document which I received long after my arbitration Telstra FOI folio 101072 to 10123 titled “In-Service Test Performance for The Telecom Australia Public Switched Telephone Service (Telecom Confidential) notes:
“The performances tabulated below have been formulated to aid dispute investigation and resolution. The information contained herein is for internal Telstra Corporation use only and must not be released to any third party, particularly AUSTEL.” (refer 101072 Arbitrator File No 63)
If AUSTEL had known that this document included the words: “must not be released to any third party, particularly AUSTEL”, perhaps their public servants might not have perjured themselves in defence of Telstra’s arbitration claims that all the Service Verification Testing at my business on 29 September 1994 had met all AUSTEL’s specifications? And I believe those public servants certainly did perjure themselves, not only in their 2 February 1995 letter but again in the third COT cases quarterly report to the communications minister, the Hon Michael Lee MP. Refer to Main Evidence File No/2 and File No 3 which confirms that, at my premises at least, Telstra definitely did not carry out their arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) to AUSTEL’s mandatory specifications, at all.
During this story as well as on my website, I have raised the issue of the government communications regulator writing to Telstra before the COT arbitrations began to warn them that the government would be quite concerned if a certain legal firm had any further involvement with the COT settlement/arbitration process. I also raised my concern when the arbitration agreement faxed to the TIO’s office on 10 January 1994 bore the abbreviated name of this very same legal firm, despite the government assuring us this firm would NOT have a continuing role to play.
This FOI document (refer to Arbitrator File No/80), dated in the month of September 1993, was released to me by Telstra under FOI too late for me to use in my arbitration claim may well have persuaded the arbitrator to have allowed me more time to access documents from Telstra. As this document was released to me after my arbitration, one would have to assume it relates to my ongoing telephone problems i.e.
“All technical reports that relate to the customer’s service are to be headed “Legal Professional Privilege”, addressed to the Corporate Solicitor and forwarded through the dispute manager.”
This Legal Professional Privilege document must be related to the threats I received from Telstra that if I did not register my phone complaints with these same lawyers (in writing) then Telstra would not investigate those complaints.
Next Page ⟶
