Government Corruption - absentjustice.com

Be sure to hover your mouse or cursor over the image to the left of this page and the images below.

The two evidence files, Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, unveil a disturbing and intricate pattern of corruption that developed before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. They document how government representatives became deeply entangled in a morally questionable framework that betrayed their public duty. In the shadows, powerful officials formed a clandestine alliance, prioritising their own personal interests and agendas over the well-being of the very citizens they were sworn to serve independently.

This breach of trust not only undermined the citizens’ faith in their government but also severely compromised the transparency and integrity of the investigation into the arbitration claims against Telstra. As a result, the process became tainted, leaving COT claimants marginalised and unheard. The telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra relied upon in these dealings was shrouded in controversy, further raising concerns about accountability and ethical conduct among those in positions of power. The ramifications of this corrupt alliance extend far beyond the immediate arbitration claims, impacting the broader landscape of public trust in government institutions and regulatory agencies.

One particularly shocking incident underscores the depths of this corruption: crucial evidence, which could have illuminated the secret dealings of a government-owned corporation, was willfully and systematically destroyed. This reckless act raises profound concerns about the accountability and transparency that should underpin public governance. Furthermore, during the review of the highly contentious COT Cases, vital information was purposefully redacted from official records, creating a deceptive façade of compliance while obstructing the pursuit of truth. This deliberate manipulation of information allowed the corporation to evade the scrutiny it so richly deserved, escaping the severe consequences of its actions.

Those tasked with examining archived documents found themselves ensnared in a tangled web of suppressed disclosures, navigating a labyrinth specifically designed to thwart the pursuit of justice. This oppressive environment effectively subverts the foundational principles of fairness and public trust, leaving citizens to grapple with a system that betrays their essential rights. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond mere bureaucratic incompetence; they present a significant threat to the very integrity of democratic institutions.

The relentless tide of corruption and manipulation erodes public confidence and undermines the societal framework, creating a grim atmosphere where accountability and justice are mere illusions, obscured by layers of deceit. The dark undercurrents of this governmental decay call for urgent and decisive action to dismantle the corrupt machinery and restore the fundamental principles of democracy, ensuring that the rights and voices of citizens are no longer silenced in the shadows of greed and malfeasance.

Anyone who uses a telephone has at some time reached a recorded voice announcement (known within the industry as RVA): 'The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.' This incorrect message was the most frequent response when incoming callers to my business, between February 1987 and August 1991, attempted to ring the Camp. While Telstra never acknowledged what I later discovered among 1994 FOI documents, was an internal Telstra memo stating: -

'This message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader.' AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

This document was deliberately concealed from Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in the COT Case, as well as from his expert technical consultants, DMR Group Inc. (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. This concealment occurred during their findings on April 30, 1995, and May 11, 1995, where they erroneously stated that the specific fault lasted no more than sixteen days. This statement stands in stark contrast to Telstra's arbitration defence report B003, dated December 12, 1994, which documented that the RVA fault actually persisted for less than three weeks and had a profound impact, disrupting 50% of all traffic to Cape Bridgewater.

Moreover, an electronic radio message revealed that fifty per cent of all incoming calls to my business had been suspended for a staggering four years and six months. This shocking duration reveals a significant discrepancy compared to the mere three-week timeframe referenced by Dr. Gordon Hughes, who at the time of the arbitration served as the arbitrator and is currently the Principal of Collision Lawyers Melbourne.

Every reader who takes the time to review the evidence posted on absentjustice will find it not only factually accurate but also firmly backed by Telstra's own documentation, along with government records that reference AUSTEL's adverse findings. It is of utmost importance to me to bring to light these lies and treacherous actions that have been shrouded in silence for the past three decades. I feel a deep obligation to share this truth, even if doing so poses risks to my health. The stress of this ordeal has already played a significant role in my two heart attacks, the last of which occurred in 2018, bringing me perilously close to losing my life.

Another Telstra document referred to the need for

a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied … I am sure when we start to scratch around, we will find a host of network circumstances where inappropriate RVAs are going to line. AS6 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

For a newly established business like ours, this was a major disaster. Still, despite the memo's acknowledgement that such serious faults existed, Telstra never admitted the existence of a fault in those first years. With my continued complaints, I was increasingly treated as a nuisance caller. This was rural Australia, and I was supposed to put up with a poor phone service, not that anyone in Telstra was admitting that it was poor service. In every case, 'No fault found' was the finding by Telstra's technicians.

This Telstra internal email, FOI folio C04094, dated April 21, 1993, is from Greg Newbold and addressed to several Telstra executives. It discusses the latest developments regarding COT cases and related complaints. The email outlines how Telstra should respond by suggesting that those who continue to pursue these matters could end up in court, effectively becoming "lawyer fodder," as indicated in the following Telstra memo:

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88

These Telstra executives overlooked the fact that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, have severely damaged the Australian economy, while powerful bureaucrats attempted to address this issue with talk of reform.

The current Telstra Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, had the opportunity to improve my situation in January and April 1998 when she was made aware of my claims regarding the international testing conducted by Bell Canada International Inc. However, the evidence I submitted was fundamentally flawed in the eyes of the arbitrator handling my case, and she has continued to withhold that evidence for twenty-seven years. As of 2025, she is still sitting on this damning it, while teaching her children that honesty prevails.

In June 2025, Richard Alston, one of the two former Liberal government ministers appointed to investigate the Liberal government's shortcomings in adequately serving its constituents, undertook a critical examination of the factors contributing to their failure in the recent 2025 elections. This investigation was not merely a formality; it aimed to uncover systemic issues within the party that have plagued its relationship with the electorate.

To understand the context, we can look back at the period from 1993 to 2004, when Senator Alston served first as the Shadow Minister for Communications and then as the Minister for Communications. During this time, he was presented with alarming evidence regarding Telstra, Australia’s primary telecommunications provider. This evidence disclosed that misleading electronic recordings had been transmitted through Telstra's network for over four years, falsely informing callers that the business they were attempting to reach was not connected. This misrepresentation significantly impacted customers’ trust in the telecommunications system, as Telstra was, and remains, the only major telecommunications network in Australia.

 

At Senator Alston's explicit request, this critical evidence came to light, revealing stark inconsistencies in Telstra's claims. Telstra had misled the COT Cases arbitrator by stating that the misleading recordings had lasted merely three weeks. However, the evidence presented to Senator Alston painted a vastly different picture, indicating that these deceptive recordings had persisted for several years.

 

The implications of this issue were profound and had a significant impact on the arbitration process I was involved in, which had garnered the endorsement of both Senator Alston and Senator Ron Boswell, as well as support from three other related arbitration processes. The importance of this evidence was not just theoretical; it was crucial in establishing a foundation for my case. Key figures, including the Hon. David Hawker MP, highlighted the gravity of the situation in parliamentary discussions, underscoring the level of concern surrounding Telstra's practices (Refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, Points 2 to 212

 

At that time, Senator Alston was focused on fortifying his position in preparation for the upcoming 1996 elections, making the apparent disregard for such pivotal evidence even more perplexing. Given that this critical evidence was brought forward not once, but twice, by two independent sources, it raises essential questions about why these serious allegations have remained unaddressed by Richard Alston and the Liberal government for nearly three decades. 

 

Today, it is ironic that the current Liberal government is placing its trust in Richard Alston to pinpoint where it has failed its constituents. This reliance is particularly troubling in light of the historical context and the lingering questions surrounding Alston's previous inaction regarding such significant evidence. The shortcomings of the past continue to cast a long shadow over the present, casting doubt on the party’s ability to evolve and truly serve the public’s interests.

On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), which Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed. Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, at my business, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, had been experiencing problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the following was noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file indicates that Telstra encountered significant issues when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at Graham’s office.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

 

Faxed COT arbitration-related documents screened and intercepted 

Fighting on two fronts 

Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases’ businesses and, furthermore, it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process.  This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:

1. How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken simultaneously by two organisations, namely an arbitrator and the AFP? To the best of our knowledge, this situation is unprecedented in any other Western democracy.
2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with their investigations?
3. Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?

Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation, but these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being conducted concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act 1984), for failing to supply the COT cases with the promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. The investigation began before the COTs signed their arbitration agreements and continued for five years.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration?

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put many questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
2. Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
3. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
4. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
5. Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
6. Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
7. How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?

The response to Question 5 (see Main Evidence File No/29) notes, “…These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom;"

It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom”.

Telstra’s claim (when referring to Question 5 On Notice) that it would be inappropriate for them to comment on these phone interception issues whilst the AFP was still investigating these matters is, in itself, the typical and expected comment that Telstra lawyers would have ensured that Telstra would make, under those circumstances.  No other form of investigation by any other authority should have taken place whilst the AFP were still investigating where the arbitration relation documents were vanishing to. These were breaches of the Privacy Act if those documents were not just lost in Telstra's network. The primary reason the COT Cases were in arbitration was to determine whether these were legitimate cases or if the faxes were being hijacked by those paying for this unlawful service to gain an advantage over their competitors.

The Australian Federal Police, specifically Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penros, alerted me to this possibility, naming two organisations where this was occurring. This was after I showed Mr Penrose samples of 81 intended calls to my business that had come into the Portland telephone exchange but had been electronically switched to another source as well as showing Mt Penrose 8 of those intended calls because they came through my 008/1800 freecal service line with was trucked of my prinispla 055 267 267 service I was charged for those calls. Losing 81 incoming telephone calls over two months, as these records show, could singularly wipe out a small business operator, which this was gradually doing. 

Before I signed for my arbitration

Before I signed for my arbitration, on 21 April 1994, I used a similar response to questions from the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations) when I advised the TIO that it would be unworkable for the Arbitrator to start my arbitration while the AFP had not yet concluded their investigation, particularly since the COT spokesperson and I were both seeking compensation from Telstra as part of our arbitration claims and in direct relation to Telstra’s breaches of the Interception Act. 

As if it were yesterday, I still clearly remember that the TIO stated he would conduct his investigations tactfully, along with the Arbitrator, and that their investigation would not impede the then-present AFP investigations.  As shown in our Front Page Part One, the arbitrator allowed Telstra to cross-examine me regarding what the AFP had uncovered during my arbitration.

Telstra’s statement to the Senate Estimates Committee (at point 5) that: “It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police”, clearly raises the question of why the COT Cases were forced into arbitration while the AFP were still investigating exactly the same breaches of privacy claims that were also to be investigated by the arbitrator because how can there be two investigations, by two separate bodies, into the same complaints, at the same time? What if the AFP and the arbitrator came up with conflicting findings? Which findings would the arbitrator then use to calculate and pay compensation?

Of course, the arbitration process was unworkable while the AFP was involved.

What finally happened is that neither the AFP nor the arbitrator produced a record of any findings concerning the (now proven) invasion of my privacy. More than two decades later, after neither side made a decision, the COT Cases have been left to live with these unresolved issues, even though it has cost each of us hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in this arbitration charade.

The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report 

January 1994: A Telstra arbitration liaison officer faxed this document to the TIO concerning the appointment of an assessor for the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. The words across the top of this document, in the space that should record the sender’s business identification, are absent, and it records only the wording “Fax from” followed by the fax number. The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report discusses this “Fax from” issue (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13). The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why the illegal interception of these legally confidential documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations when these illicit acts were first discovered. Who were the faceless people soon termed the “forces at work”?

My Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) Accountant Selwyn Cohen sent me a fax on 21 January 1994 stating:

“I refer to your facsimile of 10.42am on 17th January 1994. The fax cover sheet refers to 7 pages being sent. Unfortunately, I only received 2 pages. Please forward the remaining 5 pages to enable me to begin the required work.” (See AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C)

This was the fourth time between the Christmas period of 1993 and the present that Mr Cohen had problems sending or receiving documents from me.

31 January 1994: A comparison of my phone/fax account, 055 267230, with the two Telstra CCAS documents, FOI numbers K01410 and K01411, confirms that someone within Telstra has handwritten the names of the people I spoke to and/or faxed. 

Transcripts from my interview with the AFP on 26th September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) confirm that the AFP were alarmed that Telstra had gathered private information about me, including documenting on this CCAS data the names of the people I had telephoned daily. This CCAS data was supplied to Warwick Smith and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.

Stedman Cameron, Lawyers & Solicitors, wrote to me on 2 February 1994, stating:

“We note that you did not receive two pages at all and only the number 2 from the third page and the signature from the last page of the facsimile sent to you at approximately 2.23pm on the 1st February, 1994. It was successfully sent approximately two hours later.” (AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C) 

Telstra’s FOI document (M34363) dated 4 February 1994 was not made available to the arbitrator or me during my arbitration, even though Telstra’s FOI numbering system (M followed by a number) indicates to Telstra and the TIO’s office that I was still reporting problems with my fax transmissions during my FTSP process (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24).

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police enquiries into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones. Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters.” (This exhibit was not made avaialable to me during my arbitration)

On 8 February 1994, The Hon Michael Lee, Minister for Communications, wrote to the Hon Duncan Kerr, MP, Minister for Justice: (Note: this document is held in the Government archives.)

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police inquires into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones.

Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters”.

All of the above information, along with the information Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two was provided to the Then Honable Senator Richard Altson, now minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts by both myself and the Hon David Hawker MP, who forms the following image that should be cliked on to gain more evidence that should have been acted on by Senator Richard Alston when it was supplied as additional information in April 1996, two months after the John Howard government won office,

Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two

In the wake of the devastating defeat of the Liberal Government in the May 2025 Australian Federal election, the party has tasked two former senior ministers with investigating the causes of their failure: Alan Stockdale, a prominent Victorian State Minister, and Senator Richard Alston, a well-known Federal Liberal Minister.

You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting  Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy. 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government entirely owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications, allowing the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the claimant's claims and losses, but also bowed to Telstra and allowed the carrier to run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable. Government records show that a further sixteen Australian small business operators joined our group, then known as the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short).

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and foreign corruption programs, as well as the absence of justice.com, the website that triggered a deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, present significant challenges, including tampering with evidence and government corruption, as well as gaslighting. 

An examination of "Manipulating the regulator and The eighth remedy pursued" reveals that public servants in the John Howard government were aware that the records of the Department of Communications, Technology, and the Arts had been intentionally altered. This manipulation was done to conceal the truth about Telstra's unlawful conduct towards the COT Cases, preventing these issues from being exposed during the later stages of Telstra's privatisation. 

While the examination of the two links nominated above confirms that the claims made on absentjustice.com are valid, hovering your mouse or curson over → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG will make it clear that the Telstra board should never have approved the $400 million default clause payable to Murdoch/Fox if the cable rollout period was not met, especially knowing that Telstra could not meet that rollout period. 

Are our governments genuinely focused on serving the needs and interests of their citizens, or are they increasingly swayed by the agendas of influential, unelected billionaires who operate within the shadows of global organisations such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum? These influential figures, often disconnected from the everyday realities of ordinary people, wield significant influence over policy decisions that impact our lives. As these institutions push for a global agenda, we must ask ourselves: Who is really in charge, and whose voices are being prioritised?

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

In the summer of 1999, while immersed in the intricacies of drafting a pivotal section of my story, I had the opportunity to share my manuscript with Helen Handbury, the sister of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Helen was profoundly troubled by the stark denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had been subjected to. After perusing my draft, she made two visits to my idyllic Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, proclaiming with conviction, "I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked."

During her second visit, Helen arrived with a fresh sense of determination, her mind buzzing with ideas and insights sparked by my manuscript featured on absentjustice.com. Our discussions flowed effortlessly as she passionately conveyed her intent to share the compelling evidence presented on the website with her brother, convinced that he would be deeply disturbed by Telstra's blatant disregard for fundamental justice..

As I weighed the implications of what I might disclose, thoughts of the long-standing telephone chaos flooded my mind. I hesitated to confront Helen with the knowledge that Rupert was aware of Telstra's troubling and unethical practices. These ongoing violations have resulted in millions of dollars in lost revenue, affecting not just individual livelihoods but entire communities. Many Australians were trapped in the relentless grip of persistent telephone issues, some enduring these disruptions for over a decade. The repercussions of this situation have been profound, leaving an indelible mark on countless lives and underscoring the urgent need for accountability and reform.

One element of my narrative that particularly troubled Helen was the extensive evidence I had meticulously compiled, vividly illustrating the prolonged and illegal hacking of my faxes that had targeted me. This distressing intrusion was not just a past issue; it was still an ongoing nightmare at the time of Helen's visit, casting a long shadow over my business operations. In that summer of 1999, the scandal involving the News of the World and the notorious hacking issues surrounding her brother had yet to erupt in public consciousness, making our discussions all the more poignant and prescient.

In the wake of our exchanges, I gathered compelling evidence for the Australian Federal Police, detailing the unauthorised interference with my faxes that had transpired during various arbitration proceedings dating back to 1994. The documentation I presented to Helen strongly suggested that this fax hacking issue remained unresolved at my business premises in 1999, a staggering four years after my arbitration was expected to have rectified these critical injustices.

On June 3, 1993, an unexpected incident unfolded at my then-owned Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Two Telstra representatives, Hew Mackintosh and David Stockdale, accidentally left an open briefcase behind. Curiosity piqued, I gently opened the flap of the briefcase and was immediately confronted with a file prominently labelled "Smith Cape Bridgewater." As I began perusing the contents of that folder, I had no idea that my life was about to take a dark and distressing turn, a journey I now detail on this website.

What stands out most about this briefcase affair is the shocking realisation that I wasn’t alone in my struggles. Upon reviewing the documents, I found that numerous others in Victoria, Australia, were experiencing similar phone issues. A sense of urgency washed over me when I recalled that, six months prior to this incident, AUSTEL—then the government communications authority, now known as ACMA—had prompted Telstra to undertake an independent investigation into my claims of severe phone-related losses. The unsettling contents of the briefcase confirmed my worst fears: leading up to the assessment process on December 11, 1992, Telstra's senior management had engaged in a calculated campaign of deceit, misleading me about the true extent of my telecommunications problems. This same management team would later manipulate the narrative during a government-endorsed arbitration process that commenced on April 21, 1994, distorting the truth to mislead the appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, about the systemic nature of my issues—problems that would linger long after the arbitration concluded.

Instead of choosing to publicly expose the troubling evidence, which would later emerge to support AUSTEL, I opted for a more discreet approach. Armed with an outdated fax machine that seemed to falter at every turn due to my ongoing phone issues, I painstakingly copied whatever information I could. I then passed this vital evidence to COT spokesperson Graham Schorer, who swiftly couriered it to AUSTEL the very next morning.

Had I intended to embarrass Telstra and seek self-aggrandisement, I would have ultimately harmed my own interests. Instead of offering assistance, as AUSTEL had when it first recognised the damning nature of the information, it initiated a campaign to discredit me. In essence, the government shot the messenger, leading to a tumultuous and traumatic existence for both my partner, Cathy, and me for over thirty years. Our attempts to expose the arbiters of deception and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—who grossly undervalued my legitimate claims and even resorted to falsehoods in writing to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—have only compounded our struggles. These misrepresentations thwarted an objective investigation into the conduct of my arbitration, which would have revealed the shocking degradation of Telstra's network during its privatisation.

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an important aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honor and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.

In this challenging context, a crucial question arises: Should we celebrate and support those who risk their security and reputation to expose misconduct, thereby fostering a culture of accountability? Or should we condemn their actions, viewing them as threats to stability and order? The answer to this question can significantly influence the ethics of transparency within our communities and shape how society values integrity versus conformity. Ultimately, creating an environment that supports whistleblowers may be essential for nurturing a just and equitable society.

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.

• Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
• The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 
• In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken  by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)

I also wrote to the Hon. Robert Clark, the Federal Attorney-General, on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases. 

If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to report incidents that they believe are crimes, as doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats. 

The Bernard Collaery issue, coupled with the extensive transcripts from the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 and the comprehensive Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), vividly illustrates the complications that arise when specific individuals in government delve into legal matters that demand transparency. Ideally, these matters should provide all parties involved with a fair opportunity for representation. However, the findings outlined in the Scandrett & Associates report reveal that this ideal has often not been met. The following statements, extracted from the report, further emphasise these troubling inconsistencies:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 7 January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the images below. 

The arbitrations were nothing more than a kangaroo court - a show trial. 

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea, which I had spent the previous 28 years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond. Of all the places I had visited in the world, I chose Cape Bridgwater, Portland, Victoria, Australia, as my home.

My business is hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age newspaper. It was located in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland. Everything seemed perfect. I performed my “due diligence” to ensure that the business was sound, or at least, all of the due diligence I was aware I needed to accomplish. Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business, I realized I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were reaching out to me—not by phone, but through Australia Post. In some cases, they even decided to drive to inform me of their issues. One such instance came from a customer in Ballarat, Victoria.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria, mainly organised by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact. The Calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline — no sound at all. Finally, after trying in vain for an entire week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements.

 

 

The camp was a success, with fifty or sixty children learning to bond through group activities over five days of fun and learning. 

Twelve months later, in March 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, attempted to make contact via the Portland telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp, aware of the problems experienced the previous year. Sister Donnellon persisted over several days until she hit the jackpot.  Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

In 1997, after I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, "Absent Justice, Sister Burke acknowledged my story, noting:

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Yes, that’s right. I had a business to run and a phone service that was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, nonexistent. Of course, we lost business as a result.

And so, my saga begins with a quest to obtain a working phone for my property. Along the way, I received some compensation for business losses and numerous promises that the issue would be resolved if a group of small business operators and I funded our arbitration to hold Telstra accountable for failing to meet its service obligations as per its operating license. Unfortunately, the telephone issues were not resolved on the day the arbitrator delivered his findings on May 11, 1995. I sold my business in December 2001, and within days of the new owners taking over, their dream business faced a fate similar to mine. → Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Other independent businesspeople similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our various problems, rectify them, and then compensate us for our losses.  A working phone: is that too much to ask?

We initially asked for a full Senate investigation into Telecom in general and these issues in particular. We were offered, as an alternative, an arbitration process. It seemed like a good way to resolve the problem, so we accepted this alternative. At this early stage, we had honestly expected that the technical problems preventing our phones from working would be resolved.

No such luck. Suspicions that something was amiss in the arbitration process began almost immediately. We had been promised that the Telecom documents we needed to make our case would be made available to us if we entered into arbitration. Despite the promise, they have never been made available, and we still do not have those documents to this day. We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines were being illegally tapped.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

• “I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 that Telstra admitted in writing 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. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

 

 

Worse, we had been tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered all of our efforts since. I am breaking the provisions of that clause by making this information public, but what choice do I have? What we did not know when we signed our government-endorsed arbitration and confidentiality agreement that had been secretly drafted by Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, is that it had been designed so as not to provided enough time in the agreement for us to access the necessary documents to prove our claims or provided the process a properally prepared technical report. In other words, it was a Kangaroo Court set up by Telstra, in conjunction with an alleged arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman as administrator.

The next crucial chapter in our journey involved a determined effort to harness the Freedom of Information (FOI) process to secure the promised yet withheld documents. We firmly believed that vital evidence resided within each of the telephone exchanges, particularly in the meticulously maintained daily logbook. This logbook, signed daily by technicians, captures every activity and documents each fault reported by customers, serving as an essential record of the diligent investigations carried out by the skilled technicians assigned to those exchanges.

In my situation, it was this very logbook that the government relied upon to evaluate my claims before the start of my arbitration process. I have now included it as part of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, between Points 2 to 212 dated March 1994.

Anyone examining this government-prepared report will likely conclude that had I also obtained the logbook for the Cape Bridgewater/Portland telephone exchange, just as the government did, I would have been awarded a significantly more favourable outcome. Instead, I found myself facing the bitter reality of spending over $300,000 in professional arbitration fees, trying to validate claims that the government had already substantiated a full six weeks before my thirteen months of arbitration commenced.

The COT (Claimants of Telstra) cases involved a group of individuals who were inadequately informed about the far-reaching implications of a crucial confidentiality clause embedded within their arbitration agreements. This clause was particularly significant as it stipulated that if Telstra, along with the appointed arbitrator, failed to effectively address the persistent telephone issues that prompted the claimants to seek arbitration, the claimants would be strictly forbidden from disclosing these unresolved issues to any external parties, including the media and regulatory bodies.

This so-called "gag clause" functioned as a formidable obstacle, effectively silencing the claimants and preventing them from pursuing external assistance or publicly reporting the ongoing failures related to the telephone services. As a direct result, many businesses faced increased vulnerability, leading to a deteriorating operational environment and significant harm to their profitability. The frustration stemming from unresolved technical issues not only impeded their daily business operations but also threatened their long-term viability.

The lack of transparency inherent in this situation compounded the difficulties faced by the claimants. They found themselves trapped in a nightmarish cycle, unable to seek recourse from relevant regulatory authorities or other organizations that might have offered support or advocacy. The absence of third-party oversight and accountability in the arbitration process not only stifled their voices but also placed immense financial and operational pressures on them, making it increasingly challenging to navigate the complexities of their business environments.

 

 

As the situation continued to deteriorate, many claimants were ultimately forced to make the heartbreaking decision to sell their businesses, often at a loss. The thought of giving up years of hard work and investment was devastating. For Telstra and the arbitrator to properly investigate the ongoing issues affecting these businesses, the government would need to confront an uncomfortable truth: the arbitration process had failed to achieve its primary objective of resolving the telephone faults before the arbitrator issued his award. If the phone problems were still present as they were before the claimants entered arbitration, it meant that the process had failed, just as the previous processes involving the four COT Cases did in 1992 and 1993.

Recognising that the process had yet again failed would not only affect the individual claimants but could also have far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining public confidence in the entire arbitration system and raising serious questions about the arbitrator's ability to manage the procedure effectively.

Seven years after my arbitration concluded, I sold the business in December 2001, despite the ongoing telephone issues that the arbitration process could not resolve. By February 2002, the new owners Jenny and Darren Lweis, were seeking assistance from the same government official, the Hon. David Hawker MP, who had been helping me since 1992—with the same phone problems that persisted for a decade → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration noting:

“Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.

“After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.

“Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

“Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems. …

“The technicians then in a hookup consultation with outside office guru’s  did a fault graph reading on our 55 267267 line with the outcome that their office technical staff stated words to the affect  the reading was impossible (couldn’t be correct). It was then that the local technician became quite annoyed when the technical guru insinuated that the equipment the local tech was using must be faulty. The local tech then informed the technical guru that there was nothing wrong with the equipment at all.” (See Main Evidence File No 13)

If the government had acknowledged this significant oversight during the arbitration proceedings, it would have faced the daunting task of financing an appeal process. Such an appeal would necessitate a comprehensive review of the specific deficiencies in the initial arbitration award, focusing particularly on those areas that were inadequately addressed by the claims made by the opposing party. Admitting to these flaws would not only cast doubt on the integrity of the arbitration process, which the government had staunchly supported from its outset, but it would also carry serious financial consequences.

 

The substantial costs associated with an appeal, combined with the potential for protracted litigation and the looming risk of unfavorable judicial outcomes, could severely disrupt the government's budgetary plans and resource allocation. These realities underscore the intricate complexities and far-reaching consequences that arise in legal proceedings, especially when a governmental body is implicated. This intricate situation likely explains the government's reluctance to reopen these cases. 

 

At the centre of this controversy is the behaviour of Telstra's arbitration representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. This law firm is implicated in the highly questionable practice of drafting unsigned witness statements for specific individuals, which are subsequently submitted during arbitration proceedings as if they were legitimate and sworn testimonies. Alarmingly, the individuals whose names appear on these documents never actually signed them, despite Freehill Hollingdale & Page falsely attesting to their authenticity.

 

 

 

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman in his role as administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's arbitration liasion officer Ted Benjamin (see 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 .
2. ...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.

It is June 2025, 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. 

This situation raises grave concerns regarding the integrity of these statements. They may have been crafted with the intent to bolster Telstra's legal standing, raising an even more troubling possibility: that the firm misled and deceived regulatory authorities. Such actions obstruct the pursuit of truth about the insights and observations of witnesses, especially in light of my own evidence against Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who manipulated key facts to persuade a witness that I was mentally unstable.

 

In an especially egregious breach of professional ethics, Freehill Hollingdale & Page supplied false evidence to a witness, which an offshore Canadian technical consultancy had prepared. This fundamentally flawed report was then used by Freehill to wrongly convince a clinical psychologist—hired on behalf of Telstra—that I was paranoid, all while insisting that there were no issues with my phone services.

 

This case starkly illustrates the lengths to which Freehill Hollingdale & Page would go to protect its interests and maintain a lucrative relationship with Telstra.

 

I can only imagine that the emerging generation of partners and associates at Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne—a firm now celebrated worldwide for its esteemed legal capabilities—would be horrified by the unethical tactics employed by their predecessors in their relentless pursuit of victory. This entire situation calls out for a thorough investigation and accountability within the legal profession, especially when such issues significantly impact justice and the fundamental principle of transparency.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:

“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.”

The twelve new chapters below, titled Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, create a vibrant tapestry of titles and narratives designed to engage and captivate the public's interest. While these compelling stories will eventually be removed, they are crucial in highlighting the complex issues intertwined with the COT narrative.

In their stead, we will highlight often-overlooked accounts of whistleblowers—extraordinary individuals whose profound courage drives them to risk their safety and well-being to unveil the stark realities concealed beneath layers of deception. 

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

After several government agencies reached out to me, including the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, and the Consumer Affairs Committee (CAV), I found myself compelled to take action. These organisations, along with the ACCC, ASIC, ACMA, and the Department of Communications, Technology, and the Arts (DCITA), initially expressed interest in my concerns and agreed to investigate my claims. However, as time went on, I faced a disheartening reality. Many of these agencies, sometimes after delaying their responses for over a year to requests for additional evidence, ultimately decided to close their investigations.

On page 62 of Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr. Barry O’Sullivan, who initially served as the arbitration claim advisor for the COT Case involving Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me, was endorsed by the three of us based on his impressive credentials and integrity. With a distinguished career as a Detective Sergeant in the Queensland Police Force, he exemplified the qualities we valued in our advisor. In 2000, Mr. O’Sullivan transitioned into politics, becoming a National Party Senator for Queensland. During a Senate Committee session, he provided testimony under oath regarding the three of us claimants, asserting that we three claimants:

“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett  in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.

Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional man

The following twelve chapters, numbered from 1 to 12, are currently being developed for an upcoming documentary. Each chapter will be enriched with additional images that will help to illustrate and bring our story to life. I aim to complete the image editing process by mid-July 2025. Most of the chapters are already in their final edited form, ensuring a cohesive and compelling narrative.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations. 

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity. 

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated. 

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a

Chapter 12

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.