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. 

Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia, as the following link suggests Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. 

How can one publish a meticulously accurate account of the events that unfolded during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without using exculpatory evidence, the way I have been forced to do otherwise, my story would be too hard to believe? What strategies does the author employ to substantiate, without risking legal repercussions, the claim that government public servants discreetly fed privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants), while simultaneously concealing the same critical documentation from the claimants, fellow Australian citizens who deserved 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, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and 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.” 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process

Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?

Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?

Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?

Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)

Also, during this same press conference, Senator Len Harris asked many other questions, including why should an owner of a business such as the holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater be forced to sell that business because Telstra had still been unable to fix the ongoing telephone problems that Senator Richard Alston himself had investigated in 1992, ten years previous and concluded were affecting Mr Smith's holiday camp. The telephone problems Mr Smith raised in his 1993/94 arbitration were still being raised with Telstra in 2001, seven years after the arbitration process had failed to rectify those problems.

I reiterate that, to gain public trust in my story on absentjustice.com, I had no choice but to gather my evidence and present it while disclosing what I share in the public's interest.

How do you expose that these defendants, during the arbitration process—which was once under government ownership—used sophisticated equipment linked to their network to covertly screen faxed documents leaving your office, storing sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to redirect them to their rightful destination—a route shrouded in secrecy?

Were the defendants using this intercepted material to bolster their defence during arbitration, undermining the claimants' rights? 

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been victims of similar hacking tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—this insidious breach of confidentiality—still a reality during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

In January 1999, the arbitration claimants submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, detailing how confidential, arbitration-related documents were surreptitiously and illegally screened before they reached Parliament House in Canberra. Will that explosive report ever be unveiled to the Australian public, allowing citizens to grasp the full extent of these occurrences?

It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, specifically between points 2 and 212, that AUSTEL's use of Telstra's logbook to conduct their findings was extremely valuable, as indicated in point 209. If I had received a copy of this logbook and submitted it to the arbitrator to support my claims, the arbitrator's award would have been significantly higher. Additionally, he would not have been able to state in his award that my ongoing telephone problems were resolved early in the arbitration in July 1994.AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, 

• Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my relentless battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this conflict has taken me through the labyrinth of elected governments, various government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the colossal telecom entity called Telstra, which was called Telecom when my saga began. I am still pursuing justice today.

My journey began in 1987 when I made a pivotal decision to leave behind my life at sea, where I had spent the better part of twenty years. I sought a new path on land that would carry me through my retirement years and beyond. Among all the enchanting places I had explored around the globe, I chose the serene yet captivating coastal region of Cape Bridgewater, located in southwest Victoria, Australia, as my new home.

My passion lies in hospitality, and I have always dreamed of running a holiday camp akin to the iconic Butlins in Bognor Regis. This place sparkled with joy during my childhood in England. Imagine my excitement when I spotted the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age, a well-respected newspaper. This facility was nestled in rural Victoria, near the quaint maritime port of Portland, surrounded by stunning natural landscapes. Everything seemed to align perfectly. 

To the best of my understanding, I diligently conducted my due diligence to ensure the business was financially sound. Little did I know that one crucial aspect I overlooked was checking the functionality of the phone lines.

Within just a week of taking over the business, alarm bells rang loud and clear. I received distressing calls from customers and suppliers who had made numerous attempts to reach me, only to find themselves thwarted by a dead line. Yes, here I was, tasked with managing a thriving business, yet my phone service was, at best, woefully unreliable and, at worst, completely nonexistent. As a result, we faced significant revenue losses as customers turned away in frustration, never to venture our way again.

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. 

After five years, it took this almost tragic event for Telstra to send someone with real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault-free. No hospital that convalescent care is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. 

It was another fiasco that lasted until August 2009, when not-so-new owners of my business were walked off the holiday camp premises as bankrupts. 

And so, my quest began. Securing a dependable phone service at the property became a protracted saga filled with frustration and struggle. Along the way, I secured compensation for our business losses and encountered countless assurances that the issues were resolved. Yet, here I am, years later, still facing the same insurmountable problems. After selling the business in 2002, I learned that subsequent owners have endured similar plights (Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and  Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).

I was not alone in this battle; many independent businesspeople adversely affected by poor telecommunications joined me in my efforts. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. Our shared goal was straightforward: we wanted Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our grievances, deliver solutions, and compensate us for our significant losses. After all, is it too much to ask for a functioning phone line?

Initially, we sought a full Senate investigation into Telecom to expose these pervasive issues. Instead, we were offered a commercial assessment process as an alternative to arbitration. This initially appeared to be a promising path toward resolution, so we gladly accepted. Yet, we were soon unceremoniously pushed out of the commercial assessment process, allowing Telstra's agreement to take precedence. 

Unfortunately, that hope proved to be in vain. Almost instantaneously, doubts about the integrity of the arbitration process began to fester. We had been assured that if we entered arbitration, we would have access to the crucial Telecom documents needed to support our case. Those documents, however, were never provided, despite the promises made. To compound our frustrations, we discovered that our fax lines were illegally tapped during the arbitration process. With the considerable weight of the Government aligned against us, we found ourselves at a significant disadvantage and ultimately lost.

To make matters worse, we had unwittingly signed a confidentiality clause that significantly hampered our ability to share our experiences. I may be risking the consequences of that clause by making this information public, but I feel I have no choice—my circumstances compel me to speak out.

The next chapter of our struggle focused on our relentless pursuit of the promised documents through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. We were confident that the evidence existed to validate our assertions that the phone lines were not functioning and had failed to meet the agreed testing protocols. However, for that evidence to be valid, we needed access to it.

Telecom engaged in a series of deceptive tactics, intercepting privileged faxes sent by COT lawyers, live-monitoring and tapping COT phones, and intercepting COT arbitration mail throughout the arbitration process. They resorted to threats against COT claimants, following through on those threats with alarming frequency. The Government had assured us that the arbitration would be straightforward, non-legalistic, and that the arbitrator could issue findings only once the issues were resolved. We were also promised access to the necessary Telecom FOI documents, yet the government-owned Telecom blatantly refused to comply. Many of the documents that were eventually provided were either defaced or irrelevant to our claims. Lacking a detailed schedule accompanying the FOIs, we wasted precious time deciphering the scant information handed over while under an unforgiving deadline.

By March 1994, during the investigation of this initiative, the Government Communications Regulator concluded that the government-owned telecommunications carrier could not locate the persistent faults plaguing my business. Alarmingly, they concealed their findings rather than sharing this critical information with the arbitrator overseeing my claim. This lack of transparency was nothing short of shocking.

It is utterly inconceivable that the Australian Government would endorse a legally binding Arbitration Agreement, supposedly drafted with independence by the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. In reality, this agreement was crafted by lawyers representing the defendants—the government-owned telecommunications carrier itself. To compound matters, the Government turned a blind eye to including a clause in this agreement, designed by the defendants, that severely restricted the time available for claimants to access vital discovery documents from the defendants. These documents were essential for supporting their claims.

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)

The Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) appointed a Project Manager to assist the arbitrator in navigating nine arbitrations, including mine. With the backing of his arbitration resource unit, the defendants, and the TIO, the Project Manager was empowered to scrutinise some of the most pertinent documents submitted for the arbitrations. Without notifying any of the claimants, he and his team decided which documents would be submitted to the arbitrator and which would be withheld, casting a shadow of secrecy over the proceedings.

This situation should raise serious concerns for organisations contemplating arbitration for commercial disputes in Australia or Hong Kong. The same Project Manager, now a practising arbitrator with offices in both locations, presides over such disputes. In my manuscript, "Absent Justice," I reveal how this resource unit deliberately withheld four critical documents from the arbitrator in my case. These documents had the power to alter the entire course of the arbitration and provide much-needed support to other Australian businesses grappling with similar long-standing telephone billing issues.

On November 15 1995, when the TIO sought clarification from the Project Manager regarding the missing billing claim documents, the project manager resorted to misleading and deceiving the TIO, further complicating an already convoluted process.

As my arbitration progressed, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) became aware of a chilling threat from the defendants: they would cease providing any further discovery documents if I continued to assist the AFP in their investigations into my serious complaints that those very same defendants were intercepting my phones and faxes. These discovery documents were vital to my case—I was at a standstill, unable to substantiate my arbitration claim without them.

Over the past two decades, I have meticulously gathered more than 2,230 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, extracted from a staggering total of over 48,000 documents related to five claimants of the Compensation for Occupational Therapy (COT) scheme. Each of these 2,230 documents is carefully numbered to align with specific statements in my detailed manuscript, creating a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence. I organised this substantial work into 153 mini-reports, accessible through the clickable links labelled  Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. Without this concrete evidence backing my story, it would easily be dismissed as mere speculation.

From 2006 to 2018, I took the significant step of sending these files to various high-profile recipients, including the Prime Minister's office, the offices of four government ministers, the Australian Federal Police, the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group, and three pertinent government agencies. Remarkably, none of these authorities have challenged my claims or scrutinised the evidence that underpins them. Mr Neil Jepson, a barrister from the Major Fraud Group, commented that many recipients who received my submissions felt their jurisdictions did not allow them to investigate such matters. This left me perplexed. Mr Neil advised me to resubmit my evidence that the Victoria Police had been blocked from investigating to another government agency that had already indicated a refusal to look further into the issue. I went around and around in circles for eleven years with no one willing to take the Telstra Corporation to their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne)

Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues in chapters 1 to 12.

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.

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 unauthorized 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.