Uncover the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control aspects of the legal profession in Australia. "Shameful, hideous, and treacherous" barely begin to describe these lawbreakers and their vile actions within the government.

Delve into the serious issue of malfeasance in public office.

Terms such as "Gross Government Corruption," "Bribery," and "Kickbacks" have become all too common in Australian arbitration and mediation. Corruption within the public service, interwoven with misleading and deceptive conduct, obstructs justice in the Australian arbitration system. Often accompanied by fraud, extortion, and collusion, these acts create a toxic environment where narcissistic profiteering thrives.

The narcotic grip of bribery and graft undermines public trust and perpetuates injustice. This criminal profiteering erodes the foundations of fairness and accountability. The systemic nature of these crimes reveals a pattern of deceit and treachery that demands urgent reform and transparency to restore integrity to the arbitration process. Consider the plight of fourteen small business operators, calling themselves Casualties of Telstra, who formed a united group of phone subscribers. Their phone service was so poor that customers drove up to 4 hours to reach them and inform them of the massive problems they were experiencing.

As one example, I provided the government with 66 letters collected between 1992 and 1994. These letters detailed how people, hearing I was still in business, wrote to me, offering their addresses in the hope that I might survive this ordeal. While many businesses experienced similar issues, Telstra dismissed them as minor and our claims as frivolous.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned both the national telephone network and Telecom (now Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly and allowed the network to deteriorate. When our businesses collapsed under the weight of faulty telephone services, we sought help through a government-endorsed arbitration process, only to find ourselves in an uneven battle we could never win. Our phone faults remained unresolved. Our evidence was withheld. Our integrity was attacked. Our livelihoods were destroyed.

We lost millions, our health deteriorated, and many lost their marriages, homes, and futures. Yet the architects of this betrayal, who have manipulated the system for over two decades, remain entrenched in positions of power today.

In December 2001, I faced an unfortunate circumstance that forced me to sell my business for its land value alone. This distressing decision stemmed from ongoing telephone faults that Telstra had repeatedly failed to rectify since May 11, 1995. This date was significant, as it marked the moment when the arbitrator issued his award prematurely, fully aware that Telstra had not honoured its commitment to resolve my telephone issues, a commitment clearly outlined in the arbitration process I had agreed to on April 21, 1994. During this troubling time, several television stations were eager to share our story; we, the COT (Customers of Telstra) cases, had been subjected to discrimination that garnered attention across Australia. The issue gained further prominence when it was reported in the Senate that Rupert Murdoch and Fox were set to receive a staggering $400 million for their inability to meet their obligations to fix their cabling within the stipulated timeframe.

In a glaring contradiction, despite Telstra's failure to set the same type of deadline to resolve the persistent telephone issues affecting the COT cases, we were still held liable for exorbitant arbitration professional fees—hundreds of thousands of dollars—while we recovered only 30% of those costs. In my case specifically, I had sought the expertise of a forensic accountant to evaluate the financial losses I incurred. To my dismay, despite the thorough assessment, I was compensated with only 11% of the total value that three different forensic accountants determined I had lost. Notably, one of these accountants served as the government accountant for several ministers before ultimately becoming a National Party Senator in 2006, adding another layer of complexity to an already convoluted situation.

The following YouTube video, despite its poor quality (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdNMcM03DI&t=309s), illustrates the trauma experienced by the nine COT Cases who were interviewed. These individuals were interviewed after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees to have Telstra address their ongoing telephone problems as part of the government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes. This endorsement served as an incentive for us to agree to a system that the Telstra board and middle management knew could not meet the commitments we made when we signed our various agreements.

This situation is reminiscent of the experience of Murdoch and FOX, as noted by the Senate, in which the Telstra board failed to meet the deadline to resolve cabling problems. Despite this failure, Murdoch and FOX were awarded $400 million when Telstra failed to fulfil its obligations.

It was evident that the deal was flawed from the beginning. Telstra and its board assured both the government and the COT Cases that they would rectify the ongoing telephone faults as part of the arbitration process, but the arbitrator and mediators issued awards without requiring Telstra to comply with the commitments it had made to the COTs and various senators, namely Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Richard Alston.

In a segment on Channel Nine Television's Sunday Small Business show, the announcer discusses several issues related to the failed COT arbitrations. I assert that the Bell Canada International tests conducted at Cape Bridgewater were grossly inadequate and should not have been used as defence material by Telstra during the arbitration. The interviewer received conclusive proof that the tests were known to be flawed when Telstra submitted them. If I hadn't provided this evidence to the show after spending over two days interviewing me and filming around my beloved Cape Bridgewater, which Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, also loved, having stayed twice in my 1870s converted self-contained Presbyterian Church, it may have gone unnoticed.

Helen and Geoff Handbury, renowned for their unwavering dedication to philanthropy, played a pivotal role in the creation of a stunning new Portland Life Saving Club along the picturesque foreshore of Cape Bridgewater. It was during this project that I had the pleasure of introducing Graham, a member of the Channel Nine Television crew, who came to capture the breathtaking beauty of the area surrounding my once-beloved holiday camp. Even now, at 82, I find myself haunted by memories of that cherished jewel I was forced to let go. My journey has not been an easy one; for twenty-six harrowing years, I battled against a web of falsehoods spun by Telstra, alongside an arbitrator and his team of dubious consultants. This relentless struggle culminated in a devastating heart attack in 2018, landing me in the Royal Melbourne Hospital for three gruelling weeks—a stark reminder of the toll that such conflict can take on both body and soul.

Both Channel Nine and the producer of the Small Business Show have been unable to provide me with a copy of the BCI evidence used during filming. The show's producer claims that the information I requested after the broadcast is not available. However, I have informed both the Senate and Telstra that when the Senate sought confirmation of my claims, Telstra's information was also misleading. This information can be accessed through the following link: .

Tampering with Evidence

After Mr Anderson completed his testing on 27 April, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)

Clicking on the TF200 telephone below will show that a second photo I received under FOI was taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming that the note I placed on it was pretty clean when it was received at Telstra. See Open Letter File No/37 exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, who smothered the grease over the front of the telephone after it left my business, and who poured the sticky beer residue into the same now dirty telephone, insinuating I was a hopeless drunk?

This report raises several questions. When the phone left my office, it was quite clean. Why did it arrive at the laboratory in such a filthy state? How did the beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone and why? If the addition of beer was not deliberate, how did it get inside the phone? The main aim of Telstra’s submitted report, used as evidence, was to prove that Telstra’s service was not at fault.

Neil Jepson, formerly a barrister for the Major Fraud Unit of Victoria Police, helped expose a critical issue concerning "The Addendum Cape Bridgewater Report," dated November 10, 1993, by Bell Canada International Inc. This report was incorrectly used on December 12, 1994, as a defense in arbitration, claiming that 13,590 test calls (November 4-9, 1994) proved that my business had not experienced ongoing telephone problems. The arbitrator accepted this, stating in point 3.2(h) of his award that my phone issues had ceased by July 1994, when they continued for another 9 years.

None of the 13,590 test calls used CCS7 testing equipment, as Bell Canada International claimed.

Jepson recognised that government testing on the same telephone switch exchanges, documented in the AUSTEL COT Cases Report of April 1994, also supported claims that there were no issues of the magnitude I had alleged. This report was also presented to the arbitrator, who was misled into believing that the NEAT testing absolved Telstra of responsibility. This government report was no different from the flawed tests conducted by Bell Canada International at the Cape Bridgewater switching telephone exchange.

Jepson asked me to assist the Major Fraud Group in evaluating two additional reports, which proved to be similarly fabricated. Telstra, aware of their fraudulent nature, submitted these reports to the arbitrator to pervert the course of justice.

The four reports I prepared contained devastating evidence against Telstra, which could have cast doubt on all other reports relied upon by Telstra during at least twelve arbitration and mediation processes. The Fraud Group's investigation was abruptly abandoned, and no justifiable reason has ever been provided.

After reviewing the evidence I presented to the Major Fraud Group (1999-2001) and to the government (February-September 2006), my claims clearly have merit.

Explore absentjustice.com to assess the validity of my claims. Contact us with any questions, comments, or for assistance. In October and November 1993, Telstra hired Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) to test the businesses of the group, calling themselves Casualties of Telstra (COT). BCI allegedly visited the Cape Bridgewater switching exchange and performed 13,590 test calls over five days. The alleged results showed that the exchange servicing my three telephone lines was above world standards, and the arbitrator accepted them.

After I sent information to the Australian government showing that the report was fundamentally flawed, and the government refused to investigate, the Canadian Government supported me.

I also shared this evidence with the Canadian government, demonstrating the corruption within some of Canada’s larger telecommunications companies. Their reply — shown below — confirms that this story reaches far beyond Australia’s borders.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."

The documents I uncovered showed that if I had accessed this information during my arbitration — when I rightfully requested it under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act — or had received it during my ongoing appeal process, which the Canadian Government was morally trying to assist me with, it would have been enough to overturn the unjust dismissal of my claims. This information had the power to expose Telstra’s unlawful use of Bell Canada International’s testing and would have significantly strengthened my position in the pending appeal. The entire situation reflects corruption and a cover‑up so blatant that it forces me to question the integrity of those responsible for ensuring fairness in the arbitration process.

This narrative is not just a personal tale; it is a grotesque nightmare, a cinematic tragedy that has haunted us for decades. With the evidence laid out on my website — without which no one would believe the horrors described — we stand on the brink of exposing a reality so corrupt and treacherous that it demands attention. My book, The Arbitraitor, delves deep into these dark truths, revealing the injustices we endured and perhaps finally leading us toward the closure we have long sought.

In the end, it was not only the Canadian Government that recognised the seriousness of what had occurred. Another Canadian company, the DMR Group, also attempted to assist me in exposing the Bell Canada International fraud. Their willingness to engage — despite Australian authorities' refusal — stands as a stark reminder of who sought justice and who worked tirelessly to bury it.

Consider the role of the Canadian government in addressing my concerns about Bell Canada International (BCI )'s fabricated tests. A friendly government with good manners and a sense of right and wrong is crucial, especially when some Canadian companies leave a negative impression by acting outside the law. It is also important to note that Canadian citizens are willing to stand up for what is right, even when issues do not directly involve their country but affect another nation thousands of kilometres away.

This sentiment is illustrated by the actions of Canadian seamen, which are examined in detail in the chapters on communist China and North Vietnam. These seamen displayed commendable integrity by taking a strong stance against the trade of wheat to China. They discovered that a portion of this grain—whether sourced from Australia or Canada—had the potential to support North Vietnam in its ongoing campaign against Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. Their commitment to preventing any form of support that could indirectly fuel the conflict highlights the complexities of international trade and its moral implications during wartime.

Footnote 169, in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021 - Tianxiao Zhu's Footnote at 169:

169. "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the others were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time, a grain ship usually had crew members of about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship."

What has since been revealed is that the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International testing process involved major fraud. There were issues with faxes going in and out of my business that were related to Telstra. When the Australian Federal Police reviewed this evidence, they began an investigation. However, this documentation did not come into play during our arbitrations until January 1999 (see Scandrett & Associates). By September 1994, after six months in arbitration, it became clear that I was losing faxes from the arbitrator and not receiving important communications. Unfortunately, the arbitration administrator declined to intervene or allow me to resubmit my documents.

Absent Justice - Telstra Spying on its Employees

The Evidence That Should Have Stopped Everything

The most disturbing part of the arbitration saga was not just the missing documents, the withheld engineering reports, or the secrecy surrounding the process. It was the fact that one of the two technical consultants who signed off on the arbitration findings later confirmed in writing on 17 December 2014, that the faxed documents he reviewed had been interfered with before they reached their intended destination, 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)

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm, to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from" and then the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible).

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across each of the documents and letters provided to two well-recognised technical telecommunications specialists both made sworn statements that the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) was all captured by a secondary fax machine, the report 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.”

It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1, File No/2-A to 2-E, File No/3, File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator's office did not reach their intended destination.

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine is discussed in more depth in our Australian Federal Police Investigations page

In the Sunday Herald Sun, dated January 24, 2026, British actor Liz Hurley revealed the harrowing impact of the phone-hacking scandal that ensnared her alongside Hugh Grant. Both actors find themselves grappling with the fallout of their conversations being surreptitiously monitored for an extended period during the infamous News of the World scandal orchestrated by Rupert Murdoch. The same issue reported that Prince Harry is haunted by trauma-related flashbacks, tormented by the knowledge that his own private conversations were similarly compromised.

During our COT arbitrations, the Australian Federal Police met with Ann Garms and me, revealing a shocking betrayal: Telstra had confessed to bugging our phone services without our consent, harking back to the government’s ominous warnings in 1994. This egregious invasion of privacy has condemned Ann Garms to a life of torment, rendering her unable to lead anything resembling a normal existence, even after receiving punitive damages. The spectre of constant electronic surveillance not only stirs anxiety but wreaks havoc on our mental health, leaving us in a state of paranoia about whether we are still being watched and whether our faxes and emails are still subject to Telstra's intrusive scrutiny.

The COT Cases, like Ann and me, are trapped in a nightmarish reality, haunted by the pervasive corruption of an entity that has thus far evaded accountability for its treacherous actions. The shadow of Telstra’s violations looms large, making it clear that we can never truly escape the darkness they have cast over our lives.

The fax imprint across each of the documents and letters I provided to two well‑recognised telecommunications specialists told its own story. Both experts made sworn statements confirming that the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see and ) showed the same pattern: the documents had been captured by a secondary fax machine before being retransmitted.

Helen Handbury Reads the Manuscript

In 1999, while drafting Absent Justice, I gave an early manuscript to Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister. She had visited my holiday camp twice and witnessed the chaos caused by the phone faults: the missed bookings, the angry callers, the silence where a phone should have been ringing. But nothing prepared her for what she read in that manuscript.

She was horrified, exclaiming something like, "I will get Rupert to have it published. He will be shocked."

I remember standing there, holding that moment like a fragile thing, knowing I couldn't bring myself to tell her the truth that sat like a stone in my chest: her brother had already been affected by the same failing network that destroyed my business.

>Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury<

Before leaving, Helen assured me with a warm smile that she would send a copy of my manuscript to Rupert and encourage him to consider publishing it. During her next visit, she informed me that she hadn't yet finished reading it, though she and her friends from the "Red Gum Yacht Club" had discussed the enormous $400 million payout, which, adjusted for today's valuation, would exceed $1 billion.

I hesitated to share that several government ministers were alarmed by this massive payout, particularly since high-ranking members of the Liberal Government, Telstra, and its board were aware that Telstra would fail to provide the telecommunications services they had promised to Murdoch and Fox in writing by the specified deadline.

In my book, a narrative about Helen and her friends being engrossed, I presented compelling evidence indicating that the board was fully aware that meeting any set deadlines was utterly unrealistic. The frustrating COT cases further unveiled a persistent issue: we continued to grapple with phone problems, even after numerous arbitrations had failed to pinpoint the faults that Telstra had previously assured would be rectified. This ongoing struggle painted a troubling picture of serious discrimination by Telstra against its customers.

During this discussion, Helen Handbury mentioned The Hon. David Hawker MP, our local parliamentary representative, and noted his public acknowledgement of telephone issues in Hamilton, where he maintained an office and engaged with constituents.

Unbeknownst to Helen, I was the Alan Smith to whom The Hon. David Hawker MP directed constituents with complaints, promising I would take their concerns to the Senate in Canberra. I mentioned Mr Hawker's support for my book, which intrigued Helen, who then asked about its progress. Excitedly, I handed her a draft and a collection of Mr Hawker's media statements, highlighting my efforts to improve the phone service for my holiday camp and the importance of the issue.

On 12 July 1993, a Portland Observer Newspaper article, 'Network Complaints Taken Up by MPs', noted:

"Problems highlighted by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith, with the Telecom network have been picked up on by not only other disgruntled customers but Federal politicians. Having suffered a faulty telephone service for some five years, Mr Smith's complaints had for some time fallen on deaf ears, but it now seems people are standing up and listening. Federal Member for Wannon, David Hawker, described the number of reports of faulty and inadequate telephone across Australia as alarming. Mr Hawker said that documents recently presented to him showed that the problems people had been experiencing Australia wide had been occurring repeatedly in the Portland region."(See Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No -17)

The pressure on all four COT cases was immense, with TV and newspaper interviews and our continued canvassing of the Senate. The stress was telling, but I continued to push for improved rural telephone services. The Hon David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me since 26 July 1993.

"A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. ...

"I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one."(SeeArbitrator File No/76)

From April 1990 through December 2001, I prioritised sponsoring underprivileged groups to stay at the holiday camp, even during the weeks when the camp was experiencing phone problems. Various charitable organisations coordinated food deliveries for these groups, and coach companies provided a 46-seater school bus, with my endorsed vehicle covering the necessary provisions when I drove. This sponsorship brought in much-needed revenue for the business and helped spread the word, as visitors shared their positive experiences. It's worth noting that the organisers of these groups were so committed that they would drive for hours to make a booking.

The organisers of these groups would drive for hours to make a booking, as Loreto College did (see below), then drive three hours each way.

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins. I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities. It didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas. Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland. This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange to arrange another annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Some years later, I sent Sister Maureen Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice. Sister Burke wrote back,

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

During my second trip to the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp in 1999, I met Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister. She had come to the Cape Bridgewater café on the beach with her friends and was walking down the hill from the camp when she commented on the improvements made to the car parking facilities. I noticed an ambulance paramedic vehicle parked in my driveway next to the holiday camp, driven by a local man. This observation sparked a conversation about a near-tragic incident that occurred years earlier, in 1993, when the Royal Melbourne Children's Hospital nearly lost an in-house patient at the camp during a cancer-related episode.

I had to call the local Portland hospital to arrange for an urgent ambulance, which was 20 kilometres away. Unfortunately, none of my three phone lines—including a designated fax line and an incoming public phone service line that I had installed at my expense—were operational. The cancer patient was part of a group holiday for sick children, which included over 35 kids and about six caregivers.

Helen was aware of this near tragedy, not from reading my draft book, but from her mother, Dame Elizabeth Murdoch. Although she wasn’t a key financial supporter of the hospital, Helen had been involved in children's welfare for over a decade. She and her husband, Geoff Handbury, were local philanthropists in the southwestern district and contributed to the construction of a new Surf Life Saving Club, equipped with rooms and amenities, located just a five-minute walk from my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.

I ran holiday programs for those in need and had even donated my facilities to the Royal Melbourne Children’s Hospital, an initiative supported by Dame Elizabeth since at least 1986. In late 1993, the Royal Children’s Hospital received considerable media attention when the Murdoch-owned Herald Sun published an article labelling my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp a "death trap" due to issues with our phone lines. The article claimed that our telephones could neither receive nor make calls. By that time in 1993, it had become common knowledge in South West Victoria that visiting my premises was akin to playing Russian Roulette. Many comments appeared in various newspapers regarding this situation.

Children's lives could be at risk

📜Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993 confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital, 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously, no, not at all. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, nor did the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event.

Now, the needy were being punished because Telstra Corporation, in partnership with Rupert Murdoch, was falsely claiming there were no phone problems at my holiday camp. Meanwhile, care workers and nurses from the Royal Children's Hospital reported the exact opposite.

On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP wrote to me again, noting:

"Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

"I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing."(Arbitrator File No/77)

On 9 December 1993, the Hon David Hawker MP wrote to congratulate me for my "persistence in improving Telecom's country services," noting he regretted "that it came at such a high personal cost." (See Arbitrator File No/82)

The correspondence I received on 9 December 1993 was both affirming and compassionate, reflecting his concern.

Similarly, the Hon. David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications in the Labor government, wrote a compassionate letter to Senator Michael Baume, a member of the opposition. In his letter, Minister Beddall addressed Senator Baume, who was profoundly touched by the details of my situation. Senator Baume was visibly moved during a session in Parliament House upon hearing about the significant hardships three other Casualties of Telstra, and I had endured during six long years without reliable phone service.

In his heartfelt letter, Minister Beddall expressed genuine empathy for those affected by the alleged shortcomings of Telecom, stating to Senator Baume:

"The Government is most concerned about allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels."

He acknowledged the distress that many, including myself, had experienced, noting,

"I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith's, there has been great personal and financial distress."

As I have outlined in my book, the government communications authority, AUSTEL, permitted Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, to covertly attempt to address my ongoing billing problems on October 21, 1995—five months after my arbitration had failed to resolve these issues (See Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? and (File K and L Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l). In that secret process, lacking an arbitrator or umpire to ensure Telstra's honesty, AUSTEL even allowed Telstra to use the 12 December 1994 witness statements made by a local Portland technician. Ex-senior National Crime Investigator Garry Ellicott, also an ex-senior Superintendent Detective Sergeant and recipient of the Distinguished Medal of Honour in the Queensland Police force, proved that the technician's sworn witness statement used during my arbitration was false. Mr Ellicott's arbitration witness statement, provided to the arbitrator in the third week of January 1995, condemned this technician, as did the Major Fraud Group in 2000, five years later.

The fact that AUSTEL lacked jurisdiction over my arbitration, which was conducted as a civil matter under the Supreme Court of Victoria, is concerning. They allowed Telstra to use the Portland technician's witness statement, which had been discredited during my arbitration. AUSTEL was misled by this technician's statement on December 12, 1994, because the billing problems had not been rectified due to Steve Black's secret intervention, which prevented me from exercising my legal right to challenge the information provided by Telstra's Steve Black.

Helen Handbury, along with at least one member of her group, the "Red Gum Yacht Club," was particularly angered that AUSTEL secretly granted Telstra an additional 12 months to resolve my telephone issues. It became clear that the systemic problems affecting thousands of people across Australia represented gross misconduct on AUSTEL's part, as they failed to inform legal centres and courts nationwide that claims against Telstra might be valid.

Worse still, four years later, Telstra's CEO, Frank Blount—an American citizen like Rupert Murdoch, though Blount was born American while Murdoch had renounced his Australian citizenship—acknowledged in his co-authored book, "Managing in Australia" → https://www.qbd.com.au, released in 2000, the poor state of Telstra's telephone system.

Why, then, did Telstra and Frank Blount, CEO before our 1994 arbitration, allow nine witness statements to be submitted to the arbitrator claiming my business was fault-free when both he and the board knew this was false? How were they able to negotiate a $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch and FOX, fully aware of the poor network and the consequent impossibility of meeting the agreement's deadlines?

Before Managing in Australia was released, John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, misled the Hon. David Hawker MP, my Federal Member of Parliament, in writing in March 1996. He falsely claimed that the ongoing arbitration billing problems had been resolved by May 1995, despite AUSTEL informing him on October 3, 1995, that Telstra had admitted it had not addressed my ongoing billing issues during the arbitration. Additional documents, available for free download at absentjustice.com, demonstrate that AUSTEL secretly allowed Telstra until August 1996—15 months after my arbitration—to address claims first raised with them before my arbitration began in April 1994.

In simple terms, as my book and the evidence on this website show, the government was prepared to quietly bury me without informing those in power that the arbitration had failed for the COTs. Meanwhile, they were rewarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox for their inability to meet the agreed-upon time conditions.

I do not use the term "discrimination" lightly. While all this misconduct was happening, Telstra, AUSTEL, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman had promised the COT Cases in writing that if we funded our own government-endorsed arbitrations—an expense that cost me over$300,000in professional fees—the government would ensure the arbitrator would not issue a final ruling until Telstra proved it had resolved the phone faults that prompted the COT Cases to seek arbitration.

Unfortunately, the ongoing telephone faults related to the arbitration were not resolved during the arbitration. Consequently, the COT Cases were only refunded 30% of their fees because Telstra had not honoured their original agreement. The phone faults continued to undermine the COT Cases' businesses. In my case, the ongoing problems destroyed the business of those who purchased it in December 2001, as the following links show: → Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct and Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story.

Sadly, Helen has passed away, leaving me with a feeling of unfinished business. Her husband, Geoff, later reached out to me, explaining that his age prevented him from pursuing the next steps Helen might have taken regarding my book. He wrote to me in elegant, old-fashioned penmanship, a letter that I have cherished.

I had never asked the Handurys for financial support; my only request was for my writing to reach her brother, Rupert, who is a partner at Telstra. I hoped he could facilitate the installation of a mobile phone system, a topic I had discussed with Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT Cases, and Robin Davey, who was then the Chairman of AUSTEL. This plea for assistance (not financial aid) is documented in several government memos. If such a device had been implemented, it would have benefited a significant portion of the Cape Bridgewater region.

Infringe upon the civil liberties

As of now, in 2026, I still wonder whether Rupert Murdoch ever had the chance to read my story. However, Senator Kim Carr did and on completing it wrote on 27 January 1999, that:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”

I emphasised with Senator Kim Carr that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, (see also https://shorturl.at/URa5h), which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that Telstra (the public owned company) would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses, even as they were in arbitration.

In my case, the arbitration was declared final a staggering 13 months after I signed the agreement—a decision overshadowed by a web of deceit. Despite warnings from the Australian Federal Police, three legal professionals, and multiple clients, all of whom sent urgent written advice to the arbitrator, including letters faxed from my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon. David Hawker MP, the arbitrator chose to ignore this critical information. In point 3.2(h) of his award, he brazenly claimed that my business had been fault-free since July 1994.

What’s truly alarming is the insidious power wielded by the elite in Australia, exemplified by entities like Murdoch and Fox. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, received written alerts on April 30, 1995, from his technical advisers, DMR & Lane, clearly stating that their findings were incomplete and needed further weeks of investigation (See Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues). They hadn’t even begun to tackle my ongoing billing issues. Still, on May 11, 1995, Dr Hughes issued his findings, fully aware that my arbitration was far from complete and that serious flaws in my billing system remained unaddressed. This blatant disregard for justice reeks of corruption and treachery, revealing a troubling conspiracy that undermines the very principles of fairness.

If this situation does not qualify as severe discrimination, then what does?

This was public money overseen by the Telstra board. It’s crucial to emphasise that when this deal was made, Telstra was entirely owned by the people of Australia.

Senate comment follows:

Point 10. "Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce labour costs 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."

Point 11. "Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, but it also 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 target of cable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives

Betrayal: Thirty Years of Silence

Despite the substantial and compelling evidence presented in "The first remedy pursued,"showcased on absentjustice.com, there have been no recorded findings against Dr Gordon Hughes, the former arbitrator in my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration. Additionally, no accountability has been established for John Pinnock, the administrator overseeing my arbitration, or John Rundell, the project manager involved in the proceedings. This persistent lack of consequences allows their misleading and deceptive conduct to remain unaddressed, leaving a profound sense of injustice. What if I am not a liar, but instead a voice exposing a dark reality that the Australian Government and its well-compensated bureaucrats have ignored for the past 30 years?

What if everything I have laid bare on my website, absentjustice.com, about Dr Gordon Hughes—Principal Lawyer at Davies Collison Cave in Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp, is the unvarnished truth? What if my claims regarding John Pinnock, the second appointed Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who spent more than a decade turning a blind eye to customers' grievances, and John Rundell, a former partner at KPMG, are also entirely accurate?

These men have not merely misled those who sought justice; they have orchestrated a web of deceit. They have cloaked their treachery behind bureaucratic processes, lofty titles, and an oppressive institutional silence. They knew the consequences of their decisions, their deliberate omissions, and their calculated cover-ups. They have robbed my partner, Cathy, and me of thirty precious years that we will never reclaim—years lost to their corruption and moral decay.

So, what happens now?

Will these three men finally be forced to confront their dark deeds? Will they be held accountable for their disgraceful actions, the evidence they deliberately buried, and the truths they conspired to conceal? Or will the Australian Government continue to shield them from justice, fully aware that their choices have cost the COT Cases decades of our lives, languishing in a nightmare of treachery and betrayal?

Four Examples of Gross Government Misconduct.

The chain of scandals — from covert international deals and the buying of key witnesses to secretive dealings with violent groups, catastrophic institutional failures, and high‑level betrayals — forms a chilling portrait of a system rotting from within. These are not isolated missteps. They are symptoms of a deeper, more calculated decay.

Each incident reveals the same pattern: decisions made in back rooms, truth buried under layers of bureaucracy, and ordinary citizens left to carry the cost. The machinery of government, entrusted to protect the public, instead twists itself into a shield for the powerful, hiding misconduct behind silence, denials, and procedural fog.

What emerges is a landscape where accountability evaporates, justice is selectively applied, and those who dare to question the narrative are left stranded. These events expose a system willing to sacrifice integrity for convenience, loyalty for expedience, and human lives for political survival..

These are not rumours. They are not theories. They are proven scandals, each one leaving a trail of destroyed lives behind them.

If those events — now established beyond any reasonable doubt — could unfold the way they did, with innocent citizens ruined in two countries, and with New Zealand and American troops killed or maimed in Vietnam because Australia traded with the enemy, then the reader has to stop and think. Those wheat shipments nourished the North Vietnamese soldier before he disappeared into the jungle to kill or wound our troops and our allies’ troops — all while government officials hid behind silence, denials, and paperwork.

At the time, these stories sounded unbelievable. Too extreme. Too outrageous. Too shameful for any government to allow. Yet every one of them turned out to be true. And that is exactly why I have raised these issues here.

Because if those scandals — as shocking and far‑fetched as they once seemed — were real, then perhaps the rest of what I expose on absentjustice.com is not so unbelievable after all. Perhaps it is simply the truth that powerful people hoped could be brushed aside.

Welcome to Absent Justice

The websites absentjustice.com and promoteyourstory.com.au exist for one purpose: to expose the unlawful conduct that surrounded the Casualties of Telstra (the COT Cases). What unfolded over four long years was not a simple dispute, nor a technical misunderstanding, nor a bureaucratic delay. It was a coordinated effort—spanning Telstra, its legal representatives, the arbitrator, and government agencies—to bury the truth and protect a failing telecommunications monopoly at any cost.

Here, we present my latest book, titled "The Arbitraitor". Clicking this image, as well as the "Home" icon, will let you view my other website, which enhances and duplicates evidence files revealing disturbing details about the misconduct that shaped the COT Cases' lives as they battled an extremely unethical administered arbitration procedure. These documents, many of which were withheld, altered, or concealed during the arbitration process, expose a network of deceit that operated deep within Telstra and Australia’s justice system. Our goal is simple: to bring into the light what powerful institutions worked so hard to keep in the dark.

The term "Arbitraitor" appears intentionally in this publication and hasn’t been misspelt, a thoughtful choice that resonates with our theme on Absent Justice. Priced modestly at $3.99 AUD, it aims to be accessible to a broad audience. This text presents the truth with diligence while fostering empathy and hope.

The unique spelling of "Arbitraitor" is not just a quirk; it reflects a significant historical context. Just a couple of decades ago, government-sanctioned arbitrations were manipulated by treacherous individuals within the justice system, allowing them to obscure the truth from the Australian populace. During this troubling era, the government-owned Telstra Corporation became a hub of corruption, colluding with large corporations to deceive and exploit Australian citizens.

In this publication, we expose corrupt officials who are entwined in public malfeasance and official misconduct, carefully exploiting their positions of power. Their abuse of authority leads to the perpetration of fraud and injustice. Among these nefarious actors are politicians and lawyers caught in a labyrinth of deceit, engaged in criminal conspiracies, collusive actions, and influence-peddling that undermine public trust.

At the heart of this system lies the Brotherhood—a clandestine organisation of ruthless criminals engaged in a variety of corrupt activities, including racketeering. They wield significant control over the legal profession in Australia, facilitating judicial interference, obstructing justice, and achieving institutional capture with alarming ease.

The abhorrent narcissism and duplicity displayed by these lawbreakers reveal a pattern of deliberate deception, deep-rooted corruption, and calculated wrongdoing. They stand as violators of federal law and are implicated in systemic fraud, further eroding the very foundations of justice and integrity in society.

By comparing previously used evidence with newly uncovered material, we demonstrate how Telstra, the arbitrator, and arbitration consultants conspired to undermine the COT Cases and suppress legitimate claims. This was not incompetence. It was collusion—deliberate, strategic, and devastating. Repetition of evidence is not a flaw in our presentation; it is essential. Only by seeing the same documents appear across different years, different claimants, and different stages of the process can readers grasp the scale of the wrongdoing.

The Australian government has decided to allow Ericsson to buy Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd for an undisclosed amount through government-approved arbitration. This decision raises serious concerns about corruption and dishonesty. This deal occurred while Lane was investigating Ericsson's telephone exchange equipment, a clear violation of protocol during ongoing arbitrations → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden

Even Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator, found himself ensnared in the treacherous labyrinth of the Ericsson-Lane debacle. On that fateful day of September 29, 1994, Telstra’s principal technical engineer, Peter Gamble, willfully neglected his government-mandated duty to conduct the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) on my three telephone lines—055 267 267, 055 267 230, and 055 267 260. This deliberate oversight ignited a catastrophic failure of the entire testing process, reminiscent of a well-orchestrated cover-up.

PART 1

1- THE ERICSSON SAGA

The Ericsson testing facilities at both the Cape Bridgewater and Portland exchanges fell into disarray, unable to synchronise, thus rendering the SVT impossible to execute. As the dust settled, the test was abandoned, casting my legitimate concerns aside into the void. AUSTEL, the supposed guardian of fair practices, swiftly demanded answers from Telstra, but what was intended as accountability soon morphed into an agonisingly drawn-out farce.

On October 11, 1994, AUSTEL formally addressed Mr Gamble, seeking an explanation for his egregious failure to conduct the SVT. When he chose to ignore this overture, AUSTEL escalated their demands, issuing a second letter on November 16, 1994, to Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black. This letter bore a tone of mounting frustration, urgently questioning what actions Telstra intended to take regarding the defective arbitration-related testing process at Cape Bridgewater. Astonishingly, this correspondence was also sent to Peter Gamble, a cunningly orchestrated reminder of his dereliction of duty.

Yet, despite these pressing demands, an appalling eight years would slip by in silence, with my telephone lines remaining untested until November 2002. After a year marred by a disaster that reflected a far deeper malaise within Telstra, I found myself driven to sell the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, utterly drained from an egregiously protracted affair meant to rectify an unending nightmare of telephone issues that plagued my business for seven relentless years.

Dr Hughes’s role became even more questionable as events took a darker turn. On April 6, 1995, after a prolonged period of inaction reeking of conspiratorial neglect, Peter Gamble finally conducted the mandatory arbitration SVT. Accompanied by representatives from Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, soon to be swallowed by Ericsson, I eagerly anticipated resolution, only to be met with betrayal. Both Gamble and Lane’s David Reid audaciously refused to carry out the testing, their refusal a blatant affront to the arbitration process.

In a shocking display of complicity, Dr Hughes allowed this refusal to stand, even as the SVT was a critical, non-negotiable element of the arbitration fabric. By this stage, Lane appeared to have been compromised, marionettes in a sinister game controlled by the looming spectre of Ericsson’s acquisition. Peter Gamble would subsequently find himself named in a Senate hearing on June 24, 1997, by former Telstra engineer turned whistleblower Lindsay White. Gamble was identified as the man who chillingly informed White that the first five COT cases—including mine—had to be “stopped at all costs” to thwart any possibility of substantiating our claims against Telstra. The depths of this betrayal are laid bare on pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia, illustrating a conspiracy that goes far beyond mere negligence.

The Ericsson List, as revealed in the image above, paints a troubling picture of Ericsson's involvement in shady and unethical business practices that have persisted for an alarmingly long time. These nefarious actions caught the attention of the arbitrator, who was tasked with overseeing around eight claims against the faulty Ericsson billing equipment used by Telstra in their telephone exchanges—a situation eerily reminiscent of the scandal involving the defective Fujitsu Horizon equipment that besmirched the British Post Office. Even more disturbing, the COT claimants found themselves brutally denied the chance to have their arbitration claims reassessed after Ericsson cunningly purchased Lane, the main consultant overseeing the technical side of these proceedings. This betrayal of trust and manipulation of the arbitration process are nothing short of gross misconduct, revealing a sinister undercurrent of corruption and treachery.

This poor choice has made it harder for the COT Cases to prove their claims against Ericsson and seek justice through potential appeals. The acquisition gave Ericsson access to key materials related to my arbitration claim about the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange scandal. It also allowed Lane to withhold this information after the arbitration ended.

PART 2

2 - Echoes of Betrayal: Wheat Sales to China

The Australian Government bureaucrats who continued to tell Australia's politicians that several other seamen and I had witnessed in China was a lie. The following information shows we risked all to expose the truth.

The betrayal is not new. Reflecting on Australia’s wheat sales to Communist China in 1967, the hypocrisy becomes clear. Bureaucrats knowingly allowed grain to be repurposed to fuel North Vietnam’s war effort against Australian, New Zealand, and American troops. This act of negligence and complicity demonstrates how detached decision-makers, insulated by theory and bureaucracy, can transform potential solutions into catastrophic consequences. It is a reminder that betrayal often comes not from enemies abroad, but from incompetence at home.

I returned to Australia on 18 September 1967, having narrowly escaped China and been fundamentally changed from the person I was when I left in June 1967. Yet, over the past thirty years, I have been treated disgracefully, no differently than other brave whistleblowers who dared to stand up for the truth against a backdrop of horror, scandal, and betrayal. The corruption runs deep, and the implications are horrifying.

My anger—and that of my crewmates—was never directed at the idea of sending wheat to a starving China on humanitarian grounds. None of us objected to helping civilians in desperate need. What ignited our fury was something far darker: the knowledge that, despite my formal warnings to the Commonwealth Police (now the AFP) and to The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, then Minister for the Army, on 18 September 1967, that some of this so‑called humanitarian wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam, this terrible trade continued (Refer to Chapter 7- Vietnam-Viet-Cong-2)

The People's Republic of China

Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting

In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.

It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.

As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.

A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange

After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.

Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.

At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.

To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”

And maybe, just maybe, that was enough. British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman. → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2

In essence, the Australian government faced an agonising moral dilemma — weighing the lives of its soldiers engaged in the conflict in North Vietnam against the desperate need to provide sustenance for an entire nation teetering on the brink of starvation. This heart-wrenching choice highlights the often-unseen complexities of international relations and humanitarian crises, revealing the painful calculations made in the pursuit of survival.

Footnote 83, 84 and 169 → in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails: FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021

Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83, 84, 169:

In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said, “I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.”

84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”

169. "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the others were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time, a grain ship usually had crew members of about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship."

The motivations behind the Minister of Trade and Industry's statement regarding the return of British seamen to the UK expose an alarming level of ethical negligence by the Australian government. His dismissive remark, quoted in footnote 169, “But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story,” reflects a troubling disregard for the gravity of the situation. He feigned ignorance of the facts and chose not to challenge a narrative that runs counter to the harsh realities at hand. It is chilling to think that the plight of Vietnam was reduced to a mere "afterthought" in his mind.

What is even more disturbing is that the Minister had been fully briefed about the Canadian seamen's refusal to man their ship long before the British crew even set foot back in London. During this time, I was in Australia, grappling with the psychological aftermath of these events. Overwhelmed by anxiety, I was cared for by two Norwegian sisters in Geelong, Victoria, who welcomed me into their home on England Street, near the foreshore, after I collapsed in a hotel. Their kindness was a stark contrast to the government's gross inadequacy. My condition left me utterly helpless—dependent on their support for even basic personal care. For three days, I lay in bed, unable to perform the simplest tasks, while the sheets desperately needed changing.

In this chaotic aftermath, not a single government minister thought it necessary to inquire about my experiences—questions that could have unveiled vital truths about their unethical decisions. I had left the day before arriving in Geelong, having just departed the Hopepeak in Sydney. Shockingly, only two days after the Hopepeak sailed back to Western Australia to load another 13,600 tons from communist China, it became painfully clear that once the wheat was offloaded in China, a portion could be funnelled to North Vietnam. This would directly aid troops intent on marching into the jungles to hunt down Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers—an outrageous betrayal of those who serve.

The government’s alarming indifference to the consequences of its actions exposes a morally reprehensible and treacherous disregard for the truth, as well as a shocking lack of concern for the lives of our soldiers. This morally bankrupt scenario measures its cost not just in grain shipped but in the sacrifice of brave servicemen, thrown to the wolves for the sake of political expediency. What is unfolding is not merely a failure of ethics but an affront to honour and a treachery that endangers those who protect our freedoms.

A closer look at a troubling situation in Britain reveals how innocent citizens were unjustly imprisoned over disputed billing accounts, even when there was a significant likelihood of severe errors in the system. This is exemplified by the British Post Office scandal, which saw numerous individuals wrongly accused and facing legal consequences. This scenario echoes the notorious Australian Robodebt scandal, in which government ministers irresponsibly threatened citizens with incarceration for alleged debts → https://shorturl.at/1BNy. The pressure of these accusations proved devastating, driving some individuals to the brink of suicide in 2022. Both cases illuminate the alarming consequences of bureaucratic failures and the dire effects they can have on ordinary people's lives.

PART 3

3 - The Government Reneged on the Deal with the Hon Barnaby Joyce.

The most disastrous deal ever struck by any government — a deal that treated its own citizens as little more than dart‑board targets — stands as a monument to failure. It was crafted not to heal old wounds but to drive the blade deeper, ensuring that past conflicts would fester rather than fade. Instead of offering reconciliation, it inflamed grievances that had already scarred generations, widening a rift of mistrust and animosity that may never fully close.

This ill‑conceived pact has become a bitter legacy, a stark reminder of how easily the pursuit of personal or political gain can descend into collective ruin. It shows, with painful clarity, what happens when those in power choose expedience over integrity, and self‑interest over the people they are sworn to serve.

Deleted Without Being Read: The DCITA Cover-Up
I hold two email receipts—dated 23 April and 25 July 2006—sent by my claims advisor, Ronda, to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These aren’t just technical records. They’re evidence of a disturbing pattern of deception. They demonstrate how my legitimate claims were systematically undermined, ignored, and ultimately erased from the process intended to protect me.

These emails were part of a government-endorsed process—one that Senator Barnaby Joyce publicly supported when he cast his critical vote in favour of Telstra's privatisation. Joyce had been assured that my claims would be assessed appropriately. That promise turned out to be hollow.

A Process Shrouded in Secrecy
From the beginning, the DCITA assessment was cloaked in secrecy. There was no transparency, no accountability. Then, in August 2006, the process was abruptly shut down—without explanation. Ronda Fienberg, my dedicated and loyal editor, received confirmation that her emails had been opened. But what’s truly chilling is that two critical items in my submission were never read. They vanished—deleted without being opened on 1 February 2008, more than 18 months after they were sent.

Here’s the proof:

MESSAGES RECEIVED 1st February 2008, on behalf of Alan Smith: Your message To: Coonan, Helen (Senator) Cc: Lever, David; Smith, Alan Subject: ATTENTION MR JEREMY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADVISOR Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:31:41 +1100 was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:36 +1100 ATTACHMENT: Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deletedX-MSExch-Correlation-Key: sdD1TSUHx0CoTD0Qm4wBVw==

oOo

Original-Message-ID: 001601c6669f$95736a00$2ad0efdc@Office Your message To: Coonan, Helen (Senator) Cc: Smith, Alan Subject: Alan Smith, unresolved Telstra matters Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:42 +1100 was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:23 +1100

ATTACHMENT:Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: bNlMYfUKcUGqvIXiYQZULA== Original-Message-ID: 003a01c6af21$2b7ece30$2ad0efdc@Office

Could it be that some of the government officials and Telstra bureaucrats who orchestrated the scandalous cleansing of my Telstra-related arbitration documents in 1994 and 1995—documents that included a critical letter I sent to the Honourable Peter Costello on November 2, 1998—are the very same individuals who stealthily deleted my legally submitted DCITA Telstra-related arbitration documents in 2008? These documents were meant to be valued and assessed by the government as part of a sinister plot to secure the pivotal vote of then-Senator Barnaby Joyce in 2005. This vote was crucial to the National Party’s underhanded amendment that paved the way for Telstra's privatisation. The sheer scale of this corruption is not just staggering; it reveals a treacherous web of deceit that runs deep within our government. The implications of such actions are terrifying and speak to a dark conspiracy undermining the very foundations of our democracy.

PART 4

4 - British Post Office Scandal

The impact of this deal has been harmful to small business operators and their families across Australia, mirroring the Fujitsu Horizon scandal that hurt the British Post Office. More troubling is Ericsson's known long-term ties to international terrorist groups and criminal activities. This disregard for ethical conduct should have led to an immediate investigation by the Australian government years ago. Instead, it seems that dishonesty and corruption have taken priority over the safety and integrity of the Australian business environment.

On March 18, 2026, in Britain, another exemplary individual fell victim to the oppressive forces of the British Establishment. This person, like countless others, bravely chose to stand up for the values instilled in us during childhood: the importance of honouring the truth and living a life guided by integrity. Sadly, these principles seem increasingly disregarded by many Western nations and their institutions.

I would like to draw your attention to my heartfelt tribute to Ruth Durasnt Durant, available at https://shorturl.at/v05xJ. This tribute is shared on behalf of the Australian Casualties of Telstra (COT) group. Those of us who remain will understand the critical need to support individuals who, like Parmod, strive to lead honest and principled lives.

The tribute will remain on the homepage for all of this month.

As a united voice from our COT group, we extend our deepest condolences. I encourage you to take a moment to read my message to Durant Durant, as it sheds light on the values we hold dear and the importance of standing up for the truth.

Alan Bates vs British Post Office

After almost two decades, the British public—and a growing number of British politicians—have insisted that the British Post Office scandal is a matter of profound public interest and must no longer be concealed by the government, the civil service, or the Establishment. For England’s sake, this injustice demands a complete and transparent investigation. Click here to watch the Australian Channel 7 trailer for Mr Bates vs the Post Office, which aired in February 2024, and captures the scale of this national betrayal.

What makes the scandal so disturbing is that public servants inside the British Post Office knew the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the catastrophic accounting and billing errors. Yet they continued to blame innocent sub‑postmasters, many of whom were financially ruined, prosecuted, or imprisoned.

This pattern is painfully familiar to those of us who lived through the Australian COT arbitrations. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee our cases, refused to allow his own technical consultants the additional time they needed to diagnose the ongoing faults in Telstra’s Ericsson billing software. The parallels between the British Post Office scandal and the Australian Telstra scandal are unmistakable. In both cases, faulty technical equipment was at the heart of the problem, as demonstrated in this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc..

Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office

----------------------------

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Post Office Scandal: The Full Story (So Far)Preview YouTube video Post Office Scandal: The Full Story (So Far)

Call for Justice

The Dream, the Silence, and the Betrayal

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my long and ongoing battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, my struggle has wound its way through elected governments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the telecommunications behemoth Telstra—known as Telecom when my fight began. More than three decades later, the quest for justice continues.

My journey began in 1987, when I stepped ashore after 28 years at sea. I had sailed the world, but of all the places I’d known, Australia called to me. I wanted a land‑based life, something steady to carry me through to retirement. Hospitality had always been my passion, and I dreamed of running a school holiday camp — a place where children could breathe fresh air, and families could reconnect.

So when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age, it felt like fate. A coastal haven near the maritime town of Portland, surrounded by ocean mist and rolling dunes — it was everything I’d imagined. I conducted what I believed was thorough due diligence. I checked the buildings, the grounds, the books. What I didn’t check — what no one ever thinks to check — was whether the phones worked.

Within a week of taking over, the truth hit like a rogue wave. Customers and suppliers told me they had tried to call but couldn’t get through. I had a business to run, but the phone service was unreliable at best and nonexistent at worst. Every missed call was a missed booking. Every engaged signal was lost income. The Camp relied entirely on phone communication — this was the pre‑internet era, long before mobile coverage reached rural Victoria.

Only later did I discover the scale of the problem. Cape Bridgewater was tethered to an antiquated, unstaffed telephone exchange installed more than 30 years earlier. It had a pitiful capacity of just eight lines — eight lines to serve an entire coastal community.

During a typical week, 66 residential families lived in the area, not counting the many who used their coastal homes as weekend retreats. By 1991, the population had grown to 144 adults and children. On weekends, that number often exceeded 150. Yet the exchange still offered only eight service lines.

In stark terms: if four households were making or receiving calls, only four lines remained for the other 140 residents. That wasn’t just poor planning — it was a systemic failure. My business was being strangled by a network that couldn’t support even the most basic communication needs.

The Camp was more than a business. It was a dream made real — a serene retreat where city stress dissolved into sea spray. But dreams need infrastructure. And ours was built on eight fragile copper threads.

Booking inquiries, supply orders, emergency calls — everything depended on those lines. During peak times, the phones were constantly engaged. Guests complained they couldn’t reach us. Suppliers missed confirmations. Opportunities slipped through our fingers like sand.

And then came the betrayal.

A Conspiracy of Silence

In March 1994, a government document revealed a chilling truth: officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. They knew the faults were real. They knew the system was failing. And yet, this critical evidence — the very evidence that validated my six‑year ordeal — was withheld from the arbitrator.

Had the arbitrator been furnished with this document, he would likely have awarded far greater compensation for the substantial losses I suffered. Instead, my claims were weakened because they lacked a detailed log — a log I could not possibly have kept when the very faults I was reporting were being concealed by those responsible for investigating them.

This was not an oversight. It was a pattern. A deliberate, coordinated silence.

And it marked the beginning of a battle that would consume decades of my life.

Hover your mouse over the images of the two letters that bear the fax imprint of Freehill Holingdate & Page.

Two Alan Smiths, One Dark Pattern: Telstra’s Treacherous Campaign of Extraction
In the quiet coastal bounds of Cape Bridgewater, two men named Alan Smith—unrelated, unknown to each other, and living just five kilometres apart—became unwitting targets of a ruthless and coordinated campaign. Between 1988 and 2008, both were systematically threatened by Telstra, its high-powered legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, and a network of bounty hunters—commissioned agents who earned lucrative rewards for extracting payments from Telstra customers disputing their bills.

These weren’t isolated cases. They were part of a sweeping, sinister pattern. Thousands of Telstra consumers across Australia, all suffering from persistent telephone faults, were bullied into paying inflated or erroneous bills. The common denominator? Their billing disputes stemmed directly from the very phone problems Telstra refused to acknowledge or fix.

Despite mounting evidence that Telstra’s network—particularly the Ericsson AXE exchanges—was riddled with faults, government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. They allowed the courts to pursue these consumers, knowing full well that the problems might originate from the government-owned Telstra itself. It was a betrayal not just of law, but of conscience.

The Machinery of Coercion.

This was not mere negligence—it was institutionalised extortion. Telstra’s legal teams and bounty hunters operated with impunity, armed with flawed data and protected by bureaucratic silence. The two Alan Smith's were harassed for years, receiving legal threats and demands for payment on accounts they knew were corrupted by technical faults. No one came to investigate. No one came to listen.

Instead, the system closed ranks. Everything of importance went into lockdown mode. Evidence was ignored. Witnesses were dismissed. And the courts—fed by the same poisoned stream of misinformation—forced payment from victims already on the brink.

When AUSTEL, the then government communications authority (now known as ACMA), became aware that four named Australians—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and myself—were being targeted in a revenge type of retaliation by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Telstra's lawyers, the government informed us in October 1993 that Freehills would have no further involvement in the COT Cases (see 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2). Despite this assurance, I was still being threatened by Telstra's senior management. Register your complaints in writing with Freehills, or Telstra will treat you as vexatious and your complaints as frivolous.

This Telstra internal email, dated 21 April 1993, FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to Telstra's Don Pinel, states:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88

⚖️ Lawyer Fodder

This is the same Freehill Hollingdale & Page whose fax log imprint appears on the two letters, to the other Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater, as shown in the above image.

However, the good news is that Freehill Hollingdale & Page are now good lawyers trading under the name Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, although, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence of my claims, they used Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to view my mental state. To ensure the arbitrator was misled into believing my business was no longer experiencing ongoing telephone problems, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, on behalf of Telstra, provided Mr Joblin with a report that Telstra knew was fabricated (refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2).

The BCI report alleged that 13,590 test calls to the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone switching service were successfully transmitted over a staggered five‑day period, yet not one single telephone call connected to the CCS7 device that Bell Canada International Inc. alleged had been used because the nearest Telephone exchange that could accomodate the CCS7 testing equipment was in the rural town of Warrnambool 116 kiolmetes from Cape Bridgewater.

By a twist of fate, I was able to convince Mr Joblin that he had been misled by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, or that they had been misled by Telstra, when I provided him with this report to read before analysing my mental state. It was then that Mr Joblin became angry and said he would write his concerns in his report and make it known to the arbitrator that he had been used, and that an investigation should be conducted.

However, when Mr Joblin’s witness statement was provided to Dr Hughes and incorporated into Mr Joblin’s report, it was received by the arbitrator and me unsigned, and nothing in it addressed Mr Joblin’s statement that either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page had misled him.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking:

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills / Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.

It is now 2026, and I have still not received a response to John Pinnock's letter to Telstra, dated March 21, 1997, regarding this witness statement. This letter would have been helpful for my pending arbitration appeal. The lack of response is further evidence that Telstra and its highly paid legal firms know they can act with impunity against anyone who challenges their gross misconduct.

(see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C → Freehill Hollingdale & Page legal advice)

Stop the COT Cases at all costs

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, discussed above, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their case against Telstra. From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their case against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications, when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

TWO SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE

🏛️How Australia Protected Power While Sacrificing Its Own Citizens

Our group was forced to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars towards arbitration and professional consultancy fees, all based on the assurances from two government regulators, AUSTEL and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They convinced us that this investment would ultimately compel Telstra to address the persistent telephone issues that had plagued us for nearly 7 years in my experience.

Regrettably, those promises turned out to be nothing but empty words. After incurring more than $300,000 in expenses during 1994 and 1995—a staggering amount that translates to over $700,000 in today’s currency—our ongoing phone faults remained unresolved. Meanwhile, as I have highlighted throughout this website, when Telstra failed to fulfil its obligations, FOX/Murdoch reaped a staggering $400 million reward, which would equate to more than a billion dollars today. This glaring disparity illustrates the profound injustice we faced in our pursuit of accountability and resolution.

This is what upset Helen Handbury, Robert Murdoch's sister. After reading my second draft, titled "Ring for Justice," I struggled to express how unfair it was for the average Australian citizen to bear the costs of funding their own court cases, arbitration, and mediation processes against Telstra in their pursuit of reliable phone service for their businesses. Meanwhile, the government-owned Telstra Corporation covered the costs to ensure that Rupert, her brother, and his company, FOX, received the same reliable phone service to run their operations.

Helen was a gracious person who, along with her husband Geoffrey, helped many people in south-west Victoria. When she offered to have Rupert publish "Ring for Justice," I chose to remain silent. It was only after Helen passed away in 2004, leaving behind much sadness among those who knew her, that I received a handwritten letter from Geoff Handbury. In his late 80s, he explained that it was beyond him to pursue whether Helen had provided Rupert with a copy of my publication, and I accepted that with grace. At least I cherish the memory of Helen Handbury, believing that I have a story worth reading

There are moments in a nation’s history when the truth reveals itself not through grand speeches or official inquiries, but through the quiet, devastating contrast between how the powerful are treated and how ordinary citizens are discarded. For me, that contrast became impossible to ignore in the early 1990s, when Telstra — still a government‑owned corporation — failed to meet its contractual obligations to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox operations.

The failure was significant. Telstra had promised a level of service capacity essential for Fox’s broadcasting and commercial expansion. When it couldn’t deliver, the consequences were immediate and costly. The government moved swiftly, decisively, and with a clarity of purpose I would never see applied to ordinary Australians. Murdoch’s companies received a compensation package reportedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars — a settlement negotiated behind closed doors, executed with precision, and justified as necessary to protect commercial confidence.

It was a masterclass in how the system responds when the aggrieved party is powerful, wealthy, and globally influential.

But while the government was quietly writing cheques to protect a multinational corporation, a very different story was unfolding for the rest of us.

Around the same time, a group of small business owners — the people who would later become known as the COT Cases — were fighting for something far more basic: the right to reliable telephone service. We weren’t asking for special treatment. We weren’t demanding millions. We simply wanted the service we had been promised, the service we were paying for, the service our livelihoods depended on.

When Telstra failed us, the consequences were catastrophic. Lost calls meant lost customers. Faulty lines meant lost bookings. Static, dropouts, and dead lines meant reputations destroyed. For some, it meant bankruptcy. For others, the collapse of marriages, health, and hope.

The government’s response?

Not swift. Not decisive. Not protective. Instead, we were herded into a government‑endorsed arbitration process — a process that, we were assured, would be fair, transparent, and independent. A process that would hold Telstra accountable. A process that would restore what we had lost.

But from the moment the ink dried on those agreements, it became clear that the arbitration system was designed not to deliver justice, but to contain us. To manage us. To neutralise us.

Where Murdoch received compensation for Telstra’s failure, we received legal bills.

Where Fox was treated as a partner, we were treated as a problem.

Where the government protected a corporation’s commercial interests, it protected Telstra from its own citizens.

The contrast was not just stark; it was damning. It was sabotage.

🧨 Sabotage / Deliberate Damage

To understand how such a double standard could exist, one must examine the ecosystem of influence surrounding Telstra at the time. The telecommunications landscape was undergoing significant change. The government was preparing Telstra for privatisation, and its value—along with the political careers tied to that value—depended on maintaining the illusion of a reliable, modern, world-class network.

Admitting to systemic faults would have had disastrous commercial implications. Compensating ordinary citizens would have been politically inconvenient. However, compensating a global media empire? That was deemed necessary. Thus, the system bent— it bent for Murdoch, it bent for Fox, and it bent for the government's own commercial ambitions.

Telstra and its legal defence team perverted the course of justice in the arbitration process by such dubious strategies as intercepting faxes and conversations (bugging) and failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months, even years, too late, and often so heavily censored that little was intelligible).

Although Telstra's lawyers employed strategies that sometimes tested our spirits, they did not break us, as the government bureaucrats assisting Telstra had hoped.

As I delved deeper into arbitration, I realised that the system wasn’t broken; it was functioning exactly as it was designed. The rules had been written by Telstra. The arbitrator was appointed under conditions that would later be revealed as deeply conflicted. Evidence was withheld, delayed, or altered. Technical reports were sanitised. Meanwhile, the government, which had promised oversight, quietly stepped back into the shadows.

At the same time, the legal and corporate figures who shaped the regulatory environment were moving into senior roles within major media organizations, including Fox-related entities. This wasn’t illegal or even unusual, but it revealed something essential about how power circulates in Australia: it operates within tight circles, behind closed doors, and far from the reach of ordinary citizens.

When powerful institutions work within overlapping networks, accountability becomes optional. Transparency becomes negotiable. And justice becomes a privilege—not a right.

For us—the small business owners, farmers, tourism operators, and shopkeepers—justice was never on the table. We were told to trust the process. We were assured that the arbitrator was independent, that the government was watching.

The truth, however, was simpler and far more brutal: we were expendable. Our losses didn’t threaten the national interest. Our businesses didn’t influence global markets. Our voices didn’t resonate in boardrooms or cabinet meetings. Consequently, when Telstra failed to meet its obligations to us, we weren’t compensated; we were punished. Some of us were forced to pay Telstra’s legal costs, some were left with debts that would follow them for decades, and some lost everything.

The same government that protected a billionaire’s commercial interests refused to protect its own citizens from the consequences of Telstra’s failures. That is the heart of the injustice.

That is the rot at the centre of the system. That is the story that Australia still hasn’t been told. We weren’t asking for special treatment; we were asking for equal treatment. And the system couldn’t—or wouldn’t—provide it.

This chapter marks a turning point in my memoir and in my understanding. It was the moment I realised that our battle was not just against Telstra, but against the machinery that protected it—a machinery that could compensate a global media empire while abandoning the citizens it was meant to serve.

It was the moment I understood that justice in Australia is not distributed evenly. It is allocated, prioritised, and negotiated. And for people like the COT Cases, it is far from affordable.

Rupert Murdoch - Partners Telstra

Every Australian citizen must confront a grotesque reality: if Telstra indeed paid a staggering $400 million to Rupert Murdoch and Fox, as Senate Hansard suggests, then we are not merely talking about a transactional agreement—it is a flagrant cover-up of their failure to deliver on the promised National Broadband Network (NBN) cable fibre rollout. This shady arrangement raises grave questions about whose interests were truly protected in this corrupt alliance. Who among Telstra’s leadership condoned such duplicitous agreements, fully aware of the profound harm being inflicted upon the citizens they were meant to serve?

Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN

I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, as published by the Parliament of Australia, which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that the company would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as severe discrimination, then what does?

This was public money overseen by the Telstra board. It’s crucial to emphasise that when this deal was made, Telstra was entirely owned by the people of Australia.

Senate comment follows:

Point 10. "Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce labour costs 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."

Point 11. "Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, but it also 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 target of cable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister."

During the Senate investigation, insidious truths began to surface, with points 10 and 11 casting a dark shadow over the proceedings. Copies of the Hansard discussion were furtively distributed to at least 23 of the 76 Senators, revealing a labyrinth of corruption that lurked within the halls of power. It became increasingly clear that a cadre of influential figures within the Australian establishment was fully aware of the nefarious payout agreement, even as the entire Telstra board, along with others, intentionally turned a blind eye to the reality that Telstra could never fulfil the arbitrary deadline they set for the dubious $400,000 bounty.

This raises chilling questions: how many prominent individuals signed off on such a suspicious arrangement? On the 7 and 8 April 1994, eight COT Cases, including me, worked with AUSTEL's Chairman, Robin Davey, and General Manager, John MacMahon, and others in AUSTEL's (now ACMA) offices during a lockdown; no information left the building over those two days. We were searched as mobile phones were used in those days, and we were cautioned not to discuss with anyone what we were working on or had uncovered about Telstra.

We collectively uncovered evidence from surveys, AUSTEL, and the COT Cases indicating that more than 120,000 Telstra customers, including ourselves, were experiencing significant phone problems. What we were not informed of was that AUSTEL had communicated with Telstra, providing them with insights from our two-day meeting. Unbeknownst to the COT Cases group, AUSTEL was pressured to retract its critical findings in the April 1994 AUSTEL COT Cases Report, which had boldly stated that there were 120,000 ongoing cases of telephone issues faced by Telstra customers, similar to those within the COT Cases.

Disturbingly, this extensive documentation was manipulated to suggest that only 50 or more COT-type Telstra customers were experiencing issues, as reflected in AUSTEL's findings, which were then presented to the arbitrator overseeing our claims.

The actions of these influential parties require closer examination, as the integrity of the entire inquiry is at stake. For a more in-depth exploration of this complex web of deceit, please refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN. For a government regulator to alter its findings from 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers facing similar problems to a report that misrepresents this data is indicative of serious misconduct. This is particularly concerning given the $400 million deal that Telstra and its board knew they would never be able to fulfil.

The COT Cases story reveals a chilling picture of betrayal and corruption, involving 21 different Australians who fell victim to a treacherous, rigged arbitration and mediation process orchestrated by Telstra. These individuals were ruthlessly coerced into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on professional arbitration fees, desperate to prove that Telstra had been systematically unable to honour its contractual commitments. Under the guise of an agreement made through AUSTEL (now ACMA), Telstra had promised that, if we funded our arbitrations, no final ruling would be issued by the arbitrator until they could demonstrate that all faults plaguing our businesses had been rectified.

Yet, in a shocking display of duplicity, Telstra failed to meet this obligation. Despite the overwhelming evidence of their negligence, the arbitrator shamefully sided with Telstra, absurdly claiming the faults had been repaired when, in reality, nothing had changed. This betrayal left the affected individuals reeling in disbelief.

I was compelled to pay an astonishing sum of over $300,000 in arbitration fees, a staggering amount that should have never been required had there been any semblance of integrity in the process. This financial burden stemmed from the hollow assurances given by Robin Davey, Chairman of the Government Communications Authority AUSTEL, and Warwick Smith, the then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They promised that the arbitrator would not render a formal decision (an award) until Telstra could unequivocally prove that every single one of my phone line issues had been identified and rectified. To this day, there is no documentation substantiating that Telstra ever addressed any of the myriad problems plaguing my service.

In a politically charged atmosphere, seven long months after my arbitration was unjustly cut short by Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, AUSTEL's Darren Kearney made a covert ten-hour trek from Melbourne to my business on December 19, 1995. He left my premises with six spiral-bound arbitration submissions that Dr. Hughes had callously denied to his technical consultants, DMR & Lane, back on April 30, 1995. They had requested additional time to delve deeper into the complexities of my unresolved billing issues, but their pleas were dismissed outright, adding to the sense of injustice.

Fast forward to February 1996, when Darren Kearney produced a damning three-page report confirming that my billing problems were still ongoing, a revelation that highlighted the negligence of the entire process. The new owners of my business, who took it over in December 2001, corroborated my plight, revealing that they too were ensnared in the same web of confusion and frustration, facing persistent phone issues that lingered until November 2006 (See Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct). This was a full eleven years after Dr. Gordon Hughes had denied his consultants the crucial extra time needed to investigate my legitimate arbitration claims thoroughly.

It is incredibly frustrating and completely unfair that I had to cover the costs for service lines that Telstra was unable to fix, while simultaneously being burdened by exorbitant arbitration fees. If the Senate Hansard referenced above is accurate— and there is no reason to believe otherwise— it reveals that the Telstra Board paid $400 million in compensation to Rupert Murdoch and FOX despite failing to fulfil commitments to both parties involved.

In simpler terms, this situation shows that assistance is provided to the powerful while small business operators are left to fend for themselves. This scenario reeks of corruption, highlighting not only a systemic failure but also a blatant disregard for fairness and equity. It leaves individuals like me vulnerable, exploited, and disenfranchised in a process that seems designed to protect only those in positions of power, to the detriment of those who have no voice.

The continuation of this Home page can be read by clicking on: Not Fit For Purpose

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.

The Final Insult

When I left Cape Bridgewater for the last time in February 2019, I carried the weight of decades of disillusionment. What began in March 1987 as a simple fight for a fair go had twisted into something far more sinister — a long, punishing struggle against a system that seemed determined to break me. The arbitration process, which should have delivered truth and justice, instead unfolded like a carefully staged performance, its outcome shaped long before I ever stepped into the ring.

Throughout that ordeal, seven employees stood before the arbitrator and swore that my business had always enjoyed the “world’s best rural telephone service.” Seven statements. Seven signatures. Each one felt like another layer in a web designed to obscure, confuse, and suffocate the truth.

As we turned onto the ring road out of Portland, hoping to leave the nightmare behind, a towering billboard rose above the highway — a final, mocking reminder of everything I had endured.

Its message sliced through me like a blade:

“We’ve expanded Australia’s best network to Cape Bridgewater.”

There it stood, bold and triumphant, completely at odds with the sworn statements that had shaped my arbitration. The billboard, erected in 2018, cast a long shadow over the entire process. It felt like a public contradiction, a silent revelation that the narrative presented during arbitration had never aligned with the reality on the ground.

In that moment, the façade cracked. The contrast between what had been said under oath and what now loomed above the highway was impossible to ignore. It was a chilling reminder of how easily truth can be buried, how effortlessly a narrative can be shaped, and how deeply betrayal can cut when trust has already been stretched to breaking point.

As of January 2026, Telstra and the government have still not released the promised FOI documents I needed to support my 1994/95 arbitration claims.

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.

Call for Justice

The Dream, the Silence, and the Betrayal

A Conspiracy of Silence

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Confronting Despair

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

Salvaging What I Could

Lies Deceit And Treachery

An Unlocked Briefcase

A Government-backed Arbitration

Not Fit For Purpose

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Who We Are

Read About Our Dealings With

Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Senate Evidence

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

China-Flash-Back-AFP Investigation -2

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

C A V Part 1, 2 and 3

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

Call for Justice

The Dream, the Silence, and the Betrayal

A Conspiracy of Silence

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Confronting Despair

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

Salvaging What I Could

Lies Deceit And Treachery

An Unlocked Briefcase

A Government-backed Arbitration

Not Fit For Purpose

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Who We Are

Read About Our Dealings With

Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Senate Evidence

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

China-Flash-Back-AFP Investigation -2

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

C A V Part 1, 2 and 3

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us