Political corruption of this magnitude stifles business operations—impacting enterprises both large and small—and erodes the foundational democratic principles of justice. This troubling situation is vividly illustrated by the cases surrounding Telstra, prominently featured on absentjustice.com. It is imperative to confront the formidable threat to public trust and governmental integrity posed by the toxic combination of bribery, corruption, and political malpractice. The ramifications of Telstra's government-endorsed arbitrations serve as a sobering reminder of this reality.

These shadowy practices are often enabled by a network of professional intermediaries—bankers, lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents—who operate within complex, opaque financial systems and employ anonymous shell companies. Such mechanisms allow corrupt schemes to flourish and act as a veil to conceal illicit wealth. This pervasive issue extends beyond Australia’s borders, affecting other Western nations that uphold the façade of being governed by the rule of law. Now is the time to take decisive action to reclaim justice and restore integrity within our institutions.

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Uncover who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur!

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.

• Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
• The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 
• In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken  by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)

I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases. 

By the middle of 1993, people had become interested in what they had heard about our battle. Several articles had appeared in my local newspaper, and interstate gossip about the COT group was growing. In June, Julian Cress from Channel Nine's 'Sixty Minutes' faxed me:

Just a note to let you know that I had some trouble getting through to you on the phone last Thursday. Pretty ironic, considering that I was trying to contact you to discuss your phone problems.

The problem occurred at about 11 am. On the 008 number I heard a recorded message advising me that 008 was not available from my phone and your direct line was constantly engaged.

Pretty ironic, all right!

A special feature in the Melbourne Age gave my new 'Country Get-A-Ways' program a great write-up. It was marketing weekend holidays for over-40s singles in Victoria and South Australia: an outdoor canoe weekend, a walking and river cruise along the Glenelg River and a Saturday Dress-up Dinner Dance with a disco as well as a trip to the Coonawarra Wineries in South Australia with a Saturday morning shopping tour to Mt Gambier. I began to feel things were looking up for the Camp.

It was too much to hope for that my telephone saga was ending. A fax arrived on 26 October 1993 from Cathine, a relative of the Age journalist who wrote the feature:

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.

Cathine had been ringing my 1800 free-call line. I had been in my office, and there were no calls between 12.30 and 2.45 that day. What was going on? (Telstra's data for that day shows one call at 12:01, lasting for 6 minutes and another at 12:18, lasting for 8 minutes). I cannot express how frustrating this was; there seemed to be no end to it in sight. But I was determined not to let the bastards get me down. Their lies and incompetence had to be exposed. That day shows one call at 12:01, lasting for 6 minutes and another at 12:18, lasting for 8 minutes. I cannot express how frustrating this was; there seemed to be no end to it in sight. But I was determined not to let the bastards get me down. Their lies and incompetence had to be exposed.

Between May and October of 1993, in response to my request for feedback, I received many letters from schools, clubs and singles clubs, writing of the difficulties they had experienced trying to contact the Camp by phone. The executive officer of the Camping Association of Victoria, Mr Don MacDowall, wrote on 6 May 1993 to say that 10,000 copies of their Resource Guide, which I had advertised, had been directly mailed to schools and given away. Mr MacDowall had told the other advertisers with ads similar to mine had experienced an increase in inquiries and bookings after distributing these books. So it seemed evident to him that the 'malfunction of your phone system effectively deprived you of similar gains in business.' He also noted that he had received complaints from people asking why I was not answering my phone. All in all, during this period, I received 36 letters from different individuals and more than 40 other complaints from people who had unsuccessfully tried to respond to my advertisements. The Hadden & District Community House wrote in April 1993:

Several times I have dialled 055 267 267 number and received no response — dead line. I have also experienced similar problems on your 008 number.

Our youth worker, Gladys Crittenden, experienced similar problems while organising our last year's family camp, over a six month period during 1991/1992.

In August 1993, Rita Espinoza from the Chilean Social Club wrote:

I tried to ring you in order to confirm our stay at your camp site. I found it impossible to get through. I tried to ring later but encountered the same signal on 10 August around 7 – 8.30 pm. I believe you have a problem with the exchange and strongly advise you contact Telstra.

Do you remember the same problem happened in April and May of this year?

I apologise but I have made arrangements with another camp.

How do you convey an extraordinary narrative that your editor, fueled by curiosity and scepticism, demands abundant evidence to validate your assertions? She insists she won’t refine your seemingly incomprehensible claims without irrefutable proof to back them up. How do you peel back the layers of a troubling reality—that the defendants in an arbitration process, formerly a government-owned telecommunications giant, used their sophisticated equipment linked to their network to clandestinely intercept and scrutinise faxed documents meant to leave your office? They stored these sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to reroute them to their designated recipients. Were the defendants surreptitiously capitalising on this intercepted information to fortify their defence in the arbitration, ultimately undermining the pursuit of justice by innocent claimants?

On 26 July 1993, Mr Hawker wrote:

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.” (See Arbitrator File No/76)

On 18 August 1993, The Hon David Hawker again wrote to me, noting:

“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (See Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)

On 9 December 1993, the Hon David Hawker MP wrote to congratulate me for my “persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.” (See Arbitrator File No/82)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 and copied to me from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor government, who wrote:

“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.” (Arbitrator File No/82)

Copies of the original documents similar to (Arbitrator File No/82), which support all events quoted on absentjustice.com, can be accessed from Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. You can verify our story using this method and following the file numbers. Without these exhibits to prove our story, we could not have successfully composed this publication or my website, absentjustice.com. The corruption and injustices perpetrated against the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) by those in various administrative roles, under the umbrella of legally administered arbitrations, are so overwhelming that we would have lost clarity had we placed all in one manuscript. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.

Telstra email K01006, dated Thursday, 7 April 1994, at 2.05 pm, raises two issues. Firstly, this date falls when I was involved in the Regulator-designed commercial agreement with Telstra, and secret observations would surely seem inappropriate, at the very least.  Secondly, this document refers to when I would be away from his business during this pending arbitration process. The author of the email states:

“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 etc. I called the premises at approx 4:55 pm 6/4/94. The answer time was 41 secs.

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.” 

Who poured the sticky beer into the EXICOM TF200 telephone 

Lies and more lies from Telstra 

After Mr Anderson completed his testing on 27 April, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)

A second photo I received under FOI is taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming a note I placed on the phone was exceptionally clean when it was received at Telstra, see Open Letter File No/37  exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6.

This report raises several questions. When the phone left my office, it was pretty clean. Why did it arrive at the laboratory in such a filthy state? How did the beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone and why? If the addition of beer was not deliberate, how did it get inside the phone? The main aim of Telstra’s submitted report, used as evidence, was to prove that Telstra’s service was not at fault.

This EXICOM information, dated 27 April 1994, is crucial because it is related to the Bell Canada International Cape Bridgewatee Report, which I discussed with the government during the third week of November 1993—while the four COT Cases were finalizing their Fast Track Settlement Proposals, which were signed on 23 November 1993—Telstra informed me that part of the locking issues were attributable to the EXICOM telephones. Telstra indicated that this concern had been communicated to Bell Canada during the BCI testing, which was being conducted elsewhere in Telstra's network. This implied that BCI had not visited Portland or Cape Bridgewater → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2

However, the BCI tests were already under government review. Telstra's statement regarding the locking fault, known to be a problem with the EXICOM phones, and its acknowledgement that BCI was aware of this situation first made me realise that BCI had not conducted any assessments in Portland or Cape Bridgewater.

This revelation was one of the reasons I insisted that the arbitrator access the raw data from the BCI tests performed in Cape Bridgewater and Portland.

On 6 January 1995, I sent the arbitrator a list of procedural documents I needed to support my response, asking him to request these documents from Telstra. However, I was still waiting by my deadline and had to file my response without them. I was at a loss to know where to turn for help. Again and again, I was faced with the same tactics. Stonewalling and silence. (The documents I requested eventually turned up two years later.)

However, the arbitrator did respond to a letter I sent asking for more information about the Bell Canada report. In his reply on 23 January 1995, he said: 

‘Telecom does not consider it has any further information of relevance in its possession.’ He asked me to respond to this within 24 hours in order to ‘be certain that there is no confusion between the parties as to the documentation which is being sought.’

I did respond within 24 hours, asking for all the raw data Telstra had concerning the BCI testing at Cape Bridgewater, but I heard no more about it. No data, no response of any kind.

My fax account shows that my response left my office and travelled to the arbitrator’s facsimile machine. Twelve months after completing my arbitration procedure, I learned that Telstra did not receive this response. Then, on 28 June 1995, I found it unthinkable that the arbitrator had not received the fax either. The newly appointed TIO wrote to me:

Dr Hughes provided you with a copy of this submission on 23 January 1995, noting that Telecom did not consider it had any further information of relevance in its possession. (The arbitrator) then invited you, within twenty-four hours to respond to Telecom’s submission. Our files does not indicate that you took the matter any further. 

This level of displacement is astonishing. What happened to my fax? I might have imagined it got lost in the ether. In August 1995, three months after my arbitration, within a bundle of documents sent from the arbitrator’s office, was a copy of the actual letter I sent to Dr Hughes, with the fax footprint: ‘24-01-1995 – 15:12 – FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP TO 036148730’. Confirming the arbitrator's office did receive it, as Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E shows.

Despite this irrefutable proof, the TIO’s office has refused to provide me with answers to why this most essential BCI letter was never acted on. Had this evidence been worked on, the outcome of my arbitration might have been different.

To be clear, so that the reader understands the following chronology of events regarding where some of my arbitration claim documents may have been sent instead of remaining in Dr Hughes' Melbourne office, where they were faxed to, I have explained a scenario below explaining the importance of what I am exposing.  "A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not appear to exist."

Between 14 and 16 May 1994, Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police played a crucial role in assisting me with my statutory declaration. This declaration revealed a troubling irregularity: I had painstakingly travelled five hours from the coastal town of Cape Bridgewater in Portland, Victoria, to the bustling heart of Melbourne, specifically to examine Telstra's Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. Upon review, I discovered that 56 separate mini-reports had been improperly combined. Documents from 1992 were inexplicably stapled together with unrelated reports from 1988, 1989, and earlier years, creating a confusing and misleading document trail. None of these documents corresponded with the following report, further indicating the lack of coherence in their organisation.

With Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose's assistance, I articulated my findings in the statutory declaration, emphasising my alarming discovery: Telstra had systematically stapled unrelated and disorganised documents to completed reports and then presented these as my final FOI documents in the viewing room. 

It wasn't until 15 June 1994, a whole month later, while sitting in Dr. Hughes's office alongside Telstra's Paul Rumble—the individual I had identified on pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File as the person who had threatened my safety—that I began to unveil the discrepancies. My comprehensive fault logs did not align with several documents I had previously submitted to the arbitrator via fax, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the information.

On that same day, 15 June 1994, Dr. Hughes urged me to provide the additional comprehensive fault log as promptly as possible. However, due to the intimidation I faced from Paul Rumble, who executed his threats and obstructed the flow of FOI documents, I could not submit it until late November 1994. Consequently, when I finally presented my comprehensive log detailing my fault complaints to the arbitrator, it was faxed over, meticulously organised as an index to support my 15 June 1994 claim that Plummer Pullinger of Queensland had undertaken professional work valued at $56,000.

Files 47-A and 47-B (attached to Open letter File Nos/46-A to 46-J) show that DMR & Lane, the two technical arbitration independent consulates, warned the arbitrator in their draft and final evaluation report on my losses, dated 30 April 1995, that they had to assess my claims without "a comprehensive log of my complaints," which did exist and had already been faxed to the arbitrator's office six months before that joint statement was made. 

It has also been proven that I discussed this comprehensive log of my complaints on 11 October 1994 in the company of the arbitrator, Sue Hodgkinson, the arbitrator's financial advisor, and two Telstra executives, namely Steve Black and Ted Benjamin, where (File 45-b -File No/45-A) transcripts prepared from this typed arbitration oral hearing shows in many incidences I am referring to my comprehensive list of billing complaints and that my list was extensive as the discussion shows. The arbitrator asked me to leave this chronology, which I did. I also faxed additional faults data to Dr Hughes' offices, which incorporated the more recent billing faults that had occurred after 15 June 1994 after my interim claim had been provided when Paul Rumble was present.  

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of important arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

 Why didn't the arbitrator look for it or call for a second copy when I provided evidence that my claim advisers had sent it? Were these 008/800 claim documents lost in Telstra's fax screening process en route to Dr Hughes's office (see the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), or did they arrive at Dr Hughes' Melbourne office before being diverted to the Sydney office, where that office failed to send the information back? 

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-

Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within months of each other. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

ERICSSON

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. As for bribery in the case against Telstra, Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to several Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.

The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock, the official administrator of the arbitrations, to William Hunt and the lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). In this letter, Mr Pinnock notes that.

“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.

“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…

“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.

“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …

“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

In fact, on 24 July 1997, John Pinnock wrote a second letter concerning the same Lane Telecommunications conflict of interest, disallowing Ann Garms the right to have a re-hearing of her arbitration claim on the grounds Lane had previously been the technical consultants assigned to her case ( File 298 - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323) 

Telstra's arbitration defence unit communicated to the COT arbitrator in various cases, including my own, that they had discovered no significant faults with the Ericsson telephone equipment deployed in their exchanges. This assertion was misleading and represented a serious distortion of the truth, casting doubt on the integrity of the arbitration process itself. Such misinformation severely hindered all COT cases, ultimately denying them a fair evaluation of their arbitration claims involving the Ericsson equipment.

The information presented on absentjustice.com concerning Ericsson paints a troubling picture of the company’s ethical standards, which starkly contrasts with the expectations one might hold. This discrepancy becomes even more pronounced when we consider the experiences of individuals and businesses adversely affected by Ericsson's conduct. 

The terrorism claims outlined in 'The Ericsson List' (see below) have led me to believe that I have substantial grounds to criticise both the Australian Consumer Affairs Commission and the administrators overseeing the COT arbitrations. Their decision to allow Ericsson to purchase influence over an arbitration witness—specifically Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was tasked with evaluating claims related to Telstra’s utilization of faulty Ericsson equipment raises serious ethical questions. Notably, these concerns were echoed by the Australian government during the same arbitration proceedings, highlighting a systemic issue.

Moreover, I am compelled to question why the arbitration administrators denied all COT Cases the opportunity to amend their claims, particularly those that had already been rigorously assessed by Lane and certified as complete by the arbitrator. This omission signifies a profound injustice, as it enabled Ericsson to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process in Australia insidiously, jeopardising the integrity and fairness that should govern such proceedings.

(Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l)

In my case, on October 16, 1995, the government communications regulator, AUSTEL, engaged in a covert manoeuvre regarding my arbitration claims documents in concert with Telstra. This was particularly troubling given that it occurred five months after my arbitration had officially concluded, effectively placing it well outside the designated arbitration process. This act was dubious and violated legal standards, as the issues under discussion were crucial components of my comprehensive submission to the arbitrator.

This episode highlights the profound injustice arbitration participants face, showcasing the systemic flaws and real-world implications of such dishonesty. The lack of accountability and transparency undermines trust in the resolution processes that uphold fairness and justice.

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards, even though it is now apparent that the purchasing of the Australian government-appointed technical unit, Lane, had to have been in motion months before the purchase. The government should investigate each COT Case to determine what they lost due to Lane not addressing the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which destroyed the COT Case businesses after the conclusion of their arbitrations. 

In the meantime, though, the Austel Report did confirm something for me. While I heard a constant refrain of ‘No fault found’ from Telstra, technicians recorded the more accurate picture. On occasions when I had rung to report the phone ringing once or twice, followed by no connection, officials had refused to acknowledge the fault, but in its report, Austel showed a different story:

In the period February to April 1993 Telstra staff responding to complaints lodged by Mr Smith of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp recorded in their notes that there was a fault known to exist in AXE (digital) switching equipment which could give rise to a single burst of ring, followed by a busy tone to a caller and dial tone to the called party.

Quotes from technicians on the complaint forms supported this:

‘This problem occurs intermittently throughout the network and although it is recognised as a problem there appears to be no one person or group involved in resolving it.’

‘I believe this may be tied up with the axe network problem which gives only one burst of ring and the calling party gets busy tone.’

We must use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and the Australian government.

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

The Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major telecommunication equipment supplier to Telstra, before Ericsson purchased Lane's? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson purchasing Lanes during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator, ACMA, denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation, which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011? (Refer to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued).

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also appropriate that these same subscribers visit my website, absentjustice.com, where they can see for themselves that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.

If the hackers mentioned on our webpage were Julian Assange and his friend, and it likely was them, then why hasn't the Australian Government understood what the hackers wanted to share with us, COT cases? He did not ask for payment for sharing what he and his friends had uncovered concerning Telstra’s ailing copper wire network, as would have been the case if he had been a common criminal. He wanted us to have a fair arbitration hearing, and that was all. Had we used the offer information, then the arbitrator would have been compelled to demand that Telstra fix its degraded Ericsson exchange equipment, instead of bringing down his findings, which did not disclose the true extent of the corroded network that was destroying the COT cases' businesses and numerous other telephone-dependent companies throughout Australia.

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, which has twisted and turned since 1992 through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra. This story commenced in April 1988 and is still ignored by the government in 2025.

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found' when documents in my publication and on our website s (Refer to  AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212,  the government regulator AUSTEL found my ongoing telephone and faxing problems did exist, as our story also shows.

Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using dubious strategies, such as intercepting relevant faxes, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), destroying documentary evidence, and fabricating evidence.

The arbitrator ignored the central points of our claim at arbitration, and no amount of effort to address these points bore any fruit. In the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies—Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers)—failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

As most telephone users would think, each of the COT members assumed their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout our arbitrations and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone, and the system was supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is illegal. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is prohibited (see Tampering With Evidence - TF200). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is illegal. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal? What convinced the arbitrator to change the findings in the DMR & Lane report?  

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to The Hon Federal Treasurer Peter Costello MP was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

In 1999, when I was working on the draft section of my story 'Ring for Justice,' I provided it to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen Handbury. She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that I had received. After reading the draft, Helen had twice visited my holiday camp and stated, “I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked.”

One part of the story that Helen had the most difficulty comprehending was the clear evidence I had accumulated in proving how long I had been troubled by illegal fax-hacking.  This was still occurring right up until the time of Helen’s second visit to my camp.  Of course, back in 1999, the hacking scandal linked to the News of the World and her brother's troubles surrounding similar hacking issues had not yet been revealed.  Evidence, which I have since provided to the Australian Federal Police, proves that the illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations (of which I was also a claimant) was indeed happening in 1994.  The information I supplied to Helen Handbury suggested this fax hacking was still happening at my business premises in 1999, four years after my arbitration, which was supposed to have addressed these issues.

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

In 1999, when I was working on the draft section of my story, I provided it to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen Handbury. She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that we COT Cases had to endure. After reading the draft, Helen had twice visited my holiday camp and stated, "...I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked."

One part of the story that Helen had the most difficulty comprehending was the clear evidence I had accumulated in proving how long I had been troubled by illegal fax-hacking.  This was still occurring right up until the time of Helen’s second visit to my camp.  Of course, back in 1999, the hacking scandal linked to the News of the World and her brother's troubles surrounding similar hacking issues had not yet been revealed.  Evidence, which I have since provided to the Australian Federal Police, proves that the illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations (of which I was also a claimant) certainly happened in 1994.  The information I supplied to Helen Handbury suggested this fax hacking was still happening at my business premises in 1999, four years after my arbitration, which was supposed to have addressed these issues.

Of course, 1999 was before the hacking scandal linked to the News of the World.

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, I sent a draft of the original version of Absent Justice to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him of my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury replied on 17 October 2012 in a handwritten letter (with beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship that we no longer see). However, he was then 87 years old and, although highly respected for his philanthropic support of many worthwhile projects in Victoria, too much time had passed, and sadly, he couldn’t help. Still, I remember how the sister of the most prominent newspaper owner in the world believed my “intriguing story” was undoubtedly one her brother should publish. I’m grateful for her comments.

I'm grateful for Helen's comments. 

When Helen Handbury, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in the SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch.

I grappled with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted as discussed in Senate Hansard. If this amount were channelled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal of every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritise ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. 

When Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, visited my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The revenue should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfil their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that Telstra would not meet the deadline.

If we accept this premise, as pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia records recognise in points 10 and 11 below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then serious concerns will arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, what does?   

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly. 

 11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline. 

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra is obligated to provide in the event of a missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In sixteen COT cases, Telstra promised similar commitments to all Australian citizens on the condition that they financed their arbitrations to resolve ongoing issues. Unfortunately, the telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases were not addressed in these costly arbitration proceedings. In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator.

In essence, one set of legal standards exists for individuals well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set for those who do not possess such connections.

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalising this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the myriad hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

During the years I dedicated to building my business, I invested significant resources into establishing a vibrant agency across Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier (South Australia). This agency was designed to efficiently handle incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club, a lively community hub for singles over forty seeking connection and companionship. This initiative proved to be a lucrative venture, consistently bringing in between six and seven thousand dollars each weekend, a testament to the club's popularity and the community's engagement.

However, disaster struck when the 008/1800 free call service, crucial for our operations, failed due to persistent and frustrating systemic software issues. Regrettably, I found myself without any compensation from the government-owned Telstra Corporation for the business I inevitably lost during this turmoil. This experience is not an isolated incident; I am among many entrepreneurs grappling with similar hardships. Countless small companies—potentially numbering in the thousands—have experienced severe financial strain due to the unreliability of the telephone system, which has often been a lifeline for their operations.

This troubling situation raises an essential question: Why does the government devote resources to supporting the Murdoch empire while seemingly turning a blind eye to the struggles of grassroots small business operators like myself, who work tirelessly to contribute positively to the Australian community?

Many small businesses faced the daunting challenge of navigating the complex and expensive arbitration process in pursuit of compensation from Telstra. They often found it their only option to compel the corporation to rectify the ongoing telecommunications problems affecting their businesses. Unfortunately, in most cases, the problems that prompted the arbitration persisted long after the legal proceedings concluded, continuing to disrupt these businesses for years and stifling their growth potential.

I must reiterate that the crux of the issue is not simply whether Foxtel received the substantial sum of $400 million, as the Senate indicated would be awarded to them if Telstra failed to meet its contractual obligations. Instead, the more pressing concern lies in Telstra's conduct during this time, particularly since it was still under government ownership. This scenario reveals a troubling disparity: Telstra chose to extend support to a specific segment of the business community while neglecting the needs of countless others adversely affected by the same inadequate network services.

It is vital to highlight that on May 11, 1995, the day I received my compensation award, the telecommunications issues remained a lingering and significant burden for the new owners of my business. In December 2001, they acquired my beloved school holiday camp—an establishment I had nurtured and cherished for years—primarily for its land value. Tragically, their financial situation deteriorated, leading to bankruptcy in 2009, just eight years later. This outcome serves as a poignant reminder of the lasting impact of those unresolved telecommunications issues, echoing the struggles many small business owners face, like myself.

Moreover, the government communications authority surreptitiously acknowledged in March 1994 that the revenue lost due to the disruption of our business was substantial. This acknowledgement is detailed in points 2 to 212, referenced explicitly on page 33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

This situation paints a vivid picture of businesses' enduring struggles in this web of inefficiency and neglect.

There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.

The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:

“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (Refer p33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

When AUSTEL representatives visited my venue, I also demonstrated that singles club customers regularly bought souvenirs before they left: printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA (the arbitration financial resource unit working for the arbitrator and Telstra) ignored all the income I lost from lost singles club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs and the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.

The following testimonials provide two further examples of how the ongoing telephone and faxing problems affected my business endeavours. Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story / Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Testimonials

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks, partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repeatedly, regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

The holiday Camp could sleep 90 to 100 people in fourteen cabins. When the charity group organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, finally arrived, the whole week became a great success for all concerned; all enjoyed the in-camp activities as well as canoeing and horse riding on the beach. I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact, Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a furious man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her that she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange 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.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these incredible women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line.  Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  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.” Evidence File 10 B 

During this same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, a professional associate of mine, Cathy, signed a Statutory Declaration, dated 20 May 1994, explaining several sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (File 22 Exhibit 1 to 47).  This declaration leaves questions unanswered about who collected my mail and how they knew there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office.  On both occasions, when a third person collected this mail, I telephoned Cathy, informing her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me that mail was waiting to be picked up. 

On pages 12 and 13, a transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP states at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47

I also provided the AFP Telstra documents showing that Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence because if it ever reached an Australian court, I had a 50% chance of proving that Telstra had systemic phone problems in their network. In simple terms, Telstra was operating outside of its license to operate a telephone service, charging its customers for a service not provided.  

21st April 1993:  Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-

“Don, 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 complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88

These Telstra executives forgot that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, destroyed the Australian economy while the powerful bureaucrats attempted to fight this fire with talk of change. This bribery and corruption plagued the COT cases’ government-endorsed arbitrations.

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

After five years, it took this almost tragic event for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital that convalescent care is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. 

It was another fiasco that lasted until August 2009, when not-so-new owners of my business were walked off the holiday camp premises as bankrupts.

However, ten years before that disaster, 

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable. 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch discussed above, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process

Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?

Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?

Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?

Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)

Also, during this same press conference, Senator Len Harris asked many other questions, including why should an owner of a business such as the holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater literally be forced to sell that business because Telstra had still been unable to fix the ongoing telephone problems that Senator Richard Alston himself had investigated in 1992, ten years previous and concluded were affecting Mr Smith's holiday camp. The telephone problems Mr Smith raised in his 1993/94 arbitration were still being raised with Telstra in 2001, seven years after the arbitration process had failed to rectify those problems.

Senator Len Harris's expression shifted dramatically as I presented him with compelling evidence of my ongoing telephone issues. His brow furrowed in concern when he learned that I had been forced to register my complaints with Freehill Hollingdale & Page as a prerequisite for Telstra even to consider investigating my persistent problems. The gravity of Telstra's threat—that if I did not follow their demands, they would refuse to address my concerns—clearly unsettled him. This reaction mirrored that of Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, during a meeting in Parliament House, Canberra, in September 1995. Back then, my federal representative, the Hon David Hawker MP, had shown Senator Alston the same troubling information. At that time, AUSTEL, the regulatory body overseeing communications for the government (now known as ACMA), was already aware of these alarming practices.  

In July 2002, I had the opportunity to provide additional evidence to Senator Len Harris, a significant moment in our ongoing struggle as Casualties of Telstra (COT). Senator Harris made an impressive journey, travelling for over seven hours from his electorate office to the reception centre that had graciously opened its doors to us in the early morning hours. His dedication was evident, as he was willing to invest his time to listen to the concerns and stories of constituents affected by the Telstra issues—a commitment I had never witnessed from a politician before.

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements 

Stop the COT Cases at all cost.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 through to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. 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."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations. 

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity. 

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated. 

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a

Chapter 12

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.

On page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr Barry O’Sullivan, who was the original arbitration claim advisor to COT Case Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me, advised a Senate Committee, under oath, that we three claimants:

“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett  in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.

Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional manner”

As has been further confirmed above on page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, before I and the other three COT Cases signed for arbitration, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and Dr Hughes all assured us the documents we required from Telstra would begin to flow through to us once our signatures were on the agreement.  The Arbitration Agreement was secretly altered just 36 hours before we were told if we did not sign this altered agreement, Telstra would walk away. 

In 2005, Barry O'Sullivan became a senator on behalf of the National Party.

Who made the decision to eliminate the $250,000 liability caps from the arbitration agreement before Ms. Garms, Mr. Schorer, and I felt compelled to sign it under the threat that refusing to comply would leave us with no option but to seek resolution in court?

 

Who was responsible for replacing the $250,000 liability clauses in the newly drafted arbitration agreement, which was subsequently utilized for the remaining twelve COT cases? Why was this significant change to the liability terms communicated to the claimants, who had already been pressured under duress to accept the removal of clauses 25 and 26 from their arbitration agreements? Furthermore, why were my appeal lawyers not notified of these critical changes at the moment when we were seeking to leverage the coerced removal as a pivotal point in our appeal?

 

 

 

To better understand the pervasive corrupt practices embedded within Australia's arbitration system, I invite you to examine "Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct." This chapter meticulously uncovers the key figures and dynamics involved in the controversial decision to eliminate the $250,000 liability caps articulated in clauses 25 and 26 of the Casualties of Telstra arbitration agreement. Initially, there was a clear consensus between the government and the legal representatives of the COT Cases to preserve these critical arbitration clauses, which were specifically crafted to protect the claimants' legal right to seek redress against the technical and financial consultants. These safeguards were essential for holding these professionals accountable for any negligence that may have transpired during the arbitration process.

 

However, the sudden and drastic removal of these liability caps stripped the claimants of their right to contest the awards. It significantly skewed the balance of power in favour of Telstra, the defendant in this case. This pivotal alteration substantially reduced Telstra's potential financial losses, effectively sealing the fates of countless claimants and robbing them of their opportunity for justice. Moreover, it entrenched highly favourable conditions for the corporate entity involved, which were already skewed against the interests of the individuals seeking redress. This chapter invites readers to delve into the intricate web of manipulation and deception at play, revealing the profound implications of these actions on the integrity and credibility of the arbitration process in Australia.

 

 

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.