My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu is the website that triggered a deeper investigation into criminal conduct in government—narcissism, treachery, immorality, and maleficence. 


Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have not held Telstra or the other entities involved in this deceit. 

It's essential for all new visitors to our website,, to start by reading the Introduction Robert Palmer Learning to Live text and the billions of dollars in identity fraud, theft, and fraudulently obtained information on citizens around the world. The story on is about the Casualties of Telstra (COT) and how they discovered that the Telstra Corporation, then owned by the Australian government, was embezzling millions of dollars from the public purse. Refer pages 5163 to 5169, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

The government had assured that the Australian Federal Police would address these issues if raised during the arbitration process set up to investigate claims against Telstra for not providing a proper phone service for the COT Cases to operate their businesses. During the arbitrations, the COT Cases proved that Telstra had influenced the arbitrator not to investigate phone and fax hacking of the COT Cases arbitration documents, but the government refused to investigate.

This investigation would have revealed in 1999 that Telstra was even screening legal documents en route to the COT arbitration consultants, government ministers and the Australian Supreme Court. All this evidence is attached to the appended download Evidence Files Corruption in Arbitration.

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

Absent Justice

Threats made by Telstra have NEVER been addressed 


No one apparently investigated whether the other Alan Smith, living in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, had received some of my arbitration mail.

I submitted some of Alan Smith's billing information, which I had received under FOI, to explain to the arbitrator that Alan Smith was also receiving threats from Telstra and their lawyers because he, like me, refuted the billing accounts for calls he did not make. The Cape Bridgewater Exchange was a mess concerning the phone problems before and during my arbitration.     

The following "COT Case Strategy" (discussed below in Senate Hansard Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-Cconfirms Telstra made threats that if I did not register my phone complaints in writing with their lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, then Telstra would not investigate my phone complaints, which in most cases, then became a billing complaint. Telstra's billing software could not determine if the line had jammed in this case. This meant the phone would lock up the phone service. The billing software could not determine whether this was a fault or whether someone on the line was talking for a long time. 

AUSTEL (the communications regulator) will acknowledge that this locking fault existed from 1992 until at least 1997. The Telstra corporation made millions upon millions of dollars of revenue while these locking-up faults existed. I also provided this evidence to Professor Alan Fels of Australian Consumer Affairs. I was called back into that office when the then ACA, now ACCC, realised what a minefield I had uncovered.

The other Alan Smith, who was also suffering major billing faults in the Cape Bridgewater Telstra service line, as the two letters show in the above image, was receiving threats from a debt collector to pay up. Suppose you look closely at these two threatening letters. In that case, you will see the fax imprint of Freehill Hollingdale & Page was the same Freehill Hollongdale & Page whom Telstra forced me to write to each time I had a telephone problem—the same Freehill's who were Telstra's arbitration lawyers to the COT arbitrations and the authors of the "COT Case Strategy" - Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C.


Criminal Conduct Example 1


Absent Justice - The Firm

The Firm - John Grisham 

It was while all this skulduggery and deception was taking place, and Denise McBurnie, along with Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had drained me of all my reserved energies to keep going, that I remembered the ruthless legal firm portrayed in John Grisham's 1991 novel The Firm.

As Telstra's arbitration lawyers during my settlement/arbitration process between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995, Freehill Hollingdale & Page did not provide me with any documentation regarding my written telephone complaints to them, a condition the Australian government is fully aware of had to be abided to by me if Telstra were to take my phone complaints seriously. Without those written complaints to Denise McBurnie, Telstra refused to investigate any problem affecting my faxing service, public gold coin-operated phone, or my 008/1800 free call service.

Please look at my comments concerning the terrible situation that Freehill Hollingdale & Page and their client Telstra placed me in. All this was brought about after two Telstra officials had inadvertently left an open briefcase at my promises on 3 June 1993. This exposed how corrupt the Telstra Corporation had been during my 11 December 1992 settlement process, where they fabricated evidence to show how bad the phone service in Australia was Manipulating the Regulator and Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

Starting on page 5163, this SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australiashows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure applied by the COT Cases for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra's ongoing phone problems was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. It seemed Telstra could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting/stealing of public money was being organised nationally. 

Many people threatened the COT cases because our persistence in gaining fully functional phone systems was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansardwere being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE Official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and several senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition from either the government or Telstra for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants, and our lives and the lives of our loved ones have been ruined. 


Forced members to proceed with arbitration. 

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston


On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.

“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 [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

It's essential to remember that Telstra was the defendant in the COT arbitrations, and they could not have coerced the COT Cases into arbitration without providing the necessary documents unless both the arbitrator and administrator had agreed to this forceful tactic. It's imperative to remember that justice should always be impartial, and all parties involved should have equal opportunities to present their case. Therefore, ensuring that such tactics are not used in legal proceedings. It is clear from the Senate findings this was not the case. So why were Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith awarded these honours? It was a slap in the face of justice, especially when John Pinnock, the second TIO to be appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, on 26 September 1997 (two years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine) alerted a Senate Estimates Committee ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) that:  

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—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 of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-Cinstructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

The deliberate targeting of four small business operators by the government-owned telecommunications carrier, in collaboration with the government's principal legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to prevent them from receiving their requested documents to prove their losses due to the poor telephone service provided by the government-owned corporation Telstra is an egregious abuse of power. After weeks, and in some cases years, of delays, the documents were finally provided following the conclusion of my arbitration. However, they failed to include schedules showing the relevance of the concealed information. It is clear that the COT Cases' lives were sacrificed to protect the interests of the Telstra corporation at all costs.


The documents were unreadable. 

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

They were worthless 

It is paramount that the visitor reading understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 percent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

  • "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride [sic]. Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such important friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Peter Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest chance of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Peter Redlich or Ms Elizabeth Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report - Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblina forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults to these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back from Telstra under Freedom of Information the same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that the lawyer with whom you were being forced to register your phone complaints devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business (see (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-Con how Telstra could conceal requested technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged (see page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

This raises serious questions about Elizabeth Holsworthy (if it is one of the same) professionals' integrity and involvement in a campaign to destroy the first four arbitration claimants, who should never have been forced into arbitration, as my story confirms.

I want to highlight that Elizabeth Holsworthy, mentioned in the official Hansards, was a partner at Freehill Hollingdale & Page and a Board member of Telstra when Freehill prepared "The COT Strategy", which was used against the first four COT Cases. She is likely the same lawyer who is now a high-profile judge in the Australian Court system.

If Elizabeth Holsworthy is the same person involved in that terrible campaign against the COT Cases, which also targeted me and my business, it raises significant concerns. How can a person who had to have known about this COT Strategy as a partner of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who drafted the Strategy and sat on the Telstra board at the time it was used to ruin our four lives and the lives of our loved ones? How can this person continue to sit on the judge's bench, aware of what she condoned?

Criminal Conduct Example 2

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

Absent Justice - Further Insult to Injustice

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

In my initial meeting with Ian Joblin in September 1994, I conveyed my heightened stress levels to him. I had previously discussed this matter with Mr. Barnard, a fellow psychologist in Melbourne, and with my local psychologist in Portland, who was providing treatment for my stress-related issues. These stressors reemerged after being forced into arbitration without the documents I had formally provided to Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page if Telstra were to take my telephone and facsimile complaints seriously.

Telstra refused to provide fault data despite several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. I had previously given this data to Ms. McBurnie so that Telstra could investigate my ongoing telephone problems. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms Philippa Smith, and her Director of Investigations, John Wynack, had tried to access the same fault complaint documents between January 20, 1994, and October 4, 1997, three years after my arbitration was completed. By the time Telstra forced me into arbitration, I was already suffering from severe stress.

My Joblin was adamant that he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra's treatment of me was not proper and fit and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed. 

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to Ian Joplin's initial writing about me being of sound mind and suffering stress due to the conduct of the arbitration process and the unethical way Freehill Hollingdale & Page treated me leading to my arbitration?  

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, proving that the COT story must be investigated.  

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses

Senator Bill O’Chee (was most concerned that John Pinnock had not provided me any response to his letter on 21 March 1997 to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin). This no response prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Telstra's Graeme Ward, regulatory and external affairs (see File GS-CAV 293-B -GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323  on 26 June 1998 from, stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous as Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

It is May 2024, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

Criminal Conduct Example 3

Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.  

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements. 


Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in-confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?


At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australiamy bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.

Similar injustices were experienced in the COT case of Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Between October 2006 and April 2024, Sandra Wolfe continued to email to inform me that her Telstra FOI / Mental Health Act issue and her withheld arbitration-related document issues had still not been resolved.

Who We Are

As I write this, it is now May 2024 and still, every time I go back to finalise various parts of this website, I have to re-read all the complex details that make up the whole, true, terrible story; my anxiety levels instantly begin to rise alarmingly. No matter what I do, finding the right words to finish the dreadful story is hard. The problem is that none of the COT cases, all honest Australian citizens, should have ever been forced into a situation that would eventually leave us all dealing with so many still-unaddressed crimes. As this website clearly shows, The situation is worsened by those who worked with Telstra to carry out those still unaddressed crimes. Telstra has so much power that it can stop any authorities, including government authorities, from transparently investigating any of those crimes. It's time to end this injustice and hold those responsible accountable. 

Learn More ⟶  

Who We Are
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan's book


Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats made and carried out.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate why were my FOI documents being withheld from me during my arbitration:

“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?” (Senate Evidence File No 31)

As I have reiterated throughout this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings came to fruition, and the withholding of pertinent documents is deeply concerning. Regrettably, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact of this malpractice on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Despite assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the illicit interception of phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, they never came to my aid.

Read About Our Dealings With

Learn More ⟶

Quote Icon

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice 

The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12shows I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose the 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansard, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though these Hansards could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)

Where is justice being served by the Senate, originally set up in Rome centuries ago to be a place for the people to access justice? Throwing me in jail for exposing the truth surrounding what the Senate found regarding Telstra's unethical conduct perpetrated against the COT Cases appears to be in conflict with the reason Australia has a Senate. I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing these Australian In-Camber Senate Hansard of 6 and 9 July 1998, which the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me, thinking my releasing them publically would bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion. 

In fact, after one National Party senator, Ron Boswell, verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on
 Contact Us