Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals and the corrupt bureaucrats who control the politicians and lawyers who oversee the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—government Corruption. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations.
Explore the unsettling actions of the Casualties of Australia arbitrator, who callously disregarded the chilling threats made against several Australian citizens brave enough to challenge the defendants, Telstra. This arbitrator enabled a prolonged obstruction of the arbitration process for an excruciating thirteen months. In an alarming twist, he eventually proclaimed in his final award that Telstra had exhibited remarkable diligence in their so-called cooperation throughout the proceedings, further exposing the depths of corruption at play.
😈 The Devils Three letters → The first remedy pursued
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.
What kind of arbitrator would condone the dispatch of such a deceitful letter about his wife knowing it was not the truth, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged.
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), where 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.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by me or any of the other first four 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 under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention what the Senate has since been advised?
⚔️ Echoes of War and Political Silence
Keep reading, and you may find yourself asking the same questions I’ve been asking for over thirty years.
Why would the defendants—Telstra, still owned by the Australian government at the time—feel the need to intercept my telephone conversations during my 1993 to 1995 government-endorsed arbitration?
Why would they go further and intercept my faxes—screening the information through a secondary fax machine embedded in Telstra’s own network?
These weren’t just business communications. Many of those faxes and calls related directly to my 1967 confrontation with Communist China and North Vietnam—issues I had discussed with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who had served as Minister for the Army during the very period I was branded a spy by the People’s Republic of China.
What possible justification could Telstra have had for monitoring such intensely personal and politically sensitive exchanges—primarily while I was engaged in a legal process meant to deliver justice?
These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of institutional accountability, privacy, and the abuse of power. And they remain unanswered.
The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.
Please hover your mouse or cursor over the Canadian flag in the following image and learn that during my time as a merchant seaman in 1967, I stood alongside several British and Canadian colleagues in protest against a deeply troubling revelation. We had learned that Australian wheat—shipped to Communist China under the guise of humanitarian aid—was being redirected once unloaded. Some of that wheat was ending up in North Vietnam.
This wasn’t just a logistical detail. It was a betrayal.
At the time, Australian, New Zealand, and American troops were fighting and dying in the jungles of Vietnam. Many were maimed or slaughtered by North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong fighters. To know that our own wheat—grown on Australian soil—was helping feed the very forces responsible for that carnage was unbearable.
The Canadian seaman who joined our stand understood the gravity of the situation. Like us, he couldn’t reconcile the idea of humanitarian aid being weaponised against our own allies. It wasn’t just about politics—it was about principle. About loyalty. About refusing to be complicit.
Wheat, War, and a Seaman’s Stand
The sentiments expressed resonate with me on a personal level. I draw vivid parallels to my own experiences with bureaucrats and politicians from three decades ago—encounters that began before my 1994 arbitration and continued through the ensuing chaos.
The years spanning the Vietnam War, from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, were especially turbulent. Shifting governments added layers of complexity to my story. What troubles me most is the enduring silence: no representative from those past administrations has stepped forward to acknowledge or apologise for Australia’s decision to trade with an enemy during wartime.
That choice cost lives—not only among Australia’s young conscripts, but also among our allies in New Zealand and the USA. The silence is deafening. And the weight of those decades still lingers.
Introduction: A Beacon Beyond Borders
As a gesture of gratitude and respect, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment to democracy and truth-telling in the introduction to this COT story. Their support stands as a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders, even when it’s denied at home in Australia.
When I sought assistance from the Australian government and its bureaucracies to validate the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) tests allegedly conducted at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, I was met with silence. Had those tests been properly carried out—as the BCI reports claimed—I could have demonstrated to the arbitrator that my phone and faxing issues were still undermining my business operations. Despite my findings being backed by Telstra’s own technical data, they were ignored.
This pattern of bureaucratic indifference echoes a deeper historical failure. In September 1967, Australian officials continued supplying wheat to China, despite warnings from Canadian and British seamen that some of that wheat was likely feeding North Vietnamese soldiers—soldiers who would soon be hunting down Australian, New Zealand, and American troops in the jungles of Vietnam.
Yet, in July 1995, the Canadian government stepped forward once again—this time to support my claims regarding Bell Canada International. Their intervention was not just an act of diplomacy; it was a reaffirmation of democratic values and a commitment to justice.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
It’s not just the lies told to me. It’s the lies told to a nation. In 1967, the Australian government chose to sell wheat to China, ignoring warnings from Canadian and British seamen that some of that wheat was likely feeding North Vietnamese soldiers. Soldiers who would go on to kill and maim young Australians, New Zealanders, and Americans in the jungles of Vietnam. That decision—made in the name of trade—came at the cost of lives.
And decades later, the same machinery of denial rolled over my case. The lies told by the arbitrator, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and the Arbitration Project Manager weren’t just technical missteps. They were betrayals. They denied me justice, denied my business its viability, and denied the truth its rightful place.
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 unauthorised 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.
Seven days after receiving an eagerly anticipated letter from the Canadian Government, I was delighted to receive another letter of support on July 15, 1995. This correspondence arrived two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement regarding my incomplete claim, which had left many questions unanswered.
In this moment, I was grateful to Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA). She graciously provided me with an open letter, a token of her support that I could share with individuals of my choosing. This thoughtful gesture not only reinforced her belief in my integrity and professionalism but also served as a beacon of hope amidst the uncertainty I was facing.
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Two months after I received a letter from the Canadian Government dated July 7, 1995, Amanda Davis, who held the position of General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL—the government agency responsible for overseeing communications—expressed her concerns to Senator Ron Boswell. This discussion took place just four months following the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, who had prematurely delivered his findings regarding my case.
Amanda was acutely aware that I had been systematically denied access to crucial documents needed to effectively build my case against Telecom/Telstra. This lack of documentation placed me at a significant disadvantage.
During the meeting, Senator Boswell, visibly emotional, spoke passionately about the deep injustices endured by the four COT claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. He highlighted the numerous challenges we four had faced both before and during our arbitration proceedings. His remarks, in the Senate under the heading "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST", state in part:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
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.
