Instead of unveiling the potentially explosive contents of the briefcase—contents that held the power to compel Telstra to reassess the original settlement agreement formulated on December 11, 1992—I deliberately chose to engage in an exhaustive documentation and replication of every pertinent piece of information I could obtain. This painstaking process required an in-depth analysis of intricate details, cross-referencing data, and correlating facts that surrounded the complex situation. Once I had meticulously compiled my findings, I submitted this comprehensive dossier to AUSTEL (now known as the Australian Communications Media Authority - ACMA), driven by an unwavering commitment to the public interest and a profound ethical obligation to advocate for transparency and accountability within the telecommunications sector.

With my pride intact and the recent victory at the AAT against the ACMA fueling my confidence, I eagerly began crafting my story, "Absent Justice." As soon as the pen hit the paper, I stumbled upon a striking statement in the pages of the Herald Sun newspaper, dated 22 December 2008, written under the heading 'Bad bureaucrats' as proof that government public servants need to be held accountable for their wrongdoings.

 

The pervasive culture of corruption within Telstra has created a fertile ground for private companies to exploit both past and present mismanagement, allowing them to profit from Telstra's numerous failures. A striking illustration of this exploitation is the substantial $400 million fine levied against Telstra for its inability to complete the cable rollout for the Foxtel infrastructure. At that juncture, the Telstra Board was acutely aware that the compensation deadlines for the rollout, already burdened by rampant corrupt practices within the organisation, were utterly unrealistic. Millions of dollars had been misallocated and wasted, rendering timely completion nearly impossible. Nevertheless, in a move that starkly highlighted their disregard for both accountability and the welfare of the Australian public, they proceeded. They signed the deal, prioritising their own interests over the obligations owed to the people they serve.

If we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on pages 5164 and 5165 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, 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 issues 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? 

 

Clicking on the following government Senate Hansard records SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia will take the visitor directly to the Australian Government secured archive records, where you can continue to read beyond points 10,11, and 12 

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 Minister.

12. The winners will be the purchasers of Telstra shares who can almost certainly expect to see a hefty increase in the price of their stock when Telstra finally delivers on its promise of reducing excessive labour costs. It remains to be seen whether executives responsible for the mess Telstra is in are accountable for their performance and whether our elected representatives, who are supposed to be in control, are willing to act to prevent further loss to the present owners of Telstra. 

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra was obligated to provide or whether they did supply the $400 million missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In several of the COT cases, Telstra made similar commitments to these Australian citizens, provided they financed their arbitrations to resolve ongoing telephone problems that were continuing to ruin their businesses. My arbitration fees between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995 cost me more than $ 300,000 in professional fees. Three hundred thousand dollars in 1994 is equivalent to $622,959,207 in 2025; yet, the arbitrator did not force Telstra to fix my telephone problems or those affecting the other members of our group, who are sadly known as the Casualties of Telstra. 

 

Clicking on the following government Senate Hansard records SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia will take the visitor directly to the Australian Government secured archive records, where you can continue to read beyond points 29,30, 31 and 32 

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. 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".  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.

32. In particular, Ms McBride argued that the initial point of referral should always be the Corporate Solicitors Office, "in order to bring into operation the potential protection of legal professional privilege for documentation and other reporting procedures;" and the Corporate Solicitors Office should continue as "the point of referral and control in order to maintain legal professional privilege (where possible) over information and documentation created during the handling of the ‘COT’ case." If technical, fault reports were needed, these should be commissioned by the Corporate Solicitors Office and provided only to the Corporate Solicitors Office in "an attempt to create the initial protection of legal professional privilege for such reports." The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was accepted. 33. Given information from businesses named in the strategy paper on what happened before and after the strategy was implemented, it appears that since 1992, Telstra has adopted a much more adversarial approach in dealing with complaints concerning service or any other form of criticism. This shift in corporate culture makes it more likely than not that in 1993, advice was also sought and received by the Telstra Board on the "management" of travel allowance fraud allegations

 

 

This situation highlights the significant issues within Australia's copper network, and in sources like Delimiter’s "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter. 

In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator thirty years ago. In essence, one set of legal standards applies to individuals well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set to those who do not possess such connections.

In 2025, Fox is in partnership with Telstra. Investigate the evidence documented on absentjustice.com to uncover the identity of a former senior executive at Telstra who, prior to his appointment, was involved in the auditing of the COT Cases. Within these investigations, he contributed to compiling a report that contained critical findings. Yet, these damaging details were inexplicably omitted before it was submitted to the COT arbitrations as the official record. This former Telstra executive later transitioned to a role at Fox. It’s hardly surprising that the parties involved in the COT Cases have been voicing their grievances for so long.

Telstra’s internal memo of 9^th November 1993 from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell, states:

"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."  (File 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946 @  Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG).

These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country, which at the time had a monopoly on the industry in Australia.

Though both the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports cast a shadow on Telstra's management of COT matters, a careful reader might overlook the significant alterations made by Coopers & Lybrand. By skillfully changing a few words and phrases, they transformed the draft into a final version that obscured much of the critical evidence they uncovered.

On 10 October 1993, a partner from Coopers & Lybrand visited my holiday camp, a picturesque setting where I had hoped to enjoy peace and tranquillity. Instead, he was confronted with unsettling evidence I presented, demonstrating that Telstra had not only misled me but had actively deceived me prior to my first settlement on 11 December 1992. To further emphasise the severity of this misconduct, I showed him a letter from the government to Telstra, dated 9 December 1993. This letter highlighted that, based on information retrieved from a briefcase left at my premises, it was evident that Telstra had engaged in misleading and deceptive practices during the settlement process on 11 December 1992.

Although this crucial information, along with the troubling recollections of dishonest conduct, was visibly included in the draft Coopers & Lybrand report, it was glaringly absent in the final version that was ultimately presented during the COT arbitrations. Notably, the partner who had viewed this troubling evidence later transitioned to an executive role within Telstra and subsequently secured a position at Fox, raising questions about the influence of such findings on his career trajectory.

 

 

Had the arbitrator been informed that the Coopers & Lybrand report was lacking in its thoroughness, particularly in its findings that highlighted Telstra's propensity for misleading and deceptive practices in handling customer complaints, they might have delved deeper into my claims regarding the ongoing telephone issues I continued to experience. Despite Telstra's nine witness statements insisting that their rigorous testing found no persistent problems, the three examples detailed below of widespread phone malfunctions across Australia merely scratch the surface of a far-reaching predicament. These disruptions have not only impaired my ability to communicate effectively but have also led to overwhelming frustration and significant disruption in my everyday life, making simple tasks and meaningful conversations an exercise in patience and resilience.

23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these copper-wire network faults have existed for more than 24 years.

9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems been conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, again, shows that the COT Cases claims of copperwire ailing network were more than valid.  

28 April 2018: This ABC news article dated 28 April 2018 regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story going back 20 1988 through to 2025, because had the arbitration lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) was just 7-years ago.

BCI and SVT Reports - Section One

Who Hijacked the BCI and SVT Reports 

The following Federal Magistrates Court letter, dated 3 December 2008, from Darren Lewis, was never discussed by the government, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, or its relevance to several arbitration documents from 1994 to 1995, which were hijacked, i.e., never arrived at the Magistrates Court.  

My letter to the Hon David Hawker MP (see File 274 - AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323) indicates that even the Portland Australia Post office staff know that the security of specific mail leaving the Portland Post Office cannot be given the green light. So, what was the use of my mailing my arbitration documents to the arbitrator in 1994 and 1995, and the new owners of my business sending similar Telstra-related documents to the Federal Magistrate Court, when there was a significant chance the mail would not arrive? Darren and Jenny Lewis (the new owners of my business), as stated in their letter of 3 December 2008, are just further alarming information that the government has not transparently investigated (see the following statement by Darren Lewis to the Federal Magistrates Court:

“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:

1. Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp
2. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34
3. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);
4. Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.

“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B

As we have previously mentioned in Absentjustice – Preface Australia Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all of the information enclosed initially, those documents must, therefore, have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Magistrates Court.

As I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost en route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 en route to the arbitrator hearing my case.

As Darren’s letter shows, I helped him prepare his bankruptcy appeal against the Australian Taxation Office (for back taxes) using my own evidence that the Telstra Corporation, knowingly submitted two false and fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater reports to the arbitrator during my arbitration, to deliberately mislead the arbitrator into believing that there were no more ongoing phone problems affecting my business.

 

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

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.” 

Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the system of arbitration in Australia. 

Venture into the unsettling realm of heinous crimes, where unscrupulous individuals commit acts of unspeakable violence and deception, displaying a chilling disregard for both the law and basic human morality. Investigate the machinations of corrupt politicians who, driven by greed and ambition, undermine the essential integrity of public service, exploiting their power for personal enrichment. 

Unravel the intricate web of individuals within the government who had a vested interest in obscuring their corrupt practices, as well as the specific unethical behaviours they were tasked with shielding from their peers. The narrative of my experience has been dismissed as the ramblings of a vexatious litigant attempting to unveil the depths of corruption and bribery that permeate our institutions. 

Consider the role of ambitious lawyers who, blinded by their thirst for success, twist and manipulate the legal framework to serve their own interests, often at the expense of justice. In Australia, these figures weave a disturbing tapestry of shameful, grotesque, and treacherous behaviour that exposes profound flaws within the justice system. Each narrative unfolds like a gripping thriller, serving as a stark reminder of the corrupting influence of power and the extreme lengths to which individuals will go to evade the consequences of their actions.

Investigate the key players who significantly contributed to the entrenchment of corruption within the arbitration system, particularly when government interests are at stake. Their calculated silence, in the face of flagrant misconduct, fosters an environment ripe for unethical behaviour, fundamentally undermining the core principles of good governance. 

By clicking on streetlamp image displayed below, you will gain insight into the gaslighting techniques employed by Telstra and their associated representatives. This illustrative example highlights how these tactics served as their primary method for manipulating perceptions and obscuring the truth. Prepare to uncover the strategies used to distort reality and exert control over individuals, shedding light on the broader implications of such psychological manipulation.

How did Telstra know to which pchologist to visit in Porland Victoria Australia 18 kilometers from my business after the Flash Backs – China-Vietnam ?

What information was redacted from a Freedom of Information document released by Telstra? The document indicates that I had discussions with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. My debate with Mr. Fraser focused on his time as Minister for the Army in 1967 during the Vietnam War, as well as the period when I became involved in the controversial Australian wheat deals with Communist China. This wheat was being redirected to North Vietnam, where it was used to feed Australia’s adversary at the time.

 

Psychological manipulation 

As detailed below and throughout this website, there was a concerted effort to prevent the COT Cases from substantiating their claims at all costs. I faced tremendous pressure to withhold crucial technical documents that I had previously submitted to Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the legal representatives for Telstra. They threatened me with retaliation, insisting that unless I first presented my fault complaints in writing to Freehill, Telstra would categorically refuse to investigate my grievances.

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

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

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

It is June 2025, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

When you hover your mouse or cursor over these documents, it becomes evident that establishing a valid claim is a complex task. This difficulty arises when only one party possesses the crucial documents that the opposing side needs to prove their claims. 

Before I delve into this narrative, visitors to absentjustice.com need to grasp the complex issues surrounding five particular cases within the COT framework: Ann Garms, Ralph Bove, Ross Plowman, and Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT. Together, these individuals were awarded a staggering sum of over 18 million dollars after a Senate Committee uncovered egregious misconduct by Telstra during their distinct arbitration processes. At the heart of this investigation was an alarming failure: the absence of promised Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, which were crucial for substantiating the claims in the five cases. Ultimately, these individuals succeeded in retrieving the majority of their previously withheld Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, which amounted to a remarkable collection of approximately 150,000 documents. → Senate Evidence File No 11 proof 150,000 FOI documents

It's essential to recognise that these five cases acted as litmus tests for the remaining twenty-one. Like the first five, all the other claims were included in the Senate FOI schedule (see Arbitrator File No 67). marking them as unresolved issues ripe for examination. An agreement was established that if the five cases could corroborate their claims, the remaining sixteen would also be entitled to the same compensation. However, the timeframe of the Senate investigation, which spanned from June 1997 to January 1999, posed challenges for the then-Liberal government of John Howard. They faced immense pressure and were unwilling to conduct a protracted interim investigation. This reluctance stemmed from the privatisation timeline already set for Telstra, which had begun in 1997. Compounding this urgency was the scrutiny from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which was closely monitoring the significant payouts being issued to the COT cases. The potential fallout could have led to a dramatic decrease in Telstra’s market value because if the COT Cases had been right about the state of Telstra's network, not just the corroded copper wire network, but also the faulty telephone infrastructure Telstra was still installing in its network which other countries around the glob were removing from their telephone exchanges namely the Ericsson AXE equipment.

The equipment was so poorly constructed that it raised serious concerns among those involved in the COT arbitrations. In a troubling turn of events, some unethical public servants conspired with the arbitrator, compromising the fairness of the proceedings. The technical consultants, who were ostensibly appointed as independent advisors, played a pivotal role in this scandal by facilitating Ericsson's acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. This company was not only a key player in the telecommunications sector but also served as the primary witness, accumulating substantial material for the COT Cass arbitration claims against none other than Ericsson itself. This situation was particularly ironic, as the ongoing arbitration was centred on investigating the very equipment provided by Ericsson, as referred to in Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.

So the Australian Senate Hansard, see Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 is attached to our story because it records Senator Schacht stating the following: 

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

As a result of the government’s actions, it failed to honour its initial agreement to treat the other sixteen cases with the same fairness and consideration as the five designated 'litmus' test cases. Consequently, these sixteen victims were left without any form of compensation or punitive damages for their suffering. This situation was made even more troubling by the government’s decision not to share vital documents obtained from the five test cases with the remaining sixteen victims. These individuals had also endured significant harm at the hands of Telstra and the associated individuals, who were under investigation by both the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police for their involvement in extensive theft. Reports have emerged suggesting that these individuals misappropriated millions of dollars. In some government circles, it is believed that the total amount stolen could well exceed one billion dollars, particularly during the period when the government still owned Telstra. The lack of transparency and accountability in this situation raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of these victims and the responsibility of the authorities involved.

My story seeks to shed light on the deeply discriminatory practices perpetrated by the John Howard government, particularly in its choice to withhold essential documents from sixteen individuals. These documents could have equipped them with the necessary tools to challenge their arbitration and mediation awards, which the arbitrator and mediator had resolved based on incomplete and inadequate submission material (Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

In the two weeks leading up to the pivotal signing of the COT arbitrations, a group of COT Cases, including my own, gathered for an intense two-day lockdown at the AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) headquarters, located in the bustling Queens Road complex. While the primary focus of our discussions was undoubtedly the COT arbitrations, the atmosphere was charged with a sense of purpose as we aimed to tackle a range of critical issues. We stood as trailblazers, having unearthed a grim narrative of Telstra’s unjust practices and criminal activities. Our shared mission was to expose their attempts to conceal a troubling history marked by deception, particularly towards those who had trusted and supported them.

The findings in the public AUSTEL COT Cases Report of April 1994 do not coincide with the covert findings in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, between Points 2 and 212  

In my case, the arbitrator's written findings, detailed within his award, specifically state under point 3.4, titled "Previous Inquiries," that he accepted three significant reports: Bell Canada, Coopers & Lybrand, and the AUSTEL report, as referenced in point 3.7 These reports were recognised as vital background evidence and were subsequently distributed to the arbitration consultants involved in the proceedings.

The evidence available on ansentjustice.com, which has been officially submitted at various times from 1996 to 2019 to five federal government agencies and two Victorian State Agencies, as well as included in a comprehensive 2006 overview of the COT arbitrations, clearly indicates that all three reports—namely, the Bell Canada, Coopers & Lybrand, and the AUSTEL COT Cases report—were recognized to be fundamentally flawed when they were introduced into the COT arbitration process. 

Despite the widespread acknowledgement of these flaws, not a single government agency has taken the necessary steps to confront the truth or launch an investigation into how this erroneous evidence led to significant harm to the lives of the COT Cases and their families. The lack of accountability raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the devastating consequences it has had on those affected.

Compelling evidence from (Senate Evidence File No 12) indicates that I have faced direct threats on two separate occasions—first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. During these tense moments, I was expressly warned that should I disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face serious charges of contempt against the Senate. This warning is particularly vexing, given that these records contain vital information that could facilitate successful arbitration and mediation appeals for the 16 citizens who were unjustly deprived of legal redress.

Clicking on the jail bars in the image below will show you how sixteen Australians were discriminated against by their own government.

 

 

An intense confrontation unfolded in a heated Senate committee meeting when National Party Senator Ron Boswell delivered a fiery critique to a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable frustration, he exclaimed, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” his voice resonating throughout the chamber. The remarks cast a shadow over the already tense atmosphere as Telstra's conduct regarding the COT Cases took centre stage.

However, the gravity of his words quickly caught the attention of the committee chair, prompting a swift intervention. Under scrutiny and recognising the need for decorum in such a serious forum, Senator Boswell was compelled to offer an apology. Turning to the chairperson more measuredly, he declared, “Madam, I withdraw that remark.” This moment of accountability underscored the importance of respectful dialogue in legislative discussions and illuminated the ongoing challenges surrounding Telstra’s treatment of COT Cases, a matter of significant public interest.

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

 A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, made it clear to the Telstra arbitration officer that if the company were to grant compensation solely to the five prominent 'litmus' COT test cases and neglect the other unresolved issues, it would constitute a significant injustice to the remaining sixteen claimants. This sentiment highlighted the gravity of the situation for those still seeking resolution. Despite this, the John Howard-led Liberal National Party (LNP) government approved a staggering $18 million in punitive damages exclusively for those five 'litmus' test cases. Furthermore, during this period, more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents were inexplicably withheld from the sixteen unresolved COT cases, a decision that hindered their arbitration process from 1994 to 1998. The expectation was that the eighteen million dollars—an amount earmarked for justice—should have been distributed equally among all twenty-one unresolved COT cases concerning Freedom of Information issues. Unfortunately, this equitable distribution never occurred.

This was a profound form of discrimination, especially considering the courageous stance taken by six of the 23 Senators involved in that investigation, who spoke up in the Senate in March 1999.

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

 

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

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

The six senators mentioned above formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' leading up to and throughout the COT arbitrations; however, where were Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the arbitration administrator) when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was being carried out?  

When the sixteen COT Cases missed out on the punitive damages, which was discriminatory enough to say the least, why didn't the John Howard government reinvestigate the statement made 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“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 exists no amendment appended to any arbitration agreement, duly signed by the members of the COT, which would permit the arbitrator to carry out their specific arbitrations completely outside the established framework of the arbitration procedure. Furthermore, the agreements do not indicate that the arbitrator would relinquish control over the arbitration process once the COT Cases had executed their contracts. It raises a significant question: how could the preceding arbitrator in those cases, the TIO responsible for overseeing those arbitrations, continue to shield themselves behind the controversial and modified confidentiality clauses embedded in the arbitration agreement? This is particularly perplexing, given that the agreement does not refer to the possibility of the arbitrator exercising no authority over the arbitration due to it being conducted "entirely" outside the parameters of the procedures they had initially agreed upon.

This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements 

“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 directed against me, my business, and the three other COT case members: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, along with their respective businesses. In simple terms, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations began. What followed should have halted the arbitrations, as the withholding of the requested COT documents was being coordinated by Telstra’s lawyers from Freehill Hollingdale & Page at their Collins Street office. This was confirmed by Lindsay White, a former Telstra official who is now a whistleblower, disillusioned by the actions he was compelled to take.

Just a single touch on the front page of "The Firm" by John Grisham may transport you back to the era in which this gripping novel was penned. It weaves a narrative reminiscent of the tumultuous events surrounding the Telstra saga. Imagine a reader from the United States reaching out to John Grisham, suggesting he visit the intriguing website absentjustice.com, where they can explore themes of justice and accountability that resonate with the story.

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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-" 

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

When you click on Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, you'll be taken to their official website. Once there, if you enter the term "arbitration" in the search bar, you'll uncover that the firm holds an esteemed position in the legal world, particularly renowned for its expertise in international arbitration. Their reputation is bolstered by a plethora of awards and accolades, including being ranked as the fifth-best global arbitration practice worldwide. Their extensive knowledge encompasses various types of arbitration, including investor-state disputes, state-to-state conflicts, and commercial arbitrations, making them a leader in the field.

Threats made during my arbitration 

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, 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 an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting every word. 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 jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing 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 impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of 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.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the attention of the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

By clicking on the image of Senator Ron Boswell, readers will gain insight into the immense challenges I encountered while crafting this narrative in 2025. Without the unwavering support of dedicated Senators like Senator Boswell, I, along with countless other victims of COT cases, would not have endured the trials of the past thirty years. Their advocacy has been crucial in navigating the complexities of our struggles, highlighting the profound impact that compassionate leadership can have on those in need.

 

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 TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had 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 their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account that establishes Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardising my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorised early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol compromised the integrity of the arbitration process and gave Telstra an unfair advantage in its response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorised to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.

 

 

Public officials, often devoid of proper oversight and accountability mechanisms, frequently turn a blind eye to corrupt actions that can devastate nations like Australia. This precarious situation is exacerbated by the pervasive use of confidentiality agreements and government-sanctioned arbitration, tools that effectively conceal the true extent of corruption among public officials. A striking illustration of this troubling reality is found in the COT arbitrations, where the very essence of transparency was sacrificed, casting a shadow over the integrity of the entire process.

Outdated and tainted regulations have allowed the Australian government to turn a blind eye to critical issues, including tampering with evidence and overlooking sweeping deficiencies in Telstra's telecommunications infrastructure. Such corrupt arbitration practices have served to conceal the truth, resulting in significant long-term consequences. As a result, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funnelled into rectifying the problems plaguing Telstra’s telecommunications system.

How do you accurately document the complex web of events surrounding various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations? How does an author convincingly demonstrate, without disclosing the names of those involved, that government public servants funnelled privileged information to the then-government-owned telecommunications carrier—the defendants—while simultaneously concealing this critical documentation from claimants, who are their fellow citizens?

Imagine telling a story so astonishing that it elicits an emotional response even from seasoned politicians. During a discussion about my draft, a senator confessed, "I almost broke down at times; you have to double-check your own story because it’s hard to believe that a lawyer like Dr. Gordon Hughes would stoop so low as to tarnish his wife’s good name to cover up his own misdeeds."

My 28-year journey as a seaman—working as an industrial cook in mining camps, oil and gas rigs, deep-sea tugs, and even in shearing sheds in the rugged Victorian Horsham region—has placed me in the company of many tough, extraordinary individuals. Yet, I have never encountered someone as reprehensibly deceitful as John Pinnock, the arbitration administrator of the COT arbitration and the second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. 

In a desperate bid to protect the reputation of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in my case, I obtained a copy of a letter written by John Pinnock to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, dated February 17, 1996. This letter falsely accused me of admitting—through a written confession—that I had called Dr. Hughes’ wife at 2 a.m., implying that I was a man of reprehensible character. As a result, my claims against Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, were deemed unfounded. Notably, this letter has never been discovered, and as of June 2025, it remains undiscovered. Such a scandalous revelation should be enough to pique the reader's curiosity and compel them to delve further into this gripping narrative.

Most readers would naturally assume that a person of integrity would have come forward by now to inform the government that I never made that early morning phone call to Dr. Hughes’ wife. The truth is that I placed a call to Dr. Hughes at precisely 8:02 p.m. on November 28, 1995, after returning home at 7:45 p.m. and being greeted by a staggering 2,600 Freedom of Information documents that I had eagerly requested for my arbitration. These crucial documents arrived on the very day, a full six months after the arbitration process had concluded.

Make sure to hover your mouse or cursor over the image of the TF200 telephone. By doing this, you will uncover the corrupt practices of the Telecom Corporation, including its arbitrators and regulatory officials. These individuals will do anything to protect the benefits they receive from the Telstra enterprise.

 

The evidence contained in these documents is showcased on absentjustice.com, unveiling that when my EXICOM telephone reached Telstra's laboratories on May 10, 1994, during my arbitration, it was in pristine condition. Any introduction of sticky beer into the device occurred at least ten days after it arrived at Telstra. What these Freedom of Information documents affirm—and continue to vindicate through 2025—is that deliberate tampering with my telephone transpired while it was under Telstra’s care (Refer to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter).

Had Dr. Gordon Hughes challenged Mr. Pinnock’s allegations and demanded access to this voluminous evidence, available for download on absentjustice.com, it could have opened the door for me to address this pivotal aspect of my arbitration award by late 1995 or early 1996.

Yet, the egregious misconduct perpetrated by Dr. Gordon Hughes and John Pinnock regarding my arbitration does not conclude with an unmailed letter. 

How does one uncover collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed watchdogs (such as umpires), and the defendants? How does one reveal that the defendants in an arbitration process involving a government-owned telecommunications carrier used sophisticated equipment connected to their network to surreptitiously screen, fax, and store sensitive materials, all while infringing on my knowledge and consent before misdirecting them? Were the defendants employing this intercepted information to bolster their defence, ruthlessly undermining the claimants’ positions?

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

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

“They show that

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

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

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

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this insidious form of hacking? Is this electronic eavesdropping—this unwarranted intrusion into confidential documentation—still occurring today amid legitimate Australian arbitrations? On 7 January 1999, the arbitration claimants presented a damning report to the Australian government, confirming that confidential arbitration-related documents were illegally intercepted before reaching their intended recipients. In my case, despite the arbitrator’s secretary notifying the arbitration process that six of my crucial faxed claim documents never arrived at the arbitrator's office, I was unjustly barred from resubmitting this vital material for fair assessment. My fax account records unequivocally show that I dialled the correct fax number on all six occasions.