Continued from the Home page.
On 11 November 1994, John Wynack, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, wrote to Telstra’s CEO, which was halfway through my thirteen-month arbitration procedure that the governemnt had assured us would only take six weeks to complete, Mr Wynack noted
“ I am notifying you of the details of the complaints made to the Ombudsman by Alan Smith;
- Telecom claimed that documents given to Telecom by Mr Smith in 1992 had been destroyed or lost.
- Telecom has lost or destroyed a number of files relating to his contacts with Telecom prior to 1991.
- Telecom unreasonably delaying providing access to many documents allegedly referring to discussions Mr Smith had with three Telecom officers concerning a disussion Mr Smith had with Malcolm Fraser. (former Prime Minster of Australia (AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 - See AS-CAV 114)
While sworn statement one (dated 10 August 2006) by an ex-Telstra protective service officer has been addressed elsewhere in absentjustice.com (see Main Evidence File No 30), I again raise this statement here because points 20, 21 and 22 support how important this withheld Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book was:
(20)”…I had cause to travel to Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland telephone exchange.
(21) As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.
(22) When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by the local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater area south of Portland (me) was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation”.
The illegal interference with my telephone lines, both prior to and during my arbitration, underscores a sinister agenda. The Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman was probing into the identities of three Telstra officers who falsely claimed I had spoken to the former Prime Minister of Australia. The truth is, my only conversation was with Mr. Fraser, during which I revealed my profound anguish over feeling like a traitor to Australia. My experience in communist China—where Australian-supplied wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam while they were at war with us—was haunting.
On September 18, 1967, I warned Mr. Fraser about this betrayal of our troops, burdened by the knowledge that Australia was essentially enabling the enemy that was killing young Australians in the jungles of Vietnam. Such complicity felt like a betrayal of our own soldiers—a treacherous act that struck at the very heart of national loyalty.
This traumatic flashback led me to seek help from two clinical psychologists in 1993 and 1994, only to discover that Telstra was manipulating the system. Documents released under Freedom of Information (FOI) revealed this grave situation, with critical details conveniently redacted. Mr Wynack diligently pursued this information on my behalf, exposing the corruption at play.
To compound the treachery, my local psychologist was approached by an unidentified individual during my arbitration, seeking access to my confidential file—an alarming breach of trust. My psychologist firmly stated that access could only be granted to me, accompanied by a letter from my lawyer that explicitly stated I was not being coerced.
I had already presented my psychologist with evidence illustrating Telstra's rampant corruption and the vast sums it was pilfering, all while simultaneously eavesdropping on my private communications. I also provided transcripts from a February 1994 meeting with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), demonstrating the magnitude of my plight. I was forced to document my phone complaints to Telstra's lawyers, who would dismiss them unless I followed their arbitrary protocol. This web of deceit and intimidation only served to exacerbate my PTSD related to my experiences in China and Vietnam, revealing a deeply corrupt system that betrayed not just me, but the very fabric of our nation.
📖 Government corruption and bureaucratic treachery against its citizens must never be tolerated.
To understand the sheer moral darkness that has long existed within parts of Australia’s establishment, the reader must first confront a truth so disturbing it borders on the unthinkable. While young conscripts—boys barely out of school—were being sent to fight and die in the jungles of North Vietnam, Australian bureaucrats already knew that Australian grain, channelled through Communist China, was feeding the very enemy those boys were ordered to kill. They concealed it. They sanctioned it. They allowed Australian sons to march into gunfire while quietly nourishing the soldiers hunting them.
Only when the reader fully absorbs that level of bureaucratic detachment—of playing God with other people’s children—can they grasp the evil that later unfolded in the COT arbitrations.
Because the same breed of bureaucrat, the same cold administrative class, re‑emerged decades later. They closed their eyes to injustice in the 1990s, just as they did during the Robodebt scandal of the 2020s. Different victims, different decades, same machinery of indifference.
This is why I had to bring China and North Vietnam into my narrative. Without understanding that earlier betrayal, no one could comprehend the scale of what truly happened to the brave young boys of New Zealand, the USA, and Australia, who had not been told they were fighting two enemies, the Australian public servants and the North Vietnamese.
"Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians."
"Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter."
"When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country."
"Since the start of the 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”
This article was quite alarming. It was disturbing because Peta Credlin, someone with deep knowledge of Parliament House in Canberra, has accurately addressed the issue at hand. I not only relate to the information she presents, but I can also connect it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have encountered since exposing what I did about the China wheat deal back in 1967, and the corrupted arbitration processes of 1994 to 1998. These government stuff-ups and cover-ups have cost lives.
How do you publish a true account of government‑endorsed arbitrations without naming the culprits? You can’t. We tried. We named only the regulator, not the public servants who secretly fed privileged information to the then government‑owned telecommunications carrier while concealing the same documents from us—ordinary Australian citizens. It was unconscionable. And yet the government allowed it.
How do you tell a story so unbelievable that even your editor refuses to touch it without mountains of evidence? How do you expose the fact that the defendants—Telstra—used equipment on their own network to intercept, screen, and store your arbitration documents before forwarding them to their intended destination? How do you ask whether those intercepted documents were used to strengthen Telstra’s defence while weakening ours?
How many other arbitrations were compromised by this kind of electronic eavesdropping? How many Australians walked into arbitration believing in fairness while their confidential material was being siphoned off and examined?
In January 1999, we provided the government with proof that arbitration documents were being secretly and illegally screened. In my case, the arbitrator’s secretary confirmed that six of my faxed claim documents never arrived. My fax logs show the correct number dialled every time. The calls connected, and the documents left the facsimile machine. But they vanished inside Telstra’s network. Forty-one claim documents, some with multiple pages, and yet I was never allowed to resubmit them for assessment. How is this justice?
The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
A System Built on Silence
📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This particular Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541, FOI folio document K03273.
To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?
A deeply sinister aspect of this story casts a long shadow over the integrity of both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the arbitrator. They were made aware of alarming new evidence obtained under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which unequivocally shows that Telstra deliberately manipulated its original TF200 arbitration defence report (see attached image). Shockingly, instead of addressing this grave misconduct, both the arbitrator and the initially appointed TIO chose to turn a blind eye to the so-called "Micky issues." This blatant neglect is even more troubling, given that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had already alerted the government to the fact that crucial information was being shared on a commercial basis, including redirected phone calls to competitors.
I presented the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, with critical documentation regarding the TIO, specifically Warwick Smith, on June 15, 1994, and Darren Kearney from AUSTEL on December 19, 1995. Among this evidence were eight specific instances of my business calls over a mere two-month window that were treacherously redirected to an undisclosed location. Yet, like the Micky issues, these 81 lost calls were swept under the rug, proving that no one was willing to investigate them. This occurred during a period when the total number of reported lost calls exceeded 200. The refusal to probe this evidence, which was lawfully submitted as part of my arbitration claim, reveals a deeply entrenched culture of corruption and complicity among those tasked with upholding fairness and justice
How can an arbitration be fair when one party—Telstra—is under active investigation by the Australian Federal Police for intercepting claimants’ calls and faxes, yet is still permitted to conduct its own service‑verification tests? How could the arbitrator and the administrator allow the defendant of those crimes to test the very lines they were accused of tampering with? → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1
Telstra’s Cape Bridgewater SVT report was falsified. The arbitrator accepted it as fact.
Concealment. Withholding. Indifference. Betrayal
🛑As you move through this site, you’ll see the relentless effort required to keep it alive—and why it matters. The failures I expose in Australia mirror the experiences of people worldwide who are pushed into mediation and arbitration instead of transparent, accountable courts.
A striking section of this home page lays bare the shocking truth behind the COT Cases arbitration, a prominent section with a soft parchment background features the headline boldly declaring: "This wasn't arbitration; it was unconscionable conduct of the worst kind."
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down this homepage.
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
It is crucial to highlight a key moment in the COT arbitration saga. In a letter dated 24 January 1994, Mr Frank Shelton—then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—wrote to Dr Gordon Hughes, the then pending arbitrator to the four arbitrations, stating unequivocally:
“We discussed whether or not the procedure should come within the ambit of the Victorian Commercial Arbitration Act 1984. We decided that it should.” (File 622 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)
This 24 January 1994 letter from Mr Frank Shelton, the then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, was provided by the COT Cases to their lawyers, as well as to Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow Minister for Communications, and Senator Ron Boswell, the National Party Whip in the Senate. The four of us COT Cases—myself, Maureen Gillan, Ann Garms, and Graham Schorer—reluctantly agreed to abandon our existing commercial settlement proposal, which we had all signed on November 23, 1993. We decided to accept Dr Hughes, who had been the formal assessor for the Fast Track Settlement Proposal brokered by AUSTEL, the communications authority. This decision was made on the condition that, as agreed by the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, if Dr Hughes were to rule on the four arbitrations (instead of four different arbitrators, as was the case in a similar arbitration in Britain), he would conduct the process “within the ambit of the Victorian Commercial Arbitration Act 1984.”
A Sinister, Treacherous, and Patriotic Introduction to my Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) story
What happened to me—the first of the four original Casualties of Telstra—and later to the remaining twelve cases, was far darker than the public has ever been allowed to understand. I was the first case the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, hurried to conclude, even though all four of us had signed the same commercial assessment process (the FTSP) on 23 November 1993, followed by the arbitration agreement between 5 and 21 April 1994. Why the rush with me? Why the delay for the others? The answer, I would learn, was buried in a web of quiet favours, covert drafting, and a government desperate to keep certain truths from surfacing.
Let me put it plainly. When Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith used Telstra’s secretly drafted arbitration agreement—not the independent agreement promised to us, our lawyers, and the government—they handed Telstra an advantage so blatant it could only have been deliberate. The agreement was not written by an impartial legal mind. It was crafted inside Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne), Telstra’s own legal fortress. Whoever drafted it did so with one purpose: to tilt the entire process in Telstra’s favour and leave the four of us—Maureen Gillan, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me—fighting blindfolded.
Senior bureaucrats inside AUSTEL, the government’s own telecommunications authority, later revealed something even more disturbing. Freehill Hollingdale & Page had prepared a covert legal paper titled “The COT Strategy.” → Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. It was not a strategy for justice. It was a blueprint for concealment—showing Telstra how to bury our technical complaints under the false cloak of Legal Professional Privilege. Once a complaint reached their lawyers, it vanished. Not because it was legal material, but because they said it was. A trick. A shield. A weapon.
This was not incompetence. It was orchestration.
🏴☠️ Rogue Behaviour, My own story—my identity—was shaped long before Telstra ever targeted me. My father, George Harold Smith, served in the Home Guard during the Second World War and was later awarded a medal by Queen Elizabeth II. He ran the Maida Vale telephone fault exchange in North West London throughout the entire six-year period in which London was bombed. While other children read Enid Blyton, I grew up reading the technical manuals of GPO fault engineers. I was no technical genius, but I learned something more valuable: how to read between the lines. How to see what others missed. How to recognise when lines are not necessary free, even though they are reading free.
In Cape Bridgewater, Portland, congestion issues were frequent, as documented in (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), which indicates that, without my persistence, others in my area would not have received any service at all, even though that service was below world standards. I found myself at odds with the arbitrator, who often claimed that my complaints could not be substantiated. However, AUSTEL's covert report confirms that my claims were valid and that Telstra's poor workmanship was to blame, not the legitimacy of my complaints.
Nine Telstra technicians swore under oath in nine separate witness statements that my claims were baseless; yet, the attached government report contradicts their assertions. Dr Hughes was misled, and the website absentjustice.com highlights the inaccuracies in his findings. He based his report on historical documents, overlooking evidence that demonstrates Australia faced a systemic issue with its national network.
In March 1994, a government minister reached out to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra, to investigate claims I had made about significant congestion affecting telephone services in Warrnambool, a quaint country town located 115 kilometres from the Portland telephone exchange that served my business. While it may seem unusual for the head of Telstra to speak with a struggling ship's cook running a holiday camp, that unexpected conversation ultimately had a positive impact.
By April 7, 1994, these efforts led to the implementation of 60 additional telephone circuits connecting the two exchanges. Documentation available on this website supports this development, along with points 2 to 212 of a covert report commissioned by the Australian telecommunications authority, AUSTEL (Refer to (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings). This report addresses my numerous complaints regarding phone service issues and how my persistence improved service for everyone affected, not just my business. Additionally, it uncovered telephone problems in rural Ballarat that had persisted for two years and might have continued for another two years if I hadn't consistently raised the issue with Telstra.
For anyone who clicks on the following link → (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), dated 4 March 1994, it will become evident why I continue to advocate so passionately for my voice to be heard in this ongoing struggle.
That skill allowed me to expose Telstra’s systemic billing faults—faults so widespread that even Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch’s sister, listened carefully when I explained how non-connected calls were still being billed at 25 cents in 1992. AUSTEL later confirmed it. Telstra had been charging Australians for calls that never connected.
Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
My Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP—later Speaker of the House—received more than 140 letters from me over eight years. His office responded to nearly all of them. He praised my persistence, both in person and in writing, for helping improve telecommunications across his electorate of Wannon. He was one of the few politicians I ever trusted. Old school. Honourable. A rarity.
So when I sent him arbitration-related documents—technically in breach of confidentiality—I did so out of respect, not rebellion. I believed in the integrity of the Australian system. I believed that truth mattered. I believed that if the government knew what was happening, they would act.
But they didn’t.
And that is where the story turns truly sinister.
The other three COT Cases—Maureen, Ann, and Graham—were given thirteen months more than I was to prepare their claims. Thirteen months. Why was I singled out? Why was I rushed? Why was I denied the same time, the same access, the same fairness?
The answer lies in what I had uncovered.
I had evidence showing that more than 120,000 Australians were experiencing similar telephone faults. AUSTEL’s Chairman originally confirmed this—until he was ordered, in letters dated 8 and 9 April, to change the findings. The number was slashed to “fifty or more.” A lie. A sanitisation. A political rewrite.
And then there was the matter of the Australian wheat sent to China during the Vietnam War—wheat that ended up feeding the very forces killing Australian, New Zealand, and American troops. I exposed that too. And once you expose one government embarrassment, you become a liability.
So yes, it is essential to use this introduction to understand why the Australian Government treated me the way it did. The discrimination was not accidental. It was not administrative oversight. It was targeted, calculated, and executed with precision.
I love my country. I always have. That is why I fought. That is why I still fight. But loving Australia does not mean staying silent when its institutions betray their own people. My story is not just about Telstra. It is about what happens when truth becomes inconvenient, when citizens become collateral, and when governments decide that some Australians are expendable.
And I refuse to be one of them.
China, wheat deal
Author’s Note
This chapter is not meant to cast blame on the Chinese people, whose suffering under the oppressive regime of the Red Guards I observed with profound sorrow and empathy. My ire is firmly directed at the Australian government officials and bureaucrats who, despite being alerted to the alarming diversion of wheat shipments from China to North Vietnam, chose to turn a blind eye and allow this trade to persist. Their continued silence—both in the past and present—speaks volumes about their complicity and moral failings.
We will never truly know the extent to which Australian-supplied wheat contributed to the nourishment of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers, who would later march through the jungles of North Vietnam, inflicting death and suffering upon Australian, New Zealand, and American troops. From the moment I was detained in China in September 1967 for charges of espionage until 2021, many seamen, myself included, faced the harsh consequences of being labelled liars for what was simply the reality we lived.
FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
Pages 54 and 55 refer to footnotes 82-85 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:
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.” 83 (my emphasis). The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”84
Once the British Merchant Navy became aware of my decision to defy my commitment and not return to China aboard my ship, the Hopepeak, the underlying political motivations behind my refusal no longer mattered. I had, in essence, committed an act of mutiny, rendering me untrustworthy to serve on a vessel flying the British flag. Consequently, I found myself unemployable from that fateful day, September 18, 1967, onward. It’s remarkable to think that 54 years later, Tianxiao Zhu would emerge seemingly out of nowhere, choosing to explore the story of my ship and my fellow crew members for his PhD in Philosophy. His scholarly endeavours have served to mend the wounds that have long burdened us.
I continued my career on Australian merchant vessels until 1987, when I took a leap of faith and purchased my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, the centrepiece of this narrative. The emotional weight of those 54 years, spanning from September 1967 to June 2021, has been a heavy, unbearable burden for many of us to carry.
Yet it became crucial to intertwine my past in China with the tumultuous events that followed. A journalist from Sydney, accompanied by two officers from the Commonwealth Police, came on board the Hopepeak to conduct an interview about my harrowing arrest and the near-execution I experienced after drafting a two-page falsification. In a private conversation filled with remorse, the journalist conveyed a chilling sentiment: “The Menzies Australian Government will have you marked for the rest of your life.” His words left an indelible impression, echoing the stark realities we faced in the shadows of history.
Having read "Absent Justice" alongside my two publications, where the shadows of my experiences in China frequently emerge, you may find yourself pondering: could part of the turmoil and hardships I have encountered over these past five decades during my battle with the then government owned Telstra Corporation stem from my unintentional role as a whistleblower, even before I was aware of what that term truly meant?
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
How can any corporation threaten a citizen of a Western nation during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as has happened in my case, and not be brought to account by the arbitrator? I do not ask this question lightly. I ask that question because not only was that threat carried out by Telstra. It was carried out because I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police after Telstra threatened me with legal action if I did so (Refer to Senate Evidence File No 31).
You might wonder what actions the AFP took when it was informed of these threats. The answer is: nothing. Therefore, I have a strong reason to believe that my stance on China in 1967 is the cause of my fifty-year conflict with the government. Once the British Merchant Navy became aware of my decision to defy my commitment and not return to China aboard my ship, the Hopepeak, the underlying political motivations behind my refusal no longer mattered. I had, in essence, committed an act of mutiny, rendering me untrustworthy to serve on a vessel flying the British flag. Consequently, I found myself unemployable from that fateful day, September 18, 1967, onward. It’s remarkable to think that 54 years later, Tianxiao Zhu would emerge seemingly out of nowhere, choosing to explore the story of my ship and my fellow crew members for his PhD in Philosophy. His scholarly endeavours have served to mend the wounds that have long burdened us.
I continued my career on Australian merchant vessels until 1987, when I took a leap of faith and purchased my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, the centrepiece of this narrative. The emotional weight of those 54 years, spanning from September 1967 to June 2021, has been a heavy, unbearable burden for many of us to carry.
Yet it became crucial to intertwine my past in China with the tumultuous events that followed. A journalist from Sydney, accompanied by two officers from the Commonwealth Police, came on board the Hopepeak to conduct an interview about my harrowing arrest and the near-execution I experienced after drafting a two-page falsification. In a private conversation filled with remorse, the journalist conveyed a chilling sentiment: “The Menzies Australian Government will have you marked for the rest of your life.” His words left an indelible impression, echoing the stark realities we faced in the shadows of history.
Having read "Absent Justice" alongside my two publications, where the shadows of my experiences in China frequently emerge, you may find yourself pondering: could part of the turmoil and hardships I have encountered over these past five decades during my battle with the then government owned Telstra Corporation stem from my unintentional role as a whistleblower, even before I was aware of what that term truly meant?
How can any corporation threaten a citizen of a Western nation during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as has happened in my case, and not be brought to account by the arbitrator? I do not ask this question lightly. I ask that question because not only was that threat carried out by Telstra. It was carried out because I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police after Telstra threatened to stop me from helping the AFP.
You might wonder what actions the AFP took when it was informed of these threats. The answer is: nothing. Therefore, I have a strong reason to believe that my stance on China in 1967 is the cause of my fifty-year conflict with the government.
📮 A Letter That Was Never Answered
In my letter dated 18 September 1967, addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Fraser and hand-delivered to the Commonwealth Police (now the Australian Federal Police), I reported a story strikingly similar to that of Tianxiao Zhu.
I advised Mr Fraser—then Minister of the Army—that the wheat dispatched to China was sent under the guise of humanitarian aid. Yet it was deeply troubling to learn that some of this same wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a nation actively engaged in war against Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
How could Australia justify sending wheat to Communist China on humanitarian grounds while knowing it was being redirected to an enemy killing its own soldiers and those of its allies?
I never received a response to that letter. Not then. Not ever. And that silence remains one of the most disappointing chapters in my long fight for truth.
Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569
"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"
If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."
Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."
From April 1990 through December 2001, I prioritised sponsoring underprivileged groups to stay at the holiday camp, even during the weeks when the camp was experiencing phone problems. Various charitable organisations coordinated food deliveries for these groups, and coach companies provided a 46-seater school bus, with my endorsed vehicle covering the necessary provisions when I drove. This sponsorship brought in much-needed revenue for the business and helped spread the word, as visitors shared their positive experiences. It's worth noting that the organisers of these groups were so committed that they would drive for hours to make a booking.
The organisers of these groups would drive for hours to make a booking, as Loreto College did (see below), then drive three hours each way.
The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins. I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities. It didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas. Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland. This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.
Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange to arrange another annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:
“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.
Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Some years later, I sent Sister Maureen Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice. Sister Burke wrote back,
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Children's lives could be at risk
📜Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993 confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:
“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.
The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”
Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.
Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital, 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously, no, not at all. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, nor did the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event.
“Problems highlighted by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith, with the Telecom network have been picked up on by not only other disgruntled customers but Federal politicians. Having suffered a faulty telephone service for some five years, Mr Smith’s complaints had for some time fallen on deaf ears, but it now seems people are standing up and listening. Federal Member for Wannon, David Hawker, described the number of reports of faulty and inadequate telephone across Australia as alarming. Mr Hawker said that documents recently presented to him showed that the problems people had been experiencing Australia wide had been occurring repeatedly in the Portland region.” (See Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No -17)
The pressure on all four COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our continuing canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling by now, but I continued to hammer for a change in rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.
“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …
“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.” (See Arbitrator File No/76)
The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal Member of Parliament, corresponded with me from 26 July 1993.
On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP wrote to me again, noting:
“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.
“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (Arbitrator File No/77)
How could the Telstra technicians, fully aware of the truth behind my claims, choose to lie under oath in their nine individual witness statements to the arbitrator assigned to assess my arbitration claims? They deceitfully asserted that Telstra was providing me with superior telephone service compared to most businesses in my area. Yet their own notes revealed a damning reality: the business was in crisis, plagued by crippling phone problems that they knew were destroying our operations.
In the shadowy depths of Portland's technological landscape, a treacherous transition unfolded. The antiquated RAX unmanned roadside telephone switching service, once a lifeline for businesses, was abruptly replaced by the sleek yet sinister Ericsson AXE telephone system. Just 18 kilometres from the haunting shores of Cape Bridgewater, this upgrade was heralded as progress, but it soon revealed its malevolent nature.
This wasn't arbitration; it was unconscionable conduct of the worst possible kind
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4→ Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct
A Breach of Trust by Australia's Telecommunication Industry Ombudsmen
In the shadowy depths of Australia’s telecommunications landscape, a chilling tale unfolded—one in which innocent lives were held captive by a malevolent force masquerading as a government-owned entity: Telecom, now known as Telstra.
TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
“Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.
“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”
Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A starkly reveals an unsettling truth: just two weeks before the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) was appointed to oversee the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which would later morph into the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he shamefully provided Telstra, the soon-to-be defendants, with privileged and confidential government party room information regarding the COT cases. This flagrant breach of duty not only undermined the TIO’s responsibility to the COT claimants but also compromised his integrity as an independent administrator.
The implications of this betrayal are deeply troubling. The insider information shared with Telstra’s senior executives—that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room had no intention of endorsing a Senate inquiry—likely emboldened Telstra to twist the FTSP into a legalistic arbitration procedure that favoured their interests. Armed with this secret knowledge, they eradicated any real threat of accountability, allowing corruption to flourish unchecked. This treacherous alliance served not justice, but the nefarious intentions of those at the top, demonstrating a shocking convergence of power and betrayal that undermines the very principles of fairness and integrity.
Hovering your cursor over the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp image will take you to a government document dated March 1994, referenced as (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings). This document confirms that the government investigators examining my ongoing telephone problems supported my claims against Telstra — particularly between Points 2 and 212. Had the arbitrator been given access to (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), there is no doubt he would have awarded me a far greater sum for my financial losses than he ultimately did.
Government records (see ) show that AUSTEL’s adverse findings were provided to Telstra — the defendants — one month before Telstra and I signed the arbitration agreement. I, the claimant, did not receive those same findings until 23 November 2007, twelve years after my arbitration had concluded and well outside the statute of limitations. By the time I finally saw them, it was legally too late to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator’s award.
(), dated 4 March 1994, had already validated my claims against Telstra (see → AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), before I was forced into arbitration under threat from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), Warwick Smith, and Telstra. I was told that unless I signed the arbitration agreement, both Telstra and the TIO would refuse to continue investigating the telephone faults I had been reporting since February 1988, the month I purchased the business.
Yet I did not receive a copy of the very findings that confirmed the legitimacy of my claims until 23 November 2007, twelve years after the arbitration ended. In plain terms, the government had already validated my complaints on 4 March 1994, a full six weeks before I signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994.
Despite this proof, I was still compelled to endure thirteen gruelling months of arbitration, spending more than $300,000 in professional fees to prove something the government had already established — something they had withheld from me, and something that would have changed the entire course of the arbitration had it been disclosed.
📜 The Covert Deal
On 11 July 1994—three months after the first four COT Cases were pushed into a process we were assured would be fair and transparent—Telstra’s own arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, wrote to Warwick Smith, the administrator of our arbitrations. His letter was addressed directly to the man responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the process, and it was written at a time when Ann Garms, Maureen Gillian, Graham Schorer, and I were already battling obstruction, withheld documents, and a growing sense that the system was quietly tightening around us.
By then, the cracks were no longer subtle. We had already witnessed Telstra’s privileged access to the arbitrator, the circulation of our confidential material to their legal network, and the steady drip of procedural decisions that favoured the defendant at every turn. So when Steve Black wrote to Warwick Smith on that July day, it wasn’t just another internal communication—it was a window into how Telstra viewed the process, the claimants, and the very idea of accountability.
What followed in that correspondence would become yet another marker in the long trail of evidence showing that the arbitrations were never conducted on equal footing. It was a moment that confirmed what we had begun to suspect: the defendants were not merely participants in the process—they were influencing it.
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request.”
Mr Black’s letter indicates that the arbitrator was not the primary authority in the process; rather, his arbitration consultants took the lead. We, in the COT Cases, were compelled to absolve these consultants of all liability when we were informed that the $250,000 liability caps needed to be removed, or else arbitration would not proceed.
“If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator”,
This document confirms that both Warwick Smith and Mr Black were fully aware that the TIO-appointed Resource Unit, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, was secretly assigned to vet most, if not all, of the arbitration procedural documents en route to Dr Hughes. If FHCA decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed to Dr Gordon Hughes or the other parties. (Refer to File 590 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)
Page 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, under Part 11 – Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires states:-
(6) Presumption of single arbitrator
“An arbitration agreement shall be taken to provide for the appointment of a single arbitrator unless –
(a) the agreement otherwise provides; or
(b) the parties otherwise agree in writing.” ( Refer to File 193-B GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215)
The FTAP agreement, signed by Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me, was signed between 8 and 21 April 1994 and mentions only one arbitrator. We have never seen any written agreement that allows a second arbitrator to determine what information the first arbitrator will see.
The fallout from the arbitrator having no control over the process continues directly below
What still haunts me—what wakes me in the small hours even now—is a chilling episode from late March 1995, wrapped in deception so thick it felt almost physical. I drove five hours that day, clinging to the belief that government solicitors were finally being brought into my arbitration to force Telstra to hand over the documents I had been pleading for since May 1994. At the same time, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also reportedly pressuring Telstra. Yet every player in this drama moved behind a veil of secrecy, as if the FOI Act were an optional courtesy rather than the law of the land.
When I finally arrived, exhausted but determined, I delivered my 64‑page interim response to Telstra’s TF200 report directly into the hands of Caroline Friend, secretary to Dr Gordon Hughes. I explicitly stated that this submission had to reach the arbitrator. Her reply was unsettling. She remarked, almost casually, that the technical aspects of my arbitration were still “under consideration,” and that the consultants might decide my material wasn’t necessary. The final call, she said, rested with Dr Hughes.
In that moment, I felt the ground shift. His growing detachment, his aloofness, his refusal to engage with the stakes of my case—it all began to make sense.
Days later, the blow landed. I received formal notice that my submission had been rejected as “late.” The absurdity of it was staggering. Telstra had withheld the very documents I needed for nine months. I had chased them in July, again in November, and once more in March 1995. Only after enormous pressure did they finally release the material—far too late for me to meet the arbitrator’s manufactured deadlines.
The injustice was suffocating.
But the real horror didn’t surface until 2002—seven long years after Dr Hughes had hurriedly issued my award. That year, I uncovered two documents dated 28 April 1995 (See File 22-C → Prologue Evidence File No 22-D One was a draft letter from the TIO‑appointed Special Counsel to Warwick Smith, the TIO overseeing my arbitration. It instructed him to ensure Dr Hughes finalised my award by 11 May 1995—the day before Hughes was scheduled to leave the country. The timing was no coincidence. The letter even warned:
“Attached is a draft letter to Gordon. It is in reasonably harsh terms.
Could you please consider whether a letter in this form or an amended form should go to Gordon?”
Evidence File 22‑B → Prologue Evidence File No 22-D later confirmed what I had long suspected: Dr Hughes obeyed those instructions. He issued my award on 11 May 1995, exactly as ordered. The arbitrator was not independent. He was being directed—managed—by the very people who were supposed to safeguard the integrity of the process.
Then came the final insult. On 12 May 1995, the day after he destroyed my case, Dr Hughes wrote to Warwick Smith condemning the arbitration agreement he had just used. He declared it untrustworthy and unfit for purpose. Yet he had knowingly used it anyway. That single act wiped out thirty years of my life’s work.
Worse still, he granted the remaining three COT claimants an extra thirteen months to complete their arbitrations—time he had deliberately denied me. The only logical conclusion was that pressure from Warwick Smith forced him to rush my award through early, long before the next COT case was due. It was a calculated manoeuvre, executed with cold precision.
The corruption didn’t stop there. The same TIO‑appointed Special Counsel and law firm—already tightening their grip on our fates—demanded that we, the COT claimants, sign away our rights to hold them accountable for negligence. This was despite the original agreement explicitly forbidding such exoneration. The threat was clear: refuse, and they would refuse to administer our arbitrations at all.
In that moment, the mask slipped. The Special Counsel wasn’t advising the arbitrator—they were controlling him.
The financial and technical consultants were no better. They shaped the information that reached the arbitrator, filtering and manipulating the material to suit Telstra’s narrative. The agreement’s clauses required that any data provided by one party to the arbitrator be shared with the other party. Yet in practice, this became a weapon—an unequal playing field where Telstra’s influence dictated what the arbitrator saw and what he ignored.
And then came the letter confirming how unethical the whole arbitration was, as shown immediately above. On 11 July 1994, Telstra’s Steve Black wrote to Warwick Smith, revealing that Dr Hughes had virtually no real authority over the arbitration. He was a figurehead—nothing more. The real power lay with the TIO‑appointed Special Counsel and the consultants who had been quietly exonerated from scrutiny (Refer to File 590 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)
No one has provided a satisfactory reason over the past thirty years as to why Dr Hughes conducted my arbitration entirely outside the ambit of the Victorian Commercial Arbitration Act 1984. It was Dr Hughes’ blatant disregard for his commitment to conduct my arbitration that led me to contact Mr Frank Shelton’s successor, Laurie James, to advise him that Dr Hughes had lost control of my arbitration, and to provide abundant evidence to show my claims were valid.
Character Assassination
The actions of Dr Gordon Hughes, his wife, and John Pinnock paint a dark picture of deceit and corruption. The first remedy pursued confirms their sinister manoeuvres to mislead Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, revealing a calculated effort to obstruct his investigation into my legitimate claims that Dr Hughes had no control over the arbitrations. He allowed Telstra not only to threaten me on two occasions, as reported in Senate Hansard, but also to have those threats materialise, thus disadvantaging my overall submission to the arbitration process.
This treacherous conspiracy not only undermines justice but represents a disturbing betrayal—an act of complicity in a crime that would be met with fierce condemnation in any other Western democracy. The shadows of their duplicity loom large, and such betrayal cannot be allowed to fester unchallenged.
Any man who chooses to stand behind the misleading statements of his wife—in particular, the unfounded claim made by John Pinnock that I confessed in writing to calling Mrs Hughes at 2:00 AM, a claim that is completely false—demonstrates a profound lack of integrity. Dr Hughes, in discussing this matter with his wife, should have been acutely aware of the truth; she should have known that I did not make any such telephone call during the early hours of the morning → The first remedy pursued
By allowing these baseless accusations to obstruct a thorough investigation into his apparent inability to manage the arbitrations over the decades, and by neglecting to confront this issue for the past thirty years, Dr Hughes reveals a troubling deficiency in his character. It remains possible for him to come forward and shed light on why he has allowed these untruths to obstruct a legitimate inquiry into my claims.
A darker force was at work—one determined to bury the truth, silence the claimants, and preserve the status quo through manipulation, intimidation, and deceit.
Something about the conduct of this entire arbitration process is not as it should be, and it again leads me to believe that my argument with the government regarding the supply of wheat to North Vietnam has surfaced in my arbitration.
The Sinister Surveillance of My Conversations with Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser
1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills / Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.
It is now 2026, and I have still not received a response to John Pinnock's letter to Telstra, dated March 21, 1997, regarding this witness statement. This letter would have been helpful for my pending arbitration appeal. The lack of response is further evidence that Telstra feels it can act with impunity against anyone who challenges its gross misconduct.
Between March and November 1994, a Freedom of Information (FOI) inquiry was initiated by Ms Philippa Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and her Director of Investigations, John Wynack. Their target was the Telstra Corporation, a major entity seemingly intent on manipulating the system to prevent a government-sanctioned arbitrator from fulfilling his duties. This arbitrator, who was supposed to be accredited and graded, was ultimately revealed to be a mere puppet. Years after the arbitrations concluded, it shockingly came to light that he had never been a graded arbitrator at all.
Amid this flawed process, Dr Gordon Hughes was sitting for his arbitration grading exams, which were crucial for maintaining integrity within the system. However, he failed the exams, securing his failure just in time to receive his arbitration grade long after the conclusion of my arbitration—a troubling disregard for accountability that left many questions unanswered.
On 10 April 2002, Mr Ian Nosworthy, Senior Vice President, Institute of Arbitrators Australia (IAMA), wrote to me stating:
Dr Hughes has written to me expressing uncertainty as to whether he was a member of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia at the time of the arbitration. Although our records indicate that he was a member, he was not, at the time, a graded arbitrator within the Institute, and was not included on the Register of Practising Arbitrators until well after he delivered the award in your matter on 11 May 1995".
Even more concerning, Dr Hughes neglected to investigate ongoing billing issues with Ericsson AXE, casting a dark shadow over the fairness of the entire process. This was not merely a failure of oversight; it was a calculated manoeuvre steeped in corruption, orchestrated to protect the interests of a corporate giant while leaving justice behind.
Coopers & Lybrand had warned the government before they endorsed the COT arbitrations that, in Britain, when the government-owned telecommunications entered arbitration with its citizens, an arbitrator was appointed from the Arbitration Chambers. Each arbitration required a dedicated arbitrator due to the complexity of the cases, in which thousands of technical documents needed to be assessed on their merits. Therefore, having someone like Dr Gordon Hughes value seven arbitrations and several mediations simultaneously was neither fair nor just to the cases involved.
This advice was ignored, and as a result, the COT Cases not only lost their businesses due to Dr Hughes's incompetence but also had their lives—and the lives of their loved ones—irreparably harmed. Despite this, Dr Hughes was awarded the "Order of Australia" for his incompetence, as was the administrator of that same flawed process
For over thirty agonising years, countless individuals — including me — have been labelled as Casualties of Telstra and trapped in our own tragic saga, a relentless wait for redemption that never arrives. In April 1998, Sue Laver, a Senior Telstra Executive, held damning evidence that could have unravelled this entire nightmare. She knew Telstra had misled the Senate by providing falsified documents about my case — a calculated act designed to bury the truth beneath layers of corruption.
When the Senate demanded answers under oath about Bell Canada International’s testing of the Cape Bridgewater exchange, Telstra chose deception over honesty (See Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). What we need from Telstra in 2026 is a simple act of courage: an admission that Telstra knowingly supplied false information regarding my BCI claims when transparency with the Senate was not optional. That deception was contempt of the Senate. It was a criminal act.
This narrative is not just a personal account; it is a grotesque nightmare, a cinematic tragedy that has haunted us for decades. Without the evidence laid out on my website, no one would believe the horrors described here. My book, "The Arbitraitor", exposes these dark realities in full, revealing the grotesque injustices we endured and the truth that has been buried for far too long.
“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 that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe the Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which state:
“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 a number of different 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 a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
The Cost of Becoming the Messenger
The correspondence I received dated 9 December 1993 was not only affirming but also deeply compassionate, reflecting his concern.
A similar compassionate letter, from the Hon. David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications in the Labor government, to Senator Michael Baume, a member of the opposition. In his letter, Minister Beddall addressed Senator Baume, who was profoundly touched by the details of my situation. During a session in Parliament House, Senator Baume was visibly moved upon hearing about the significant hardships three other Casualties of Telstra and I had endured during six long years without a reliable phone service.
In his heartfelt letter, Minister Beddall expressed genuine empathy for those affected by the alleged shortcomings of Telecom. He stated to Senator Baume that:
“The Government is most concerned about allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels.”
He went on to acknowledge the distress that many, including myself, had experienced, noting,
“I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s, there has been great personal and financial distress.”
This acknowledgement was more than a formal remark; it was a poignant recognition of the struggles faced by individuals caught in this situation.
Although we initially faced harsh backlash, our stand against Telstra soon proved to be entirely justified. We uncovered that over 120,000 other customers across Australia were suffering from the same issues, all due to Telstra's brazen denial of any faults with the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment. In response to our revelations, we, the COT Cases, were labelled by Telstra as treacherous whistleblowers, targeted by a ruthless campaign to discredit us. Those powerful executives within Telstra wielded their influence like weapons, cunningly digging deep to obliterate every claim we made, all to protect their corrupt interests. (Arbitrator File No/82)
The government that once stood with us closed their eyes to what became a vendetta by Telstra, as the following narrative shows.
During my arbitration, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was officially appointed as the technical consultant to the arbitrator. Lane had access to sensitive materials, including evidence implicating Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment—the very hardware that plagued my business and other COT claimants' businesses.
Yet, in a move that reeks of collusion, Ericsson quietly acquired Lane while confidentiality agreements were still in effect. This acquisition occurred during the arbitration period, effectively transferring privileged evidence into the hands of the very company under scrutiny.
On 16 July 1997, John Pinnock, the official administrator of the arbitrations, wrote to William Hunt and the lawyer for Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). In that letter, Pinnock warned:
“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.
“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…
“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.
“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …
“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - )
From March 9, 1995, when Lane was appointed, until Pinnock’s eventual disclosure, the integrity of the arbitration process was compromised. Ericsson’s control of Lane meant that the very entity evaluating our claims was beholden to the supplier of the faulty equipment.
What of those cases, like mine, that concluded in May 1995? At that critical juncture, Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell revealed the truth to the arbitrator, the administrator, and legal counsel: the newly appointed Canadian assessment company was a ruse. Lane would conduct all evaluations related to Ericsson, and other technical faults would be investigated by Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, which would transfer those findings into the letterhead of DMR Group Inc (Canada), as the following arbitration project manager John Rundell advised in his 18 April 1995 letter to Warwick Smith Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), copied to Dr Gordon Hughes (Arbitrator) and Peter Bartlett (TIO Special Counsel) as the attached letter states:
“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
None of the COT Cases was granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards, and it’s evident that the insidious purchase of Lane by Ericsson was carefully orchestrated months before the arbitrations even concluded. Lane launched its investigations into the defective Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges in March 1995, all while they continued to siphon documents related to the COT Cases arbitration. The technical consultants, under their thumb, charged exorbitant fees—amounting to thousands of dollars—to prepare these vital documents. In my own case, I was forced to shell out over $25,000 during my thirteen-month arbitration just for the technical findings, all of which fattened Ericsson’s coffers while government officials turned a blind eye to the malfeasance.
This wasn’t a mere smash-and-grab operation; it was a calculated, systematic theft perpetrated by Ericsson and Lane that unfolded over a treacherous two-year span. Countless computer files, CD disks, over sixty storage boxes, and USB sticks belonging to twelve Australian citizens were ruthlessly stolen. The lives of those citizens were shattered by a corporation found to be trading with international terrorists for over a decade. This sordid tale reveals a web of corruption, deceit, and betrayal that speaks to the darkest corners of corporate greed and treachery.
It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.
One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.
We were forced to accept their influence. Forced to accept their access. Forced to accept their power.
Everything changed the moment Ericsson purchased Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd — right in the middle of the arbitration process. Lane wasn’t just any consultancy. Lane was the technical unit appointed to investigate the very faults we had raised against Ericsson’s AXE telephone exchange equipment. They held the evidence. They held the data. They held the truth.
Ericsson held all the cards—every last one of them.
The situation grew darker still when Ericsson later admitted to the US Department of Justice that it had been involved in dealings with terrorists. That admission alone should have triggered an immediate reevaluation of every COT Case involving Ericsson equipment — especially the AXE system faults that had plagued our businesses for years. Lane had been the investigating officer for March 1995 and was still collecting COT Cases claims against. Lane had been purchased by Ericsson while the COT arbitrations were still in progress. Lane’s findings were now tainted beyond repair.
No review. No reassessment. No accountability.
Instead, the Howard Government allowed only five of the twenty‑one COT Cases to be resolved during the Senate Committee investigations — the five “litmus‑test” cases. The remaining sixteen were left out in the cold. Many of those sixteen had raised serious claims about the known locking‑up faults in Ericsson’s AXE equipment. Had those cases been properly examined, the truth about the AXE system would have been impossible to hide.
But there was something else at stake: the Telstra sale prospectus.
If the full extent of the AXE faults had been exposed, the value of Telstra — and the government’s plans to privatise it — would have been severely compromised. So the remaining COT Cases were quietly pushed aside. Their evidence was ignored. Their claims were buried.
And the question that has haunted me ever since is this:
Was Ericsson allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications to help bury the truth about its failing infrastructure inside Telstra’s exchanges — just in time for the Telstra sale?
The pattern is too clear to ignore. The timing is too convenient. The silence was too deliberate.
This is not just a story of corporate misconduct. It is a story of a government that looked the other way while a multinational corporation seized control of an Australian arbitration process. It is a story of stolen evidence, denied justice, and undermined democracy.
Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police investigation
In late 1999, after being seconded to assist the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, I was informed by Mr Neil Jepson, a barrister for the group and a professional associate and friend of my forensic accountant, Derek Ryan from DMR Corporate Melbourne, about a significant issue. Mr Jepson revealed that many members of the establishment, including the three arbitration administrators mentioned below, were involved in covering up the systemic billing problems I had uncovered. These issues affected thousands of Australian citizens and seemed to involve a coordinated effort to conceal my evidence.
Mr Jepson advised me to link the three main players in my arbitration, whom I believed had acted without bias, and to gather as much information as possible regarding their conduct during and after the arbitration. Once I collected that information, the next step would be to consolidate the material and link it to the three individuals I believed had acted unlawfully. I needed to build a profile and ultimately expose these three individuals for having collectively disadvantaged me. With some luck, this process might reveal critical evidence that would leave these players vulnerable and exposed.
Two other members of the Major Fraud Group discussed this matter with me after contacting Carlton & United Breweries in Melbourne. Their response revealed a troubling truth: both Dr Gordon Hughes, the previous arbitrator in my case, and John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who oversaw my arbitration, failed to report the critical information I provided. This information was eventually forwarded to Telstra's then-CEO, Ziggy Switowski, and to David Hoare, the Chairman of the Telstra Board, which unequivocally validated my claims (refer to Exhibits Open Letter File Nos/36, 37 and File No/38, and Tampering with Evidence).
A Pattern Older Than My Case
What happened to the COT Cases wasn’t new. It was part of a long, ugly tradition in this country — a tradition where ordinary people are punished for standing up, while the powerful are shielded from scrutiny.
I grew up hearing stories of the shearing strikes, where men who simply wanted fair wages were dragged before Magistrates’ Courts and branded as troublemakers. The Establishment used words like “attacking scab labour” to justify punishing them. Some of those men were sentenced to three months’ hard labour. Others received two years for “conspiracy”. Their crime was refusing to work for food alone while their families starved.
The Establishment always had a way of turning the victim into the villain.
And decades later, when I challenged Telstra, I found myself in the same position.
Threatened for Telling the Truth
Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term.
It may be unsettling to confront, but in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government issued chilling written threats (see Senate Evidence File No 12) warning me of potential contempt charges if I even dared to reveal the sinister contents of the in-camera Hansard records from July 6 and 9, 1998.
When I uncovered evidence of Telstra’s misconduct — evidence the Establishment desperately wanted hidden — I was warned that if I made certain Senate Hansard recordings public, I could be charged with Contempt of the Senate (Refer to Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page)
Imagine that.
A small business operator is threatened with prosecution for exposing the truth.
Those two Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, remain unreleased to this day. Not because they lack importance, but because the threat was real. The Establishment had the power to make good on it.
I will be 82 years old in May 2026. I live with a pacemaker after suffering two heart attacks. If I end up going to jail, will my pacemaker be taken into consideration? I witnessed how the government responded when Telstra threatened me during my arbitration, stating that if I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police with their corruption investigations into Telstra, my arbitration would be at risk. I refused to be intimidated and continued to support Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the AFP despite the very real threats.
The following 93 questions were posed to me by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), along with my responses, as detailed in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. My answers reveal a disturbing truth: Telstra issued direct threats against me for daring to assist the AFP in its investigations into the interception of my phone conversations and the illicit hacking of documents related to my arbitration.
Telstra compromised my arbitration by carrying out these threats right in front of the arbitrator, the AFP, and the government. Therefore, I doubt that my pacemaker would provide me any protection if I were to serve jail time for being in contempt of the Senate, especially if I were attacked by an inmate loyal to the Establishment.
Yet when Telstra employees were caught in contempt of the Senate, nothing happened. No charges. No hearings. Not even a raised eyebrow.
That is the difference between being part of the Establishment and standing outside it.
Thirty Years of Protection
For thirty years, the Establishment protected Telstra. They protected the lawyers who ran the arbitrations. They protected the officials who misrepresented justice. They protected the lies, the withheld documents, the fabricated reports, and the people who orchestrated them.
And through all of it, we — the COT Cases — were expected to simply endure it.
But we didn’t just endure it.
We survived it. That is what this story is really about. Not just the phone faults.Not just the documents. Not just the lies. It is about surviving a crooked legal process designed to break us — and refusing to let the Establishment write the ending.
What makes this betrayal even more sinister is the context they all conveniently ignored. At the time, Telstra was still a government‑owned entity. The arbitrator was operating under the authority of a government‑endorsed process. And I — the person they allowed to be ambushed and disadvantaged — had been assisting the Australian Federal Police in their investigation into unlawful interception of telephone conversations.
Think about that.
A citizen who stepped forward to help expose illegal conduct was then left defenceless in a civil arbitration, stripped of the very documents that could have proven his case. If ever there was a moment when the arbitrator and the government should have intervened — should have demanded answers, should have protected the integrity of the process — it was then.
But they didn’t.
They stayed silent. They allowed the damage to stand. They allowed Telstra’s advantage to harden into something immovable. And in doing so, they revealed the treacherous truth at the heart of the arbitration: the process was never designed to protect me. It was designed to protect them.
The threats weren’t just words. They were a warning of what was coming — a warning that the system itself was prepared to sacrifice fairness, transparency, and even basic decency to shield Telstra from accountability.
And that is exactly what happened.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account that establishes Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
While the troubling themes of gaslighting and psychological manipulation have been touched upon in the introduction of absentjustice.com, the chilling implications that arise from this section demand a deeper examination. The insidious tactics employed by Telstra and their legal team against the COT Cases reveal a deliberate strategy of discrimination orchestrated by government officials. This systemic abuse has inflicted profound damage on our lives, unfolding not just during our arbitrations but also creeping insidiously into the aftermath as well. It is a stark reminder of the lengths to which some will go to exploit and manipulate for their own gain
Gaslighting
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.
And that’s what happened to us in the COT arbitrations.
We weren’t just fighting Telstra. We were fighting a network — a quiet, well‑connected, well‑protected network — that operated beneath the surface of Australian society. A network that treated justice as a nuisance and people like us as obstacles to be managed. What they did wasn’t just unfair. It was sinister.
Why Some Evidence Appears More Than Once
As you navigate through the various mini-reports and narratives on absentjustice.com, you will notice that certain segments, exhibits, and images reappear, sometimes multiple times. This is no accident; it is a deliberate choice. When you reach the bottom of this home page, you will note that there are twelve chapters, marked as Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived.
Each of these twelve chapters will seamlessly build upon the narrative introduced on the absentjustice.com home page, providing an engaging continuation of the storyline. The subsequent twelve chapters will function as document storage facilities, each containing a treasure trove of intriguing mini-stories that captivate the reader's imagination. These mini-stories, while distinct and self-contained, will enrich the overall experience by offering diverse perspectives and insights that enhance the overarching themes presented in earlier chapters.
For over thirty years, government bureaucrats who protected Telstra—along with the arbitrator and the agencies that complicity enabled Telstra’s relentless attacks on our group—have relied on a sinister strategy of repetition, obstruction, and silence to bury the truth. Their plan was chillingly simple: drown out the facts, exhaust the victims, and hope the public remains oblivious to the overarching pattern. In response, I have had to unyieldingly demonstrate that what happened to the COT Cases was not merely a one-off mistake or a bureaucratic misstep. It was a system—a treacherous machinery of protection that allowed Telstra to thrive like a cancer, spreading its malign influence throughout every layer of the arbitration process.
Revisiting the same evidence is crucial for readers to fully grasp the deep-rooted extent of this misconduct. Telstra’s own documents lay bare how the arbitration system was twisted—not to reveal the truth, but to suffocate it. Each repeated exhibit exposes another thread in a web of deceit, and each recycled image reveals yet another glimpse of a pattern of behaviour that has resurfaced over the years, across claimants, and at every stage of the process.
This story cannot be understood through isolated examples. It must be unravelled through the recurrent signs of institutional decay—identical lies, nefarious tactics, and insidious cover-ups that emerge with chilling regularity. Only by recognising these patterns can readers begin to comprehend the nightmare we, the Casualties of Telstra, endured. Our attempts to challenge the corrupt telecommunications services imposed on our small businesses were met not with fairness or justice but with discrimination and contempt. We sought nothing more than the same treatment afforded to other Australian enterprises. Instead, we were ensnared in a system that consistently failed us—a calculated betrayal hidden beneath layers of corruption, deceit, and manipulation.
A Matter of Public Interest
When I raised concerns about alterations to documents with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), I highlighted instances of tampering involving Telstra. In my case, 56 fax header sheets were modified and added to different reports. I provided this evidence at the suggestion of Superintendent Jeff Penrose from the Australian Federal Police, personally delivering it to the TIO office. (Refer to Exhibits 76 → AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91). Despite this, no one in the arbitration process was willing to address Telstra's actions. Included here are the statutory declaration and a note from the Deputy TIO, Sue Harlow, confirming that I personally submitted this evidence to her on May 16, 1994 (Refer to Exhibits 77→ AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91).
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the necessary expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about its customers for decades?
In 1997, during the same government-endorsed arbitration and mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, another COT case, encountered significant injustices concerning a bogus-type clinical psychologist who was prepared to state Sandra Wolfe was a nutter. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a means of recourse against the COT Cases in the event they were unable to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Sandra Wolfe, while volunteering in childcare, uncovered activities related to paedophilia. After reporting her findings and discussing them with various senators, it became evident within weeks that her phone conversations about this matter were known within Telstra. I experienced a similar situation when I spoke with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. During our conversation, I revealed that Australian humanitarian-supplied wheat sent to China was being redeployed to North Vietnam at a time when Australia was at war with Vietnam.
Within four weeks of my phone call with Mr Fraser—this was one of two separate conversations—I received a Freedom of Information (FOI) document discussing our call. However, 98% of that narrative was redacted, as confirmed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Two months following this revelation, I was informed by Telstra that they would use a psychologist in their defence against my claims, similar to what happened to Sandra Wolfe. In her case, a Queensland Mental Health warrant was issued for her arrest.
Delve into the sinister world of using false medical reports to win at all costs.
Government Corruption & Dirty Politics.
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Like Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge of the legitimacy of the COT Cases' claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)
PART TWO BELOW - is to be edited for a proposed documentary
Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Disgraceful, grotesque, and deceitful barely scratch the surface when it comes to describing the Australian bureaucrats who have been richly rewarded to keep a tight lid on Australia’s own Pandora's box.
This is the same kind of bureaucratic cover-up that unleashed the Panama Papers, revealing the depths of global corruption, and the same type of Pandora's box from which the Epstein files are still being painstakingly sifted through, page by page, with key names redacted and crucial truths deliberately delayed to shield the powerful from accountability.
The pattern is glaringly clear: when the looming threat of truth endangers established institutions, those institutions swiftly unite to protect their interests. The following story about Telstra serves as a prime example of this troubling trend.
The Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) Story
My story cannot be told in a neat, chronological line because the forces working against me and some of the other Casualties of Telstra were never neat, never isolated, and never confined to a single moment. The corruption we encountered in the COT arbitrations of the 1990s was not a standalone event—it was part of a much larger pattern that stretched back more than 30 years.
This website tells the story as it unfolded—not in neat chronological order, but in the way that truly mirrors the reality experienced by other COT Cases and me.
I never imagined that standing up for my rights as a small Australian business owner would drag me into a world darker than any crime novel. I thought I was entering a government‑endorsed arbitration—fair, transparent, accountable. Instead, I walked straight into a system where the rules were written by the powerful, enforced by the indifferent, and weaponised against the very citizens it claimed to protect.
The first sign that something was wrong came when the documents I requested under FOI simply vanished. Not delayed. Not misplaced. Gone. Telstra—then fully government‑owned—held them; the government regulators knew they held them; yet the arbitrator was told to proceed without them. That was the moment I realised this wasn’t incompetence. It was orchestration.
Then came the phone‑interception evidence. In 1994, AUSTEL handed over nine tapes to the Australian Federal Police, proving that our calls were being intercepted. Not suspected. Proven. In any functioning democracy, that alone would have triggered a national scandal. In Australia, it triggered silence. The AFP quietly stepped back. The arbitrator looked the other way. Telstra kept its seat at the table—judge, jury, and accused.
We were told to trust the process. But how do you trust a process where the defendant controls the evidence, the regulator protects the defendant, and the government owns the defendant?
The COT Cases weren’t fighting Telstra—we were fighting the Australian Government hiding behind Telstra.
I watched it happen in real time, the way you watch a storm roll in across the sea: slowly at first, then all at once. And by the time the rain hit, it was already too late.
📂 The briefcase that could have unlocked a national scandal had I publicly exposed the contents
In October 1993, I provided Robert Nason of Coopers and Lybrand (Auditors) — who was accompanied by his secretary, Ms Hurley—with documentation indicating that the Ericsson-manufactured testing equipment used by Telstra when testing my service lines, as well as in specific terrain locations across Australia, was not compatible.
I first received this information on 3 June 1993, after two Telstra senior technicians from the Victoria Metro Network inadvertently left an unlocked briefcase at my premises in Cape Bridgewater. Inside were details on several complex Telstra Difficult Network Fault (DNF) customers, including me.
I copied the contents and sent them to AUSTEL (now called ACMA). I also met with AUSTEL representatives in Melbourne twice over the following two weeks, as some of the attached documents couldn’t be transmitted through my older-style roll-paper fax machine.
Rather than leaking the material to the media for a fleeting headline, I chose to alert the government. This decision led Senator Richard Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, to write several papers on the matter. The Hon. David Hawker MP also referenced the Ericsson equipment’s failures in his electorate of Wannon, where my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was located.
On 25 February 1994, Senator Alston addressed the Senate, citing the severity of the Ericsson problem and naming me as the individual who, according to Telstra technicians, had rightly exposed the issue as it worsened.
🧾 Arbitration: Suppressed Evidence and Compromised Testing
Despite Robert Nason’s findings in the Coopers & Lybrand COT report, which indicated that Ericsson equipment was obsolete and needed to be replaced, Telstra continued to use this outdated equipment throughout the COT arbitrations. This decision ultimately harmed the claimants against Telstra. The arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, was aware of the situation but did not require Telstra to utilise the more up-to-date equipment recommended by Nason, which was necessary for ensuring that the COT case received the justice the claimants deserved.
On 7 and 8 April 1994, four of the nine COT Cases, including mine, raised concerns about the faulty Ericsson testing equipment with Robin Davey (Chairman) and John MacMahon (General Manager) of AUSTEL. We were assured that this equipment would not be used during the Service Verification Testing (SVT) of our service lines in arbitration and mediation.
However, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra condemning the SVT testing conducted at my premises in September 1994 as grossly deficient. I did not see these letters until seven years after my arbitration—one year past the statute of limitations. Had I received them in time, I could have appealed the arbitrator’s findings, which falsely stated my business was no longer experiencing faults after July 1994.
Worse still, on 2 February 1995, I alerted AUSTEL that Telstra had covered their SVT testing with a statutory declaration signed by the same Peter ——— whom AUSTEL had previously criticised in their October and November letters.
This was the same Peter ——— referenced in the Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997, which revealed he had advised a Telstra whistleblower that I—and four other COT Cases—had to be stopped at all costs.
He also instructed AUSTEL during my arbitration to consult Telstra before releasing technical information to the COT Cases. On 6 April 1995, he refused to conduct further arbitration tests at my camp, despite being reminded of their purpose: to test my Ericsson telephone service.
Lane Telecommunications, the arbitration consultants present that day, also declined to test the service. The arbitrator later acknowledged that Lane had reviewed at least 4,000 of my claim documents—80% of which were Ericsson-related. Yet I have never received these documents back, despite clause 6 of the arbitration agreement requiring their return within six weeks of the decision (11 May 1995 in my case).
Ericsson later purchased Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the COT arbitrations. Let me be clear: Ericsson acquired Lane despite Lane’s sworn oath not to disclose any arbitration material to outside parties. Once purchased, all COT Cases’ private business and technical data became Ericsson’s property.
🔄 From 1993 to 2025: The Echoes of a Whistleblower’s Warning
ACMA was the respondent in both my Freedom of Information and government document requests, and the matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal between February and October 2008, and again from October 2010 to May 2011.
I was seeking Ericsson-related documentation that Telstra had retained—information that, after Ericsson acquired Lane, was reportedly used to assist Telstra’s arbitration defence against the COT Cases. We had alleged that Ericsson’s telephone exchange equipment was responsible for widespread call dropouts and outages.
The Briefcase
Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)
Telstra senior management finally visited my business, a five-hour drive from Melbourne. Within five minutes of saying hello, Mr Smith, I knew I was in for another round of untruths.
I should have known better. It was just another case of 'No fault found.' We spent some considerable time 'dancing around' a summary of my phone problems. Their best advice for me was to continue doing exactly what I had been doing since 1989: keeping a record of all my phone faults. I could have wept. Finally, they left.
A little while later, in my office, I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.
Aladdin
The briefcase was not locked, so I opened it and found it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. However, what was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER'. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.
The first thing that rang alarm bells was a document that revealed Telstra knew that the RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months, not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement payout. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing me get an RVA' service disconnected' message with the 'latest report' dated 22/7/92 from Station Pier in Melbourne and a 'similar fault reported' on 17/03/92. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months.'
I copied this and some other documents from the file on my fax machine and faxed copies to Graham Schorer (the spokesperson for our COT group). The next morning, I telephoned the local Telstra office, and the Telstra technician who had been providing my private and business information to a person called Micky, who Telstra admitted to the AFP on 14 April 1994, had been chosen by Telstra to listen to my telephone conversations, came out and picked the briefcase up.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → → → →
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra. (rb.gy/dsvidd).
The following 93 questions were posed to me by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), along with my responses, as detailed in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. My answers reveal a disturbing truth: Telstra issued direct threats against me for daring to assist the AFP in its investigations into the interception of my phone conversations and the illicit hacking of documents related to my arbitration.
It is crucial to bring to light the disturbing truth behind the hundreds of thousands of documents that were deliberately withheld during the COT Cases arbitrations. These documents are entangled with the dark legacy of Senator Bob Collins, a notorious paedophile who brazenly abused children in his Parliament House Canberra office while he held the influential position of minister for communications—responsible for overseeing the investigation of the COT Cases claims. This sinister connection mirrors the recent, scandalous releases of files in the Jeffrey Epstein paedophile case, which were heavily redacted and, in many instances, rendered virtually unreadable. It’s a chilling reflection of the lengths to which those in power will go to conceal their heinous deeds.
