🕰️ Thirty Years of Hell: A Survivor’s Reckoning
It began with a signature. One stroke of the pen, and I was thrust into an arbitration process that promised justice but delivered betrayal. What followed was not a legal journey—it was a psychological siege. Thirty years of battling a bureaucracy that twisted truth, buried evidence, and treated human suffering as collateral damage.

Every document I uncovered was a wound. Each memo, each internal Telstra note, each Senate Hansard revelation—proof not just of negligence, but of deliberate obstruction. The very institutions meant to protect us became complicit in our silencing.

The conflict of interest wasn’t a footnote—it was the playbook. Executives sat on oversight councils while feeding confidential information back to Telstra. The TIO, meant to be impartial, became a revolving door of influence. And when confronted, they shrugged. “We discussed COT matters regularly,” they said—without ever disclosing the rot at the core.

This wasn’t just injustice. It was institutional gaslighting. They made us question our sanity, our worth, our right to speak. They delayed, deflected, and denied—until the truth became a burden too heavy for most to carry.
But I carried it. I still do.

Because this isn’t just my story. It’s the story of every whistleblower who stood alone against a system designed to crush dissent. It’s the story of the COT Cases, of lives upended and voices erased.
And it’s not over.

 

🧩 The Phantom Letter — A Fabrication Weaponised

Dr Hughes and Pinnock later referenced a written admission I supposedly made, confessing to the midnight call. But no such letter exists. It was a phantom, conjured to distort the record and discredit me.

The Fabrication — A Calculated Betrayal
This was no misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—engineered to isolate me, discredit my claims, and protect Telstra at all costs. When facts became inconvenient, fiction took their place. On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility with lies so brazen they should have triggered a national inquiry. He didn’t just misrepresent me—he weaponised his position to bury the truth.

And Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, still cowers in 2025, refusing to correct the record. His silence is not neutrality—it is complicity. As documented in “The First Remedy Pursued”, Hughes, Pinnock, and John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, formed a triad of deceit. They weren’t just negligent—they were cowards, liars, and disgusting individuals who knowingly hid behind an altered arbitration confidentiality agreement.

That agreement—the very foundation of our pursuit of justice—was secretly rewritten after the COT Cases and after several Senators were told a different version would be used. It was a bait-and-switch of the highest order. The altered version protected these three scoundrels and their allies for more than three decades, shielding them from scrutiny while we, the claimants, were left to rot in silence.

If the man in Dr Hughes’s body truly believes he’s earned the Order of Australia, then let him prove it—not with medals, but with truth. He should sit down with his wife and ask her, plainly, whether she’s willing to admit there was no 2:00 AM call.. And if not, then perhaps it’s time Dr Hughes told John Pinnock what I’ve known all along: this facade has gone on long enough. The truth is waiting. 

What unfolded under the authority of arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes was not just unethical; it was unconscionable, sinister, and corrupt to its core. His actions didn’t merely bend the rules of justice; they shattered them, leaving a trail of destruction that has crippled my life and that of my partner, Cathy, for over three decades.

On December 8 and 16, 1994, Dr Hughes received formal letters from both Telstra and the government regulator, AUSTEL, regarding "Unaddressed 1800 Billing Issues." These letters were explicit; they detailed a series of alarming telephone faults affecting my business and several other accommodation businesses in my area. They requested a written response from Dr Hughes, indicating that I had raised these ongoing problems. These letters illustrate that AUSTEL wanted written clarification from both Dr Hughes and the defendants.

Worse still, on April 30, 1995, Dr Hughes received a report from his own technical consultants, DMR & Lane, confirming that my billing issues remained unresolved. Despite this, he brazenly declared in his official findings that these matters had been resolved back in July 1994. This was not a mistake; it was a deliberate falsification of the record—a calculated move to bury the truth and protect Telstra from accountability.

This level of deceit was not only reprehensible but also grotesque.
 

Correspondence from AUSTEL, a month after the conclusion of my arbitration, confirms that Dr Hughes did not respond to the government's letter. Additionally, correspondence dated August 2, 1996, from one of the financial arbitration consultants assigned to Dr Hughes, revealed that between April 19 and 21, 1994, he was covertly exonerated from all liability for negligent conduct.

This individual, Susan Hodgkinson from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, admitted to withholding these four letters from Dr Hughes, claiming they were not seen as important, despite the precise wording and headings in these documents indicating otherwise.

What transpired under the authority of arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes exemplifies the worst kind of corruption and ethical depravity imaginable. His actions were not merely unethical; they were a grotesque betrayal of justice that has wreaked havoc on my life and my partner, Cathy, for over three decades.

On December 8 and 16, 1994, Dr Hughes received formal letters from both Telstra and the government regulator, AUSTEL, concerning "Unaddressed 1800 Billing Issues." These letters were unequivocal, laying bare a series of alarming telephone faults that impacted my business as well as numerous other accommodation businesses in my locality. They demanded a written response from Dr Hughes, confirming that I had raised these persistent issues.

This wasn’t just a procedural request; it was a desperate plea for accountability that Dr Hughes callously ignored.

Even more abhorrent, on April 30, 1995, Dr Hughes received a report from his own technical consultants, DMR & Lane, which confirmed that my billing issues remained unresolved. In a shocking act of deceit, he falsely claimed in his official findings that these matters had been resolved back in July 1994.

This was no mere oversight; it was a calculated and malicious fabrication designed to obscure the truth and shield Telstra from the consequences of their wrongdoing.
Such blatant dishonesty is not only reprehensible but also downright grotesque.

Further evidence of this sordid affair emerged from correspondence with AUSTEL, revealing that Dr. Hughes failed to respond to the government's letter even after the conclusion of my arbitration. Even more alarming was a letter dated August 2, 1996, from one of the financial arbitration consultants assigned to Dr Hughes, which disclosed that between April 19 and 21, 1994, he was inexplicably exonerated from all liability for any negligent conduct.

This individual, Susan Hodgkinson from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, shockingly admitted to deliberately withholding four key letters from Dr Hughes, dismissing them as unimportant despite their clear implications and urgent nature.

This entire saga is an appalling testament to the depths of corruption, ethical failure, and unconscionable conduct that have plagued this arbitration process. The actions of Dr Hughes and his associates are an affront to justice and a stark reminder of the lengths to which individuals will go to evade accountability.

 

Immediately below are 15 examples from the 156 catchwords used in our absentjustice.com narrative:

Not Fit For Purpose 

Ongoing telephone problems 

In the world of political and media misinformation that is attached to the NBN, there is one important issue that hasn’t been fully addressed. Did Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements when the government privatised Telstra? When the COT arbitrator was officially provided (in my case) nine separate sworn Telstra witness statements that my service was now up to network standard i.e.; no more ongoing telephone problems were these nine sworn statements made under oath true or false.

If this question is answered honestly, it would not only directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending but also mean the arbitrator hearing my cases was lied to so that Telstra could minimise their liability towards me. As seen from the following exhibit, my phone problems continued for eleven years after the arbitrator found in favour of Telstra, i.e. they had now fixed their network.

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

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

Almost two decades after this cover-up had been executed, with the government spin doctors successfully branding my claims as frivolous and me as a vexatious litigant, I have been left the government stopped financing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which still utilises part of the existing, seriously degraded copper network. In fact, the “… state of the copper network is considerably worse than expected, leading to extensive work beyond the node,” say leaked documents.

28 April 2018: This ABC news article regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story because had these lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) really was just 4-years ago.

Sadly, many Australians living in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This wouldn’t have been the case if the Australian Government had ensured the arbitration process they endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing communication problems had been conducted lawfully.

 

The Pursuit of Justice: The COT Cases and the Battle with Telstra

Introduction

Please note: absentjustice.com is a work in progress, last edited in March 2021.

All principal events detailed on this website are substantiated by copies of original documents, referred to as confirmation data, which are linked throughout the text. For example, references such as FrontPage Part One File No/1, Main Evidence File No/3, or Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C, when clicked, will automatically open a PDF of the corresponding exhibit. By following these linked file numbers across the site’s various pages—including the menu sections Absentjustice - Preface, Manipulating the Regulator, and Absentjustice Parts 1, 2, and 3—readers can independently verify the narrative. Without these primary documents, most people would find it difficult to believe the experiences endured by the Casualties of Telstra (COT) claimants.

The Struggle for Evidence and Justice

It is almost unimaginable—were it not for the supporting exhibits—that a group of small business owners could be compelled to enter arbitration, under government advice that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to have these crucial documents withheld until years after their arbitrations concluded. This method of including exhibits is essential; otherwise, the story would seem impossible to believe.

On 23 March 1999, nearly five years after most of the arbitrations had ended, the Australian Financial Review reported on the conclusion of a Senate estimates committee hearing. The hearing investigated why COT Cases were forced into government-endorsed arbitration without the documentation needed to support their claims. Senator Eggleston stated: “A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed 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, forcing members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information. They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

It is difficult to imagine any Western country governed by the rule of law, as Australia claims to be, permitting a scenario where small-business operators must enter government-endorsed arbitration while the government—owner of the corporation—conceals documents vital to their claims.

Alan Smith’s Story: The Beginning

Alan Smith Author

My name is Alan Smith. This is the account of my enduring battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government—a saga that has spanned elected governments, departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The quest for justice continues to this day.

My journey began in 1987, after spending the previous twenty or so years at sea. Seeking a land-based occupation for my retirement years, I chose Australia as my home. My passion was hospitality, and I aspired to run a school holiday camp. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre, listed for sale in The Age, caught my attention. Situated in rural Victoria, near Portland, it seemed ideal. I performed my due diligence, though it never occurred to me to check the reliability of the phone service. Within a week of taking over, I discovered a major issue: customers and suppliers could not reliably contact me.

The business depended on a phone service that was, at best, unreliable. Predictably, this led to lost business. Thus began my struggle—a quest to secure a working phone at the property. Over time, I received compensation for business losses and repeated assurances that the problem was fixed. Yet, to this day, the problem remains unresolved. I sold the business in 2002, and subsequent owners have faced the same difficulties.

The Casualties of Telecom (COT) Cases

Other independent business operators affected by poor telecommunications joined me, forming the Casualties of Telecom (COT) cases. Our aim was simple: for Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our issues, fix them, and compensate us for our losses. A working phone—is that too much to ask?

Persistent complaints to AUSTEL and my Federal member, the Hon David Hawker MP, eventually led Telstra investigators to Cape Bridgewater on 3 June 1993. I was hopeful, but it was another instance of “No fault found.” Their advice was to continue recording phone faults, as I had done since 1989. Disheartened, I carried on.

The Briefcase Saga: Revealing the Truth

Soon after, I discovered that a Telstra investigator had inadvertently left behind his briefcase in my office. Inside, I found a document titled ‘SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER’—a potential breakthrough after years of struggle. A Telstra document dated 2 July 1992 concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE exchange stated: “Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected. They believe that it is a problem occurring in increasing numbers as more customers are connected to AXE.”

Another document showed Telstra knew that a major fault recorded in March 1992 had persisted for at least eight months, not merely the three weeks they later reported to the COT arbitrator. These revelations marked a turning point.

Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008 revealed Telstra already knew the validity of my complaints on 3 June 1993, when their briefcase was left behind. Marked “TELECOM SECRET,” these documents stated: “Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by several acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court. Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from poor network performance over several years; with difficult-to-detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

Systemic Failures and the Breakdown of Justice

Thus, the story begins: a group of ordinary small-business owners fighting one of Australia’s largest corporations. For years, Telstra refused to address recurring phone problems that severely impacted the COT Four’s businesses, repeatedly claiming “No fault found,” while documents on this website and government records (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, points 10 to 212) prove otherwise.

Telstra and its legal defence team obstructed justice by employing dubious tactics: intercepting relevant faxes (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months or years late, often heavily redacted), destroying evidence, and fabricating documents. Key arbitration claims were ignored, with no response to repeated efforts for resolution.

Regulatory bodies—Austel (government) and the TIO (carriers)—failed to control Telstra, sometimes appearing to act in concert. This collective failure represents a profound breakdown of justice, far exceeding the original issue: business owners seeking reliable phone services.

Unresolved Faults and Unlawful Conduct

Each COT member assumed, as most phone users would, that Telstra’s technicians could easily fix faults. Yet “No fault found” remained constant, and problems continued throughout and beyond arbitration, causing substantial business losses. The situation was incomprehensible: phones should work for everyone. Why didn’t they?

Why did so many appear to protect Telstra, ignoring unlawful behaviour? Withholding critical documents during arbitration is unlawful. Tampering with evidence is unlawful (see Tampering With Evidence - TF200). Relying on flawed defence documents is unlawful. Wiretapping without a warrant is unlawful. Someone in Telstra authorised this conduct. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament offered support while in Opposition but abandoned it once in government. No-one held Telstra accountable. This behaviour could easily foster suspicion of conspiracies.

Telstra’s conduct reflected a lack of confidence in its own position. What was Telstra trying to hide? What would happen if the claims were vindicated?

Systemic Problems and Rural Businesses

Documents released years later showed Telstra was fully aware of systemic problems and knew how to address them in rural areas, where many COT businesses operated.

For rural Australian business operators, telephone-reliant businesses were the norm, but not as they are today. When this story started, rural businesses did not use the internet, email, or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobiles was not routine; mobile phones didn’t work in most rural areas, and black spots were common even in city outskirts. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that modern technology became standard for business. Concealed government records (see Manipulating the Regulator) show that, in 1994, AUSTEL estimated around 120,000 businesses were affected by COT-type faults. However, the public April 1994 AUSTEL COT Cases report reduced this number to just 50 or more businesses with similar complaints.

The Push for Privatisation and Deferred Solutions

Senator Len Harris - One Nation

Today’s younger generations may struggle to understand how, only twenty years ago, Telstra and its government overseers misled Australians into believing they were working to fix Australia’s network. In reality, they were applying temporary fixes to defer capital expenditure, with privatisation on the horizon. The prevailing attitude was to pass the cost onto shareholders, as Senator Len Harris noted in his media release on 14 November 2002 (see Home Evidence File No/16):

“The urgency of the Government to unload Telstra is the realisation that it needs a huge injection of capital expenditure just to remain operational. In other words, sell the whole shooting bag before it rains and let someone else worry about fixing it. … Faulty materials such as Hi Gel 3M 442 that has corroded copper joints; Contractors cutting corners with cable installation; … Failure by senior personnel to recognise the magnitude of the impending network implosion … The pair gain system forms much of Telstra’s existing network, making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers’ phones that ordinarily ought to be replaced.”

Worse still, as documented in the Misleading and Deceptive Conduct File 4-A to 4-L segment, Telstra continued to use known-deficient equipment in its exchanges—equipment that had long since been retired in other countries.