Attention Tabitha and Kathrine
Introduction to The Arbitraitor
I have chosen the following narrative to introduce my story, "The Arbitraitor "because not only did I receive moral support from the Canadian Government to keep seeking the truth—which gave me some peace of mind during the difficult period immediately following the premature conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995—but I also received an unexpected phone call that became a turning point.
That call came from Canadian consultant Paul Howell of DMR Group Inc (Canada), who had learned I had survived the first of two heart attacks that saw me hospitalised on both occasions. Mr Howell, a man I had never met, told me that if my arbitration had been conducted in North America the way it had been handled in Australia, heads would have rolled—excluding mine. His words struck deep. They validated my experience and confirmed the injustice I had endured.
I later relayed Mr Howell’s statements in a statutory declaration to The Hon. Michael Lee MP. Paul Howell had worked with Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd on my matters, and his insight—combined with the moral support from Canada—became a beacon of hope in a time when no one in the Australian Government dared to confront the truth.
Would you like help formatting this for your book’s opening page or pairing it with a visual cue or exhibit reference?
From March 9, 1995, when Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was appointed as the technical consultants for the COT Case arbitrations, the integrity of the arbitration process was compromised. Ericsson’s control of Lane meant that the very entity evaluating our claims was beholden to the supplier of the faulty equipment.
What of those cases, like mine, that concluded in May 1995? At that critical juncture, Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell revealed the truth to the arbitrator, the administrator, and legal counsel: the newly appointed Canadian assessment company was a ruse. Lane would conduct all evaluations related to Ericsson, and the results would be deceptively funnelled into letters bearing the name of DMR Group Pty Ltd—misleading claimants into believing a neutral Canadian expert had reviewed their evidence.
This orchestrated scheme exemplified deep-rooted corruption, betrayal, and manipulation of the arbitration system itself
Even now, in 2025, John Rundell continues to operate arbitration centres in Melbourne and Hong Kong, despite his damning admission in his 18 April 1995 letter:
“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded.It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.
One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.
When my lawyers uncovered disturbing ambiguities in the arbitration agreement—covertly altered after government and COT lawyers had approved the original version—I requested foundational documents from Pinnock to understand how this skulduggery had been allowed. His response?
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” — John Pinnock, 10 January 1996 ()
That marked the beginning of my descent into a dark labyrinth of deceit.
The agreement itself had been secretly altered before I signed it—weaponised to protect Telstra and the arbitration consultants. It shielded Rundell and Lane from accountability, as Chapter 5: Fraudulent Conduct so clearly shows.
A System Engineered to Fail the Truth
What unfolded was not arbitration—it was a coordinated campaign of collusion and concealment. From the laundering of evidence to the secret sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, every move was calculated to undermine justice and protect the guilty.
Lane Telecommunications and the Erosion of Justice
The acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—a consultancy that masqueraded as independent but was ostensibly commissioned by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—reveals a deeply corrupt and treacherous plot at the heart of Australia’s justice system.
This consultancy, which served as the administrator for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration, was meant to serve the interests of justice, investigating serious claims from over sixteen cases. These claims pointed directly to the crumbling infrastructure of Ericsson telephone exchanges, with their outdated testing facilities, as the sinister root of persistent and devastating service failures experienced by countless Australians.
What unfolds in this scenario is nothing short of a calculated conspiracy, a carefully orchestrated scheme that undermines the very foundations of democracy. The dark truth is that this operation has largely slipped under the radar, revealing a shocking level of complicity and negligence. The most egregious aspect of this tale is that Lane, a key technical consultancy tasked with assisting the arbitrator in objectively evaluating the claims against Ericsson, was purchased by Ericsson itself during a highly legalistic arbitration process, which the Australian government had endorsed, as a fair process is beyond contempt.
Such a corrupt collusion raises horrifying questions about the integrity of the entire arbitration process. This acquisition isn’t merely unacceptable; it stinks of betrayal, manipulation, and an insatiable thirst for power that puts the principles of fair justice in grave peril. It feels as though a shadowy hand has reached into the very core of the system, undermining it for personal gain and shrouding the quest for truth in darkness.
This wasn’t a breakdown. It was a design—a system built to fail the truth, reward the corrupt, and leave whistleblowers like me stranded in a fog of betrayal.
The Senate Warning — And the Deafening Silence That Followed
On 26 September 1997, John Pinnock, the second TIO appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, testified before a Senate Estimates Committee:
“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures.” ()
This was a public admission that the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, was a figurehead. The real process was happening elsewhere, in shadows, beyond oversight. Yet no action was taken. Neither the government nor the arbitration administrators moved to correct the record or protect the claimants. Their failure to act is not just negligence—it is complicity.
The Supreme Court’s Blindfold — Jurisdiction Betrayed
The arbitration process was administered under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Had the Court been made aware of the appalling conduct of Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith—especially the concealment of Rundell’s letter and the laundering of technical reports—it would have been forced to confront the legal and ethical violations at play.
What would the Supreme Court have said, had it known that the arbitrator had no control, that the process was conducted outside the agreed procedures, and that critical evidence was deliberately withheld from the claimants?
I reiterate, this wasn’t arbitration. It was a masquerade—engineered to protect Telstra, silence the COT cases, and preserve reputations at the expense of truth.
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."
I have chosen to spotlight the letter from the Canadian government in my narrative as a heartfelt gesture of gratitude for the support it provided during a profoundly challenging chapter of my life. This support became a guiding light, illuminating my path when the Australian government steadfastly refused to confront the uncomfortable truth surrounding the documents inadvertently left in an open briefcase at my business on June 3, 1993. Those documents revealed a shocking deception by Telstra: for over a decade, the company had systematically misled the government about faulty Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. This equipment continued to be installed across Australia, even as nations around the globe were urgently removing—or had already dismantled—the same unreliable technology from their networks.
In placing my trust in the Australian government to take action regarding this falsified BCI testing information, I unwittingly made the second biggest mistake of my life. The flawed BCI testing at the telephone exchange serving my business was never subjected to a thorough investigation, and the profound silence that ensued was deafening, leaving me feeling adrift and alone. Unexpectedly, the Canadian government emerged as a beacon of hope amidst the shadows of neglect.
Reflecting on my life, the first significant mistake took place on September 18, 1967, when I informed the Minister of the Army, Malcolm Fraser, of a grave injustice. The humanitarian wheat being supplied by Australia to China—during a tumultuous period when Australia was actively engaged in combat in North Vietnam alongside allied forces from New Zealand and the USA—was being diverted to North Vietnam. This critically needed wheat was ultimately finding its way into the hands of the Vietcong, who were ruthlessly killing and maiming our brave Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers in the dense jungles of North Vietnam.
Interestingly, in the same year, the Canadian Merchant Navy took a morally steadfast stand by refusing to load wheat upon discovering that it was destined for a nation at war with the West. Their principled action stood in stark contrast to the silence and complicity I encountered.
As I recount these experiences, I feel an unwavering compulsion to include Canada in my story—not only for its resolute stance in 1967 but also for the quiet yet powerful support it offered decades later when my own government systematically turned away from the profound truth that needed to be faced.
---------
Around the World in 80 Dishes and a few disasters
⚓ Introduction: Oh, how gloriously naïve I was.
I was fifteen—barely old enough to shave, scarcely wise enough to know what I was stepping into—when I boarded my first ship and sailed into the unknown. A boy about to become a man, armed with nothing but wide-eyed dreams and a stomach full of butterflies. I imagined moonlit beaches, nightingales crooning lullabies, and rugged sailors with crooked smiles singing sea shanties around a fire. I thought I’d be part of a brotherhood of adventure, where every wave carried a new story and every port promised romance.
Reality didn’t arrive gently—it crashed over me like a rogue wave at a synchronised swimming competition. Instead of hoisting sails and swapping tales with hearty seamen, I found myself elbow-deep in garlic and melodrama, cooking for a crew of madams. Yes, madams! Their demands were as unpredictable as a crab trying to order a salad at a five-star restaurant.
Picture this: a greenhorn seaman, barely out of boyhood, juggling pots and pans in a galley the size of a broom closet, dodging requests like, “Can we have lobster tonight? But make it flambé, darling!” If I’d had a frilly apron, I could’ve starred in my own culinary soap opera—Galley of Glamour.
I quickly learned to navigate the absurd personalities around me. One madam (crew member) insisted her/his chai be brewed with Himalayan spring water (as if I was running a wellness retreat), while another thought caviar was a suitable substitute for peanut butter. In this floating circus of culinary chaos, I discovered a hidden talent for chopping onions at lightning speed—perfect for both cooking and pretending I had something in my eye when I needed a breath of fresh air.
But here’s the twist: amid the madness, I grew. I toughened. I transformed. I realised that sometimes, the journey to manhood doesn’t come from sun-kissed shores or heroic deeds—it comes from surviving diva tantrums and sautéing your way through storms. I wasn’t just a madam’s cook lost at sea. I was a young man discovering resilience, humour, and the strange beauty of becoming.
Now, let’s rewind to the 1960s through the 1980s—a time when gay men were often cast as pariahs, seen as perverts unless a lonely sailor needed company far from home. Back then, I learned to wield a long-neck brandy cognac bottle with a manila twine loop like a makeshift handcuff—my trusty defence against admirers who mistook my steward’s uniform for an invitation. Spoiler alert: I was not an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Once you escaped the watchful eye of the bosun or head cook, it was survival of the fittest. Being in the galley was no simple job—it was a high-stakes cooking challenge where the secret ingredient was sheer desperation. And if you ever found yourself battling an army of diva madams demanding five-star meals while you were still figuring out how to boil water—well, that’s a reality that still makes me chuckle (and weep) to this day.
Yet amid the chaos, I found kinship. Some of the most trustworthy and dedicated seafarers I met came from the gay community. After five unforgettable months aboard ship, I discovered that a gay shipmate could offer the best company—loyal, witty, and full of heart.
When we docked in Europe after hauling rich butter and luxurious wool from New Zealand, I’d step ashore in cities like Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Rotterdam, Dunkirk, and Antwerp. The nightlife was electric—filled with music, laughter, and mischief only sailors could conjure. Nightclubbing with my gay colleagues was an experience like no other. They played piano, strummed guitars, and filled taverns with songs that made strangers feel like family. Their humour lightened the weight of homesickness, and their performances often earned us free beer and roaring applause.
Of course, life at sea wasn’t all laughter and song. We endured long hours, brutal weather, and the ache of being far from home. But those moments of camaraderie—those bursts of outrageous stories and belly laughs—helped us survive the storms.
The narrative of the maritime training ship, along with the various outbuildings that formed its supporting infrastructure, is both compelling and eye-opening. The harsh conditions we endured, coupled with the subpar food, were shared experiences among the 35 recruits who ultimately completed the program, out of the original 100 who enrolled. These challenges formed a significant part of our journey and have been documented in detail online, revealing a tapestry of events compiled by many boys who passed through the school.
Throughout its forty-year legacy, the Vindicatrix Sea Training School became a backdrop for numerous poignant stories. A recurring theme in these accounts is the shocking revelation that the only source of "fresh" meat we received during the gruelling ten-week course often came from the unfortunate rodents and insects that occasionally found their way into the stockpot. This grim reality became a stark symbol of the unrefined nature of our culinary experiences aboard the ship.
The narratives of over one hundred boys, penned over four decades, illustrate the trials and tribulations we faced at different junctures in our lives. Each memoir, despite being written by different hands, tells a similar tale of endurance and camaraderie forged in challenging circumstances. This rich collection of experiences suggests that we may need to reconsider our approach to educating and mentoring our youth, with a focus on teaching them to live together harmoniously and to respect one another's diverse values.
I invite you to keep an eye out for my forthcoming book; it promises to unveil the profound lessons and insights drawn from these experiences, ultimately providing a fresh perspective on the challenges faced during this unique chapter of our lives.
-------------------
- Fax interception and manipulation: Evidence shows that confidential documents sent during arbitration were intercepted, stored, and redirected—without consent—by the defendants, a then-government-owned telecommunications carrier.
- Collusion between arbitrators, watchdogs, and defendants: Privileged information was allegedly fed to the defendants while being concealed from claimants—Australian citizens seeking justice.
- Suppressed evidence and denied resubmissions: Despite proof of transmission, critical documents were never acknowledged, and claimants were denied the chance to resubmit.
- Technical validation: Experts confirmed dual time stamps on faxed documents, proving unauthorised interception and retransmission
- Institutional denial of natural justice: Even prominent Australians, such as Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, was stunned by the scale of the injustice.
• What do I want people to understand or feel?• What truth am I trying to preserve?• Who am I speaking for—just myself, or others who’ve been silenced?
• Dates, names, and locations• Copies of documents, emails, faxes, or transcripts• Quotes from officials, experts, or witnesses• Technical reports or statutory declarations• Your own diary entries or correspondence
If you’re worried about legal risks, we’ll soon help you publish a Safe Storytelling Guide to help you navigate your narrative.
QUESTION - Why are we doing this? The simplest way is to share more true stories that are read on AbsentJustice.com. The bigger the audience for your story, the more likely it is for our story to be seen. A small annual hosting fee and any associated costs involved in getting your story to fruition, ready for reading, are all that is required. No hidden agendas.
🔹 Chapter 1: The SetupWho were you before this happened? What was your life like?🔹 Chapter 2: The IncidentWhat happened? Be specific. What did you see, hear, or experience?🔹 Chapter 3: The EvidenceWhat proof do you have? What did others say or do?🔹 Chapter 4: The Cover-UpHow were you silenced, ignored, or gaslit? Who benefited?🔹 Chapter 5: The FalloutHow did this affect your life, your work, your health, your relationships?🔹 Chapter 6: The Fight BackWhat have you done to seek justice? What are you still doing?🔹 Chapter 7: The Message
• Publishing anonymously• Using pseudonyms or redacting names• Understanding defamation and whistleblower protections• Connecting with legal advocates or journalists
• Submit your story via our secure form• Choose whether to publish under your name or anonymously• Include supporting documents if you wish• Request help editing or formatting your story
• One-on-one story coaching• Help turning your notes into chapters• Visual storytelling tools (timelines, icons, document overlays)• Emotional support from others who’ve walked this path
