Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned the country's telecommunications network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). This monopoly led to a catastrophic decline in service quality, as the network fell into disrepair. Instead of addressing the unacceptable state of our telephone services as part of the government-endorsed arbitration process—an inherently uneven fight that none of us could win—these issues remained unresolved. It was a battle that cost claimants hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet the crimes committed against us went unacknowledged. Our integrity was viciously attacked, our livelihoods destroyed, and we lost millions, all while our mental health deteriorated. Shockingly, those who orchestrated this corruption continue to wield power today, reinforcing a façade that hides the truth. Our story remains actively suppressed.
During those COT arbitrations, a murky underbelly of corruption within government and political structures was ruthlessly exposed, revealing a malevolent abuse of public power for insidious personal gain. This pervasive corruption, festering like a hidden disease, encompassed a sinister array of activities—bribery, extortion, embezzlement, fraud, and conflicts of interest—that conspired to erode public trust and undermine democratic institutions, threatening the very fabric of Australia and its Western allies.
Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Corruption within governmental institutions has resulted in the unlawful manipulation of documents transmitted from Owen Dixon Chambers, the legal hub of Melbourne, to the Supreme Court of Victoria. This misconduct has enabled criminal activities to persist in at least two cases associated with Telstra's appeal processes.
Don't forget to hover your mouse over the Gaslighting link and/or image, which will help you understand the truth surrounding our story.
Government Corruption - Gaslighting: www.absentjustice.com/tampering-with-evidence/government-corruption--gaslighting. Explore the intricate and troubling intersection of government corruption and the psychological manipulation techniques, commonly known as gaslighting, that are employed against Australian citizens navigating the arduous process of government-endorsed arbitrations.
This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.
Consider the question: how many citizens in Australia have been subjected to these insidious methods, which aim to derail legitimate investigations into their claims against bureaucrats entrenched in governmental institutions and influential players linked to KPMG?
In my personal experience, I have uncovered compelling and troubling evidence showing that a partner at KPMG deliberately misled the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on the legitimacy of my arbitration claims. This misinformation was not merely a misstep; it was a calculated move to engineer a false narrative, effectively obstructing any chance of a thorough and unbiased investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG.
This former KPMG partner now manages two arbitration centres—one situated on the bustling Collins Street in Melbourne, surrounded by the city’s iconic architecture and financial institutions, and the other located in Hong Kong, a global hub of commerce and finance. The existence of these centres raises profound questions about ethical standards and accountability, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reforms. There is a pressing imperative to safeguard citizens from such manipulative practices and to ensure that their legitimate grievances are recognised and addressed in the pursuit of justice.
In the shadowy corridors of power, government corruption festers. Deceptive reporting and a barrage of false information have cloaked the disturbing truths behind the COT cases, allowing them to slip into oblivion. The government-owned Telstra Corporation, a puppet master within this sinister web, has engaged in blatant evidence tampering during arbitration, effectively silencing those who dare to seek justice. Threats hung in the air like a dark cloud, wielded against the vulnerable, as the arbitrator turned a blind eye, complicit in a scheme that denies claimants their rightful day in court. The facade of fairness crumbled, revealing a landscape riddled with betrayal and malice, where truth was sacrificed on the altar of power.
By clicking on the image of the Confidentiality Agreement, you will uncover the hidden truths surrounding my COT story. It is important to note that although the confidentiality clause in this agreement was modified after the COT Cases, both legal advisors and two Senators suggested that it was the definitive arbitration agreement—a claim that is far from true. This flawed agreement continues to be utilised by Wawick Smith, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and other members of the Establishment, who remain committed to protecting an arbitration process that has caused devastating consequences for countless lives.
A deeply sinister pattern unfolds from the outcomes of three distinct COT (Casualties of Telstra) arbitrations, revealing a web of corruption and collusion. Long before these arbitrations even began, Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, found himself entrenched in dubious dealings. With his current stature as a prominent banker and recipient of the ‘Order of Australia,’ Smith operates as if he were above the law, his reputation cloaked in shadows. Dr. Goron Hughes, the arbitrator in these troubling cases, was complicit in this scheme, clandestinely aiding Telstra—the defendant—by supplying them with privileged information extracted from covert government discussions about the COT cases.
In a just world, anyone who would betray the trust of twenty-one vulnerable Australian citizens by leaking sensitive party room discussions to a powerful entity like Telstra would face immediate retribution. Yet, in a shocking twist, Warwick Smith managed to dodge accountability, rewardingly ascending to a key front-bench ministerial role in the subsequent John Howard government. Such a trajectory speaks volumes about the murky waters of political alliances and ethical decay.
It becomes chillingly clear that Smith’s insidious advice to Telstra's senior executives regarding discussions within Senator Ron Boswell's National Party Room was a pivot point in this treacherous affair. By informing them that no Senate inquiry would take place until after the release of the AUSTEL (Australian Communications Authority) report on the COT matters—set to go public on April 13, 1994—Smith effectively handed Telstra a shield against scrutiny. This inside knowledge allowed Telstra to transform its initial four COT Case Fast Track Settlement proposals—intended to be a fair, non-legalistic assessment—into a self-serving, legalistic arbitration procedure.
Armed with government secrets and unfettered by the threat of inquiry, Telstra manoeuvred through this labyrinth of deceit with chilling confidence. The walls surrounding their nefarious dealings grew thicker, ensuring that their betrayal of the very citizens they were supposed to serve went unnoticed, buried beneath a veneer of legitimacy crafted by those in power.
TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other influential members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
“Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.
“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”
Even more troubling, in a stark display of deception and betrayal, the so-called Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) was not crafted in good faith by Frank Shelton, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—who would soon be promoted to County Court Judge—but was instead orchestrated by the unscrupulous defendant's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale and Page. They had the audacity to fax this document to Warwick Smith's office on January 10, 1994. In a brazen act of misrepresentation, Watrwick Smith then informed the government and the lawyers for the COT Cases that Frank Shelton—who was a partner in the very firm that was then exonerated from all liability—for having been party to the drafting the FTAP agreement Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, when he had merely made cosmetic alterations to a document designed to serve the interests of the defendants.
By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps provided me the ability to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,
What options did we have left? We had lost the arbitration due to our inability to secure the vital documents and faced yet another defeat in our appeal to obtain them. Should we abandon the fight, or is there a path forward that we can still pursue?
As a single operator aged 81, editing these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600-plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made, should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.
To comprehend the truly sinister nature of the events surrounding Dr. Hughes, we must expose the dark and treacherous details that reveal a web of systemic corruption. Representative Graham Schorer from COT convened with Telstra officials, including the shadowy figure of Dr. Hughes, under the guise of discussing the settlement arbitration process. However, this meeting served as a thin veneer for a betrayal that unfolded in secrecy.
The transcript from this sinister gathering—provided by Telstra themselves—uncovers a chilling truth: the COT claimants made their overwhelming preference for a commercial settlement abundantly clear. Yet, on page three, Dr. Hughes' icy demeanour dismissed their desires without a second thought, insisting that arbitration would somehow be a superior method for resolution. He appointed himself the arbiter of truth, claiming he could provide “appropriate directions for the production of documents,” while darkly asserting that he “would not make a determination on incomplete information.”
Yet, hidden beneath this façade of professionalism lies a treacherous reality. Evidence showcased on absentjustice.com indicates that Dr. Hughes brazenly made a determination, fully cognizant that he was basing his decision on incomplete information. This betrayal became glaringly apparent as I battled overwhelming odds—persistent phone and fax issues wreaked havoc on my business, all while threats loomed large, suffocating my ability to present my case.
This chilling scenario serves as a stark reminder that a system designed to safeguard the vulnerable can easily morph into a weapon wielded by the powerful. In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, Dr. Hughes issued his final findings without mandating Telstra to address the glaring, recurring faults in the services provided. As a result, this segment of my claim should have remained open until Telstra could resolve these ongoing issues, yet it vanished into the shadows.
The arbitrator shamelessly disregarded explicit written advice from the government communication authority, delivered to him and the claimants on April 13, 1994. Such cold treachery cannot go unnoticed; it underscores a corrupt system in which those in power manipulate proceedings for their own gain, leaving the truth buried beneath layers of deception and misconduct —a festering wound at the very heart of justice.
Threats were duly carried out 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 invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting 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 intention of submitting 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 26 September 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 attention of 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 investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account that establishes Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardising my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorised early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol compromised the integrity of the arbitration process, giving Telstra an unfair advantage in its response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorised to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.
Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under FOI during my government-endorsed arbitration, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, File 20 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.
Despite my heartfelt written pleas to the arbitrator and our face-to-face conversation during an unexpected meeting with Warwick Smith at Tullerine, Melbourne airport, it became painfully clear that Telstra had indeed followed through on their intimidating threats. This situation had a devastating impact on my arbitration claim, as I was left unable to provide the crucial daily fault data needed to substantiate that my business continued to suffer from persistent phone issues. The frustration mounted as I found myself unable to make outgoing calls from my establishment, and to add to my woes, the nearby kiosk telephone booth on the beach was also malfunctioning. Regrettably, no action was taken to rectify these issues, nor was I given any explanation regarding how Telstra planned to address the very real threats that had impeded my ability to operate effectively.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that the road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“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.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?
A more unsettling revelation is that the two primary entities under investigation during the COT arbitrations were not only Telstra, one of Australia's largest telecommunications companies, but also Ericsson, a multinational telecommunications giant notorious for its subpar equipment, which has been rejected by numerous countries worldwide. In a brazen act of deception, Telstra categorically denied to the arbitrator that any such significant issues existed, attempting to shield itself from accountability.
"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/)
We must use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.
Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and Australian government refer Senate Evidence File No/61).
All of the main events highlighted on this website are backed by original documents (confirmation data) linked within the text. By clicking these links, you will open a PDF of the relevant exhibits. This method allows you to follow the various file numbers discussed throughout our pages – see the menu bar above – enabling you to verify our claims. Without these documents, many would struggle to comprehend the extent of suffering endured by Casualty of Telstra (COT) claimants under these unjust circumstances. We’ve added mini-stories to contextualise these exhibits, allowing readers to grasp the true significance of what occurred.
How can an Australian company like Lane Telecommunications be sold during a government-sanctioned arbitration process to a major Swedish telecommunications conglomerate, Ericsson, which is simultaneously under investigation for questionable practices? Is it conceivable that this situation represents an alarming instance of collusion and corruption at the highest levels?
Australia appears to be an anomaly among Western nations in allowing a witness—Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—to observe critical evidence presented by the COT claimants and the arbitrator. This evidence gathers significant weight in light of Ericsson's acquisition, raising serious questions about the integrity of the process, especially as the company is under formal investigation.
The acquisition effectively silenced Lane, with the financial transaction quickly completed and the money transferred into their accounts. In a disturbing pattern of political negligence, career politicians have once again turned a blind eye to what many now recognise as a conspiracy, ignoring the deeply unethical implications of these actions. Their singular aim seems clear: to ensure that the COT Cases are "Stopped at all costs" from substantiating their arbitration claims (as documented on pages 36 to 39, Senate - Parliament of Australia).
The Australian government owes its citizens and stakeholders a comprehensive response to several critical questions that need clarity:
1. How long was Lane Telecommunications engaged in discussions or negotiations with Ericsson, the primary telecommunications equipment supplier for Telstra, before the agreement to sell was finalised?
2. Is there a significant connection between Lane's apparent neglect of my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the acquisition of Lane by Ericsson during the ongoing COT arbitration? This raises concerns about the motivations behind the purchase and the potential impact on the integrity of the arbitration proceedings.
3. What is the rationale behind the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)—the government's communications media regulator—denying me access to the crucial Ericsson AXE documentation that I rightfully requested during my two Government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011? (For more on this, (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued?)
These questions not only demand a thorough investigation but also insist on transparency and accountability in a process that fundamentally challenges ethical governance and corporate responsibility. The ramifications of these circumstances extend beyond the immediate parties involved, impacting public trust and confidence in both government oversight and corporate practices in Australia.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe the Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which state:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
Telstra internal (Freedom of Information - FOI folio C04094) from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
The information provided in the image below reveals a troubling pattern of deceptive business practices by Ericsson, indicating that these issues were not merely isolated incidents. When the Australian Government endorsed the COT Cases arbitration, it portrayed the process as a legitimate pathway to justice for those involved. However, my website, absentjustice.com, clearly illustrates that this assertion was far from the truth, highlighting significant discrepancies and injustices. Given this context, it is crucial for the current Labor government in 2025 to undertake a thorough investigation into my claims. They must deliver a transparent ruling that determines whether my allegations are baseless or hold merit, as justice for impacted parties hangs in the balance.
The COT arbitration and mediation processes became a dark labyrinth, where the economic lifeblood of the Telstra Corporation was stifled before its privatisation. Once it slipped from public hands, the government, like a predator sensing weakness, turned its focus to the rampant corruption lurking within its own ranks. This treachery was marked by the actions of Telstra and the appointed officials, who schemed to eliminate the stench of corruption as quickly as possible, desperate to conceal their wrongdoing from the ever-watchful eyes of the U.S. Securities Commission → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring. They anxiously misused public office and resources for their own nefarious agendas, with bribery serving as their weapon of choice—coercing decisions and actions in the dark shadows of arbitration and mediation.
In a vile twist of fate, small business owners from the COT group uncovered an unsettling web of extortion. Those controlling the arbitration and mediation processes mercilessly demanded favours and payoffs in exchange for merely doing their jobs, betraying the public trust that was supposed to guide their actions. The false reassurances given to senators and the Canberra media about prioritising these issues only deepened the treachery, illustrating the depths of deception that permeated the system (Refer to Senate Evidence File No 31 and Senate Evidence File No 31).
As the investigation unfolded, the grotesque realities of embezzlement, theft, and the insidious misappropriation of public funds and government assets came to light. The environment was soaked in fraud and deceit, where unethical practices flourished unchecked, allowing the architects of this corruption to reap unfair advantages over the vulnerable COT cases (Refer to pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia).
Conflicts of interest loomed large and malevolent, as public officials, blinded by their own greed and self-interest, turned a blind eye to the unfolding corruption within the COT cases. They willingly sacrificed the integrity of Australia’s once-respected democratic system of arbitration and mediation, all for the promise of personal gain.
In a chilling display of cronyism and nepotism, these government-endorsed processes turned into a breeding ground for betrayal, where the powerful favoured their friends and allies without hesitation. One particularly sinister episode involved the principal arbitrator and mediator, whose close associates exploited the good name of his unsuspecting wife to shield him from an investigation into the glaring corruption festering around the COT cases—yet another layer of deceit meant to protect their own.
The insidious effects of this betrayal penetrate deep into the very marrow of the Australian arbitration and mediation process, tainting its essence and eroding its integrity. As detailed in the section titled "The eleventh remedy pursued → Institute of Arbitration Mediation Australia (IAMA)," I was coerced into complying with their directive to extend my case from July to November 2009, all while pouring over $20,000 into secretarial fees to unearth the damning evidence of corruption lurking beneath the surface. Despite the overwhelming weight of this evidence, the IAMA has chillingly chosen to remain silent, willfully ignoring the truth and obstructing my appointed lawyer's access to the critical documentation I provided at their behest. This disturbing refusal raises an alarming question: What dark secrets is the IAMA desperately trying to conceal? What ulterior motives drive them to hide the evidence that could shatter their carefully crafted facade? The layers of deceit are thick, and the stakes are high—what else lies hidden in the shadows of this corruption?
How do you publish a harrowing account of treachery and deceit that has marred various Australian Government-endorsed Arbitrations, all while being denied the exhibits that bear witness to this corruption? How does the author substantiate claims that government public servants shamelessly fed privileged information to the Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier—an entity that stands as a defendant—yet simultaneously concealed crucial documentation from their own fellow citizens, the claimants?
It’s a tale so entrenched in villainy that even the author finds themselves questioning the very authenticity of their narrative, only to be jolted back to reality by their meticulously kept records. How can one expose the insidious collusion between an arbitrator, appointed government watchdogs, and the defendants? How do you reveal that the defendants—in this case, the Telstra Corporation—engaged in a repugnant scheme where they intercepted and screened confidential communications, storing sensitive material without consent, and then redirected this information to undermine the claimants' position?
The blatant exploitation by Telstra, using this intercepted material to bolster their defence, raises grave concerns about how many other Australian arbitration processes have succumbed to similar heinous acts of electronic eavesdropping. This abhorrent hacking—was it merely a dark chapter of the past, or does it continue to poison legitimate Australian arbitrations today? On 7 January 1999, the arbitration claimants submitted an alarming report to the Australian Government, confirming that confidential documents had been illicitly screened before being delivered to Parliament House in Canberra. Will that damning report ever be laid bare for the Australian public to see?
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)
I've taken the bold step to release the full report on my website, absentjustice.com, and in my new book, ABSENT JUSTICE—a manifesto against this unprincipled conduct.
It is imperative to acknowledge the chilling reality that "Absent Justice" stands ominously supported by over 1,300 exhibits—accessible on this site yet shrouded in the depths of a labyrinthine web of evidence files tied to this dark narrative. My initial arbitration claim, submitted back in 1994, mysteriously vanished into thin air, never reaching the arbitrator’s hands. Despite presenting irrefutable proof of this negligence, both the arbitrator and the administrator of the arbitration system brazenly dismissed my submission papers. This deliberate obstruction obliterated my hope of demonstrating that the registered phone complaints were not mere historical grievances, but ongoing crises that continued to jeopardise my telephone-dependent business.
On April 30, 1995, the arbitrator, in a shadowy partnership with DMR & Lane consultants, received a written warning about the unresolved faults plaguing my phone lines. They explicitly stated that they needed more time to investigate the ramifications of these persistent issues. Yet, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the same arbitrator, made the brazen decision to deny DMR & Lane the extra weeks they required to address my claims properly. His justification? An absurd claim that I had not provided a comprehensive list of complaints, although my two advisors, both former senior detectives from the Queensland police force, had submitted this material at a staggering cost of $56,000 in 1994.
The corruption runs deeper, as I observed the grim fate of at least two other COT cases during their arbitrations, which mirrored my own betrayal. With "Absent Justice," I compiled a damning exhibit of evidence files to shed light on this sinister pattern of deception and malpractice—an undeniable testament to the moral decay that has plagued this system.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James (see point 4 above), attacking my credibility. The TIO deliberately misinformed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am one morning:
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
PLEASE NOTE:
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests in his letter to Laurie James, why did he not produce my letter?
Who notified the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) that I had made a phone call at approximately 2 a.m.? According to the telephone account for that particular evening, documented in Arbitrator File No /49, I made my call at 8:02 p.m. It is profoundly disheartening to witness the propagation of false narratives about the timing of my call. Even more troubling, however, is the realisation that the reason for my urgent call was deliberately concealed from Mr. James. With a sense of urgency and determination, I reached out to the arbitrator to inform him that I had finally received the crucial arbitration documents that were supposed to have been provided to me during the arbitration process on November 28, 1995. These documents strikingly demonstrated that Telstra's TF200 EXICOM arbitration defence report was fabricated, a deliberate act intended to obstruct justice.
As I delved into these newly discovered pieces of evidence, it was exhilarating and validating to learn that Telstra's laboratory staff had conclusively proven that beer could not have remained wet and sticky for an extended period of 14 days in my collected phone. This time frame represented the duration between the TF200 EXICOM leaving my premises and its arrival at their laboratory, a fact that should have absolved me of any accusations against my character. It was already evening when I called the arbitrator's home number, my heart racing with excitement; here was the opportunity to finally refute Telstra's damaging claims that I was intoxicated. They had suggested that it was my drinking habits that impaired my ability to manage my telephone-dependent business, rather than any deficiencies in Telstra's services. When Dr. Hughes’ wife answered the phone, she informed me that he was currently overseas, adding another layer of urgency to my situation.
Reflecting on that moment now, I am struck by how blindsided I was. I had incorrectly assumed that the arbitrator, Gordon Hughes, was aware of the rumours circulating within the influential corridors of Parliament House regarding his use of a dubious arbitration agreement—one that Telstra's legal team had secretly drafted to serve its own interests. This agreement severely undermined the COT Cases' ability to secure crucial documents necessary for their claims. My intuition led me to believe it was essential to inform Gordon Hughes, and that if he was at home, he would want to hear that I could substantiate claims of fraud with this newly acquired evidence from Telstra's laboratory. However, since he was not available, I decided it was wise to mention a name that would be familiar to his wife, thus avoiding any alarm. I told Mrs. Hughes, "Please let Gordon know that John Rundell called, and I will speak with him later about this matter." After our brief conversation, I wished her a good night and hung up, as the billing account later confirmed my call only lasted 28 seconds.
This revelation led me to suspect that if Dr. Hughes’ wife had known who was calling, she might have felt uneasy, fearing that I was about to accuse her husband of dishonesty. In a momentary lapse of judgment, I used the name of the FHCA project manager, John Rundell, fully aware that Dr. Hughes was acquainted with him. This seemed like a safer choice that would not raise concerns. Later that day, I updated the TIO about my significant discovery and attempted to reconnect with the arbitrator to share my findings. I explained to the TIO that I had provided Mrs. Hughes with the name of another individual to avoid causing her undue alarm. I inquired about the TIO’s intentions regarding the evidence I had unearthed, specifically regarding Telstra's deliberate misrepresentation of the cause of the phone fault. The TIO's response was disheartening: he clearly stated that my arbitration had concluded and that he had no intention of involving his office in any further investigations. He advised me that if I wished to pursue the matter, I should take it to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
When the long-awaited Freedom of Information (FOI) evidence finally arrived on November 28, 1995—nine months after Dr. Hughes had first requested it on April 12, 1995 and just two months before he reached a conclusion in my arbitration—I was overwhelmed by a wave of relief and happiness. The moment was bittersweet as I learned that the allegedly sticky and wet beer substance that had been a focal point of my case was entirely absent from the samples when they reached Telstra's laboratories. This unexpected revelation was a bright spot in what had been a long and exhausting ordeal.
It is bad enough to have to live with the knowledge that the Arbitration Resource Unit and the Arbitrator failed to investigate my complaints of the multiple, ongoing telephone problems that continued to haunt my struggling business throughout my arbitration process. Still, the situation becomes even worse when you consider what was to come when John Pinnock (the new administrator of the process), who also held the role of TIO, advised Australian politicians that all of the problems I was still complaining about had been fixed during the arbitration, even though Mr Pinnock (the new TIO) were still receiving correspondence from Telstra, thirty-three months after my arbitration had ended, claiming that it ‘appeared’ as though the problems had continued to occur after the so-called ‘end’ of my arbitration. What this does highlight, however, is a clear indication of how corrupt the whole COT arbitration process was: it had been designed, from the very beginning, to cover up Telstra’s bad workmanship, regardless of the cost, and the cost of that cover-up was the destruction of anyone who was prepared to stand up and raise legitimate complaints, with the Government, concerning Telstra, on any level.
Why on earth did Dr. Hughes flatly refuse my request to involve Paul Westwood, a renowned forensic documents specialist, to unearth the truth behind Telstra’s dubious laboratory testing methods? The lab tests I received from Telstra on November 28, 1995, contained information that could shake the very foundations of their credibility. If Dr. Hughes had allowed Paul Westwood access to Telstra's internal notes—notes that, somewhat suspiciously, turned out to mirror the documents I managed to pry loose through a Freedom of Information request on the very same date—I would have had irrefutable proof of Telstra's manipulation of test results. This deceptive evidence was cunningly crafted to lead the arbitration process into believing that phone issues no longer besieged my business. Dr. Hughes's cold dismissal of my plea has left me ensnared in this treacherous web of corruption, where, in 2025, I find myself clawing for the justice that has been mercilessly denied to me.
The Arbitrator
Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith - Order of Australia
The government's decision to award Dr. Gordon Hughes the Order of Australia raises serious ethical concerns regarding the approval process. It is perplexing that Dr. Hughes' wife was not approached to confirm whether she received a telephone call at 2:00 AM on the fateful morning in question. After Mrs Hughes revealed the timeline, which coincides with my account of events and the time for which Telstra billed me for this call, which lasted for 28 seconds, one must question how the Governor could bestow such an honour upon Dr. Hughes when his wife's statement casts a shadow on his integrity.
Let us re-examine the 27 February 1996 letter from Mr Pinnock and the issue of tampering with evidence, specifically the TF200.
The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the telephone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?
Of course, I was happy and felt relieved when this alleged sticky and wet beer substance in my collected TF200 was not there when it was received at Telstra's laboratories. Regardless of this, Telstra's evidence arriving six months after the conclusion of my arbitration, I still thought there might be some honesty in Dr Hughes' makeup. Even though I had not investigated my ongoing telephone problems in his case, I felt he must be able to do something when it was Telstra's laboratory findings that proved their arbitration defence had used fraud to support their defence. My judgment concerning Dr Hughes' integrity was way off target.
It has been brought to the attention of the undersigned that Telstra, a telecommunications company, tampered with evidence during an arbitration process. The undersigned had previously volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this incident came to light. During the arbitration process, Telstra deliberately misled the arbitrator by providing an incorrect reason for why the undersigned was unable to test their TF200 telephone at their premises during a scheduled meeting on 27 April 1994. Telstra had recorded in their file notes, which were later submitted to the arbitrator, that the undersigned had refused to allow them to test the phones due to feelings of fatigue. However, Telstra failed to mention that the undersigned had informed the fault response unit that they had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours and that their sore eyes made it impossible to observe the testing.
It is evident from the Tampering With Evidence page that Telstra set out to discredit the undersigned by implying that they were too tired to have their TF200 phone tested and, after the phone was removed, someone from Telstra poured beer into it before it arrived at the Melbourne laboratories. Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone's ongoing lock-up problems rather than an issue with the Cape Bridgewater network. These actions, along with the threats the undersigned received from Telstra during the arbitration process, demonstrate that their claims should have been investigated years ago. Despite the undersigned carrying out their civic duties as Australian citizens, providing vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, they were still penalised during the arbitration process.
It is worth noting that the undersigned could not have spilt beer into their telephone, as Telstra had claimed, given that they had been fighting a fire. They would not have been drinking beer while driving the CFA truck or assisting their colleagues. This part of the undersigned's story highlights the unprofessional conduct that COT Cases endured from Telstra as they fought for a reliable phone service. When the undersigned provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood's forensic documents specialist, both refused the undersigned's request to investigate Telstra's report on the grounds of fraud.
Gaslighting
Wayne Goss, the former Premier of Queensland, disclosed that gaslighting tactics were employed against the COT Cases.
(See File Ann Garms 104 Document)
Psychological manipulation
As detailed below and throughout this website, there was a concerted effort to prevent the COT Cases from substantiating their claims at all costs. I faced tremendous pressure to withhold crucial technical documents that I had previously submitted to Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the legal representatives for Telstra. They threatened me with retaliation, insisting that unless I first presented my fault complaints in writing to Freehill, Telstra would categorically refuse to investigate my grievances.
On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
The looming shadows of four letters—dated August 17, 2017, October 6, 2017, October 9, 2017, and October 10, 2017—written by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her tragic passing, embody a haunting significance (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). Addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Australia’s then-Prime Minister, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann, these letters reveal layers of betrayal and unearthly horror. The attachment from Ann's August 6 letter remains a chilling testament to her insight, underscoring secrets that many would wish to keep buried.
On June 1, 2021, Mathias Cormann assumed a pivotal role as Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris. His deep knowledge of the COT Cases claims only amplifies the urgency of what Ann wrote, as whispers of accountability fade like shadows under a flickering streetlight. At the time she penned these courageous letters, I too reached out to Turnbull—a man with a heritage of engaging in matters concerning the public, yet burdened by murky waters of his predecessors. I shared an exhaustive timeline of events with Cormann and a lawyer in Hamilton, Victoria, culminating in a statutory declaration on July 26, 2019, that was meticulously crafted but ultimately drowned in bureaucratic indifference.
But the darkness doesn't merely lie in sealed documents; it extends to chilling allegations of child sexual assault against Senator Bob Collins, whose shadow casts a long pall over Parliament House, Canberra. Such grisly crimes have been documented extensively, a grim reminder of the malevolence that festers in high places—poisoning not just the political landscape, but the very fabric of society.
Ann Garms’ August 17 letter uncovers a grave truth: Wayne Goss, the former Premier of Queensland, disclosed that gaslighting tactics were employed against the COT Cases. This revelation isn't mere gossip; it comes from a credible source within the government, raising the spectre of calculated manipulation.
The suicide of Senator Bob Collins, occurring just before he was set to face serious charges, adds a chilling twist to this narrative. Collins was intertwined in the COT Cases, exacerbating an already convoluted web of deceit. Our desperate pursuit of essential documents, promised to us by Collins' office and vital for our arbitration claims against Telstra, was met with frustrating silence—an eerie echo of promises broken.
Is it too far-fetched to consider that the government was willfully concealing critical evidence? Especially while delving into Collins’ horrific allegations? Compounding these dark suspicions is the unsettling fact that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were investigating Telstra for allegedly intercepting our arbitration documents and monitoring our communications. A sordid blend of the personal and the political casts a pall over legitimate inquiries, dragging everyone into a vortex of complicity and betrayal.
A closer examination of the COT story unveils a disconcerting reality: despite government assurances, Telstra continued to employ the legal services of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. This hypocrisy screams for scrutiny, as the government had claimed to eliminate Freehill from any COT involvement. Yet, in the shadows of arbitration, Freehill remained engaged—falsifying signatures on critical legal documents, signing off on counter-witness statements as if they were gospel truth, even when such signatures had never been made.
The document from March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212. It is chilling to consider that, had the arbitrator been furnished with this critical evidence, he would likely have awarded me far greater compensation for my substantial business losses.
Three decades have dragged on since these chilling events unfolded. But Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now cloaked as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, remains disturbingly silent about their actions, which have wreaked unchecked havoc on my life. Their blatant disregard for legality fuels an unconscionable sense of injustice—one that lingers, festering like a wound left untreated. The silence from those who should bear responsibility only amplifies the haunting query: When will the truth, shrouded in darkness, finally emerge?
It was only after this event, and the fact that Telstra was not abiding by all parties in the third week of November 1993 and not arbitration, that I aimed to articulate that 47% of my lost revenues were attributable to a singular club loss. Despite presenting compelling evidence, which included the fact that the AFP had specifically instructed us not to divulge this vital information to Telstra during the AFP's protracted fourteen-month investigation, the arbitrator inexplicably refused to accept it. Initially, he assured me that he would consider my evidence once the AFP allowed me to submit my 'Over Forties Single Club' information to the arbitration process; however, he ultimately failed to honour that commitment. This refusal highlights the deeply flawed nature of the arbitration process, which appeared to prioritise the protection of Telstra's already tarnished reputation over delivering a just and equitable resolution.
I began piecing together the menu bar above in 2007 after receiving a government communications regulatory report that AUSTEL had deliberately concealed, both before and during my government-endorsed arbitration process in 1994. It wasn't until November 2007 that I discovered AUSTEL (now the Australian Communications and Media Authority - ACMA) had compiled an entirely different account of their investigations into my ongoing telephone issues than what was presented to the arbitrator in my case. Had I been privy to those findings, which proved I had a substantially stronger case against Telstra (the new defendants in my arbitration), the arbitrator would have been compelled to award me a significantly greater compensation payout. This damning evidence, supplied to me through the Freedom of Information Act, is attached as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, further highlighting the depths of this unconscionable betrayal.
In February 1994, I received a troubling communication from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that would irrevocably alter the course of my business. The AFP explicitly directed me to meticulously sift through the telephone complaints lodged by my single-club patrons since 1990, carefully distinguishing them from a multitude of grievances filed by various educational institutions and organisations throughout the 1990s. This was no regular administrative task; instead, it represented a crucial and urgent measure to confront an imminent crisis of alarming magnitude.
The situation was even more distressing than I could have ever imagined. In a troubling twist of events, the arbitrator, seemingly in collusion with Telstra, which had been under investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), three months before the commencement of my arbitration for having intercepted my phone conversations and hacked into my arbitration faxes and the faxs to and from the Telecommuications Industry was compelled by the AFP to clarify why Telstra employees believed it necessary to intercept my private telephone conversations with various patrons from a singles club. The AFP was also looking into the unsettling possibility that my confidential faxes exchanged with the singles club had been hacked. This breach not only jeopardised the privacy of my Singles Club patrons but also raised serious questions about the disappearance of vital arbitration-related faxes, suggesting a direct connection to the alarming circumstances I now found myself in during this government-endorsed arbitration.
Despite the arbitrator being fully informed of these troubling issues, he shockingly disallowed any evidence related to the singles club from being entered into the arbitration process. To make matters worse, he pointedly stated that my diaries lacked chronological order because I had failed to organise them in a proper folder. This unfortunate misunderstanding stemmed from a recommendation made by the AFP, which had suggested that I include all prior fault statements in my records, along with the emotional expressions documented in my rough complaint notes.
Denise McBurnie, the attorney representing Telstra, emphasised the critical importance of compiling these documents meticulously. She insisted that I required a comprehensive and detailed record of the phone complaints that Telstra had acknowledged, warning that failure to comply would result in Telstra's refusal to investigate my persistent telephone issues. These issues mirrored the very challenges that the AFP had faced during their inquiries. Ultimately, I was instructed to meticulously record these statements in my physical diaries, ensuring that I created a reliable secondary record of the ongoing frustrations and challenges I was facing during this complex and troubling ordeal.
The COT Cases revealed a significant network of corruption and treachery involving Freehill, Hollingdale & Page in their dealings with these matters. Robing Davey, the Chairman of AUSTEL, explicitly stated that Freehill, Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT Case issues, as detailed in point 40 of the Prologue Evidence File No/2). Nevertheless, contrary to this official declaration, Freehill proceeded to serve as Telstra's arbitration lawyers in all principal COT arbitrations, marking a notable deviation from established protocol.
Yet, unbeknownst to Mr. Davey, the devious Denise McBurnie had orchestrated a nefarious scheme with her strategic document titled "COT Cases Strategy." This underhanded plan was meticulously crafted to undermine the first four COT Cases and their businesses, locking us out of essential technical information. Instead of transparency, all dialogue was redirected through their legal representatives, masking their duplicitous actions under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege.
In my own experience, when I submitted my flat data to Denise McBurnie in writing, it was under extreme duress. I was kept in the dark about the fact that Telstra’s testing outcomes would be cloaked in Legal Professional Privilege, effectively shrouding me from the truth → (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)
The Senate Hansard from 24 and 25 June 1997 revealed a shocking discovery: over two years after my arbitration had concluded, the Senate exposed the unethical manoeuvres of Denise McBurnie and Freehill, Hollingdale & Page, both before the Telecommunications Industry's settlement proposals (TTSP) and during the subsequent Fast Track Arbitration process. With limited financial means to contest the unlawful arbitration, I had no alternative but to document this outrageous betrayal in a book and create this website to unveil the truth.
Tragically, in this battle against profound corruption, Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan are no longer with us, while Graham Schorer now suffers from advanced dementia. This heartbreaking reality leaves me as the solitary voice striving to expose the depraved dishonesty entrenched in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. What began as a promise for resolution has morphed into a twisted, overly legalistic arbitration farce. Throughout this dark chapter, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, shamefully facilitated changes to the arbitration agreement that shielded his consultants from accountability for negligence. I urge you to examine the twelve mini-reports, which provide detailed information about these occurrences, as outlined in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2.
Criminal Conduct Example 1
“COT Case Strategy”
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases were signed, and our arbitration agreements were in place.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."
27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."
28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.
29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.
One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.
30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:
- "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."
31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.
Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?
And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?
While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.
The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.
What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.
The actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, currently known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, before, during, and in some instances following their representation of Telstra in the government-endorsed arbitrations related to the COT Cases, have resulted in significant discontent and frustration among many participants in the COT Cases. These individuals were compelled to undergo a distressing experience throughout their arbitration and mediation processes, expressing concerns that their cases were severely mishandled and "bastardised." Even after the firm's rebranding, the company has not responded to the following question raised by the administrator of my arbitration, as referenced in the subsequent questions.
On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking:
1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.
The situation involving Telstra's legal representative, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, raises significant ethical and legal concerns. Condon signed a witness statement that falsely claimed it was endorsed by a clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, despite Joblin's signature not being present at the time it was submitted to the arbitration consultant, rather than the appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes. This oversight—or potential malpractice—raises questions about the integrity of the arbitration process itself.
The TIO and Telstra had jointly appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory to oversee access to all arbitration documents. This firm bore the critical responsibility of determining which documents would be reviewed by the arbitrator and which would be excluded from consideration. This significant role placed immense power in their hands, as their decisions shaped the outcome of numerous claims, including those of individuals like Ann Grams.
On July 11, a letter from Telstra's Steve Black addressed to Warwick was concealed from COT Case Ann Grams during her appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This concealment occurred in the context of Garms’ challenge against Dr. Hughes, who was alleged to have committed gross misconduct in her arbitration. It appears that some of the grievances raised by Grams against Dr. Hughes may have stemmed from negligence by Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, rather than any malfeasance on the part of Dr. Hughes himself. The ramifications of the failed appeal were staggering, costing Ann Garms over $600,000 and leaving her unaware that she potentially had a valid claim against Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory for their role in this complex case.
Many individuals who have scrutinised various witness statements submitted by Telstra in multiple COT cases—my own included—are alarmed to discover that the Senate was also informed of falsified or altered signatures in my case. Altering a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes serious misconduct that extends beyond simple criminality. Maurice Wayne Condon’s assertion that he had witnessed a signature on the witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, given the absence of such a signature, further illustrates the urgent need for a comprehensive investigation into the broader implications of the COT cases.
The lack of response from Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, is troubling. Why have they not issued a formal apology to those affected, including Ann Garms? Their silence raises serious questions about their ethical standards and commitment to their clients' welfare. Particularly concerning is the discrepancy surrounding Ian Joblin’s witness statement; the firm endorsed a document lacking his signature yet attested to its legitimacy. Such a discrepancy not only undermines the integrity of the legal process but also leaves clients grappling with a myriad of unanswered questions, seeking clarity and justice.
Ultimately, Maurice Wayne Condon, as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed a witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature. This raises profound questions about the level of influence and authority that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia. The integrity of this process is paramount, and it is crucial for all parties involved to confront these issues directly, ensuring accountability and restoring trust among those they represent.
A Secret Deal
Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer wrote to the TIO on 11 July 1994 stating:
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”.
The statement in Telstra’s letter Exhibit 590 in File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 “if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator” confirms that both the TIO and Telstra were aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had been assigned to vet most, if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to the arbitrator. If the resource unit decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed on to the arbitrator or other parties. This particular secret deal has been linked to further clandestine dealings and is discussed in more detail elsewhere on absentjustice.com.
I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.
I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note that I have repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager of the need to solicit these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.
I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.
The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide the requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.
"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."
Criminal Conduct Example 2
Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube video below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as Files 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.
This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements
Stop the COT Cases at all costs
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.
In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed.
It is my sincere hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny. It is June 2025, and after several emails sent by me to Sandra's email address since the beginning of February 2025, the last email I received told me Sandra's cancer treatment was becoming intolerable. With Sandra living in faraway Queensland, too far for me to travel, I can only assume the worst, or perhaps for the better, with Sandra now at peace.
On 30 November 1993, this Telstra internal memo, FOI document folio D01248, from Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member, was written to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive, Office. Subject: TIO AND COT. This was written seven days after Alan had signed the TIO-administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this memo, Mr Benjamin states:
“At today’s Council Meeting the TIO reported on his involvement with the COT settlement processes. It was agreed that any financial contributions made by Telecom to the Cot arbitration process was not a matter for Council but was a private matter between Telecom, AUSTEL and the TIO.
I hope you agree with this.”
This shows that Telstra was partly or wholly funding the arbitration process.
If the process had been truly transparent, then the claimants would have been provided with information regarding the funds—specifically, the amounts provided to the arbitrator, arbitrator's resource unit, TIO, and TIO special counsel for their individual professional advice throughout four COT arbitrations.
It remains unclear how the arbitrator billed Telstra for his professional fees or how the TIO billed Telstra for his fees, including those of the TIO-appointed resource unit and special counsel. This raises the questions:
Was the arbitrator and resource unit paid every month?
Did the resource unit receive any extra bonus for being secretly appointed as the second arbitrator in determining what arbitration documents the arbitrator was allowed to receive and what was withheld (see letter dated 11th July 1994, from Telstra to Warwick Smith)?
Without knowing how the defendants distributed these payments to the parties involved in the first four arbitrations, it would be impossible for the TIO and AUSTEL (now the ACMA) to continue to state that the COT arbitrations were independently administered.
To summarise the issue: during these four arbitrations, the defence was allowed to pay the arbitrator and those involved in the process. How is this different from the defendant being allowed to pay the judge in a criminal matter? It is a clear and concerning conflict of interest.
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 to 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.”
On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)
These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process
Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:
“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”
And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:
“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)
Senator Schacht was even more vocal:
“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.
The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”
On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.
He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.
At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:
“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.
Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?
Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?
Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?
Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)
Also, during this same press conference, Senator Len Harris asked many other questions, including why should an owner of a business such as the holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater be forced to sell that business because Telstra had still been unable to fix the ongoing telephone problems that Senator Richard Alston himself had investigated in 1992, ten years previous and concluded were affecting Mr Smith's holiday camp. The telephone problems Mr Smith raised in his 1993/94 arbitration were still being raised with Telstra in 2001, seven years after the arbitration process had failed to rectify those problems.
Are these unaddressed problems more related to my original claims against the government in 1967, after I warned the government about the following issues?
Addendum
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.
In Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2, I delve into the unsettling revelations captured in the Senate Hansard from September 7, 1967. During that session, the Honourable Dr. Rex Patterson, a Labour Party member representing Dawson in Queensland, posed an alarmingly pointed inquiry to the Australian government. He sought assurance that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China was not being funnelled to North Vietnam, an implication that carries dark undertones. This raises a chilling question: was the Liberal-Country Party Coalition government blind in their ambition, utterly indifferent to the fact that Australian wheat could be feeding soldiers fighting against our own troops in the oppressive jungles of North Vietnam?
The government’s cold disregard for the returned Vietnam soldiers—shamed, discarded, and silenced by a toxic blend of ignorance and guilt—casts a long shadow over our nation. Even with the passage of time, the memories remain disturbingly vivid as I embark on writing my autobiography as a Ship's Cook and Steward. My sea voyage aboard the Hopepeak, laden with dark memories and bitter truths, plays a crucial role in this narrative. My journey through various catering establishments, coupled with the lessons learned during my 26 years at sea, has propelled me to act, driven by a haunting desire to support children in need, which is why I acquired my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, the very centre of this Telstra government-endorsed arbitration Casulaties of Telstra story.
As I revisit my autobiography, now in the hands of editors and expected to be available online as an ebook by October 2025, I find myself grappling with the convoluted and tragic details that make up this story. Each page stirs a rising tide of anxiety within me. As an octogenarian, I am left to ponder the sinister politics of the Liberal-Country National Government that still leave a sour taste. How could these Australian politicians so callously declare that lives lost in Vietnam were mere collateral damage while prioritising the profits of wheat sales to China? This dispassionate calculation mirrors the actions of the John Howard government, which assisted only five of the litmus test COT Cases while abandoning the remaining sixteen to battle the government-owned Telstra Corporation in court, a betrayal wrapped tightly in a cloak of greed and negligence.
The chilling atrocities committed against their own citizens by the Chinese Red Guards continue to haunt me, lingering in my mind like a dark shadow, even more so than my desperate escape from their gunfire. At the same time, I found myself wrongfully accused of espionage, a label that felt like a noose tightening around my neck. This harrowing chapter in history stands as a haunting stain on humanity, gnawing at my conscience with each passing day. It was not merely the terrifying experience of being forced to march up and down the wharf under the watchful eyes of armed guards, nor the sheer panic of fighting against the guards to avoid a potentially deadly injection with a non-sterile needle that haunted me. Instead, what haunts me is the horrific image of a Chinese nurse, her once beautiful smile marred by blood smeared across her face from a Red Guard baton used to splatter her nose, a mix of fear and defiance in her expression. This chilling vision invaded my dreams for many years after, replaying repeatedly, serving as a stark reminder of the inhumanity I witnessed.
Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under FOI during my government-endorsed arbitration, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, File 20 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.
What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document
The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense
During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:
“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.”
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.
We are in the process of developing twelve captivating chapters, numbered from 1 to 12, for an upcoming documentary that promises to engage and inform. Each chapter is undergoing meticulous refinement to enhance the speech patterns, ensuring that the narrative flows smoothly and resonates with our audience. The statements presented in these chapters have been rigorously edited and verified for factual accuracy, providing a solid foundation that does not require further revision.
To bring our story to life, we will enrich each chapter with evocative images that capture the essence of the narrative. These visuals will serve to deepen the viewer's understanding and emotional connection to the material. I am committed to completing the image editing process by mid-July 2025, ensuring that every detail is thoughtfully curated. With most chapters already in their final edited form, we are on track to create a cohesive and compelling narrative that will leave a lasting impact.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
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 are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
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 you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
