⚓ Thirty Years in the Merchant Navy
Every sailor knows this instinctively: When you lie at sea, people die. On land, the deaths are slower — reputations, livelihoods, families, futures — but the principle is the same. Honesty is not just the best policy. It is the only thing that keeps a nation afloat.
This is the story of my nearly thirty years at sea as a ship's steward and cook, culminating in my purchase of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Unfortunately, organised crime, government corruption, and bureaucratic misconduct have devastated the lives of many individuals and continue to do so in 2026.
Why were these egregious crimes allowed to unfold under the guise of a government-endorsed arbitration? It is deeply troubling that I was threatened by two different executives at Telstra, both delivering the same sinister message: I was to stop providing the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with Freedom of Information documents. These documents, originally provided by Telstra to aid in the arbitration process, were suddenly deemed a liability to their interests. This raises alarming questions about the integrity of the arbitration and suggests a troubling collusion between Telstra and higher powers to protect themselves at the expense of justice. It appears that rather than addressing the unlawful interception of my telephone conversations, there was an active effort to silence any exposure of wrongdoing. This treachery not only undermines the arbitration process but also endangers the very foundation of law enforcement and accountability
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the image below.
The narrative on absentjustice.com reveals instances of government corruption by using official government records to support its claims. Without the over 1,360 documents presented, it would be challenging to believe the account provided. Why would the previous arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, who was assigned to evaluate my government's endorsed arbitration process, permit John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, to write to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia? In that communication, Pinnock stated that I had confessed in writing to calling Dr Hughes' wife at 2:00 AM, despite the fact that no such call was made, nor did I ever admit to it in writing → Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued"
My open letter from 25 September 2025 reveals a troubling truth: If Dr. Hughes' wife consciously condoned her husband's vile actions, and if the TIO blatantly employed deceit to manipulate an issue involving her and me—fully aware it was an utter fabrication—in order to thwart the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from investigating my allegations against her husband, then she stands as a charlatan, no more trustworthy than Dr. Hughes himself. Yet, if she remains blissfully ignorant of her husband's treachery and the TIO’s corruption, even after thirty years, it underscores a chilling reality: Dr Hughes and John Pinnock embody the darkest depths of human deceit, allowing this monstrous lie to obliterate any hope I had for a fair hearing. Their betrayal is nothing short of despicable, a conspiracy that seeks to ruin lives for their own selfish gain.
As of 2026, Dr Gordon Hughes is the Principal Lawyer at Davies Collison Cave Lawyers in Melbourne → → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp.
Could Dr Hughes be holding a grudge against me? After he failed to respond twice to my allegations that Telstra had carried out their threats while he was still missing in action, I took my concerns to Senator Ron Boswell. The Senator later discussed a document in the Senate on September 20, 1995, which stated that Dr Hughes was pressured to use Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement instead of the independently drafted agreement approved by the Liberal Coalition and the Australian Democrats, along with the COT Cases lawyers.
The insult only added fuel to the fire of my torment when the conniving government bureaucrats, entrenched in the COT Cases, dared to award Dr Gordon Hughes an "Order of Australia." This mockery came despite the havoc he wreaked on my life and the life of my partner, who, since arriving at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in 1994 to stand by me against this despicable wretch, has been reduced to a mere shadow of her former self. It’s a treacherous betrayal that makes their hypocrisy even more chilling.
Evidence that Dr Hughes and his consultants did not read the 24,000 late-released FOI documents is shown in the image below; a single click will suffice.
On May 12, 1995, Dr Hughes admitted in writing that using this arbitration agreement in my case "did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars, and the preparation of technical reports." How corrupt was this man? I can’t help but wonder what Mrs Hughes really thinks about him allowing the three remaining claimants more than 13 months to prepare their claims due to deficiencies in the agreement, while I was given significantly less time (see (Open Letter File No 55-A) All four of us—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and I—signed the same agreement in April 1994. If this isn't discrimination of the worst kind, then what is?
Some may contend that Dr Hughes's actions were even more insidious, using his wife’s reputable name as a shield to sabotage an investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia into my claims. While I acknowledge that this behaviour signifies an astonishing level of misconduct rarely seen, even among those masquerading as honourable men like Dr Hughes, the situation becomes even more alarming. He boldly asserted to Laurie James, the President of the Institute, that he and his arbitration consultants had thoroughly reviewed the 24,000 FOI documents I was unable to submit. I had warned Laurie James that Telstra had obstructed my attempts to obtain these documents, as I was still aiding the Australian Federal Police in their inquiries into serious allegations against Telstra.
When these documents were finally released—months after they were due—Dr. Hughes callously dismissed them, even after I managed to extract two critical reports from the trove. It was his calculated refusal to compel Telstra to release these FOI documents that emboldened Senator Ron Boswell to bring these threats to light in the Senate on November 29, 1994. This betrayal demonstrates a deliberate and treacherous manoeuvre to shield himself and others from accountability.
Threats made
Threats carried out
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)
I would like to refer the reader to my letter dated July 15, 2009, addressed to Paul Crowley, the CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia. (Exhibit 13-B and 13-C → Burying The Evidence File 13-H. In this letter, I included a correspondence from Graham Schorer, who was the spokesperson for COT Cases and a former client of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).
Exhibit 13-H → Burying The Evidence File 13-H is the letter dated August 4, 1998 and attached to it is also exhibited as (13-H) a statutory declaration from Mr Schorer to me, which detailed a phone conversation he had with the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes during the 1994 arbitrations concerning lost Telstra COT-related faxes. My arbitration had been over for three years, and it was revealed during a pending appeal that 41 of my faxes during my 13-month arbitration were not on the arbitrator's schedule of received documents, even though my fax billing account showed they had been sent. Mr Schorer alerted the Senate to this, as did Dr Hughes, and it was Dr Hughes' response that gave us hope that we could have these lost arbitration fax matters investigated. During that conversation, Mr Schorer had with Dr Hughes, Dr Hughes explained to Graham Schorer in detail that:
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.
Even more troubling is that Dr Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices before his appointment as an arbitrator in seven arbitrations, all coordinated within 12 months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently expressed frustration that the arbitrator's office was not responding to their faxes. This raises alarming questions about potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process.
John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, acknowledged that 41 of my claim documents, which were also mini reports, had not been investigated by Dr Hughes. Despite Dr Hughes admitting that these documents might have been lost by his Sydney office, I was still denied the opportunity to have the 41 claim documents evaluated on their merits.
The Weight of Treachery
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
A System Built on Silence
📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This particular Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518, FOI folio document K03273 - ).
To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?
ARBITRATION - MELBOURNE - HONG KONG
A story of despair and heartache:
The situation becomes even more alarming when we consider the impact on individuals around the globe who have opted for arbitration using the facilities of John Rundell, a former KPMG partner and the previous Arbitration Project Manager for my case. Rundell is associated with at least two recognized arbitration centers—one located in Melbourne, Australia, and the other in Hong Kong.
Evidence available on our absenjustice.com website reveals troubling actions taken during my arbitration process. Specifically, there are indications that Rundell was prepared to remove the signature of a technical consultant from Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd and replace it with that of a Canadian technical consultant. This deceptive practice misled all involved parties into believing that DMR Group Canada had conducted the majority of the assessments. However, the reality was that Lane—an ex-Telstra employee—had performed the actual evaluations. Lane was subsequently acquired by Ericsson of Sweden, specifically regarding its telephone equipment, which was under investigation throughout my arbitration.
During this critical period, Lane refused to test my Ericsson AXE telephone equipment, a decision made on April 6, 1995, while John Rundell was overseeing the entire operation. This refusal raises significant concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process. It prompts a crucial question: How many other arbitrations have been compromised or misled by similar actions taken by John Rundell?
Given the serious nature of these allegations, I am considering whether I have a duty of care to bring this matter to light. It seems imperative to safeguard the rights of other arbitrators and parties involved in arbitrations organised through Mr Rundell's firms in both Australia and Hong Kong. Exposing these issues could play a vital role in ensuring fairness and transparency in the arbitration process for future participants.
The Letter in Question
This damning letter by John Rundell, dated 18 April 1995, advises the first appointed TIO and administrator to my arbitration, Warwick Smith, copied to Dr Gordon Hughes and the TIO Legal Counsel that:
“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.
“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)
When Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett, the three legal experts, allowed the critical letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, they directly assisted the "forces at work" to disrupt all four COT cases' arbitrations. If John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once.
With Mr Rundell's letter as evidence, we would have had a reasonable chance of having all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least. It's worth noting that the federal government initially endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.
Infringe upon the civil liberties
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the Senator Carr image below.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
The Honourable David Hawker MP, who later became the Speaker of the House of Representatives, sent a copy of the first draft of the absentjustice.com manuscript to several government officials at Parliament House in Canberra over two decades ago. Initially, these officials expressed interest in investigating the information, but they later decided not to proceed. In late 1998, Neil Jepson, a barrister for the Major Fraud Group at Victoria Police, suggested that I share copies of the manuscript with Senators whom he believed might be interested. Senator Kin Carr responded to me on January 27, 1999, stating:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
Over the past two decades, I have sought assistance from six government agencies and two self-funded ombudsmen to investigate the injustices committed against me and my partner, Cathy. Each of these agencies is committed to conducting thorough investigations, and in response, I have incurred significant expenses, totalling thousands of dollars, to provide the necessary documentation and materials they requested throughout the process.
On 15 November 1995, John Rundell wrote a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO), while he was a partner at KPMG. In this letter, he misled and deceived the TIO regarding the validity of my claim against the conduct of the COT arbitrations. This misinformation occurred during the Institute of Arbitrators Australia's investigation into my claims. I wonder how much KPMG’s reputation influenced the TIO's decision not to investigate the matter thoroughly. At that time, KPMG had not yet damaged its reputation, which may have deterred the TIO from scrutinising John Rundell's actions.
In late 1999, after I was seconded to assist the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, Mr. Neil Jepson, a barrister for the Major Fraud Group and a professional associate and friend of my forensic accountant Derek Ryan from DMR Corporate Melbourne, informed me that many members of the establishment, including the three arbitration administrators named below, were involved in covering up the systemic billing problems I had uncovered. These issues affected thousands of Australian citizens and appeared to involve a coordinated effort to conceal my evidence.
Please read “Around the World in 80 Dishes… and a Few Disasters” on absentjustice.com. It will help me finish telling the rest of this story on absentjustice.com about the “Casualties of Telstra.” Refer to promoteyourstory.com.au.
⚓ “The Way of the Sea” — A Shanty for a Cook of Thirty Years
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down this homepage.
(Verse 1)
Oh, I signed aboard as a galley lad, With a skillet, a knife, and a grin, Through thirty years of gales and storms, Where the sea decides who’ll win. From Fremantle’s heat to the cold North Sea, through ports where the wild winds blow, I learned my trade on a rolling deck, and the sea taught all I know.
- (Chorus) So heave away, boys, heave away, For the truth rides every wave. The sea is the straightest life I’ve known, and the only one that saved. Wine and women and songs at night, and the dawn with a sailor’s plea— learned right from wrong on a heaving deck, for that’s the way of the sea.
(Verse 2)
In far‑off ports with lantern lights, where the taverns never sleep, I tasted life in a hundred ways that the land could never keep. But the sea was honest, hard, and fair. She’ll break you or set you free—And every scar on my weathered hands was earned with dignity.
- (Chorus) So heave away, boys, heave away, For the truth rides every wave. The sea is the straightest life I’ve known, and the only one that saved. Wine and women and songs at night, and the dawn with a sailor’s plea— learned right from wrong on a heaving deck, for that’s the way of the sea.
(Verse 3)
But when I stepped ashore at last, after thirty years afloat, I found no honour in the halls where the landbound men all gloat. I saw shadows behind their smiles, and deeds no man should see—Corruption deep as the ocean trench, and treachery running free. (Bridge) Oh, the sea may roar, and the sea may rage, but she never lies to me. It’s the land that twists a good man’s heart with its quiet cruelty.
- (Final Chorus) So heave away, boys, heave away, For the truth rides every wave. The sea is the straightest life I’ve known, and the only one that saved wine and women and songs at night, and the dawn with a sailor’s plea— learned right from wrong on a heaving deck, for that’s the way of the sea.—On absentjustice.com, he writes of the way of the open sea → Alan Smith - 20/03/2026
One notable voyage stands out as illustrative of my views on trade and international relations. I firmly believe that Australia should provide wheat to a starving China out of a sense of humanitarian responsibility. However, I strongly oppose the government’s failure to secure a binding agreement that would prevent that wheat from being diverted to North Vietnam. As a seasoned seaman, I find Australia’s dealings in woodchips, natural gas, and oil particularly troubling, especially considering the absence of annual price reviews that could protect our interests in an ever-changing global market. It concerns me that many of our trade ministers come from legal backgrounds and lean heavily on bureaucrats who often lack practical, real-world maritime experience.
On September 26, 1997, John Pinnock, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the second administrator of the COT arbitrations, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee. He noted on page 99 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia Hansard record that:
“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.”
The Fallout
The words Pinnock delivered on 26 September 1997 did not vanish into the sterile air of the Senate chamber. They lingered, heavy and corrosive, like smoke that clings to the walls long after the fire has gone. For the COT Case claimants, his testimony was more than bureaucratic doublespeak — it was confirmation that the arbitration process had been hijacked and twisted into something unrecognisable. An injustice sixteen of the twenty-one COT Cases have had to live with for the past thirty years → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
Senate Evidence File No 12 reveals a dark and insidious reality: I was threatened on two occasions—August 16, 2001, and December 6, 2004—for contemplating disclosure of the secret In-Camera Hansard records dated July 6 and 9, 1998. Being charged with contempt of the Senate can result in a maximum sentence of 2 years in jail. These records expose a shocking truth: Senator Chris Schacht from South Australia openly stated that permitting compensation for only five COT cases, while neglecting the remaining sixteen, would be a flagrant injustice. The Senate Schedule unmistakably pointed to these unresolved cases, as well as the five that received compensation. Schacht's chilling words— "It would be an injustice for the remaining other sixteen"—echo the treachery of the system.
What unfolded for those five cases is a grim testament to this betrayal. I harbour no resentment towards them, as they have suffered immensely over the years. But while they were awarded a staggering $18 million in punitive damages between them, the rest of us—those left in the shadows—continue to wait for justice that feels increasingly unattainable.
The Inquiry That Never Was
How AUSTEL, Telstra, and Ericsson Colluded in Silence
When Robin Davey, Chairman of AUSTEL—the government’s own communications watchdog—and his General Manager of Consumer Affairs, John MacMahon, summoned me to Melbourne, I believed, perhaps naively, that the truth was finally breaking through the cracks. They wanted my help. They needed my evidence. They were investigating the widespread billing anomalies and catastrophic faxing failures linked to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges across Victoria.
For a moment, it felt as though the system was waking up. But beneath that thin veneer of official concern, something darker was already in motion.
I walked into that meeting carrying the very evidence that should have blown the lid off the entire Ericsson scandal. My arbitration was still underway, and my technical consultants had already warned the arbitrator—and even senators—that the AXE faults were real, systemic, and devastating. Yet no one stepped in. No one paused the process. No one protected the integrity of the arbitration. Instead, they let it run its course—straight into the ground.
What I didn’t know then was that the government had already made its choice. They weren’t gathering evidence to expose Ericsson. They were gathering it to bury it.
AUSTEL took my documents, my logs, my proof of systemic AXE failures—evidence that Telstra had concealed for years—and locked it away. They didn’t give it to the arbitrator. They didn’t disclose it to the Senate. They didn’t even acknowledge it publicly. They hid it (see Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l).
And then, five months after my arbitration collapsed under the weight of withheld evidence, AUSTEL quietly launched a secret investigation into the very same Ericsson AXE problems I had warned them about. They did it behind closed doors, without notifying me, the arbitrator, or correcting the injustice they had just allowed to unfold.
This wasn’t negligence. It was orchestration. The government knew Ericsson’s equipment was failing. They knew Telstra was covering it up. They knew the COT Cases were being crushed by falsified data, missing logs, and manipulated test results. And still—they chose silence. The truth is as stark as it is unsettling:→ Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?
AUSTEL, Telstra, and Ericsson worked in quiet alignment, each protecting the others and ensuring that the Ericsson AXE scandal never saw the light of day during the arbitrations.
------------------
How do you bring to light the quiet, bureaucratic violence inflicted on ordinary Australians who dared to challenge a government‑backed corporation?
How do you describe the psychological warfare of unanswered letters, delayed FOI requests, missing documents, and shifting goalposts? How do you show that this wasn’t mere administrative incompetence but a deliberate strategy: exhaust the claimants, confuse them, isolate them, and ultimately break them? How do you convey the cruelty of watching your evidence vanish into a bureaucratic void while the defendants enjoyed unrestricted access to your private communications? How do you articulate the despair of realising that the very government you trusted to protect your rights had instead weaponised its own processes against you? And how do you ensure that future generations understand that this wasn’t an accident of history but a calculated decision to sacrifice citizens in order to shield institutions?
How do you document a scandal so vast, so meticulously orchestrated, that even seasoned politicians struggle to believe it?
How do you recount the moment a Senator, after reading your draft, nearly broke down—not because your story was exaggerated, but because it was too real, too detailed, too damning? How do you explain that the corruption was not the work of a few rogue actors but a network of officials, consultants, lawyers, and executives who each played their part in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy? How do you show that the cover‑ups were not spontaneous but systematic, supported by layers of silence, loyalty, and fear? How do you capture the enormity of a scandal where the defendants intercepted your faxes, stored them, analysed them, and used them against you, all while the arbitrator’s office pretended your documents had never arrived? And how do you ask the nation to confront the possibility that this was not an isolated incident, but a template used in other arbitrations, perhaps still used today?
How do you hold a government to account when the very mechanisms designed to expose wrongdoing have been quietly neutralised?
How do you compel transparency from institutions that have mastered the art of selective disclosure, redaction, and bureaucratic fog? How do you force sunlight into rooms where decisions were made without minutes, without witnesses, without any traceable accountability? How do you challenge a system where Freedom of Information requests are treated not as a citizen’s right but as an inconvenience to be managed, delayed, or strategically denied? How do you confront a government that insists “no documents exist” when you have already seen the documents, referenced them, and in some cases held them in your hands before they mysteriously vanished from official archives? How do you expose a culture where truth is treated as a threat, where whistleblowers are punished, and where the preservation of institutional reputation is valued above the rights of the people those institutions are meant to serve? And how do you do all this while knowing that every step you take is being monitored, recorded, and quietly assessed by the very entities you are trying to expose?
How do you convince an unsuspecting public that an arbitration system—sold to them as fair, transparent, and independent—was in fact engineered to fail the very citizens it claimed to protect?
How do you peel back the polished veneer of “due process” to reveal the machinery beneath: a machinery built not for justice, but for containment, delay, and quiet disposal? How do you show that the so‑called safeguards, the “independent” assessors, the “impartial” administrators, were nothing more than window dressing designed to give the illusion of accountability while the real decisions were being made in back rooms, whispered between bureaucrats and corporate executives? How do you demonstrate that the outcome was predetermined long before the first document was filed, long before the first hearing was scheduled, long before the first claimant dared to believe that truth might prevail? And how do you do all this without the public recoiling in disbelief, insisting that such treachery could never occur in a modern democracy?
How do you expose a system where the very people entrusted to oversee fairness quietly became participants in the deception?
How do you reveal that the watchdogs—those appointed to ensure integrity—were in fact guarding nothing but the reputations of the powerful? How do you show that they turned a blind eye to evidence tampering, document withholding, and procedural sabotage, not because they were incompetent, but because they were complicit? How do you explain that these “umpires” were not neutral referees but silent partners in a scheme to protect a government‑owned corporation from accountability? How do you illustrate the moral decay required for an arbitrator to knowingly accept doctored reports, falsified test results, and incomplete evidence bundles, all while assuring the claimants that everything was above board? And how do you capture the chilling realisation that the system was never broken — it was functioning exactly as intended?
How can a government‑owned telecommunications carrier possibly expect trust when its very first act is deception dressed up as cooperation. They promise — in writing — to provide the documents you need to support your claim. They assure you that transparency will guide the process. But the moment you agree to fund your own arbitration, the mask slips. Suddenly, access to those crucial Freedom of Information documents is denied. The very evidence you were told would be available becomes “unavailable,” “delayed,” or “under review,” as if the truth itself has been placed in quarantine.
And when, after months of stonewalling, a handful of documents finally dribble out — long after your claim has been lost — they arrive mutilated. Entire pages blacked out. Sentences amputated. Names, dates, and technical details erased. What remains is a skeleton of information, stripped of meaning. Worse still, the documents are released without any coherent numbering system, making it impossible to trace related material or identify what has been withheld. It’s not incompetence.
It’s strategy.
This is not the behaviour of an organisation seeking fairness. It’s the behaviour of a defendant controlling the evidence while pretending to participate in justice. A web of deceit, carefully spun to keep you blind, isolated, and powerless. They hold the documents. They control the timing. They decide what you see and what you never will. And then they have the audacity to call it arbitration — as if the word alone could disguise the imbalance of power or the deliberate obstruction of truth.
If GS File 75, Exhibits 1 to 88, do not reveal the truth about how Telstra treated the COT Cases during our disputes or how it has treated any similar Australian citizen, I encourage you to consider the following internal memo from Telstra's General Manager to the Manager of Network Investigations regarding me and my business. The subject is the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp FOI folio Ko3281, which pertains to a briefcase accidentally left at my Holiday Camp on June 3, 1993, by Telstra senior network investigator Hew Macintosh. The memo states:
"I refer to our telephone conversation regarding the material contained in Mr Macintosh's briefcase.
Please find attached a letter from Austel (the government communications authority) regarding that incident. Whilst I can respond to the details regarding the information provided to him at the time of settlement, I cannot comment on the variation between what Mr Smith was told and the contents of the network Investigations files. I need your assistance for this. Can we discuss as soon as possible, please?"GS File 79 Exhibit 1 to 88
On 19 December 1995, Darren Kearney from AUSTEL visited my premises, seven months after my arbitration concluded. He assessed the valuation based on what the arbitrator had awarded me, without knowing the contents of the briefcases or the information I had received in a settlement on 11 December 1995. Mr Kearney stated that if the arbitrator had been aware of the misleading and deceptive information I was given during my 1992 settlement with Telstra, the valuation of my loss would have been threefold. Therefore, the award granted to me on 11 May 1995 would have been significantly higher.
While my situation is specific to my case, it reflects a common theme among other COT Cases, all of which have similar experiences. My case is not unique; I just happen to have the evidence to support my claims. Despite this, the government has never assessed my losses based on the evidence I provided to them on 19 December 1995. → see also An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
🕳️ A Pattern Too Deliberate to Ignore
As you scroll through the many mini‑reports and narratives on absentjustice.com, you will notice that some segments, exhibits, and images appear a second or even a third time. This is not an oversight. It is deliberate.
For more than thirty years, the government bureaucrats who shielded Telstra—along with the arbitrator and the government agencies that quietly enabled Telstra’s relentless attacks on our group—relied on repetition, obstruction, and silence to bury the truth. Their strategy was simple: drown the facts, exhaust the victims, and hope the public never noticed the pattern. To counter that, I have had to show, again and again, that what happened to the COT Cases was not a one‑off mistake or a bureaucratic misstep. It was a system. A machinery of protection that allowed Telstra to behave like a cancer, spreading through every layer of the arbitration process.
Revisiting the same evidence is the only way a reader can grasp the scale of this misconduct. Telstra’s own documents expose how the arbitration system was twisted—not to uncover the truth, but to suffocate it. Each repeated exhibit reveals another strand in a web of deceit, each recycled image another glimpse into a pattern of behaviour that resurfaced across years, across claimants, across every stage of the process.
This story cannot be understood through a single example. It must be unravelled through the recurring signs of institutional decay—the same lies, the same treacherous tactics, the same insidious cover‑ups—repeating themselves with chilling consistency. Only by recognising these patterns can the reader begin to comprehend the nightmare we, the Casualties of Telstra, endured. Our attempt to challenge the corrupt telecommunications services inflicted on our small businesses was met not with fairness, but with discrimination and contempt. We asked only for the same treatment afforded to other Australian enterprises. Instead, we were fed into a system that failed us repeatedly, a betrayal that felt calculated.
Don’t forget to hover your mouse over the images as you scroll down the homepage.
→ Are arbitrations conducted in Hong Kong scrutinised enough?
⚠️ A System Built to Conceal, Not to Correct
My journey through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the Freedom of Information process marked the beginning of a descent into a system that was not merely flawed, but disturbingly opaque. This was only the first chapter of two parallel processes I was forced to navigate, followed by eleven further remedies—all pursued because the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, refused to compel Telstra to address the telephone faults that crippled my business.
On 11 May 1995, Dr Hughes issued his findings. They ignored the ongoing telephone and fax problems that continued to sabotage my livelihood. Desperate for resolution, I allowed myself to be drawn into yet another government‑endorsed arbitration process, unaware that I was stepping deeper into a labyrinth designed to protect Telstra, not the truth.
What makes this even more sinister is that a government body later concluded my claims were neither frivolous nor vexatious. This stands in stark contrast to the baseless accusations circulated by certain individuals within the government—individuals who went on to oversee arbitrations globally, establishing offices in Hong Kong and Melbourne. One of them, John Rundell, has been implicated in altering and tampering with arbitration reports to covertly favour one side. This behaviour surfaced in my own arbitration and casts a long, cold shadow over every case he touched.
His conduct demands a transparent investigation. The evidence supporting this call lies in the details of The First Remedy Pursued, and every visitor to absentjustice.com should examine it before reading further.
Despite Judge GD Friedman stating, “I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it,” my claims continue to be ignored. This wilful dismissal of justice exposes the treachery embedded in the process—a treachery that has shaped my battle for decades. The corruption I have faced does not merely undermine my case; it threatens anyone who dares to enter an arbitration process overseen by these same disreputable individuals.
The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:
“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (Refer p33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
When AUSTEL representatives visited my venue, I also demonstrated that singles club customers regularly bought souvenirs before they left: printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA (the arbitration financial resource unit working for the arbitrator and Telstra) ignored all the income I lost from single-club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on souvenirs and the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.
In case the visitor has not grasped what has been said above:
By hovering your cursor or mouse over the Chronology of Events, you will be led to a document dated March 1994, referenced as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. This document confirms that government public servants investigating my ongoing telephone issues supported my claims against Telstra, particularly between Points 2 and 212. It is evident that if the arbitrator had been presented with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, he would have awarded me a significantly higher amount for my financial losses than he ultimately did.
Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not receive a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.
AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated 4 March 1994, confirmed that my claims against Telstra were validated (see points 2 to 212) before I was forced into arbitration under threat of the then Telecommucations Industy Ombudsman (TIO) Warwick Smith and Telstra that unless I sign for arbitration then Telstra and the TIO would collectively decline to further investigate my telephone faults which I alleged had been apparanty since February 1988, when I purchased the business.
Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of these findings AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at points 2 to 212 until November 23, 2007, 12 years after the termination of my arbitration process. In simple words, the government had already validated my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before April 21, 1994, when I signed the arbitration agreement.
But despite this proof, I was still required to endure 13 months in a gruelling arbitration process that cost me well over $300,000 in professional fees to prove something the government had already established.
Where Murdoch received compensation for Telstra’s failure, we received legal bills.Where Fox was treated as a partner, we were treated as a problem.Where the government protected a corporation’s commercial interests, it protected Telstra from its own citizens.
----------------
The Final Telstra Insult
When Cathy and I left Cape Bridgewater for the last time in February 2019, hoping to leave the nightmare behind, a towering billboard rose above the highway out of Portland. Its message hit like a blade. It wasn’t an upgrade announcement. It was a confession — a public admission that everything Telstra had sworn in 1994 was false.
“We’ve expanded Australia’s best network to Cape Bridgewater.”
For twenty‑four years, Telstra swore under oath that Cape Bridgewater enjoyed the same standard of telephone service as metropolitan Australia. Seven employees, seven signatures, all insisting my business had “world‑class” telecommunications and that any problems were long resolved.
Then, in late 2018, a new roadside placard appeared at the entrance to Cape Bridgewater announcing that a “world‑class telephone service” was soon to be introduced. Not celebrated. Not maintained. Introduced. A quarter of a century after those sworn statements — and seventeen years after I was forced to sell my business because that service never existed.
Cape Bridgewater never had the service Telstra claimed. Not in 1994. Not in 2001. Not until the upgrades were finally finished around 2018.
"The claimant adds that he continued to suffer transmission problems after March 1993, although since July 1994, he has had relatively little cause for complaint"
- Points 2 to 212 of the government communications authority reports (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, tell a completely different story — one that aligns with Telstra’s 2018 placard, including the statements made by Paul Howell of (Canada) in his formal report of April 1995 and the statements made by the new owners of my business in 2002 to 2006. The sworn witness statements should be reinvestigated by the boards Telstra and the current government 1994 sworn statements.
- Government records show AUSTEL’s adverse findings were provided to Telstra one month before Telstra and I signed the arbitration agreement.
- I did not receive those findings until 23 November 2007, long after the statute of limitations had expired.
“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.
“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” ( Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)
and
“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’,” (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)
What began in March 1988 as a simple fight for a fair go had become a long, punishing struggle against a system determined to break me. The arbitration process, supposedly a path to justice, unfolded like a performance whose ending had been written long before I stepped into the ring. Seven sworn statements painted a picture of a flawless rural network — a picture crafted to obscure, confuse, and suffocate the truth.
The government’s own secret investigation told a very different story. Its findings — withheld from me until 2007, twelve years too late to appeal — documented the same faults I had been reporting for years. Telstra received those findings a month before I signed the arbitration agreement. I didn’t see them until the statute of limitations had closed the door on justice.
Even the new owners of my business later confirmed what Telstra denied: the faults continued, the bookings failed, and the service remained broken. Their experience matched the government’s findings — and matched the 2018 placard — but not Telstra’s sworn evidence.
This was never an error. It was a strategy.
The Australian Government owned the network. It owned Telstra. It owned the arbitration process. And instead of ensuring fairness, it allowed Telstra to weaponise false statements to protect itself during privatisation.
Meanwhile, Cathy and I were left to run two telephone‑dependent businesses — Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Seal Cove Guest House — on a service so unreliable it crippled revenue and ultimately forced us to sell. We were misled. We were deceived. We were sacrificed to protect a government‑owned corporation.
And that 2018 placard still stands as the final insult — and the final proof — of the truth Telstra tried to bury.
---Telstra’s conduct during my arbitration was not merely incorrect—it was deeply sinister, unethical, and laced with deliberate deception. On 12 December 1994, seven employees of Telstra signed witness statements under oath, asserting to arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes that my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp received a telephone service "equivalent to the rest of Australia."
This was no innocent mistake; it was a calculated fabrication. They all knew it was false, and so did Telstra.
For years, Telstra maintained this deceitful narrative—swearing under oath that Cape Bridgewater possessed the same standard of service as metropolitan Australia. Yet in late 2018, Telstra brazenly erected a roadside placard at the entrance to Cape Bridgewater, heralding a forthcoming "world-class telephone service." This announcement came a staggering twenty-four years after those false sworn statements and seventeen years after I was forced to sell my business due to the nonexistent service they had promised.
This sign was not just an upgrade announcement; it was a damning confession. It exposed that Telstra’s nine witness statements were not only inaccurate but knowingly deceitful, meticulously crafted to mislead the arbitrator and destroy my rightful claims. It illustrated how the government-owned carrier lied to protect its interests during a legal process already under scrutiny for its egregious mishandling.
In his 11 May 1995 award, the arbitrator stated at point 3.2 (h), “The claimant adds that he continued to suffer transmission problems after March 1993, although since July 1994 he has had relatively little cause for complaint.” This assertion blatantly contradicts the findings from a secret government investigation into the very same complaints, findings that were intentionally withheld from the arbitration process until November 2007—twelve long years after my arbitration concluded. The findings presented in points 2 to 212 of the government communications authority reports convey an entirely different narrative, one that aligns perfectly with Telstra's 2018 placard—specifically, AUSTEL’s adverse findings.
Furthermore, Telstra's nine sworn witness statements starkly contrast with the testimonies provided by the new owners of my business, as highlighted in Chapter 4, "The New Owners Tell Their Story," and Chapter 5, "Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct."
Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) reveal that AUSTEL's adverse findings were submitted to Telstra (the defendants) a mere month before we signed our arbitration agreement. I, however, did not receive a copy of those findings until 23 November 2007, twelve years after the conclusion of my arbitration, far beyond the statute of limitations that barred me from using this information to challenge the arbitrator's ruling.
Cape Bridgewater never had the service Telstra so deceitfully claimed—not in 1994, not in 2001, and not until their so-called upgrades were finally completed in 2018. Yet, in their arrogance, Telstra misled the arbitrator, fully aware that my very livelihood depended on reliable telecommunications. They falsely proclaimed everything was resolved when in truth, nothing had changed. They declared our service had been made equal when it was patently inferior, and they insisted the issues were fixed while they ruthlessly dismantled my business.
This wasn’t merely an error—it was a calculated strategy, a treachery in plain sight.
The Australian Government owned the network, Telstra, and held control over the entire arbitration process. Instead of guaranteeing fairness, it colluded with Telstra, allowing them to weaponize lies to shield themselves from accountability. While Telstra executives and government bureaucrats closed ranks, my partner Cathy and I were left to manage two businesses—Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (1988–2001) and Seal Cove Guest House (2001–2018)—struggling with a service so disreputable that it shattered bookings, decimated revenue, and forced us to succumb to the pressures of a corrupt system.
We were misled. We were deceived. We were sacrificed by a government-owned corporation bent on protecting its interests as it prepared for privatization. The 2018 placard stands as a silent monument to the truth that Telstra desperately sought to bury: our service was never equal to that of the rest of Australia, and Telstra knew this well when they swore otherwise.
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston Sen Richard.
On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Unfortunately, because my case was settled three years prior, several other COT cases and I were unable to benefit from the valuable insights and recommendations of this investigation or from the Senate. Out of the twenty-one final arbitration and mediation cases, only five received punitive damages, along with their originally withheld FOI documents.
The entire process we were forced to endure was nothing short of corrupt, evil, treacherous, and sinister. From the outset, it was clear that this was not just a battle for justice but a dark labyrinth of deceit designed to silence and manipulate. The interconnected events of this saga played out like a meticulous web of betrayal, where every attempt to reveal the truth was met with an insidious response from those in power.
The government's actions were not merely negligent; they were calculated, a deliberate effort to obscure uncomfortable truths that would threaten their own interests. The wheat scandal from the 1960s exemplified a systemic refusal to act against wrongdoing, paving the way for similar abuses during the COT arbitrations. It was as though an invisible hand was guiding this treachery, ensuring that the darkest corners of dishonesty remained shrouded in secrecy.
As the Telstra privatisation unfolded, the collusion became even more evident. With falsified testing results heralded as credible proof of Telstra’s integrity, it was clear that trust was not just broken; it was weaponised against those seeking redress. The same governmental indifference that allowed the wheat shipments to corrupt ends echoed throughout the telecommunications scandal, illustrating a twisted pattern of conduct where truth was sacrificed for profit.
The very institutions meant to uphold justice were complicit in this treachery. The sale of Lane Telecommunications to Ericsson amid ongoing investigations was not just a conflict of interest; it was a heinous betrayal of the trust placed in them. The integrity of the arbitration was irreparably tarnished by this insidious manoeuvring, leaving us in a precarious position where our voices were muffled and our plight ignored.
To this day, the critical reports meticulously assembled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close, on Ericsson’s exchange equipment remain missing, swallowed whole by the shadows of a corrupt arbitration process. These documents were not merely evidence; they were the linchpin of my case, and their vanishing act signals a brazen betrayal of the very rules that should uphold justice. According to the arbitration guidelines, all submitted materials must be restitutioned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator's decision—yet here I am in 2026, still grasping at thin air.
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/)
Back in 1996, when my arbitration legal team began to untangle the web of deceit surrounding the arbitration agreement, we unearthed alarming irregularities—text covertly altered to shield the culpable technical consultants, specifically Lane. It is a staggering revelation that this treachery was facilitated with the blessing of both government and COT lawyers, who had sanctioned the original version, perhaps in exchange for their own vested interests. In the face of such conspiracy, I demanded the foundational documents from the arbitration administrator John Pinnock, desperate for insight into how this treachery could transpire beneath our noses. And what was his chilling response? Silence, laced with complicity.
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” — John Pinnock, 10 January 1996 ()
Even on the brink of signing the arbitration agreement, it had been insidiously tampered with behind our backs—manipulated to safeguard the interests of the arbitration consultants, Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct," vividly reveals. The three of us—Ann Grams, Graham Schorer, and I—were cornered into a grim choice: either exonerate the arbitration consultants by scrapping the $250,000,000 liability caps from the agreement and fully exonerate the legal arbitration counsel involved, or face the dire consequence of pursuing Telstra in court without any arbitration. Faced with this treacherous ultimatum, we reluctantly caved in.
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.
Every step of this convoluted path was fraught with malevolence, where every thread of our narrative was intertwined with the forces of corruption and treachery. It became painfully evident that the truth we fought so hard to uncover was not just unwelcome; it was dangerous to those who thrived in the shadows of deceit. The whole process was a grim testament to the lengths institutions will go to protect their own interests at the expense of justice and integrity.
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Like Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge of the legitimacy of the COT Cases' claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)PART IV — THE SURVEILLANCE NO ONE WOULD EXPLAIN
