Chapter 3

The Government’s concealment of evidence



The unforgettable Chocolate Soufflé and the Government’s broken promises 



The problems experienced with our phone service commenced just one year after the opening of Roseville.  It was a Saturday in September 1983, the day was one of those magical days in Brisbane reminiscent of September weather, warm with a cool comforting breeze. I was enjoying the sunlight filtering through the large leafy trees onto the sprawling verandah at Roseville Restaurant.


Ch 3 no 1White and pink Rose petals scattered earlier by the Wedding party who were now enjoying their Wedding banquet in the Ballroom, fluttered in the breeze along the wide wrought iron framed verandah.


I was busily writing menus for the coming week, it was such a pleasure to have saved and restored the magnificent circa 1885 sandstone and brick homestead with the adjoining Coachman’s Cottage that was now Roseville Restaurant.  Nestled in over an acre of splendid rose gardens and water lily ponds, the world seemed so serene and peaceful.


Ch 3 no 2The delicious aroma of the 50 plus Chocolate Soufflés our Chef was preparing for our guests drifted up from the kitchen, the hot chocolate infused with the light fluffy Soufflé was a sensation in its own right.


As Chef prepared to serve the Chocolate Soufflés, which upon being placed in front of the guests were punctured to allow the hot melted chocolate and King Island double cream drizzle into the hot Soufflé, a visitor found his way down the long chandelier lit hallway, to my surprise it was no other than my good friend Trevor Reddacliff.


Actually, Trevor and I shared a common bond; he was an avid admirer of early Brisbane Colonial architecture and loved his dining experiences at Roseville. I was surprised when Trevor told me that he had been trying unsuccessfully to phone us for days to make a booking for that very evening. As Trevor explained that our phone was either continually engaged or he received a message saying “the number you have called is not connected” he said friends of his at Spring Hill had experienced the same problem since the Sheraton Hotel had opened a few weeks earlier. Evidently the network was incapable of handling the volume of telephone traffic in the Fortitude Valley – Spring Hill network, it was overloaded.


Trevor said he had recently enjoyed a dinner with Ian McLean MP who was also the head of the Telecommunications Union. Ian had confided in him that the Fortitude Valley Exchange was an old Ericson transit Exchange switching traffic to other areas and Exchanges, including the Spring Hill Exchange, it was way past its working life and riddled with problems.  Evidently Ian McLean had described how unhappy the Union was with the Government because he said the Government had taken too large a slice of the Telstra revenue, revenue which was needed to upgrade the network from analogue to digital. In the weeks prior to Trevor’s visit several of our customers had commented that they had experienced difficulties in contacting us to make a booking, but until Trevor’s comments I did not realize how serious the phone problem was.


The whole situation was very odd, odd indeed. The Minister failed to respond to our well documented complaints. The ongoing problems we experienced daily in receiving incoming phone calls and naturally restaurant bookings continued to erode our business viability over the years. I decided that one of my avenues of redress was to lodge an FOI request with Telstra.


Subsequently one of the documents I obtained confirmed the validity of the information Trevor had relayed back in 1983 some nine years earlier, precisely the same information provided by Ian McLean. The document was a Minute authored by Mr George Szylkarski, Supervising Engineer Network Investigations who I had met with in Brisbane in relation to our complaints and those of other Fortitude Valley Telstra customers. The George Szylkarski Minute is dated 11 October 1985, two years after Trevor’s comments and nine years prior to his swearing under oath that he was unaware of any other customer of the Fortitude Valley exchange having the same types and frequency of problems as I alleged.


The Telstra Minute dated 11 October 1985:

“Step Exchange performance can only be described as poor and there does not appear to be any solution to this problem other than replacement by AXE. Exchange staff are also tending to reduce maintenance effort in anticipation of this and when AXE is late this results in a maintenance and performance problem for that exchange. If the TA analysis for period 3 week 4 is any guide, Spring Hill and Valley RSS performance as seen by the TA complaints is comparable if not worse than the Valley Step. This is not right and is indicative of some continuing problems in Spring Hill or in the interfacing with the network”… 


At this point it is important to consider the extraordinary cover-up of the existence of the above mentioned problems as noted in the Szylarski Minute together with the admissions made in the 1999 book “Managing in Australia” by Bob Joss (Westpac) and Frank Blount (former CEO Telstra).


Of interest is the admissions made on page 115 wherein Mr Blount describes exactly the same problems as recorded by G. Szylkarski and as described by Trevor. Problems which were denied under oath by G Szylkarski on 19 December 1994. This is what Mr Blount had to say in December 1999:

“Telstra’s existence in a competition-free environment had allowed the company to prosper with a rash of non-complementary technologies and outdated operating systems.  Innovation and future-oriented investments were sorely neglected.  Between 1989 and 1991, 27.4 per cent of Telstra’s total revenue was spent on telecommunications investments.  The OECD average was 32.3 per cent. Telstra’s network operated on three different types of technology, the oldest dating back to the 1940s.

The state-of the-art digital network Blount had been promised?  Only 28 per cent of the fixed network was digital.  Before Blount departed AT&T, 90 per cent of their network was digital.  Even if AT&T represented the leading edge in the US across that country’s entire network, 53 per cent operated on digital technology.

A patchwork approach had prevailed at Telstra when digital service was introduced.  The initial plan was to build a data overlay to ”sit on top of ” the existing analogue network.

The reality was that this plan created two networks in each exchange trying to integrate data capability within the full network.  But that underlying network proved too unstable to support much of the data overlay.  As a result, Telstra found that when the data market exploded it couldn’t expand to meet the rising data demand.

This hodgepodge of technology hampered Telstra’s ability to offer new services, improve existing service levels and obtain cost-saving efficiencies.  The inefficiencies spilled over onto the human resources side of the ledger as well.  Few of Telstra’s technicians were familiar with more than one network technology, creating massive administrative headaches for scheduling coordination, not to mention the obvious cost implications.  After six months of digging, touring and analysing the basic carriage technology, Blount announced his massive $3.3 billion modernisation program, the Future Mode of Operations (FMO).  The program aimed to replace all of Australia’s fixed analogue system with a digitalised system by the end of the decade…..” 


The sequel to the Ultimate Betrayal and the Chocolate Soufflé being “The 800 pound gorilla” at Chapter four (4) deals with the information provided in witness statements as submitted in the “sham” arbitration process. The cover-up was best exposed by the Statutory Declaration sworn by George Szylkarski on 19 December 1994, yes the same George Szylkarski,  wherein he said:


10.    I am unaware of any other customer of the Fortitude Valley exchange having the same types and frequency of problems as Garms alleged.” 


In June 1996 I lodged a formal complaint with the Commonwealth Attorney General, the Hon Daryl Williams QC in regard to the false evidence sworn in Statutory Declarations by G Szylkarski and five others. Initially Daryl Williams refused to take any action, his office asking me to wait until after the Arbitrator brought down his Award. My immediate response was “Is this some sort of sick joke, that’s the very point, the process is a sham” Under extreme sufferance Daryl Williams forwarded my complaint to the Police.  Still nothing happened, the lies under oath remained in evidence and the Arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes brought down his Award on 8 August 1996.  One only has to consider the extract from the Arbitrator’s Award as noted in the Table in Chapter 7 to ascertain the level of integrity attached to the administration of the Arbitration. Several years later the Police advised me that they could not take any action because “The Criminal Code 1889, S194 False Declarations and statements” as it was in 1994 was flawed at law and subsequently amended by the Queensland Parliament in April 1997. The Police advised me that the amendment was made to the Criminal Code as a result of my complaint to the Attorney General Daryl Williams QC in June 1996.


Back to Roseville Restaurant and the aroma of the delicious Chocolate Soufflé. In addition to the debilitating problems in receiving incoming phone calls, we also observed very strange patterns of interference with our phone lines. It was so bad by 1989 that there was a period when we did not have a phone service for six weeks. Our Restaurant bookings clerk phoned Telstra complaints one Friday afternoon at around four.  She was informed by the operator that she was very surprised that it had not been fixed by now and that we should phone the exchange. We were given a number to call.


When the exchange technician answered the call, he said wait a minute, five minutes later he said I have flicked the switch you will be right now. This was just too much to cope with, Harry suffered a Panic Attack, he was so seriously ill, he started convulsing, we called a taxi rather than wait for an ambulance. The Royal Brisbane Hospital admitted him immediately we arrived in Emergency.  This was the beginning of the deterioration in Harry’s mental health.


I reported the difficulties we were now experiencing to the Minister for Communications. Several more formal written complaints were lodged with Telstra and despite hundreds of complaints from customers the problem in receiving phone calls continued unabated. To our horror, on opening the doors of the Tivoli Restaurant and Theatre in August 1989 we experienced exactly the same problems in receiving phone calls through the Fortitude Valley Exchange. In response to our complaints the Telstra (Telecom) Management and technicians were very hostile and not at all customer friendly. One of the Senior Managers said “How dare you report us to the Minister, you have no right to go to the Minister, you are only a customer”


Another Telstra Officer said “Customers get in the way of a good business” This was actually said during my meeting at the office of Telstra in Brisbane with no other than George Szylkarski. In May 1990 in addition to the problems, the deliberate sabotage of our phone lines was again obvious, just as we had experienced at Roseville.  In desperation I increased our advertising budget by $45,000. Our advertising with Greg Carey and Haydn Sergeant on Radio 4BC was also increased and we had additional TV advertisements produced and on 20 May 1990 we commenced extensive advertising on Channel 9 and Channel 7.


For the next four days we did not receive one phone call. I contacted the Minister and finally late in the afternoon of the fourth day, Telstra was forced to admit that our lines at each end of the MDF in the Fortitude Valley Exchange had been open circuited. A wire had actually been inserted to open the circuits. They also admitted that this had occurred at Pillar DA 38 in Costain Street Fortitude Valley.


On 24 May 1990 Channel 9 informed us that they were inundated with complaints from viewers who could not make phone contact with us. Radio 4BC host John Carey reported innumerable complaints made by our customers to 4BC’s hot line indicating their frustrations in not being able to make contact.


Haydn Sargeant contacted me and arranged an outside Broadcast in Queen Street with me to try and assist us. The strange pattern of the deliberate sabotage continued as did the now serious problem of receiving incoming phone calls. Each time we attracted Media over the problem, this infuriated Telstra.  Our complaints of poor service and those of many other Fortitude Valley businesses heralded the start of the Government’s cover-up of the Fortitude Valley Network problems, the deliberate sabotage of our phone lines and the bugging of our business and personal phone conversations.


The Cartoon on page 85 depicts the eavesdropping on our conversations by Telstra Officers at the Fortitude Valley Exchange, in other words phone hacking, which of course was denied until AUSTEL uncovered the evidence in a secret Report that Telstra had prepared for Freehills and Deloitte in defence of our claim.  The evidence contained in the Telstra secret Report, as identified by the Australian Federal Police, confirmed that Telstra had intercepted our business and personal phone conversations for over three years. Telstra listened to the content of the matters we discussed, made notes of the information which they communicated in a Report to Freehills as a defence against our claim.


In an extraordinary development after Channel Nine aired a program “Dial S for Scandal” on the third and tenth of November 2002, Senator Richard Alston in a Media Interview publicly stated:

“These matters did occur almost ten years ago, which is almost another age, the bad old days when we didn’t have customer service guarantees or network reliability frameworks, when Telstra fixed your phone when it was good and ready” 


The Channel nine journalist then said …And on one element of our story — that Telstra had bugged the phone line to the Brisbane theatre restaurant of disgruntled customer Ann Garms, the Minister (Senator Richard Alston) had an intriguing spin:

“The interview suggested that this information had been used by Telstra for commercial purposes and I don’t understand the import of that suggestion. Telstra wasn’t in the restaurant business for example.” 

At the time I thought how absurd, how extraordinary for Senator Alston to publicly disregard the evidence and cause us additional damage because he somehow alleged that Telstra wasn’t in the Restaurant Business, when more than anyone else he, Senator Alston was well aware that Telstra had eavesdropped on our conversations and used the information to prepare a secret Report in defence of our claim, for their Lawyers, Freehills. Furthermore Senator Alston had been briefed by the Australian Federal Police about this matter, additionally they provided him with a Brief which contained Telstra’s admissions that they had found evidence that our restaurant phone lines had been sabotaged but they could not identify the culprits. He failed to disclose this important evidence.


The blatant misrepresentations of the evidence of Telstra’s eavesdropping by the connection of monitoring amplifiers, in addition to the covert tape recording of our conversations with our customers, lawyers, accountants, associates and friends continued with the new Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Damian Bugg. Mr Bugg in response to my complaint that the bugging of our phone conversations had been misrepresented and covered-up responded in a letter dated 15 June 2001.  Incredulously in the letter he endorsed the factually incorrect statements made by the former DPP, Mr Rozenes QC when he said:

“There is also no doubt that information obtained from monitoring your service was given to a firm of solicitors who in turn provided it to a firm of loss assessors.  The material in question consisted of notes summarising the results of failed telephone calls to your business.  The notes were included in a report which was given to the solicitors as part of the background to the case.  The solicitors in turn provided a copy of the report to the loss assessors. The material did not included details of matters discussed in successful telephone calls or identify parties to the telephone conversations” 


I brought the matter of the misrepresentations by Mr Bugg to the attention of Prime Minister Howard, Attorney General Williams and Minister Alston.  In my submissions I identified at least two factually incorrect assertions by the Director of Public Prosecutions, firstly he had alleged that the phone calls Telstra intercepted and listened to were …failed telephone calls to your business.  The second misrepresentations related to Mr Bugg’s assertion…The material did not included details of matters discussed in successful telephone calls or identify parties to the telephone conversations”.


These calls were not failed calls at all, what absolute rubbish, how on earth could Telstra inform Freehills and Deloitte in the secret report that “All calls were booking tables or seeking work, at no time were there any calls complaining of not being able to contact the Tivoli”  if they had not listened to the details of the matters we discussed in successful telephone calls.


In my submissions to the above mentioned Politicians I notified them of my reply to Mr Bugg wherein I said:  “Your statement is not only incorrect it is illogical. The evidence is irrefutable, the material does include details of matters discussed in our telephone conversations with our customers, to state otherwise is a nonsense.”


No response was received from the Politicians other than to throw their full support behind the factually incorrect assertions proffered by their colleague Mr Bugg. On several occasions other Members of Parliament and Police Officers informed me that there had been enormous Political pressure asserted by the Politicians on the AFP and DPP to cover the matter up. In response I said so what !!! that does not alter the fact that it was covered up.


But the cover-up did not stop there and on 20 November 2002 Mr Bill Scales, Telstra Managing Director of Corporate and Human resources in response to the Senate’s questions about the Channel 9 Sunday Programs reference to the concealment of the secret Telstra Report misled the Senate when he said “Yes, it was passed on to lawyers and it was passed onto Mrs Garms lawyers.”


This was of course completely false and misleading. I had provided the Prime Minister and the other Politicians with copies of the Telstra FOI Schedule wherein they had withheld the secret Report under LLP, Telstra Solicitors Files. The first time I was made aware of the exact description and actual contents was when the Australian Federal Police (AFP) obtained copies under Search Warrant issued on the offices Deloitte and Freehills. The secret Report obtained by the AFP was titled “TELECOM COMMERCIAL QLD REGION BACKGROUND REPORT – Dispute Between The Tivoli Restaurant and Theatre and Telecom Commercial Prepared for Freehill Hollingdale and Page Melbourne CONFIDENTIAL FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CORPORATIONS LAWYERS ONLY”


Despite this, the AFP Officers and AUSTEL were instructed that we were not to disclose a copy of the Telstra Report to us. They both informed me that this was strictly forbidden. I am in possession of a letter from Mr Paul Rizzo Telstra to AUSTEL castigating AUSTEL for telling me that the Report even existed. During the next few years, pages from the Report were scattered amongst 200,000 documents released under FOI by Telstra. Furthermore there was a Senate Order issued on 22 March 1995 ordering the release of the Report. The circumstances were that I had that day just given evidence before the Senate Committee in Canberra when Senator Vicki Bourne who was a Democrat Senator requested Suspension of Standing Orders. Senator Bourne’s put forward a Notice of Motion No. 1418 – 3) which was served on the Justice Minister, the Hon Duncan Kerr. The Senate Order stipulated “That the Minister release, to each complainant who alleged that his or her telephone calls were intercepted, extracts from the AFP brief of evidence and the DPP’s findings which deal with his or her complaint.”


The same day the Director of Public Prosecutions in another letter to the Politicians said in response to my evidence given before the Senate Committee:

“There was nothing in the brief of evidence to refute the claims made by Telecom. Indeed the evidence was consistent with those claims being correct in particular there was no evidence that any details of intercepted conversations were passed to Telecom’s negotiators and all Telecom employees who were involved in the negotiations denied that occurred. Accordingly there was insufficient evidence to show that the taping was carried out for any purpose other than fault detection” 


It is important to note that the letter from the DPP dated 22 March 1995 only refers to the (covert) taping of our phone conversations not that which was conducted for three years through the connection of listening devices, known as Monitoring Amplifiers. When the Senators provided a copy of the letter to me I responded that the reply was misleading in the extreme.


The truth is that the evidence obtained from the connections of monitoring amplifiers for three years, to which I referred to in the Senate Hearing was entirely ignored by the DPP. The Senators including Senator Carr in a subsequent conversation in the Senate said that he was sorry, there was only so much he could do because the Labor Party had skeletons’ in the closet to do with my matter. Well! Oh Well!  I thought to myself what do I do now, we need to put a bit of flesh on those skeletons! But the question is how?


The Prime Minister Howard and Minister Alston were informed but the skeletons remained in the closet, undisturbed whilst our lives crumbled in front of us. Copies of my letters to Prime Minister Howard, Minister Alston and Attorney General Williams QC including those received from the DPP are referenced and available on the Web Site. This is the extract from Senate Hansard dated 20 November 2002 wherein Telstra’s Mr Scales misled the Senate by alleging that we had obtained a copy under the legal discovery process.


”Senator MACKAY  –  The Sunday program also alleged that Telstra tapped Mrs Garms phone and passed on information regarding her calls to her lawyers – we are not responsible for the Sunday program, we are just asking questions – providing a letter which seems to provide strong evidence that this in fact did occur. Is it true?


Mr Scales  –  No, it is not true. If I can refer back to the point I previously made, the ACA report looked at these sorts of issues and made it clear that we had not done any of those things. It is reasonable, by the way, for us to try and ensure that a line is operating effectively and we have good processes in place to ensure that is done at the same time as protecting our customers. Again we take that very seriously. Those accusations are clearly wrong   …


Senator LUNDY  –  I will ask you that again: if there was information recorded about the phone calls made by Mrs Garms in relation to assessing the level of the fault, was that information passed on to Telstra’s lawyers perhaps for defending Telstra in the allegations or could it have been passed on to the lawyers in accordance with –


Mr Scales  –  I will take some advice on that…


Senator MACKAY  –  Was it or wasn’t it?


Mr Scales  –  Our understanding was that it was part of the discovery process.


Senator MACKAY  –  And therefore passed on to the Lawyers?


Mr Scales  –  As the Senator said, it was passed on to Mrs Garms, as well as being part of that discovery process.


Senator MACKAY  –  No, that was not the question. Was it passed on to the lawyers? The answer is yes, isn’t it?


Mr Scales  –  Yes, it was passed on to lawyers and it was passed onto Mrs Garms lawyers


Senator Lundy  –  Through discovery?


Mr Scales  – Through the discovery process – as the normal part of the legal process.”


The old saying the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction applies in bucket loads here! Most importantly, it was not until AUSTEL uncovered the existence of the secret Telstra Report on 21 December 1993 that the truth was disclosed. Our complaints for a decade had gone unanswered whilst Rome burnt as they say in the classics. On eleven occasions during the preceding ten years we had advised the Politicians and AUSTEL that we believed Telstra was listening to our phone conversations. Telstra repeatedly denied that any interceptions were occurring on our phone lines. We had also complained that our phone lines were being sabotaged, this was also denied, despite the Politicians being in possession of the evidence provided to them by the Australian Federal Police.


The truth is there was NO discovery by my Lawyers as alleged by Mr Scales, there was in fact no process for legal discovery, only FOI. To add insult to injury I did not have a Lawyer engaged at that time. Mr Scales simply lied to the Senate. Telstra did not provide us with a copy of the Secret Report. The Australian Federal Police noted this fact in their Brief of Evidence supplied to the Politicians. Telstra hid the evidence of their breaches of Privacy and the Law and withheld the Report under the FOI classification “Solicitors Files – LPP, Legal Professional Privilege”.


This was a report they did not think would ever see the light of day.  The Telstra Manager who prepared the secret Report was the Manager of Small Business Queensland, Mr Grahame Powles.  In June 1993 AUSTEL made the finding that I had been misled by Telstra. This was in fact in reference to the conduct of Mr Powles. The same Mr Powles who prepared the secret Report containing information which Telstra obtained by listening to the content of the matters we discussed in our phone conversations over a three year period. Furthermore, it was not until the Australian Federal Police issued a Search Warrant on Deloitte and Freehills that I was able to even sight a copy of the Telstra Report.


The Australian Federal Police were informed on three occasions by the Minister that under no circumstances were they to provide a copy to us. As indicated the Politicians were provided with a copy, and despite our submissions failed to disclose the evidence collected by the AFP.


In fact during the Victoria Police investigation years later it was established that secret Report and associated the documents were not privileged at any time. This is precisely the point the Australian Federal Police Brief also contained Telstra’s admissions to the AFP that they had found evidence found evidence to indicate that our telephone service was tampered with but they could not identify a suspect.  The Politicians in fact hid the evidence, at no time was it disclosed to us either by the Government or Telstra.


As a result the AFP noted in their 14 July 1994 Brief of Evidence prepared for the Government that Telstra did not disclose the documents to us. A legal opinion was obtained during the Victorian Police Investigation in 2001 from Associate Professor Suzanne Mc Nicol. Ms McNichol is considered the bible on Legal Professional Privilege in Australia. The Opinion together with the Legal Strategy prepared by Freehills is referenced and available for consideration on the Web. This is an extract:

“Associate Professor Mc Nicol Monash University 29 June 2000

Therefore as I stated above, I believe that there is evidence which supports all of the four grounds, which I have outlines at the beginning of this advice, namely, that Telstra:

(1)     suppressed relevant documents without making a claim for privilege at all.

(2)     made incomplete or inadequate claims to privilege,

(3)     made defective or erroneous claims to privilege and

(4)     knowingly made false or spurious claims to privilege

Please note this advice is based on the factual material provided to me. The law is as stated on 29 June 2000.”


Ch 3 no 3The Opinion by Ms McNicol makes for very interesting reading in Chapter ten (10) Yes Prime Minister.


In the Memorandum of Advice by Ms Associate Professor Suzanne McNicol wherein it is stated that Telstra “(3) made defective or erroneous claims to privilege and (4) knowingly made false or spurious claims to privilege” this opinion relates to the Australian Government Solicitor’s FOI classification that the secret Telstra Report and other documents be withheld under “Solicitors Files – LPP, Legal Professional Privilege” and other erroneous classifications. Furthermore the Commonwealth Ombudsman reported that the Australian Government Solicitor charged $500,000.00 to provide the advice in relation to the processing of the FOI Requests.


During the investigations carried out by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Victoria Police Barrister, both parties informed me that over one million dollars was spent on Legal Advice to conceal the relevant important evidence. This is in addition to the thirty-two million dollars of Public Money spent on Legal and Professional advisors by Telstra, the Department of Communications and Attorney General’s Department. A complete waste of Public Money which ended in a costly legal battle to cause us irreparable harm, exorbitant legal fees and of course the ultimate strategy to conceal the evidence. This unacceptable strategy was adopted despite the Lawyers and Department Officials allegedly knowing their case was on shaky legal grounds and that Telstra Officials had broken the law, they were intent on blocking access to the relevant documents which supported our case.


All of this was assisted by the Department of Communications Legal Officers and those from the Attorney Generals’ Department to “keep the lid” on our case and that of the Endeavour Foundation.


Our current Prime Minister, the Hon Tony Abbott MP recently endorsed the strategy outlined by the Attorney General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC in regard to the collection and storage of Metadata.


The Metadata retention issue has been a hot political topic of late. In Chapter 1 the matter of the cover-up of the “bugging” of our business and private telephone conversations is discussed. In accordance with the Prime Minister’s own words that the Metadata, i.e. the envelope would not be opened, from my own personal experience I would like to make it known that that is not entirely correct. As you would have gathered from Chapter 1, the evidence in our case establishes that the Envelope was secretly collected and indeed opened by Telstra with the contents distributed to their Lawyers, Accountants and the Ministers without my knowledge. It was disclosed during the Australian Federal Police investigation code named “Operation Oregan” and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation that the content of the said Envelope was covertly distributed on five occasions by Telstra. It goes without saying that there was no transparency nor accountability and in fact a profound breach of privacy, intellectual property, confidence and trust.


When I finally obtained the evidence that the said contents of the Envelope was used by Telstra to prepare a defence against our Claim, I brought the matter of the misrepresentations proffered by the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Bugg to the attention of the Prime Minister, The Hon John Howard MP, the Attorney General, Daryl Williams QC and Minister Alston. In my submissions I identified at least two factually incorrect assertions by the Director of Public Prosecutions as noted in Chapter 1 and in the scanned documents which are available on the Web. These documents include copies of my letters of complaint to Prime Minister Howard and Attorney General Williams. Unfortunately for our family the matter of the “Bugging” and associated misrepresentations has continued to be covered up as you will see from my recent correspondence and responses received from the Attorney General. My submissions to the Politicians saw the commencement of the cover-up of the cover-up. In response to Prime Minister Abbott’s recent comments concerning the security of the Metadata Envelope I prepared the following Video:


Ann Video


The following Cartoon will give you some clues as to the extent of the cover-up by the Government to avoid charges being laid against Telstra. This is based on information provided by ex Public Officials and investigating Police Officers.

Ch 3 no 4



Next Chapter