Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals and the corrupt bureaucrats who control the politicians and lawyers who oversee the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—government Corruption. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations.
Explore the unsettling actions of the Casualties of Australia arbitrator, who callously disregarded the chilling threats made against several Australian citizens brave enough to challenge the defendants, Telstra. This arbitrator enabled a prolonged obstruction of the arbitration process for an excruciating thirteen months. In an alarming twist, he eventually proclaimed in his final award that Telstra had exhibited remarkable diligence in their so-called cooperation throughout the proceedings, further exposing the depths of corruption at play.
Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.
📞 From Seafarer to Holiday Camp Owner: A Dream Undone
My name is Alan Smith, and this is the harrowing tale of my battle against a behemoth of corruption—the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This twisted saga has spiralled since 1992, revealing a shadowy web of deceit that entangles elected officials, regulatory bodies, the courts, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The pursuit of justice has become a relentless curse, gnawing at the edges of my existence.
It all started in 1987, when I abandoned my life at sea after 30 years, desperate for a fresh start on land. I envisioned running a spirited school holiday camp. When I stumbled upon the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age newspaper, it seemed like the perfect opportunity. Yet, in my eagerness, I neglected one crucial detail—ensuring that the phone lines were functional.
📉 A Promise Undone: The Phone That Broke the Business
Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting.
Even after I sold the business in December 2001—six years after my arbitration with Telstra, between 23 November 1993 and its premature, so-called conclusion on 11 May 1995—the problems persisted. This highly legalistic process, which government officials, claimants’ lawyers, and Canberra Parliament House media outlets were told would fix the ongoing faults, failed to do so. In my case, the faults had begun years before I purchased the business in late 1987.
🔁 The Cycle Continues: New Owners, Same Deceit
The new owners found themselves ensnared in the same treacherous web of deceit.
→ Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story
BCI and SVT reports - Section One
Who hijacked the BCI and SVT Reports
The following Federal Magistrates Court letter, dated 3 December 2008, from Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business, was never discussed by the government, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, or its relevance to several arbitration documents from 1994 to 1995, which were hijacked, i.e., never arrived at the Magistrates Court.
My letter to the Hon. David Hawker MP (see File 274 - AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323) clearly indicates that even the staff at the Portland Australia Post office are aware that the security of specific mail leaving the Portland Post Office cannot be guaranteed. So what was the use of my road mailing my arbitration documents to the arbitrator in 1994 and 1995, and the new owners of my business sending similar Telstra-related documents to the Federal Magistrate Court when there was a big chance the mail would not arrive? Darren and Jenny Lewis's letter of 3 December 2008 is just further alarming information that the government has not transparently investigated (see the following statement by Darren Lewis to the Federal Magistrates Court:
“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:
- Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp
- Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34
- Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);
- Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.
“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B
As we have previously mentioned in Absentjustice – Preface Australia Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all of the information enclosed initially, those documents must, therefore, have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Magistrates Court.
As I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost en route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 en route to the arbitrator hearing my case.
As I fought against this monstrous entity, I discovered I was not alone. Others plagued by the same foul play joined my cause, and we became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT Cases. Each of us is weaving our own thread into the tapestry of betrayal. All we wanted was for Telstra to acknowledge their mistakes, rectify their actions, and compensate us for the suffering we endured. Is it too much to demand a simple, working phone line in the face of such insidious corruption?
📣 Call for Justice
This is the story of my battle and that of several Australian citizens with the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government—a battle that has unfolded and evolved since 1992, spanning multiple elected governments, various departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The quest for justice continues to this day.
🏕️ A Dream in Cape Bridgewater
Hospitality was my calling, and I’d long dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age. Nestled near the maritime port of Portland in rural Victoria, it seemed perfect.
I did my due diligence—or at least, everything I thought was necessary. Who would have guessed I needed to check whether the phones worked?
📞 The Phone That Didn’t Ring
Within a week of taking over the business, I knew something was wrong. Customers and suppliers told me they couldn’t get through. I had a business to run, but my phone service was unreliable—or simply nonexistent. Of course, we lost business.
And so began my saga: a quest to get a working phone. I received some compensation and many promises, but the problem was never resolved. I sold the business in 2002, and later owners suffered the same fate.
🤝 The COT Cases: Casualties of Telecom
Other independent businesspeople affected by poor telecommunications joined me. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to admit the faults, fix them, and compensate us for our losses.
A working phone—is that too much to ask?
⚖️ Arbitration: A False Promise
We initially called for a full Senate investigation into the Telecom Industry. Instead, we were offered arbitration. It seemed like a fair alternative, so we accepted—believing the technical faults would be resolved.
But suspicions arose almost immediately. We were promised access to Telecom documents to support our case. That promise was broken. To this day, we still don’t have those documents.
Worse, we discovered our fax lines were being illegally tapped during arbitration. With the weight of government against us, we lost.
🤐 Silenced by Secrecy
We were tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered our efforts ever since. I may be breaking that clause by sharing this—but what choice do I have?
📂 The Fight for Evidence
We turned to Freedom of Information (FOI) to obtain the documents we were promised. We know the evidence exists—proof that our lines weren’t working and weren’t adequately tested. But without access, we can’t make our case.
❓ Corruption or Coincidence?
What do you think? Are we imagining it—or has there been massive corruption and collusion among public servants, politicians, regulators, and Telstra itself, all to protect the company at the expense of rural Australian businesses in favour of the big boys, the other end of town?
Read on to find out.
😈 The Devils Three letters → The first remedy pursued
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.
What kind of arbitrator would condone the dispatch of such a deceitful letter about his wife knowing it was not the truth, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged.
One of many examples that shows there is more to my story than I am allowed to expose. That example is the following speech made on 26 September 1997, by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock who formally addressed a Senate estimates committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), where 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 me or any of the other 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 a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention what the Senate has since been advised?
🕵️♂️ Surveillance, Suppression, and the AFP Briefcase Incident
According to AFP transcripts dated 10 February 1994 (Pages 37–39, AFP evidence file GS 18), Ex-AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs advised AFP officers to ask me directly about the contents of a briefcase inadvertently left at my premises. Initially dismissed, the documents inside—when read alongside later FOI releases—revealed that Telstra employees had used surveillance data to build profiles on customers. This was not just unethical—it was systemic.
Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed
The evidence within Scandrett & Associates' report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
📠 Fax Screening and the COT Case Ruse
To demonstrate that a secondary fax machine was screening arbitration-related documents before reaching their intended recipients, we devised a ruse. We faxed several government ministers—including Peter Costello, Australia’s Federal Treasurer—along with various lawyers and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
A few days later, we contacted these offices, apologising for a supposed mishap. We claimed we had destroyed the originals after faxing and requested copies of the documents for our records. To our surprise, every request was fulfilled. Some of those returned letters and documents are now part of the Scandrett & Associates report.
This report confirms that two professional fax experts examined the transmissions and verified that the documents had been intercepted and screened by Telstra—the defendants in our arbitration case.
🕵️♂️ Missing Faxes and a Veil of Secrecy
Further investigation revealed a troubling discrepancy in the arbitrator’s document schedule. The faxes I sent between May 1994 and May 1995 did not match those Dr Hughes’ office claimed to have received. A staggering 41 faxes were missing—many containing critical arbitration information.
This evidence, along with Telstra’s billing records for those transmissions, was submitted to John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In a deeply disappointing turn, he refused to investigate the disappearance of these essential documents.
What emerged was not just a failure of process, but a veil of secrecy—obscuring the manipulation and dubious activities that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:
“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .
“They show that
- the header strip of various faxes is being altered
- the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”
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)
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr Hughes's egregious failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration raises grave concerns. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office, a matter of utmost importance that Dr Hughes conspicuously chose to ignore in his award and findings. This omission not only undermines the integrity of the arbitration process but also reflects a disturbing level of negligence that echoes throughout the COT Cases.
Even more alarming is the relentless pursuit by both the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, John Wynack, and the AFP to uncover the dark secrets lurking within Telstra's inner circles. They were attempting to unravel how my private telephone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—discussions steeped in the treachery of my experiences in 1967—were being monitored and documented. At that time, I faced life-threatening danger for being suspected of espionage.
🔍Telstra’s Eavesdropping and Altering FOI Documents
When I finally received the two documents concerning my conversations with Mr Fraser during my 1994/95 arbitration, I was taken aback to find them heavily redacted—crucial truths obscured beneath layers of stark blankness. The thought that, during a government-sanctioned arbitration process, Telstra had been secretly monitoring matters linked to my past in communist China in 1967—twenty-seven years prior—was chilling. This unmistakable betrayal of trust unravels a complex web of deceit and manipulation, leaving me feeling profoundly unsettled. I can't help but wonder: are Telstra or those who orchestrated this invasive eavesdropping still engaged in such practices today?
⛓️ A Web of Deceit and Manipulation
Between 1998 and 2000, amidst my secondment to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, I became actively involved in their investigations relating to four other COT Case arbitrations—those of Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ross Plowman, and Ralph Bova. Melbourne Barrister Sue Owens registered these cases with Barrister Mr Neil Jepson of the Major Fraud Group. I was cautioned that a thorough security check on my history, both past and present, would be essential. If this examination revealed any adverse findings, any reports related to Telstra that Mr Jepson had requested my assistance with could not be utilised should any allegations of fraud against Telstra be brought before the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Just four days later, I was summoned to Melbourne to contribute to the investigation concerning Telstra's use of falsified reporting → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and the tampering with evidence after it left my premises → Tampering with Evidence.
Two years later, an inquiry into the previous Arbitration Project Manager for the COT Cases—a partner at KPMG who had disseminated false information about me, claiming I was a suspect in the criminal damage to his Brighton residence—yielded significant revelations. Mr Jepson's investigation determined that I had never been a suspect in any crime, be it in Brighton or anywhere else in Australia. This finding from the Major Fraud Group strongly implies that I was exonerated from being deemed undesirable at that time.
🧾 Pergury that halted the truth from being discovered
Moreover, exhibit → The first remedy pursued reveals that both Dr Gordon Hughes, who previously served as the arbitrator in my case, and John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman overseeing my arbitration, supplied misleading statements about me to Laurie James, the 1996 President of the Institute. These distortions seem to have been crucial in obstructing any serious investigation into my claims that Dr Hughes had failed to conduct my arbitration in accordance with the agreement sanctioned by the government—an agreement intended to protect not only myself but also several other participants in the COT Cases
📞 No Fault Found: A Nightmare in Cape Bridgewater
If you’ve ever struggled with poor phone reception or unexplained call failures, especially in rural Australia, you may relate to my story. At age 81, I’ve lived through decades of telecommunications dysfunction—beginning in 1987 when my wife Faye and I purchased a holiday camp business in Cape Bridgewater.
Back then, mobile coverage didn’t exist. Our business relied entirely on landlines routed through a roadside switching facility connected to the Portland exchange—an antiquated system designed for “low-call-rate areas.” With only eight lines serving 66 families, peak periods saw the system collapse under demand.
Despite Telstra eventually installing a new system, they failed to program it correctly for 20 months. The Governemnt Communications Authority covert AUSTEL’s March 1994 report (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at points 2–212) documented these failures, yet the regulator did not compel Telstra to act. The arbitrator was tasked with ensuring rectification—but it never happened. In fact, the problems worsened.
On 13 April 1993, AUSTEL reported to the government that the exchange was an ARK exchange—meaning it should have been staffed. This revelation underscores the extent of the deception. For over 30 years, I’ve battled not just Telstra, but also AUSTEL/ACMA, which misled the government about the true state of the infrastructure
🧭 Why This Matters
This could easily be your story. It was mine. And it continues to be the story of countless Australians who’ve been failed by institutions meant to protect them. The fight for accountability is far from over—but together, we can maintain the pressure.
Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office
• Over 900 subpostmasters were prosecuted.• Many were imprisoned, bankrupted, or forced into silence.• Some were driven to suicide, while others endured years of mental anguish and social stigma.
🏛️ AUSTEL’s Complicity: The Numbers Game
In April 1994, Telstra’s group general manager sent two letters to AUSTEL’s chair, urging revisions to the draft COT report. The original findings, based on surveys prompted by the briefcase evidence, estimated that up to 120,000 customers were experiencing COT-type faults. Telstra objected. And astonishingly, AUSTEL complied.
This was not a minor edit. It was a deliberate distortion of reality—a betrayal of public trust by a regulator tasked with protecting it. AUSTEL’s final report would note only that the number of affected customers was “substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”. The truth was buried.
⚖️ Legal Muscle and Intimidation
Behind Telstra’s public façade stood a legal team armed with resources and a ruthless approach. Evidence tampering, coercion, and intimidation became tools of the trade. Documents were withheld. Fault records were manipulated. The names of the complainants were concealed from me, preventing me from contacting potential clients who had tried, and failed, to reach my business.
Senator Richard Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, referenced these issues in Senate hearings, including the infamous “Problem 1” document that detailed systemic faults across Telstra’s network. Yet even as the truth surfaced, the machinery of denial continued to churn.
🎬 The Briefcase: A Real-Life Pulp Fiction
Like the mysterious briefcase in Pulp Fiction, the one left at my premises contained revelations that defied belief. It wasn’t glowing gold—it was glowing truth. And that truth was radioactive to those who had built their careers on silence and suppression.
📂 Inside the unloched Briefcase
In the annals of Australian telecommunications history, few scandals rival the calculated deception surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. At the heart of this saga lies a briefcase—left behind, perhaps carelessly, perhaps fatefully—on 3 June 1993 by two Telstra senior technical consultants. What it contained would unravel a web of lies, coercion, and institutional betrayal that stretched from the corridors of Telstra to the offices of the government regulator, AUSTEL.
Inside that briefcase were handwritten notes and internal documents that contradicted Telstra’s public claims. These records revealed that my phone faults had persisted for over eighteen months—not the sixteen days Telstra claimed during our commercial settlement in December 1992. The implications were damning: Telstra knowingly misled me, and by extension, the regulator and the public.
But the deception didn’t end there.
🔍 1. Primary Source VerificationStrengthen your claims with direct access to original documents and transcripts:• AUSTEL Reports (1994–1996): Especially the April 1994 report and subsequent quarterly updates. These show how findings were altered under Telstra’s influence.• Letters from Telstra to AUSTEL (April 8–9, 1994): These are smoking guns. They reveal direct pressure to revise customer fault estimates from 120,000 to “some hundreds”.• Senate Hansard Records: Particularly Senator Richard Alston’s remarks on the “Problem 1” document and Telstra’s network faults.• The Briefcase Documents: As catalogued on Absent Justice, these contain handwritten notes and internal memos that contradict Telstra’s public statements.⚖️ 2. Legal and Regulatory AnalysisExplore how Telstra’s legal team operated and how regulators failed:• Evidence Tampering & Coercion: Detailed on Absent Justice’s tampering archive.• ACMA’s Role Post-AUSTEL: Investigate continuity of personnel and policy failures that allowed misconduct to persist.• Australian Consumer Law (ACL): Section 18 on misleading and deceptive conduct—especially relevant to Telstra’s settlement behavior and nondisclosure during arbitration.🧠 3. Expert Commentary & Academic WorkBring in external voices to validate and contextualize your findings:• Karen Lee’s analysis in Federal Law Review links the COT affair to the adoption of Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, showing how regulatory culture shifted due to public outrage.• Legal case studies on silence as misleading conduct, such as Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky, can support your argument that Telstra’s nondisclosure during settlement was deceptive.🗣️ 4. Victim Testimonies & Case ComparisonsHumanize the scandal and show its systemic nature:• Collect affidavits or interviews from other COT claimants.• Compare Telstra’s tactics with other corporate cover-ups (e.g., Robodebt, Windrush, or the Horizon scandal).• Highlight patterns of intimidation, such as Telstra’s use of aggressive debt collectors ruled unlawful in Federal Court.🧭 5. Media and Cultural ImpactFrame the narrative in terms of public awareness and historical legacy:• Analyze coverage of the COT cases in mainstream media from the 1990s to now.• Draw parallels with Mr Bates vs The Post Office to show how dramatization can drive justice.• Consider producing a documentary or podcast series to amplify the story.
📂 Telstra’s Hidden Knowledge of Systemic Failures
What emerged as chillingly apparent from the documents Telstra released to us years later was the extent of its awareness regarding systemic failures within its network. It was undeniable that the corporation not only recognised these glaring issues but also had the means to rectify them—particularly in rural Australia, where numerous COT cases were focused.
🏕️ Rural Business Owners: Navigating a Minefield
For countless rural business owners at the start of our story, operating a telephone-dependent enterprise felt like navigating a treacherous minefield. In those days, the business landscape was dominated by outdated landlines. The internet was an alien concept, and reliance on email or mobile phones was virtually nonexistent.
Had these tools been in widespread use, the relentless issues with telephone service and faxing might not have jeopardised the future of so many COT cases. The fact that the simple act of checking emails or using mobile phones for daily business tasks didn’t become commonplace until the late 1990s underscores the technological void facing these operators.
Mobile phones were often useless in vast swathes of rural territory, with black spots lurking even on urban outskirts. By the end of the 1990s, this new technology had finally begun to infiltrate the business world.
🧠 Manipulating Public Perception with Chilling Precision
It’s difficult for today’s younger generations to fathom how, just two decades ago, a colossal entity like Telstra—supported by its government puppeteers—manipulated public perception with chilling efficacy.
They orchestrated a façade, convincing countless Australians that they were making a genuine effort to rectify the crumbling telecommunications network. In reality, however, they were entangled in a web of deceit, slapping ineffective band-aids on well-known problems while prioritising short-term profits over the needs of their customers.
💰 Privatisation Over People
This corrupt strategy allowed Telstra to postpone vital capital expenditures, all while privatisation loomed ominously on the agenda. The message was clear: allow shareholders to absorb the fallout while the core issues continued to fester, leaving many Australians at the mercy of an unworkable and deeply flawed system.
Deception Unmasked:
Pinnock failed to mention that he had previously misled Laurie James about my claims. I had warned Mr James that Dr Hughes lacked control over the arbitration process—exactly the flaw Pinnock now used to deflect responsibility. His testimony concealed the more profound corruption, leaving the committee in the dark.
🏛️ Pleas to Parliament: The Letters That Went Unanswered
In 2002, Darren and Jenny Lewis—the new owners of my business—continued writing to the Hon. David Hawker MP, pleading with him to force Telstra to address the ongoing problems in Cape Bridgewater. By 2004, Mr Hawker had become Speaker of the House of Representatives. He and I had been corresponding since 1992, and after selling the Holiday Camp in 2001, Cathy and I resumed writing to him in 2002. We even visited him in his electorate offices in Portland and Hamilton, and later in his office at Parliament House in Canberra—begging him to investigate the telephone faults Cathy was now experiencing next door to the Holiday Camp, in her seven-bedroom guest house.
🏚️ A New Dream, Still Haunted
After selling the Holiday Camp, Cathy and I relocated two historic homes—one from Melbourne and the other from Colac in country Victoria—and joined them together to create a new small business for Cathy. We called it the Seal Cove Guest House. But as David Hawker MP knows, we eventually gave up trying to build it. Not because of a lack of vision or effort, but because we couldn’t bear to keep imagining which phone calls weren’t reaching us.
We were broken—but we have never given up telling this story.
📉 A Promise Undone: The Phone That Broke the Business
Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting.
Even after I sold the business in December 2001—six years after my arbitration with Telstra, which spanned from November 23, 1993, to its premature, so-called conclusion on May 11, 1995—the problems persisted. This highly legalistic process, which government officials, claimants’ lawyers, and Canberra Parliament House media outlets were told would fix the ongoing faults, failed to do so. In my case, the faults had begun years before I purchased the business in late 1987.
🔁 The Cycle Continues: New Owners, Same Deceit
As discussed above and below, as well as throughout this tragic story, the sale of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in 2001 marked the beginning of a chain of events—driven by unresolved Telstra faults and government indifference—that ultimately led to the new owners’ bankruptcy by 2009.
Their downfall was a direct consequence of the same systemic betrayal that shattered my own life. Arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes, for reasons never explained in his official award—despite being legally bound to do so under the arbitration agreement and government documentation—failed to make a finding on the ongoing problems. His own technical advisors had warned him in writing on April 30, 1995, that further investigation was needed. Yet he only addressed historic complaints.
His failure to acknowledge the ongoing faults not only ruined my life, but—as this story so clearly shows—the lives of Darren and Jenny Lewis as well.
I devoted nearly two decades of my life—heart, soul, and unwavering hope—to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Yet, by December 2001, I was driven to sell it, not by choice but by a ruthless series of betrayals. The insidious phone faults that had tormented my business since 1988 continued to undermine its very foundation. Despite an arbitration process in 1994/95, government officials peddled empty reassurances, knowing full well that the arbitrator would remain powerless to issue a final ruling until Telstra's Arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) confirmed the absence of further issues. But the person in charge of this SVT process—acting more like a puppet in a corrupt game—abruptly halted the testing when the malfunctioning equipment exposed the truth behind Telstra's deceptive practices (See Telstra's Falsified SVT Report).
In the end, the sale price amounted to a mere fraction of the camp's true worth, a calculated move to strip away my legacy. I watched helplessly as my dream slipped through my fingers, fully aware that the new owners were stepping into the same treacherous trap that I had desperately struggled to escape.
• Lies, Deceit and Treachery – Chapter 1: This chapter exposes Telstra’s false claims during arbitration and the government’s complicity in suppressing the truth.• The Casualties of Telstra: A sobering reflection on the lives destroyed by Telstra’s misconduct, including the fate of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.
If removing the $250,000 liability caps for one section of the COT group—while leaving them intact for the rest—isn’t the epitome of corrupt and treacherous discrimination by Australia’s establishment, then what is?
Amanda Davis, then General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, had convinced Maureen to sign, assuring her that the $250,000 liability caps would allow us to pursue arbitration consultants for negligence. It was sold to us as a win-win. After years of battling Telstra, we believed we’d secured a protective clause.
We were wrong.
It was not until the day we were scheduled to sign the agreement, April 21, 1994, that we discovered it had been altered, specifically with the removal of liability clauses 25 and 26. Upon our refusal to sign the revised document due to these modifications, we encountered significant pressure to accept the altered terms, as failing to do so would jeopardise the arbitration process, necessitating legal action against Telstra. This situation presented a serious dilemma, as none of us possessed the financial means to pursue a lawsuit. Ultimately, we acquiesced to the removal of these essential clauses, unaware that Dr Hughes had previously conspired to alter them following Maureen Gillan's signing of her agreement on April 8, 1994. This is substantiated by a covert letter he sent to the arbitration administrator FOI folio A59256/7 → Open letter File No 54-B. This underhanded manoeuvre underscores the reprehensible conduct of the arbitrator and reveals the systemic corruption inherent in the entire process.
This betrayal didn’t just affect me. It fractured the integrity of the entire COT arbitration process. It turned a promise of justice into a trap.
• We were the ones who had already exposed Telstra’s faults.• We were the ones whose cases posed the greatest threat to Telstra’s privatization.• We were the ones who had the most to lose—and the least protection.
• Secret meetings were held without claimant representation• Vital documents were filtered and withheld from me• Binding decisions were used to erase unresolved faults• Government officials turned a blind eye to protect Telstra’s sale
.• Ericsson was named as the main culprit in many technical failures that crippled COT businesses.• Despite its misconduct being exposed globally, Ericsson continued to influence the arbitration process through its entanglement with Telstra.• The Australian Government denied compensation to victims, even as Ericsson’s role became undeniable.
• Secret technical assessments conducted outside the agreed framework.• Undisclosed acquisitions, such as Ericsson’s purchase of Lane Telecommunications, which compromised independent oversight.• Government silence, even as international regulators condemned Ericsson’s conduct.This wasn’t just a failure of process—it was a betrayal of trust. The very institutions tasked with protecting citizens instead shielded a multinational corporation whose practices had already been deemed criminal abroad.
• Regulatory capture: When corporations influence regulators, justice becomes selective.• International hypocrisy: Australia’s failure to act stands in contrast to the SEC’s decisive exposure of Ericsson.• The cost of silence: Lives, businesses, and legacies were shattered while officials looked the other way.
• No arbitrator ruling on the core technical issues.• No opportunity for me to challenge Telstra’s conduct.• No transparency, despite the regulator’s duty to protect consumers.
• Who truly governs our regulators?• What happens when oversight bodies become complicit in concealment?• How many other claimants were denied justice under similar conditions?
🌐 International Vindication, Domestic Betrayal: The BCI Cover-Up
To fully grasp how government corruption became so glaringly evident, one must examine the Australian Government’s decision to pressure Telstra into seeking outside assistance from Bell Canada International Inc (BCI). This move was intended to assess whether the systemic telecommunications faults reported by the four COT Cases—including myself—were legitimate. We were losing business due to mismanagement, and our claims were not the cries of disgruntled customers, but documented failures.
BCI was brought to Australia to conduct testing. However, I personally proved that BCI could not have performed the alleged 15,950 test calls into my local exchange over the five-day, four-hour period they claimed. The math didn’t add up, and it still doesn't add up in 2025. The logistics were impossible.
During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, and every act of betrayal as this corruption entered another horrific phase, known as the Robodebt affair.
A Precursor to Robodebt
This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.
The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.
Is there a troubling connection between the recent Robodebt scandal, the British Post Office scandal depicted in the Mr Bates image, and the murky software issues involving Ericsson, Lane, and Telstra that caught the attention of the U.S. Securities Exchange?
This situation reeks of corruption and deceit, potentially setting the stage for a class action lawsuit surrounding the intentional suppression of evidence regarding Telstra's serious and ongoing billing problems with the Ericsson-installed exchanges. These issues echo the infamous Fujitsu Horizon software scandal that devastated the British Post Office, as well as the disastrous Ericsson AXE billing software failures impacting countless Telstra customers. It seems both the British and Australian governments, which have a vested interest in these corporations, are complicit in hiding these troubling revelations, sacrificing the lives of many for their own gain. The betrayal is vast and insidious, leaving devastation in its wake across two nations.
According to the U.S. Securities Exchange link in Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, there were serious allegations that Telstra's value might have been grossly inflated during its sale, suggesting a web of deceit and corruption at play.
🕳️ Ericsson’s Infiltration: A Thirty-Year Betrayal
Learn how the Robodebt concealment episode was no different from Ericsson of Sweden's infiltration of the Australian arbitration system—installing faulty AXE telephone equipment that was under investigation by the arbitrator. In a shocking turn of events, the investigation into Ericsson was abruptly halted after the company went to extraordinary lengths to purchase the arbitration consultants. This ensured that the confidential material they had collected during the process remained buried, resulting in devastating consequences for up to 120,000 Telstra customers.
AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) breached its statutory obligation to more than 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers, as the following evidence (Open Letter File No/11) shows. By hiding the truth from those customers and the Australian Telecom/Telstra consumer, the lives of thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens lives were ruined not just by the previously faulty installation of the Ericsson telephone AXE equipment in Telstra's telephone exchange but also by the grossly defective Ericsson testing equipment that was used to verify whether the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was still faulty.
In simple terms, AUSTEL/ACMA allowed Telstra during the COT arbitrations, which our story here is about, the governemnt communications regulator allowing Telstra to place a festering, gangrene-tainted bandage over a festering wound, which in turn made that wound even more corrupted.
The most recent 7:30 ABC Television news report indicates that Optus is now attributing the most recent outages and call dropouts to a problem created by Ericsson. This might well be the truth, as our Ericsson side of this COT Story shows.
(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
The letters dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s Group General Manager to the Chair of AUSTEL (now ACMA), reveal that AUSTEL was not operating as an independent regulator. Instead, these communications demonstrate that Telstra was able to influence AUSTEL’s official findings in the COT report. In multiple instances, Telstra explicitly requested amendments to AUSTEL’s conclusions—and AUSTEL complied. For example, Telstra advised the Chairperson:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. … (See Open Letter File No/11)
And the next day:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal public report notes:
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
It was a treacherous betrayal of public trust when a government regulator drastically altered its findings—slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from over 120,000 to barely 50. This wasn’t a clerical error. It was a deliberate and sinister deception, engineered to protect Telstra and mislead the public. Such manipulation undermines the very foundation of regulatory integrity, casting a long, corrosive shadow over those entrusted with power.
Amid these glaring telecommunications failures, Rupert Murdoch and FOX appear to have been rewarded, their interests seemingly prioritised while everyday Australians were left to suffer. The cost was devastating: bankruptcies, prolonged court battles, and shattered lives—all fueled by the lies and omissions of government bureaucrats. This wasn’t just mismanagement. It was collusion, and it defrauded the nation.
10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.
11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the
At the heart of this betrayal stood the arbitrator, who willfully ignored the looming crisis tied to the Ericsson telephone exchange—a system known to be causing widespread faults. By allowing these issues to persist unaddressed during arbitration, the arbitrator denied the COT Cases any chance of appeal. The damage was locked in. And when Ericsson quietly absconded to Sweden, they took with them thousands of confidential business and personal records—documents entrusted during arbitration under the false promise of return.
It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:
” 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/)
Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ericsson had infiltrated Telstra’s telecommunications infrastructure, acquiring confidential information from the COT Cases. Despite being made aware of this, the Australian government did nothing to assist us in recovering the Ericsson arbitration claim documents—documents that, under Clause Six of the Arbitration Agreement, were supposed to be returned within six weeks of the arbitrator’s conclusion on May 11, 1995.
It is now 2025, and I still do not have those files.
“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 my 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 states:
“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.”
❓ Where Are My Ericsson AXE Files?
Given Ericsson’s troubling history, can we truly assume they never disclosed the COT Cases’ claims against them and Telstra—a company that still relies on Ericsson as a principal supplier? It feels absurd.
And yet, the pressing question remains:
Where are the Ericsson AXE files I submitted during arbitration in 1994?
The pervasive power of a faceless global corporation has insidiously manipulated Australia’s arbitration system, transforming it into a tool for treachery and betrayal. This corporate giant ruthlessly suppresses dissent, twisting the very essence of justice into an unrecognisable form. As a result, innocent individuals are left in a state of profound anguish and abandonment, enduring countless years of torment as they struggle against this monstrous entity. This corporation's willingness to strike deals with even the most malevolent forces, illustrated by the image that follows, reveals the depths of its depravity and the dire consequences faced by those trapped in its web of greed and cruelty.
🎭 Ericsson: Puppet Master of Deceit
If the reader has not yet grasped the staggering implications of Rupert Murdoch and FOX’s $400 million windfall—facilitated by the Australian-owned Telstra Corporation—then consider the deeper reality. Countless Australians (who were among the 120,000 COT-type fault complainants) had to pay Telstra’s inflated bills or endure gruelling, costly legal battles. This injustice was compounded by the covert complicity of AUSTEL (now ACMA). This government regulator collaborated with Telstra to obscure the truth from both the courts and the arbitration process, revealing that Australia had a systemic billing problem.
Many of these individuals—already suffering severe financial and emotional distress—had legitimate claims tied to malfunctioning Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Yet their grievances were systematically ignored, buried beneath layers of bureaucratic denial and legal obstruction.
The most shocking betrayal, however, stems from Ericsson, Telstra’s principal technical supplier. With calculated precision, Ericsson exploited the arbitration system, manipulating its mechanisms to serve their own agenda. While Australians struggled to navigate the legal maze alone, Ericsson operated behind the scenes—shielded from scrutiny, protected by silence, and empowered by influence.
This manipulation didn’t just erode trust in the arbitration process—it exposed the vulnerability of consumers, caught in the crossfire of corporate collusion and regulatory failure. It is a story of power without accountability, and of ordinary citizens sacrificed to protect extraordinary interests.
This is not just a story of technical failure. It is a national scandal, a moral reckoning, and a call to expose the machinery of deception that left sixteen Australian citizens fighting for justice in the ruins of a corrupted process.
In late 1999, Frank Blount, then CEO of Telstra, co-authored a manuscript with the Telstra Board after they brokered a $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch, detailing the numerous problems Telstra was experiencing with its telecommunications infrastructure. The book, titled Managing in Australia (available online), can still be purchased today. (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...
On pages 132 and 133, the co-author reveals the issues Telstra was experiencing with its 1800 customers. The co-author wrote:
- “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem."
- "The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).
🧨 Concealed Evidence, Manufactured Legitimacy: The BCI Testing Scandal
Instead of allowing me to proceed with a commercial resolution process—an established framework designed to validate and present my claims—the government forced me into arbitration, derailing my original path and subjecting me to over $300,000 in fees across thirteen gruelling months. This coercion occurred despite the government’s own investigations already confirming the validity of my claims.
The evidence was not vague or speculative. It was meticulously documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings AUSTEL’s, spanning points 2 to 212. Each entry reinforced the legitimacy of my assertions. AUSTEL, Australia’s telecommunications regulator, internally acknowledged that my claims against Bell Canada International (BCI) were factual—yet these findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitrator, cloaking the proceedings in a veil of deception.
One of the most glaring inconsistencies lies in the geographical impossibility of BCI’s testing claims. The only telephone exchange capable of handling the alleged 15,590 test calls was located in Warrnambool—over 100 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater, where BCI claimed the tests occurred. This discrepancy alone should have rendered their report invalid.
Further reinforcing this truth, two Telstra technicians submitted statutory declarations on 12 December 1994, unequivocally stating that Warrnambool was the sole facility equipped to support the technical demands of the CCS7 testing facility. This was the facility that BCI stated in their formal findings was used. These declarations not only expose the limitations of BCI’s claims but also highlight the deeper layers of concealment and manipulation that plagued the arbitration process.
This was not a technical oversight. It was a calculated suppression of truth, engineered to protect Telstra and its partners at the expense of justice.
When I sought formal backing to pursue BCI Canada, the Australian Government refused—despite the Canadian Government stepping forward to support me. Their recognition of my evidence and their willingness to assist stand in stark contrast to the silence and obstruction I faced at home.
As a gesture of gratitude, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment in the introduction to this COT story. Their support is a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders even when it’s denied at home.
⚖️ The Test That Never Reached The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange.
On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns about the accuracy of test results submitted by Telstra’s legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now Herbert Smith Freehills. These results, supposedly from Bell Canada International Inc., were used to assess the reliability of my phone service during arbitration. They were even sent to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was preparing to evaluate my mental health in Portland, Victoria, Australia.
Bell Canada International Inc. was brought from Canada specifically to test the telephone exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, and claimed to have made 13,590 test calls into the exchange servicing my business, boasting a 99.8% success rate—better than global standards. But there was a fatal flaw: the CCS7 equipment they referenced didn’t exist at the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The nearest compatible exchange was 112 kilometres away in Warrnambool. So where did those calls actually go?
This wasn’t just a technical error—it was a deliberate misrepresentation. And it shaped the arbitrator’s final decision, dismissing my claims of ongoing faults.
🧭 The Canadian Consultant Who Told the Truth
In March 1995, DMR Group Inc. from Canada was reluctantly pulled into the arbitration, but not before the original consultants had confessed to a massive and troubling conflict of interest ten months prior. Telstra, with its web of influence, had secured nearly every prominent telecommunications expert in Victoria as its hired guns, leaving me isolated and powerless in my fight to prove that my ongoing telephone problems had not been investigated under the ambit of the arbitration procedures.
Paul Howell, a Canadian consultant with a reputable façade, was dispatched as the principal arbitration consultant, which seemed to be a strategic ploy. Unbeknownst to him, an ex-Telstra employee had been secretly appointed to investigate my claims, and a finding had been crafted on my case as early as April 8, 1995, even before Howell arrived in Australia in the second week of April. He was fed a limited view, restricted to the deceitful findings presented in David Reid's draft report from Lane Telecommunications. The evidence he reviewed was tainted and manipulated, as our story shows.
🕵️♂️ FILE 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 - The Logbook That Vanished
When silence replaced accountability
File 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006, presented to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). This statement, sworn by Des Direen—a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra who rose to the rank of Principal Investigator—reveals unsettling truths. Direen boldly admits that, following his departure from Telstra in 1999 and 2000, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group in investigating the dark web of fraud allegations tied to the COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases.
In Points 21 and 22 of his statement, Direen recounts a troubling episode during his time at Telstra. He was tasked with investigating suspected illegal interference with telephone lines at the Portland exchange. Yet, upon arrival, he discovered that the Portland telephone exchange logbook had mysteriously vanished.
In a chilling turn, when he contacted Melbourne for guidance, he was told to stand down—another department within Telstra was “handling” the matter. This raises serious questions: Why was the investigation stifled? Who was protecting whom?
Direen further noted that the complainant from Cape Bridgewater was entangled in the COT cases, directly implicating my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in a tangled web of deceit. These revelations cast long shadows, hinting at a coordinated effort to suppress the truth and shield Telstra from scrutiny.
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?
🔥 A System Rigged: Collusion at the Heart of Arbitration
This saga is far more than a collection of technical failures; it is a damning testament to the complete breakdown of public trust, rampant abuse of legal authority, and the chilling silencing of courageous whistleblowers. The COT Cases expose a nightmarish web of collusion among government officials, corporate operatives, and legal professionals—a treacherous triad capable of devastating lives and tearing apart the very fabric of our democratic institutions.
⚖️ Justice Subverted: The Machinery of Betrayal
As we delve into the shadowy corridors of power, we confront the horrifying reality that bureaucrats in charge of global agencies routinely turn a blind eye to the gross inadequacies in their nations’ arbitration and mediation processes. This deliberate ignorance fuels an unrelenting cycle of injustice, leaving countless individuals to suffer while desperately seeking alternatives to conventional court proceedings. Unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated by deceitful criminals and corrupt politicians, often facilitated by unscrupulous lawyers who manipulate these processes into tools of oppression.
The scale of their moral decay is staggering; descriptors like "shameful," "hideous," and "treacherous" scarcely capture the true extent of their repugnant actions. What transpired within the COT arbitrations was not merely a bureaucratic oversight; it was a calculated and concerted effort steeped in corruption. This disturbing narrative of collusion and betrayal uncovers the shocking lengths to which government agencies went to protect Telstra from scrutiny, intricately manipulating legal mechanisms to unjustly target sixteen hardworking Australian citizens.
This is not simply an administrative failure; it represents one of the most grotesque injustices since Federation—a national disgrace that cries out for reckoning and justice. The complicity of so many lawyers in allowing this to unfold is a dark stain on our legal system, a betrayal that starkly illustrates the depths of corruption that have infiltrated the very core of our society.
🏛️ The Institute Entrapped: IAMA’s Complicity in Silence
The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) has been entangled in my claims since late 1995, with a cursory review conducted in 2001. Recently, I uncovered a troubling truth: government influence has insidiously infiltrated their investigations into my serious allegations regarding the arbitrator’s conduct and Telstra’s unlawful actions—conduct I firmly believe borders on criminality.
In June 2009, IAMA informed me they would continue their inquiries—a gesture that felt more like a bureaucratic performance than a genuine pursuit of justice.
📬 The Eleventh Remedy Pursued: A Trail of Submissions Lost
Beginning in July 2009, I submitted a series of detailed documents at IAMA’s request, hoping to shed light on the corruption I had endured. This exchange continued through November 2009, and for a brief moment, I believed the truth might finally prevail.
But since then, IAMA has responded only with vague, evasive communications, refusing to issue findings or return the twenty-three submissions I painstakingly prepared. These documents are not just paper—they are the embodiment of my fight for justice, now trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth (The eleventh remedy pursued).
Feeling abandoned, I took the bold step of publishing my story on absentjustice.com, hoping that somewhere, an institute exists with the courage to confront the evidence. The shadows of complicity loom large, and I invite you to delve into this dark and twisted narrative. Your attention may be the catalyst needed to expose a more profound, more corrupt truth.
📜 False Testimony and the Mockery of Justice
On December 12, 1994, Telstra submitted nine separate arbitration witness statements, all signed under oath and cleverly countersigned in the presence of their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These statements falsely proclaimed that my business had never encountered billing problems, a blatant manipulation of the truth. Furthermore, Frank Blount's co-authorship of (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... four years after the conclusion of my arbitration exemplifies a corrupt betrayal, one that mocks and undermines the very foundations of the arbitration system in Australia.
Even now, in 2025, thirty years after this egregious breach of trust, the claimants remain trapped in a cycle of silence and despair.
🧠 The Machinery of Corruption
Delve into the dark underbelly of horrendous crimes, deceitful criminals, and the corrupt politicians and lawyers who manipulate Australia’s legal profession. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface of the malevolence exhibited by these lawbreakers and the rampant government corruption infecting the system.
Uncover the insidious issues within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT (Claim of Territory) arbitrations—an arena where justice was corrupted and twisted beyond recognition.
Explore ghastly instances of foreign bribery, deceitful practices, and kleptocracy, revealing corruption that poses immense challenges to the very fabric of society. The website AbsentJustice.com serves as a chilling portal into this world, triggering a deeper examination of political corruption and providing a grotesque portrayal of criminal activities—including widespread fraud.
• George Close, a respected technical consultant for the COT Cases, compiled a 21-page report based on extensive telecommunications data and industry contacts, particularly in Canada. This report was intended to expose faults in Ericsson AXE equipment used by Telstra and guide future improvements.• According to the archive at AbsentJustice.com, Ericsson had a pecuniary interest in Telstra, and their acquisition of Lane Telecommunications—Telstra’s arbitration technical advisor—created a conflict of interest. Lane was involved in assessing Ericsson equipment during arbitration, yet was owned by Ericsson during that time.• The COT Cases were denied access to appeal, even though Ericsson’s AXE faults were later acknowledged. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and the handling of technical evidence.
• While there is no direct evidence publicly confirming that Ericsson transported the Close report to Sweden, the absence of the report from the arbitration record, combined with Ericsson’s history of withholding internal reports (as seen in the Iraq scandal), suggests a pattern of document suppression.• Ericsson has faced multiple investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for misconduct in various countries, including concealment of internal findings and unethical business practices.
• The failure to compensate George Close or other contributors, despite the strategic value of their work, reflects a broader disregard for ethical standards.• The Australian government’s refusal to investigate the arbitration failures, despite mounting evidence, compounds the injustice faced by the COT Cases.• The loss of the Close report—a document that could have reshaped arbitration outcomes and exposed systemic faults—remains a symbol of the institutional betrayal experienced by whistleblowers.
It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:
” 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/)
📡 Ericsson, Arbitration, and the Vanishing Files: A Global Scandal
The U.S. Department of Justice has made shocking discoveries about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations, uncovering disturbing links to international corruption and even terrorist organisations. These revelations cast a harsh light on the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases, exposing a web of deceit that raises urgent questions:
How was Ericsson allowed to operate unchallenged in Australia—especially during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings?
One of the most troubling aspects is Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a firm that was actively serving as a technical consultant during the COT arbitrations. This move wasn’t just unethical—it was a deliberate manipulation of the process. It occurred while serious allegations were being raised about Telstra and Ericsson’s reliance on the discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment (see File 10-B )—a system abandoned by multiple countries due to its critical deficiencies.
And yet, the Australian government remained silent.
🧠 Connections to Terrorism and Suppressed Evidence
The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t stop at bribery. They uncovered alarming evidence of Ericsson’s past dealings with terrorist groups, including ISIS. According to court documents, Ericsson withheld key details from U.S. investigators, including operations in ISIS-held areas of Iraq. These revelations are not speculation—they’re documented in federal filings and investigative reports.
The internal fax from the arbitration legal advisors (refer to File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541) uncovers a disturbing acknowledgement that, should they choose to investigate my claims, the Bell Canada test could never have been conducted at the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. The statement within this fax, where John, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declares that his "POSITION IS NOT TO OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS," reeks of a calculated effort to suppress the truth.
🕳️ The Erasure of Justice: Clauses Vanished, Truth Denied
When I uncovered the shocking truth that two arbitration consultants tied to the infamous “Can of Worms” fax header had been brazenly exonerated from all liability in my arbitration, I felt a sense of betrayal wash over me. This exoneration occurred after Clause 24 had been deceitfully altered and Clauses 25 and 26 had been completely erased from the agreement—all while my arbitration lawyers had given their stamp of approval to the original, untainted document. It was a treacherous manoeuvre.
In desperation, I turned to John Pinnock, the very person implicated in this web of deceit and also the administrator of my arbitration. I demanded that he release all pre-arbitration documents related to Ericsson, BCI, and the shady drafting of the agreement. I invoked the rules of the arbitration agreement, expecting integrity to prevail.
However, on 10 February 1996, I received a cold and calculated response from John Pinnock. Writing as both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the administrator of my arbitration, he callously refused to assist me in this matter, stating:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
(File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)
This troubling revelation casts a dark shadow over the integrity of the entire process, especially in light of the previously acknowledged, falsified BCI testing results that Telstra deceitfully employed to manipulate the arbitrator into believing my business faced no ongoing issues—when in reality, the problems were stark and undeniable. Had a proper investigation been conducted, the exposure of these treacherous practices could have provided me with an opportunity to challenge the unjust ruling against me. Their silence is not just complicit; it is a telling indicator of the corruption and betrayal lurking beneath the surface.
The twelve narratives that follow serve as a seamless continuation of the content mentioned on the homepage above. It has been thoughtfully edited to enhance clarity and engagement, with the latest revisions completed on October 15, 2025. This update brings fresh insights and refined details to ensure that the reader is fully immersed in the experience we aim to convey.
The second narrative, titled "Confronting Despair," is a continuation of the above homepage, which we have now condensed for easier reading.
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.
Seven days after receiving an eagerly anticipated letter from the Canadian Government, I was delighted to receive another letter of support on July 15, 1995. This correspondence arrived two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement regarding my incomplete claim, which had left many questions unanswered.
In this moment, I was grateful to Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA). She graciously provided me with an open letter, a token of her support that I could share with individuals of my choosing. This thoughtful gesture not only reinforced her belief in my integrity and professionalism but also served as a beacon of hope amidst the uncertainty I was facing.
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Two months after I received a letter from the Canadian Government dated July 7, 1995, Amanda Davis, who held the position of General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL—the government agency responsible for overseeing communications—expressed her concerns to Senator Ron Boswell. This discussion took place just four months following the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, who had prematurely delivered his findings regarding my case.
Amanda was acutely aware that I had been systematically denied access to crucial documents needed to effectively build my case against Telecom/Telstra. This lack of documentation placed me at a significant disadvantage.
During the meeting, Senator Boswell, visibly emotional, spoke passionately about the deep injustices endured by the four COT claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. He highlighted the numerous challenges we four had faced both before and during our arbitration proceedings. His remarks, in the Senate under the heading "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST", state in part:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
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.
