Chapter 9 Proof Beyond All Doubt
Telstra Arbitration: Tampering with Evidence and Systemic Failures
Summary
This section outlines the author’s prolonged struggle with Telstra regarding persistent faults on their phone line, with particular emphasis on a lock-up issue that hindered incoming calls. Despite numerous complaints, involvement from Telstra’s legal representatives, and intervention by government regulators, the problem persisted unabated. Telstra consistently attributed the fault to the user’s equipment, even insinuating that misuse had occurred. At the same time, evidence later revealed the company was aware of broader systemic issues affecting similar devices, especially in moisture-prone areas. The narrative exposes concerns about mishandling, shifting of blame, and suspected suppression of evidence during arbitration proceedings.
Cape Bridgewater: Tampering With Evidence
Chapter One: Tampering With Evidence
Over an extended period, the author compiled extensive documentation demonstrating that Telstra executives were aware of ongoing problems with the phone lines. From January to November 1993, numerous complaints were submitted, initially to Telstra and subsequently to their legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, as instructed. One recurring fault involved background noise being audible after hanging up the receiver, reported by customers and friends using the line for calls and faxes. This issue escalated on 26 April 1994, when the author’s son was unable to make contact by phone.
Upon contacting Cliff Mathieson of AUSTEL, tests were conducted to determine the source of the fault. Even after swapping phones, the problem persisted, suggesting it originated within Telstra’s network rather than the equipment. Mathieson advised raising the issue with Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer, who was later identified as involved in efforts to prevent certain claimants from proving their cases during arbitration.
Tests with Gamble confirmed the fault, and arrangements were made to collect the phone for laboratory testing. Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicated the fault might be due to problems in the local exchange, with references to heat and possible design flaws in the EXICOM model. After Telstra collected the “faulty” TF200 EXICOM phone, FOI records later revealed that Telstra was aware of such faults frequently occurring in moisture-prone areas, and the local exchange was known to suffer from heat issues.
Despite this, Telstra’s arbitration defence relied on a laboratory report attributing the lock-up problem to the phone itself, specifically to beer spillage causing a malfunction. Photographic evidence in the report presented the phone as dirty, with the laboratory attributing the sticky interior to beer, effectively blaming the customer’s habits. This ignored prior tests by AUSTEL and the author, which had shown the fault persisted even with different phones.
Further FOI documents confirmed that Telstra was aware of lock-up problems affecting EXICOM T200S models manufactured after early 1993, particularly in areas with moisture issues. Rather than withdrawing these faulty phones, Telstra redeployed tens of thousands of units where moisture was considered less problematic.
Testing by Telstra’s own technician showed no lock-up fault during repeated trials, raising questions about the laboratory’s subsequent findings of a dirty and sticky phone. The phone took nine days to reach the laboratory after collection, with testing commencing another four days later. The initial inspection noted dirt and a sticky substance, possibly coffee, which contradicted the clean note placed on the phone by the author.
These inconsistencies prompt serious questions: how did the phone arrive filthy, and how could beer have entered the device during Telstra’s custody? The submitted laboratory report seemed aimed at shifting responsibility away from Telstra.
Requests for the original laboratory notes from the arbitrator were met only with duplicate reports, which prevented a proper forensic examination. Later, Telstra’s own follow-up investigation revealed that beer poured into the phone would dry within 48 hours, while Telstra’s laboratory claimed the phone was wet 14 days after collection, further undermining the original report.
Tampering With Evidence – Charges, Penalties and Sentencing
Tampering with evidence includes altering or concealing documents or statements relevant to legal proceedings, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in New South Wales. Sentences can range from periodic detention to intensive correction orders or suspended sentences.
Under Section 254 of the Crimes Act 1958, it is an indictable offence—punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine—for any person who knows a document or item may be needed in legal proceedings and destroys, conceals, or renders it unusable, or authorises such actions to prevent its use.
A critical question remains: does this law apply universally, or are government-influenced parties exempt? If it applies to all, why have Telstra and its executives not faced prosecution for systemic tampering during the COT arbitration processes?
This summary aims to highlight irregularities in the COT case arbitration and mediation, illustrating actions that undermined the rule of law and the integrity of the legal process. It demonstrates:
- How the arbitration process, administered under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), was manipulated to favour the defence, ignoring legal standards.
- The inability of the regulator (AUSTEL) to intervene is likely due to legislative constraints requiring public servants to withhold information.
- Conflicts of interest were created by senior Telstra executives sitting on the TIO board and council while simultaneously being subjects of COT arbitrations and investigations.
- Instances where Telstra’s corporate secretary, also a TIO board member, was tasked with deflecting Senate charges.
Tampering with evidence after it has been submitted for arbitration is a serious crime. In this case, it involved introducing a foreign substance into the phone after Telstra collected it and submitting a falsified report to the arbitrator under the Victoria Arbitration Act 1984. These actions represent apparent breaches of legal and ethical obligations.
High-Level Nonfeasance and Lack of Accountability
Evidence of tampering with submitted arbitration evidence constitutes one of the most serious breaches a defendant can commit against an Australian citizen. Despite clear evidence being presented to the Ombudsman, the TIO council chair, Telstra’s board chair, and CEO, no investigation was conducted. Internal Telstra investigations confirmed the unlawful conduct; however, the company’s leadership remained unaccountable, with the CEO even receiving honours despite being aware of the misconduct.
The original Telstra arbitration defence report attributed the fault to beer inside the phone, suggesting poor customer care and claiming that timely reporting would have led to a replacement without any business loss. Yet, the Telstra board failed to act on evidence of tampering, nor did it amend its arbitration defence when new facts came to light.
Internal reviews revealed that the phone was clean when collected, and the “dirty, greasy substance” could only have been introduced during Telstra’s care. Despite this, the board did not inform the government or take steps to rectify the wrongdoing.
The most significant aspect of exposing this fraud was Telstra’s own investigation, which revealed that substances poured into the phone would dry within 48 hours, contradicting the laboratory’s claim that the phone remained wet for 16 days after collection.
Despite confirmation of these facts, Telstra’s board has taken no action to address the proven claims, and the company continues to resist fair resolution of the matter.
Australian National Broadband Network (NBN) Roll-Out and Whistleblower Suppression
Ongoing issues with the NBN rollout have included allegations of whistleblower suppression and limited public scrutiny. Reports have detailed accusations that the government and NBN sought to silence critics, with senior officials referring to whistleblowers in disparaging terms.
The author draws parallels with Telstra’s previous conduct, questioning whether those responsible for silencing dissent recall the events of 1994, when Telstra fabricated a report to halt an investigation into ongoing phone issues. Subsequent correspondence with Telstra’s general counsel was returned unread, highlighting an apparent disregard for legal obligations regarding the handling of evidence.
Regulatory Influence and Report Alteration
Evidence demonstrates that Telstra was able to influence the government regulator (AUSTEL) to alter official findings, including minimising the reported number of affected customers from 120,000 to “some hundreds.” This manipulation served to obscure the extent of Telstra’s network problems.
AUSTEL’s formal report noted that many more customers were experiencing faults than Telstra had admitted. The regulator’s failure to accurately report the scale of issues contributed to delays in addressing network problems and inflated costs for infrastructure projects, such as the NBN. Some public servants involved in the cover-up remain in senior regulatory roles.
The concealment of widespread faults prevented timely government action and contributed to ongoing challenges in Australia’s communications infrastructure.
Chapter Two: Back to the Arbitration Procedure
A confidentiality agreement was established with Forensic Document Services Pty Ltd in 1995, seeking expert investigation into the suspected fraudulent manufacture of Telstra’s TF200 report. Had the arbitrator permitted such an investigation, Telstra’s fabrication of the beer incident would likely have been exposed earlier. However, the arbitrator denied this opportunity, despite the author’s cooperation.
Further evidence emerged, including fax imprints and photographs, but requests for an official enquiry were denied. The TIO and arbitrator were alerted to fresh evidence confirming Telstra’s falsification of the original TF200 arbitration report, yet no further investigation took place.
Instead, the TIO wrote to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, attacking the author’s credibility with false claims of misconduct. Conclusive evidence supplied to the TIO—including telephone records—proved the author’s innocence and confirmed the fabricated nature of Telstra’s report.
Despite repeated requests for investigation within the statute of limitations, no action was taken. The author’s call to the arbitrator’s home, made to report new evidence, was courteous and occurred within reasonable hours.
Tampering with evidence after submission for arbitration assessment is a criminal offence, involving acts of alteration, concealment, or destruction intended to impede investigation.
Re-examination of Telstra’s Technical Report
Evidence supplied to relevant authorities over 18 years ago demonstrated tampering with submitted arbitration evidence. Yet, no investigation followed. Telstra’s internal findings confirmed the misconduct, while public honours continued to be bestowed upon those aware of these actions.
Telstra’s original defence relied on attributing the fault to beer spillage, suggesting customer negligence and claiming business losses could have been avoided. This was later disproven by evidence showing that substances would not remain wet in the phone for the claimed period.
The Silicon Solution
Eventually, Telstra sold the faulty T200 phones as scrap, after which Liberty USA Pty Ltd moisture-proofed them with silicon and resold them. This technical solution, developed by Liberty Australia Pty Ltd, was unknown to Telstra at the time but could have saved the corporation significant resources. Instead, Telstra continued to blame customers rather than addressing the technical defect.
Conflict of Interest and Senate Involvement
Admissions at Senate hearings revealed conflicts of interest, with Telstra executives attending meetings about COT arbitrations without disclosing their involvement. The Senate condemned the practice of allowing defendants access to arbitration proceedings, while claimants were excluded.
FOI requests were fulfilled only after arbitration decisions, with released documents proving Telstra knowingly used flawed tests as a defence. Despite requests for documentation, only partial evidence was provided, and key data was withheld until years later.
Findings of gross negligence by Telstra were only released after privatisation, protecting the company and disadvantaging claimants. When exculpatory evidence was finally received, institutional mechanisms prevented full disclosure and accountability.
By May 1999, Telstra’s leadership was aware of technical solutions to the faults, yet continued to block fair arbitration and ignore evidence disproving claims about customer negligence.
Further Legal Proceedings and Continuing Injustice
Liberty USA Pty Ltd subsequently took Telstra to court over the remaining faulty EXICOM TF200s. Despite proof of the author’s claims, Telstra maintained control over the arbitration process and faced no repercussions.
This section of the website, "Tampering With Evidence," was created on June 27, 2017, and is undergoing ongoing development. Additional evidence will be added to demonstrate further Telstra’s influence and the impact on the COT group, including the role of government bureaucrats.
Discrimination and Parliamentary Involvement
On 20 August 1997, the author’s lawyers sent a letter to Senator Ron Boswell during Senate investigations into Telstra’s unlawful withholding of FOI documents. This prompted recommendations for further investigation and intervention.
Reports were also provided to key government advisers and officials; however, if these had been adequately investigated, ongoing harm to COT claimants might have been avoided.
The arbitration was conducted in a manner that favoured Telstra, with the arbitrator ruling out relevant documents and raising concerns about bias.
Senate hearings acknowledged deficiencies in the arbitration process, with testimony suggesting that claimants shared responsibility for delays, although evidence showed otherwise.
During hearings, admissions were made regarding fabricated tests and flawed reporting, with Senators requesting clarification and documentation. However, proof of equipment limitations at the relevant exchanges was not disclosed, which would have required Telstra to explain the use of a fundamentally flawed report in the arbitration.
