The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.
FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
Pages 54 and 55 refer to footnotes 82 - 85 and 169 in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: Food and Trade In Late Maoist China, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett, June 2021 wrote:
82 - 85 → In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said, “I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.”169 "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the other were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time a grain ship usually had crew members about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship..
Please hover your mouse or cursor over the Canadian flag in the following image and learn that during my time as a merchant seaman in 1967, I stood alongside several British and Canadian colleagues in protest against a deeply troubling revelation. We had learned that Australian wheat—shipped to Communist China under the guise of humanitarian aid—was being redirected once unloaded. Some of that wheat was ending up in North Vietnam.
This wasn’t just a logistical detail. It was a betrayal.
At the time, Australian, New Zealand, and American troops were fighting and dying in the jungles of Vietnam. Many were maimed or slaughtered by North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong fighters. To know that our own wheat—grown on Australian soil—was helping feed the very forces responsible for that carnage was unbearable.
The Canadian seaman who joined our stand understood the gravity of the situation. Like us, he couldn’t reconcile the idea of humanitarian aid being weaponised against our own allies. It wasn’t just about politics—it was about principle. About loyalty. About refusing to be complicit.
💔Broken Hearts, War, and a Seaman’s Stand
The sentiments expressed resonate with me on a personal level. I draw vivid parallels to my own experiences with bureaucrats and politicians from three decades ago—encounters that began before my 1994 arbitration and continued through the ensuing chaos.
The years spanning the Vietnam War, from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, were especially turbulent. Shifting governments added layers of complexity to my story. What troubles me most is the enduring silence: no representative from those past administrations has stepped forward to acknowledge or apologise for Australia’s decision to trade with an enemy during wartime.
That choice cost lives—not only among Australia’s young conscripts, but also among our allies in New Zealand and the USA. The silence is deafening. And the weight of those decades still lingers.
As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam, intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible.
📓 I had pledged my allegiance to Australia. How could this cog in the machine be complicit in the slaughter occurring in the jungles of Vietnam?
🧹Introduction: A Beacon Beyond Borders
As a gesture of gratitude and respect, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment to democracy and truth-telling in the introduction to this COT story. Their support stands as a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders, even when it’s denied at home in Australia.
When I sought assistance from the Australian government and its bureaucracies to validate the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) tests allegedly conducted at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, I received silence. Had those tests been properly carried out—as the BCI reports claimed—I could have demonstrated to the arbitrator that my phone and faxing issues were still undermining my business operations. Despite my findings being backed by Telstra’s own technical data, they were ignored.
This pattern of bureaucratic indifference echoes a deeper historical failure. In September 1967, Australian officials continued supplying wheat to China, despite warnings from Canadian and British seamen that some of that wheat was likely feeding North Vietnamese soldiers—soldiers who would soon be hunting down Australian, New Zealand, and American troops in the jungles of Vietnam.
Yet, in July 1995, the Canadian government stepped forward once again—this time to support my claims regarding Bell Canada International. Their intervention was not just an act of diplomacy; it was a reaffirmation of democratic values and a commitment to justice.
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.
At the time, Kim Beazley MP made his statement concerning China, compelling evidence emerged suggesting that China was actively supplying wheat to North Vietnam. It wasn't until our ship docked back in Sydney, Australia, that we had the opportunity to inform the Coalition about the troubling reality: our wheat was being diverted directly to support North Vietnam. This revelation raises an important and unresolved question: why did Australia continue to export wheat to China even after we alerted both the Commonwealth Police and Malcolm Fraser, conveying the alarming news that our commodities were being funnelled to an adversary in North Vietnam?
This part of my Casualties of Telstra (COT) story can be read by clicking on "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam".
On my second request for this detailed data, Paul Rumble, Telstra's arbitration officer, threatened me that if I continued to provide this type of information to the AFP, Telstra would refuse to supply it. It was up to me. Stop supplying the AFP with FOI documents, and Telstra will assist me by supplying the arbitrator with this type of evidence. I refused to be threatened in this manner.
One of my answers to the 93 questions asked by the Australian Federal Police on 26 September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 names Telstra's Paul Rumble as the culprit who made these threats.
Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number.
Our Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.
This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House, Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre?
Even if those Government offices have officially organised the Fax Streaming arrangement, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system without the Government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, across the country, privacy isn't so private?
Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.
Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra's network were able to use 'keywords' so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close's residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.
How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away, he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.
This wasn’t just surveillance. It was strategic intelligence gathering, designed to anticipate our moves, undermine our credibility, and control the narrative. The arbitrator, already compromised by deceit, operated in tandem with a system that saw truth as a liability.
And yet, the surveillance failed in one critical respect: it didn’t silence us. It didn’t erase the documents, the corrupted fax logs, the technical reports that proved Telstra’s faults. It didn’t stop the creation of absentjustice.com, or the open letters that now circulate beyond their reach.
We were watched. We were catalogued. But we were not erased.
When I provided the former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, with copies of the two Telstra FOI-released documents showing Mr Fraser's comments to me and mine to him, via our two telephone conversations, almost one year apart, between April 1993 and 1994, Mr Fraiser contacted Telstra and others in the public domain, asking questions about why our discussions had been redacted (removed) from these Telstra documents, demanding answers, as this Herald Nowepaper article shows:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”
📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption
On 23 May 1994, I was advised by the arbitrator's secretary that my arbitration-related faxes had never reached Dr Hughes' office, despite my Telstra fax account for that date showing that six faxes were sent to Dr Hughes' office fax number.
After trying to explain the discrepancy to Dr Hughes' secretary, I spoke to some office staff who admitted they had not collected that information by mistake. Telstra’s arbitration B004 report, prepared by Tony Watson (Front Page Part One File No/1), later claimed that the reason those faxes never arrived was that Dr Hughes’ office fax machine was busy when I attempted to send them.
If this were the case, why did Telstra bill me for those faxes that were not received?
🧾 Evidence Suppressed, Justice Denied
The information I had faxed through was billing documentation regarding Bell Canada’s alleged testing at Cape Bridgewater, along with my report proving that the BCI tests could not have occurred. This was not trivial correspondence—it was critical evidence that undermined the very foundation of Telstra’s defence.
When I told Graham Schorer, the official COT spokesperson, that this had happened again, he contacted Dr Hughes directly. This wasn’t a mere technical hiccup. It was a deliberate obstruction—an engineered failure that ensured vital documents never reached the arbitrator. And yet, Telstra still charged me for each transmission, profiting from the very sabotage that crippled my case.
I must take the reader fourteen years forward to the following letter, dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Psychologically undermined.
(See File Ann Garms 104 Document).
🔥 A Turning Point in My Fight for Justice
Let me tell you something that still chills me to the bone.
Before she passed away, Ann Garms—one of the original COT Cases—wrote a desperate letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull → (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). In that letter, she revealed something that had haunted her: Queensland’s former Premier Wayne Goss told her that we, the COT Cases, were subjected to gaslighting techniques. That’s right. A senior figure in Australian politics confirmed what we had long suspected. We weren’t just ignored—we were manipulated, destabilised, and psychologically undermined.
Wayne Goss wasn’t just any politician. He was deeply embedded in the system. If he said gaslighting was used against us, then he knew. He knew what was done to us. And he said it out loud.
⚖️ My Case: The Silence That Screams
Take my situation. I was one of the COT Cases. My arbitration was supposed to be conducted under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. That meant it should have been protected, transparent, and accountable.
But when Telstra carried out threats against me—real threats—Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, refused to contact the Supreme Court. He didn’t report the threats. He didn’t acknowledge them in his findings. He didn’t even try to protect the integrity of the process.
- Why?
- Why would an arbitrator ignore threats made during a court-sanctioned process?
- Why would he leave out the most sinister part of my experience
The silence is deafening. The corruption is undeniable.
📜 What Ann Garms Knew—and What She Tried to Warn
Ann’s letter wasn’t just a plea. It was a warning. She knew what had been done to us. She knew we were being gaslit, surveilled, and sabotaged. And she tried to tell the Prime Minister before it was too late.
She died not long after sending that letter.
But I’m still here. And I’m still telling the story.
🧭 This Is the Moment Everything Changed
Wayne Goss’s confirmation. Dr Hughes’ silence. Telstra’s threats. Ann Garms’ final letter.
This is the moment I mark as a turning point in my chronology. It’s where the mask slipped, where the truth began to surface, where the betrayal became undeniable.
And I’ve documented it all. Every exhibit. Every omission. Every threat.
Because this isn’t just my story, it’s a national disgrace.
🕳️ The Arbitrator’s Omission: Silence in the Face of Surveillance
Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was actively investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator’s office, as well as my failure to receive arbitration-related documents sent to my office via Australia Post—and vice versa: arbitration-related documents sent to the arbitrator that were never received.
Yet this crucial matter, central to my claim, was entirely omitted from Dr Hughes’s award. He made no mention of it in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is not a minor oversight—it is a damning indictment of the entire process. It reveals a deliberate suppression of evidence and a refusal to confront the sabotage that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.
