🛑 Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal     

For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.

⚠️ Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

I categorically deny this allegation. It was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.

The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.

During the complex web of my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that formed the basis of my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it, which could potentially serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.

📘 In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:

"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. … I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office". (Open Letter File No 57-C)

This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.

Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.

By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr. John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.

The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.

That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.

Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.

Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident. 

📘The Disclosure That Never Came

On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:

“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

That sentence stopped me cold.

What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?

On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-

“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”

“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206

📘 This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?

If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?

This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.

I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He chose to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.

What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?

📘 The Phantom Admission
Dr Hughes and John Pinnock later referenced a written admission I had supposedly made to Mr Pinnock.
But here’s the truth: I never wrote such an admission.

This phantom letter has never surfaced because it does not exist. And yet, it was treated as fact—used to shape perceptions, justify decisions, and distort the record of my arbitration. That alone raises deeply unsettling questions—not just about Dr Hughes, but about the entire machinery that enabled Telstra’s misconduct to go unchallenged.

On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility. In that letter, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman deliberately misinformed Mr James, claiming:

Let me be clear: I never made such a call, and I indeed never admitted to it in writing.

If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests, why did he not produce my letter?

This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—used to discredit me, to isolate me, and to undermine the legitimacy of my claims. It was part of a broader pattern: when the facts became inconvenient, they were replaced with fiction.

This moment serves as a chilling reminder of how easily the truth can be distorted when those in power control the narrative.

What he needs to do is simple: write to the government and declare the truth—that I never called his wife at 2:00 AM, nor did I pen a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, confessing to such a midnight call. It’s a dark game that he plays, and truth is but a pawn in his hands.

🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, who was then a partner at KPMG and had been involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me regarding property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.

Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr. Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.

Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal process, which the Institute of Arbitrators was contemplating.   

🌍 Public Interest and Ongoing Influence

It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.

This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.

I refuse to be silenced.

Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration