Australian Federal Police Investigations-1
In February 1994, I had the invaluable opportunity to speak with Melanie Cochrane, an Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer, and Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose, also an AFP officer. During this meeting, I shared critical findings from internal Telstra memos obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. These documents contained historical notes prepared by an unidentified individual within Telstra, highlighting various matters that, together, painted a troubling narrative.
The memos provided insight into private matters regarding the phone and fax numbers associated with an individual named in these documents. They even included details such as the person’s nationality and noted peculiar communication patterns. For instance, one memo indicated that this individual typically contacted me from a specific phone number; however, on one particular occasion, they reached out from Adelaide, prompting further questions about the nature of these communications. I shared the documents with the AFP between February 1994—when they first visited my office—and again in September 1994. A number of these memos were cited in the 93 questions posed on 26 September 1994, which I have made available in the attached transcripts for thorough examination → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
Between 14 and 16 May 1994, I made a significant discovery while reviewing my first major FOI release at the Telstra offices in Melbourne. I uncovered 56 fax transmissions, each with different headers, attached to reports that, alarmingly, did not match their accompanying documents. This glaring inconsistency could not be overlooked. After I discussed these 56 varied and unrelated reports over the phone with Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose, he advised me to formalise my findings in a statutory declaration asserting the discrepancies in the fax headers and the attached reports. I took this advice seriously; I signed the declaration and promptly hand-delivered it to the Arbitrator’s office → Exhibit 76 (AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91). I also provided a copy to Sue Harlow, who served as the Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and acted as the Administrator of my arbitration. All relevant parties needed to receive this crucial evidence, particularly because it corroborated issues raised in two mini-reports indicating that one of my major complaints against Telstra concerned systemic billing problems, and noted in this report that Australia had been dealing with such problems since the inception of my arbitration proceedings.
Documents related to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) that I received a staggering seven years after the conclusion of my arbitration demonstrated that Sue Harlow recognised the receipt of this fax header material → Exhibit 77(AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91). This acknowledgement was crucial, as it alerted Warwick Smith (the TIO and the principal administrator of my arbitration) that I had duly submitted important arbitration materials to the appropriate offices. I had previously submitted records of phone interceptions from 1992 to 1993 to the Arbitrator’s office after the AFP forwarded the memos.
On the same day I hand-delivered the 56 header pages and the corresponding reports to the Arbitrator's office, I also presented the same materials to Sue Harlow. The Golden Courier Services of North Melbourne was tasked with photocopying these relevant files three times and delivering them via one of their drivers.
If the Arbitrator continues to reject the delivery of these 56 tampered Telstra-related reports in 2026, I encourage the reader to consider why I would go to the significant length of undertaking a 12-hour round trip to Melbourne to provide this essential information to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) at the direction of Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose, yet not present a second copy directly to the attention of the Arbitrator, the primary person evaluating my arbitration claims.
So, where are the 56 fax header reports that Golden Courier Services helped me compile for submission? Why doesn't the schedule of arbitration documents received by Dr Hughes mention receipt of this information? Why were these 56 reports not provided back to me after the conclusion of my arbitration? Why haven’t any of the topics I highlighted, with the assistance of Golden Courier Services, been acknowledged?
Phone and Fax Hacking
Before the Australian Federal Police began their investigation into the then‑alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT Cases’ telecommunications services — an investigation that later confirmed the AFP agreed had occurred over an extended period from 1992 to 1994 — all four main COT Cases, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me, were told these issues would also be investigated by the arbitrator if we raised them as part of our arbitration claims. In my case, even though my submitted claims clearly showed I raised these matters as a major component of my arbitration, the arbitrator did not address them in his award.
Faults in their network
On 3 June 1990, during the period Telstra was telling me they had not found any problems (faults in their network) that were still affecting the viability of my businesses, The Australian (newspaper) printed an article under the heading: Telecom ‘spying’ on its employees, which supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The newspaper article states:
“She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom’s Protective Services branch.
“Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:
- He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. …
- He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
- Claimants have had a ‘C.CASS run’ on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone.” (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)
Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week Telecom's activities included bugging workers' homes. …
In February 1994, the AFP visited my business at Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that I had recently received FOI documents suggesting Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned that Telstra had written the names of various people and businesses I had called on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). The handwritten notes in the right-hand column of this CCAS data include, against the dates, the names of people I telephoned and faxed, e.g., 31 January 1994: GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL, and the Ombudsman. In one instance, the name Faye Smith appeared on several Telstra documents when I phoned my ex-wife. The writing up of my ex-wife's name on Telstra documentation reflects Senator Jenkin's statements above regarding Telstra's secret surveillance of their employees in 1990, because Telstra used similar tactics in January 1994 while in a litigation process with me.
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 other three COT Cases businesses were in central Brisbane and Melbourne. The Hon. David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me for some time, concerned that people in his electorate were being treated as second-class citizens. On 26 July 1993, Mr Hawker wrote:
“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)
On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP again wrote to me, 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.” (See Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)
An internal handwritten Telstra memo (see AFP Evidence File No 8) discusses two singles club clients of mine (I have redacted the names of these clients for security reasons) and describes the constantly engaged signal she experienced when trying to book a weekend during April and May 1993. AFP Evidence File No 8) dated 17 June 1993, records the personal phone numbers of these two ladies. Still, it also confirms Telstra was fully aware of when my office assistant left the business while I was away.
My AFP interview transcript on 26 September 1994 describes the Telstra recording of who I phoned or faxed and when. The AFP believed Telstra monitored my calls because the people they recorded were associated with the COT issues. Pages 3-5 of the AFP transcript and other documents I provided to the AFP between February and November 1994 prove that Telstra had listened in on private conversations.
My telephone faults were so chronic and serious in early 1993 that Telstra threatened (the first of two series of threats) that I had to register my ongoing telephone/faxing problems with their outside lawyers, or they would refuse to regard my complaints as genuine.
By July/August 1993, the communications regulator was becoming concerned about Telstra’s approach to our complaints, particularly their continual use of outside solicitors. In October 1993, while the regulator was negotiating with Telstra for a commercial settlement proposal for the COT members, the regulator’s chairman made it clear to Telstra’s commercial division that the regulator would not be happy if Telstra’s solicitors were used in future COT matters. This request was ignored, however, and Telstra continued to insist that I register my complaints through their solicitors, even though by then, I was in litigation with Telstra
This fight was dirty and controlled.
Later, when Telstra submitted its defence of my arbitration, I learned that Telstra’s solicitors also acted as Telstra’s defence counsel. By this time, I was able to provide the arbitrator with clear proof that Telstra had provided incorrect written statements to the regulator and me regarding incidents that occurred between January and August of 1993. The arbitrator would not investigate this information.
One document I provided to the AFP in 1994 does not state Adelaide or any specific location, other than when I visited Melbourne. I visited Melbourne and South Australia regularly from 1991 to 1993. Did Telstra even know where I stayed and with whom? Let us not forget that I was not under suspicion of committing any crime, let alone a serious one, nor was I suspected of being a terrorist. So why were the communications carrier and/or their government minders interested in my contacts and movements? When I showed see AFP Evidence File No 8 to Margaret (my office assistant), she told me she hadn't spoken to anyone about leaving the holiday camp (at 5.30 pm, as described in this Telstra memo). This part of our Hacking-Julian Assange page strongly suggests that my daily moments were monitored by someone and/or some organisation that had ready access to Telstra’s network.
After the AFP had discussed the Telstra file note with me, it became clear that Telstra knew I was receiving regular phone calls from someone in Adelaide who usually rang from his Pizza Restaurant. However, they noted that he had phoned me from a different number. AFP transcripts indicate that, to have gained this knowledge, Telstra must have been listening to ALL my telephone conversations, both regularly and for some considerable time. I alerted AUSTEL to this situation because some documents I have retained record 80 or more calls that should have connected to my business but didn’t, as they were illegally diverted to another number. At the time, this was happening to other businesses around Australia, too, and AUSTEL and the AFP could both see that all those calls were being diverted to the same business.
Please note: I have blacked out the names and phone numbers, as shown on AFP Evidence File No 8, for security reasons. The AFP has copies of the clear file notes.
On 29 October 1993, two weeks before the Casualties of Telstra (COT) spokesperson, Graham Schorer, and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), the defendants, Telstra, along with the then-assessor and administrator of the FTSP, pressured the four claimants, including myself, to abandon our proposals and instead sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994.
‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’
During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)
A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP about the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thereby avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.
By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent that misinformed the AFP about the fax transmission testing process. The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine alongside one installed at Graham’s office.
It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s.
Faxed COT arbitration-related documents screened and intercepted
Fighting on two fronts
Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases’ businesses and, furthermore, it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process. This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:
- How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be conducted simultaneously by two organisations, i.e., an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
- While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going as their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with its investigations?
- Who decided this situation could continue?
It was not only grossly undemocratic to put these small-business people in such a situation, but the two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were also being conducted concurrently. While these two investigations ran concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman also investigated Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act, 1984) for NOT supplying the COT cases with the FOI documents we needed to support our claims. That investigation began before the COTs signed their arbitration agreements and continued for five years.
How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into confidential documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration?
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put many questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):
- Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
- Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
- On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
- (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
- Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
- Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
- How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?
The response to Question 5 (see Main Evidence File No/29) notes, “…These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom;"
It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom”.
Telstra’s claim (when referring to Question 5 On Notice) that it would be inappropriate to comment on these phone interception issues while the AFP was still investigating them is, in itself, the normal and expected comment Telstra lawyers would have ensured Telstra made under those circumstances. No other interception investigation by any other authority should have taken place while the AFP was still investigating these privacy breaches, because that might well have undermined the AFP process.
Before I signed for my arbitration
Before I signed for my arbitration, on 21 April 1994, I used a similar response to questions from the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations) when I advised the TIO that it would be unworkable for the Arbitrator to start my arbitration while the AFP had not yet concluded their investigation, particularly since the COT spokesperson and I were both seeking compensation from Telstra as part of our arbitration claims and in direct relation to Telstra’s breaches of the Interception Act. As if it were yesterday, I still clearly remember the TIO stating that he would tactfully carry out his own investigations, along with the Arbitrator, and that their investigation would not impede the then-present AFP investigations. As shown in our Front Page Part One, the arbitrator allowed Telstra to cross-examine me regarding what the AFP had uncovered during my arbitration.
Telstra’s statement to the Senate Estimates Committee (at point 5) that: “It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police”, clearly raises the question of why the COT Cases were forced into arbitration while the AFP were still investigating exactly the same breaches of privacy claims that were also to be investigated by the arbitrator, because how can there be two investigations, by two separate bodies, into the same complaints, at the same time? What if the AFP and the arbitrator reached conflicting findings? Which findings would the arbitrator then use to calculate and pay compensation?
Of course, the arbitration process was unworkable while the AFP was involved.
In the end, neither the AFP nor the arbitrator produced a record of any findings regarding the (now proven) invasion of my privacy. More than two decades later, with neither side making a decision, the COT Cases have been left to live with these unresolved issues, even though it costs each of us hundreds of thousands of dollars to take part in this arbitration facade.
The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report
January 1994: A Telstra arbitration liaison officer faxed this document to the TIO in relation to the appointment of an assessor for the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. The words across the top of this document, in the space that should record the sender’s business identification, are absent, and it records only the wording “Fax from” followed by the fax number. The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report discusses this “Fax from” issue (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13). The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations when these illegal acts were first discovered. Who were the faceless people soon termed the “forces at work”?
My Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) Accountant, Selwyn Cohen, sent me a fax on 21 January 1994 stating:
“I refer to your facsimile of 10.42am on 17th January 1994. The fax cover sheet refers to 7 pages being sent. Unfortunately, I only received 2 pages. Please forward the remaining 5 pages to enable me to begin the required work.” (See AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C)
This was the fourth time since the Christmas period of 1993 that Mr Cohen had problems sending or receiving documents from me.
31 January 1994: A copy of my phone/fax account 055 267230, when compared with these two Telstra CCAS documents FOI numbers K01410 and K01411, confirms that someone within Telstra has handwritten the names of the people I had spoken to and/or faxed.
Transcripts from my interview with the AFP on 26th September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) confirm that the AFP were alarmed that Telstra had gathered private information about me, including documenting on this CCAS data the names of the people I had telephoned daily. This CCAS data was supplied to Warwick Smith and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
Stedman Cameron, Lawyers & Solicitors, wrote to me on 2 February 1994, stating:
“We note that you did not receive two pages at all and only the number 2 from the third page and the signature from the last page of the facsimile sent to you at approximately 2.23pm on the 1st February, 1994. It was successfully sent approximately two hours later.” (AFP Evidence File No 2-A to 2-C)
Telstra’s FOI document (M34363) dated 4 February 1994 was not made available to the arbitrator or me during my arbitration, even though Telstra’s FOI numbering system (M followed by a number) indicates to Telstra and the TIO’s office that I was still reporting problems with my fax transmissions during my FTSP process (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24).
“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police enquiries into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones. Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters.” (This exhibit was not made avaialable to me during my arbitration)
On 8 February 1994, 'The Hon Michael Lee, Minister for Communications', wrote to the Hon Duncan Kerr, MP, Minister for Justice: (Note: this document is held in the Government archives.)
“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police inquires into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones.
Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters”.
‘Specification for Customer Premises Line Monitoring Equipment. 1.0 Note:
“The original direction from AUSTEL in relation to Difficult Fault cases required the installation of equipment to monitor a customer’s line at the customer’s premises as well as the exchange end. The equipment currently in operation in Telecom has some deficiencies in meeting this requirement. The Coopers & Lybrand Report recommended the development or purchase of such equipment. These recommendations are a fundamental foundation for a joint working party between AUSTEL and Telecom to develop the specifications for such equipment. The specifications should be finalised by December 1994”.
On 25 February 1994: When this letter to Telstra’s Corporate Secretary from Fay Holthuyzen, Assistant to the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, (AS 772-a) is compared to the letter dated 3rd February 1994 Exhibit (AS 772-b) that I sent to the Minister’s office, it is clear that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
On the same day of 25 February 1994, an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AS 773)
On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:
“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.
Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”
Leading up to the signing of the Arbitration Agreement on 21 April 1994, and before the final COT report was provided to the Communications Minister on 13 April 1994, various other COT Cases and I attended a two-day, lock-up, confidential viewing of the draft COT Cases report at AUSTEL’s headquarters in Queens Road, Melbourne. At this meeting, Robin Davey, AUSTEL’s Chairman, reminded Graham Schorer, COT Spokesperson, and me of commitments made in a letter dated 23 September 1992 from Telecom’s Commercial Consumer Group Managing Director to Graham (see at point 5.7 AUSTEL COT Case Report, which stated:
“As I explained at our meeting, we cannot move to settlement discussions or arbitration while we are unable to identify faults which are affecting these services.”
At the AUSTEL lockup meeting, Graham and I refused to switch from the commercial Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) to arbitration. Then, Robin Davey noted that the original agreement to properly identify the phone and fax faults still stood because an assessor (or arbitrator) could not hand down findings if the problems and faults had not been rigorously tested. At this lock-up meeting, Robin Davey alerted me to sections of the AUSTEL report where AUSTEL clarified that Service Verification Testing would be conducted on Difficult Network Fault (DNF) customers, which is how the COT claimants had been classified.
It was also discussed at this meeting, in the company of Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham and me, by Robin Davey, that because our phone and fax interception claims were now in the hands of the AFP, our interception complaints were confidential and MUST not be discussed in the public domain.
At this meeting, which was attended by Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham and me, Robin Davey also raised the important issue of how, because our phone and fax interception claims were now in the hands of the AFP, those claims were, therefore, confidential and so MUST NOT be discussed in the public domain.
Back before this meeting, the AFP had told us that we were obliged to supply them with all of the Telstra FOI documents that we had received, and which suggested that any of our telephone conversations and faxes to/from the AFP might have been intercepted, explaining that this was because this whole matter was now ‘before the Government’. We then told Robin Davey exactly what the AFP had told us and asked Mr Davey whether he believed we were legally bound to do as the AFP requested, given that the COT assessor was to assess these matters. We were then ALL told that, as our matters were now part of an official Government-orchestrated investigation, which had been passed on to the AFP by AUSTEL under the direction of the relevant Minister, we had no alternative but to supply the AFP with whatever related material we had uncovered because, after all, this investigation was for the good of the whole nation, as well as for any future investigations that might arise as a result of our co-operation.
Sometime later, while I was in Melbourne in July 1994, as part of a discussion I had with John MacMahon, AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs, I reminded him of that two-day meeting mentioned above; I reminded him that it had taken place in AUSTEL’s headquarters in Melbourne, and I reminded him of Robin Davey’s instructions concerning our duty to provide our FOI documents to the AFP during the settlement process (which had now become an arbitration). I also mentioned the threats I had received from Telstra after they somehow learned that I was still helping the AFP. During this meeting with John MacMaon, in the company of Bruce Matthew of AUSTEL and another AUSTEL/ACMA representative, I was asked by Mr MacMahon if I was still assisting the AFP with providing Telstra-received documents.
Later, on 26 September 1994, AFP Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose told me that the AFP had NOT informed Telstra that I was continuing to provide the AFP with assistance, which means that the only way Telstra could have obtained this information was either from listening to my phone calls to or from the AFP, or by intercepting the FOI documents I faxed to the AFP. Mr Penrose’s off-the-record response was ‘sharp’, to say the least, especially since he was under no obligation to comment.
I truly believe Mr MacMahon was shocked when I told him about this off-the-record conversation with Mr Penrose, and I believe that's why he reminded me that, regardless of Telstra’s threats, I was still obliged to help the AFP. He also explained that if Telstra's threats continued, I should raise them with the arbitrator because these matters were now part of my arbitration, so AUSTEL could not become involved. Mr MacMahon used words to the effect that as AUSTEL had passed on this part of their own investigation into COT matters. The AFP had instructed us COTs that we were legally obliged to assist the AFP and the Government (particularly since the Government had passed our matters to the AFP in the first place), so we had no choice but to continue to help the AFP wherever we could. We were told that, under these circumstances, the arbitrator could not penalise ANY of the COT claimants for raising these matters with the AFP outside of the arbitration process. Mr McMahon also maintained that Telstra’s threatening manner and the wider ramifications for my claim's overall submission should also be raised with the TIO, Warwick Smith.
Our phone and fax interception issues were headline news in our local newspapers and in major national newspapers for many months. On 15 April 1994, ex-prime minister of Australia Malcolm Fraser discussed my phone interception issues in the Sun-Herald and said FOI documents revealed that his and my telephone conversations were transcribed onto Telstra file notes. The Herald Sun, the newspaper, reported:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” (See Our Saga File No 2)
Who within the Telstra Corporation thought it was important to note that I had telephoned Malcolm Fraser? Is my conversation with the former prime minister on one of the nine audio tapes AUSTEL provided to the Australian Federal Police but refused to supply copies to the COT cases? At no time was I suspected of committing a crime or of posing a risk to Australia’s national security.
AUSTEL knew these matters were confidential and were to form part of our confidential arbitration process; however, AUSTEL provided the AFP with NINE audiotapes of our telephone conversations in February 1994 (see Illegal Interception File No/3) but withheld the same information from us four COT cases. What legal right did the government’s communications regulator have to provide our arbitration evidence only to the AFP, and not to the four claimants who needed it to secure that part of our arbitration claims? Even Senator Richard Alston (then Shadow Minister for Communications) demanded answers in the Senate as to why this evidence was withheld from us four COT cases.
As I have already shown in our absentjustice.com/Australian Federal Police Investigations page, Telstra records, which I provided to the AFP during its 1994 interception investigations, showed Telstra was monitoring members of my Over-Forties Singles Club patrons as well as the movements of both myself and staff. The AFP maintained that only the arbitrator should view this evidence, and that it should remain confidential. The Senate and national media were discussing these arbitration privacy issues, which was a major security issue beyond my control. The AFP and AUSTEL were not just questioning me on these privacy issues. Still, members of my singles club also wanted to know whether the AFP investigations included private telephone discussions, including faxes sent to and from the holiday camp. Of course, I had no alternative but to advise my singles club members and everyday patrons about the security issues.
Nothing was private once the AUSTEL, the TIO (the administrator of my arbitration) and the ex-prime minister of Australia broadcast my interception issues to the public.
My experience aboard The Hopepeak has shaped the way I understand humanitarian aid, military sacrifice, and government accountability. The events of 1967 left me with the enduring belief that humanitarian assistance must never be considered independently of the political and military circumstances in which it is delivered.
On 18 September 1967, I reported my concerns to the Commonwealth Police and wrote to the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, then Minister for the Army. I believed that Australian wheat shipments sent to China were being diverted, in whole or in part, to support North Vietnam’s war effort. The records relating to that report should be examined openly, alongside accounts from British seamen and others who raised similar concerns.
Decades later, reports of humanitarian workers being injured or killed in conflict zones continue to evoke the experiences of those involved in the Hopepeak episode. Humanitarian workers deserve respect and protection, regardless of nationality or political circumstance. Their safety should not depend on whether governments find their work convenient.
My account, China-Flash-Back-AFP Investigation -2, attempts to preserve a history that I believe has not been adequately acknowledged. I do not ask readers to accept every conclusion without examination. I ask that the primary documents, witness accounts, and official responses be reviewed so that the experiences of those who tried to raise these concerns are neither dismissed nor forgotten.
Humanitarian Aid, War, and the Burden of Silence
My journey is inseparable from the experiences of Australian soldiers, and of our allies from New Zealand and the United States, who served and died during the Vietnam War. Time has done little to lessen the trauma or guilt carried by my fellow crew members aboard Hopepeak and me. Whenever we hear of humanitarian workers being injured or killed while trying to deliver relief, those reports awaken memories of our own past. The pain does not disappear; it merely becomes quieter until something brings it back.
Those who risk their lives to provide humanitarian assistance deserve our deepest respect. They do more than deliver food, medicine, and protection. In moments of crisis, they show that compassion can survive amid violence. The Australian Government’s criticism of Israel following the deaths of humanitarian workers in Gaza in 2024 was, in my view, necessary and justified. Aid workers should never be treated as expendable. Their lives must be protected, and any credible allegation that they were unlawfully targeted must be investigated transparently.
Memorial occasions such as Anzac Day also bring complicated emotions to the surface. There is grief, but also isolation, guilt, and the persistent feeling that important truths were not communicated when they might still have mattered. Between 1965 and 1967, I became increasingly concerned that wheat sent from Australia to Communist China as humanitarian assistance could be diverted or used in ways that indirectly supported North Vietnam’s war effort. I believed this created a serious moral and strategic question: whether supplies provided in the name of humanitarian relief might ultimately assist forces fighting Australian, New Zealand, and American personnel.
That concern was not merely a private thought. On 18 September 1967, I raised it with the Commonwealth Police, now the Australian Federal Police, in a letter addressed to the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, then Minister for the Army and later Prime Minister of Australia. The letter was acknowledged. To my knowledge, however, I never received a substantive response.
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
My Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting
In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so surreal and perilous that it has remained vivid throughout my life. I was aboard a cargo ship in China, under constant observation by Red Guards positioned around the vessel. They were stationed about thirty paces apart and remained on duty day and night.
After being pressured into writing a confession describing myself as a United States aggressor and supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the second steward told me that I might receive a response to a letter within two days. The response, he said, would come from the head of the Red Guards.
He quietly suggested that I write to my parents.
I followed his advice and wrote 22 foolscap pages. It was not an ordinary letter. I believed I might not survive the week, and I wanted my parents to know who I was in case I never returned home.
I told them that the woman they believed was my landlady was, in fact, my lover. She was 42; I was 18. She had been an important source of stability in my life between 1963 and 1967. I also wrote about life at sea, the loneliness, the confusion, and the fear surrounding my detention.
Writing the letter gave me a way to speak honestly at a time when I had been forced to make a statement I did not believe represented the truth.
A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange
As ship’s cook and duty mess-room steward, I saw the conditions around us at close range. The crew ate on deck, sometimes balancing plates on handrails. We were transporting grain to China for humanitarian purposes, yet food was routinely discarded while people nearby appeared to be suffering from severe deprivation.
Half-eaten sausages, steaks, and baked potatoes were thrown into the sea. There were no seagulls. I saw no fish. The absence of wildlife was itself a reminder of how severe the conditions appeared to be. Hunger was not an abstract political concept. It was visible in the faces and behaviour of the people watching us eat.
After my arrest, I was placed under what I understood to be house arrest aboard the ship. On one occasion, I filled a small metal tray with edible leftovers, food that otherwise would have gone into the stockpotand placed it on a bench on deck. I patted my stomach to suggest that I had already eaten and then walked away.
Approximately ten minutes later, the tray had been emptied.
At the next meal, I repeated the gesture, leaving enough food for perhaps three or four Red Guards. I returned later to find the tray empty. I continued doing this for another two days while waiting for a response to my letter.
During that period, the Red Guard who had previously woken me every hour stopped doing so. The atmosphere remained tense, but the immediate pressure appeared to lessen.
I cannot know why. The forced confession did not protect me. I do not know whether the letter influenced anyone, whether anyone received instructions, or whether the change was simply coincidental. Perhaps it was luck. Perhaps the food mattered. Perhaps a small act of compassion created a moment of recognition between people trapped on opposite sides of a political crisis.
All I know is that I offered food without negotiation or expectation. It was a silent gesture that conveyed something simple:
I see you. I know you are hungry. I know you are human.
I have never claimed that this gesture alone explains what happened next. But it remains one of the clearest memories of that period, and one of the few moments in which fear gave way, however briefly, to human connection.
The People's Republic of China
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
In essence, the Australian government traded the lives of its soldiers engaged in the conflict in North Vietnam against the desperate need to provide sustenance for an entire nation teetering on the brink of starvation.
Footnotes 83, 84 and 169 → in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021
Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83, 84, 169:
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.”
84. 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.”
169. "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the others were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time, a grain ship usually had crew members of about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship."
The Canadian Government and Its Moral Code of Ethics
By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image below, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China, especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or maimed, was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have been continued.
Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about supporting a nation that opposed Australian, New Zealand, and US forces.
Examining this wheat agreement with the People's Republic of China, made during the Holt government in the mid‑1960s, is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications, but a government campaign obscured them by discrediting British and Canadian merchant seamen, including me. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam.
All events on this website are backed by the original documents, every exhibit, every file, every damning scrap of evidence. Click the links below to open the PDFs instantly. Follow the file numbers. Each section exposes another layer of the machinery that was supposed to deliver justice but instead protected corruption.
The 26 bracket‑numbered exhibits below each contain hundreds of documents. Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2 alone authenticate 156 separate mini‑stories — everyone a shard of the same rotten truth. Very few websites dare to expose corruption across multiple arbitrations with this level of transparency. Fewer still provide thousands of numbered exhibits for the public to download at no cost.
Keep reading. The unbelievable story begins the moment the exhibit numbers end, and the treachery speaks for itself.
Example 2: File 34-C -
AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 – AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91 – AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 – AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 – AS CAV Exhibit 234 to 281 – AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323 – AS-CAV Exhibit 324-a to 420 – AS-CAV Exhibit 421 to 469 – AS-CAV Exhibit 470 to 486 – AS-CAV Exhibit 488-a to 494-e – AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 – AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588 – AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 – AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 – AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789 – AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 – AS-CAV Exhibit 819 to 843 AS-CAV 923 to 946 – AS-CAV Exhibit 1150 to 1169 – AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 – AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019 – AS-CAV Exhibit 996 to 1001 – GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88 – GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154-b – GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215 – GS-CAV Exhibit 216 to 257 – GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 – GS-CAV Exhibit 448 to 458 – GS-CAV Exhibit 459 to 489 – GS-CAV Exhibit 490 to 521 – GS-CAV 522 to 580 – GS-CAV Exhibit 581 to 609
Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3
Government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has spuriously over more than two decades perverted the course of justice.
Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who ignored this conduct.
Telstra's Falsified SVT Report
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who covered up these atrocities
Senate Evidence
The criminal delinquency of those involved in the COT Cases corrupted arbitrations continued to practive their evil and crooked style of justice on other citizens who, like the Casualties of Telstra have had their lives ruined.
An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust the ground you walk on. Sheer Evil.<
China-Flash-Back-AFP Investigation -2
Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that is plaguing COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted lawyers and crooked arbitrators who covered up these crimes.
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens.
C A V Part 1, 2 and 3
Sadly, corruption and collusive practices are rife in the Australian ‘Establishment’ and this terrible situation prevents us from telling our story in a brief way. We had no alternative but to produce it the way we have here.
Blowing The Whistle
Blowing The Whistle was established on absentjustice.com to show our readers that the COT Cases arbitrations were nothing more than a sham set up to protect a government-owned asset.
Kangaroo Court - Absent Justice
From financial devastation to emotional pain, the dangers of identity theft are considerable.
Spurious and Unscrupulous Conduct
The first remedy pursued
The website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime
The second remedy pursued
Checkout our bribery and corruption part & part and learn how deception undermines the credibility of those businesses who have been subjected to criminal legal abuse.
The third remedy pursued
Bribery and Corruption have many evil faces and ‘grey’ areas within Australia’s politically-corrupt government. Criminal wrongdoings interact with the private sector: the revolving door of deception.
The fourth remedy pursued
Bribery and Corruption have many evil faces and ‘grey’ areas within Australia’s politically-corrupt government. Criminal wrongdoings interact with the private sector: the revolving door of deception. Corrupt practices.
The fifth remedy pursued
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens, who are left without guidance. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth.
The sixth remedy pursued
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens, who are left without guidance. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth.
The seventh remedy pursued
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens, who are left without guidance. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth.
The eighth remedy pursued
Legal abuse, or legal bullying, happens when someone uses the law or legal threats to control and scare you. Using this type of corrupt and deceptive conduct is evil and unscrupulous.
The ninth remedy pursued
Legal abuse, or legal bullying, happens when someone uses the law or legal threats to control and scare you. Using this type of corrupt and deceptive conduct is evil and unscrupulous
The tenth remedy pursued
Legal abuse, or legal bullying, happens when someone uses the law or legal threats to control and scare you. My corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct evidence provided to Consumer Affairs Victoria was not acted upon.
The eleventh remedy pursued
Check out our website, which shows evil wrongdoing, such as using false reports to the judge and arbitrator to stop you from getting legal advice, interfering with or destroying legal documents that belonged to you, and destroying your documents.
