This website absentjustice.com / absentjustice.com.au and www.promoteyourstory.com.au is a work in progress, last edited in December 2025

If you understand the profound significance of this research and the invaluable insights it brings to light, we encourage you to support  Transparency International! Your contributions will be instrumental in amplifying awareness of the injustices that jeopardize the very foundations of democracy across the globe. Together, we can shine a spotlight on corruption and advocate for transparency, accountability, and justice. Thank you for your interest and your commitment to this essential cause.

Learn about Horrendous Crimes, Unscrupulous Criminals, and Corrupt Politicians and Lawyers Who Control the Legal Profession in Australia.

Shameful. Hideous. Treacherous.

Introduction 

I am Alan Smith, author of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) story and founder of https://www.absentjustice.com/ and www.promoteyourstory.com.au.

This harrowing account of the COT saga reveals a chilling tale of betrayal, corruption, and treachery by the Australian government and its agencies in the mid-1990s. What began as a fight for justice against Telstra (formerly Telecom) quickly descended into a labyrinth of deceit, where institutions sworn to protect citizens instead conspired to silence them.

Alan and his fellow claimants sought redress for egregious service failures that dismantled their businesses and lives. Yet, instead of resolution, they were ensnared in a government-orchestrated arbitration process riddled with duplicity. AUSTEL—the Australian Communications Media Authority (now ACMA)—once perceived as a guardian of fairness, revealed its darker nature. In collusion with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), AUSTEL appointed Dr Gordon Hughes as arbitrator, despite his documented history of siding with Telstra in other cases and assisting in the downfall of an Australian citizen’s Federal Court action in 1990 (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest)

This appointment was no accident. It was a calculated betrayal. AUSTEL audaciously endorsed Hughes in four separate arbitration cases as early as April 1994, knowing full well his allegiance to Telstra. If this is not the stench of governmental treachery against its own people, what is?

Before the arbitration agreement was sealed, an explosive report exposing the full extent of Alan’s grievances was deliberately concealed. This damning document—dated March 3, 1994—surfaced only by accident when Telstra experts left an unlocked briefcase at Alan’s premises on 3 June 1993. It revealed that the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had suffered crippling service failures since 1988, devastating its operations and customer base. The report ominously warned of “serious doubts” about Telstra’s testing regime, yet it was withheld from both Alan and the Minister before the arbitration began (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings)

The treachery deepened with unlawful surveillance. For over seven years, Alan’s private faxes and communications were intercepted, far beyond the arbitration’s scope. His allegations of eavesdropping were callously dismissed by the arbitrator, who ignored explicit warnings from technical consultants that the Cape Bridgewater case remained unresolved. In a grotesque act of negligence, judgment was rendered on speculation, not evidence.

The consequences were catastrophic. By 2001, Alan was coerced into selling his camp, a direct result of Telstra, the TIO, and AUSTEL’s refusal to confront the arbitrator’s dismissal of expert advice. Independent consultants later confirmed the faults persisted until 2006—five years after Alan’s forced sale.

The corruption embedded in this process was nothing short of appalling. Just one day after handing down his biased findings in my arbitration, Dr. Hughes confessed to Warwick Smith that he had deliberately relied on an agreement crafted to strip me of the time I desperately needed to gather documents and prepare technical reports (See (Open Letter File No 55-A). This was not incompetence—it was calculated obstruction.

Yet, in the face of this blatant injustice, both Hughes and Smith chose to let those poisoned findings stand, cementing a verdict built on discrimination and deceit. In a treacherous act of favouritism, Hughes extended extraordinary leniency to his former client—who had signed the very same agreement on the very same day—granting him more than two years to prepare his claim and respond to Telstra’s defence. By contrast, I was denied even the fundamental fairness of adequate preparation.

This was not arbitration; it was a rigged game, orchestrated to protect Telstra and silence its victims. The duplicity was glaring, the bias undeniable. For me, the weight of this betrayal has been a relentless burden carried for over thirty years—a daily reminder of how corruption and discrimination can destroy lives when those entrusted with justice instead conspire against it.

This saga is not merely about one man’s loss. It is a grim testament to systemic corruption, where government agencies colluded with corporate power to crush ordinary citizens. The COT story exposes the betrayal festering within Australia’s institutions, a betrayal that robbed claimants not only of justice but of their livelihoods, dignity, and trust in the very systems meant to protect them.

This story must be told—because silence only serves the corrupt.

I invite all readers to visit promoteyourstory.com.au to access my new website and avail themselves of this testimony. The Arbitraitor is not simply a memoir—it is a call to bear witness, to confront silence, and to demand accountability.

📖 Readers Must View the Open Letter

Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued"

In 2025, Dr Gordon Hughes is Principal Lawyer of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp

Rather than confront the horrifying reality that he had lost control over four arbitrations involving me and three other Australians, Hughes orchestrated a campaign of calculated destruction. He did not stumble into dishonour — he engineered it. With his wife either a willing conspirator or a silent accomplice, they twisted a trivial moment into a monstrous fabrication: a grotesque lie that I had made a 2:00 AM phone call to her. This was no misunderstanding. It was a weapon forged in malice, designed to paint me as a predator in the night, a demon to be feared, and to suffocate any investigation into Hughes’s own corruption within the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

The abyss deepened when John Pinnock, Australia’s second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, joined this insidious conspiracy. In a deceitful letter to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Pinnock shamelessly implicated me, alleging I had confessed in writing to the fabricated call. I never wrote such a letter. The lie was pure invention, a phantom conjured to dismantle my existence. And yet, Pinnock never produced this supposed confession — because it did not exist. The truth was buried beneath layers of deceit, and the silence of institutions became their accomplice.

This was not incompetence. It was a deliberate, orchestrated campaign of lies, betrayal, and character assassination. It was corruption weaponised, treachery institutionalised, and deceit sanctified by those entrusted with justice. Their actions were not isolated — they were systemic, a coordinated effort to erase truth and protect the guilty.

The fax imprint at the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) matches the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming that at least four of the COT faxes, arbitration-related faxes, were intercepted by a secondary fax screening machine connected at each of the COT Cases businesses during their (our) arbitrations.

Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.

Hugh Grant, British Actor 

As you begin to scroll down this absentjusatice.com home page and click on the chilling twelve mini evidence files, ranging from "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page" to "The Promised Documents Never Arrived, a haunting truth unfolds. After just a glimpse into two of these files, the staggering burden of enduring constant attacks on your freedoms for over three decades becomes all too clear. 

The oppressive weight of knowing that influential and malicious figures have relentlessly surveilled your life is a reality no one should have to bear. This sinister orchestration is epitomised by the plight of British actor Hugh Grant, alongside others ensnared in the treacherous Rupert Murdoch scandal. They have been granted apologies and compensation for the devastation wrought upon their lives, yet those entangled in the notorious COT Case sixteen remain forsaken. They are still waiting for the establishment to acknowledge and address the insidious intrusions that have plagued their existence for far too long. The silence is deafening, and the injustice unparalleled.

The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the Federal Attorney-General have still not answered is:

• Was the letter mentioned above (Open Letter File No 55-A) actually faxed to my office by the TIO to assist me in any pending appeal process, but was it hijacked en route?
• If the letter was never intended to be faxed to me the day after the arbitrator concluded his findings? Why was such an important letter withheld from me during my designated appeal period? 

How could I have lost my arbitration appeal when the arbitrator's own wording in the document (Open Letter File No 55-A) states that the agreement he used on May 11, 1995, to deliberate his findings on my case was not a credible document? Despite this, Dr Gordon Hughes still chose to use it, fully aware that it would cause significant grief for me, my business, and my partner.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) emailed me on 17 December 2014, fifteen years after he assisted in compiling this fax report, 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)

The Long Journey
The long journey to my forthcoming ebook, The Arbitraitor, to be launched on 18 December 2025, www.promoteyourstory.com.au, underscores why understanding “the first remedy pursued” is essential. It lays bare the foundations of our struggle and the devastating implications for all who have suffered under institutional silence and betrayal.

The Evidence Files

By clicking on the image above, you will see that someone authorised the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps allowed me to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,

The Weight of Treachery

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

A System Built on Silence

📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.

This particular Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518, FOI folio document K03273 - ).

To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?

The evidence within the above-named Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also confirmed at Exhibit 1-c → File No/13) that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello on 2 November 1998, was similarly intercepted 30 months after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

This evidence reveals that faxes were intercepted long after my arbitration had concluded. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) determined that I had been subjected to electronic surveillance for several years prior to the commencement of my arbitration. I raised these concerns directly with the AFP, and their interview transcripts substantiate my claims, underscoring the grave implications of unauthorised surveillance. 

Was this unauthorised surveillance a sinister reminder of my whistleblowing days in 1967? It exposed the treachery behind the shipment of wheat to Communist China under the guise of humanitarian aid. Supplying food to a nation that weaponised it for our enemies—those who were ruthlessly aiding in the destruction of Australia and its allies—was not just grotesque but a deliberate act of betrayal. Such unconscionable actions revealed a chilling ruthlessness, transforming humanitarian intentions into a macabre scheme that fueled a killing machine bent on our annihilation.

Put simply: Australia was complicit in aiding North Vietnam to kill and maim its own soldiers — and the soldiers of its allies.

At the age of 81, I stand defiant, yet crushed beneath the monstrous weight of treachery that has pursued me for decades. My life has devolved into a grotesque theatre of corruption, where the darkest chapters seep into the light like venomous ink. It is not just betrayal that sends me spiralling into despair, but the insidious machinery of a malevolent legal firm in Melbourne, entwined in a web of deceit, greed, and moral decay during my arbitration in 1994/95. The very fact that crucial arbitration-related documents, which were faxed to Dr Hughes' Melbourne office for assessment, were instead misdirected to his Sydney office—and never returned—screams of betrayal. He knew of this treachery and chose silence when the Australian Federal Police began probing the mystery of my lost faxes; his inaction is nothing less than criminal → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, (the company's) Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

I reiterate, Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process, as was Dr Hughes's conflict of interest during that process (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).

Haunted by this web of lies, traumatised by the profound damage inflicted upon my life, I reached out in desperation in June 2011 to The Most Hon. Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, pleading for recognition of the horror I endured. I copied my entreaties to Robert McLelland, Federal Attorney General, and Robert Clark, Victorian Attorney General, clinging to the faint hope that truth might pierce the cold indifference that enveloped me. I sent my pleas to government officials, begging for validation against the chilling grip of Hughes, the malicious deceit of Pinnock, and the false witness statements manufactured by Telstra to defend their corruption in my 1994/95 arbitration.

I implore you to read my COT story. It is not merely a personal account — it is a revelation of systemic horror. It exposes corruption so insidious, treachery so malignant, that it leaves scars not only on my life but on the integrity of justice itself. The malicious lies of Hughes, Pinnock, and Rundell from 1995 and 1996 are not forgotten. They loom like a grotesque spectre, an elephant in the room that refuses to be ignored. Their deceit is a cancer that festers still, protected by silence and cover-up.

It is this urgency — this relentless need for justice — that compels me to speak. My story is not just mine. It is a warning, a testament, a cry against the insidious treachery that still holds power to cover up its crimes.

Echoes of Betrayal: Wheat Sales to China
The betrayal is not new. Reflecting on Australia’s wheat sales to Communist China in 1967, the hypocrisy becomes clear. Bureaucrats knowingly allowed grain to be repurposed to fuel North Vietnam’s war effort against Australian, New Zealand, and American troops. This act of negligence and complicity demonstrates how detached decision-makers, insulated by theory and bureaucracy, can transform potential solutions into catastrophic consequences. It is a reminder that betrayal often comes not from enemies abroad, but from incompetence at home.

 The People's Republic of China 

Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting

In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.

It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.

As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.
 

A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange

After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.

Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.

At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.

To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”

And maybe, just maybe, that was enough. British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.  → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2

Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense. 

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

In May 1994, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, demanded answers from Telstra regarding their suspicious surveillance of my phone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. What sinister motives lie behind their actions? Why did they redact crucial portions of their files that documented my discussions with Fraser over twelve months? Telstra’s silence spoke volumes, as they repeatedly evaded Wynack's inquiries.

I had written to Fraser on September 18, 1967, exposing a treacherous wheat deal that was not just a business transaction; it was clandestinely fueling the enemy that was ruthlessly attacking our troops, as well as those from New Zealand and the USA, entrenched in the jungles of North Vietnam.

What dark purpose drove Telstra to monitor my phone calls between April 1993 and April 1994 about events that unfolded in August and September 1967, decades earlier? The implications are chilling.

Why didn't Dr Hughes, as arbitrator to my arbitration demand the same answers from Telstra as the Commonwealth Ombudsman was asking? 

I spoke with the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to discuss events I witnessed, along with other seamen, when our ship unloaded Australian wheat from the holds of the MV Hopepeak. I wonder if, when he was the Minister of the Army on 18 September 1967, he remembers my two-page letter to him detailing what we had seen. Our precious cargo of wheat was sent to China on humanitarian grounds to alleviate hunger among the Chinese people. However, some of this cargo was being reloaded and redirected to North Vietnam, where it would feed the army that was killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. troops in the jungles of Vietnam.

I relayed to Mr Fraser my profound and unsettling concerns about the disturbing experiences I suffered at the hands of the government-owned Telstra Corporation, both in the lead-up to and during my arbitration. These included insidious and manipulative threats from Telstra, accompanied by a glaring absence of any governmental investigation into these menacing actions or any genuine effort to hold Telstra accountable for its transgressions.

Something was not right.

 

 

On July 4, 1994, (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A), I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred five months before the arbitrator should have proved this information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous.  It was at this early stage of my arbitration, less than three months in, that Dr Hughes had already broken the rules of the arbitration agreement. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents and risk ongoing problems with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could affect the arbitrator's decision in my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began asking probing questions about my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

 

 

Threats carried out 

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the Threats Became a Reality
What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact of this withholding on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen who had assisted the AFP in its investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged in a civil arbitration.

Why did Dr Hughes, the government-appointed arbitrator, fail to report these threats to the Supreme Court of Victoria, under whose auspices the arbitration was conducted, especially after Telstra implemented these threats

Even more scandalous is the revelation from Senate Hansard records dated 24 and 25 June 1997, which show that Senators Chris Schacht and Kim Carr posed critical questions to Telstra. They sought to uncover whether Telstra’s extensive surveillance network was being weaponised against me in connection with newspaper articles utterly unrelated to my arbitration case. This is not simply an oversight; it raises serious questions about Telstra's corrupt use of power.

 

Senate Hansard dated June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel (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,   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 necessary expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use?  How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?

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?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my 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 evident that this story had two sides.

The threats I have faced from senior Telstra arbitration officials are chillingly documented in Federal Police files and Commonwealth Ombudsman records. These officials became aware that my telephone conversations regarding China had been insidiously deleted from the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents I requested. What is even more outrageous is that John Wynack, the Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in Canberra, expressed his disbelief that Telstra could have destroyed these vital records. He even went so far as to visit Telstra's FOI viewing room in Melbourne, via Canberra, in his quest for the documents I desperately sought. His written assertions make it crystal clear—he does not believe that Telstra would engage in such a brazen act of destruction concerning the Malcolm Fraser information or other arbitration files. Refer to Home Page File No/82. 

 

Lane was entrusted with the pivotal task of investigating severe deficiencies in the Ericsson telephone exchanges, which not only affected the COT cases but also underpinned telecommunications across much of Australia. In the middle of 1995, amid escalating tensions surrounding telecommunications quality, arbitration administrators appointed Lane under the directive of DMR Group Canada. This group had been specifically chosen to scrutinise my allegations that Telstra had manipulated the Cape Bridgewater testing processes attributed to Bell Canada International.  

 

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action.

 

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

The Canadian Government's stance on the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange report reveals a troubling scenario: in Australia, no entity—be it the government, legal professionals, or those who oversaw the arbitration process—made any effort to uncover the truth. A Canadian technical consultant was dispatched to Australia, ostensibly to address critical concerns. Still, in reality, this was merely a façade to conceal the findings of the principal technical consultant, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia).

 

The Canadian Government’s Handling of the Bell Canada - Cape Bridgewater Report
The Canadian government’s handling of the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange report reveals a chilling, troubling narrative—one intricately woven into a sinister tapestry of deceit and manipulation. In Australia, I witnessed key stakeholders—government officials, legal representatives, and those overseeing the arbitration process—demonstrate a blatant apathy toward pursuing the truth. Their indifference cultivated an insidious culture of corruption that thrived in the shadows.

 

Telstra's current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, is acutely aware of the company's underhanded deception surrounding one of its fabricated and utterly impractical testing procedures, which played a pivotal role in its dubious defence during the 1994 arbitration of my claims. This involves the same falsified Cape Bridgewater and Portland Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) tests that alarmed the Australian Senate, prompting them to demand straightforward answers from Telstra. Yet, in a distasteful display of deceit, Telstra deliberately misled the Senate, providing written responses that were not only false but crafted to conceal the truth.

Furthermore, the Canadian Government became increasingly concerned when they learned about these Cape Bridgewater BCI tests and the deep-rooted corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system—a system that shockingly failed to address my legitimate claims. The web of deception spun by Telstra raises alarming questions about accountability and integrity. For more insights into this troubling matter, please refer to the attached information below.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

The Canadian Government's position on the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange report uncovers a deeply disturbing conspiracy. In Australia, no entity—whether the government, legal professionals, or arbitrators—made any genuine effort to find the truth. Instead, a Canadian technical consultant was dispatched to Australia under the guise of addressing critical concerns. In reality, this was a mere façade, crafted to hide the damning findings of the primary technical consultant, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia).

 

Corruption reigned as Lane was swiftly acquired by Ericsson during the COT Case arbitrations, even while it was investigating the flawed Ericsson telephone equipment. The Australian government, complicit in this treachery, permitted the foreign giant to buy the very witness that should have exposed their wrongdoing. Lane, which had the potential to deliver damning evidence against the faulty Ericsson AXE testing procedures at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, instead made no findings regarding the ongoing telephone problems experienced with the Ericsson AXE equipment installed in the exchanges at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.

How could such blatant and unethical manipulation occur in a supposedly impartial system? Just weeks earlier, on March 9, 1995, Warwick Smith had provided written assurances that Lane would support only DMR Canada, noting that DMR was the principal investigator overseeing the situation. This was particularly concerning because, before Smith’s assurance, the COT cases had explicitly rejected Lane’s involvement due to their ties as former Telstra officials, raising significant questions about their objectivity.

In assessing my case, Lane investigated and commented on only 23 of the more than 200 complaints I had submitted for arbitration. Though DMR Canada was obligated to visit my business and the two telephone exchanges with which I was connected, they failed to conduct the necessary tests on my three telephone lines or the Ericsson equipment at these exchanges, even though this equipment was under scrutiny, the critical reason the COT cases were being arbitrated.

Corruption reigned as Lane was swiftly acquired by Ericsson during the COT Case arbitrations, even while it was investigating the flawed Ericsson telephone equipment. The Australian government, complicit in this treachery, permitted the foreign giant to buy the very witness that should have exposed their wrongdoing. Lane, which had the potential to deliver damning evidence against the faulty Ericsson AXE testing procedures at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, instead made no findings regarding the ongoing telephone problems experienced with the Ericsson AXE equipment installed in the exchanges at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.

 

This shocking reality paints Australia as not just a country that claims to uphold the rule of law, but as a nation willing to sacrifice its integrity to allow foreign interests to dictate outcomes. It is a betrayal of trust, a treacherous alliance that undermines the principles of justice and fairness, echoing the chilling truth that in the shadows of power, corruption thrives (See Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

 

 

 

Ericsson, Rundell, and the Betrayal of Justice
 

Moreover, as dramatically highlighted on absentjustice.com, it is unconscionable that Ericsson was permitted to acquire Lane during the ongoing COT arbitrations. This alarming twist raises serious concerns about a legal framework that would allow a corporation under investigation for misconduct to buy the very company tasked with investigating its actions. This not only constitutes a gross betrayal of justice but also undermines public confidence in the integrity of the arbitration process.

John Rundell's deceptive statements further exemplify the depths of manipulation in this case. His willingness to mislead and obscure the truth for the benefit of specific stakeholders compels me to seek accountability. I have long yearned for a chance to confront John Rundell directly with a crucial question: Is my arbitration process the only one he has manipulated with such treachery and incompetence? 

How a once-decent man coerced his wife into lying on his behalf, all to ensure his style of justice "Splt the baby" and “Shadow arbitration”—never became public knowledge.

 

Exposing the Truth

Before creating this website, I was unfamiliar with the arbitration-related slang terms that now define so much of the injustice I’ve documented.

🇺🇸 In the U.S., they call it:

•  “Split the baby” when arbitrators avoid tough decisions by giving each side a partial win.

•  “Shadow arbitration” when deals are done behind closed doors, off the record.

•  “Award laundering” when biased rulings are dressed up to look neutral.

🇪🇺 In Europe, they talk about:

•  “Salami slicing”—breaking up strong claims to weaken their impact.

•  “Rubber-stamp tribunals”—panels that never challenge corporate power.

•  “Procedural gymnastics”—legal acrobatics used to dodge uncomfortable truths.

🇸🇬 Singapore: The Illusion of Neutrality

 

Singapore is hailed as a top arbitration hub. But I’ve studied cases in which arbitrators ignored key arguments, and courts refused to intervene. They call it “failure to apply one’s mind”, but proving it is nearly impossible.

 

Just as in my case, the arbitrator had no control over the process because it was conducted entirely outside the ambit of arbitration procedures. The Australian courts wouldn’t touch it.

⚖️ A Warning to Australia’s Gatekeepers
Learning about these horrendous crimes—perpetrated by unscrupulous criminals and shielded by corrupt influence—should send shockwaves through every corridor of power. The government’s reliance on outsourced auditors and high-profile accountancy firms has created a smokescreen behind which deception thrives.l

This is not just a breach of ethics. It’s a betrayal of the public trust.

Politicians, lawyers, and those who steward Australia’s legal profession must reckon with the gravity of what’s unfolding. The complicity—whether active or passive—is shameful. Hideous. Treacherous.

These lawbreakers do not simply bend the rules; they break them. They rewrite them to serve their own enrichment, as was the case during the COT arbitrations. 

The Arbiitraitor — A New Chapter in the Fight for Justice

Thirty Years of Relentless Advocacy

 

After thirty years of tirelessly fighting for justice and selflessly promoting this website—alongside my manuscript titled Absent Justice, freely available since 2021—I’ve decided to place a charge on my upcoming book, The Arbiitraitor, set for release by the end of 2025… and perhaps even sooner.

 

This book has undergone significant refinement, transforming from its original version, which featured an overwhelming 1,240 exhibits. That volume made it unwieldy and too lengthy for a typical e-book format. My goal now is to craft a compelling narrative that inspires and leaves a lasting impact.

 

A Digital Companion to the Book

In collaboration with my editor, we have developed the websites:

•  absentjustice.com

•  absentjustice.com.au

These sites will serve as valuable resources for readers of The Arbiitraitor, providing proof and context for the claims detailed in the manuscript. This innovative approach aims to shed light on the deeply rooted corruption within Australia’s arbitration system'

 

Free Access to Thousands of Exhibits

The thousands of exhibits that will remain embedded on this website will, of course, be free—as they have been for the past ten years. These exhibits, along with an accompanying assortment of new evidence files, will also support:

•  The many statements made in "The Arbiitraitor"

•  The story of my 28 years as a Merchant Marine in both the British and Australian navies

Approaching 82: A Life Shaped by Truth and Treachery

As I approach my 82nd birthday, I find myself reflecting on the key milestones and significant events that have shaped my life—not just the triumphs, but the betrayals that demanded courage and clarity.

 

This shocking reality paints Australia as not just a country that claims to uphold the rule of law, but as a nation willing to sacrifice its integrity to allow foreign interests to dictate outcomes. It is a betrayal of trust, a treacherous alliance that undermines the principles of justice and fairness, echoing the chilling truth that in the shadows of power, corruption thrives (See Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

 

How could they? They had already aligned themselves with Ericsson.

🧩 Implications for Corporate Alliances

•  The Ericsson case highlights how corporate decisions—such as acquiring compliant consultancy firms—can be influenced by broader geopolitical and legal pressures.

•  It also underscores the risks of opaque alliances and the importance of transparency, especially when operating in conflict zones or under authoritarian regimes.

 

ERICSSON

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded. It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.   

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.

📉 Ericsson’s Global Corruption Scandal

In December 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Ericsson, Sweden’s telecom giant, had admitted to a 17-year campaign of corruption across five countries—Djibouti, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait. The company used slush funds, bribes, and sham contracts to secure telecom deals, violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

•  Ericsson paid $1.06 billion in penalties:

•  $520 million to the DOJ

•  $540 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

•  In 2023, Ericsson paid an additional $206 million for breaching its deferred prosecution agreement by withholding misconduct details, including alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq.

⚠️ Ericsson’s Role in the COT Arbitration

Ericsson’s equipment was central to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration in Australia. According to documents on AbsentJustice.com, Telstra installed Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment despite knowing it was faulty and incompatible with certain terrains. This equipment caused call dropouts and outages, devastating small businesses reliant on reliable communication.

•  In 1993, a Telstra briefcase left at Cape Bridgewater revealed internal knowledge of Ericsson faults dating back to 1988.

•  AUSTEL (now ACMA) condemned Telstra’s testing as grossly deficient in 1994, but these findings were withheld from claimants until years later.

•  Ericsson acquired Lane Telecommunications, the technical consultant to the arbitrator, during the arbitration—raising serious conflict of interest concerns.

Despite these revelations:

•  The arbitrator did not halt proceedings.

•  COT claimants were not allowed to amend their claims.

•  Telstra denied equipment faults under oath—reportedly over 30 times.

🏛️ Government Dealings and Political Complicity

Evidence suggests that Australian government officials were aware of Ericsson’s equipment failures and Telstra’s misconduct:

•  Senator Richard Alston raised concerns in Parliament in 1994, citing the severity of Ericsson’s faults.

•  The Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House, supported efforts to resolve the issues in his Wannon electorate.

•  Internal Telstra emails and Senate Hansard entries reveal pressure to suppress COT claims and protect Telstra’s privatization interests.

There are allegations that Senators brokered deals to support Telstra’s privatisation—using manipulated COT evidence—and later reneged on promises to investigate Ericsson’s role. These claims are documented in Evidence File 7 on AbsentJustice.com.

 

🔍 What Needs to Be Investigated

•  Why was Ericsson allowed to acquire Lane Telecommunications mid-arbitration?

•  Who in government knew about the equipment faults and failed to act?

•  Why were arbitration findings based on suppressed or falsified evidence?

•  What role did political deals play in shielding Ericsson and Telstra from accountability?

The COT saga is not just a story of technical failure—it’s a case study in regulatory collapse, corporate influence, and political betrayal.

 

“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-C) instructing 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. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."

27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."

28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.

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 per cent 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 . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, as published by the Parliament of Australia, (see also https://shorturl.at/URa5h which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that the company would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as a form of severe discrimination, then what does? 

 

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

 

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly. 

 11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the 

 

Equally alarming are the COT Cases, involving twelve brave Australians ensnared in a rigged arbitration process with Telstra. These individuals were coerced into paying thousands in professional arbitration fees, as they desperately tried to prove that Telstra was incapable of honouring its contractual obligations to customers. Meanwhile, Telstra’s systemic failures to uphold their commitments fostered a perverse situation where Fox was being rewarded—a clear indication of the discrimination and injustice at play.

 

If this was not discrimination of the worst order, then what can be deemed as such?

 

The fabricated BCI report (see 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 Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is 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 telephone 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.  

The relentless demand to document every single telephone fault and report these faults daily to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would even condescend to address them was maddening. Ian Joblin, the so-called "clinical psychologist" brought in by Telstra as their arbitration witness, conducted his evaluation of my mental health on December 12, 1994, and made it clear just how twisted the system was. It was no wonder I was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); the very act of having to funnel complaints through Telstra's legal labyrinth before they would deign to investigate was a recipe for depression, warping anyone’s thought processes. Mr Joblin, in a rare moment of truth, ensured that his findings were documented in the grim pages of the arbitration report prepared by Freehills Hollingdale & Page—his employers in this corrupt charade.

Later, when the second-appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) discovered that sections of Mr Joblin's witness statement had not been signed when submitted to arbitration, he contacted Telstra's arbitration counsel, Ted Banjamin, on October 23, 1997. His inquiry? A thinly veiled demand for answers—what was hidden, what had been stolen from the record? The whole affair reeked of deceit and manipulation, leaving a bitter taste of corruption looming overhead.

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. 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.

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note that I have repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager of the need to solicit these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without conducting a thorough examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines, citing Legal Professional Privilege.

I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.

The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide the requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

It was not in Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a representative of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness?

On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (see File 596 → ). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.

2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinised several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the COT case is warranted and essential.

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 established by Telstra and its lawyers to conceal all relevant technical evidence that the COT Cases indeed had ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that statutory declarations had been tampered with by Telstra or their legal representatives during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.

Telstra's dubious practices echo a troubling pattern of legal disregard observed in a notable COT case, which was defended in the Federal Court of Australia. In this instance, Dr. Hughes represented Graham Schorer, a key figure in the COT cases (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).

 

Disturbingly, Dr Hughes withheld critical information regarding Telstra's unethical conduct from his client, Graham Schorer, despite serving as the arbitrator in Schorer's case in 1994 and in six subsequent arbitrations. Multiple parties involved have expressed concerns about Dr Hughes's apparent loss of control as an arbitrator in their respective cases. These troubling circumstances provide me with a legitimate basis to request that Mr Pinnock conduct a thorough investigation into my complaint regarding Ian Joblin

.

Furthermore, Senator Bill O’Chee expressed considerable concern that John Pinnock had not responded to his letter—dated 21 March 1997—addressing a related case with Telstra’s Ted Benjamin. This lack of response led Senator O'Chee to escalate the issue by contacting Graeme Ward, who was in charge of regulatory and external affairs at Telstra, on 26 June 1998 (see File GS-CAV 293-B - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323). In his letter, he stated,

 

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest that 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.” 

 

Despite these pressing concerns, there has been no transparent resolution regarding this matter. The ramifications of Senator O'Chee's assertion, which indicated that it was the arbitrator's responsibility to address the unlawful conduct surrounding the alteration of statutory declarations, sparked investigations by the COTs. These investigations aimed to understand why Dr Gordon Hughes permitted such misconduct to take place without challenge, raising serious questions about accountability and the integrity of the arbitration process.

 

Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.

 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, discussed above, 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" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

Mr White's statement provides a stark revelation: he explicitly identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra targeted in a concerted effort to prevent us from successfully establishing our case against the company. Among those mentioned in the Senate Hansard is an individual named "Peter Gamble," who had informed Mr White of the directive to stop the five COT claimants “at all costs.” This Peter is none other than Peter Gamble, who, in a sworn witness statement to the arbitrator, claimed that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) conducted at my business had met all required government regulatory standards.

However, a closer examination reveals a disturbing truth. Telstra's falsified SVT report contradicts Gamble's assertion, clearly indicating that the Service Verification Testing he oversaw failed to meet any of the government's mandatory specifications (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). This discrepancy suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the process and undermine our claims, highlighting the lengths to which Telstra has gone to avoid accountability.

 

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 primary arbitration defence Counsel 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,   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 from 'unauthorised eavesdropping' on their customers' conversations before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?  

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 its customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my 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 for trading purposes. No punches were exchanged. I actually placed a wrestling hold, known as the ‘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 apparent that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the same government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means, as was the case when Wayne Maurice Condon submitted an unsigned 'witness statement' that was apparently prepared by clinical psychologist Ian Joblin, concerning my mental health. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed Dandra Wolf's matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“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.” (page - 87)

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

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek a resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitated an extended hospitalisation, underscoring the urgency with which these matters must be addressed.

It is my sincere hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny. It is June 2025, and after several emails sent by me to Sandra's email address since the beginning of February 2025, the last email I received told me that Sandra's cancer treatment was becoming intolerable. With Sandra living in faraway Queensland, too far for me to travel, I can only assume the worst, or perhaps for the better, with Sandra now at peace.

⚠️ A System Built on Silence
Unanswered Questions and Withheld Evidence

As we look ahead to 2025, one must ponder: If Mrs Hughes realises that her integrity has been exploited to shield her husband, why has she chosen to remain silent? Is it because John Pinnock was compelled to address similar accusations raised by four other COT cases—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ross Plowman, and Ralph Bova—whose arbitrations were also scandalously found wanting? Under mounting pressure from these four claimants and two Senators, John Pinnock ultimately confessed on September 26, 1997, two years after I first lodged my complaints with Laurie James.

This confession to the Senate by John Pinnock states on page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and  Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, that allows the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside the agreed procedure?

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.

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.