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?
OPEN LETTER dated 25/09/2025
📚 Five Chapters: The Officials Who Misrepresented Justice
It is essential to inform the reader that if they read this Open Letter along with Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, and then read Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, they will be left with no doubt whatsoever that the three named arbitration officials—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to my arbitration, failed to accurately represent the facts during my arbitration and throughout the critical period leading up to 1996.
🛑 Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.
⚠️ Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
I categorically deny this allegation. It was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.
During the complex web of my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that formed the basis of my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it, which could potentially serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.
📘 In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:
"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek 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". (Open Letter File No 57-C)
This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.
By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr. John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.
The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.
That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.
Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.
Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident.
📘The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence stopped me cold.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206
📘 This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He chose to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
📘 The Phantom Admission
Dr Hughes and John Pinnock later referenced a written admission I had supposedly made to Mr Pinnock.
But here’s the truth: I never wrote such an admission.
This phantom letter has never surfaced because it does not exist. And yet, it was treated as fact—used to shape perceptions, justify decisions, and distort the record of my arbitration. That alone raises deeply unsettling questions—not just about Dr Hughes, but about the entire machinery that enabled Telstra’s misconduct to go unchallenged.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility. In that letter, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman deliberately misinformed Mr James, claiming:
Let me be clear: I never made such a call, and I indeed never admitted to it in writing.
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests, why did he not produce my letter?
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—used to discredit me, to isolate me, and to undermine the legitimacy of my claims. It was part of a broader pattern: when the facts became inconvenient, they were replaced with fiction.
This moment serves as a chilling reminder of how easily the truth can be distorted when those in power control the narrative.
What he needs to do is simple: write to the government and declare the truth—that I never called his wife at 2:00 AM, nor did I pen a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, confessing to such a midnight call. It’s a dark game that he plays, and truth is but a pawn in his hands.
🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, who was then a partner at KPMG and had been involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me regarding property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr. Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal process, which the Institute of Arbitrators was contemplating.
🌍 Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.
This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.
I refuse to be silenced.
Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration
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.
The Price of Justice: Telstra’s Arbitration Betrayal
My concern has never been about Telstra’s $400 million failure to meet its obligations to FOX. That corporate blunder pales in comparison to the betrayal inflicted upon everyday Australians—those of us in the COT Cases—who were promised resolution if we financed our own arbitrations to fix the telephone faults that were destroying our businesses.
Between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995, I was drawn into a web of deceit, spending over $300,000 in professional fees—a staggering investment into a process designed to fail. Adjusted for inflation, that figure equates to $622,959,207 in 2025. Yet despite this sacrifice, the arbitrator remained a passive bystander, refusing to compel Telstra to address the persistent faults that had haunted my business since before April 1988. Telstra’s own concealed records confirmed this—but they were buried during discovery.
The threats from union members eventually subsided after confrontations with CEPU’s Assistant Secretary, Peter A. But a darker force emerged: Paul Rumble, known as “The Dog,” a senior Telstra arbitration official whose intimidation tactics silenced dissent. Alongside him, Steve Black orchestrated a calculated scheme to withhold critical documents from the arbitrator, rerouting them through consultants appointed by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who controlled access.
On August 2, 1996, those consultants admitted to concealing documents that should have been submitted directly to the arbitrator. This violated the arbitration agreement, which clearly stated that the arbitrator—not consultants—was responsible for receiving and distributing evidence. The breach raised grave questions about the integrity of the entire process.
Rumble’s reign of fear was so pervasive that even the Australian Federal Police considered charges. Yet Telstra allegedly intervened, invoking the “Seal of the Crown” to shield him from accountability—an act that rendered investigators powerless.
This cycle of manipulation and concealment laid bare the deep corruption within Telstra and its arbitration apparatus. For those of us ensnared in this betrayal, justice became a distant dream. The fight was no longer just about truth—it was about reclaiming dignity in a system designed to crush it.
Would you like this adapted for your homepage, formatted as a chapter preface, or paired with visual elements, such as a timeline or document gallery? I can also help you build a companion piece that compares this to other global arbitration failures.
⚖️ Exposing the Truth Meant Facing Jail
To add yet another alarming chapter to this unbelievable story, I take the reader back to 1999, when the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group seconded me as a witness in their investigation into Telstra’s alleged fraud against five of the twenty-one COT Cases—namely Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowman.
It was common knowledge among these five claimants, who the Australian Senate was assisting in accessing previously withheld arbitration documents, that Telstra had used two separate technical reports to support its arbitration defence, despite knowing both were fundamentally flawed.
By 1999, I had obtained late-released Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, which allowed me to prove that Telstra had twice perverted the course of justice during my arbitration.
Despite repeated requests, Sue Laver, Telstra’s 2024 Corporate Secretary, has refused to provide the Senate and arbitration administrators with the same evidence she received in January and April 1998—evidence that proves Telstra knowingly used the Cape Bridgewater BCI report as part of its arbitration defence.
This was the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) report that Mr Neil Jepson, barrister for the Major Fraud Group, worked with me on during 1999 and 2000, ultimately declaring my reporting factual and credible.
Between 1998 and 2000, I worked alongside Mr Jepson and assisted three other Victoria Police investigators over three intensive three-day sessions. After working with these two male and one female officers, I knew I had chosen the wrong career years earlier—I wished I had joined the Victoria Police Force. These officers were dedicated, principled, and tireless.
It may be challenging to comprehend, but in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government issued written threats (see Senate Evidence File No. 12) warning me of potential contempt charges if I were to disclose the contents of in-camera Hansard records. These pivotal documents could have swayed the outcomes of our cases—had the COT claimants been allowed to challenge the arbitration process.
This raises a profound question:
Where is the justice in such a scenario?
🧾 Telstra – Contempt of the Senate
In October 1997, Telstra provided the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate on notice. Telstra already knew the report was false. Yet no one has ever held Telstra accountable, despite its actions being a clear contempt of the Senate.
On 12 January 1998, during the same Senate Estimates Committee investigation into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer, COT spokesperson, provided Sue Laver (Telstra’s 2020 Corporate Secretary) with several documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham stated:
On pages 23–28 of this letter, using Cape Bridgewater statistics, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the Chair of the Senate Legislation Committee that the information Telstra provided to the Senate in October 1997 was false (see and ).
Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is contempt of the Senate. Yet, no one within Telstra has been held accountable for supplying fabricated Cape Bridgewater BCI results.
Had Telstra not misled the Senate, the BCI matters I now raise on AbsentJustice.com—including my ongoing telephone problems in 1997—would have been addressed with the seriousness they deserved.
Would you like help formatting this into a downloadable exhibit or building a visual timeline that links each document, date, and actor involved? We could also create a “Contempt Tracker” showing how each falsehood was delivered, received, and ignored. This could become a cornerstone of your public archive.
