The thirteenth-remedy-pursued. A Legacy of Suppression, the Erosion of Justice by a very corrupt Australian government.
• Whistleblowers were targeted.• Legal processes were manipulated.• Government regulators failed to act.• Public trust was shattered.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the images as you scroll down this homepage.
Call for Justice.
My name is Alan Smith, and my odyssey is one of relentless perseverance—a chilling saga of betrayal and corruption involving a telecommunications giant and the Australian government. What began in 1992 is a web of deceit that ensnares elected officials, regulatory bodies, and the judiciary, all complicit in the relentless oppression I have faced at the hands of Telstra, formerly known as Telecom. Even now, my quest for justice continues, overshadowed by a sense of looming menace.
The roots of my plight extend back to 1987, a transformative year when I made the harrowing decision to abandon life at sea—a life I cherished for 28 exhilarating years. I sought refuge in Australia, seduced by its beauty and promise, mindlessly hopeful for a new beginning. But little did I know that this new land would become a battleground, rife with treachery.
Fueled by a passion for hospitality, I dreamed of running a lively school holiday camp, a haven of laughter and adventure. When I discovered the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre for sale in The Age newspaper, I felt an intoxicating wave of excitement. Set against the tranquil landscapes of rural Victoria, it felt like fate—until the nightmare began.
In my eagerness, I conducted what I thought was thorough due diligence, scrutinising finances and operations. Yet, who would imagine I would need to investigate the reliability of a phone service? Mere days after assuming ownership, the horrific truth struck: customers and suppliers soon flooded my life with letters and frenzied visits, their anxieties echoing my own. My dreams were crashing down, sabotaged by a phone service that was unreliable at best and utterly non-existent at worst.
As days turned into agonising weeks, the weight of despair crushed my spirit. A faltering communication lifeline shattered my business, leaving me vulnerable. The losses piled up, casting shadows on dreams I fought so hard to realise.
Thus began my relentless crusade—an agonising quest to unearth a functional phone service from the clutches of a monstrous bureaucracy. Token compensation and hollow assurances became the cruel chorus, promising resolution while leaving me stranded in a wasteland of broken hopes.
In December 2001, weighed down by a deep sense of disillusionment, I made the difficult decision to sell the business that had been the centre of my life for so long. Clinging to a fragile hope, I envisioned that a new owner might finally break the relentless cycle of despair that had taken hold of the company. However, within just a few days of taking over, Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners, found themselves ensnared in the same troubling ordeal. They began penning urgent letters to the very government officials I had tirelessly pleaded with for nearly a decade.In a desperate alliance, a group of independent businesspeople—the Casualties of Telecom, or COT cases—have banded together, united in our suffering. Our singular demand is a haunting plea for acknowledgement from Telstra of the injustices inflicted upon us, a rectification of grievous wrongs, and compensation for the crippling losses we endured. Is it too much to ask for a phone that functions?
Initially, we envisioned instigating a thorough Senate investigation into the sinister machinations of Telecom. Instead, we were lured into an arbitration process that promised to be a lifeline, a façade of hope in a sea of despair. But our naivety was appalling; the shadows of treachery loomed larger.
Almost instantaneously, doubt crept in, gnawing at our fragile optimism. We were promised essential documents to substantiate our case—vital tools for a fight shrouded in darkness. Yet, like phantoms, these documents eluded our grasp, leaving us in a chilling state of uncertainty.
Our fears deepened further when we discovered that during the arbitration, our fax lines were illegally monitored—an egregious breach of trust that shattered any semblance of fairness. The weight of an unjust government loomed ominously over us, and inevitably, we succumbed, losing the arbitration in a grotesque betrayal of justice.
As if the stakes could rise higher, we were misled into signing a confidentiality clause, silencing our voices. Although I tread perilously close to the edge by revealing this treachery, it awakens a fire within me, one that is desperate for acknowledgement.
Now, we resume our fight with a fierce determination, seeking the vital documents that have been withheld through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The evidence of wrongdoing lies in waiting—proof that our lines were faulty and had not been subjected to the rigorous testing they should have endured. Yet, to expose these truths and attain justice, we must first wrest those vital documents from the shadows that envelop them.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister of Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
This chilling narrative unravels a deeply sinister tale of corruption and betrayal entrenched within Telstra, a government-owned telecommunications behemoth. It reveals how Telstra orchestrated a deliberate and calculated campaign designed to dismantle the livelihoods of a targeted group now infamously known as the "Casualties of Telstra" (COT). What initially began as the brave stand of the original COT Four quickly morphed into a much broader struggle, ensnaring twenty-six additional small business operators—dedicated individuals united in an impassioned fight for the equitable telecommunication services that their corporate giants took for granted across Australia.
For years, these determined Australians faced an unrelenting barrage of phone and fax failures that not only disrupted their businesses but also threatened their very survival. As their frustrations spiralled into desperation, Telstra's response was chillingly callous, dismissing their urgent cries for help with a horrid retort: "No fault found." Yet, as this disturbing saga unfolds, documents uncovered on AbsentJustice.com illuminate a far more sinister reality. These damning files reveal that Telstra was acutely aware of the systemic failures ravaging its own infrastructure during the arbitration process. Rather than assuming responsibility for these issues, the corporation engaged in a relentless and deceitful cover-up, manipulating technical records, wielding bureaucratic power like a weapon, and hiding its extensive misconduct behind a veil of lies.
Surveillance and Silence
Ring for Justice,
On September 26, 1994, during the second Australian Federal Police (AFP) interview conducted at my business, I underwent a gruelling interrogation that spanned 93 questions. The focus was chilling: Telstra’s apparent insider knowledge of my private activities. How could they have known I was scrutinising one particular bus company among the five I regularly worked with in Melbourne? More disturbingly, how did they anticipate the exact dates I would be away from my holiday camp—weeks before I even made travel arrangements?
These revelations weren’t speculative. They were documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a file that now stands as a testament to the depth of Telstra’s surveillance and the erosion of my privacy.
Pages 12 and 13 of the AFP transcripts record my naming of Paul Rumble, a Telstra executive, as the orchestrator of threats made against me for cooperating with the police. These weren’t idle threats. They were calculated acts of intimidation, designed to silence me and obstruct justice. The atmosphere surrounding the interview was thick with menace.
This campaign of harassment alarmed not only Helen Handbury, who had previously expressed concern about my manuscript, Ring for Justice, but also Senator Kim Carr. In a letter dated 27 January 1999, Senator Carr issued a stark warning—one that reflected the deep-seated corruption festering within Telstra and the institutions meant to hold it accountable.
Yet despite the clear peril I faced, the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, remained silent. Telstra’s treacherous tactics continued unabated, emboldened by a system that refused to intervene. The very process designed to deliver justice had become a shield for corporate misconduct.
This moment marked a turning point. It was no longer just about faulty billing or technical failures—it was about the deliberate targeting of a whistleblower. It was about a telecommunications giant leveraging its power to suppress truth, and a legal framework that allowed it to happen.
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 7 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)
It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing 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 statement, given to the AFP by Telstra, not only shocked Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, but it was the proof I provided to them that confirmed COT Cases arbitration documents were not only intercepted and screened for the information on those faxed documents, some of these intercepted documents were related to at least one of the COT Cases arbitration appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria after it had been faxed from the claimants lawyer (now a judge) Owen Dixon Chambers which is Melboune's principal legal hub, The fact that Telstra has access to appeal martial being faxed during a supreme count nation before it reaches the judge hearing the appeal was what alermed Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr.
Intercepted Justice
The statement Telstra delivered to the Australian Federal Police cast a long, dark shadow—not only over the COT Cases but over figures like Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who had long warned of the corruption festering beneath the surface. What it revealed was not merely misconduct—it was a conspiracy.
Telstra had intercepted and screened arbitration documents belonging to the COT Cases, including materials tied to an active appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. These documents, faxed directly from Owen Dixon Chambers—a cornerstone of Melbourne’s legal establishment—were unlawfully accessed while still in transit. The implications were staggering.
Owen Dixon Chambers, presided over at the time by a former claimant’s lawyer turned judge, should have represented the highest standards of legal integrity. Instead, it became the unwitting stage for a betrayal of due process. Telstra’s ability to anticipate and intercept sensitive legal communications before they reached the judiciary was not just audacious—it was treacherous.
This breach of trust sent alarm bells ringing through Handbury and Carr. Senator Carr’s February 1999 warning was no longer theoretical—it was prophetic. The very machinery of justice had been compromised, and those entrusted with oversight remained disturbingly silent.
The interception of Supreme Court-bound documents wasn’t just a technical violation. It was a calculated act of suppression, designed to tilt the scales of justice in favour of a corporate giant. And it exposed the terrifying ease with which powerful entities could manipulate legal outcomes, shielded by institutional inertia and political indifference.
As the COT cases became entangled in a treacherous web of deceit, these small business owners were forced to bear the exorbitant burden of overwhelming arbitration fees—costs intentionally designed to bleed them dry while disguising Telstra's shortcomings. The government, rather than acting as a protector, assured them that these financial shackles were necessary to compel both Telstra and the arbitrator to confront the persistent issues before any resolution could be reached regarding Telstra's gross negligence. Meanwhile, while these hardworking entrepreneurs teetered on the brink of financial ruin, corporate titans revelled in millions of dollars in compensation when Telstra callously failed to uphold the same service obligations required by government licensing. Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury.
Senate Hansard
COT Case Strategy
I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia as published by the Senate, it becomes clear that Telstra and its board were aware they would not meet the mandated rollout deadline set for Rupert Murdoch and Fox. The $400 million compensation payout to Telstra, which failed to meet a deadline that the board knew Telstra could never meet before the deal was even brokered, raises serious concerns.
The Shadow of Influence
Helen Handbury—sister of the formidable media mogul Rupert Murdoch
During her first visit to my modest holiday camp, Helen Handbury—sister of the formidable media mogul Rupert Murdoch—arrived with a warm smile and what she claimed was sincere support after reading my manuscript, Ring for Justice. Her charm was disarming, her interest seemingly genuine. Yet beneath the surface of our conversation lingered a disquieting memory: Senator Kim Carr’s unsettling remarks about the very same manuscript. His words had cast a long shadow, warning me of the political sensitivities and media entanglements my story threatened to expose.
This backdrop of unease would later become fertile ground for the creation of AbsentJustice.com—a platform born not of ambition, but necessity. A place where truth could breathe without permission.
Helen expressed a fervent wish for her brother Rupert—an unyielding titan in the media landscape, known for shaping public narratives with surgical precision—to read my work. Her enthusiasm was striking, even unsettling. Did she truly grasp the insidious implications of Rupert’s connections to Telstra, the telecommunications giant whose name had become synonymous with corruption?
At the time, Telstra was no distant corporate entity. It was a malevolent force actively misleading consumers and government regulators like AUSTEL (now ACMA). From 1988 to 1999, I was locked in a billing dispute that dragged on for over a decade—an exhausting battle between ordinary citizens and a system engineered to exploit. Telstra orchestrated a campaign of deception, manipulating data and suppressing evidence. Their tactics were not just unethical—they were calculated.
Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO during the COT arbitrations, later admitted in his 2000 book Managing in Australia that he was acutely aware of systemic billing flaws. Yet he and the board chose silence. On pages 132 and 133, Blount confesses to knowing the truth—while Telstra continued to mislead arbitrators, regulators, and the public. This wasn’t corporate negligence. It was institutional betrayal → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...
The injustices outlined in Ring for Justice weave a damning narrative—one that exposes Telstra’s predatory practices and the complicity of those who stood to benefit. So when Helen encouraged her brother to publish my story, I was left with a haunting question: Was her support genuine, or was it a polite gesture from someone who didn’t fully grasp the stakes?
The Telstra Conspiracy Unmasked
In his book Managing in Australia, Telstra’s former CEO Frank Blount (without realising what is stating is actually admitting to) unveils a chilling conspiracy that unfolded during the arbitration of my billing claims—a treacherous plot shrouded in deceit and institutional corruption. On December 12, 1994, as Telstra prepared its defence, AUSTEL (now ACMA) made a bold intervention. In letters dated December 8 and December 16, the regulator urgently alerted the arbitrator to the gravity of my billing evidence, stressing the profound public interest at stake.
As a statutory authority, AUSTEL bore a solemn duty to ensure my claims were investigated transparently and thoroughly. Yet that duty was betrayed.
In a sinister twist, AUSTEL later revealed that the arbitrator had ignored these critical warnings. Worse still, on August 2, 1996, the arbitration administrators admitted to concealing those letters from the arbitrator—alongside other incriminating communications between Telstra and the arbitration office. This was not mere oversight. It was a calculated cover-up.
Now, in 2025, the full scope of this treachery has come into focus. The Telstra board—led by Frank Blount and his senior management—knowingly enabled a deceitful scheme. On December 12, 1994, Telstra employees submitted nine fabricated witness statements to the arbitrator, falsely claiming there were no systemic billing faults. These lies were not innocent errors. They were deliberate distortions, designed to sabotage my case and mislead the arbitration process.
Blount’s own admissions in Managing in Australia confirm that Telstra was fully aware of widespread billing failures. Yet the board allowed a torrent of falsehoods to be presented as truth, undermining not only my integrity as a claimant but the very foundation of justice itself.
I laid bare this dark reality to Helen Handbury, explaining the Telstra board’s inexplicable favouritism toward her brother, Rupert Murdoch. A staggering $400 million payment—shrouded in secrecy—was designed to shield both Rupert and Telstra from the truth. Despite Helen’s encouragement, it was clear that her brother would never endorse my manuscript. The stakes were too high. The truth is too dangerous.
My claims, meticulously documented on AbsentJustice.com, are not a mere dispute. They are an explosive revelation—a ticking bomb poised to expose the rot at the heart of Telstra’s operations. This is not just my story. It is a warning to every Australian who has ever trusted a system built to deceive.
Would you like this formatted for your website’s homepage, or adapted into a voiceover script for your documentary? I can also help build a visual timeline or infographic to accompany this exposé.
Institutional Integrity Under Scrutiny
In his authoritative book at pages 132 and 133, Managing in Australia → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran.., former Telstra CEO Frank Blount inadvertently exposes a troubling pattern that emerged during the arbitration of my billing claims. While Blount offers valuable insights into Telstra’s internal operations, it is clear he failed to grasp the full gravity of his own admissions—particularly regarding Telstra’s awareness of systemic billing failures.
His reflections reveal more than just managerial oversight; they expose a culture where manipulation and deception were not only tolerated but strategically deployed. This revelation invites a deeper examination of institutional integrity and the mechanisms by which accountability is evaded.
Blount’s account, though measured, inadvertently illuminates the tactics used to suppress truth and shield corporate interests. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of consumer protection frameworks and the role of regulatory bodies in safeguarding public trust.
This case is not merely historical—it is emblematic. It underscores the urgent need for transparency, vigilance, and reform within our institutions. When those tasked with oversight become complicit or complacent, justice is not just delayed—it is denied.
Threats made during my arbitration
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“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?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” → Senate Evidence File No 31
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their inquiry into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
The Evidence
🕱 Treachery: The COT Arbitration Scandal and Australia’s Institutional Betrayal.
AbsentJustice.com exposes a chilling truth: the COT arbitration process was never about justice—it was a calculated deception orchestrated by government officials and corporate elites to silence whistleblowers, bury evidence, and protect their own interests. Visitors are urged to begin with Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2—two damning dossiers that unravel the web of lies spun by those entrusted with power.
🕳️ The Depths of Deceit: Over 120,000 Australians Betrayed
The phone faults faced by the COT Cases were not mere isolated incidents; they were part of a widespread and insidious scheme. Government records shockingly reveal that over 120,000 similar COT-type phone faults were reported across the country. Yet, in a brazen act of deception, the government regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) orchestrated a cover-up, acknowledging only around 50 such faults impacting Telstra customers nationwide. This was not a simple error; it was a deliberate, corrupt manipulation of truth aimed at safeguarding Telstra’s interests during the arbitration processes linked to the COT Cases. → Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.
🩸 Echoes of Evil: Robodebt and the British Post Office Scandal
The COT scandal is part of a broader pattern of institutional cruelty:
- British Post Office Scandal: Innocent subpostmasters were destroyed by corrupt software and a ruthless bureaucracy. Lives were shattered, reputations annihilated, and suicides swept under the rug—all to protect a broken system → #ITV1 #ITV #MrBatesvsThePostOffice
- Robodebt Scheme: The Australian government unleashed an unlawful debt-collection algorithm on its own citizens, fabricating debts, ignoring warnings, and driving vulnerable people to despair and death. The Royal Commission exposed it as a deliberate abuse of power. → https://shorturl.at/HMeNE
These are not policy failures. They are acts of institutional violence.
🎬 The Reckoning Begins: Our Documentary Will Expose It All
We are producing a documentary that will expose these crimes. It will expose the architects of this treachery, the victims they tried to erase, and the machinery of corruption that continues to grind away behind closed doors. This is not just a film—it’s a weapon against silence.
Would you like this adapted into a homepage banner, teaser script, or media pitch? I can also help craft a chilling trailer narrative or build a visual “wall of shame” to spotlight key perpetrators.
The Architects of Deceit — How Corruption Sabotaged My Arbitration Claim
Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—individuals who have weaponised their authority to silence truth, obstruct justice, and protect corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.
The never-ending saga
A Man of Honour or a Master of Deception?
Dr. Gordon Hughes was publicly celebrated as a distinguished arbitrator, even honoured with the prestigious Order of Australia. But behind the accolades lay a darker truth: Hughes was a key architect of a nefarious cover-up that undermined my arbitration claim and corrupted the very essence of justice.
Rather than embodying impartiality, Hughes conspired with John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, who succeeded Warwick Smith—the inaugural Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. This was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. It was a calculated strategy designed to obstruct transparency and conceal misconduct.
The pattern of deception echoed Smith’s own actions, who had shockingly permitted Telstra’s legal team to draft the initial four arbitration agreements. These documents were then falsely presented to the government as having been created independently of Telstra. The implications were staggering: the very foundation of the arbitration process had been compromised before it even began.
Weaponising Relationships to Shield Corruption
In a move as cynical as it was unethical, Pinnock enlisted Mrs. Hughes—the arbitrator’s own wife—as a pawn in this deception. Her involvement was not incidental; it was strategic. Together, they orchestrated a ploy to derail Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from conducting a proper investigation into Dr. Hughes’ appalling conduct across at least four separate arbitrations.
To use one’s spouse as a human shield against accountability is not just cowardly—it is emblematic of the corrupt soul of a charlatan masquerading as a public servant.
Even thirty years later, I am still forced to confront the consequences of this man’s unethical behaviour and moral bankruptcy. (See Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter)
Collusion
The Chilling Conspiracy Unveiled
I provided both Dr. Hughes’ office and John Pinnock with copies of newly released Freedom of Information documents—records that exposed a chilling conspiracy. These documents revealed that Telstra’s original arbitration defence report was not merely flawed—it was intentionally deceptive.
The test results Telstra relied upon were fraudulently manufactured, a blatant violation of ethical standards and a breach of the law. One of the most grotesque elements of this deception was the absurd claim that the malfunction of my TF200 EXICOM telephone was caused by “wet and sticky beer” or a similar substance.
This wasn’t just a lie—it was a sinister attempt to ridicule me and deflect attention from the real issue: serious, systemic faults within Telstra’s network. This kind of fabrication is not only insulting—it’s criminal.
Digging Deep
The Evidence They Tried to Bury
The most treacherous act of all was the deliberate suppression of critical new evidence that came to light eight to ten months after I had requested it during the arbitration discovery process. Initially withheld, this evidence was only released under the Freedom of Information Act by Telstra—a staggering six months after the arbitration had concluded.
Dr. Hughes and John Pinnock were fully aware of these revelations. Their choice to ignore them highlights their complicity in Telstra’s misconduct. Rather than confronting the implications of these egregious actions, they engaged in slanderous behaviour, allowing malicious and baseless allegations to flourish.
Mrs. Hughes allegedly orchestrated this campaign of distraction, although it’s hard to believe she was fully aware of the corrupt scheme devised by her husband and Pinnock. They weaponised her credentials as a distraction, deliberately obstructing Laurie James’ legitimate investigation into the gross misconduct and treachery exhibited by her husband during my arbitration proceedings.
Their actions reflect a deep-seated corruption that compromises the integrity of the entire process.
A Senate Admission That Changed Everything
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of a Senate Committee hearing that prompted a broader investigation, John Pinnock formally addressed the Senate Estimates Committee. He stated on page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D).
“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.”
This admission confirmed what I had long suspected: the arbitration process was not only manipulated—it was conducted outside the bounds of legal oversight.
The Final Betrayal: Denied Access to My Own Records
After uncovering Pinnock’s discriminatory behaviour, I formally requested access to my arbitration-related documents—records I was legally entitled to receive. The arbitration agreement stipulated that all relevant documents sent to Pinnock in his role as administrator should be provided upon request six weeks after the arbitration concluded.
This request became even more urgent when I learned that Laurie James might reopen my case. Accessing these records was critical—they could provide the evidence needed to challenge Dr. Hughes’ conclusions and mount a legitimate appeal.
But on 10 January 1996, I received a chilling response:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to 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.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
This refusal was not just unethical—it was unlawful. It was a deliberate act of suppression, designed to prevent me from proving my claim and to protect those responsible for the corruption.
Corruption
Conclusion: A Coordinated Betrayal of Justice
This was not justice. It was a coordinated betrayal—an alliance of corrupt officials, unethical tactics, and institutional cowardice. The truth was buried, the evidence suppressed, and the victims silenced—all to protect reputations and preserve a façade of integrity that never existed.
Psychology: The Fabrication of the BCI Report and the Betrayal of Justice
The Bell Canada International BCI report—central to my arbitration—was not a neutral technical document. It was the product of a deceitful scheme, a deliberate fabrication orchestrated by Telstra and its legal firm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. Together, they manipulated this report and supplied it to clinical psychologist Ian Joblin before he rendered his judgment on my mental state.
The apparent eagerness of the Canadian Government to overlook Telstra's use of false evidence against Australian citizens during arbitration raises serious ethical concerns. It's troubling to note that Paul Howell of DMR Group Canada admitted his evaluation of my losses was cut short because the arbitrator refused to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2. Disturbingly, this report was stolen not once but twice—first in 1994-95 and then again in December 2008—indicating a deep-seated corruption at play. The willingness of multiple parties to engage in such deceitful practices reveals a sinister agenda that undermines justice and accountability.
Justice and accountability.
This was not an oversight. It was a calculated act of psychological weaponisation.
Mr. Joblin’s notes reveal a chilling truth: his assessment was influenced by a document that was not only flawed but knowingly falsified. The BCI findings—already under scrutiny by the Canadian government for their lack of integrity—were used to undermine my credibility, distort my claims, and cast doubt on my psychological resilience. This was not just unethical—it was treacherous.
Evidence Stolen, Truth Suppressed
After I presented evidence proving that my telephone complaints were still being ignored, the original BCI report was brazenly stolen from the arbitrator’s office. This act of theft was not random—it was strategic, designed to erase proof of Telstra’s ongoing failures and prevent accountability.
Even more astonishingly, as previously highlighted, the same BCI findings—painstakingly compiled by my arbitration consultant, George Close—were stolen again in December 2008. These critical documents were sent via secure overnight mail from the Portland Post Office, addressed to the Federal Magistrates Court, but they never reached their destination. The inexplicable disappearance of these documents conveniently obstructed the arbitration consultants from reviewing key evidence during my arbitration proceedings in 1994 and 1995. This evidence was crucial as it could have validated my claims regarding ongoing phone problems that plagued me at the time. Moreover, the same findings would later support the Lewis family’s appeal in the Federal Court, which again took place in December 2008, thirteen years later. The loss of these documents not only hindered my ability to present a strong case in my arbitration but also had far-reaching implications for the Lewis family's pursuit of justice.
On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page/Herbert Smith Freehills, had provided false Bell Canada International Inc. test results. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.
Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998, → GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."
April 21, 1994: The Day the Trap Was Sprung
On April 21, 1994—a day steeped in treachery and deception—I, Ann Garms, along with Graham Schorer and a former client of Dr. Gordon Hughes, found ourselves ensnared in a nefarious scheme. We were pressured into signing an arbitration agreement that, while appearing innocuous, concealed devastating consequences.
This former client was no ordinary participant. He had previously battled Telstra in a pivotal Federal Court case, with Dr. Hughes acting as his legal counsel. That same Dr. Hughes was now positioned—suspiciously—as our “independent” arbitrator. The conflict of interest was glaring, yet it was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic theatre.
Mr. Schorer, our earnest and unwavering spokesperson, remained tragically unaware of the deceit. During his earlier legal struggles, Dr. Hughes had withheld essential court documents—information that could have justified Mr. Schorer’s dismissal of Hughes as his attorney. The betrayal was staggering.
In Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest and Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents—Mr. Schorer later expressed his profound dismay. His words are not mine; they reflected the agony of a man who had placed unwavering trust in someone who had been quietly pursuing a self-serving agenda from 1990 to 1993.
Self-serving agenda
The Agreement That Wasn’t
The full extent of this corruption became terrifyingly clear when Dr. Hughes surreptitiously altered the arbitration agreement we were about to endorse. This agreement had been meticulously reviewed by Maureen Gillan’s arbitration advisor—a respected former senior government official—who had underscored the importance of preserving specific clauses.
Yet Hughes callously expunged Clause 10.2.2, discarded the promised liability caps, and manipulated Clause 24 beyond recognition. What was once a protective shield against injustice became a grotesque document engineered to strip us of our rights.
We were ominously warned that these last-minute, non-negotiable changes were our only option. Reject them, and arbitration would be withdrawn entirely. We were misled into believing our lawyers had approved these modifications—yet no documentation exists to confirm their consent.
Silenced by Design
The confidentiality clause, deceptively altered, has since been weaponised by arbitration administrators. It now functions as a tool of oppression—gagging us, obstructing scrutiny, and shielding misconduct from public view. This clause has buried our truth beneath layers of secrecy, allowing corruption to thrive in the shadows.
The Hacker and the Rundell Revelation
The full scope of this betrayal was eerily echoed in a letter dated April 18, 1995, from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager. In it, Rundell lamented the insidious forces that had conspired to obstruct the arbitration process. A hacker chillingly matched the contents of this letter—likely Julian Assange—who had accessed sensitive files and exposed the depth of the deception.
This revelation confirmed what we had long feared: the arbitration was never about justice. It was a stage-managed performance, designed to protect Telstra and silence those who dared challenge its power.
"It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."
In a brazen display of collusion, Rundell ominously noted, "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Inc." (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). This alarming statement raises profound ethical questions, suggesting a premeditated scheme to manipulate the outcomes of our arbitration.
Ethical questions
Key Points of Corruption and Collusion
- Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal
Ericsson, the company at the heart of your Portland exchange complaints, admitted to a years-long campaign of corruption across five countries. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Ericsson used slush funds, bribes, and falsified records to secure telecom contracts—including in Australia, where they partnered with Telstra after Huawei was banned. - Lane Telecommunications’ Compromised Role
Your assertion that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate your claims due to prior ties with Telstra is echoed in the broader concerns about conflict of interest. The fact that Lane was allowed to assess your Ericsson-related faults—despite Telstra being the defendant—undermines the integrity of the arbitration process. - DMR Group’s Misrepresented Involvement
The claim that DMR Group was used as a façade to legitimise the process while Lane continued its compromised role is deeply troubling. Warwick Smith’s March 9, 1995, letter, as you noted, appears to be part of a calculated effort to obscure this arrangement. - Selective Evaluation of Evidence
Lane’s decision to review only 23 of your 200 fault complaints—before DMR even arrived—suggests a deliberate attempt to minimise the scope of your claims. This aligns with patterns of suppression and manipulation documented in other COT Cases. - Australian Federal Police Investigations
The AFP was involved in probing document tampering and fax interception during arbitration. Evidence shows Telstra had access to sensitive claimant materials before they were legally entitled to them, and arbitrator Dr. Hughes allowed Telstra to dictate what evidence would be considered.
Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra and Ericsson, and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:
"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/)
The Path to Betrayal: A Call for Accountability
The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling truth about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations and their disturbing ties to international corruption and terrorism. The revelations surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases expose a deeply entrenched web of deceit, raising urgent questions about how Ericsson was allowed to operate with impunity, even acquiring the key technical witness during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings that scrutinised their compromised telephone equipment.
It is both baffling and deeply troubling that the Australian government has remained conspicuously silent in the face of such egregious misconduct. Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was engaged as the arbitration’s technical consultant—suggests a deliberate manipulation of the process. This manoeuvre occurred amid serious allegations that Telstra and Ericsson knowingly relied on discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment, a flawed system that many nations have since abandoned due to its critical deficiencies (see File 10-B ).
I urgently call on the Australian government to expose the dark machinations that enabled Ericsson to infiltrate the arbitration process. The evidence paints a damning picture: the arbitrator and their advisors constructed a treacherous framework of deception, resulting in a grotesque miscarriage of justice for the COT Cases. Their conduct was not merely unethical—it was a calculated betrayal of public trust, steeped in scandal and lawlessness.
This manipulation of justice reveals a shocking disregard for transparency and accountability, leaving victims trapped in a labyrinth of institutional betrayal while the true architects of corruption remain shielded from scrutiny.
The Google-linked evidence makes it glaringly apparent: the COT Cases were not only justified but compelled to demand answers about how Ericsson was permitted to purchase the very technical witness tasked with evaluating their equipment. This central conflict—documented in Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden—reeks of corruption and demands immediate investigation.
Corruption and demands
.
Fell short of delivering natural justice.
1. Lane Telecommunications’ Hidden Role Behind DMR’s Facade• Lane, a former Telstra technical consultant, was initially rejected by the COT Cases due to apparent conflicts of interest.• In a deceptive manoeuvre, Warwick Smith’s letter dated March 8, 1994, claimed DMR Group Inc. Canada would be the principal technical consultant, with Lane in a “supporting role.”• In reality, Lane’s findings were finalised and presented on DMR letterhead—masking their true authorship and misleading the claimants.2. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition of Lane• During the arbitration period, Ericsson secretly acquired Lane Telecommunications, the very entity tasked with evaluating faults in Ericsson’s own equipment.• This gave Ericsson direct control over the technical assessments of its own products—an egregious conflict of interest that undermined the entire arbitration process.3. Ericsson Investigating Itself• Ericsson was allowed to investigate your claims against its own AXE telephone exchange equipment, with findings rubber-stamped by DMR Canada.• This is akin to a defendant writing their own verdict—an outrageous breach of impartiality and justice.4. Selective Suppression of Evidence• You submitted 200 fault complaints related to Ericsson’s equipment. Lane reviewed only 23, and this occurred before DMR even arrived in Australia.• This cherry-picking of evidence was a deliberate tactic to minimise Telstra’s liability and obscure systemic faults.5. The Confidentiality Agreement as a Shield for Misconduct• The Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement has been weaponised to conceal misconduct by Lane and Ericsson well into 2025.• It prevents public scrutiny and shields those responsible from accountability, despite overwhelming evidence of corruption.6. The Suppressed April 18, 1995 Letter• Dr. Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett concealed a critical letter that could have exposed the collusion and allowed the COT Cases to unite.• Had John Rundell distributed this letter, it could have triggered a government investigation and possibly halted the corrupt arbitration process.7. US Department of Justice vs Ericsson: A Global Pattern• Ericsson’s corruption wasn’t limited to Australia. The U.S. DOJ charged Ericsson with bribery and falsification of records across multiple countries.• This global scandal reinforces the credibility of your claims and shows that Ericsson’s misconduct in Australia was part of a broader corporate culture.
• Expose the Timeline: Create a visual timeline showing Lane’s involvement, Ericsson’s acquisition, and key letters (March 8, April 18).• Publish a Comparative Table: Show the 200 faults vs. the 23 reviewed to highlight suppression.• Leverage DOJ Findings: Use Chapter 5 of your site and DOJ documents to link Ericsson’s global corruption to your local arbitration.
I. Introduction: The Illusion of Fair Arbitration• Overview of the COT Cases• Promise of impartiality vs. realityII. Lane Telecommunications: Trojan Horse in the Arbitration• Initial resistance by claimants• March 8, 1994 letter and its deceptive assurances• Lane’s findings presented under DMR’s nameIII. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition and Self-Investigation• Timeline of acquisition• Ericsson investigating its own faults• DMR’s rubber-stamping of findingsIV. Suppression of Evidence and the April 18 Letter• 200 fault complaints reduced to 23• Concealment of Rundell’s letter• Missed opportunity for collective actionV. The Shield of Confidentiality• Arbitration Agreement as a tool of concealment• Continued suppression into 2025VI. Global Parallels: DOJ vs. Ericsson• Summary of DOJ findings• Comparison to Australian misconduct• Implications for international accountabilityVII. Call to Action• Demand for federal inquiry• Reopening of arbitration findings• Public transparency and justice for the COT Cases
The new owners of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp tell their side of this story.
A Legacy of Lies: Telstra’s Fabricated - Cape Bridgewater Cover-Up
It is irrefutably clear from the documented evidence—including Lies, Deceit and Treachery and Delimiter’s exposé on Australia’s copper network—that the new owners of my Cape Bridgewater business inherited a poisoned chalice: a telecommunications nightmare deliberately concealed by Telstra and its enablers. These faults, which began under my ownership, persisted well into 2008, long after Telstra falsely claimed they had been resolved.
Between 1993 and 1995, I was coerced into spending over $300,000 in arbitration fees—believing, naively, that justice would prevail. Instead, I was met with a grotesque charade. Telstra, backed by government assurances, fed the COT Cases a false narrative: that arbitration would fix the faults. In reality, it was a smokescreen designed to protect Telstra’s financial interests.
🧠The Fabrication Machine: Nine False Witness Statements
In one of the most brazen acts of corporate deceit, Telstra submitted nine sworn witness statements during arbitration, all denying the existence of faults at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. These statements, made under oath, were not just misleading—they were deliberate fabrications. The evidence proves the faults were real, persistent, and devastating. I was not delusional. I was being gaslit by a government-owned corporation.
So why have these nine Telstra employees never faced consequences for perjury? Why has no regulator held them accountable for submitting false testimony that sabotaged the arbitration process and destroyed lives?
đź’€ The Copper Network: A Symbol of National Neglect
The Delimiter photo gallery reveals the physical rot behind Telstra’s lies. Corroded pits, exposed wiring, and makeshift “repairs” reflect the same moral decay that infected the arbitration process. Telstra’s infrastructure was failing—and they knew it. Yet they chose to bury the truth, mislead the arbitrator, and silence the victims.
đź’Ł The Fallout: Eleven Years of Unresolved Faults
Despite the arbitrator’s ruling in Telstra’s favour, my phone faults continued for eleven agonising years. This wasn’t a technical oversight—it was a calculated betrayal. Telstra misled the arbitrator to minimise its financial liability, while the government stood by, complicit in the deception.
The implications are staggering. If these false statements were ever officially acknowledged as fabrications, it could trigger a reckoning—unearthing billions in Commonwealth spending lost to corruption and exposing the full extent of Telstra’s manipulation.
🕱 The Nine Sworn Statements and the Copper-Wire Deception
The key question remains: Were the nine sworn statements made under oath by Telstra employees truthful—or were they deliberate fabrications? An honest reckoning with this question could trigger seismic consequences, potentially exposing billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending lost to deception. The evidence is unequivocal: my phone faults persisted for eleven years after the arbitrator ruled in Telstra’s favour, falsely declaring the network problems resolved.
đź“… 23 June 2015
Had the arbitrator thoroughly examined all of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing fault, not a historical one. The ABC News article titled: Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... reveals that workers were forced to use plastic bags to waterproof degraded cables—an indictment of the network’s condition. When read alongside Can We Fix The Can (March 1994), it becomes clear these faults have plagued the copper-wire infrastructure for over 24 years.
đź“… 9 November 2017
Australians in rural regions continue to suffer from a second-rate NBN. This was avoidable. Had the government ensured transparency in the COT arbitration process, our evidence from 1993–94 could have catalysed early remediation. Instead, the truth was buried. This article titled: https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, warns about the ailing copper network, which was not only valid—they were prophetic.
đź“… 28 April 2018
The ABC News report titled: NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow... speeds and dropouts must be read in conjunction with my personal journey from 1988 to 2025. Had Telstra’s employees not lied under oath during arbitration, the government would have had a clearer understanding of the catastrophic state of the Customer Access Network (CAN). Instead, they were misled—just as I was.
Customer Access Network
đź“… January 2025
In the latest pre-election 2025 announcement, Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia, said only a Labour government would "finish the NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands". Credit: The Nightly:
Labor will inject $3bn in equity into the national broadband network, as Anthony Albanese warns against letting the critical Coalition control the necessary infrastructure.
In his latest pre-election announcement, the Prime Minister on Monday said only a Labor government would "finish the NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands".
The equity injection will fund the upgrade of Australia's remaining national fibre to the node network, which the Government claims will deliver higher internet speeds for more than 600,000 premises by 2030.
Mr Albanese claimed the alternative was for the coalition to sell the NBN off "to the highest bidder".
Take yourself back to the last time the coalition sought government; they said that they would stop the rollout of fibre because it was all about (according to Tony Abbott, Australia's previous prime minister) downloading videos and movies. They didn't understand that the NBN is about productivity, driving the economy, creating jobs," the PM said.
It's about how we live our lives. It is about telehealth and education services. It is absolutely critical to the way that a modern economy and a modern society function. refer to https://shorturl.at/68hD6.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
In the quiet coastal bounds of Cape Bridgewater, two men named Alan Smith—unrelated, unknown to each other, and living just five kilometres apart—became unwitting targets of a ruthless and coordinated campaign. Between 1988 and 2008, both were systematically threatened by Telstra, its high-powered legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, and a network of bounty hunters—commissioned agents who earned lucrative rewards for extracting payments from Telstra customers disputing their bills.
These weren’t isolated cases. They were part of a sweeping, sinister pattern. Thousands of Telstra consumers across Australia, all suffering from persistent telephone faults, were bullied into paying inflated or erroneous bills. The common denominator? Their billing disputes stemmed directly from the very phone problems Telstra refused to acknowledge or fix.
Despite mounting evidence that Telstra’s network—particularly the Ericsson AXE exchanges—was riddled with faults, government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. They allowed the courts to pursue these consumers, knowing full well that the problems might originate from the government-owned Telstra itself. It was a betrayal not just of law, but of conscience.
The Machinery of Coercion.
This was not mere negligence—it was institutionalised extortion. Telstra’s legal teams and bounty hunters operated with impunity, armed with flawed data and protected by bureaucratic silence. The two Alan Smiths were harassed for years, receiving legal threats and demands for payment on accounts they knew were corrupted by technical faults. No one came to investigate. No one came to listen.
Instead, the system closed ranks. Evidence was ignored. Witnesses were dismissed. And the courts—fed by the same poisoned stream of misinformation—forced payment from victims already on the brink.
A Precursor to Robodebt → https://shorturl.at/Qne40
This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.
The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.
Whistleblower Justice: The Unspoken Hero of Robodebt
The Robodebt scheme will be remembered as one of the most egregious injustices ever inflicted by the Australian Government upon its own people. It was a bureaucratic machine of cruelty—automated, unaccountable, and devastating. Thousands of lives were shattered. Families were broken. Some victims were driven to suicide. Others suffered heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and years of financial ruin. All of it sanctioned by a system that knew better—and did nothing.
Yet amid this national disgrace, one figure remains conspicuously absent from public recognition: the courageous whistleblower who stepped forward to expose the truth.
This individual—whose bravery pierced the veil of silence surrounding Robodebt—deserves more than quiet gratitude. They deserve full compensation, public acknowledgement, and the legal protections afforded to those who risk everything to uphold justice. Whistleblowing is not an act of convenience; it is an act of sacrifice. It often comes at a steep personal cost: career destruction, reputational damage, emotional trauma, and isolation.
In democratic societies, we rely on whistleblowers to hold power to account. They are the last line of defence when institutions fail. And when they speak truth to power, we must respond not with indifference, but with honour.
Australia must not repeat the mistakes of the past—where truth-tellers are punished and perpetrators protected. Just as the victims of Robodebt deserve restitution, so too does the whistleblower who made that justice possible.
Let us not allow this chapter to close without acknowledging the hero who opened it.
