Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has, over more than two decades, perverted the course of justice → Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest.
Call for Justice
My name is Alan Smith, and this is not merely a tale about faulty telephones; it is a harrowing account of ordinary small businesspeople — the COT Four — who found themselves caught in a treacherous battle against one of Australia's largest corporations. For years, Telstra, with its powerful grip on the telecommunications landscape, flatly denied our plight, dismissing each desperate complaint with the same hollow refrain: No fault found...
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
When I bought the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in 1988, I imagined finally realising my lifelong dream. Instead, within weeks, I was met with a deafening silence that was anything but accidental. Customers and suppliers informed me they were unable to reach me. Calls rang unanswered, lines mysteriously went dead, and critical faxes vanished without a trace. What should have blossomed into a flourishing hospitality business became a daily nightmare fuelled by corporate negligence.
Back in the 1990s, business was not conducted online, and mobile phones had not yet emerged. Had such technologies existed, the losses suffered by twenty‑one Australian small business operators might have been avoided.
When we uncovered the truth surrounding these failures, we naively assumed skilled technicians would swiftly locate and remedy the faults. Instead, we were met with a wall of denial as Telstra played a devilish game of hide‑and‑seek. When we sought accountability, the government and regulatory bodies forced us into arbitration — a process that masqueraded as justice but was a carefully orchestrated trap. Telstra intercepted our communications, withheld vital documents, censored damning evidence, and treated us as adversaries rather than customers in need of help.
As we pressed on, it became painfully clear: this was not simply about phones. It was about power — a corporation determined to protect its interests at any cost, and institutions complicit in their wrongdoing. What began as a straightforward request for a functioning telephone service devolved into an epic struggle for justice against insurmountable odds.
Dreams Betrayed
Owning the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp should have been the fulfilment of a cherished childhood dream. I envisioned laughter echoing through the halls, families gathering for holidays, and the satisfaction of building something enduring in the hospitality industry. Instead, almost from the first week, I was confronted with a sinister silence — phones rang without connecting, and customers were met with dead lines or recorded messages claiming the number was not in service.
The joy of welcoming guests morphed into a relentless cycle of frustration. Suppliers reported they could not reach me, essential faxes evaporated into thin air or returned blank, and clients resorted to writing letters through Australia Post to tell me they could not get through. Seventy‑six of these letters were forwarded to the government communications authority as evidence of the issues I faced.
What should have thrived was slowly strangled by faults Telstra refused to acknowledge. Each time I reported the issue, the response was chillingly identical: “No fault found.” My livelihood was collapsing under the weight of a communication network that had become utterly unreliable. What began as a dream of hospitality and community was cruelly betrayed by negligence and deceit, leaving me to fight for survival in a business suffocated by silence.
The Farce of Arbitration
When the government finally consented to arbitration, I allowed myself a glimmer of hope that justice might be within reach. Instead, the process unfolded as a sordid charade, designed to protect Telstra and bury our claims beneath layers of obstruction. Evidence was systematically withheld or delivered in such a delayed and heavily censored manner that it was rendered meaningless. Vital conversations were intercepted, crucial faxes vanished, and documents were fabricated to suit Telstra’s agenda.
The arbitrator ignored the core issues of my claim, no matter how persistently I raised them. Regulators stood idly by, impotent in the face of corporate malfeasance, while ministers who had once promised support turned their backs upon assuming power. It became alarmingly clear that the arbitration was not a quest for fairness — it was a deliberate attempt to silence dissent.
Telstra approached me as if I were a common criminal, wielding every tactic to delay, confuse, and exhaust me. What should have been a straightforward assessment of proven faults spiralled into a costly, protracted ordeal. The very system established to deliver justice had transformed into a theatre of injustice, where rules were bent, evidence was tampered with, and accountability was brutally erased.
What emerged was not merely a breakdown of telecommunications but a profound erosion of trust in the institutions meant to safeguard citizens. This arbitration was not just a farce; it revealed a darker truth: unchecked corporate power, shielded by government complacency, has the capacity to turn ordinary lives into battlegrounds, shrouded in treachery and deceit.
Leading up to and during my arbitration, there were two individuals named Alan Smith living in Cape Bridgewater. Both of us, along with the other Alan Smith, had to deal with the same lawyers from Freehills Hollingdale & Page regarding our ongoing billing problems. The fax imprint on the two billing summons confirms Freehills' involvement. Our experience illustrates that Freehills Hollingdale & Page acted unethically during the COT Cases arbitration, including my own, by attesting to signatures on legal documents when no signatures were present at all. They are now operating under a new name: Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. .
During this same arbitration, I endured a relentless barrage of corrupt practices that have not only decimated my business but have also drawn the unwanted attention of government authorities. It is nothing short of shocking that, five months after the arbitrator delivered his ruling declaring that there were no ongoing issues affecting my business as point 3.2 (h) in his findings, the government communications authority AUSTEL (now called ACMA) allowed Telstra to sweep in and illegally resolve these unresolved arbitration billing issues in a clandestine meeting on October 16, 1995 (See Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal)?
This duplicitous intervention obliterated my legal rights of replying to Telstra's answering of my arbitration claims, rendering me powerless as AUSTEL/ACMA, supposedly representing the government’s interests, turned a blind eye to the truth. They granted Telstra the ability to respond to my unresolved claims in secret, effectively silencing me when I needed a voice the most. The misuse of the Confidentiality Agreement by all parties involved is an outright betrayal; it serves as a shield for their corruption, allowing them to evade accountability while I am left to battle the overwhelming evidence of their deceit.
This egregious maneuvering has inflicted thirty years of anguish on my partner and me, revealing a deeply sinister conspiracy that has eroded trust and justice. What should have been a fair process has descended into a dark realm of manipulation and injustice, leaving us grappling with the devastating consequences of their greed and betrayal.
You can learn more about the deceptive conduct of the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, as well as the administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, who was also involved in this deception as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, along with John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager. For further details, click on Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, which is also discussed below
The Arbitraitor
Available to purchase at Promote Your StoryI have chosen the following narrative to introduce my story,
What “The Arbitraitor” reveals, along with my editor's findings, is a disturbing pattern: when unfavourable findings emerge against government officials and their agencies, essential information affecting citizens is wiped clean—erased as if it never existed—despite its necessity as evidence in trials, jurisdictional proceedings, or government-endorsed arbitration and mediation
Buy Now ⟶ 🔥 The Arbitraitor — The Book They Never Wanted You to Read
• falsified technical reports• intercepted communications• withheld evidence• compromised arbitrators• government regulators who looked the other way• and a corporate giant determined to silence the truth
• how Telstra manipulated evidence• how government‑endorsed arbitration became a weapon• how whistleblowers were silenced• how truth was buried under layers of bureaucracy• and how ordinary Australians were sacrificed to protect corporate interests
It is a warning — and a testament to the resilience of someone who refused to be erased.If you believe in accountability…If you believe in justice…If you believe that truth still matters…
A deeply troubling revelation surfaced, unveiling an even more sinister layer to an already chaotic situation: critical faxes containing vital information about the fraud allegations were deliberately intercepted before they could ever reach Dr. Hughes’s office. This treacherous act created chaos and severely undermined my attempts to compile and submit a comprehensive arbitration claim.
Because our COT stories were riddled with so many twists and turns — unethical conduct one day, outright sinister behaviour the next — it soon became clear that no single person could possibly grasp the full extent of what was unfolding. Coopers & Lybrand had warned the government this would happen. They had seen it before. In Britain, during their own telecommunications arbitration process, they insisted on one arbitrator per case for this very reason. Yet in Australia, we were handed one man — Dr Gordon Hughes — to preside over eight separate arbitrations and mediations, as if the sheer impossibility of the task was part of the design.
How could Dr Hughes and his two technical consultants and three financial advisors read more than 200,000 claim documents relating to these cases and then turn around and read Telstra’s defence of these 200,000 claim documents? How could any arbitrator, no matter how capable, absorb that volume of material and still deliver justice? The answer was obvious: they couldn’t. And that was precisely the point.
So why did Telstra and the TIO — the very body administering the COT arbitrations — allow a non‑graded arbitrator to preside over so many cases? And why, while he was arbitrating on those same claims, was he quietly sitting for his exams with the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, attempting to earn the grading he never disclosed he lacked? Worse still, he failed those exams at the very time he was ruling on our lives, our businesses, and our futures. Yet the process continued, unchallenged, as though nothing were amiss. The result was catastrophic: eight arbitrations destroyed, eight livelihoods shattered, eight families left to pick up the pieces.
I received written confirmation from the President of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) in 2002, confirming that Dr Hughes did not earn his grading certificate until well after he completed my arbitration. The truth had been buried for years.
Why should I — or any of the other COT Cases — be forced to live with this grotesque injustice? No wonder Dr Hughes allowed his wife and John Pinnock to write letters about me to the Institutes, letters they knew were lies. My evidence proves it. Their actions were not mistakes. They were part of a coordinated effort to discredit, silence, and erase us.
The duplicitous statements made by Dr Gordon Hughes to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, were not merely misleading — they were brazenly deceptive. Dr Hughes assured Mr James that he and his technical advisors had meticulously reviewed all 24,000 documents. Yet the truth is far darker: these documents were never submitted for proper arbitration assessment. Instead, they were scattered across the country in a manner that defies any innocent explanation. Some were deliberately sent by government solicitors to COT Case member Ann Garms at the Tivoli Theatre Restaurant in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, while other documents she had requested under FOI were inexplicably sent more than 1,000 kilometres away — to me.
This was not administrative chaos. It was a pattern.
Telstra and its lawyers withheld approximately 150,000 FOI documents from the COT Cases during the 1994–1996 arbitrations. These documents — critical, time‑sensitive evidence — were only released to five of the twelve COT Cases in 1998, and only because the Senate forced Telstra’s hand. Such conduct was not accidental. It was strategic obstruction.
In my own case, Tony Morgon, the Chief Loss Assessor from GAB Robins — international assessors appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman — uncovered a disturbing truth: I had not submitted the 24,000 FOI‑released documents for arbitration because Telstra’s deliberate delays left me with no time to properly review them. This was not incompetence. It was engineered disadvantage.
And when I attempted to salvage what I could by compiling a mini‑report from the documents I managed to examine, Dr Hughes shut the door. He categorically denied me the opportunity to present it — a decision that can only be described as malicious.
Dr Hughes’s conduct amounted to a calculated misrepresentation of the facts to Laurie James during an official investigation. His refusal to confront the lies — whether they originated from him or from his advisors — represents a grave betrayal of trust. It casts a long, corrosive shadow over the entire arbitration process and over every life it damaged.
It was corruption — calculated, deliberate, and devastating. On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside the agreed procedure?
In 2026, Dr Gordon Hughes is Principal Lawyer of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp
In the wake of these shocking developments, Mr. Jepson Major Fraud Group Victoria Police reached out to me with a sense of urgency, pleading for my assistance to expose this grave betrayal that had ruthlessly derailed my arbitration process. DMR & Lane, the advisors to the arbitrator, found themselves unable to secure the additional weeks they had requested on April 30, 1995, to properly finalize my arbitration. As a result, my case was maliciously cut short on May 11, 1995.
Amid this unfolding scandal, the government communications authority, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), was made aware that the systemic billing issues I had reported on June 9, 1993, and followed up on through March 1994 had not only been ignored by the arbitrator but also inadequately addressed by Telstra. In a dastardly maneuver, AUSTEL allowed Telstra to secretly handle that segment of my claim in camera on October 16, 1995, excluding me and Dr. Hughes entirely from the proceedings. This underhanded tactic stripped me of my legal right to challenge Telstra's submission, while Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, had already issued his findings in favor of Telstra, deceitfully claiming that my business had not suffered ongoing problems after July 1994.
Was he completely unaware of the ongoing billing issues that were impacting my business, or was he involved in hiding these systemic problems? These billing issues raised concerns for Mr. Neil Jepson, the barrister for the Major Fraud Group, as the archive files of the Major Fraud Group would show.
At point 3.2 (h) in his award Dr Hughes notes: "The claimant adds that he continued to suffer transmission problems after March 1993, although since July 1994 he has had relatively little cause for complaint".
This statemnt at point 3:2,(h) in Dr Hughes formal award award does not march the statement made by his official technical consultants DMR & Lane in their 30 April 1995 formal findings at 2.23 which state:
“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.
“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” ( Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)
and
“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,” (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)
The Evidence Dr Hughes Refused to Examine
AUSTEL’s Mr Kearney made it plain in his February 1996 report (see ) that my arbitration claims were valid. His conclusions were drawn directly from the five volumes of technical evidence that Dr Gordon Hughes refused to allow his own two arbitration consultants the extra time they requested to assess. Kearney’s findings were unequivocal: the faults I had documented were still present in Telstra’s network as late as 13 January 1995.
The twenty‑three examples he identified demonstrated that Telstra’s late submission to AUSTEL on 16 October 1995 was fundamentally flawed. In fact, without my agreement for AUSTEL to send Mr Kearney on a twelve‑hour round trip from Melbourne to Cape Bridgewater to collect the material Dr Hughes had ignored, AUSTEL would never have discovered that Telstra’s October submission was a fabrication.
This is the critical point: the information Telstra was allowed to provide to AUSTEL in secret—without giving me my legal right of reply—did not align with Mr Kearney’s February 1996 findings. The two sets of information cannot be reconciled. One was grounded in evidence; the other was constructed to mislead.
It were these secret addressing of my arbitration claims by Telstra and the government communications authority that prompted Mr Neil Jepson to conclude that others in a higher position than those adminstering my arbitration was guiding my evidence away from being investigated under agreed rules of arbitration. These stemic billing problems were dianamite
In 2026, Dr Gordon Hughes is Principal Lawyer of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp
Major Fraud Group Victoria Police
The above Major Fraud Group Victoria Police link provides important information regarding my case. It details how, during an official arbitration investigation led by Laure James, the President of the Institute of Arbitration in Australia, Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator from my previous arbitration), John Pinnock (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and also the administrator of my prior arbitration), and John Rundell (the Project Manager appointed by the TIO) conspired to prevent Mr. James from uncovering the truth about my claims. They collectively undermined my credibility as an Australian and attacked my character by investigating issues that never occurred.
Anyone who reviews the more than 3,600 pieces of evidence available on the website absentjustice.com will likely conclude that I am a person of strong character. Unfortunately, the collective dishonesty of Dr. Hughes, John Pinnock, and John Rundell prevailed, resulting in the termination of Mr. James's investigation. I believe I deserved to have my character assessed based on my years of service as a merchant seaman.
During an extended leave from the Australian Merchant Navy, I signed on to a British vessel, the Hopepeak, for what I believed would be a straightforward single voyage. I served as the ship’s cook and duty messman. The Hopepeak, registered in Newcastle, England, was an unassuming cargo ship on paper, but I soon learned it had been scheduled to load Australian wheat in Albany, Western Australia—grain destined for humanitarian relief for starving Chinese nationals. At the time, I had no idea that I had stepped into a voyage shaped by forces far larger than the crew who worked her decks.
I revisit part of this story in my second book, The Arbitraitor, where it serves as a backdrop to the broader narratives I intend to write about the COT Cases. Those stories—of ordinary Australians pushed into extraordinary battles—have only grown heavier with time. Since beginning this book, three of the COT members have passed away, their lives shortened by the relentless pressures they endured throughout the saga. Their absence is a stark reminder of the human cost behind the documents, hearings, and official silence.
I want to emphasize in my COT story that, both in the armed services and in the merchant navies, service personnel, regardless of their country, creed, or where they reside, often develop a strong sense of honor and respect for one another. However, in public life—among politicians and others—this sense of duty to the electorate is rarely prioritized. Instead, it seems that politicians often put their own careers and interests first, rather than serving those who elected them.
This was evident during and after the COT arbitrations, as evidenced by the fact that Australian wheat was fed to the North Vietnamese, whose primary objective as soldiers was to destroy Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. soldiers.
There was considerable criticism about trading with China during this time due to China's support for the Vietnam War, where Australian, New Zealand, and American troops faced significant challenges in the jungles of North Vietnam. Daily discussions on this topic arose, and there were concerns that the Hopepeak might not be allowed to leave Australia. The unions only permitted the ship’s departure after Australian bureaucrats advised that the wheat would be supplied solely on humanitarian grounds to assist a starving population. This is why we sailed to communist China.
The following narrative outlines my conversations with former Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Fraser, where I revealed how the sale of wheat to China has had a profound and troubling impact on my life. While in China, I uncovered that a portion of this wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This was particularly alarming because the wheat was supplied under the false pretense of humanitarian aid, intended solely for the Chinese people, not for our adversaries. This treacherous act undermined our national interests and assisted the enemies of Australia and our allies. I managed to provide concrete evidence of this betrayal to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), as my conversations were unlawfully intercepted.
In my original letter to Mr. Fraser, dated September 18, 1967, during his tenure as Minister for the Army, I warned him about the Chinese maneuvering behind a humanitarian facade. I urged that no further shipments should be made until ironclad guarantees were established. Regrettably, these assurances were never put in place, even as our troops and those of our allies were being killed and maimed. This callous wheat trade continued unchecked after my discharge from the Hopepeak, illustrating a shocking neglect for the sacrifices made by our servicemen and women.
Portland Memorial Vietnam Peace Park
Please visit → https://shorturl.at/aejRT
I invite you to read about the China deal below and grasp my conviction that honor and truth must take precedence over profit. The actions of Australian bureaucrats reveal a pattern of treachery and corruption, demonstrating a disturbing indifference to the lives of its citizens. The COT Case exemplifies how bureaucrats have made self-serving decisions without regard for the catastrophic consequences, a theme that resonates deeply throughout the story you are about to read.
• In Shanghai, I was frog‑marched off the ship under armed guard by Red Guards, accused of being a spy, and forced to write letters under threat of execution.• The Commonwealth Police met the ship in Sydney on 18 September 1967, confirming the seriousness of what had occurred.• British crew members refused to sail the ship back to China, fearing for their lives. A new crew had to be flown from the UK at the shipowner’s expense.• Despite these warnings, Australia continued to send wheat shipments, knowing some of that grain was being redeployed to North Vietnam.
As Australian wheat shipments reached the shores of a starving China, a dark and troubling decision emerged from the shadows of bureaucratic halls: only part of this precious grain was to be fed to a nation in desperate need. The rest was quietly redirected to North Vietnam — effectively feeding the enemy.The corruption within our government was stark. Bureaucrats disregarded the humanitarian purpose of sending wheat to China and failed to secure an agreement preventing this essential food from being diverted elsewhere. This was not simply an oversight; it was bad governance of the highest order. Australia had already been warned that earlier wheat shipments had been redeployed to North Vietnam, yet no stipulation was made to prevent a repeat of the same betrayal. It revealed a disturbing disregard for the Australian people and for the sacrifices made by our allies.
It was as if the decision‑makers were willfully blind to the consequences of their actions — prioritising political advantage over humanitarian need. In doing so, they fed the very forces that threatened our allies and our way of life. This betrayal by those in power exposed a chilling indifference to the lives at stake, revealing a sinister undercurrent within the administration that left many questioning their motives, their judgment, and their integrity.
🌾 Humanitarian Lies and the Wheat That Killed
One of the questions raised with Malcolm Fraser was: How could Australia claim its wheat exports to the Republic of China were humanitarian when the government knew some of that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam—a country actively killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand, and American troops during the Vietnam War?
How was this humanitarian when Australia was, contributing to the deaths of its own soldiers and those of its allies? The shipments continued regardless. Fraser, like others in government, chose silence over accountability.
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 Canadian Government and Its Moral Code of Ethics
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image above, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China — especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or maimed — was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have continued.
Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about supporting a nation that opposed Australian, New Zealand, and US forces.
Examining this wheat agreement made with the People's Republic of China during the Menzies government in the mid‑1960s is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications that were obscured by a government campaign to discredit British and Canadian merchant seamen — including me. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam.
What is the real significance of the China wheat deal in the chilling narrative of the COT? I placed my unwavering trust in the government in August 1967—an act that nearly cost me my life. I believed, perhaps naively, that my new country, Australia—where I had proudly become a citizen just two years earlier in May 1967—deserved to know the unsettling truth about where its wheat was truly heading after it reached China. The tragedy deepened as I realised that I had almost given everything, including my life, only to find that no one cared to listen.
Two month after my arbitration, after I submitted the same letter and supporting evidence to both the Australian and Canadian Governments, it became evident that the Australian authorities had turned a blind eye to a disturbing reality. The Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) test results, which were clearly flawed, were utilised by Telstra as leverage in their arbitration defence. I raised concerns about three other COT Cases where Telstra employed similar reprehensible BCI test results to bolster their defence, yet all those claims remain unresolved. It is alarming that the Australian Government has remained silent, while the Canadian Government was the only entity to respond, shedding light on the sinister implications of this entire situation.
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 depths of this corruption were further revealed when I discovered that Telstra's legal team at Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne had handed Mr Ian Joblin, Telstra’s clinical psychologist, a copy of the fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater report. This document made outrageous claims, stating that 13,590 test calls were successfully made to an unmanned exchange over five days, achieving a 99.5% success rate. The truth? Not one single test call happened at that exchange, because the nearest facility capable of accommodating the testing equipment was conveniently disregarded. Mr Joblin, misled by this deceitful material, believed I was paranoid about calls not reaching my business, all while Freehills crafted a narrative filled with deceit.
The situation grew even more treacherous when it was uncovered that Marice Wayne Condon from Freehills falsely signed off on Mr Joblin’s witness statement, claiming to attest to Mr Joblin’s signature, despite the absence of any signature at all. I confronted Mr Joblin during our meeting, exposing that he had been played by Freehills and Telstra's manipulative tactics. These alarming inconsistencies clearly troubled the Canadian Government, prompting it to contact me in July 1995.
Fast forward to 2026, and the Australian Government remains complicit in this web of deceit, failing to respond to or acknowledge the fraud that festered during my government‑endorsed arbitration. It raises an unsettling question: what machinations lie behind their silence.
The government had a chance to address this same issues during my 2006, government review process titled The eighth remedy pursued see → The Deal, they did not.
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 Witness Statement That Shouldn’t Exist
The original witness statement bore only the signature of Telstra’s lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon, from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. It was submitted without the psychologist Ian Joblin’s signature—a glaring omission that should have halted its acceptance. Yet, just eight days later, a second version emerged, now featuring Joblin’s signature, retroactively dated to match Condon’s original signing date.
This raises a disturbing question: if Ian Joblin did not sign the document on that day, how did his signature appear on a version processed through arbitration channels as if he had?
Now it is 2026, and I remain without a response from Telstra or John Pinnock. This pervasive silence only underscores the sheer treachery and corruption that define this entire ordeal.
Before the arbitrations began, the government made insincere promises to influential figures within Australia's establishment, including senior executives at Telstra. They assured these individuals that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, known for their unethical conduct toward the first four COT claimants (of whom I was one), would have no further involvement in the COT matters (see point 40, Prologue Evidence File No/2).
Despite receiving these assurances, Dr Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing the process, and Warwick Smith, the administrator of the arbitrations who also served as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, allowed Freehill Hollingdale & Page to handle Telstra's defence in my arbitration.
The Deal
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.
Two examples follow:
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 +1100ATTACHMENT: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
“Hundreds of federal public servants were sacked, demoted or fined in the past year for serious misconduct. Investigations into more than 1000 bureaucrats uncovered bad behaviour such as theft, identity fraud, prying into file, leaking secrets. About 50 were found to have made improper use of inside information or their power and authority for the benefit of themselves, family and friends“
Therefore, I have relied on page 3 of the Herald Sun (22 December 2008), published under the blunt and telling headline “Bad Bureaucrats,” because it is short‑worded, direct, and impossible to misinterpret. It stands as further proof that Australia’s government public servants have, at times, behaved as a law unto themselves and must be held accountable for their misconduct. Were some of these "Bad Bueaucrats" chosen by the Liberal Coalition Government to assess the COT Cases 205/2006 DCITA claims?
"Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians."
"Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter."
"When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country."
"Since the start of the 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”
This article was quite alarming. It was disturbing because Peta Credlin, someone with deep knowledge of Parliament House in Canberra, has accurately addressed the issue at hand. I not only relate to the information she presents, but I can also connect it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have encountered since exposing what I did about the China wheat deal back in 1967, and the corrupted arbitration processes of 1994 to 1998. These government stuff-ups and cover-ups have cost lives.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process, which became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.
🗂️ Senate Investigations and the BCI Deception
This chapter examines the significant errors that came to light during five Senate Estimates Committee investigations related to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, with a particular focus on the flawed Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing process. Deficiencies marked this process and, in my experience, proved to be impractical.
From 1994 until at least 2011, Graham Schorer, spokesperson for the COT Cases, consistently maintained a compelling belief. He recalled an unsettling phone call from computer hackers in April 1994. Among them, one prominent individual—whom we now suspect to be Julian Assange—used the term “report” when discussing documents and emails that allegedly exposed Telstra’s unlawful conduct.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
What remains unsettlingly unproven is the complicity surrounding the shadowy figures of Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, and Warwick Smith, the arbitration administrator. Both were fully aware that the Australian Federal Police were probing the very same phone and fax interception issues that Des Direen, representing Telstra, was investigating at the Portland Telephone exchange. These are not mere administrative oversights; they are deeply troubling matters that raise grave concerns about misconduct.
Introduction: A System Built on Betrayal.
The arbitration system in Australia was sold to us as fair, transparent, and government-endorsed. In reality, it was anything but. The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) was supposed to be independent, yet time and again it bent to political and corporate influence. What should have been a safeguard for justice became a weapon of betrayal.
The COT Cases: Cracks in the System (1990s)
Back in the 1990s, the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases exposed the rot. Telstra and government officials withheld documents, misled arbitrators, and left claimants fighting blind. Arbitrators ignored evidence that should have been central to their rulings. The result? Ordinary Australians were systematically disadvantaged while Telstra and its allies walked away untouched. Those cases proved one thing: when corporate power colludes with political silence, justice collapses.
The Telstra Briefcase Incident (1992–1993)
I unwittingly became a witness to corruption in its most vile form. One fateful day, two Telstra executives carelessly left an unlocked briefcase in my Cape Bridgewater office, oblivious to the secrets it contained. Within that briefcase lay documents that exposed a dark conspiracy—Telstra’s board and management were orchestrating a calculated campaign to deceive the public, painting their network as world-class, all while they were acutely aware of the faulty copper wire network and defective Ericsson-installed telephone exchange equipment.
Even more chilling was the revelation that these same Ericsson phone exchanges were being hastily removed from service overseas (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f)—these flaws were too dangerous to ignore. Yet here in Australia, Telstra continued to deploy these treacherous systems, endangering vulnerable customers with every installation.
When I dared to raise my voice against this insidious scheme, the arbitrator shockingly ruled that the faults had no bearing on my business viability. This was no mere oversight; it was a sinister alliance. Later, documents from July to December 1992, procured through the Freedom of Information Act, unequivocally confirmed what I had long suspected: I had been systematically and deliberately misled about the reliability of my service for years, ensnared in their web of deceit.
Continuity of Corruption: 2000–2025
Some people like to believe this corruption was confined to the past, resolved in the 1990s. They’re wrong. Between 2008 and 2011, the same practices continued: altered court documents, perjury, and even allegations of criminal activity within government ranks. In both State and Federal Parliament, betrayal runs rampant. Colleagues are destroyed through malicious falsehoods, just as claimants were destroyed during the arbitrations. The corruption didn’t end—it mutated.
During this ten-month AAT hearing, I provided the AAT with a 158-page report and 1,760 exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the ACMA board, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Telstra had violated my right to a fair arbitration hearing.
On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
The Human Cost
This wasn’t just about faulty Ericsson telephone equipment. It was about lives. My business was dismissed, my credibility undermined, and my livelihood jeopardised. Customers were left exposed to dangerous infrastructure while Telstra and government officials escaped accountability. The human cost of this betrayal is immeasurable.
Conclusion: The Arbiitraitor’s Legacy
The arbitration system failed because it was never truly independent. It was corrupted by political and corporate influence from the start. The COT Cases peeled back the layers, but the treachery has only deepened since. My role now is to document the truth, to ensure these betrayals are not forgotten, and to empower others to challenge the silence.
Reflections on Democracy and Accountability
My struggle was never just about me. It was about whether democratic systems can be trusted to uphold transparency, fairness, and accountability. Canada’s handling of the Cape Bridgewater report, and Australia’s willingness to allow witnesses to be compromised, revealed a disturbing truth: when powerful interests are threatened, the rule of law bends. It delays. It ignores.
BCI and SVT reports - Section One
As you scroll down the homepage, remember to hover your mouse over the images shown below.
Who hijacked the BCI and SVT Reports
The letter to the Federal Magistrates Court, dated December 3, 2008, reveals a troubling narrative involving Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business since December 2001. After years of fighting against the negligence of the TIO and Telstra—who obstinately refused to test my business telephone lines despite ongoing issues first reported in February 1988—it became clear that something far more sinister was at play.
The arbitration process I underwent in 1994 was supposed to bring resolution, yet critical documents, notably the BCI and SVT test results for the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange, vanished without a trace. Fast forward to 2008: copies of those very same results mysteriously disappeared again while being shipped to the Federal Court by the new owners.
How can we explain the uncanny repetition of document disappearances in two separate legal battles, fourteen years apart? It raises unsettling questions about corruption and treachery lurking within the very systems meant to protect us.
My letter to the Hon. David Hawker MP (see File 274 – AS CAV Exhibit 234 to 281] exposes a deeply unsettling truth: staff at the Portland Australia Post office were fully aware that certain mail leaving their facility could not be trusted to reach its destination. In that light, what possible purpose was served by mailing my arbitration documents to the arbitrator in 1994 and 1995? And why would the new owners of my business later submit critical Telstra‑related documents to the Federal Magistrates’ Court when there was every chance—every reasonable chance—that those documents would simply disappear into the void?
A letter dated 3 December 2008 from Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business, echoed my concerns with chilling clarity. Their testimony underscored the same disturbing pattern I had witnessed years earlier. This was not a coincidence. This was not incompetence. This was something far more sinister.
What makes this even more unconscionable is the government’s silence—a silence so complete it borders on complicity. The accompanying image links show that the new owners were battling the very same phone problems I faced in 1988. Problems the arbitrator was supposedly tasked with resolving during my 1994–1995 arbitration. Yet here they were, still poisoning the business in 2008, still eroding its viability, still haunting my once beloved business, as the following link shows Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story
Such negligence does not happen by accident. It reeks of something darker—an entrenched treachery, a system where truth is disposable and duty is optional. It forces me to ask the question no honest citizen should ever have to ask: → Were there forces at work that prefer deceit over justice?
The key question is: Were these six sworn statements made under oath truthful or false? An honest response to this question could have significant implications, potentially affecting billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending and suggesting that Telstra misled the arbitrator to minimise its liability towards me. As demonstrated by the evidence, my phone issues persisted for eleven years after the arbitrator ruled in favour of Telstra, stating that they had resolved the network problems.
23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when read in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, released in March 1994, these copper-wire network faults have existed for more than 24 years.
9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems been conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, again, shows that the COT Cases' claims of copperwire ailing network were more than valid.
28 April 2018: This ABC news article dated 28 April 2018 regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story going back 20 1988 through to 2025, because had the arbitration lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) was just 7-years ago.
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 Telstra 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. Two additional witness statements were made under oath, claiming that other customers had never experienced the phone issues I reported.
However, the government communications authority, AUSTEL, had already conducted its own investigation into my six‑year complaint. Their covert findings, completed in March 1994 and covering the very same unresolved telephone faults (see points 2 to 212 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) left no room for doubt: the two additional sworn witness statements submitted by Telstra in their December 1994 arbitration defence were demonstrably false.
With those exposed, the tally rose to nine sworn statements that were found to be untrue. Nine Telstra employees—each one prepared to sign their name to false evidence—collectively worked to undermine my business, my livelihood, and my reputation, all to shield the interests of their employer, the government‑owned Telstra Corporation.
It was not an accident. It was a coordinated betrayal carried out under the protection of institutional power.
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.
Read more in my book "The Arbitraitor" also visit my website absentjustice.com.
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is not merely manipulation — it is a calculated, insidious assault on a person’s sense of reality. It is the weapon of those who operate in shadows, twisting truth into something unrecognisable. It begins with subtle denials: “You do not have a telephone problem.” Then it deepens into something more chilling: “We cannot confirm whether your calls are being monitored… we have no evidence your faxes are being intercepted.”
All the while, the very people offering these reassurances hold documents proving the faults are widespread, systemic, and anything but imagined. Yet they insist, with cold precision, “You are the only one reporting these issues.”
This is the essence of gaslighting — a deliberate distortion of reality designed to break down a person’s confidence, to make them doubt their own senses, their own memory, their own sanity. It is a method used by those hungry for power and control, those who thrive on confusion and fear.
By forcing the victim to question their judgment and intuition, the abuser tightens their grip. The truth becomes fog, the lies become law, and the victim is left trapped inside a carefully engineered nightmare where nothing — not even their own thoughts — can be trusted.
PLEASE NOTE:
If you are feeling discomfort or concern while reading this part of our story, I urge you to take immediate action by speaking with your doctor and consulting a legal expert about your rights. It’s crucial to recognise the emotional weight that our COT story can carry, as it may trigger painful flashbacks to your own experiences that resonate with the struggles described on absentjustice.com and Promote Your Story: Home.
Many members of the Casualties of Telstra (COT), who have unknowingly become victims of Telstra and their manipulated arbitrators, have experienced profound trauma. Most of them sought counselling to navigate the distressing events they faced before, during, and after government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes. Your mental well-being is paramount, and it is essential to seek support when grappling with these heavy topics.
Sharing your story can be a life-altering journey toward healing, especially if you first talk with your doctor and a legal expert who can guide you through this process. Articulating your trauma can lift an immense emotional burden, fostering relief and clarity. Remember, you are not alone, and your courageous decision to share your experiences can empower others to find their voices, creating a powerful community of support.
Don't underestimate the importance of speaking out. (For further insights, watch the YouTube video prepared by COT case member Ann Garms, OBE, which addresses the roles of Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG) Your voice matters; use it.
The Weight of Treachery
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
Hugh Grant - English actor
On 24 January 2026, the Australian Sun Herald ran a story under the headline: “Hurley weeps in court over devil of a ‘privacy invasion’.”
In London, Elizabeth Hurley broke down as she told the High Court that deeply personal matters she had fought to keep private were now exposed to the world. Her ordeal echoed the experiences of many others, including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, and David Furnish — all alleging they were victims of unlawful information‑gathering practices. The case referenced intercepted landline calls, covert monitoring, and confessions of systematic intrusion.
For me, the parallels were chilling.
On 21 March 1995, after the government regulator acknowledged that the Australian Federal Police possessed evidence that my own landline service had been secretly monitored without my knowledge or consent, I was asked to present this information to several Senators during the review of the Interception Amendment Act 1991. I did so — the same evidence I had already provided to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the AFP, who was present at that Senate hearing.
And yet, from that day forward, no one from the government or the AFP has ever raised the matter again. Silence — absolute and deliberate.
As you read through this COT story, you will see how these unresolved privacy violations, left to fester for decades, have taken a devastating toll. They have shortened lives, broken families, and inflicted wounds that never healed. The cost of this silence has been immeasurable.
Living with the following threats has been immeasurable.
Threats that became a reality
On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact of this withholding on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen who had assisted the AFP in its investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged in a civil arbitration.
In a particularly treacherous move, AUSTEL tampered with its official findings in the AUSTEL COT Cases Report. They deceitfully stated that there were only 50 or so COT Cases with ongoing problems, feeding this false information to the COT arbitrator and the media in April 1994. This was done despite AUSTEL's prior correspondence with Telstra, which acknowledged the government's drastic reduction of an alarming 120,000 COT-type faults to a mere 50 or more (see Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN → (See Open Letter File No/11).
Such a significant distortion of facts should have been exposed in the prospectus, yet it remained buried.
A System Built on Silence
📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This particular Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518, FOI folio document K03273 - ).
To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?
The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
I reiterate, it is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
I must take the reader fourteen years forward to the following letter, dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.
It is now 2026, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life, regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
A circle of power evaluating itself.A serpent devouring its own tail.A system that had forgotten the meaning of accountability.
A system that protects itself.A system that feeds on silence.A system that leaves citizens wandering through a political nightmare with no guide but their own resolve.In my experience, this was not governance.It was a gothic theatre of power—shadowed, conspiratorial, and merciless.
This DEAL did not address the fact that GFreehill Hollingdale & Page was used in the COT arbitrations.
This is concerning because Denise McBurnie from Freehill's was my telephone fault manager, and I had been compelled to register my phone complaints in writing for Telstra to take them seriously and attempt to resolve them. Now, this fault information was being withheld by Freehill's, falsely cited under the claim of Legal Professional Privilege, even though it related to my own registered fault reports. associated with my own registered fault reporting.
Also, during the 1997 government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event they were unable to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, was enduring severe challenges while striving to seek a resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it became evident that there was a notable lack of transparency by Telstra and others regarding her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act warrant issued against her, as was the case with similar claims made against Telstra as the following internal Telstra email from Greg Newbold to several Telstra executives 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
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel: Subject: Alan Smith
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming aspect of Telstra's intelligence networks in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the necessary expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser? → Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about its customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above, on 24 June 1997, the Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court on appeal when it became obvious that this story had two sides.
It’s chilling to see how the lives of the COT Cases have been ruthlessly devastated, while their fellow citizens employed by Telstra coldly suggested that further suffering was in store. They sought to exploit us for every last dime, all because we dared to demand a telephone service that could compete on a level playing field. This treachery reveals a dark underbelly of greed and betrayal, where profit trumps basic human decency.
I implore anyone delving into this early part of my COT story to thoroughly examine pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9 of the Senate Hansard. As shown above, these pages lay bare the insidious monitoring issues highlighted by Senators Calvert and Schacht, as well as the duplicitous actions of John Pinnock, the then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). In a despicable manoeuvre, Pinnock deceived Laure James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, regarding my arbitration issues during an official investigation into my complaints against Dr Hughes, the arbitrator in my case.
These treacherous lies, had they not been uttered, could have exposed the corrupt and unethical practices that tainted the COT arbitrations, which were conducted under arbitration rules (The Arbitration Agreement) tailor-made by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, instead of the independent arbitration agreement that several Senators, the Parliament House Press, and the COT Cases lawyers had been led to believe was the genuine arbitration agreement drafted independent of Telstra so that the base content of the agreement was free of bias before being scutinised by all parties awaiting our signatures.
In the face of this relentless adversity, I am resolute in upholding the commitment I made on September 16, 2016. My editors plead with me to expose the treacherous crimes inflicted upon us by meticulously dismantling the web of deceit that defines our ordeal. Each day, we strive to shine a light on the chilling truth that surrounds us—a truth that uncovers not only the flawed process but the very essence of human greed that tainted it.
Though we attempted to lay out everything chronologically, the corruption of these events made it impossible. Each crime loomed larger than the last, creating a ceaseless wave of betrayal that shattered the possibility of a clear and orderly narrative. The ensuing chaos undermined the Major Fraud Group's work, and we find ourselves struggling to present the full extent of the misconduct that has plagued us and our pursuit of justice.
• My fight began simply: to secure a working phone service.• Despite compensation promises, the faults persisted. I sold my business in 2002, but the new owners suffered the same fate.• Other small business owners joined me—we became known as the Casualties of Telecom.• All we ever asked: acknowledgement, repair, and fair compensation. A working phone—was that too much?
During a typical week, the picturesque Cape Bridgewater was home to 66 residential families—not including those who used their coastal retreats to escape the bustle of city life. This created a significant challenge, especially considering many of these families had children.
The eight service lines struggled to support a growing census of 130 adults and children. By the time a modern Remote Control Module (RCM) was finally installed in August 1991, twelve children had been added to the mix, bringing the total population to 144. However, various weekend visitors often brought that figure to 150 or more.
The Hidden Cost of Cape Bridgewater’s Failing Lines
No wonder I was financially broken by the end of 1988—barely a year after taking over the business in late 1987. The reality was brutal: Cape Bridgewater’s telecommunications setup was catastrophically inadequate.
In stark terms, if just four of the 144 residences were making or receiving calls, only four lines remained for the other 140 residents. That’s not just poor planning—it’s a systemic failure. My business was strangled by a network that couldn’t support even the most basic communication needs. Every missed call was a missed opportunity. Every dropped connection was another nail in the coffin of a venture I had poured everything into.
We stepped into this complex landscape of limited connectivity and coastal beauty with ambition and optimism. The Camp was more than a business—it was a dream made real. A serene retreat where the stress of city life could dissolve into the ocean mist. However, as we quickly learned, dreams require infrastructure to thrive.
Our phone lines became both our lifeline and our most significant obstacle. Booking inquiries, supply orders, emergency calls—even simple conversations with clients—all had to pass through those eight fragile channels. During peak times, the lines were constantly engaged. Guests complained they couldn’t reach us. Suppliers missed confirmations. Opportunities slipped through our fingers like sand.
The two Telstra FOI documents that were concealed from the arbitrator during my arbitration process clearly demonstrate that my claims are not merely a figment of my imagination. These documents contradict the statements of nine Telstra employees, who testified under oath to the arbitrator that my claims were frivolous.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe the Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which state:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
On January 27, 1999, after carefully reviewing my detailed report, which I had submitted as a manuscript to the esteemed Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, Senator Kim Carr took the time to articulate his thoughts in a written response. His words reflected deeply on the findings I presented, highlighting the following:
“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.”
The significance of incorporating the Major Fraud Group into the introduction of my COT story cannot be overstated. This strategic choice is not merely aimed at capturing attention; it establishes a robust framework that enriches the narrative that follows. By opening my account with the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, I instantly convey the gravity and credibility of my case, inviting readers to engage with an investigation marked by meticulous scrutiny and professional rigour.
The engagement of the Major Fraud Group signals that my concerns were taken with the utmost seriousness, framing the investigation as a critical matter deserving of high-level attention. When two distinguished barristers—Mr. Neil Jepson, representing the formidable Major Fraud Group, and Sue Owens, representing the four COT cases—approached me with alarming allegations of serious fraud perpetrated by Telstra, it marked a defining moment in my journey. Their involvement indicates that my claims against Telstra, as well as the integrity of the arbitration process, carry considerable legitimacy, compelling legal professionals and specialised investigators to probe deeply into the gravity of my allegations.
Collaborating with such authoritative bodies serves as a profound testament to my credibility. Over the course of an exhaustive 13 months during my secondment, I engaged in extensive dialogue and cooperation with both barristers and five dedicated detectives from the Major Fraud Group. This level of rigorous scrutiny and support from government entities emerges only from a thorough vetting of my background and character, confirming me as a reliable witness in a high-stakes inquiry. By presenting this vital information at the outset of my absentjustice.com website and in my publication titled "The Arbitraitor," I ensure that readers comprehend that my role in the investigation was not self-appointed; it was recognised and validated by official channels devoted to uncovering the truth.
Beginning my narrative through the lens of a police investigation establishes a factual, grounded tone that resonates deeply with the story's essence. It communicates to readers that the unfolding events are not merely personal grievances; they are underscored by documented evidence, professional diligence, and formal inquiries, thus moving beyond subjective interpretation into the realm of established fact.
By highlighting the Major Fraud Group's investigation into Telstra’s conduct, I transcend a simple recounting of disputes into an impactful public-interest story. The issues raised during the COT arbitrations were far from trivial; they warranted the focused attention of specialists trained to uncover fraud and misconduct. This transition elevates my narrative from a private struggle into a matter that embodies the urgent need for public accountability and transparency.
Additionally, my extensive 13-month collaboration with the investigators provides me with a unique perspective that adds depth to my story. By introducing this significant experience early in the narrative, I prepare readers to appreciate that my insights are not rooted in speculation but in firsthand involvement in an intricate, high-stakes inquiry. This detailed foundation enhances the authority and balance of everything that follows on absentjustice.com, positioning my story as one of informed advocacy and a sincere exploration of justice, infused with the weight of real-world implications and the hope for transformative change.
If you've decided to explore this website to gain insights into the concept of Absent Justice in Australia, I invite you to click on the link titled "The eighth remedy pursued" This will allow you to delve deeper into the intricacies of my Casualties story, revealing layers of truth that may surprise many.
Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police
All the main statements presented on this website, including those that are merely comments, are supported by at least one, and often three to five, pieces of evidence. However, I want to highlight a specific statement regarding what Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, said to me in the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Victoria. We were both called to provide evidence on behalf of Barrister Sue Owens, but I cannot support this statement with documents. Since my next statement relies solely on my word regarding what Mr Jepson said, I ask that everyone who has read the comments on absentjustice.com keep this in mind when considering his remarks; he has since passed away.
Mr Jepson’s remarks expose a deeply sinister reality: the evidence presented to the Major Fraud Group regarding the duplicitous statements made by Dr Gordon Hughes to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, is nothing short of shocking. Dr Hughes claimed that he and his technical advisors had meticulously reviewed all 24,000 documents; however, these documents were never submitted for appropriate arbitration assessment.
The Major Fraud Group, along with Tony Morgon, the Chief Loss Assessor from GAB Robins—international assessors appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman—unearthed a disturbing truth: I did not submit these 24,000 FOI-released documents for arbitration due to Telstra's deliberate delays, which left me with inadequate time for a thorough review. In a further act of malice, Dr Hughes categorically denied me the opportunity to present a mini-report that I had painstakingly compiled from these documents.
Dr Hughes's actions amounted to a calculated misrepresentation of Laurie James during an official investigation, and his refusal to confront the lies—whether he or his advisors were responsible—constitutes a grave betrayal of trust that weighs heavily on all involved.
Mr Jepson also pointed out that the Major Fraud Group continues to investigate the dubious claims made by Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell regarding the Brighton Criminal Investigation Branch. Rundell pretended that they were preparing to interrogate me about alleged criminal damage to his property; however, no such inquiry ever materialised. If there had been any legitimate suspicion against me, the Major Fraud Group and Victoria Police would not have sought my expertise on the fraud allegations involving Sue Owens’ clients. This entire scenario reeks of complicity and corruption at multiple levels.
It is both tragic and infuriating that Mr Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, continued to operate with alarming impunity for several years after this disclosure. He made outrageous accusations against Laurie James, alleging that I had written to him claiming I had called Dr Hughes’ wife at 2:00 AM. Yet no such letter exists in any official records. This assertion is not only patently false, but our thorough investigation has also confirmed that I neither penned such a letter nor made that fateful call.
It is utterly heartbreaking that I must navigate through life bearing the scars inflicted by these insidious lies.
The following five chapters show how arbitration officials misrepresented the truth.
It is essential to inform the reader that if they click on Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, and read that chapter—attached to the Open Letter dated 25/09/2025—followed by Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, they will be left with no doubt whatsoever that my claims surrounding mR Neil Jepson are true and correct
After reading the five chapters above, it becomes undeniably clear that the three named arbitration officials—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator handling my case; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and second appointed administrator, failed to accurately represent the facts during my arbitration and throughout the critical period leading up to 1996.
Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.
Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In an attempt to undermine my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming that I verbally harassed the wife of Dr. Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator overseeing my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I categorically deny this allegation. It was a deliberate effort to damage my reputation and divert attention from the serious flaws in the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes, aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity, allowing this lie to undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings. The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and of being betrayed by those meant to uphold justice—has been profound. Nonetheless, my commitment to uncovering the truth remains unwavering.
During my pending appeal, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne advised me to contact John Pinnock regarding documents related to my arbitration that could help challenge the unjust award issued by Dr Hughes. Unbeknownst to me, this request would lead to further deceit. In his letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock dismissed my request for these records, stating he would not provide any documents held by his office. This was just the beginning of a lengthy ordeal filled with treachery.
Dr Hughes was central to this scheme. He refused to release my pre-arbitration files—evidence that would reveal his role as an "assessor" in four COT cases, contrary to the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. His actions manipulated the arbitration agreement and undermined the genuine contract, further entrenching corruption. By October 1995, five months after my arbitration had concluded, I had to involve the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Working with the Ombudsman's Director of Investigations, John Wynack, we challenged Telstra’s misleading claims regarding the destruction of key files.
In 2008, driven by outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, only to uncover further institutional collusion by the government itself. Even now, in 2025, I remain blocked from accessing the one document that could expose the corruption at the heart of this process. This betrayal runs deep within a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers. Throughout my 30 years as a seafarer and in various roles on the Australian waterfront, I have encountered many resilient individuals. Yet, none have resorted to hiding behind others for protection as Dr Gordon Hughes continues to do.
The Disclosure That Never Came
On January 23, 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to John Pinnock, the then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), regarding my situation, expressing concerns about the potential costs and implications of responding to the allegations raised against him. His letter hinted at the complex and fraught nature of the proceedings unfolding.
Please examine the following two witness statements. The Major Fraud Group archive documents will be confirmed as faxes sent from my office, and Mr Jepson did not arrive, despite my Telstra fax account showing that the faxes were indeed sent.
This situation troubled Mr Jepson and Detective Sergeant Rod Kuris, who was assisting us in piecing together documents related to the fraud. It is evident from Des Direen's testimony, the former Principal Telstra Security Officer, that Mr Rod Kuris was visibly shaken when Des Direen informed us that we were under electronic surveillance, as indicated in the following witness statement.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
Major Fraud Group Evidence 1 - Tampering with Evidence
This evidence was prepared at the request of Mr Neil Jepson and was highly praised for its professional quality, as noted by Barrister Sue Owens in Transcript (1). The reports in question are Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and "Tampering with Evidence." Mr Jepson believed that combining these two reports could help strengthen my arbitration appeal. This is also supported by statements made in the (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (1).
Concealing A Crime
This tampering with evidence, after a claimant has provided it to an arbitration process, including (again, in my case) changing that evidence into a different format, must be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) could have committed against an Australian citizen. So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – twenty years ago to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (John Pinnock), the Chair of the TIO’s Counsel (The Hon Tony Staley), the Chair of the Telstra Board (David Hoare), and Telstra’s then-CEO (Ziggy Switkowski AO), was that evidence not investigated immediately?
It was Telstra’s own internal investigations that revealed this unlawful conduct during my arbitration. However, this did not prevent Ziggy Switkowski from accepting an Order of Australia award several years ago, along with Warwick Smith, the administrator of my arbitration, and Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in my case. All three have been aware of this wrongdoing for thirty years. Will this issue be resolved in 2026 by these three so-called Australian citizens, who proudly accepted their Orders of Australia while being aware of what they were covering up?
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
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” followed by 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 the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:
“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .
“They show that
- the header strip of various faxes is being altered
- the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”
The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14
PLEASE NOTE:
Although the TIO's Senate Hansard admission on 26 September 1997 was addressed earlier, it is still important to connect its content to the narrative that follows. This is particularly relevant in light of John Pinnock (TIO) alerting the government to this significant denial of justice.
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
There have been no amendments to the agreements signed by the first four members of COT that would permit the arbitrator to conduct the arbitration beyond the established procedures, yet it seems an unsettling shift is underway. The agreements remain silent on the crucial detail that the arbitrator would forfeit control over the process once we each committed to our individual agreements. In this alarming context, how can the arbitrator and the TIO continue to lean on the confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement? This clause fails to specify that the arbitrator would have no authority, especially when the arbitration is being orchestrated entirely outside the frameworks we initially established. This situation not only undermined the integrity of the arbitration process but also raised serious concerns that corruption and treachery may already have begun to seep into the very foundation of our proceedings before they even commenced, as the following example shows (See Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct).
In late 1999, Frank Blount—then recently departed CEO of Telstra—co‑authored a book titled 'Managing in Australia'. In it, he openly acknowledged the very software billing problems that Telstra executives had denied under oath during my arbitration. On pages 132 and 133, the co‑author describes Telstra’s 1800‑service faults in blunt terms:
- “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem.
- The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See Exhibit 122-i → AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)
This admission stands in stark contrast to the sworn statements made by nine Telstra executives during my arbitration, all of whom insisted that my business was not suffering from ongoing billing problems—despite Telstra’s board knowing otherwise.
Lying during litigation is not a trivial matter. It strikes at the heart of justice. In both the British Post Office case (a government‑owned institution) and the Telstra case (also government‑owned at the time), officials swore under oath that no software billing issues existed. These were not innocent mistakes. They were orchestrated falsehoods, engineered by bureaucrats whose duty was to protect citizens, not destroy them.
It is essential to expose the treachery of both the British and Australian governments—and the bureaucracies that enabled these injustices. Their complacency and complicity reveal the profound challenges faced by ordinary people when institutions designed to uphold justice instead choose to bury the truth. The COT Case Government-Endorsed Arbitrations were nothing more than manipulated Kangaroo Court procedures.
One of the most scandalous episodes in my own arbitration occurred on 16 October 1995, when government‑appointed bureaucrats allowed Telstra and the arbitrator to covertly address the systemic billing faults that had crippled my business. This took place five months after Dr Hughes issued my award on 11 May 1995—an award that offered no remedy for the very faults that had destroyed my livelihood. Dr Hughes had a clear duty to ensure that Telstra resolved these critical issues before closing my case. Instead, the process was manipulated behind closed doors, revealing an arbitration system stripped of integrity and justice (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?).
By permitting Telstra to address my ongoing billing faults in camera, Dr Hughes and the government officials overseeing the process violated my legal rights under the arbitration agreement. They denied me the opportunity to challenge Telstra’s claims—a fundamental right in arbitration processes worldwide. Each party must be allowed to respond to the other’s assertions. That principle was abandoned.
The British Post Office scandal and the Telstra–Ericsson billing scandal are not isolated events. They are twin examples of what happens when bureaucracies close ranks, conceal the truth, and sacrifice citizens to protect themselves. Both nations now face the consequences of that betrayal.
• Telstra’s legal team had devised strategies to conceal technical evidence from COT claimants under the guise of legal privilege—even when the data wasn’t privileged.• The arbitrator failed to make findings on persistent faults, despite overwhelming evidence, possibly to avoid undermining Telstra’s market value during privatisation.• The Australian Government was simultaneously promoting Telstra’s sale, creating a conflict of interest between justice for claimants and financial gain from the sale.
• Horizon falsely accused thousands of contractors of fraud, based on faulty data.• Telstra’s billing systems were known to mischarge customers, yet these faults were not addressed in arbitration.• If Telstra’s revenue was artificially inflated, its privatisation may have misled investors and regulators.
• Regulatory capture: Government and corporate interests aligned to suppress damaging truths.• Investor deception: If faults were concealed, Telstra’s sale may have violated disclosure norms.• Historical injustice: The COT Cases were sacrificed to protect a corporate transaction.
• Side-by-side comparison of both scandals• Quotes from Alan Bates and Frank Blount• Analysis of regulatory failure and public impact• Call for a similar public inquiry and redress in Australia
Twin Scandals: When Software Lies and Governments Look Away
In two different corners of the Commonwealth, separated by oceans but united by betrayal, thousands of innocent people were crushed under the weight of faulty technology and bureaucratic indifference. The British Post Office Horizon scandal and Australia’s Telstra COT case share a chilling symmetry: both involved defective software systems, both triggered wrongful accusations, and both saw government regulators fail to protect the very citizens they were meant to serve.
Great Britain: The Horizon Scandal: Software That Stole Lives
Beginning in the late 1990s, the UK’s Post Office deployed Horizon, an accounting system developed by Fujitsu. It was riddled with bugs that falsely showed financial shortfalls in subpostmasters’ accounts. Instead of investigating the software, the Post Office prosecuted over 900 subpostmasters for theft, fraud, and false accounting. Many were imprisoned, bankrupted, or driven to suicide.
Despite mounting evidence of Horizon’s flaws, the Post Office insisted the system was robust. Government oversight was minimal, and civil servants deferred to the Post Office’s assurances. It took decades—and the tireless efforts of Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance—for the truth to surface. Only in recent years did the UK government launch a statutory inquiry and begin overturning convictions.
As you scroll down the homepage, remember to hover your mouse over the images shown below.
In Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest,” I recount an intriguing episode from late 2006, a full twelve years after the contentious COT arbitrations. During this time, a representative from the COT approached me, entrusting me with the significant task of investigating the conduct of those arbitrations. They urged me to conduct this investigation with unwavering integrity, free from bias or external pressure.
What made the struggle even harder, thirty years ago, was the quiet but unmistakable pattern of institutional failure that sat behind every dropped call and every dead line. Rural Australia didn’t just suffer from poor phone services by accident. It suffered because the institutions responsible for providing those services — government departments, regulators, and the national carrier — treated rural customers as an afterthought
Institutional Failure and the Lane–Ericsson Collapse
Corruption reigned the moment Lane Telecommunications was quietly absorbed by Ericsson during the COT Case arbitrations. It was a manoeuvre so brazen that even now, decades later, it stands as one of the clearest examples of institutional betrayal in the entire saga. Lane had been appointed as an “independent” technical advisor — the very body meant to scrutinise the Ericsson AXE equipment that was causing catastrophic faults at Portland and Cape Bridgewater. Yet, while the arbitrations were still underway, the Australian government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane outright.
The implications were staggering. A foreign corporation under investigation for supplying faulty equipment was permitted to buy the very witness that should have exposed its wrongdoing. Instead of delivering the damning findings that the evidence demanded, Lane produced nothing of substance. It made no findings about the persistent AXE faults that crippled the exchanges at Portland and Cape Bridgewater. It offered no explanation for the ongoing call failures, no accountability, no transparency. The silence was not accidental — it was engineered.
Four of us — Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and myself — were represented by George Close & Associates, one of the most respected technical consultancies in the country. George Close repeatedly requested the raw BCI test data for each of our services. This data was essential. It was the only way to verify whether the BCI testing had been conducted properly or manipulated to conceal the faults we were experiencing.
But Telstra refused to provide it. Not under Freedom of Information. Not under discovery. Not under any legal obligation that should have compelled them to disclose it. The raw data simply never arrived.
And this wasn’t a secret. Lane knew. DMR Group Canada knew. The arbitrator knew. The government knew. Yet despite being fully informed that the BCI testing was incomplete, unverifiable, and fundamentally flawed, neither Lane nor DMR conducted any investigation into our claims. They accepted Telstra’s word without evidence, without scrutiny, and without the raw data that would have exposed the truth.
The result was a process that looked like arbitration on the surface but operated like a cover‑up underneath. The institutions that were supposed to protect us — the arbitrator, the technical advisors, the government — instead protected themselves and the corporation they were aligned with. The failure wasn’t procedural. It was systemic. It was deliberate. And it left four small business operators fighting a telecommunications giant with no access to the very evidence that would have proved our case.
The BCI testing was flawed. Lane’s independence was compromised. The government’s oversight was nonexistent. And the truth — the truth we fought so hard to bring forward — was buried under a structure designed to ensure it never saw daylight.
Ericsson’s nefarious dealings in terrorism
A Continuation: The Same Pattern of Institutional Failure
The pattern that played out in the Ericsson scandal and the Vietnam‑era wheat trade is the same pattern that defined the COT arbitrations: institutions acting in secrecy, protecting their own interests, and leaving ordinary Australians to carry the consequences. Whether it was a multinational corporation operating in conflict zones or a government trading wheat during wartime, the underlying behaviour was identical — silence, denial, and a refusal to confront the truth.
In the COT Cases, that same institutional instinct to protect the powerful was on full display. Telstra withheld raw BCI test data that was essential to our claims. Lane Telecommunications, supposedly independent, was quietly absorbed by Ericsson while still acting as the arbitrator’s technical advisor. DMR Group Canada, fully aware of the missing data and the compromised testing, conducted no investigation. And the Australian government — the very body that should have ensured fairness — allowed the process to proceed as though nothing was wrong.
The institutions involved behaved as though transparency was optional and accountability was negotiable. They operated behind closed doors, confident that the public would never see the documents, the correspondence, or the evidence that revealed the truth. And for years, they were right. The silence held.
But the pattern was unmistakable. Just as the wheat trade continued during the Vietnam War despite its moral contradictions, and just as Ericsson continued operating in Iraq despite the risks and the questionable payments uncovered years later, the COT arbitrations proceeded under a veneer of legitimacy while the core evidence was withheld, manipulated, or ignored.
Click on the twelve mini evidence files below, ranging from "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page" to "The Promised Documents Never Arrived, These files are being typo edited before being removed to provide more evidence to support our new stories coming to www.promoteyourstory.com.au
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.
Artificial Intelligence - A Manufactured Reality:
How Bureaucratic Deceit and AI Threaten Democratic Truth
Artificial intelligence (AI) poses a dire threat to the integrity of several legitimate Casualties of Telstra (COT) claims, undermining the Australian government's commitment to a transparent review process. Disturbingly, unscrupulous government bureaucrats have deliberately manipulated and falsified information for the Department of Communications and Information Technology (DCITA). This deceit has been weaponised to obliterate the credibility of the COT claims against both the DCITA and Telstra, casting a shadow over our entire governance system.
As emphasised in The eighth remedy pursued, the government relies on the information provided by public servants, much like AI systems trained on input data. What does this mean for the future? Consider the implications for university students studying political science. They may be unwittingly learning from a treacherous foundation of doctored reports—an archive contaminated by lies. This insidious manipulation not only endangers our historical record but threatens our democracy itself, as future generations could be educated on a distorted reality. The consequences of such betrayal could be catastrophic, leading to a society built on a foundation of deception. How long until we face the fallout from this self-destructive path?
Erasing the Evidence: Telstra’s Privatisation and the Systematic Purge of Truth
Between 1997 and 2005, the Australian government's privatisation of the Telstra Corporation unfolded as a dark chapter in the nation’s history. During this crucial period, powerful government bureaucracies engaged in a systematic, sinister purge of archival records, particularly those related to the COT Cases (Customers of Telstra). This alarming erasure of information has far-reaching consequences and raises profound concerns about the integrity of governmental oversight. Pete Credlin’s media release on May 21, 2021, serves as a haunting reminder of the treachery at play, shedding light on the disturbing implications of this disregard for transparency.
The extent of this archival cleansing was not merely negligent; it was a calculated effort to obliterate any evidence that could implicate Telstra in wrongdoing toward its citizens. When the government turned to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) to assess claims made during the review process led by Honourable Senators Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan, they were met with an eerie silence—no evidence of misconduct by Telstra could be found. This staggering absence of accountability stands in stark contrast to the grave realities revealed in the COT Cases review documents, which exposed alarming issues that had been tragically ignored in the official assessments.
To further illustrate this chilling scenario, consider that the evidence utilised by government assessors—drawn from these meticulously cleansed records—bears no resemblance to a confidential 1994 report detailing similar grievances. This earlier document likely contained critical truths ruthlessly suppressed, raising unsettling questions about the motives driving the review processes and the lengths to which some may go to protect powerful interests.
As the nursery rhyme chillingly states, “The cupboard was bare,” symbolising a void of truth that has been intentionally created. Fast forward to 2026, and we find ourselves facing a world steeped in paranoia, where the very fabric of reality is under assault. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has commenced a frightening erosion of the lines between truth and deception. In less than two decades, the ability to discern truth from fiction may vanish entirely, leaving individuals vulnerable to unsubstantiated claims—particularly when pitted against fabricated narratives generated by AI.
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.
