You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting  Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy. 

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the arbitration system in Australia, certainly for a further sixteen years after the |COT arbitrations were conducted in the most undemocratic and appalling atrocious way. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers who were given the key to destroying as many Australian citizens as was necessary to ensure the Telstra Corporation was privatised at all costs. 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!

Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition? 

Was the hacker who advised COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in April 1994 Julian Assange? What did the hacker mean? He stated he and his two friends had gained access to Telstra's network and did not like what Telstra's in-house faxes and emails were showing. View the following "Don't Shoot The Messenger" image because the hackers were not the only citizens concerned about Telstra's actions during our arbitrations. 

Former senior government public servant Amanda Davis, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to share with selected individuals. On June 3, 1993, two Telstra executives visited my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, which I had purchased in December 1987. At the time, I was unaware that the previous owner, Mrs Crouch, had been struggling with Telstra to obtain a reliable service, so this was why the property was up for sale. 

Records found late show the holiday camp heavily relied on landline phones as the only means of communication except for passing trade. When we first fell in love with the place, we overlooked the outdated telephone system. In those days, there was no mobile coverage, and business was not conducted through the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility, which was then routed to the central telephone exchange in Portland, 20 kilometres away. This facility, installed over 30 years before my purchase, was designed for low-call-rate areas and had only eight lines to serve 66 families, totalling 132 adults and children.

If four callers were trying to connect to or from Cape Bridgewater, there were only four available lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children to make or receive calls. During peak times—such as weekends and holidays—when more visitors flocked to the seaside resort, the demand for calls increased significantly. This often resulted in the lines becoming jammed and non-responsive

After enduring three and a half years with outdated equipment that severely hampered communication, Telstra finally took a significant step by implementing a new system. However, this process was marred by a critical oversight: they failed to program the new system through the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. Such negligence is entirely unacceptable, given the impact on users like myself.

This situation is further emphasized by a government document dated 3 March 1994 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which serves as evidence supporting my ongoing complaints. Investigations conducted by public servants confirm that my claims against Telstra were validated by the government six weeks before I entered arbitration. Why did the government allow me to spend thirteen months, from April 21, 1994, to May 11, 1995, incurring personal costs of $300,000 in professional arbitration fees to prove something the government had already established? It will become apparent to those who read further that had the arbitrator been given access to points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his financial award for my losses would have been significantly greater than he awarded, i.e. $316,000, the amount it cost me in my valiant attempt to have Telstra fix my seven-year ongoing telephone problems

Furthermore, Points 210 to 212 reveal that the government officials doubted the effectiveness of Telstra's testing procedures in identifying the root causes of my persistent telephone issues. Notably, the arbitration technical consultants DMR & Lane pointed out to the arbitrator in the final evaluation report dated 30 April 1995 that they hadn't even attempted to diagnose fault causes of my continued reports of 008 faults up to the present, i.e.

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC  service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”  (see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

Despite this conclusive evidence, AUSTEL, the regulatory authority, did not take the necessary steps to compel Telstra to address these ongoing issues before the arbitrator issued his findings in favour of Telstra. What made the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, state at point 3.2 (h) in his 11 May 1995 findings (his award) "...although since July he has had relatively little cause for complaints" after having been officially advised by DMR & Lane on 30 April 1995 that these faults would stay "Open" (not my emphasis).

It is crucial for readers to recognize that until the late 1990s, the Australian government maintained complete ownership of the nation's telephone network and the primary communications carrier, Telecom. This entity, which has since been privatised and rebranded as Telstra, held a monopoly over telecommunications services. Unfortunately, during this period of exclusive control, Telecom allowed the infrastructure to deteriorate significantly, leading to outdated technology and unreliable service for consumers. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

Six months before the arbitration began, the government assured four of the sixteen claimants that we would have full access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured the arbitrator would provide these logbooks under confidentiality once we signed our arbitration agreements as these documents would have all the necessary information we would need to prove that either our telephone problems had been fixed, were in the process of being fixed or our that our phone problems were systemic and might need time to be fixed. This window into the telephone exchange that serviced our businesses and other businesses in the region would allow the arbitrator to consider this before handing down a final award. After all, how could the arbitrator make a final judgement if the problems were still apparent?

It is well-documented in the April 1994 AUSTEL COT Cases Report, provided to The Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, and Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator for most of the COT arbitrations, that my business was one of those settled in December 1992 as being fault-free, supported by two written guarantees. However, we continued to experience ongoing problems. This situation is precisely why the government included a stipulation in the AUSTEL COT Cases Report: before the arbitrator or assessor could reach a decision, Telstra was required to implement a Service Verification Testing process at each business under arbitration. This process allowed the arbitrator to issue a final award, confirming the issues were resolved.

The reader will understand that in my situation, Peter Gamble, Telstra's Chief Arbitration Engineer, was identified by whistleblower Lindsay White as one of the five COT Cases that "had to be stopped at all costs" from substantiating their arbitration claims (refer to:- pages 36 to 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia dated 24 June 1997.

Whistle-blower Lindsay White stated to the Senate Committee 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-" 

On September 26, 1994, Peter Gamble and his two assistants abandoned the SVT arbitration process at my business and residence because the SVT equipment they used was incompatible with the equipment installed at the unmanned switching exchange in Cape Bridgewater. My partner, Cathy, and I documented these failures in two statutory declarations, which we submitted to Telstra and the arbitrator.

I also contacted AUSTEL to inform them of these issues. AUSTEL's two letters, dated October 11, 1994, to Peter Gamble, File 23-E Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G and Telstra's Steve Black, dated 16 November 1994, File 23-F Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G, condemned Telstra's SVT process at my premises. As a result, Dr. Hughes informed me that he would ensure arbitration consultants were available to oversee similar tests conducted at my business on April 6, 1995. However, when Peter Gamble and David Reid came to my business on that date, they refused to perform any testing.

The Adverse Findings issued by AUSTEL, see points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, unequivocally demonstrate that the logbook referenced by the government to support its unfavourable conclusions about Telstra was sourced from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, which meticulously records telephone activity and technical performance, played a pivotal role in shaping the government’s stance, highlighting its importance as a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scrutiny of Telstra’s operations.

Had the COT Cases been told before they signed their arbitration agreements that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures, I, for one, would have stayed in my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) signed by Telstra on 18 November 1993 and the four COT Cases on 23 November 1993.  

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

How can the arbitrator—who had no control over the arbitration proceedings—continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to effectively assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question.

On November 11, 1994, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, sent a compelling letter to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra. In this letter, Whynack demanded a thorough explanation for the numerous requested Freedom of Information (FOI) documents categorized with specific data periods relevant to my claim. Instead of complicating Telstra's search process, they only needed to access the designated time frame. Among these sought-after documents was a crucial extract from Telstra's Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook, which spanned the significant months from June 1993 to March 1994 (Refer to File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47)

How can you effectively publish a detailed and truthful account of the troubling events that unfolded during various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations while avoiding the direct naming of the individuals involved? Throughout this website, we have only mentioned the relevant government regulator, purposefully omitting the identities of the public servants who clandestinely shared privileged information with the government-owned telecommunications carrier—the defendant. These same officials also concealed crucial documentation from the claimants, who happened to be fellow Australian citizens.

What strategies can you employ to convey a narrative so astonishing that your editor insists on an increasing volume of evidence to substantiate your claims? She is steadfast in her requirement for undeniable proof, refusing to edit your seemingly implausible assertions without verification.

How do you unearth and illustrate the troubling fact that the defendants in the arbitration process—the telecommunications carrier once owned by the government—utilized equipment connected to their expansive network to intercept and manipulate faxed materials from your office? They stored these documents without your knowledge or consent, later redirecting them to their intended destinations. Were the defendants leveraging this intercepted information to fortify their defence in arbitration and, as a result, diminish the chances of the claimants?

What can be said about the extent of this hacking? How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to similar invasive tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—hacking into confidential documents—still a pervasive issue today in legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the arbitration claimants presented a compelling report to the Australian government detailing how confidential, arbitration-related documents were surreptitiously and illegally intercepted before they could reach their designated destinations. In my situation, despite the arbitrator's secretary confirming that six of my faxed claim documents never made it to the arbitrator's office, I was left without the opportunity to resubmit this vital material for assessment. Records from my fax account verify that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.

Moreover, one of the two technical consultants who attested to the authenticity of their findings in that report on December 17, 2014, reached out to me, affirming: "I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had, at some stage, been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted. Dual time stamps substantiated this on the faxes."

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 in the image below. If this amount were indeed channelled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal to 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 prioritize 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 → click below.

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and 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 stock— 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.  

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, even though the above Senator Hansard shows Telstra knew before this alleged agreement was entered into Telstra had no hope of making the stipulated period nominated.

So, who within Telstra and the board sanctioned releasing $400 million of public money to FOX and Rupert Murdoch? Telstra's agreement is close to theft because they knew the timeline could not be met before that agreement was made. Simply put, it was a gift to FOX.

What about the COT Cases, who had to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees to have an arbitrator force Telstra to fix the COT Cases' phone problems regardless of the amount of money paid out by the COT Cases for this privilege to have a working phone service in which to operate their businesses they still did not get that efficient service. I reiterate if this is not discrimination of the worst possible kind, providing FOX with a gift of that magnitude and making the COTs pay to have their service in which to run their businesses, what is?

Click on the following twelve chapters to learn more about our COT story.

Helen Handbury was shocked at the Fax Screening / Hacking Evidence.  

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.

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

“They show that

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

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

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello 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.

One of the two technical consultants who verified the accuracy of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

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

An accountant deeply involved with the COT Cases and a key constituent of The Hon. Peter Costello, Federal Treasurer, brought to light the substantial sums of money that Telstra employees reportedly embezzled from the public purse, as shown on pages 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

The Australian Federal Police were actively investigating this matter at the time. They also looked into my phone and fax interception issues; at the same time, they were examining Telstra's thieving from the government coffers. I confidently question whether the interception of my faxed letter to The Hon. Peter Costello was connected to this embezzlement. It raises an important point: is this why so many of my arbitration-related claim documents failed to reach the arbitrator's office?

The embezzlement of public funds by Telstra employees and the complicit board of directors, who knowingly allowed millions of dollars in erroneous customer charges to inflate Telstra's value during its privatization, constitutes fraud against unwitting shareholders. Shareholders were unaware that a significant portion of Telstra's profits came from overcharging its customers for over six years.

The link to Kangaroo Court, https://shorturl.at/69L6r, shows government issue cover-ups. It is documented here as an 'example only' to show that when significant daily problems are not investigated transparently, they can destroy the very fabric of our democratic system of justice. 

I am focusing on the latest 2025 https://shorturl.at/69L6r issue because it's up to date and shows other Australians are concerned about government coverups are not just past issues, but current today in 2024 and 2025.

It is essential to draw connections between these two significant wars, as both had far-reaching consequences for the well-being of countless individuals, including many who never took up arms. The fallout from these conflicts has vividly illustrated the presence of government corruption, and this is why I believe it is crucial to link these historical events with the corruption issues that arose during the Telstra-endorsed arbitrations. This connection is not just about historical accountability; it is about recognizing patterns of behaviour that continue to affect governance and public trust, which are key points of the ongoing COT story.

Before we delve into our narrative, we invite visitors to carefully examine our Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2. These meticulously compiled files contain extensive documentation that provides a solid foundation for our story and the other related COT narratives currently being developed.

Within these files, you will find a plethora of evidence that sheds light on the real-life experiences of twenty-one courageous Australians. These individuals faced significant challenges as they bravely stood up against the misconduct and oppressive practices of the Telstra Corporation, a struggle that spanned from 1988 to at least 2009.

Government Corruption and its many corrupt activities, including bribery, embezzlement, and abuse of power, have begun to permeate many courts and justice institutions worldwide. In jurisdictions where such corruption is commonplace, marginalized and vulnerable populations often find themselves with limited access to justice. Meanwhile, those who are wealthy and powerful exploit and manipulate entire justice systems for their benefit, often at the expense of the public good and fair legal processes, as I have shown below in both Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong and the Australia–East Timor spying scandal. 

The Secret State

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

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

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

Here is further proof that the Australian government bureaucrats, when they deem it appropriate, use electronic equipment to gain an upper hand, as was the case discussed above and the COT arbitrations. We COT Cases never stood a chance against these secret government officials with no qualms about whom they harm.

Tragically, Helen passed away in 2004. Years later, I reflected on her initial encouragement and sent a draft of the original version of my book, "Absent Justice," to her husband, Geoff Handbury. I recalled my conversation with Helen and sought his guidance on the best way to present a copy of my book to Rupert Murdoch.

On October 17, 2012, I received a response from Mr. Handbury—a beautifully handwritten letter that showcased exquisite, old-fashioned penmanship, a rarity in today’s digital age. By then, he was 87 years old and was deeply respected for his philanthropic contributions to numerous vital projects in Victoria. However, with time, he felt he could no longer help. Nevertheless, I treasure how Rupert Murdoch’s sister recognized my “intriguing story” as one worth sharing with her brother, and I am profoundly grateful for her kind and encouraging remarks.

Before we progress further, it's essential to highlight the impactful statements made by Helen Hndbury regarding the plight of crime victims. She powerfully noted that irrespective of the type of crime involved, the assurance that someone genuinely cares and is ready to offer support can significantly aid a victim in their journey to healing. One of Helen's most formidable obstacles was the assistance I provided to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), alongside their hesitance to help Mr. when I sought their intervention. This unwillingness from the AFP and their protection of Telstra allowed the telecommunications giant to continue undermining the COT Cases even after the AFP had drawn their conclusions. Despite having clear evidence in their files that demonstrated Telstra's misuse of electronic technology to sabotage the arbitration claims related to persistent telephone issues, the complications surrounding these cases persisted for years, exacerbating the struggles of those affected. 

Before the arbitration proceedings commenced, the information detailed in the report from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) was initially prepared by BCI, a highly esteemed and technologically advanced telecommunications company in Canada. BCI asserted that they had executed a staggering 15,590 test calls to a particular telephone exchange; however, this exchange could not support the specialized equipment utilized by Bell Canada International Inc.

To simplify, Telstra managed to persuade BCI that successful testing of the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone switching exchange had occurred between November 4 and November 9, 1993, spanning a staggered five-day period. Nonetheless, this assertion was fundamentally flawed, as the Cape Bridgewater exchange lacked the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the CCS7 testing equipment that BCI claimed was employed. This advanced CCS7 monitoring technology, known for its sophistication, would not have been able to generate those test calls. The closest exchange equipped to handle the CCS7 specifications was located a significant 118 kilometres away from the unmanned Cape Bridgewater exchange, further highlighting the implausibility of the tests reported by BCI.

File 11 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) is the sworn witness statements provided by Telstra's Christopher James Doody on December 12, 1994, making it clear on page two that the sole telephone exchange in my area capable of supporting the Common Channel Signaling System No. 7 (CCS7) was the Warrnambool AXE exchange. Similarly, File 12 -BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) contains the witness statement prepared by Telstra's David John Stockdale, dated December 8, 1994. In this statement, Mr. Stockdale, under oath, explicitly confirms at point 20 that the CCS7 system could only function at the Warrnambool exchange. Despite this compelling evidence, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing the case, unjustly allowed Telstra to cite the report from Bell Canada International Inc., leaving significant doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process.

This raises critical questions: What specific telephone exchange did Telstra utilize during these purported test calls? Why did the COT arbitrator fail to discard the Bell Canada International report from Telstra's arbitration defence despite its questionable validity?

It is crucial to emphasize that both Christopher James Doody's witness statement from Telstra, dated 12 December 1994, and David John Stockdale's statement from 8 December 1994, reference my ongoing telephone issues. These individuals provided their accounts under oath, yet their assertions do not correspond with the 2 to 212 specific points identified by the government communications authority AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which were derived from Telstra's own records. The government has asserted that my business has suffered from severe deficiencies in telecommunications service over almost seven years, as outlined in my arbitration claim. In particular, point 209 highlights the extent of these issues noting:

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

I encourage the reader to reflect on the claims made by both Telstra and the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, regarding the unresolved issues I faced with my phone during the arbitration proceedings. Their assertion starkly contradicts the extensive evidence compiled on absentjustice.com, which vividly details the persistent challenges I encountered. Had Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc. been compelled to re-evaluate their testing methodologies comprehensively, my ongoing phone and faxing problems would probably have been rectified during my arbitration in 1994.

As detailed on this homepage, the situation unfolded further when the Canadian government, upon uncovering these discrepancies, supported my efforts to urge Bell Canada International to come forward. This was essential for me to appeal my arbitration award, an action that occurred in July 1995. Since then, neither Bell Canada International Inc. nor Telstra has accepted accountability for their part in obstructing the course of justice. It is important to note that knowingly providing false information under oath in Australia is a serious crime. I invite you to read on for more insights into this matter.

A gripping and unsettling narrative emerges as Telstra acquires crucial evidence, revealing a shocking reality. It may astonish readers to learn that a government-owned corporation could stoop to such unethical practices against the COT Cases. Yet, disturbingly, not a single individual has faced accountability for these unlawful actions—much like the harrowing experience when I received my third threat during my arbitration process. This menacing communication was crafted by someone with privileged access to my arbitration submission, which I had diligently submitted to the arbitrator on June 15, 1994.

Within the intricate framework of the Arbitration Agreement I signed on April 21, 1994, several clauses were meticulously outlined, but one stood out as the most significant. This critical clause stipulated that the arbitrator could not disclose any information submitted by the claimant to the defendant (Telstra) until the claimant had conclusively proven their claim was final. In a surprising turn of events, however, the arbitrator chose to share that sensitive claim material with Telstra, allowing the corporation, from 15 June 1994 to 12 December 1994, a full six months to formulate a defence against the assertions made in my letter of claim. Attached herewith is my...Letter of Claim → CAV P3- Exhibit 8- Exhibit 9. Dr Hughes is currently a Senior Partner at Davies Collison Cave.

I seek to gain an understanding of the potential responses from the partners and associates at Davies Collison Cave, an esteemed international law firm headquartered in Melbourne, should Dr Gordon Hughes, the current Principal Partner, disclose that he authorized full access to my claim materials by Paul Rumble, the senior arbitration consultant for Telstra, for six months. This authorization is particularly concerning, as it contravenes the stipulations of the arbitration agreement, which explicitly limited access to one month.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that Paul Rumble is the same individual from whom the Senate is still awaiting a comprehensive explanation regarding threatening communications he directed towards me via telephone rather than the appropriate communication channels at a designated Melbourne gymnasium. The implications of these unauthorized actions and the associated threats raise significant concerns regarding the integrity of the arbitration process and the ethical standards upheld by the firm. Considering how the leadership at Davies Collison Cave may address these serious issues is imperative, as they could have far-reaching consequences for all parties involved.

Late one evening, I received a phone call from Paul Rumble, one of Telstra's two arbitration liaison employees. During the call, he threatened that Telstra would cease providing me with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. The reason for this drastic measure, he claimed, was my decision to share the documents with the Australian Federal Police. I had done so to assist with their investigations into the unlawful interception of my telephone conversations and the tampering of arbitration-related faxes. Despite the gravity of these legal breaches, neither Warwick Smith nor Dr Gordon Hughes—the appointed arbitrator—was willing to investigate the matter further.

A brief overview of the power that Telstra had over the Establishment during the COT arbitrations follows: 

Threats made during my arbitration 

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.