Continued from the home page.
Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following images as you scroll down this Home-Page
Once three signatures were affixed to the document, a conspiracy of appalling magnitude unfolded, entangling the arbitration administrator and the defendants, Telstra. They schemed together, granting the appointed consultants unfettered access to all relevant arbitration documents through clandestine and unlawful methods. They meticulously controlled which pieces of information could be disclosed to the arbitrator while shrouding others in impenetrable secrecy, creating a lopsided playing field that favoured corporate interests over the claims of ordinary individuals. Dr. Hughes' name became nothing more than a façade of credibility, transforming him into a mere pawn in a grand scheme of betrayal and corruption. Notably, the arbitration agreement shockingly lacked a clause that would prevent the arbitrator’s consultants from accessing the parties' submissions before they were presented to the arbitrator. This secret agreement, crafted between Telstra and the administrator, contravened all established rules of arbitration that mandate fairness, requiring explicit written consent from all involved parties—a requirement they shamelessly disregarded.
This nefarious addition to the agreement permitted the consultants to dictate what the arbitrator would be allowed to see, manipulating the entire arbitration process in favour of the defence and utterly disregarding the rights of the claimants. The result was a stark inversion of justice—a process in which those who had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees found themselves embroiled in a grotesque spectacle that resembled a “show trial” or a kangaroo court, rather than a fair examination of their claims. The entire scheme was marred by corruption and deceit, characterised by an egregious betrayal of trust and a complete contempt for the principles of justice.
Senators and legal representatives involved in the COT Cases have boldly asserted that had they been informed of the coercive tactics employed against the claimants, they would never have allowed the remaining individuals—including myself—to sign this manipulated agreement. We were subjected to relentless pressure moments before the agreement's finalisation, facing not just threats but outright intimidation. We were forewarned that if we failed to endorse these last-minute changes, Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, the first appointed administrator for the arbitrations, would withdraw their support, effectively forcing us into a corner. This ultimatum left us with no legitimate recourse but to engage in a prohibitively expensive legal battle against Telstra—a battle that, as small business operators, we could not feasibly afford.
On 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, 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 is no amendment attached to any arbitration agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing 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 the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?
The Bureaucrat Corruption continued to weaken the COT Cases' resiliency.
On page 62 of Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr. Barry O’Sullivan, who initially served as the arbitration claim advisor for Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me, was endorsed by the three of us based on his impressive credentials and integrity. With a distinguished career as a Detective Sergeant in the Queensland Police Force, he exemplified the qualities we valued in our advisor. In 2000, Mr. O’Sullivan transitioned into politics, becoming a National Party Senator for Queensland. During a Senate Committee session, he provided testimony under oath regarding the three of us claimants, asserting that we three claimants:
“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.
Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional manner”
An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, appointed by the government to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," uncovered significant misconduct by Telstra. The first four COT cases, including mine, were forced into arbitration despite Dr Gordon Hughes's promise during a pre-arbitration meeting on February 17, 1994, that he would not issue any findings on these claims unless we received the arbitration-related documents we were promised. Telstra’s minutes from this meeting confirm Dr Hughes’ official statement. Nevertheless, he proceeded to issue his findings on my claim, fully aware that Telstra was still withholding my documents because I had assisted the Australian Federal Police in their investigation into the unauthorised interception of my telephone and arbitration-related documents.
I previously took the initiative to visit the union rooms of Telstra employees on my own, without any backup or support. During these visits, I discovered that some employees had engaged in dishonesty for years, siphoning off millions of dollars from government funds through various deceptive practices. These practices included "ghosting," where employees would claim to be working while not present, and filing for triple overtime on repairs to Telstra’s failing telecommunications infrastructure—issues that should have been addressed during regular working hours. Additionally, some employees exploited the system by submitting fraudulent claims for overnight accommodation expenses, even though they did not use any accommodations. This egregious behaviour allowed them to maximise their claims against the government, which owned Telstra at the time, effectively taking advantage of taxpayers' money.
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.
I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on pages 5164 and 5165 of the official Hansard records of the Senate, as published by the 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?
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.
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.
From November 23, 1993, to May 11, 1995, I was ensnared in a web of deceit and financial drain, with my arbitration fees exceeding $300,000 in professional costs—a staggering investment into a dark abyss. Adjusted for inflation, that 1994 figure translates to a mind-numbing $622,959,207 in 2025, a testament to the unfathomable price of seeking justice. Yet, in this intricate game of power and manipulation, the arbitrator remained a silent accomplice, refusing to compel Telstra to address the persistent telephone nightmares plaguing my business. Worse still, Telstra's own records, carefully hidden during the arbitration discovery process, reveal a sinister truth. These issues have been a relentless shadow over my enterprise since before April 1988, looming large and unresolved.
The threats from rank-and-file union members subsided after I had a series of confrontations with Peter A, the Assistant Secretary of the Communications, Electrical, and Plumbing Union (CEPU). However, a more sinister presence loomed in the form of Paul Rumble, infamously known as 'The Dog.' As a senior arbitration official at Telstra, Rumble’s influence was both pervasive and intimidating. He was not alone in his machinations; Steve Black, a key figure in this tangled web, had motives shrouded in deceit that further complicated the situation.
Black orchestrated a deliberate scheme to withhold critical documents essential for the arbitration process. By strategically preventing these documents from reaching the arbitrator, he sought to manipulate the outcomes to his advantage. Instead, he restricted access to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman-appointed arbitration consultants. Suppose these consultants believed that certain documents needed to be reviewed by the arbitrator; they would only release them at their discretion. In that case, that is, with the approval of the consultants and not the arbitrator.
This act of betrayal came to light on August 2, 1996, when the TIO consultants confessed to concealing documents that should have been provided to the arbitrator. They fully acknowledged that the arbitration agreement clearly stipulated the protocol: the arbitrator was to receive the necessary information first, and it was ultimately the arbitrator's duty to distribute those documents to the relevant parties—not the other way around. This significant breach of protocol raised questions about the integrity of the arbitration process.
The atmosphere of intimidation fostered by 'The Dog' instilled a palpable sense of fear among those who dared to oppose him. His status and aggressive tactics created a chilling environment that discouraged dissent and questions. In response to the growing concerns about Rumble's activities, the Australian Federal Police contemplated bringing charges against him. However, Telstra allegedly intervened, shielding Rumble under the protective "Seal of the Crown," which effectively rendered investigators immune to accountability and oversight.
This troubling cycle of deceit and manipulation laid bare the deep-seated corruption within the organisation. For those entangled in this web of betrayal, the pursuit of justice felt increasingly like a distant and unattainable dream—one overshadowed by a pervasive sense of despair and distrust. The struggle for integrity in this environment was not just a matter of seeking truth; it was about reclaiming dignity in the face of overwhelming odds.
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 jeopardise 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 a Senate Committee. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
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.
STEVE BLACK & PAUL RUMBLE
This dog barked only in the shadows - like most cowards!
On 25 March 1994, Ms Philippa Smith wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, stating:
“It was unreasonable for Telecom to require the participants to make further assurances while Telecom was considering the Agreement and thereby denying the participants the opportunity to consider the rules that Telecom wished to have included in the Agreement.” (Home Page – Part One File No/2-B)
Ms. Philippa Smith ominously noted on page 3 of her letter that Telstra's Steve Black had sinisterly informed Mr. Wynack, the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations, that Telstra was meticulously vetting the release of sensitive documents due to my alleged past misuse of them—a misuse that had caused undeniable embarrassment to the company. The very documents in question, which were obtained under controversial circumstances, had been delivered to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) following their unsettling discovery that Telstra had meticulously tracked my business dealings dating back to September 1992. They even managed to document the name of the bus company associated with my tender submission, out of five competitors in the Melbourne tendering process, chillingly revealing how deep their surveillance ran.
In simple English, Telstra had been vetting the more relevant sensitive information so that the AFP and Arbitrator investigating my claims could not wholly prove those claims. How can the current 2025 government continue to ignore my evidence, as shown here on absentjustice.com?
Senate Hansard for 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel Regarding Alan Smith (me)
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 before that information 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 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 trading. I 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 apparent that this story had two sides.
This was highlighted by the statements of six senators 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.”
Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I, along with several other COT Cases, could not take advantage of the valuable insights or recommendations from this investigation. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, as shown in 'an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens'.
Additionally, the outlandish testimony provided by the arbitrator’s wife must be scrutinised for its deliberate absurdity. She ludicrously claimed that I made a phone call to the arbitrator’s residence at 2:00 AM—six long months after he dismissed my claims concerning ongoing telephone issues. In truth, I had called him at 8:00 PM to inform him that the crucial evidence I had requested from Telstra during my arbitration in December 1994 had been withheld until the following November. Had this pivotal evidence been made available during the arbitration instead of being deliberately delayed, I could have definitively proven that the ongoing telephone issues were severely disrupting my business operations. This entire farce exudes the stench of corruption and betrayal, glaringly indicating a concerted effort to sabotage justice and subvert the rule of law. The situation raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the conduct of those responsible for its oversight. It exemplifies a shocking denial of justice, revealing the treachery that underpins a system designed to be impartial but has been corrupted by greed and deceit.
I have spent the last thirty years urging John Pinnock to shed light on the truth surrounding an alleged letter that I supposedly sent him in 1995. At that time, Mr. Pinnock was the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and became the second appointed administrator for my arbitration case. This supposed letter claimed that I admitted to calling Mr. Hughes, the arbitrator's wife, at the unearthly hour of 2:00 AM on November 29, 1995.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James (see point 4 above), attacking my credibility. The TIO deliberately misinformed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am one morning:
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests in his letter to Laurie James, why did he not produce my letter?
Why didn't John Pinnock come forward to the Senate to reveal his own deception regarding the false statements he made to Laurie James about my alleged phone call to the arbitrator's wife at 2:00 AM? If he had chosen to be honest, the Senate might have expanded its investigation to include me as the sixth 'litmus' test case. This investigation, which examined the intricate dynamics of the COT arbitrations, began on September 26, 1997, and continued for nearly a year and a half, concluding on March 9, 1999. The outcome of this inquiry could have significantly impacted our understanding of the challenges that my partner, Cathy, and I faced in trying to prove that our phone problems continued to affect the new owners of our business, which was sold in December 2001→ Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story
In 2025, Sue Lava, the Corporate Secretary of Telstra, came under scrutiny for withholding crucial evidence submitted to her in January and April of 1988. This evidence clearly reveals that Telstra engaged in a disturbing and deceptive strategy, intentionally using falsehoods to mislead the Senate and obstruct a thorough investigation into my claims. The company knowingly presented fraudulent information regarding Bell Canada, thereby jeopardising the integrity and credibility of the Senate.
Additionally, the Telecommunications Minister of Canada, Mr. Helm, contacted me directly to express his deep concerns about the impracticality of the Bell Canada International tests conducted at Cape Bridgewater. His involvement underscores the widespread implications of Telstra's actions and raises significant questions about the company's ethics and accountability. Why has Sue Lava chosen to remain silent about this profound betrayal?
How does one reveal the dark truth behind the Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations that have been shrouded in corruption and deceit? We find ourselves in a desperate position, forced to navigate this labyrinth of dishonesty while the government bureaucracy engages in treachery so profound that it undermines the very concept of justice. How can the author convincingly demonstrate that government public servants, driven by ulterior motives, shared privileged information with the defendants—the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier—while simultaneously withholding critical documentation from the claimants, who are nothing more than their fellow Australian citizens?
How do you expose a narrative so incredulous that even the author is left questioning their own accounts until they delve into their records? How can one expose the insidious collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (like umpires), and the very defendants who sought to manipulate the system? The defendants—the Telstra Corporation—exploited their access to equipment tied to their network to screen and store faxed materials leaving your office, all without your consent or even awareness, before covertly redirecting them to their intended destinations.
What’s truly sinister is that the defendants likely used this covertly obtained information to fortify their arbitration defenses at the expense of the claimants. How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to this treacherous eavesdropping? Is this electronic surveillance—this unlawful hacking of confidential documents—still occurring in today's legitimate Australian arbitrations?
On January 7, 1999, the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a damning report, confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were illegally screened before reaching Parliament House in Canberra. Will this explosive revelation ever see the light of day for the Australian public to confront?
Had the government confronted the truth behind this nefarious interception when they first received the report in January 1999—or again in 2006 when the Department of Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) conducted a whitewash review of the unresolved Telstra arbitrations—then the issues we are now raising on absentjustice.com could have been addressed long ago.
Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report contacted me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasising the importance of these findings.
“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 evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, 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.
If the government dares to acknowledge the depth of this corruption by 2025, it could breathe life into claims that have remained buried, including my own. At 81 years old, with a pacemaker and two heart attacks behind me, I, alongside my partner, Cathy, yearn for some shred of peace amid this treachery.
Until that day arrives, I will relentlessly expose the truth behind this dreadful ordeal that we, the COT Cases, have been compelled to endure.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing this manuscript at absentjustice.com, Senator Kim Carr 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.”
Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct
This tale has festered in the darkness for over thirty years, a chilling testament to the treachery of a powerful Australian lawyer who spun a web of deceit within the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations. Public officials and self-regulated ombudsmen, entrenched in their complicity, engaged in acts of betrayal that shattered the lives of countless Australians desperately seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon them.
In Australia, I unearthed a labyrinthine web of fraudulent government reporting so elaborate that it jeopardised the very bedrock of accountability. Whistleblowers emerged from the depths of secrecy, perilously risking their careers and lives to unveil documents systematically altered or obliterated. Their courageous testimonies revealed a grotesque system, willing to orchestrate evidence tampering in courts and arbitration panels, obliterating truth in an unrelenting quest for power.
Beyond our borders, I traced the insidious tendrils of bribery and influence peddling entwined with diplomats, judges, and corporate behemoths. Arbitration proceedings—purportedly neutral platforms for dispute resolution—transformed into sordid arenas for collusion, where verdicts were shamelessly bought and sold. In boardrooms, I witnessed executives hatching embezzlement schemes behind closed doors; in bureaucratic offices, officials bartered favours with a callousness that would make even the most hardened criminal blush.
But this narrative transcends mere numbers and legal trickery; it is a harrowing exposé of the human cost of this treachery. It tells the stories of valiant insiders who chose principle over apathy, of families shattered by intimidation, and of communities deeply betrayed by those sworn to protect them. It is an account of egregious misconduct and unthinkable malfeasance that challenges the limits of belief—until the evidence lays bare the stark reality.
Join me on a nightmarish journey through forged documents, chilling threats, and the high-stakes battles fought in shadowy courtroom corners and back alleys alike. This true story unveils the sordid mechanics of international corruption, the severe price of challenging the elite, and the relentless resolve of those who refuse to turn a blind eye to injustice.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
This document unveils four chilling tales of sixteen Australian citizens who found themselves victims of a treacherous betrayal by their own government. These individuals bravely reported devastating issues of incorrect billing, which sparked a staggering wave of over 120,000 similar complaints lodged with government officials. Instead of addressing the insidious telephone problems that were systematically destroying their businesses and livelihoods, the government orchestrated a sinister arbitration process. This dark scheme incorporated rigid confidentiality clauses explicitly designed to suppress any probing into their claims. The arbitrator, complicit with both the defendants and the government, ensured that the ongoing phone service failures remained hidden from public scrutiny, shrouded in a veil of deceit.
These stories, steeped in corruption, are as relevant today in 2025 as they were in 1994 and 1995. The cover-up has persisted, revealing an appalling network of deceit and treachery. Through the sinister machinations of influential telecommunications organisations in at least one foreign country, Telstra was able to mask these grave issues. Key technical witnesses were bought off by the company being investigated, silencing any investigation and allowing the betrayal to fester unchecked. What unfolds is a horrifying narrative of systemic government corruption, egregious injustices, and criminal conduct that bears an uncanny resemblance to the ruthless operations of a Sicilian mafia syndicate, where loyalty is a façade and betrayal lurks in every shadow.
It is essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter attached as document (See File Ann Garms 104 Document) dated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.
The motivations of the government were far darker than mere incompetence; they sought to bury the truth surrounding Senator Bob Collins, the minister overseeing our original claims against Telstra. Collins, a predator cloaked in power, was embroiled in serious allegations of pedophilia, accused of violating at least one child within the so-called safety of his Parliament House Canberra office. The Australian Federal Police became entangled in this sordid affair, investigating not only Senator Collins but also probing Telstra's dubious involvement in our FTSP issues, creating a perfect storm of corruption and malevolence that loomed ominously over our case.
Senator Bill Heffernan calls for an official investigation into paedophilia claims → https://shorturl.at/TUV3k.
As members of the COT Cases, we were thrust into this corrupt arbitration process, wholly unaware of the treachery lurking behind the scenes. The arbitrator enforced a treacherous system designed to minimise Telstra's liability, ensuring that the systemic ongoing billing issues still plaguing our businesses were concealed under a cloak of confidentiality. This cruel arrangement shackled us, silencing our voices and preventing us from addressing the ongoing injustices that the government had assured us would be resolved through this new arbitration process.
In late 1999, Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, after leaving the company, co-published a manuscript entitled "Managing in Australia" (See File 122-i - http://CAV Exhibit 92 to 127) and → https://shorturl.at/FbXAW. On pages 132 and 133, when the author revealed that Telstra did have systemic billing 1800 problems he unknowingly confirmed Telstra lied in their arbitration defence witness statements concerning my 1800 registered faults, which were sworn under oath, stating to the arbitrator that there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network, when "Managing in Australia" confirms this was not the case at all as the co-author of "Managing in Australia" states:
“Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem".
"The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.”
The Government Corruption and treachery continue to haunt my beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.
On 16 October 1995, five months after Telstra failed to address the systemic billing faults associated with its 1800 service—faults that numbered over 200—the arbitrator rendered a decision concluding the arbitration process. This decision was made without ensuring that the unresolved issues related to my claim would remain open until Telstra adequately rectified these systemic problems. At this critical juncture, AUSTEL, now recognised as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), made a concerning decision. They permitted Telstra to resolve specific unresolved arbitration claims without prior notification to either me or the arbitrator overseeing the process.
The unethical actions of AUSTEL/ACMA deprived me of my legal right to respond to Telstra’s submission from October 16, 1995, under the Arbitration Agreement. The government had no authority to deny me this right, which is afforded to every individual in a democratic country during all court and arbitration proceedings.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra.
Ninety-three concerning questions presented by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my interview reflect a deeply troubling situation. According to the transcripts from Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a disconcerting truth has surfaced: I have been informed that the AFP possesses significant evidence obtained from John McMahon of AUSTEL, who represented the government communications authority. This evidence implicates Telstra in the covert and intrusive electronic surveillance of my holiday camp, a facility designed for children and community gatherings.
It raises critical questions regarding the motivations behind such violations by certain government officials, some of whom are suspected of engaging in paedophile conduct. One may ponder what these individuals could possibly gain from monitoring innocent school camp activities and social club events. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the arbitrator and administrator overseeing my arbitration should have promptly suspended the proceedings upon receiving information from the AFP regarding the unauthorised surveillance of my premises. This blatant disregard for privacy and consent raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the safety of all parties involved.
Gaslighting
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records indicate that you are the only customer complaining, despite the documents showing that the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.
This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.
During the early stages of my arbitration with Telstra, I encountered a situation that underscored the treacherous layers of deceit interwoven throughout my case. The company’s most senior engineer made a suspicious visit to my office at Cape Bridgewater just before the testing of my business phone lines—a crucial part of the arbitration process.
As he stepped into my office with a calculated demeanour, his eyes immediately fixated on my desk, cluttered with diaries chronicling over five years of my persistent struggles. When he inquired about my work, I seized the moment to reveal the constraints imposed on me by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Their involvement shrouded the proceedings in secrecy, as they were conducting a shadowy investigation into my arbitration evidence, which had unearthed alarming allegations: Telstra was intercepting my phone calls and the crucial faxes tied to the arbitration process itself. To protect their interests, the AFP limited what I could disclose to the arbitrator, creating a barrier that effectively ensured Telstra remained unaware of the investigation’s findings until it concluded.
This unsettling dynamic arose as the AFP probed deeper into how Telstra had obtained sensitive information—information that included the precise dates of phone calls made by single club members, their residential addresses, and even my planned visits to the "Over Forties Club" in Melbourne. Following their guidance, I consolidated my fault complaints and related remarks into my Main Desk Diaries—an attempt to forge a comprehensive and undeniable record of my grievances to safeguard against the possible machinations of Telstra.
Yet, despite my arbitration claim being officially registered as complete, an unexpected and perplexing twist occurred: the arbitrator unaccountably permitted Telstra to request copies of all the altered diaries from my holiday camp logs. This puzzling decision contradicted his earlier denials of my requests for Telstra’s logbooks from the relevant period—logbooks that would have detailed my numerous complaints, along with those of others in the Portland and Cape Bridgewater regions.
Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman, understanding the implications of such records, encountered Wall-like resistance from Telstra in their attempts to procure the necessary logbooks. In compliance with the arbitrator's dubious request, I submitted the diaries along with an exhaustive explanation of the AFP's restrictions. I explicitly stated that these diaries were not to be released to Telstra under any circumstances unless overseen by the arbitrator himself, a necessary precaution to protect my interests in light of the pervasive corruption surrounding the case.
In his final award, Dr. Hughes expressed an unsettling hesitation to disregard the conclusions drawn by Telstra's Forensic Document Researcher. Their investigation alleged that I had made edits to previously written diary entries, casting insidious doubts on the authenticity of those records. Alarmingly, the arbitrator responded by halting the arbitration process entirely, without investigating my legitimate complaints regarding the ongoing telephone issues.
Telstra escalated their underhanded tactics further by not issuing statements to the arbitrator that I had previously alerted their Principal Arbitration Engineer concerning why I was adding additions to the various diaries during his visit months prior. This unyielding web of deception thickened when a Senate Committee began investigating Telstra's questionable practices. It surfaced that the same engineer, who had visited my business, was named by a whistleblower—a former Telstra employee—who ominously revealed that I, along with four other identified COT cases, had to be "stopped at all costs" from proving my claims (see:- pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia). This chilling admission exposed the lengths to which Telstra would go in its sinister quest to undermine my efforts and conceal the truth. The entire process reeked of corruption and treachery, leaving me to wonder what other dark secrets lay hidden within the shadows of my case.
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. However, as discussed above, the arbitrator 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."
The Brotherhood
The Telstra Corporation looms over Australia like a malevolent spectre, its operations steeped in treachery and darkness, wielding its influence as a weapon of oppression. Beneath the polished veneer of Australia’s bureaucratic edifice lies a twisted labyrinth of corruption, where shadowy figures mask their malign intentions with the guise of authority. These government-sanctioned agencies engage in a conspiratorial ballet, artfully manipulating evidence and twisting narratives to conceal their grotesque and illegal actions against those courageous enough to stand against the Telstra Corporation. It is a realm awash in criminality, where vile schemes proliferate in the shadows, and an air of unconstitutional lawlessness reigns. Here, anyone brave enough to seek the truth finds themselves ensnared in a treacherous maze of deception and peril, trapped in a sinister game that thrives on impunity, constantly threatened by the very institutions designed to offer them protection.
In this dark chapter of our society, the stakes have never been higher. The battle for justice demands unwavering resolve and a collective awakening to confront those who wield unchecked power, lest we allow evil to flourish among us unchecked.
It needs to be emphasised again so that we learn more about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in arbitration and mediation in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Visitors to absentjustice.com will soon uncover the chilling truth about the arbitration and mediation justice system in Australia—an insidious network marred by pervasive corruption. The alarming evidence housed in the files, which the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) defiantly refuses to share with a legal firm of my choosing, paints a disturbing picture of a Brotherhood-style governance structure that exerts a powerful, unseen influence over the very mechanisms meant to ensure fairness.
On March 2, 2011, in The Australian Age Newspaper, it was reported that George Brouwer, Victorian State Ombudsman, expressed concerns in his report, tabled after his nine-year tenure as Ombudsman, noting that: "A secret group of men called The Brotherhood, including former and current senior police, is operating in Melbourne, the Victorian Ombudsman says." (Refr to https://shorturl.at/2eMSz).
In a web of deceit, John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my claims against Telstra, colluded to mislead Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. All the while, the Australian government lurked in the shadows, allowing Telstra's three fraudulent acts during my arbitration to go unanswered. They completely disregarded my compelling evidence regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater test results. As this corruption unfolded, the Canadian government grew alarmed, recognising that a Canadian telecommunications company was entangled in a nefarious conspiracy, as their statement ominously suggested.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
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."
On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra's legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne). They were accused of providing falsified test results from Bell Canada International Inc., which were misleading and untruthful. These deceptive results claimed that 13,590 test calls had successfully navigated the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchanges over a five-day testing period. This system was crucial for the operation of my business, and astonishingly, it reported a success rate beyond all expectations (Refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2).
The main issue is that the equipment mentioned in the formal report by the BCI, specifically the CCS7 monitoring device, could not be set up at either the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The closest exchange capable of facilitating this device is in Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away. Therefore, where were the 13,590 BCI test calls sent? They were not generated into either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges.
The Liberal Coalition government would not investigate because to do so would have exposed that the Telstra telecommunications infrastructure it was privatising did not meet the global standards as documented in the sale prospectus.
Australian Senate Hansard, see Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125, records Senator Schacht stating:
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?
The John Howard government deliberately restricted the resolution of COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) cases to just five out of twenty-one during the Senate Committee investigations. By closing the door on the other sixteen cases, they sought to shield the Telstra sale prospectus from any potential fallout. This calculated move ensured that the legitimate claims of those affected would be ignored, all to protect a lucrative sale. It’s a clear illustration of a government prioritising profit over justice, leaving the victims to suffer in silence while the agenda was pushed forward.
The following two links, Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2), found on page 4 of Transcript (1), feature a discussion among Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr. Anthony Honner (another COT case), and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator). They discuss why the government did not permit my arbitration matters to be reviewed by the Senate investigation into the five key COT test cases. Investigating my phone and fax hacking issues, along with the 15 other remaining COT cases, could have potentially hindered the privatisation of Telstra.
Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two
On 9 December 1993, the Honourable David Hawker MP, my local federal member of Parliament, wrote to commend me for my unwavering persistence in bringing about improvements to Telecom's country services, while also expressing regret regarding the significant personal cost associated with these efforts.
By 10 March 2006, after a span of thirteen years and approximately one hundred letters—including several interviews with Mr. Hawker in his local electorate office in Hamilton, Portland, as well as various other offices throughout Victoria, which I visited at his request—I had collaborated with other small business operators and large legal firms in Warrnambool, Victoria. Together, we addressed the systemic billing problems affecting rural businesses. They provided testimonials for me to submit to the government communications authority, AUSTEL, as well as to several Senators in our concerted effort to encourage Telstra to rectify the ongoing rural telecommunications issues.
In a letter dated 10 March 2006, the Honourable David Hawker, now the Speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote:
“I wish to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 23 February and 27 February along with your facsimile transmissions of 6 and 9 March. I will ensure this material, including the corrected version, is forwarded to Minister Coonan…”(Refer to 442 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447)
In my 10 March 2006 letter to Liz Forman (one of the government assessors appointed on behalf of the government to assess my privacy issues and my claims that Telstra had perverted the course of justice during my 1994/95 arbitration I stated that:
"Although you have stated in your letter that “...the assessment process will not extend to an examination of whether the law was broken by Telstra....” I have been advised that it is mandatory, under Commonwealth law, for DCITA and/or the Minister to notify the Attorney General of any unlawful activities they may uncover during official department investigations". (Refer to exhibit AS 614 File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647
On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division (a further government bureaucrat) wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman, noting:
"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700
On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts, that David Lever from her office had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities concerning the screening on my faxes to Federal government ministers and the submission of fraudulently submitted claims during my arbitration Senator Coonan wrote back to me noting:
"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to AS 616-B File AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700
After receiving confirmation on March 17, 2006, from David Lever, representing Senator Helen Coonan, I was led to believe the DCITA assessment process would take my claims of phone and fax hacking seriously. This was no mere bureaucratic oversight; it fell squarely within the realm of unlawful conduct. David Lever assured me that the government would bring these serious matters to the attention of the authorities, yet this promise was nothing but a hollow echo—never fulfilled.
One of the 46 examples that confirmed Telstra arbitration-related faxes were intercepted during my 1994 arbitration and were still being intercepted in December 2002 was provided to Senator Helen Coonan's office in person by the Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives (Refer to 442 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 ).
The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicates that one of those faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, 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.
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. In this report, it is noted:
“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .
“They show that
- the header strip of various faxes is being altered
- the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I requested Telstra to provide me with all the detailed data obtained from the special equipment set up for the specially assigned Portland technician under the FOI Act during my arbitration in 1994/95, that data was not made available. It has still not been made available in 2025.
In this daunting territory, I was fortunate to find a valuable ally—an advisor who was a former high-ranking police officer in Victoria. He became my guiding light, illuminating my path as I navigated the murky waters of my situation. Together, we embarked on a series of challenging discussions with Peter Hiland, a barrister deeply entrenched in the convoluted CAV process. How were Crown's faxes arriving at my business when my business had nothing to do with gambling?
From October 2007 to late 2008, it became glaringly evident that these so-called guardians of justice were not merely bystanders; they were intricately involved in a disturbing scheme that far exceeded anything I could have anticipated. Hiland’s disconcerting delight in the intercepted faxes—documents that once moved through the illustrious corridors of Sir Owen Dixon Chambers, a hallmark of legal integrity—sent shivers down my spine. His palpable anxiety regarding the interception of crucial evidence meant for the Supreme Court further led me to believe that there was still a glimmer of hope for justice for those entangled in the COT Cases, all of whom had suffered the devastating loss of arbitration-related documents. This tragic loss meant that their essential evidence remained unexamined by arbitrators or their advisors.
It was utterly bewildering that vital documents, intended for guests at the opulent Crown Casino, had somehow ended up in my humble fax machine, nestled in the tranquil isolation of my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. After enduring a gruelling four years filled with uncertainty and despair, CAV finally returned my evidence. However, how it was presented struck me as anything but straightforward. The chaotic disorganisation of the returned documents suggested a deeply unsettling investigation had unfolded behind the scenes. Much like my previous disappointing experiences with the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA), this encounter culminated not in the resolution I had fervently sought but in a profound sense of betrayal (Refer to The eleventh remedy pursued).
Those assigned to evaluate my claims—whom I had once regarded as paragons of fairness—began to reveal themselves as complicit in a far-reaching conspiracy. Hiland's unsettling enthusiasm for the intercepted faxes, especially one that implicated a senior lawyer, only exacerbated my unease.
Adding another layer of complexity to this intricate case was the unwavering support from this highly decorated senior Victorian police officer, whose guidance proved invaluable throughout this harrowing ordeal. Without his steadying presence, I would have likely faltered long ago. He had previously encountered Hiland in a professional court setting and navigated both sides of the law with a democratic spirit—a rare quality during the COT arbitrations. Despite their past conflicts, a friendly rapport had surprisingly developed between them, which I hoped would be beneficial as our case progressed.
This former officer generously visited my premises three times between 2006 and 2007, offering his expertise as we painstakingly compiled an enormous 36-volume set of evidence files. These files were meticulously organised and now reside securely in a safe house, protected from prying eyes. When I presented these carefully curated files to Hiland in October 2007, I felt an overwhelming pressure to convert them into a CD. This exhausting task consumed four gruelling days of my life, ostensibly for the benefit of CAV officials scrutinising my claims against influential senior lawyers.
However, when I finally received my evidence back—four long years later, polished yet disconcertingly complete—it felt like a masterfully constructed façade intended to conceal more profound, unresolved malevolence. The entire investigation reeked of a calculated cover-up, echoing my tumultuous interactions with the IAMA, both of which had led to frustrating dead ends and left a bitter aftertaste of disillusionment.
The depths of this betrayal were staggering; those who vowed to uphold justice had instead shown themselves to be mere pawns in a sinister, corrupt agenda—binding me deeper into this unsettling narrative that seemed to defy logic and reason at every turn.
As my arbitration appeal moved forward, I also reached out to John Pinnock, who had been appointed as the second administrator for my arbitration. He also served as the second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I hoped he might provide additional insights or assistance regarding my ongoing concerns.
John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal AAT hearings (respondents the Australian Communications Media Authority - ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show the judge (senior members hearing my AAT - Freedom of Information (FOI) case did not find me vexatious or my claims frivolous. However, other government agencies have branded me vexatious and my claims frivolous because they have a vested interest in concealing the truth surrounding my claims that the international arbitration process in Australia was legally abused to protect the Telstra Corporation at all costs.
During this ten-month AAT hearing, I provided the AAT with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the ACMA board, proving beyond all doubt that Telstra had violated my human rights and that their leading arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, had submitted known false documents to the arbitrator concerning his alleged successful service verification testing of my business telephone service lines.
I presented damning evidence to the AAT and the two attorneys representing ACMA, revealing that it was AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) that visited my business on December 19, 1995, a full eight months after my arbitration had concluded. They openly acknowledged that none of the ongoing billing issues had been thoroughly investigated or resolved during the arbitration process. The arbitrator's technical advisors had informed Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) that they were unable to diagnose my persistent phone problems because they required additional weeks—weeks that Dr. Hughes callously refused to grant.
When this evidence reached the two lawyers, the atmosphere turned electric. Mr. G.D. Friedman nearly lost his composure, fully aware that this revelation confirmed the arbitration was nothing more than a meticulously orchestrated farce—a facade put in place to shield Telstra from accountability at all costs. The corruption ran deep, revealing a disturbing alliance determined to suppress the truth and protect their interests, leaving me to grapple with the fallout of their deceit.
On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G. D. Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following links as you scroll down this home page.
What has unfolded under the watch of government public servants and their treacherous legal advisors amounts to an egregious betrayal of the very taxpayers they purport to serve. These complicit officials, rather than safeguarding the interests of the citizens, have shamefully allowed Telstra—a gargantuan government-owned powerhouse—to seize control of the arbitration process, blatantly disregarding the authority of the arbitrator. The truth emerges ominously from alarming government records, revealing a chilling pact of corruption.
A sinister investigation orchestrated by a Senate Committee, covertly selected by the government to scrutinise a mere five of the twenty-one COT cases under the false pretence of a “litmus test,” uncovered a grotesque tapestry of misconduct orchestrated by Telstra. The findings were staggering—a brazen theft of nearly a billion dollars from the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The Liberal Coalition, led by John Howard, recoiled at the implications, wrestling with the fear that if the Senate pressed on with its inquiries, fresh revelations of Telstra’s unscrupulous corruption would shatter their plans for privatisation. In a chilling display of complicity, they abruptly stifled further investigations, all six senators eerily echoing the conclusion that Telstra operated with an audacity that defied the laws—accountable to no one.
Yet, in the face of this undeniable public exposure, the government quakes in abject fear at the mere thought of probing the remaining sixteen cases. They dread a transparent investigation could peel back the layers of deception, revealing the corrosive secrets safeguarded by a confidentiality clause within the arbitration agreement, revealing the identities of the corrupt officials who have clandestinely perpetuated these COT issues for nearly thirty years. The stench of betrayal hangs heavily in the air, as dark alliances persist, preserving their treacherous grip, while the welfare of the citizens remains shrouded in shadow.
An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
Moreover, dark and unsettling is the Senate Evidence File No 12 two letters to me from the Senate threatening to hold me in contempt of the Senate, which reveals the sinister reality I've faced—direct threats on two separate occasions, first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. In those chilling moments, I was explicitly warned that if I dared to disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face severe charges of contempt against the Senate. This ominous warning is particularly infuriating, as those records hold critical information that could empower the sixteen citizens who have been unjustly denied legal recourse to finally seek justice.
In a dramatic Senate committee meeting, a confrontation erupted when National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashed a blistering critique aimed at a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable anger, he exclaimed, "You’re really a disgrace; the whole lot of you," his voice cutting through the tension like a knife. This outburst sent shockwaves through the chamber, drawing the immediate attention of the committee chair. Yet, under scrutiny, Senator Boswell was forced to retract his words, stating, "Madam, I withdraw that remark." This moment, though seemingly one of accountability, merely masked the deeply entrenched corruption and lack of integrity surrounding Telstra's dealings with the COT Cases.
"Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: there is a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament—something no one else has ever managed to do—and Telstra has orchestrated it all magnificently. They have managed to unite the Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party, the Democrats, and the Greens—all standing together in a singular and profound distrust of Telstra. You have woven a web of deception that few could have imagined."
Labour Party Senator Chris Schacht further emphasised the corruption when he warned the same Telstra arbitration officer that if they only compensated the five 'litmus test' COT cases while neglecting the other lingering sixteen COT cases, it "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". Yet, the John Howard National Liberal Party (NLP) government sanctioned these punitive damages in only five select litmus cases, simultaneously releasing over 150,000 Freedom of Information documents that had been ruthlessly concealed during the government-endorsed arbitration from 1994 to 1998.
John Howard and his Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, plotted a nefarious scheme to undermine justice for the sixteen unresolved COT cases listed on the Senate Schedule B concerning Freedom of Information (FOI) issues. They cunningly classified these claims as still pending assessment, all while blocking any opportunity for punitive damages. Their machinations allowed the critical discovery documents to be concealed, crafting a sinister cover-up that ensured the affected individuals remained helpless against their unjust awards. This treacherous manoeuvre tightened the noose of secrecy around their plight, ensnaring them in a web of corruption and deceit.
Click on the following six Senators' official statements made in the Australian Senate:
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.”
Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I, along with several other COT Cases, could not take advantage of the valuable insights or recommendations from this investigation. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, as shown by an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
Two months into my harrowing arbitration process, which unfolded between June 1994 and April 1995, I found myself ensnared in a twisted web of deceit and treachery. Desperately, I appealed to the arbitrator, urging him to hold Telstra accountable for its despicable and underhanded actions. Instead of reaping the justice I so fervently sought, I was met with an ominous silence and a relentless barrage of obstruction. Fast forward to 2025, and I remain trapped in an agonising limbo, still waiting for crucial discovery documents that Telstra has maliciously and deliberately withheld from me throughout the entire arbitration. My relentless quest for these documents dragged me through two excruciating government Administrative Appeals Tribunals, a nightmare that extended until May 2011—an unconscionable seventeen years after the government duplicitously promised Ann Garms, Maureen Gilland, Graham Schorer, and me that we would receive them if we abandoned our Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), all under the guise of a non-legal resolution.
The Government Corruption Continues
Despite the oppressive tactics employed by Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, who threatened to withdraw from the FTSP assessment for their Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), we were left with no choice but to abandon our FTSP process. In a striking display of favouritism and injustice, only Ann Garms and Graham Schorer received their documents in late 1998, over three years after they instigated their arbitrations on April 21, 1994, alongside me. Now, as we stand in 2025, I find myself still waiting for the same critical documents, caught in a web of corruption and deceit that seems meticulously designed to silence me.
The motivations of the government were far darker than mere incompetence; they sought to bury the truth surrounding Senator Bob Collins, the minister overseeing our original claims against Telstra. Collins, a predator cloaked in power, was embroiled in serious allegations of pedophilia, accused of violating at least one child within the so-called safety of his Parliament House Canberra office. The Australian Federal Police became entangled in this sordid affair, investigating not only Senator Collins but also probing Telstra's dubious involvement in our FTSP issues, creating a perfect storm of corruption and malevolence that loomed ominously over our case.
Senator Bill Heffernan calls for an official investigation into paedophilia claims → https://shorturl.at/TUV3k.
As members of the COT Cases, we were thrust into this corrupt arbitration process, wholly unaware of the treachery lurking behind the scenes. The arbitrator enforced a treacherous system designed to minimise Telstra's liability, ensuring that the systemic issues still plaguing our businesses were concealed under a cloak of confidentiality. This cruel arrangement shackled us, silencing our voices and preventing us from addressing the ongoing injustices that the government had assured us would be resolved through this new arbitration process.
Throughout my turbulent experiences from 1994 to 1995, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, wrapped himself in layers of secrecy with the duplicitous assistance of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. He became a spectre, intentionally unreachable, refusing phone calls—a fact confirmed by his complicit secretary, Caroline Friend, who seemed to take pleasure in reinforcing this veil of evasion. It was only when the Commonwealth Ombudsman intervened—a desperate attempt to wrest control from this deceitful arrangement and compel Telstra to comply with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act—that a flicker of reluctant cooperation emerged from the shadows. Government solicitors acted as puppeteers, manipulating my arbitration documents, which experienced inexplicable delays, finally arriving on May 23, 1995—two maddening weeks after my arbitration had purportedly concluded.
In a brazen display of contempt for the entire process, the arbitrator audaciously included a dismissive statement in Section 2.23 of his draft award, insisting.
“Although the time taken for completion of the arbitration may have been longer than initially anticipated, I hold neither party nor any other person responsible. Indeed, I consider the matter has proceeded expeditiously in all the circumstances. Both parties have cooperated fully.”
However, this statement was conspicuously omitted from the final award, revealing Dr. Hughes's blatant attempt to mask his actual acknowledgement that he had lost control over the arbitration, which was thrown into chaos by the forces of corruption surrounding him.
For those intrepid enough to delve into the murky depths of Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2 or navigate the sinister landscape of absentjustice.com, the true horror of our situation may begin to be unveiled. You may find my stark accusations against deceitful lawyers and conniving government bureaucrats—those I label as "The Brotherhood"—difficult to fathom. Yet by the end of this narrative, the very foundations of Australia’s corrupt legal system will appear as an insidious farce, designed to ensnare the innocent and protect the guilty. Once the claimant and opposing side sign confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements, they become ensnared—forgiving the oppressor a shield against justice, stripping us of any real opportunity to contest the unjust awards thrust upon us. The system is a malevolent construct, rigged to protect the powerful, with grotesquely imbalanced odds stacked against anyone audacious enough to confront the dark, treacherous forces lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce on those who dare challenge their sinister status quo.
On 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 is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, nor 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 behind the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement does not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration, as the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed-upon procedures?
It is essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter attached as document (See File Ann Garms 104 Document) dated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.
On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra.
Ninety-three concerning questions presented by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my interview reflect a deeply troubling situation. According to the transcripts from Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a disconcerting truth has surfaced: I have been informed that the AFP possesses significant evidence obtained from John McMahon of AUSTEL, who represented the government communications authority. This evidence implicates Telstra in the covert and intrusive electronic surveillance of my holiday camp, a facility designed for children and community gatherings.
It raises critical questions regarding the motivations behind such violations by certain government officials, some of whom are suspected of engaging in paedophile conduct. One may ponder what these individuals could possibly gain from monitoring innocent school camp activities and social club events. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the arbitrator and administrator overseeing my arbitration should have promptly suspended the proceedings upon receiving information from the AFP regarding the unauthorised surveillance of my premises. This blatant disregard for privacy and consent raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the safety of all parties involved.
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), having learnt of the possibility that paedophiles were electronically monitoring my school camp. 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 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.
The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, ominously chose to share my claim documents with Mr. Rumble—an unsettling five months before the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement I was coerced into signing. This troubling decision opens a Pandora’s box of questions regarding the transparency and integrity of the entire arbitration process. What secret motives lay behind this breach of protocol? No meeting was convened to investigate pressing issues, such as the insidious surveillance conducted by Telstra on my business, which was executed without my consent and under the veil of secrecy. Furthermore, a shadowy figure named Micky has emerged, leaking sensitive information about my operations to an unidentified party, presenting a clear and present danger to my business (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
The plot thickened as I uncovered the alarming fact that 81 of my incoming calls had been diverted surreptitiously over two months. At that very time, I was feverishly promoting my holiday camp in the media, which proudly offered a diverse range of enticing activities for social clubs—activities like thrilling horse rides along the idyllic beach, dark caving adventures, serene canoe trips on the Bridgewater Lakes, and lively bush dances followed by enchanting cruises on the picturesque Glenelg River. Each diverted call signifies not just a statistic, but a deliberate sabotage of potential business relationships and opportunities for growth.
In this context, I am left to grapple with the staggering sum of $300,000 that I laid out for professional arbitration fees, all in pursuit of an investigation into my ongoing telephone faults. This exorbitant expenditure seems absurd when the process fails to confront the core issues at hand. I presented Telstra’s own damning fault data—documents clearly showing that those 81 redirected calls, confirmed by Telstra’s own records, were funnelled to an unknown location. Yet, the technical consultants involved in the arbitration either turned a blind eye or were complicit in failing to investigate this significant anomaly, a fact that went unacknowledged in Dr. Hughes’ findings.
To fully grasp the sinister depths of this betrayal, consider this: there are six two-month periods in a year. When we multiply those 81 lost calls by six, we uncover a staggering total of 486 vital calls, wrongfully diverted from my business over just one year of my six-year ordeal. Each of these lost calls isn’t just a missed opportunity; it represents a critical juncture, a potential connection that could have fostered growth, prosperity, and even the survival of my holiday camp.A Secret Deal
Was the decision to remove the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 discussed during the covert pre-arbitration meeting on March 22, 1994? Was this removal of the liability clause intended as a safety net to protect the arbitration consultants from being sued for negligence, similar to how an arbitrator can be challenged on appeal for incorrect decisions (See Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct)? Eliminating these clauses to prevent the resource unit from being sued constitutes gross misconduct of the highest order, bordering on criminal behaviour.
Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer wrote to the TIO on 11 July 1994 stating:
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”.
The statement in Telstra's letter, Exhibit 590 in File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, reveals a chilling reality: "if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator." This chilling clause indicates a disturbing collusion between Telstra and the TIO, as both were acutely aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had taken it upon itself to filter the arbitration procedural documents before they reached the arbitrator. In a shadowy manoeuvre, if this resource unit deemed a document irrelevant to the arbitration process, it was conveniently kept from the arbitrator and other parties entirely.
The betrayal does not conclude there; the arbitrator’s shocking inaction, coupled with Telstra’s systematic evasion, has systematically eroded the foundation on which the COTs sought solace and justice. Instead of receiving the fairness they deserved, they were met with a betrayal so profound it resonates with echoes of criminality and legal intimidation, leaving their lives—and the lives of their families—in shambles.Delve further into the alarming and often disturbing realms of horrendous crimes, duplicitous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who maintain a tight grip on the legal profession in Australia. Descriptors such as shameful, hideous, and treacherous vividly encapsulate the nature of these evil wrongdoers and the impact of their actions.
Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatisation of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place. → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.
The link titled Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest unveils perhaps the darkest and most treacherous chapter of this tale, revealing the intricate web of deceit and betrayal lurking behind the scenes of the COT arbitrations. The appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and Peter Gamble from Telstra were on opposing sides, yet their shared history was steeped in collusion and manipulation. While Dr. Hughes advocated for Graham Schorer in his Federal Court Action against Telstra between 1990 and 1993, Gamble was secretly working to obstruct justice, actively concealing crucial evidence that could have altered the course of the case.
As destiny would have it, these two figures clashed once more when Graham Schorer, representing a beleaguered group of Telstra complainants—including Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and me—embarked on the Telstra Fast Track Settlement Proposals from November 23, 1993, to 1998. This scheme, backed by a government that held a firm grip on Telstra, was nothing more than a facade—twelve other individuals would join us, coining ourselves the Casualties of Telstra.What remains chilling is that I was never informed of the entangled connections between Graham Schorer and Dr. Gordon Hughes, nor was I privy to the fact that Peter Gamble had strategically hidden documents from Graham Schorer throughout the Federal Court proceedings, as explicit in the Senate Hansards of June 24 and 25, 1997, where the principal arbitration engineer was implicated in these deceptions.In my ordeal, Peter Gamble orchestrated a flawed telephone service verification test on my four business lines at my holiday camp on September 29, 1994. He signed a witness statement claiming compliance with government mandates, all while willfully ignoring damning missives from the government communications authority, AUSTEL, on October 11 and November 16, 1994, which denounced those tests as grossly deficient. When I alerted Dr. Hughes to Gamble's treachery, he dismissed my concerns. On April 6, 1995, during a second SVT process at my business, when I dared to question the known faults affecting the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the defective Ericsson testing equipment at the Cape Bridgwater switching exchange, both Gamble and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd hastily evaded my inquiries, brazenly refusing to test my service lines.The betrayal deepened when Ericsson swept in, acquiring Lane Telecommunications three-quarters of the way through the COT arbitrations, carting off all private and business records related to the COT Cases back to Sweden, thus ensuring that any evidence of wrongdoing vanished into the shadows. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).Ultimately, I was left with no choice but to sell my business in December 2001, as I found myself ensnared in a web of neglect and malpractice, with no authority willing to investigate my ongoing telephone faults. Dr. Hughes had stated in his final arbitration award that the issues had ceased after July 1994—a blatant lie amidst a convoluted narrative of treachery.Peter Gamble, still lurking in the shadows of Telstra in the 2020s, and Dr. Hughes, now a Principal Partner | Davies Collison Cave Law (AUSTRALIA), symbolise a system corrupted at its core. I am compelled to share this story, hoping that those who read it grasp the gravity of these incredible and sinister events.
Anyone linked to Australia’s Establishment, which comprises many powerful figures who profess a commitment to democratic justice, would do well to reevaluate their decisions regarding the awarding of the "Order of Australia" after delving into the unsettling revelations in "Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct and Salvaging What I Could." This chapter uncovers alarming details that expose the dubious integrity of Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith during the critical period surrounding the COT arbitrations in my case. Their treacherous act of withholding two crucial letters from me not only compromised my position but also denied my appeal lawyers the essential grounds to challenge the arbitration’s verdict. In light of this, it is nearly unfathomable that these individuals could have been deemed worthy of such a prestigious honor. This concern becomes even more pronounced considering that both Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith have previously been awarded this accolade, despite their apparent involvement in deceitful conduct both before and after the contentious COT arbitrations. Their actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the honors they received and suggest a deeply troubling complicity in a system that rewards questionable behavior.
On 24 June 1997, pages 36 to 39, Senate - Parliament of Australia show an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistleblower, 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 my claims 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 'false sworn 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.
Corruption within governmental institutions has resulted in the unlawful manipulation of documents faxed from Owen Dixon Chambers, the legal hub of Melbourne, to the Supreme Court of Victoria. This misconduct has enabled criminal activities to persist in at least two cases associated with Telstra's appeal processes.
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 7 January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
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 (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) 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, 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.
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.
Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all of which were coordinated within a twelve-month period. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.
It is now 2025, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life, regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
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.
The government communications authority, AUSTEL, writes to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, 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).
During my arbitration, I provided Dr Gordon Hughes with evidence that, between 1992 and 1995, fax interception issues were concerning me and my partner, as we were now travelling to Portland, 18 kilometres away, to talk to our arbitration officials and her daughter, Amanada.
Delve into the intricate and multifaceted issues surrounding corruption in arbitration, a topic that profoundly affects the quest for justice. AbsentJustice.com catalyzes a thorough investigation into the pervasive criminal conduct plaguing government institutions. The website sheds light on disturbing phenomena such as narcissism, where self-interest undermines collective integrity, unconscionable behaviour that disregards ethical standards, and thuggery that employs intimidation to silence dissent. Additionally, it reveals the insidious nature of kleptocracy, where those in power exploit resources for personal gain. This tumultuous landscape is further complicated by the treacherous manipulation of evidence, rendering it nearly indecipherable and obscuring the truth from those seeking accountability.
What was the implication of Julian Assange's phone conversations with Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT), in April 1994? During two separate communications, Assange indicated to Mr. Schorer that the COT cases were subject to electronic surveillance during the arbitration process. (Refer to WikiLeaks exposing the truth).
In April 1994, shortly after my conversation with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, how did Telstra become aware of my plans to travel to Melbourne weeks before my scheduled trip? This raises several questions, particularly about a person at Telstra called "Micky." Documents on absentjstice.com indicate that at least one local Telstra technician in Portland had been monitoring my phone conversations. Alarmingly, this technician was willing to share sensitive information about my personal and business contacts with this "Micky" individual.
Additionally, it is concerning that the arbitrator did not question this technician regarding the unauthorized disclosure of my private and business information. I had previously informed both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator about a threat made against me by Telstra's Executive Arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble. This threat arose from my cooperation with the AFP. I provided them with evidence that this "Micky" character was acting as an intermediary within Telstra (Refer to pages 12 and 13 → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. He had access to the telephone numbers of customers I frequently contacted and those who regularly called me.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
The reluctance to investigate these serious violations raises further concerns about privacy and trust within Telstra, the Australian Federal Police and those who administered the COT arbitrations.
The AFP Failed Their Objective
The ongoing issues regarding Rupert Murdoch's phone interceptions in the United Kingdom https://cutt.cx/PCk1 highlight similarities to the phone and fax hacking concerns that impacted the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1999. By including thorough and compelling information on my Home page by 28 February, I aim to address significant events that deserve attention. During my arbitration, I contributed valuable assistance to the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes tied to my business dealings. I believe that this renewed focus can lead to greater transparency and accountability.
My decision to cooperate with the AFP was motivated by a concerning incident involving Telstra's liaison officers, Paul Rumble and Steve Black. They issued serious threats, indicating that they would cease providing me with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents if Telstra discovered they were being shared with the AFP. Such actions suggested that any subsequent requests for documentation would be systematically denied, potentially obstructing my efforts to challenge Telstra effectively during the arbitration process.
It is essential to underscore that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) made the decision not to support me when I faced a series of alarming threats. This abdication of responsibility allowed Telstra to exert its demands unchecked and without opposition.
Despite investing more than $300,000 in arbitration fees to uncover the unauthorised diversion of my telephone calls and both incoming and outgoing faxes, Dr. Gordon Hughes ultimately failed to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The evidence presented by the Australian Federal Police explicitly confirmed that this diversion was occurring. This information is documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), yet it did not lead to any findings—neither supporting nor disputing the claims made.
Consider the actions of Telstra during its time as a government-owned enterprise. Like the British Post Office, Telstra engaged in ruthless practices that targeted small business operators, leveraging their position to crush anyone who dared to oppose them. The parallels are chilling. In the UK, the government has resorted to threatening these contractors, employing tactics reminiscent of Telstra’s intimidation in Australia.
After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants were aware that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.
Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office.
If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to get it delivered directly to your inbox every time a fresh one is published, please consider making a one-off donation, buying my book The Great Post Office Scandal directly from the publishers or making a donation to the Horizon Scandal Fund.
The "Secret Email" newsletter exposes the dark underbelly of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal in the United Kingdom, a web of deceit that goes far beyond a single incident. This scandal epitomises a pervasive corruption entrenched in Australia’s bureaucratic justice system, revealing a grim reality where those in power operate with impunity.
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the Gaslighting link and/or image, which will help you understand the truth surrounding our story.
Government Corruption - Gaslighting: www.absentjustice.com/tampering-with-evidence/government-corruption--gaslighting. Explore the intricate and troubling intersection of government corruption and the psychological manipulation techniques, commonly known as gaslighting, that are employed against Australian citizens navigating the arduous process of government-endorsed arbitrations.
This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.
Consider the question: how many citizens in Australia have been subjected to these insidious methods, which aim to derail legitimate investigations into their claims against bureaucrats entrenched in governmental institutions and influential players linked to KPMG?
In my personal experience, I have uncovered compelling and troubling evidence showing that a partner at KPMG deliberately misled the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on the legitimacy of my arbitration claims. This misinformation was not merely a misstep; it was a calculated move to engineer a false narrative, effectively obstructing any chance of a thorough and unbiased investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG.
This former KPMG partner now manages two arbitration centres—one situated on the bustling Collins Street in Melbourne, surrounded by the city’s iconic architecture and financial institutions, and the other located in Hong Kong, a global hub of commerce and finance. The existence of these centres raises profound questions about ethical standards and accountability, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reforms. There is a pressing imperative to safeguard citizens from such manipulative practices and to ensure that their legitimate grievances are recognised and addressed in the pursuit of justice.
In the shadowy corridors of power, government corruption festers. Deceptive reporting and a barrage of false information have cloaked the disturbing truths behind the COT cases, allowing them to slip into oblivion. The government-owned Telstra Corporation, a puppet master within this sinister web, has engaged in blatant evidence tampering during arbitration, effectively silencing those who dare to seek justice. Threats hung in the air like a dark cloud, wielded against the vulnerable, as the arbitrator turned a blind eye, complicit in a scheme that denies claimants their rightful day in court. The facade of fairness crumbled, revealing a landscape riddled with betrayal and malice, where truth was sacrificed on the altar of power.
By clicking on the image of the Confidentiality Agreement, you will uncover the hidden truths surrounding my COT story. It is important to note that although the confidentiality clause in this agreement was modified after the COT Cases, both legal advisors and two Senators suggested that it was the definitive arbitration agreement—a claim that is far from true. This flawed agreement continues to be utilised by Wawick Smith, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and other members of the Establishment, who remain committed to protecting an arbitration process that has caused devastating consequences for countless lives.
A deeply sinister pattern unfolds from the outcomes of three distinct COT (Casualties of Telstra) arbitrations, revealing a web of corruption and collusion. Long before these arbitrations even began, Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, found himself entrenched in dubious dealings. With his current stature as a prominent banker and recipient of the ‘Order of Australia,’ Smith operates as if he were above the law, his reputation cloaked in shadows. Dr. Goron Hughes, the arbitrator in these troubling cases, was complicit in this scheme, clandestinely aiding Telstra—the defendant—by supplying them with privileged information extracted from covert government discussions about the COT cases.
In a just world, anyone who would betray the trust of twenty-one vulnerable Australian citizens by leaking sensitive party room discussions to a powerful entity like Telstra would face immediate retribution. Yet, in a shocking twist, Warwick Smith managed to dodge accountability, rewardingly ascending to a key front-bench ministerial role in the subsequent John Howard government. Such a trajectory speaks volumes about the murky waters of political alliances and ethical decay.
It becomes chillingly clear that Smith’s insidious advice to Telstra's senior executives regarding discussions within Senator Ron Boswell's National Party Room was a pivot point in this treacherous affair. By informing them that no Senate inquiry would take place until after the release of the AUSTEL (Australian Communications Authority) report on the COT matters—set to go public on April 13, 1994—Smith effectively handed Telstra a shield against scrutiny. This inside knowledge allowed Telstra to transform its initial four COT Case Fast Track Settlement proposals—intended to be a fair, non-legalistic assessment—into a self-serving, legalistic arbitration procedure.
Armed with government secrets and unfettered by the threat of inquiry, Telstra manoeuvred through this labyrinth of deceit with chilling confidence. The walls surrounding their nefarious dealings grew thicker, ensuring that their betrayal of the very citizens they were supposed to serve went unnoticed, buried beneath a veneer of legitimacy crafted by those in power.
TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other influential members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
“Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.
“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”
Even more troubling, in a stark display of deception and betrayal, the so-called Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) was not crafted in good faith by Frank Shelton, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—who would soon be promoted to County Court Judge—but was instead orchestrated by the unscrupulous defendant's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale and Page. They had the audacity to fax this document to Warwick Smith's office on January 10, 1994. In a brazen act of misrepresentation, Watrwick Smith then informed the government and the lawyers for the COT Cases that Frank Shelton—who was a partner in the very firm that was then exonerated from all liability—for having been party to the drafting the FTAP agreement Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, when he had merely made cosmetic alterations to a document designed to serve the interests of the defendants.
By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized 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 provided me the ability 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.,
What options did we have left? We had lost the arbitration due to our inability to secure the vital documents and faced yet another defeat in our appeal to obtain them. Should we abandon the fight, or is there a path forward that we can still pursue?
As a single operator aged 81, editing these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600-plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made, should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.
To comprehend the truly sinister nature of the events surrounding Dr. Hughes, we must expose the dark and treacherous details that reveal a web of systemic corruption. Representative Graham Schorer from COT convened with Telstra officials, including the shadowy figure of Dr. Hughes, under the guise of discussing the settlement arbitration process. However, this meeting served as a thin veneer for a betrayal that unfolded in secrecy.
The transcript from this sinister gathering—provided by Telstra themselves—uncovers a chilling truth: the COT claimants made their overwhelming preference for a commercial settlement abundantly clear. Yet, on page three, Dr. Hughes' icy demeanour dismissed their desires without a second thought, insisting that arbitration would somehow be a superior method for resolution. He appointed himself the arbiter of truth, claiming he could provide “appropriate directions for the production of documents,” while darkly asserting that he “would not make a determination on incomplete information.”
Yet, hidden beneath this façade of professionalism lies a treacherous reality. Evidence showcased on absentjustice.com indicates that Dr. Hughes brazenly made a determination, fully cognizant that he was basing his decision on incomplete information. This betrayal became glaringly apparent as I battled overwhelming odds—persistent phone and fax issues wreaked havoc on my business, all while threats loomed large, suffocating my ability to present my case.
This chilling scenario serves as a stark reminder that a system designed to safeguard the vulnerable can easily morph into a weapon wielded by the powerful. In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, Dr. Hughes issued his final findings without mandating Telstra to address the glaring, recurring faults in the services provided. As a result, this segment of my claim should have remained open until Telstra could resolve these ongoing issues, yet it vanished into the shadows.
The arbitrator shamelessly disregarded explicit written advice from the government communication authority, delivered to him and the claimants on April 13, 1994. Such cold treachery cannot go unnoticed; it underscores a corrupt system in which those in power manipulate proceedings for their own gain, leaving the truth buried beneath layers of deception and misconduct —a festering wound at the very heart of justice.
Whistleblowing - Gaslighting
The Narcissus's Chosen Weapon
On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:
“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.
- Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
- The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally.
- In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)
I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases.
If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to report incidents that they believe are crimes, as doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats.
I have long believed that the hackers who infiltrated Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne harboured motives that transcended the mere breach of telecommunications infrastructure. This incident, compellingly documented by journalist Andrew Fowler in his piece "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" for ABC, is part of a larger narrative involving ethical misconduct regarding Telstra's treatment of the COT Cases, a group of individuals who claimed significant injustices in their dealings with the telecommunications giant.
It is essential to review the witness statements from August 8 and 10, 2006.
The Major Fraud Group Barrister, Mr Neil Jepson, asked me to supply all evidence, at the request of the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, that assisted me in proving that Telstra used three individual reports to support their arbitrations claims against the COT Cases arbitrations, which I did by adding to further re Telstra's Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over three separate visits to Melbourne, spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group's St. Kilda Road offices on each of those three occasions, assisting the Victoria Police in understanding the relevance of the three fundamentally flawed reports, namely Telstra's Falsified which Telstra used to conceal from the arbitrator and his arbitration advisors how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was. AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) had already done their investigations into the grossly deficient Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchange during the early part of my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (which in April 1994 became the arbitration process. It is clear from AUSTEL's investigations leading up to March 1994, as referred to in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, that at points 2 to 212 in their report, they had uncovered how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was and, like Telstra's arbitration defence unit, concealed these findings from the arbitration process.
File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, particularly Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that investigation as an advisor, showing the Major Fraud Group where, in those arbitrations, Telstra used five known fraudulent, flawed reports provided to the arbitrator and other to convince those parties Telstra had fixed all of their telephone and faxing problems before and/or during the arbitrations when telstra and their lawyers knew duiffenet. (Refer also to the Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).
Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".
Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.
I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced into arbitration with the same monster who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
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 jeopardise 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 September 26, 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 Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
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 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 establishing 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 jeopardizing my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized 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 violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their 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 authorized 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.
In my case, as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows, Telstra’s representative, Peter Gamble, attempted to conduct the essential Service Verification Testing (SVT) process. Unfortunately, he had to halt the testing due to unforeseen equipment malfunctions. When AUSTEL questioned how he planned to rectify this inadequate testing at my business, Mr Gamble refused to proceed with any further testing. Instead, he submitted a statutory declaration under oath to the arbitrator, claiming that his SVT process had fully complied with AUSTEL’s requirements. This assertion was far from the truth.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that the road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
Stop these people at all costs.
This is the same Peter Gamble who, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia was named by 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 under FOI 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’.
Peter Gamble's unethical behaviour is significant, but it is also crucial to highlight that David Read from Lane Telecommunications chose not to oversee Gamble’s tests on April 6, 1995. As the technical consultant for the independent arbitrator, Read was responsible for evaluating the COT Cases, which alleged that faulty Ericsson telephone equipment was the source of ongoing complaints from various businesses.
Furthermore, Lane Telecommunications was acquired by Ericsson during the COT arbitration proceedings. This acquisition had profound implications, as it transferred all investigative materials collected by Lane against Ericsson of Sweden—gathered over approximately eight COT arbitrations—into Ericsson's possession. This situation raises significant ethical concerns about the investigation's impartiality, considering that the entity under scrutiny now controls the evidence against it.
Such circumstances challenge Australia’s stated commitment to the rule of law and suggest that it may be one of the few Western nations that allows a principal witness to be financially influenced by those being investigated (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)
When I phoned AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a public servant at the government communications regulatory department, to talk about this hang-up fault on 26 April 1994, Mr Mathieson suggested he and I conduct a series of tests on the phone line. He planned for me to hang up and count aloud, from one to 10, while he listened. This first test proved he could hear me count right up to 10. He suggested we try it again and count even further this time. It was still the same situation: he could hear me right through the range as I counted. Then he suggested I switch the phone on that line with a phone connected to another. I did this, and we repeated the counting test with the same results. It was apparent to both that the fault was not in the phone but somewhere in the Telstra network. Mr Mathieson suggested that, as I was in arbitration at the time, I should bring this fault to the attention of Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer. Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, named Peter Gamble in a Senate estimates committee hearing as the man who said he and Telstra had to stop the first COT five claimants (including me), at all cost, from proving our claims (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23 dated 24 June 1997).
Unaware of these orders to stop us from five COT cases (at all costs), I switched the phones back to their original lines and phoned Mr Gamble, but did not tell him Mr Mathieson, and I had already tested two phones on the 055 267230 lines. Mr Gamble and I then performed similar tests on the 055 267230 line. Mr Gamble said he would arrange for someone to collect the phone for testing the following day. FOI K00941, dated 26 March 1994, show someone (name redacted) believed this lock-up fault was caused by a problem in the RCM exchange at Cape Bridgewater, see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C. Document K00940, dated the day the tests were performed with Mr Mathieson and Mr Gamble, suggests that Mr Gamble believed the problem was caused by heat in the exchange, see (File No-B), where document folio R37911 states:
“This T200 is an EXICOM and the other T200 is an ALCATEL, we thought that this may be a design ‘fault???’ with the EXICOM so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM and the old phone was marked and tagged…” (see File No 1-C).
Another disturbing aspect of this tapering, as evidenced by Telstra's arbitration, is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration, Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.
It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This wicked deed, along with the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration, is a testament to the fact that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, beyond the call of duty by supplying vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both occasions during my arbitration.
The other twist to this part of my story is how I could have spilt beer into my telephone, as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire? I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fire buddies had I been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to endure from Telstra as we battled for a reliable phone service.
When I provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood s forensic documents specialist, who advised he would test the collected TF200 and inspect Telstra's laboratory working notes to see how Telstra came up with their findings regarding my drinking habits had caused my phone faults and not the EXICOM TF200 both the arbitrator and arbitration special counsel refused my request to have Telstra's arbitration defence investigated on the grounds fraud had played a significant part in the preparation of the TF200 report.
My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location
If only the telephones had been fit for purpose
On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
“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.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
29. Whether Telstra was active behind the scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.
One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 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.
Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current 2025 Attorney-General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?
And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?
During the investigation by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group into the alleged fraudulent conduct by Telstra during and after the COT arbitrations, the Scandrett & Associates report was delivered to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999. This report confirmed that faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations (refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13). Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report reached out to me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasising the importance of these findings
“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 evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, 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.
The actions taken by Telstra during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as well as during investigations by the Australian Federal Police between 1994 and 1995 and the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group from late 1998 to 2001, are undeniably severe. It is both alarming and unacceptable that Telstra employees have not considered legal repercussions for these actions. This highlights a troubling lack of accountability and transparency, casting doubt on the integrity of the systems meant to protect small businesses and uphold the rule of law.
Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term
It may seem unbelievable, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, I received written threats from the Australian Government, warning me that I could be charged with contempt of the Senate if I ever revealed the in-camera Hansard records that were inadvertently shared with me by two high-ranking officers from the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. As I celebrate my 81st birthday this May, I keep their names confidential out of respect for these dedicated officers. They could not have possibly been mistaken in their revelations about the systemic corruption the Senate uncovered regarding Telstra during the COT arbitrations.
The Senate Hansards I received at their imposing St Kilda Road complex were supposedly given to me by the police officers I had previously collaborated with during my secondment. They believed these critical documents would support the remaining sixteen COT cases, which were still struggling to resolve their Freedom of Information claims. Sadly, then Prime Minister John Howard’s discriminatory actions placed substantial obstacles in the path of these sixteen cases.
In my view, these vital Hansards could have turned the tide in our favour had the COT claimants chosen to appeal the arbitration process. However, the chilling threat of contempt of the Senate loomed over me—a threat carrying the weight of a two-year prison sentence. This situation raises a profound question: Where is justice in such an ordeal?
In March and April 2006, I presented several examples of intercepted documents from the COT arbitrations to the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications. One notable example included a document addressed to the Hon. Peter Costello, our former Australian Federal Treasurer. The Senator responded to me on 17 May 2007,
"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (File 616-B AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700)
It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.
The gravity of this situation raises critical questions: Why was it considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents leaving and arriving at Parliament House in Canberra during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, why was Telstra interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration?
Addendum
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.
In Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2, I delve into the unsettling revelations captured in the Senate Hansard from September 7, 1967. During that session, the Honourable Dr. Rex Patterson, a Labour Party member representing Dawson in Queensland, posed an alarmingly pointed inquiry to the Australian government. He sought assurance that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China was not being funnelled to North Vietnam, an implication that carries dark undertones. This raises a chilling question: was the Liberal-Country Party Coalition government blind in their ambition, utterly indifferent to the fact that Australian wheat could be feeding soldiers fighting against our own troops in the oppressive jungles of North Vietnam?
The government’s cold disregard for the returned Vietnam soldiers—shamed, discarded, and silenced by a toxic blend of ignorance and guilt—casts a long shadow over our nation. Even with the passage of time, the memories remain disturbingly vivid as I embark on writing my autobiography as a Ship's Cook and Steward. My sea voyage aboard the Hopepeak, laden with dark memories and bitter truths, plays a crucial role in this narrative. My journey through various catering establishments, coupled with the lessons learned during my 26 years at sea, has propelled me to act, driven by a haunting desire to support children in need, which is why I acquired my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, the very centre of this Telstra government-endorsed arbitration Casulaties of Telstra story.
As I revisit my autobiography, now in the hands of editors and expected to be available online as an ebook by October 2025, I find myself grappling with the convoluted and tragic details that make up this story. Each page stirs a rising tide of anxiety within me. As an octogenarian, I am left to ponder the sinister politics of the Liberal-Country National Government that still leave a sour taste. How could these Australian politicians so callously declare that lives lost in Vietnam were mere collateral damage while prioritising the profits of wheat sales to China? This dispassionate calculation mirrors the actions of the John Howard government, which assisted only five of the litmus test COT Cases while abandoning the remaining sixteen to battle the government-owned Telstra Corporation in court, a betrayal wrapped tightly in a cloak of greed and negligence.
The chilling atrocities committed against their own citizens by the Chinese Red Guards continue to haunt me, lingering in my mind like a dark shadow, even more so than my desperate escape from their gunfire. At the same time, I found myself wrongfully accused of espionage, a label that felt like a noose tightening around my neck. This harrowing chapter in history stands as a haunting stain on humanity, gnawing at my conscience with each passing day. It was not merely the terrifying experience of being forced to march up and down the wharf under the watchful eyes of armed guards, nor the sheer panic of fighting against the guards to avoid a potentially deadly injection with a non-sterile needle that haunted me. Instead, what haunts me is the horrific image of a Chinese nurse, her once beautiful smile marred by blood smeared across her face from a Red Guard baton used to splatter her nose, a mix of fear and defiance in her expression. This chilling vision invaded my dreams for many years after, replaying repeatedly, serving as a stark reminder of the inhumanity I witnessed.
Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under FOI during my government-endorsed arbitration, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, File 20 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.
I am haunted by a dark revelation that I disclosed to the government on 18 September 1967, to the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who was then the Minister for the Army. My words carried a heavy truth: Australia’s wheat was being sold to the People's Republic of China under the guise of humanitarian aid. But the grim reality was that this precious grain was being clandestinely funnelled to North Vietnam. At a time when brave Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers were being mercilessly hunted and slaughtered in the treacherous jungles of North Vietnam, the chilling possibility emerged—those very soldiers fighting against tyranny could have unwittingly found themselves face to face with enemy combatants fueled by the same wheat we had carelessly supplied. It’s a harrowing thought that the sustenance intended for peace was repurposed into a weapon against our own.
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.”
