⚠️ A Note Before You Read On

The following narrative is not a chronology of events. It is a series of moments — fragments, encounters, revelations — drawn from different jurisdictions and different years. Each one stands alone, yet each one mirrors the others with unsettling precision.

Together, they reveal how arbitration, in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong and beyond, became fertile ground for lies, deceit and treachery. These examples are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness — a systemic pattern that allowed the arbitrations to decay into a cesspool of corruption, protected by secrecy, shielded by procedure, and sustained by institutions that refused to confront the truth.

What follows is the story of that pattern.

📠 The Vanishing Faxes — Narrative Version

I didn’t know it at the time, but the first crack in the façade appeared long before Cape Bridgewater, long before the arbitration, long before the threats. It began quietly, almost innocently, with a technician in Portland who decided that my private life was his to listen to, his to record, his to hand around like gossip in a pub.

Telstra would later admit to the Australian Federal Police that my phone conversations — business and personal — had been monitored and taped for months. Not by a faceless machine or some distant security unit, but by one man. One officer. One pair of ears deciding when my life was worth listening to.

And he didn’t keep what he heard to himself. He passed my numbers, my details, my conversations to someone known only as “Micky.” A name without a face, without a role, without any legitimate reason to know anything about me. Yet there it was, in black and white: a Telstra technician feeding my private information to a stranger.

I waited for someone — anyone — in authority to ask the obvious questions. Who authorised this? Why was my information being shared? Who else had access to it?

But the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, never asked. The second administrator, John Pinnock, never asked. The TIO never asked. It was as if the whole thing was too inconvenient to acknowledge, let alone investigate.

The AFP, at least, took it seriously. They sat me down and asked ninety‑three questions — ninety‑three — and every answer I gave was recorded in their investigation file. In the second interview, eight months after the first, the truth spilled out in ways even I hadn’t expected. Telstra had threatened me for cooperating with the AFP. Threatened me. A national carrier leaning on a private citizen because he dared to tell the truth.

I faxed those transcripts to the arbitrator, hoping that the weight of official evidence would force him to act. But the silence that followed was louder than any threat.

The “Micky” document — FOI K03273 — was among the papers I handed to the AFP, the TIO, and the arbitrator. My number sat in the top corner like a brand. The note inside was chilling in its casualness:

“Micky, This is a note from Gordon Stokes… The information regarding the telephone numbers called by this customer… was verbal from Gordon Stokes.”

Verbal. As if my life was a story he enjoyed retelling.

I remember walking into the Portland Police Station, the FOI papers in my hand, the weight of months of unanswered questions pressing down on me. Stokes lived just a block away. I confronted him, and for a moment — a flicker — he admitted he wasn’t alone in this. He even agreed to write a declaration confirming what he’d done.

But when I showed him the document listing calls from a woman I’d been romantically involved with — her number appearing in Telstra’s internal notes — something inside him snapped. His face changed. The façade cracked. And instead of honouring his promise, he ran straight to Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, and to Paul Rumble — the same men who had threatened me weeks earlier.

Soon after, Warwick Smith called. His voice was cold, rehearsed. He told me Dr Hughes would “investigate the matter as part of the arbitration.” I knew instantly it was a lie. None of my concerns had even been acknowledged, let alone examined.

What began in 1994 has dragged itself, bleeding and unresolved, into 2026. A nightmare stretched across decades, protected by silence, fortified by bureaucracy, and fed by the arrogance of men who believed they would never be held accountable.

The AFP transcripts revealed more than Telstra ever intended anyone to know. They asked how Telstra could identify a tender I submitted to a bus company — O’Meara — when I had never mentioned that name to Telstra. They asked how Telstra knew that a member of my Over Forties club had called from Adelaide instead of her usual number. They asked how Telstra recognised her voice, her habits, her movements.

The only answer was the one Telstra refused to admit: they had been listening long before they claimed to.

The AFP even instructed me to rewrite my diary, removing names of club members to protect them from Telstra’s reach. I complied. I told the arbitrator. And still, nothing changed.

Years earlier, before any of this, I had lived a different life — a life on the Yarra River, working the tugs, cooking for crews who trusted each other with their lives. The river was honest. She never pretended to be something she wasn’t. She could be gentle or vicious, but she was never deceitful.

Cape Bridgewater was supposed to be my quiet chapter after thirty years at sea. A holiday camp, a coastal retreat, a place where families could breathe. But within weeks, I discovered the truth: the phone system was a disaster. Eight lines for an entire village. Calls that wouldn’t terminate. Lines that locked open. Billing records corrupted beyond recognition.

And at the centre of it all stood the Cape Bridgewater switching hut — a small, unmanned roadside structure with no ventilation, no fan, no protection. Moisture built up inside until the copper behaved like a suction pad. The system collapsed under its own neglect.

Bell Canada International had tested that hut. Their results were supposed to expose the faults. Instead, they became part of the cover‑up. Dr Hughes blocked his own technical consultants from inspecting the hut. He blocked the evidence that would have proven everything.

The Australians didn’t care. But the Canadians did. Because they recognised fraud when they saw it.

And that is the story — not a report, not an exposé, but a lived experience of corruption that threaded itself through every part of my life, from the moment Telstra began listening to the moment they tried to silence me.

A story still unfolding. A story still waiting for justice. A story that refuses to disappear.

The first time I saw the Canadian minister’s letter, dated 7 July 1995, I felt something I hadn’t felt in months — the faintest flicker of validation. Not victory, not relief, but recognition. Someone outside Australia, someone with no stake in Telstra’s reputation or the arbitration’s choreography, had looked at the facts and seen what I had been shouting into the void: something was wrong. Deeply wrong.

The minister wrote that I was taking the “most appropriate course of action” by contacting Bell Canada International directly about the alleged errors in their test report. It was a polite sentence, diplomatic, measured — but beneath its surface was an unspoken truth: they knew the report didn’t smell right either.

And then came the letters — Exhibits 8 and 36 — supposedly from BCI, addressed to Telstra’s Steve Black and John Armstrong. They were nothing like the earlier BCI documents. No official letterhead. No corporate formatting. No trace of the professional structure that defined Exhibits 1 through 7. They looked like something typed in a hurry, something meant to exist just long enough to be waved under the nose of a Senate Committee.

Yet Telstra submitted them under oath in October 1997, holding them up as proof that the BCI tests at Cape Bridgewater were legitimate. They weren’t. The evidence on absentjustice.com makes that clear. The truth makes that clear. Even the paper itself makes that clear.

By then, I had already lived through the first of two heart attacks. I had been released from Portland Hospital, still fragile, still trying to steady myself, when I prepared a statutory declaration for the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee. In that declaration, I described a phone call from Paul Howell — a Canadian telecommunications expert flown across the world to review my evidence against Bell Canada International.

I remember the tone of his voice. Careful. Professional. But there was something underneath it — a tension, a discomfort, the sound of a man who had seen something he wasn’t supposed to see. Something that didn’t align with the story Telstra was selling.

For years, I had believed Australia’s failure was uniquely Australian — a bureaucratic collapse, a tangle of incompetence and corporate arrogance that somehow slipped through the cracks. I carried that belief like ballast, telling myself that the COT Cases were an aberration, a freak storm that had blown through my life and left wreckage behind.

But the more I travelled, the more I read, the more I listened to stories from Singapore, Hong Kong, and beyond, the more I realised the truth: what happened to me was not an accident. It was a blueprint.

Australia was simply the first place I saw the machinery up close. The secrecy. The procedural evasion. The way evidence could be buried behind closed doors while everyone involved insisted the process was “independent” and “fair.” I watched an arbitrator refuse to make findings on faults that were still crippling my business. I watched AUSTEL, and later ACMA quietly allow Telstra to fix those same faults after the arbitration had closed, as if truth could be tidied up once the paperwork was signed.

I watched Lane Telecommunications — the so‑called independent assessor — get swallowed by Ericsson mid‑process, giving a major Telstra supplier access to confidential material that should never have left the room. And I watched the FOI system collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, promising transparency while delivering nothing but withheld documents and Senate testimony years later confirming what we already knew: the truth had been managed, not revealed.

For a long time, I thought that was the whole story. But then I looked outward.

Singapore was the first foreign silhouette that matched the shape of what I had lived. On the surface, it was immaculate — a global arbitration hub polished to a shine. But beneath that shine lay a judicial culture that bent itself into knots to protect the sanctity of arbitration, even when the process had gone off the rails. Arbitrators ignored evidence. Courts refused to intervene. Confidentiality smothered scrutiny. It was the same machinery, just dressed in different colours.

Hong Kong came next — the velvet curtain of international justice. A place that marketed itself as the neutral gateway between East and West. But behind the curtain, the choreography was identical. Awards upheld despite glaring irregularities. Challenges dismissed even when conflicts of interest were staring everyone in the face. A gravitational pull toward protecting the system rather than the people who relied on it.

Reading those cases felt like reading a foreign translation of my own life. Different names. Different companies. Different judges. But the same story. The same silence. The same betrayal.

And that was the moment the truth finally settled into place: Australia was not an isolated failure. It was part of a global architecture — a system designed to protect itself from scrutiny.

A system where secrecy is not a by‑product but a feature. A system where neutrality is a performance. A system where corporations thrive and claimants bleed. A system where the only person with something to lose is the one seeking justice.

Australia taught me the shape of the machinery. Singapore showed me its reach. Hong Kong confirmed its purpose.

Across all three, the pattern was unmistakable: Evidence disappears. Conflicts of interest are ignored. Arbitrators operate without accountability. Courts refuse to intervene. And the claimant walks out carrying scars no one else can see.

This chapter is not an academic analysis. It is not a legal treatise. It is the lived experience of someone who walked through the machinery and survived it. It is the recognition that the COT Cases were not a local tragedy but a global warning.

And it is the reason this website exists — to show that the silence surrounding arbitration is not the silence of fairness, but the silence of things deliberately kept out of sight.

Once you have seen the machinery up close, you cannot unsee it. And once you recognise its shape in other jurisdictions, you realise the story you lived is part of something far larger — a global system of procedural evasion and institutional betrayal that thrives in the shadows of confidentiality.

 

 

I would like to refer the reader to my letter dated July 15, 2009, addressed to Paul Crowley, the CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia. (Exhibit 13-B and 13-C → Burying The Evidence File 13-H. In this letter, I included a correspondence from Graham Schorer, who was the spokesperson for COT Cases and a former client of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).

Exhibit 13-H → Burying The Evidence File 13-H is the letter dated August 4, 1998 and attached to it is also exhibited as (13-H) a statutory declaration from Mr Schorer to me, which detailed a phone conversation he had with the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes during the 1994 arbitrations concerning lost Telstra COT-related faxes. My arbitration had been over for three years, and it was revealed during a pending appeal that 41 of my faxes during my 13-month arbitration were not on the arbitrator's schedule of received documents, even though my fax billing account showed they had been sent. Mr Schorer alerted the Senate to this, as did Dr Hughes, and it was Dr Hughes' response that gave us hope that we could have these lost arbitration fax matters investigated. During that conversation, Mr Schorer had with Dr Hughes, Dr Hughes explained to Graham Schorer in 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 before his appointment as an arbitrator in seven arbitrations, all coordinated within 12 months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently expressed frustration that the arbitrator's office was not responding to their faxes. This raises alarming questions about potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process.

John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, acknowledged that 41 of my claim documents, which were also mini reports, had not been investigated by Dr Hughes. Despite Dr Hughes admitting that these documents might have been lost by his Sydney office, I was still denied the opportunity to have the 41 claim documents evaluated on their merits.

The 41 lost claim documents would not be investigated in the same manner as the 56 tampered fax header claim documents mentioned earlier in this story. This was due to confidentiality concerns, and unless I appealed my award within 6 years, my claims would not be considered relevant. When Ann Garms, a COT Case, filed her appeal, the award lasted for 12 months and cost her over $600,000 in court fees. In simple terms, the TIO, the arbitrator, and the Telstra representatives treated us COT Cases as dog shit under their shoes. 

Instead of Telstra’s middle management ensuring the integrity of its network, it buried the problems, allowing those problems to be escalated to its legal department, where the end result only benefited Telstra’s overall revenue, reaping as much as an extra eleven per cent in incorrect billing, with its outside lawyers also benefiting. When I showed how much of a national network problem this was, and what it was costing small businesses, AUSTEL paid for my five‑hour trip to Melbourne and overnight accommodation, arranged via my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP, (See Arbitrator File No/76) so I could meet the Hon Senator Richard Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, in his St Kilda Road Melbourne office—a short walk from AUSTEL’s offices where my billing evidence was displayed for viewing.

So alarmed at my evidence, on 25 February 1994, Senator Richard Alston raised the Ericsson AXE issue in the Senate (see File 10-C Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f). As it was a public hearing, he did not disclose my evidence showing that the call loss could be between 15% and 50%, that the billing resulted in incoming revenue of up to 11% that was not legally obtained, and that this had been happening at least since September 1992. Hiding Telstra’s wealth gained from incorrect billing has cost Australian small businesses billions of dollars, with their lawyers hiding this from the public.

Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

The statement made by  DMR (Canada) & Lane (Australia) in their alleged combined finding in the Cape Bridgewater Technical Evaluation Report dated 30 April 1995, provided to the arbitrator, was an incomplete report which Paul Howell (DMR Canada) refused to sign off on with the arbitrator, disregarding the fact it was still not a full and complete record of my losses, states, i.e.;  

“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.

“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” (Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

I urge the reader to look directly at the names of the four individuals identified in the first remedy sought. Do not avert your eyes. Once this truth is faced, those with the courage to continue will see the full, disturbing shape of what occurred. These men did not simply make mistakes; they operated in the shadows, manipulating processes, burying critical evidence, and steering the COT arbitrations toward a pre‑engineered collapse. Their conduct did not end with the close of hearings in 1995. It has lingered like a stain for three decades, persisting through 2026, protected by influence, silence, and institutional indifference.

This reckoning is not overdue — it is unavoidable. The truth has been suppressed for far too long. The four Australian company lawyers at the centre of this saga — Dr Gordon Hughes AO, John Rundell, Warwick Smith AO, and John Pinnock — have, through their actions, shaped a pattern of legal and procedural abuse that has harmed ordinary Australians seeking justice. Two of them now hold the title of “accredited arbitrator,” a status they did not possess during my arbitration, yet now wield as a shield against scrutiny.

What these men oversaw was not an honest arbitration process. It was a structure engineered to fail claimants, to bury uncomfortable truths, and to ensure that Telstra’s interests prevailed over fairness, transparency, and the rule of law. The consequences have echoed for thirty years, leaving lives damaged, evidence lost, and justice denied.

Blowing The Whistle

My letter to Gareth Evans, dated January 4, 1996 (Open Letter File No/49), explicitly raised serious issues affecting all ongoing arbitrations. Dr. Hughes's letter to Laurie James, titled "Letter to Senator Evans" (see below), failed to disclose to Laurie James that on May 12, 1995, he had already informed the first administrator involved in the initial four arbitrations, including mine, that the agreement used in my arbitration lacked credibility. He had indicated that the arbitration agreement needed amendment for the arbitration process to remain credible. I refer to that letter, attached as Exhibit (Open Letter File No 55-A).

Dr Hughes's letter to Laurie James notes:

"Mr. Smith provided you a copy of a letter to Senator Gareth Evans dated 4 January 1996. I presume you require me to comment on those aspects of the letter which reflect upon my conduct as an arbitrator.

"The letter to Senator Evans is littered with inaccuracies. Some examples are:

contrary to Mr. Smith's assertion on page 3, his 24,000 (sic) documents were all viewed by me, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, DMR Group Inc (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in accordance with the arbitration procedure."

Mr. Smith's assertion on page 4 that a technical expert, Mr. Read, refused to discuss technical information at his premises on 6 April 1995, is correct - in this regard. Mr. Read was acting in accordance with his interpretation of my direction which prohibited him from speaking to one party in the absence of the other party at any site visit. (Open letter File No/45-G  and Open Letter File No/49)

Why did Dr Hughes, the arbitrator, deceive Mr James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, about the 24,000 documents that Telstra withheld from me? Telstra withheld these documents until after they submitted their defence, leaving me with insufficient time to prepare an adequate response. I reported this issue to Sue Hodgkinson, one of the arbitration consultants, who advised Warwick Smith in writing on March 30, 1995, that I was unable to submit the documents to support my claim and respond to Telstra's arbitration defence.

On May 29, 1997, Tony Morgon, the National Chief Adjuster at GAB Robin's Loss Assessors, was appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to assess the unnecessary costs I incurred due to Telstra's failure to provide the requested FOI documents during my arbitration. The late receipt of these 24,000 FOI documents was taken into account, despite Telstra providing no evidence to the contrary.

Proof confirming Dr Hughes lied about these 24,000 documents to Laurie James is further addressed immediately below.

The Canadian and Australian technical consultants' April 30, 1995, reports, under the heading "Cape Bridgewater Documentation," state, "More than 4,000 pages of documentation have been presented by both parties and examined by us." (See Arbitrator File Nos/29 and 30) These reports are covered in more detail on other pages.

I am writing in support of Mr. Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week of July 17. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The "founding" group included Mr. Smith, Mrs. Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs. Sheila 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. I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults in their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that there will eventually be a fair and equitable outcome for them. They are to be admired for remaining as focused as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and in their family relationships. In one case, the claimant's partner has become seriously incapacitated, due, I believe, to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have all 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 galvanized 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 successful in extracting information from Telecom that would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money, and resources to defeating the claims, and there is no pretense that the arbitration process has even attempted to produce a contest between equals.

Even if 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 accountability of public companies and the public servants in other government agencies.

Because I am not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding your meeting with Mr. Smith, nor your identity, you can appreciate that I am being fairly circumspect 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 description is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatment 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 to 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)

Karina Barrymore, the journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, wrote on 3 August 2016:

WHEN THE FIGHT BECOMES YOUR PURPOSE

There comes a point in a long struggle when you stop asking why you are still fighting and start understanding what the fight has made you. It doesn't happen in a single moment. It happens slowly, quietly, in the background of your life — in the way you wake up, in the way you think, in the way you carry yourself. The battle becomes part of your identity, not because you wanted it, but because it shaped you in ways you could never have imagined.

By the time I reached this stage, the arbitration was years behind me, but the consequences were still unfolding. The truth had become my responsibility, the evidence my inheritance, and the silence of institutions my constant reminder that justice — if it was ever going to come — would not come from them.

It would have to come from me.

The Shift from Survival to Purpose

In the early years, everything I did was about survival — surviving the lies, the gaslighting, the financial ruin, the collapse of my business, the isolation, the endless bureaucratic stonewalling. But somewhere along the way, the fight changed shape. It stopped being about what had been taken from me and became about what I refused to let be taken from others.

I realized that my story — painful as it was — had value beyond my own suffering. It was a warning. A blueprint. A record of what happens when a corporation becomes more powerful than the truth, when a regulator becomes more loyal to the entity it is meant to police than to the public it is meant to protect, and when a government chooses convenience over accountability.

My story was no longer just mine.

It belonged to every "Casualty of Telstra," ordinary Australian citizens who had been silenced by this terrible giant. It belonged to every person who had been dismissed. Every person who had been told, "There's nothing wrong with your service," when the evidence said otherwise. And once I understood that, the fight became something else entirely. It became a purpose.

The Realization That No One Is Coming to Save You

There is a moment in every long battle when you finally accept that no cavalry is coming. No minister will step in. No regulator will suddenly grow a conscience. No journalist will magically uncover the truth you've been shouting for years. No legal system will correct its own failures. You are on your own.

It's a sobering realisation, but it's also liberating. Because once you stop waiting for someone else to fix what was broken, you start doing the work yourself — not because you think you will win, but because you know the truth deserves to be told. That was the moment I stopped hoping for rescue and started building my own platform, my own archive, my own voice. That was the moment Absent Justice stopped being a website and became a mission.

The People Who Tried to Stop the Story

When you carry a truth that powerful institutions want buried, you quickly learn who fears it. You learn it when people avoid your calls, when officials speak in rehearsed lines, and when documents go missing. You learn it when FOI requests return with pages blacked out, and when politicians suddenly "don't recall" conversations you remember vividly. You learn it in the way Telstra behaved—confident, dismissive, certain their version of events would prevail simply because they had the power to enforce it.

You learn it in the way AUSTEL folded—a regulator that should have been the public's shield, but instead became Telstra's. You learn it in the way arbitrators hid behind legal language, feigning neutrality while allowing evidence to be withheld, altered, or ignored. And you learn it in the way the government stayed silent—not from ignorance, but because acknowledging the truth would have meant acknowledging their own complicity. These were not passive failures; they were active choices.

These choices shaped the lives of twenty-one Australians, each of whom knew at least two other small business operators suffering the same phone faults. Those operators knew others, and so on. The network of casualties grew exponentially. We were no longer talking about a handful of complainants, but thousands of Australian small business owners who lost their livelihoods or were forced to sell their businesses because the government was covering up a systemic problem. And I refused to let those choices be forgotten.

The Cost of Becoming the Messenger

People often assume that exposing the truth brings relief. It doesn't. It brings consequences. You lose friends. You lose allies. You lose the comfort of not knowing what you now know. You become the person others avoid because your story makes them uncomfortable. You become a reminder of what happens when systems fail, the witness no one wants in the room. And yet, despite all of that, you keep going—because the alternative is to let the truth die. I learned to live with the cost. I learned to live with the isolation. I learned to live with the knowledge that telling the truth often means standing alone. But I also learned something else: Standing alone is still standing.

The Quiet Power of Persistence

Persistence isn't dramatic, loud, or glamorous. It's the act of showing up, again and again, long after everyone else has stopped. It's refusing to let the truth be buried. It's continuing the fight even when the outcome is uncertain. Persistence is what kept "Absent Justice" alive, kept the evidence intact, and prevented the story from being rewritten by those with the most to hide. And persistence is what brought me to Part IX—the point where the fight is no longer about what happened, but about ensuring it never happens again.

The Purpose That Emerged From the Ruins

By this stage, I understood something profound: The fight was never just about me. It was about the system that failed all of us, about the truth that deserved to be preserved, and about a future that deserved protection. My purpose became clear:

To ensure that what happened to me—and to thousands of others—would not be erased, forgotten, or repeated.

That purpose gave me strength.

It gave me direction.

It gave me a reason to keep going when everything else had been taken.

And that purpose is what carries me into the next chapter.

PART X—THE MOMENT THE SYSTEM BLINKED

In every long fight, there comes a time when the system you're pushing against finally shows a crack. It doesn't crumble, collapse, or confess. But it blinks—just long enough for you to see that your persistence has landed a blow.

For years, I had been dismissed as a nuisance, a troublemaker, a man who "wouldn't let go." Telstra had written me off. The government had written me off. The arbitrators had written me off. They believed time would wear me down, exhaustion would silence me, and the weight of the truth would eventually crush the man carrying it.

But they underestimated something fundamental:

The inadequate and severely lacking telephone service had already drained my finances. The truth I wanted to expose, which these government bureaucrats failed to understand—having never stepped outside their government bubble—is that I had something to gain that they had never experienced: self-esteem and the determination to survive during tough times. I possessed what most small business owners have: self-determination.

The first signs of movement didn't come with a headline, a ministerial apology, or a sudden burst of integrity from the institutions that had failed us. It happened quietly.

A document that had been withheld suddenly appeared in an FOI release.

A bureaucrat who once stonewalled me slipped and acknowledged something they shouldn't have.

A journalist who had ignored me for years finally asked for a meeting.

A former Telstra technician reached out, saying, "I think it's time someone knew what really happened."

These were small things — tiny fractures in a wall that had stood for decades. But to someone who had been pushing against that wall alone, they were seismic. Cracks mean pressure. Cracks mean strain. Cracks mean the truth is no longer contained. And cracks mean the system is afraid.

The Power of Being Proven Right — Slowly, Reluctantly, and Without Credit

There is a strange kind of vindication that comes when the very institutions that dismissed you begin to quietly confirm your claims — not publicly, not honorably, but through their own internal contradictions. A technical report that once "did not exist" suddenly appears in a Senate archive. A Telstra memo that was "never written" shows up in a bundle of documents released to someone else. A regulator's internal briefing contradicts their public statements. A government department quietly updates its records without explanation.

They never admit wrongdoing. They never apologize. They never acknowledge the damage done. But the truth leaks out anyway — through the cracks, through the paperwork, through the people who can no longer carry the weight of silence. And every leak is a victory. Not for me personally, but for the record. For the truth. For the thousands who were told they were imagining things.

The System's Greatest Fear — A Citizen Who Doesn't Go Away

Governments and corporations are built on one assumption:

that ordinary people will eventually give up. They rely on fatigue. They rely on confusion. They rely on the complexity of bureaucracy. They rely on the belief that no one will keep fighting once the cost becomes too high.

But I didn't go away. I didn't fold. I didn't disappear into the silence they had prepared for me. And that — more than any document, any letter, any technical report — is what frightened them. Because a citizen who refuses to go away is a citizen who cannot be controlled. A citizen who refuses to go away exposes the cracks. A citizen who refuses to go away is a citizen who forces the truth into the light. And once the truth is in the light, the system loses its power to rewrite it.

The Moment I Realized the Fight Was Bigger Than Telstra

For years, I believed my battle was with Telstra — with their lies, their manipulation, their technical failures, their abuse of power. But as the cracks widened, I began to see the truth:

Telstra was only the beginning. The real fight was with the machinery that protected Telstra. The regulators who surrendered their independence. The arbitrators who hid behind procedure.

The ministers who chose silence over accountability. The bureaucrats who buried evidence.

The government allowed a national scandal to be sanitized into a footnote. This wasn't a Telstra problem; it was an Australian problem—a systemic and cultural problem. It was the culture of "don't rock the boat," of "protect the institution," of "the public doesn't need to know." Once I understood that, the fight expanded. It became not just about what had happened to me, but about what had been allowed to happen to all of us.

 

A Note on Corruption

This report delves into criminal conduct, unscrupulous public servants, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who control Australia's legal profession. For a comprehensive account of government corruption, please read my book: My Story Warts & All.

While I don't expect the average reader of CAV 1, 2, and 3 to review the entire chronology of events, it was compiled for a specific reason. In 2007, the Barrister for Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), in the presence of a former senior Victorian police officer, stated that if I could provide evidence that Supreme Court documents were hacked by Telstra's arbitration defense managers before reaching their intended destination, CAV would investigate my claims. I provided that evidence immediately, and an eighteen-month investigation commenced.

For the purpose of this CAV 1, 2, and 3 chronology of events, I will refer to myself as Alan Smith.

Accessing the Evidence

When I first considered writing this manuscript detailing the COT story (see Absent Justice My Story), it quickly became apparent that the continuation of such a saga for twenty years in a democracy like Australia would be difficult to believe. However, numerous official documents substantiate every step of this story, and copies of these actual documents are included throughout the book. These documents illuminate the profound frustration the COTs endured for years. When the arbitration process was first proposed, the COTs, officially designated as 'the complainants,' anticipated a qualified arbitrator—an ombudsman who would seek the truth. Unfortunately, those expectations were far from reality.

The first Peter on page 39 in the Senate – Parliament of Australia refers to the ex-Telstra employee who lied under oath in his witness statement provided to the arbitrator hearing my case (see Telstra Falsified SVT Report). Amazingly, Telstra executive Ted Benjamin, named on page 39 of this report, was also a TIO council member. He admitted at the Senate Estimates hearing on September 26, 1997 (see page 109 > COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) to not disclosing his conflict of interest when attending TIO council meetings where COT case issues were discussed. He also fed privileged TIO council-discussed material to fellow Telstra executives, as shown in the exhibit > TIO Council Conflict of Interest 30 Nov 1993. A detailed explanation of this damning exhibit can be found in Chapter One Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman.

The COT cases were NEVER afforded their basic legal rights as claimants during their TIO-administered arbitrations, as documented on page 99 of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia by the Commonwealth, which originally endorsed our arbitrations.

Letter to the Prime Minister

In Alan's letter of October 28, 2013, to the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Federal Minister for Communications (AS 1052), he noted:

"I am sure that you, as a very smart lawyer, will be able to see, once you have read the enclosed document addressed to Dr Hughes and Mr John Rundell titled Alan Smith – Characterisation of misconduct summary October/November 2013, and the Exhibits on the enclosed CD that my claims are not frivolous and I am not a vexatious litigant.

As you know, the Commissioners in both the Fitzgerald and Justice Woods Royal Commissions clearly stated that it was totally unacceptable for police divisions to investigate allegations of misconduct within their own divisions. These two Royal Commissions, along with the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Australian Crime and Misconduct Commission, further confirm that the actions allowed by the first TIO during the COT arbitrations should NEVER have been tolerated, in any sense of the word. It is alarming enough to learn that the TIO permitted Telstra (the defendants) to attend monthly TIO Board and Council meetings where COT arbitration issues were discussed (see Senate Estimates Committee Hansard dated 26 September 1997). The TIO also brokered a secret deal with Telstra, giving the TIO's Arbitration Resource Unit the power to decide which documents the arbitrator would see and which would be concealed during the arbitration. However, other similarly appalling events occurred during my arbitration that the TIO appeared powerless to stop.

On 12 February 2014, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull wrote to Mr Daniel Tehan MP, Federal Member for Wannon (AS 1025), noting:

"I refer to your correspondence dated 6 December 2013 on behalf of Mr Alan Smith concerning consumer issues. Mr Smith has contacted this portfolio on a number of occasions in relation to various issues, which have been previously considered by the Department of Communications. These matters were first raised in 1988, and over the last 20 years, all avenues for consideration both within Telstra and the Government have been exhausted.

As there is no new information raised in the correspondence from Mr Smith, I am unable to provide further assistance in this matter."

This letter perfectly exemplifies the bureaucratic merry-go-round I've endured for over twenty-two years, a situation solely created by the Australian Government and its representatives, despite their awareness of my valid claims. A crucial issue omitted from the Malcolm Turnbull letter is that his representatives, all public servants, are aware that someone with access to government carrier networks hacked into and intercepted faxes sent to and from the premises of the COTs, their lawyers, and advisors. Furthermore, Mr. Turnbull's representatives also know that if this intercepted confidential material was then passed on to the defendants (who owned the network), it would have provided them with an illegally gained advantage. Yet, Mr. Turnbull's representatives are still prepared to state that: "... all avenues for consideration both within Telstra and the Government have been exhausted." Is the author of Mr. Turnbull's letter actually implying that it is acceptable for the previous defendants in the arbitration to investigate themselves for hacking into the claimants' faxed claim material during arbitrations to which those defendants were party? How can Mr. Turnbull suggest that a self-investigation legitimately proves that the previously government-owned telecommunications carrier has no case to answer when my Exhibits in our Main Evidence File No. 7 & 8 prove that this hacking did take place? We need only look at the Murdoch News of the World hacking scandal in the UK for answers to these questions, because surely neither the British public nor the British Government would ever have allowed the Murdochs to investigate their own hacking? Yet, here in Australia, the Government simply accepts whatever this Corporation says as fact, without question.

When the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull signed his 12 February 2014 letter, including his comment that: "... all avenues for consideration both within Telstra and the Government have been exhausted," did he not recall his own involvement as a lawyer in the famous Peter Wright Spycatcher trial (Mr Wright was a former Assistant Director of MI5)? Since Mr Turnbull was once a qualified, practising, leading Barrister in cases such as the Spycatcher trial, surely he would know that Telstra's destruction of evidence needed in a legal proceeding was a serious crime. So why has he allowed Telstra to investigate themselves in relation to my claims?

In October 2007, after meeting with me and two reliable witnesses, Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) requested that I prepare the evidence supporting my claims in the manner currently presented on absentjustice.com (CAV folder files, AS CAV and GS CAV). Peter Hiland, CAV's senior barrister, reviewed much of my submission. He then asked one of the witnesses—a very prominent ex-senior member of the Victorian police who had held the position of commander and received the Order of Australia—to provide the same evidence on a CD. This was intended to allow CAV members to fully appreciate the true extent of the cover-up that transpired before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. I promptly created the CD, as Mr. Hiland explicitly stated that, as a barrister serving with the Victorian government, he had been awaiting this type of evidence for over a decade. However, over the next 18 months, the investigation was discontinued, and my advisor and I were informed that the government was no longer interested.

I raise this CAV issue because, in 2008, I submitted the same evidence, still titled AS-CAV and GS-CAV, to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. My goal was to obtain further Freedom of Information documents from the Australian government through the office of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Thus, the evidence on absentjustice.com has been in the public domain since 2007 and reviewed by three government agencies; not one of these agencies refuted my CAV evidence. In fact, transcripts dated October 3, 2008, show that Mr. G.D. Friedman, a senior member (judge), upon hearing my Administrative Appeals Tribunal case No. V2008/1836 (after reading my 169-page Statement of Facts and Contentions describing the relevance of my CAV evidence), stated:

"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."

Please note: for the purpose of this report, I have continued to refer to myself as either Alan Smith or Alan.

A number of government agencies appear to have been complicit in a cover-up of Telstra's shortcomings. For well over 20 years, Alan and Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) have been attempting to get Telstra to take responsibility for financial losses that businesses incurred due to faulty telephone and fax lines.

Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp – Golden Messenger

Alan believes the skills he gained during his time at sea and working as a chef and steward, together with experience accumulated during many and varied catering jobs, provided him with a strong foundation on which to build his own business.

Before Alan moved to Cape Bridgewater, and for the first three months thereafter, he visited many Victorian metropolitan and country schools, including those in the Wimmera and south-west regions, Geelong, and Warrnambool. During these visits, he distributed 2,000 brochures about his camp, and the camp coordinators at these schools showed great interest in the package he presented.

Despite this extensive promotional effort, Alan was surprised to find that he was not receiving the expected number of inquiries after opening the business. This was particularly puzzling given that many prospective customers had indicated they would call as soon as they checked available dates. Alan began to wonder if the lack of incoming phone inquiries indicated a problem with the phone lines. A number of friends soon confirmed this suspicion, telling Alan and his wife, Faye, that they were consistently receiving engaged signals or a message stating that his phone was disconnected.

Alan's Freedom of Information (FOI) and discovery issues created significant problems, not only for him but also for the arbitrator. This meant that Alan's matters were arbitrated with the arbitrator having only limited material to use in making a determination on Alan's claim. John Pinnock (administrator of Alan's arbitration) addressed the Senate on September 26, 1997, stating:

"... it is enough to say that the process was always going to be problematic, chiefly for three reasons. Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of arbitration procedures."

The Arbitration Agreement Alan signed on April 21, 1994, states:

10.2: "In relation to the Claimant's loss, the Arbitrator:

10.2.1: will take into account the Claim and Defence Documents, any Reply and supporting documents, written evidence and submissions made by the parties and, if applicable, any sworn or affirmed oral evidence presented to the Arbitrator by the parties to the arbitration together with any information obtained by the Resource Unit or any advice given to him by the Resource Unit.

10.2.2: will make a finding on reasonable grounds as to the causal link between the alleged service difficulties, problems and faults in the provision to the Claimant of telecommunication services and the losses claimed and, as appropriate, may make reasonable inferences based upon such evidence as is presented by the parties together with any information obtained by the Resource Unit or any advice given to him by the Resource Unit. Unless the Arbitrator is able to conclude that Telecom caused the loss claimed, there will exist no basis for a claim against Telecom.

 

11. The Arbitrator's reasons will be set out in full in writing and referred to in the Arbitrator's award."

No written finding was ever made by the arbitrator or the TIO-appointed technical consultants regarding the validity of Alan's arbitration claims or whether they believed Telstra had rectified the problems and faults Alan raised in his arbitration.