OPEN LETTER dated 25/09/2025

While the five chapters mentioned above confirm that the arbitration officials deliberated on my claim, these officials remain unaccountable for the injustice that occurred leading up to my arbitration, during its 13-month duration, and in the years following its conclusion on 11 May 1995.

A Sinister and Calculated Smear

A false and deeply defamatory allegation was circulated in a calculated and treacherous manoeuvre to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal. The claim—that I had verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case—was not spontaneous; it was manufactured. It originated from John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was delivered directly to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

This was not a misunderstanding or an error, but a deliberate act.

I categorically deny the allegation in Pinnock's letter of February 27, 1996—a letter crafted to mislead, smear, and poison the well as my appeal threatened to expose the truth. Pinnock falsely informed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator's wife at 2 a.m., implying harassment, instability, and misconduct. However, my telephone account—the indisputable record—shows only one call ever made to the arbitrator's residence between April 21, 1994, the day I signed the arbitration agreement, and the date of Pinnock's letter.

That call occurred at 8:02 p.m. on November 28, 1995—not at 2 a.m., not in the dead of night, and certainly not in the manner described by Pinnock.

The truth is far more straightforward—and far more inconvenient for those who sought to bury it.

That evening, I phoned Dr Hughes because explosive new evidence had arrived, proving that Telstra had fraudulently fabricated its TF200 arbitration report. This evidence, sourced from Telstra's own laboratory, showed that the test results provided to the arbitrator were false. I called to alert him that I had couriered this material to his office via Golden Couriers Messenger Services of North Melbourne. My intention was simply to ensure he was aware of the evidence and to arrange a meeting after my five-hour train journey from Melbourne.

When Mrs Hughes answered and told me that Dr Hughes was overseas, she asked who was calling. Fearing that my real name might alarm her—particularly after Senator Ron Boswell had publicly condemned Dr Hughes on 20 September 1995 for allowing himself to be forced into using Telstra's arbitration rules instead of the government-endorsed agreement—I gave the name of someone she would recognise: John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager.

I later wrote to Pinnock, explaining why I had used Rundell's name and made the call. The evidence I was trying to deliver was dynamite—and they knew it.

Yet Pinnock's statement to Laurie James was more than merely misleading; it was a fabrication designed to discredit me and shield the arbitration process from the truth.
His claim reads:

• "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 2.00 am) and spoke to Dr Hughes' wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit."(File 209-AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

If I wrote to the TIO, as he claims in his letter to Laurie James, why hasn't he produced my letter?

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

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

Amid the complexities of my pending appeal, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration. They advised me to request all documents related to the arbitration that underpinned my agreement, having uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it that could serve as grounds to challenge Dr Hughes' unjust award. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.

As detailed in Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—were provided with an additional 13 months to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence. I, however, was not granted the same 13-month extension.

Dr. Gordon Hughes's decision to deny me the same thirteen-month extension not only hindered my case but also represented a significant act of discrimination. This decision was a deliberate and unjustifiable departure from the principles of fairness, fundamentally undermining the integrity of the arbitration process and the equitable treatment that all claimants deserved.

By denying me the opportunity to fully present my case, Dr Hughes effectively discriminated against me. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra could definitively verify that no further systemic phone issues were impacting my business. This oversight not only undermined my claims but also left my business vulnerable to ongoing, unaddressed problems.

Dr. Gordon Hughes

To be clear: had Dr Gordon Hughes granted his own arbitration consultants the additional weeks they explicitly requested in their evaluation report dated April 30, 1995, the outcome of my arbitration would have been entirely different. The consultants—DMR & Lanes—recognised the complexities of the case and understood that the evidence required diligent, in-depth examination. They were fully aware that the material was intricate and critical to uncovering the truth.

However, Dr. Hughes callously refused their request. He shut down the investigation, preventing them from accessing the very documents that later enabled Darren Kearney to expose the shocking reality. This was not a mere administrative blunder but a calculated act—an intentional manoeuvre to bury the truth and protect Telstra from the consequences of their malfeasance.

The evidence Darren Kearney of AUSTEL (now ACMA) ultimately unearthed was contained in the very documents Dr Hughes denied his own experts, despite their written request for additional time on April 30, 1995. This was no mere coincidence; it was a violation of justice—a discriminatory act that denied me my rightful chance to prove my case.

By denying the consultants the necessary time and resources, Dr. Hughes effectively orchestrated my downfall. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra provided clear evidence that no further systemic faults were undermining my business. Instead, he pressed ahead recklessly, fully aware that network issues were ongoing and unresolved, inflicting devastating damage on my operations.

This was not just a procedural lapse; it was a profound betrayal of the arbitration process designed to deliver justice. His refusal left my business vulnerable to the relentless problems the arbitration was intended to resolve. It allowed Telstra's deep-rooted faults to fester unchecked for years, ensuring that the truth—the truth those consultants were poised to uncover—remained hidden.

In the end, the message is clear: the system was never designed to protect me; it was a construct intended solely to shield Telstra and its actions.

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

• I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. I will not be providing you with copies of any documents held by this office Open Letter File No 57-C.

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

Dr. Hughes was at the centre of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose his secret role as an "assessor" in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he approved Telstra's self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren't mere oversights but calculated, conspiratorial moves to bury the truth.

By October 1995, five months after my arbitration concluded, I was compelled to bring these deceptive practices to the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Following questionable counsel from Law Partners of Melbourne, I contacted Mr John Wynack, the Ombudsman's Director of Investigations. Together, we peeled back layers of Telstra's deception, confronting their claims that the file had been "destroyed"—a blatant lie designed to shield the rot beneath.

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

That alone wasn't enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings (case V2008/1836), followed by a further ten in 2011 (case 2010/4634), only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.

Even now, in 2026, I stand on the precipice of history empty-handed, blocked from accessing the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it's woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.

Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2026, three decades after the incident.

The Disclosure That Never Came

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

I enclose copies of letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I want to discuss several issues arising from these letters, including:

• the cost of responding to the allegations;

• the implications for the arbitration procedure if I fully and frankly disclose the facts to Mr. James.

(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

That sentence gave me pause.

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

On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft letter he intended to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of my complaints. He stated:

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

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

  206)

This Wasn't a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.

Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a purportedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully accredited by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had genuinely conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?

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

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

I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. Instead, Dr. Hughes opted for silence, containment, and a blatant disregard for the ethical obligations of his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.

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

Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity

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

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

Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect, and Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB's involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Despite this, Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable, allowing Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the pending arbitration appeal before the Institute of Arbitrators.

Public Interest and Ongoing Influence

It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to disregard the truth about their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations casts a shadow over their credibility and raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. While Dr Hughes continues as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave Lawyers and Mr Rundell manages arbitration centres in two major cities, their ongoing silence and apparent lack of concern regarding potential repercussions are profoundly troubling. This conduct paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be concealing.

This is not just my story, but a warning, a call to action, and a demand for accountability.

I refuse to be silenced.

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