Delve into the sinister underbelly of Australia's legal system, where egregious crimes thrive, unscrupulous criminals operate in the shadows, and corrupt politicians and lawyers conspire to manipulate justice for their own gain. This bleak reality resonates with words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous, perfectly capturing the malevolence that permeates the corridors of power.

The two evidence files, Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2, reveal a disturbing and intricate pattern of government corruption, as well as bribery and threatening conduct, that developed before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. They document how government representatives became deeply entangled in a morally questionable framework that betrayed their public duty. In the shadows, powerful officials formed a clandestine alliance, prioritising their own personal interests and agendas over the well-being of the very citizens they were sworn to serve independently.

📜The Bureaucratic Shadow Government in Parliament House, Canberra 

On May 23, 2021, Peta Credlin—former Parliament House advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and now a prominent media figure—published a striking article in the Herald Sun titled:"...Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge."

Credlin warned of a growing imbalance in Australian governance, where unelected bureaucrats wield disproportionate influence. She wrote:

"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 2013, across Labour 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."

Credlin's words struck a chilling chord. I found the article frightening—because it was accurate. Credlin hit the bullseye. I’ve lived this reality. During my arbitration, I witnessed firsthand how these faceless bureaucrats operated—advising successive governments regardless of political stripe. The same individuals who shaped telecommunications policy under Hawke and Keating seamlessly transitioned to advising the Liberal government after its 1996 victory. A decade later, they were still entrenched.

These are the same bureaucrats who masqueraded as independent assessors in the Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan deal—an arrangement that collapsed disastrously, much like the Robodebt scandal →   https://shorturl.at/7Wpuj. In both cases, innocent Australians bore the brunt while the bureaucrats slithered back into the shadows, waiting for the next saga to unfold.

As you step into this treacherous narrative, which stretches across considerable length, keep this crucial point in mind: the unsettling truth resides in the facts laid bare before you. The following 16,000 words have been meticulously crafted not just to inform, but to expose. If you crave an unflinching dive into a real-life crime drama that will leave you questioning everything, I implore you to keep reading.

You may find yourself thinking, “Who could have possibly suspected this individual was involved?” or “I always thought this politician and these lawyers were untouchable.” You might even ponder, “I never would have believed any of this if I hadn’t taken the step to download the damning document from the designated filing system.”

 

This shocking true crime saga continues to unfold as we approach the year 2025. The figures at the centre of this story may have received prestigious "Orders of Australia," which they now cunningly wield as shields to deflect scrutiny away from their corrupt actions. These morally bankrupt practices have cast a long, dark shadow, threatening the lives of countless Australian citizens, even three decades after the original offenses. So, I urge you to continue reading and immerse yourself in this gripping tale that exposes the corrupt underbelly of power and privilege.

Stop the COT Cases at all costs

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, discussed below, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Schacht - "Who".

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

Mr White's statement provides a stark revelation: he explicitly identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra targeted in a concerted effort to prevent us from successfully establishing our case against the company. Among those mentioned in the Senate Hansard is an individual named "Peter Gamble," who had informed Mr White of the directive to stop the five COT claimants “at all costs.” This Peter is none other than Peter Gamble, who, in a sworn witness statement to the arbitrator, claimed that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) conducted at my business had met all required government regulatory standards.

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected from 'unauthorised eavesdropping' on their customers' conversations before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?  

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 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep for trading purposes. No punches were exchanged. I actually placed a wrestling hold, known as the ‘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 apparent that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the same 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. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means, as was the case when Wayne Maurice Condon submitted an unsigned 'witness statement' that was apparently prepared by clinical psychologist Ian Joblin, concerning my mental health. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed Dandra Wolf's matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek a resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitated an extended hospitalisation, underscoring the urgency with which these matters must be addressed.

It is my sincere hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny. It is June 2025, and after several emails sent by me to Sandra's email address since the beginning of February 2025, the last email I received told me that Sandra's cancer treatment was becoming intolerable. With Sandra living in faraway Queensland, too far for me to travel, I can only assume the worst, or perhaps for the better, with Sandra now at peace.

 

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."

27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."

28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

• "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

The relentless demand to document every single telephone fault and report these faults daily to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would even condescend to address them was maddening. Ian Joblin, the so-called "clinical psychologist" brought in by Telstra as their arbitration witness, conducted his evaluation of my mental health on December 12, 1994, and made it clear just how twisted the system was. It was no wonder I was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); the very act of having to funnel complaints through Telstra's legal labyrinth before they would deign to investigate was a recipe for depression, warping anyone’s thought processes. Mr Joblin, in a rare moment of truth, ensured that his findings were documented in the grim pages of the arbitration report prepared by Freehills Hollingdale & Page—his employers in this corrupt charade.

Later, when the second-appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) discovered that sections of Mr Joblin's witness statement had not been signed when submitted to arbitration, he contacted Telstra's arbitration counsel, Ted Banjamin, on October 23, 1997. His inquiry? A thinly veiled demand for answers—what was hidden, what had been stolen from the record? The whole affair reeked of deceit and manipulation, leaving a bitter taste of corruption looming overhead.

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note that I have repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager of the need to solicit these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without conducting a thorough examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines, citing Legal Professional Privilege.

I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.

The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide the requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

It was not in Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a representative of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness?

On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (see File 596 → ). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.

2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinised several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the COT case is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was established by Telstra and its lawyers to conceal all relevant technical evidence that the COT Cases indeed had ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that statutory declarations had been tampered with by Telstra or their legal representatives during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest that the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police.” 

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?

 

Gaslighting, Concealment, and the COT Cases: A Government’s Betrayal
 

It is imperative to expose the unsettling truth surrounding Wayne Goss's actions, as referenced in Ann Garms’ letter dated August 17, 2017 (). As former Premier of Queensland, Goss’s alarming admission—that gaslighting techniques were employed against us in the COT Cases—came from someone deeply embedded in the machinery of a corrupt establishment.

Equally disturbing is the government’s protection of Senator Bob Collins, despite shocking allegations that he was a serial paedophile operating within the very corridors of power (rb.gy/dsvidd).   This was not a mere cover-up—it was a sordid attempt to bury the truth while whispers of child abuse echoed through Parliament House. Senator Bill Heffernan’s later confirmations only deepened the sense of betrayal, with grim realities laid bare by clicking on the accompanying image of the Kangaroo Court.

Suppressed Evidence and a Sinister Web of Deceit
Most disturbing was the deliberate concealment of crucial evidence from the arbitrator handling the COT Cases’ claims against Telstra. Key documentation—relating to significant business losses and the unlawful interception of faxes and telephone conversations—was withheld during a period when Collins was allegedly committing unspeakable atrocities.

This concealment was compounded by the fact that the Australian Federal Police were investigating Collins for child abuse involving vulnerable visitors to Parliament House, while simultaneously probing Telstra’s admission of intercepting conversations central to our arbitration. The implications are chilling: vital information may have been compromised, hacked, or manipulated before ever reaching us.

Against this backdrop of corruption and betrayal, it is despicable that neither the arbitrator nor the COT Cases were informed that the reason for our denied access to essential documents from the Minister for Communications’ office was that the minister himself was under investigation for crimes far more grotesque than those perpetrated by Telstra. This is a stark reminder of the sinister forces at play—where protecting the powerful took precedence over delivering justice.

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.  

 

Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → → →

It is also crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra. (rb.gy/dsvidd).   

 

If you’ve explored absentjustice.com, you’ll understand how deeply this corruption runs. Our story is not just about failed phone lines or broken promises—it’s about a system where unelected officials hold sway over elected leaders, and where accountability is a mirage.was. 

From Wheat to Robodebt: A Legacy of Bureaucratic Treachery and the COT Cases Cover-Up

 

 

Tribunal of Shadows: My Fight to Expose ACMA’s Alliance with Telstra

On October 3, 2008, I found myself in the grip of this corrupt machinery during my first Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing. Judge Mr G.D. Friedman, an instrument of this twisted system, made ominous observations that revealed a troubling alliance between law and deceit. Fast forward to May 2011, and I returned to the grim arena, determined to expose the rot at the heart of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), formerly known as the Australian Communications Authority (AUSTEL). I bravely sought a government inquiry into how this agency allowed the telecommunications titan, Telstra, to engage in covert dealings that concealed civil arbitration matters affecting a staggering 120,000 vulnerable customers designated as COT-type.

My arbitration claim laid bare a disturbing web of collusion, exposing how the manipulation of legal proceedings was endemic throughout Australia. In a treacherous move, Telstra, not content with merely operating within the law, was granted the underhanded advantage of addressing the most relevant and damning billing issues I raised clandestinely—deftly avoiding scrutiny. This disturbing, secretive process excluded both the arbitrator and me, allowing them to sidestep the fundamental principles of justice. By doing so, they ensured that the arbitrator could conveniently overlook this critical aspect of my claims, thereby denying me my rightful opportunity to challenge Telstra and expose their misconduct.

This heinous breach of justice reveals the darkest side of a legal system intended to safeguard the innocent. The deliberate denial of my right to confront and dismantle the testimony of the opposing side illustrates the corruption festering within a society that boldly proclaims to uphold the rule of law. It is a chilling reminder that power can corrupt, silencing the voices of those who dare to seek truth and fairness in a world distorted by greed and malice.

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA lawyers (refer to court records (No V2008/1836).

“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.”

Bureaucrats, Falsehoods, and the Silencing of Truth: My Clash with the Ombudsman and Arbitrator

Learn how John Pinnock, Australia’s second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, deceitfully misled Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, by making a treacherous claim that I had confessed in writing to calling Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator in my case) at 2:00 AM. This sinister allegation is entirely unfounded, as no evidence exists—no letter can be produced to substantiate this assertion. Rather than confronting this damaging falsehood, which jeopardises his wife’s reputation, Dr Hughes allowed the rumour to fester and spread unchecked, issuing no apology.

This calculated inaction effectively thwarted Laurie James from investigating my serious claims that Dr Hughes had lost control over the arbitrations, permitting Telstra to issue threats and implement those threats, as this narrative starkly reveals.

During my second attempt to unveil the contents of absentjustice.com in December 2008, I came across a Herald Sun article exposing the very type of bureaucrat I had clashed with just days earlier. The article, covering events from 2007 and 2008, aligned disturbingly with my Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing. It begs the question: were any of these now-disgraced officials covertly working to sabotage my case? While the whole truth may remain hidden, the evidence I presented was anything but frivolous—it revealed serious flaws in Australia’s bureaucratic machinery. My pursuit of justice underscores the urgent need for institutional accountability.

The Australian Herald Sun newspaper, dated December 22, 2008, under the heading "Bad Bureaucrats," provides evidence that government public servants need to be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

“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“

 

A Short Summary 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and the Unanswered Questions
The most alarming aspect of Telstra’s intelligence networks is not just their existence—but the question of who, within Telstra, possessed the appropriate government clearance to filter the raw information they were collecting. Who decided what was catalogued, what was archived, and what was discarded? And more importantly, who ensured that this process was impartial?

I must ask: how much confidence-level information is held by Telstra officials regarding my telephone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in April 1993 and again in April 1994—conversations in which I discussed my time in Red China? What was Telstra’s interest in those discussions? Why were their arbitration consultants referencing my time in the People’s Republic of China at all?

When Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, what Australian organisation was given the charter to archive the sensitive material Telstra had been collecting about its customers for decades? This is not a rhetorical question—it demands a transparent answer.

The Sheriff, the Saloon Bar, and the Mental Health Warrant
At the time of the altercation referred to in the 24 June 1997 Senate Hansard, my bankers had already lost patience. They sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I didn’t throw punches. I placed a wrestling hold—a Full Nelson—on the Sheriff who was about to remove my industrial catering equipment from the holiday camp kitchen, which I needed to keep trading. I walked him out of my office. I threw no punches. The Magistrates Court dropped all charges on appeal when it became clear this story had two sides.

Sandra Wolfe, another COT case member, endured similar injustices during her government-endorsed mediation in 1997. A warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82–88, ). Had the concerned parties not intervened, Sandra might have been institutionalised. Senator Schacht addressed Telstra directly on this matter:

Why has this disturbing incident never been transparently investigated by the government communications regulator? Between 30 September 2022 and the end of 2024, Sandra Wolfe continued to email me, stating that her 1994 and 1998 Telstra FOI and Mental Health Act issues remained unresolved. 

Psychological Targeting and Fabricated Assessments
Is the warrant issued against Sandra Wolfe akin to the false information Telstra provided to the clinical psychologist who assessed my mental health? In my case, the consultation didn’t take place in a private setting—it was conducted in the saloon bar of the Richmond Henty Hotel.

Was Telstra trying to have me committed? That question may sound fanciful, but it’s grounded in the reality of what was said in the Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997, pages 76 and 77. Senators Kim Carr and Chris Schacht asked Telstra directly:

"Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

Surveillance, Sensationalism, and the Collapse of My Business
Anyone who examines the Australian Federal Police transcripts dated 26 September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) will uncover a disturbing truth: Telstra had been secretly monitoring my business premises. This wasn’t speculation—it was documented. The fallout was swift and brutal.

Members of my over-40 singles club, which I had carefully built with a sense of community spirit, began leaving in droves. Their departure followed a newspaper article that revealed my business was under electoral surveillance and subject to investigation by the Australian Federal Police. The damage was done. Trust was shattered.

As if that weren’t enough, another Melbourne newspaper published even more alarming reports, compounding the harm. I was already struggling with a dated and unreliable phone system that made basic communication a daily challenge. Now, I was also facing a catastrophic loss of clientele—driven not by any wrongdoing on my part, but by sensationalised headlines that prioritised profit over truth.

The media’s relentless pursuit of scandal overshadowed the years of hard work, hospitality, and dedication I had poured into my enterprise. My business was telephone-dependent, and Telstra’s failures had already pushed me to the brink. The press coverage finished the job.

 

 

Charity Week and the Call That Never Came
Despite the financial precariousness of the enterprise, I had always made it a priority to sponsor the stays of underprivileged groups at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. It wasn’t a loss to me, really—sponsored food came through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and the only cost on my end was a small amount of electricity and gas. I had to make some money, somehow? Even if it was only to make the holiday Camp seem busy. I had to try all avenues - or sink.

In May 1992, we held a charity week for kids from Ballarat and South-West Victoria. It was mainly organised by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. She was the heart of the project, and I still think of her as its ‘mother’. But even something as simple as arranging food, transport, and special needs for the children became a nightmare—because every step had to be handled over the phone.

Sister Burke had enormous trouble making contact. The calls either rang out, returned a deadline tone, or gave her a message saying the number wasn’t connected to Telstra’s network. She knew that wasn’t true. After trying in vain for a full week, she finally drove the 3½ hours to the camp to make the final arrangements in person.

Just as she arrived, Karen—who was helping me run the camp—took a call from an irate man seeking information about a singles weekend we were trying to organise. He was abusive, furious that we were advertising a business that never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She’d reached her limit, and nothing I said could help. When Sister Burke walked into the office, I quietly stepped out and left the two women together.
Later, Sister Burke came to me and gently suggested that perhaps it was best for both of us if Karen left Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was happening again.

But this time, two years after my former wife Faye had left the holiday camp, Karen (my then partner) and I sat down and talked. We agreed to separate, but I assured her she would lose nothing because of her generosity to me. I would do whatever was needed to buy her out. We were both relieved. Karen moved to Portland and rented a house. We remained good friends, but without her day-to-day help at the camp, I had to give up my promotional tours.

Dead Lines and Determined Women
Twelve months later, in March 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon—also from Loreto College—tried to contact me through the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange another annual camp. She later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through. Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.

Between April 1990 and when I sold the camp in December 2001, I continued to partly sponsor underprivileged groups, even as the phone faults persisted year after year. Some money still came in. Those wanting a cheap holiday kept trying to call, even after being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra’s network. If they had to drive hours to make a booking, like Loreto College did, then drive they did.

The camp could sleep 90 to 100 people across fourteen cabins. With sponsored food and basic utilities covered, the groups used the facilities at minimal cost. But the phone problems never stopped. Telstra’s automated voice messages kept telling callers the business didn’t exist, or they were met with silence—dead lines that made it seem like the number was disconnected.

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice, My Story, detailing my struggle to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependable phone service. She wrote back:

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice.”

Both Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon continued their efforts to help me get a proper phone connection for the camp. They knew how vital it was—not just for the low-cost holidays, but for the survival of the business itself. Their persistence was extraordinary. But in the end, Telstra’s failures and the dreaded Ericsson AXE exchange cost me the business that might well have thrived if only the callers could have reached me.

 

 

Children’s Lives Could Be at Risk
The Herald Sun newspaper, dated 30 August 1993, published a headline that cut deep:

The article confirmed just how damaging the media coverage had become for my already struggling business. It reported:

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

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

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

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

A Near-Tragedy That Changed Everything
It wasn’t until the Melbourne Children’s Hospital recorded a near-death experience at my camp that Telstra finally took my phone faults seriously. I had to rush a sick child with cancer to Portland Hospital—18 kilometres away—because we couldn’t get a reliable phone connection. None of the 35 children, nor the six nurses and carers, had mobile phones.

And even if they had, mobile coverage in Cape Bridgewater didn’t exist until 2004—eleven years too late.

My coin-operated Gold Phone was also plagued with faults. It took several attempts before we could finally ring out and summon an ambulance.

Only after this crisis did Telstra send someone with real technical expertise to investigate. That visit occurred on June 3, 1993—five years after I first reported the faults, and six weeks after the Children’s Hospital vowed never to return. A rightful call for any hospital, with sick patients, a responsibility that the child carer born and could not afford, a tragedy which was nearly the case.

As a consequence, more groups seeking hospital-style convalescence—comprising both children and elderly clients—began to gravitate toward the path paved by the Children's Hospital. This shift led to a noticeable decline in traditional activities, such as ethnic migrant bulk holidays, leisurely seascapes, invigorating bushwalks, and serene canoeing adventures. 

The situation escalated when seven significant bookings were abruptly cancelled, most notably one large group from Kensington, Victoria, situated not far from the Children's Hospital. This particular group, numbering over 110 individuals, decided to withdraw from their planned six-night getaway, gripped by anxiety over the prospect of being confined in a holiday camp. The newspapers had reported unsettling details, indicating that once inside, guests would be unable to make phone calls, either in or out, raising alarm bells about their safety and ability to communicate.

Amidst this apprehension, questions loomed large about the potential risks—especially regarding what might happen in the event of a fire, further amplifying fears and uncertainties surrounding these holiday arrangements.

The Long-Term Impact Was Felt by the New Owners Eight Years Later.
No hospital—where convalescent care is a reliable revenue stream—ever returned to my business, even after I sold it in December 2001. The damage was done.
The saga continued until August 2009, when the new owners of my former holiday camp walked off the premises as bankrupts. Another chapter closed, but the scars remain.

Let me know if you'd like this section formatted with visual cues, document icons, or embedded references to support your advocacy timeline.

🛑 Arbitration in Australia — A System Diseased by Deceit
For decades, I have fought to expose the rot festering within Australia’s arbitration system—particularly the grotesque betrayal of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. This is not conjecture. It is a documented trail of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity. A system designed not to deliver justice, but to silence, smear, and protect the powerful.

 

 

⚠️ Character Assassination by Lawyers with something to hide — Fabricated Allegations
In a calculated act of reputational sabotage, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This vile fiction was concocted by John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and delivered to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the lie, chose cowardice over conscience. He allowed the smear to fester, contaminating the arbitration process with silence and complicity (See Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued")

In a treacherous act of reputational sabotage, a malicious falsehood was spread, alleging that I had verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to preside over my case. This vile concoction was orchestrated by John Pinnock, the then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and delivered to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the deceit, chose the path of cowardice and complicity. He allowed this insidious smear to fester unabated, poisoning the arbitration process with his silence and moral failure (see Open Letter dated September 25, 2025: "The first remedy pursued").

In a letter to Laurie James on 16 February 1996, Dr Hughes deceitfully claimed that either he or the appointed arbitrator had reviewed all 24,000 FOI documents I submitted. Little did he know, or perhaps he did but chose to ignore, that the Commonwealth Ombudsman had determined I couldn't have submitted those documents, as Telstra failed to provide the obligatory FOI schedules that should have accompanied them (see Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter).

Unbeknownst to Dr Hughes, on 16 February 1996, his treachery obliterated any reasonable chance I had to appeal my award. The Commonwealth Ombudsman had not yet completed their investigation into my claims that Telstra had egregiously failed to supply the necessary discovery documents as per the agreed FOI process designed to expedite discovery.

It was only on 20 May 1997—two years after Dr Hughes prematurely rendered his unjust award—that National Loss Assessor Tony Morgon from GAB Robins, a well-respected loss assessor appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, uncovered Telstra’s deceit → https://shorturl.at/ch4Tz, , which outlines his expertise in the field of assessing losses. Morgon revealed that Telstra had indeed failed to provide all the required FOI schedules and awarded me costs that Telstra bore, amounting to $200,175, for the defective supply of requested documents during my arbitration.

GAB Robins makes it clear in their Terms of Reference that this award was for unnecessary costs incurred by me from 21 December 1993 to 11 May 1995, the date of the conclusion of my arbitration.

I reiterate, none of the 24,000 FOI documents were ever scrutinised by any of the arbitration consultants, including Dr Hughes, because they were never introduced into the arbitration process due to the defective FOI schedules, which outlined their importance, if any.

Dr Hughes' duplicitous lies to an official of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, shared with numerous government officials, may have earned him the hollow honour of an AO (the Order of Australia). But what it achieved for me was nothing short of devastation. His betrayal has devastated my business life and irreparably damaged my thirty-year partnership with Cathy. I will forever be robbed of the simple joy of a hearty laugh, all thanks to his malign actions.

 

 

The Arbitration Agreement — Tampered, Erased, and Buried

As a chilling revelation, Dr Hughes' office brazenly refused to hand over the working papers detailing the preparation of the arbitration agreement to my lawyers, Law Partners of Melbourne. This refusal raises serious questions about who covertly authorised the insidious alterations made to the agreement after it had been accepted by the claimants' lawyers and given nods of approval from two Senators. Notably, clause 24 was tampered with, and clauses 25 and 26 were surreptitiously erased—an act that reeks of manipulation and deceit.

In a disturbingly consistent pattern, Telstra, too, withheld its copy of the arbitration file concerning my case, further obscuring the truth. John Pinnock, in a shocking display of complicity, outright refused to provide the requested information to John Wynack, who, on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, attempted to obtain a copy of this crucial document between October 1995 and October 1997. Meanwhile, Tony Morgon from GAB Robins was engaged in a shadowy investigation of my Freedom of Information (FOI) claims for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, suggesting a web of obstruction and secrecy.

The attached letter from John Wynack to Telstra underscores the gravity of the situation—he clearly did not buy Telstra's flimsy excuse that my arbitration file had been destroyed (see Home Page File No/82). Such a claim only fuels the suspicion of a sinister cover-up. And why Dr Hughes' office would refuse to provide the same information remains a vile mystery, hinting at a far-reaching conspiracy to keep the truth buried.

Dr Hughes was no impartial adjudicator. He was a covert operator in a rigged game. He refused to release my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—because they would expose his proper role: not as arbitrator, but as Telstra’s embedded “assessor.”

He sanctioned Telstra’s backdated draft to masquerade as the binding agreement. This was not incompetence. It was a conspiracy. By October 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light. Under the guidance of Law Partners, I contacted John Wynack of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Together, we confronted Telstra’s claim that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie.

🧩 The Phantom Letter — A Fabrication Weaponised

Dr Hughes and Pinnock later referenced a written admission I supposedly made, confessing to the midnight call. But no such letter exists. It was a phantom, conjured to distort the record and discredit me.

The Fabrication — A Calculated Betrayal
This was no misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—engineered to isolate me, discredit my claims, and protect Telstra at all costs. When facts became inconvenient, fiction took their place. On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility with lies so brazen they should have triggered a national inquiry. He didn’t just misrepresent me—he weaponised his position to bury the truth.

And Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, still cowers in 2025, refusing to correct the record. His silence is not neutrality—it is complicity. As documented in “The First Remedy Pursued”, Hughes, Pinnock, and John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, formed a triad of deceit. They weren’t just negligent—they were cowards, liars, and disgusting individuals who knowingly hid behind an altered arbitration confidentiality agreement.

That agreement—the very foundation of our pursuit of justice—was secretly rewritten after the COT Cases and after several Senators were told a different version would be used. It was a bait-and-switch of the highest order. The altered version protected these three scoundrels and their allies for more than three decades, shielding them from scrutiny while we, the claimants, were left to rot in silence.

If the man in Dr Hughes’s body truly believes he’s earned the Order of Australia, then let him prove it—not with medals, but with truth. He should sit down with his wife and ask her, plainly, whether she’s willing to admit there was no 2:00 AM call.. And if not, then perhaps it’s time Dr Hughes told John Pinnock what I’ve known all along: this facade has gone on long enough. The truth is waiting. 

What unfolded under the authority of arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes was not just unethical; it was unconscionable, sinister, and corrupt to its core. His actions didn’t merely bend the rules of justice; they shattered them, leaving a trail of destruction that has crippled my life and that of my partner, Cathy, for over three decades.

On December 8 and 16, 1994, Dr Hughes received formal letters from both Telstra and the government regulator, AUSTEL, regarding "Unaddressed 1800 Billing Issues." These letters were explicit; they detailed a series of alarming telephone faults affecting my business and several other accommodation businesses in my area. They requested a written response from Dr Hughes, indicating that I had raised these ongoing problems. These letters illustrate that AUSTEL wanted written clarification from both Dr Hughes and the defendants.

Worse still, on April 30, 1995, Dr Hughes received a report from his own technical consultants, DMR & Lane, confirming that my billing issues remained unresolved. Despite this, he brazenly declared in his official findings that these matters had been resolved back in July 1994. This was not a mistake; it was a deliberate falsification of the record—a calculated move to bury the truth and protect Telstra from accountability.

This level of deceit was not only reprehensible but also grotesque.
 

Correspondence from AUSTEL, a month after the conclusion of my arbitration, confirms that Dr Hughes did not respond to the government's letter. Additionally, correspondence dated August 2, 1996, from one of the financial arbitration consultants assigned to Dr Hughes, revealed that between April 19 and 21, 1994, he was covertly exonerated from all liability for negligent conduct.

This individual, Susan Hodgkinson from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, admitted to withholding these four letters from Dr Hughes, claiming they were not seen as important, despite the precise wording and headings in these documents indicating otherwise.

What transpired under the authority of arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes exemplifies the worst kind of corruption and ethical depravity imaginable. His actions were not merely unethical; they were a grotesque betrayal of justice that has wreaked havoc on my life and my partner, Cathy, for over three decades.

On December 8 and 16, 1994, Dr Hughes received formal letters from both Telstra and the government regulator, AUSTEL, concerning "Unaddressed 1800 Billing Issues." These letters were unequivocal, laying bare a series of alarming telephone faults that impacted my business as well as numerous other accommodation businesses in my locality. They demanded a written response from Dr Hughes, confirming that I had raised these persistent issues.

This wasn’t just a procedural request; it was a desperate plea for accountability that Dr Hughes callously ignored.

Even more abhorrent, on April 30, 1995, Dr Hughes received a report from his own technical consultants, DMR & Lane, which confirmed that my billing issues remained unresolved. In a shocking act of deceit, he falsely claimed in his official findings that these matters had been resolved back in July 1994.

This was no mere oversight; it was a calculated and malicious fabrication designed to obscure the truth and shield Telstra from the consequences of their wrongdoing.
Such blatant dishonesty is not only reprehensible but also downright grotesque.

Further evidence of this sordid affair emerged from correspondence with AUSTEL, revealing that Dr. Hughes failed to respond to the government's letter even after the conclusion of my arbitration. Even more alarming was a letter dated August 2, 1996, from one of the financial arbitration consultants assigned to Dr Hughes, which disclosed that between April 19 and 21, 1994, he was inexplicably exonerated from all liability for any negligent conduct.

This individual, Susan Hodgkinson from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, shockingly admitted to deliberately withholding four key letters from Dr Hughes, dismissing them as unimportant despite their clear implications and urgent nature.

This entire saga is an appalling testament to the depths of corruption, ethical failure, and unconscionable conduct that have plagued this arbitration process. The actions of Dr Hughes and his associates are an affront to justice and a stark reminder of the lengths to which individuals will go to evade accountability.

 

✍️ Introduction — A Life Interrupted, A Truth Unfolding
At the midpoint of my 81 years, I find myself grappling with the task of chronicling the truth of my life—for the third time. For thirty of those years, I was a seafarer, navigating the vast oceans. The subsequent twenty saw me immersed in the world of industrial catering. Along the way, fate dealt me a cruel hand on two separate occasions, placing me in the wrong place at the wrong time. These incidents irrevocably altered the course of my life—a truth that will resonate with every whistleblower reading this introduction.

You understand the profound dilemma: the compulsion to expose the truth, the torment of deciding whether to take a stand or to step back and let someone else risk it all—their life, their livelihood, and often the well-being of their family—for the sake of justice.

In February 1994, I had recently purchased my cherished holiday camp nestled in the picturesque Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia. I’d acquired this slice of paradise in late 1987 and officially took the reins in January 1988. With its sweeping coastal views and tranquil atmosphere, I envisioned the camp as the perfect place to rejuvenate my life.

But little did I know that this seemingly promising venture would trigger the unravelling of my twenty-year marriage, which was already fraying at the seams. I had hoped that this new chapter in the countryside might breathe fresh life into our once-vibrant relationship.

Yet beneath the surface of our shared life, I had been concealing a deep restlessness—an unrest born from haunting memories of August and September 1967. During those months aboard the Hopepeak cargo ship, I ventured across treacherous waters, delivering Australian wheat to Communist China under the guise of humanitarian aid. It was during my time in that foreign land that I made a harrowing discovery: a portion of that wheat would be repurposed by China to supply North Vietnam.

The Coalition government followed with a similar campaign, reminiscent of the slanderous tactics they employed during the Communist China episode in 1967. They labelled the claims of the sixteen COT cases as frivolous and referred to the individuals involved as vexatious litigants.

 

 

A Whistleblower’s Descent into the Shadows
The second time I blew the whistle was on 4 and 6 June 1993—a decision born not of courage, but of necessity, after two so-called technical experts from Telstra’s National Network left behind an unlocked briefcase in my office on 3 June 1993. Their visit to my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was frantic, desperate, and ultimately futile—a hollow attempt to mask the persistent telephone faults that had crippled my business.

While they fumbled through their inspection, Telstra was feeding lies to Senator Bob Collins, the Minister for Communications, and Robin Davy, Chairperson of the Government Communications Authority. They claimed my business had no significant phone issues. But inside that briefcase—left behind like a ticking time bomb—was the truth: the faults had existed for years, long before I purchased the property in 1987. I opened it. I read it. And I knew I was staring into the abyss.

What followed twisted me into something I never imagined: a man cornered by corruption, tempted to play the very game I despised. I considered threatening Telstra—demanding they install a mobile tower at their expense, even if it meant turning my back on other phone-dependent businesses teetering on the edge of collapse. That moment of moral compromise still haunts me.

But I chose a different path. I exposed the rot. I reached out to Bob Collins through AUSTEL and to Robin Davy, the Chairperson of AUSTEL. From that moment on, my life was no longer my own.

Surveillance, Redaction, and the Machinery of Control
Soon after, I learned that I’d been placed on a watch list, as confirmed by Senate Records dated June 24 and 25, 1997. Transcripts from my second interview with the Australian Federal Police, conducted on 16 September 1994, revealed the dangerous dance I was caught in—one choreographed by unseen hands.

Even more disturbing, those transcripts referenced conversations I’d had with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—discussions so treacherous that two entire sets of conversations from April 1993 and April 1994 were redacted from the FOI documents Telstra provided me. No explanation. No disclosure. Just silence. The truth was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic deceit, while I was forced to navigate the treacherous waters of arbitration.

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

 

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions concerning unauthorised surveillance and the threats I endured from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 contains detailed transcripts of this interview, which document the intimidation tactics employed by Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

A Warning Ignored, A Life Tracked
Back on 18 September 1967, I had warned Malcolm Fraser—then Minister for the Army—that we were unwittingly feeding the enemy. Australian wheat, delivered under the guise of humanitarian aid, was being rerouted to North Vietnam. That warning now echoes with ominous implications.

The most chilling question remains unanswered: Did Telstra orchestrate a covert operation to track me since my return from China? After all, I had been accused by the People’s Republic of China of being a spy for the USA and a member of the ‘Shang Ki Check’ nationalist party during the darkest days of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

The web of corruption and deceit runs deep. And as I look back, I can’t escape the feeling that I’ve been a pawn in a much larger, sinister game—one that spans continents, governments, and decades.

A Web of Silence and Evasion

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government held complete ownership of the nation's telephone network through the communications carrier, Telecom, now privatised and rebranded as Telstra. During this era, Telecom wielded an unchallenged monopoly over communications, allowing the network to decay into a shadow of its former self. Rather than addressing the glaring failures in service, the government-sanctioned arbitration process devolved into a treacherous game—an uneven battle in which claimants were systematically worn down. Many individuals poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into their claims against Telstra, only to see their pleas for justice fall on deaf ears.

 

 

🏚️ The Vanishing of a Coastal Legacy
Losing a thriving business, along with two cherished residences, and fourteen deceptively cosy accommodation bunkhouses—an entire complex designed to serve more than 150 patrons—is a tragedy that echoes with betrayal. This venue, boasting a fully equipped industrial kitchen and a hauntingly beautiful 1870 Presbyterian church that had hosted high-profile guests like Helen Handbury, sister of media titan Rupert Murdoch, was no ordinary holiday retreat. Its allure and coastal charm masked a darker underbelly.

📞 Sabotage in Plain Sight
The anguish of this loss is compounded by the realisation that it wasn’t the unforgiving forces of nature—fire, flood, or mismanagement—that snatched this treasure away. No, it was the insidious grip of ongoing telephone problems —a cleverly disguised form of sabotage that threatened the very foundation of the business. The nightmare deepened when I learned that the arbitrator, a supposedly reputable graduate, was all too aware that these persistent issues could have been addressed after his final decision was rendered. Had he wielded the Arbitration Act to recommend a just valuation of my losses, perhaps I could have found some semblance of justice once Telstra rectified the situation.

The Arbitration Trap — Designed to Fail
What chance did we have?

The arbitration agreement wasn’t just flawed—it was designed to fail. Drafted covertly by Telstra’s lawyers, it was a legal fortress built to protect their client from exposure, accountability, and consequence. Every clause, every omission, every procedural twist was calculated to ensure Telstra emerged unscathed—no matter how damning the evidence, no matter how many lives were shattered.

The following Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997, see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - dated 24 June 1997 see:-Senate - Parliament of Australia, lays bare an insidious conspiracy, revealing the treachery and deceit that underpins a corrupt system—one rigged from the very beginning, where the truth is systematically buried under layers of legal trickery and institutional cowardice. The depths of this betrayal are astounding: thirteen months after Dr Hughes wrapped up the first arbitration process, which was mine, he shamefully signed off on a tampered arbitration agreement on May 12, 1995.

Just one day later, we sent a letter to Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who was also the administrator for my arbitration. In that correspondence, we unequivocally condemned the agreement he endorsed as an utterly discreditable document. Yet, in a shocking display of complicity, he chose to proceed with it, grotesquely advising that the remaining three arbitrations—those of Ann Grams, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—needed to be revised to provide an illusion of credibility.

This was nothing short of a travesty, as it granted these claimants an additional thirteen months to prepare their claims, while I was left to endure the fallout of a rigged process.

This insidious document has inflicted immense pain and suffering upon me, serving as a grim reminder of how deeply victimised and discriminated against I have been in the most abhorrent and treacherous manner imaginable.

The 12 May 1995 Letter from Hughes to Wawick Smith - in part states:

“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.”

There are some other procedural difficulties which reveald themselvs during the smith arbitrations and which I would like to discuss with you when I return. (Open Letter File No 55-A)

This letter was concealed from me until years after the statute of limitations had expired, rendering it unusable to spearhead an arbitration appeal.  Hence, this website is absentjustice.com and my soon-to-be-published book is titled "The Arbitraitor"

The Coordinated Deception — The KPMG Connection

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

This wasn’t arbitration. It was a theatre of betrayal—scripted by Telstra, directed by Hughes, and performed under the cloak of government protection.

🛑 Legal Experts in Collusion — The Silence That Enabled Sabotage

When Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett allowed this critical letter to be hidden from the four COT claimants, they became active participants in the sabotage. Their silence empowered the “forces at work” to derail the arbitrations.

Had Rundell’s letter been disclosed, all four claimants could have approached the Federal Government with unified evidence of procedural corruption. The government had initially endorsed the Fast Track Arbitration Procedures—this letter would have exposed how those procedures were being violated.

The Hidden Letter — A Blueprint for Betrayal

The first of eight damning letters was sent by John Rundell, Arbitration Project Manager, dated April 18, 1995. It was addressed to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes, and the TIO’s legal counsel. In it, Rundell wrote:

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.”

 He also admitted:

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” — a line that should have triggered alarm bells across every regulatory and judicial body. (See Prologue Evidence File No 22-A) and or ()

 

A System Engineered to Fail the Truth
What unfolded was not arbitration—it was a coordinated campaign of collusion and concealment. From the laundering of evidence to the secret sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, every move was calculated to undermine justice and protect the guilty.

Lane Telecommunications and the Erosion of Justice
The acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—a consultancy that masqueraded as independent but was ostensibly commissioned by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—reveals a deeply corrupt and treacherous plot at the heart of Australia’s justice system.

This consultancy, which served as the administrator for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration, was meant to serve the interests of justice, investigating serious claims from over sixteen cases. These claims pointed directly to the crumbling infrastructure of Ericsson telephone exchanges, with their outdated testing facilities, as the sinister root of persistent and devastating service failures experienced by countless Australians.

What unfolds in this scenario is nothing short of a calculated conspiracy, a carefully orchestrated scheme that undermines the very foundations of democracy. The dark truth is that this operation has largely slipped under the radar, revealing a shocking level of complicity and negligence. The most egregious aspect of this tale is that Lane, a key technical consultancy tasked with assisting the arbitrator in objectively evaluating the claims against Ericsson, was purchased by Ericsson itself during a highly legalistic arbitration process, which the Australian government had endorsed, as a fair process is beyond contempt.

Such a corrupt collusion raises horrifying questions about the integrity of the entire arbitration process. This acquisition isn’t merely unacceptable; it stinks of betrayal, manipulation, and an insatiable thirst for power that puts the principles of fair justice in grave peril. It feels as though a shadowy hand has reached into the very core of the system, undermining it for personal gain and shrouding the quest for truth in darkness.

This wasn’t a breakdown. It was a design—a system built to fail the truth, reward the corrupt, and leave whistleblowers like me stranded in a fog of betrayal.

The Senate Warning — And the Deafening Silence That Followed

On 26 September 1997, John Pinnock, the second TIO appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, testified before a Senate Estimates Committee:

“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures.” ()

This was a public admission that the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, was a figurehead. The real process was happening elsewhere, in shadows, beyond oversight. Yet no action was taken. Neither the government nor the arbitration administrators moved to correct the record or protect the claimants. Their failure to act is not just negligence—it is complicity.

The Supreme Court’s Blindfold — Jurisdiction Betrayed

The arbitration process was administered under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Had the Court been made aware of the appalling conduct of Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith—especially the concealment of Rundell’s letter and the laundering of technical reports—it would have been forced to confront the legal and ethical violations at play.

What would the Supreme Court have said, had it known that the arbitrator had no control, that the process was conducted outside the agreed procedures, and that critical evidence was deliberately withheld from the claimants?

I reiterate, this wasn’t arbitration. It was a masquerade—engineered to protect Telstra, silence the COT cases, and preserve reputations at the expense of truth.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from 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."   

I have chosen to spotlight the letter from the Canadian government in my narrative as a heartfelt gesture of gratitude for the support it provided during a profoundly challenging chapter of my life. This support became a guiding light, illuminating my path when the Australian government steadfastly refused to confront the uncomfortable truth surrounding the documents inadvertently left in an open briefcase at my business on June 3, 1993. Those documents revealed a shocking deception by Telstra: for over a decade, the company had systematically misled the government about faulty Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. This equipment continued to be installed across Australia, even as nations around the globe were urgently removing—or had already dismantled—the same unreliable technology from their networks.

In placing my trust in the Australian government to take action regarding this falsified BCI testing information, I unwittingly made the second biggest mistake of my life. The flawed BCI testing at the telephone exchange serving my business was never subjected to a thorough investigation, and the profound silence that ensued was deafening, leaving me feeling adrift and alone. Unexpectedly, the Canadian government emerged as a beacon of hope amidst the shadows of neglect.

Reflecting on my life, the first significant mistake took place on September 18, 1967, when I informed the Minister of the Army, Malcolm Fraser, of a grave injustice. The humanitarian wheat being supplied by Australia to China—during a tumultuous period when Australia was actively engaged in combat in North Vietnam alongside allied forces from New Zealand and the USA—was being diverted to North Vietnam. This critically needed wheat was ultimately finding its way into the hands of the Vietcong, who were ruthlessly killing and maiming our brave Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers in the dense jungles of North Vietnam.

Interestingly, in the same year, the Canadian Merchant Navy took a morally steadfast stand by refusing to load wheat upon discovering that it was destined for a nation at war with the West. Their principled action stood in stark contrast to the silence and complicity I encountered.

As I recount these experiences, I feel an unwavering compulsion to include Canada in my story—not only for its resolute stance in 1967 but also for the quiet yet powerful support it offered decades later when my own government systematically turned away from the profound truth that needed to be faced.

 

Call for Justice

A Working Phone: My Battle for Justice

The corruption embedded within the government-sanctioned Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations represents a dark chapter in our history. While the government turned a blind eye, the charade of fairness concealed a sinister reality. Rather than resolving the longstanding telephone and fax issues that have plagued countless businesses, the government’s endorsement merely perpetuated them, leaving operators trapped in a cycle of frustration and despair. 

Despite the COT Cases pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into a flawed arbitration process, the outcome was not justice but a more bottomless financial quagmire. Most, if not all, of these businesses emerged from the ordeal in a far worse state than when they had begun, victims of a system designed to fail them. It reeks of unethical complicity —a betrayal of trust by those in power who turned a deaf ear to the cries of desperate business owners, all while profiting from their misfortune.

 

 

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this battle has twisted and turned through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the telecommunications behemoth Telstra—or Telecom, as it was known when this story began. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea—where I had spent the previous 20 years—was over. I needed a new, land-based occupation to carry me through to retirement and beyond. Of all the places I had visited around the world, I chose to make Australia my home.

Hospitality was my calling, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. So imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age. Nestled in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland, it seemed perfect. I conducted what I believed was thorough due diligence to ensure the business was sound—or at least, all the due diligence I was aware of. Who would have thought I needed to check whether the phones worked?

Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were telling me they had tried to call but couldn’t get through. That’s right—I had a business to run, but the phone service was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, completely absent. Naturally, we lost business as a result.

 

 

The Camp was profoundly reliant on phone communication. It was our vital link to city dwellers eager to connect with our services. One of our most significant oversights—blinded by the charm of this coastal haven—was failing to investigate the existing telephone system. At the time, mobile coverage was virtually nonexistent, and business was conducted through traditional means—not online, and certainly not by email. We soon discovered we were tethered to an antiquated telephone exchange, installed more than 30 years earlier and designed specifically for 'low-call-rate' areas. This outdated, unstaffed exchange had a pitiful capacity of just eight lines.

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.

⚖️ A Conspiracy of Silence: The Betrayal Behind the Arbitration

The document from March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212. It is chilling to consider that, had the arbitrator been furnished with this critical evidence, he would likely have awarded me far greater compensation for my substantial business losses. Instead, my claims were weakened because they lacked a proper log over the six-year period that AUSTEL deceptively used to formulate their findings, as outlined in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

🧨 But the betrayal runs deeper than just bad governance 

Compounding this treachery, government records (Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) illustrate that AUSTEL's damaging findings were handed over to Telstra, the defendants, one month before the arbitration agreement was signed. This calculated manoeuvre ensured that Telstra was armed with information that I, the innocent party, was wholly unaware of until November 23, 2007—a staggering twelve years after my arbitration concluded. This insidious manipulation left me unable to challenge the arbitrator's decision, as I was now trapped beyond the statute of limitations. Such glaring misconduct not only obstructed my quest for justice but also casts a shadow over the integrity of the entire arbitration process, suggesting a concerted effort to protect Telstra's interests at the expense of fairness and accountability. This scheme reeks of corruption and betrayal, leaving me to question the very foundations of a system that is meant to uphold justice.

The result? A grotesque parody of justice. My pursuit of truth was obstructed at every turn, and the arbitration process twisted into a tool of suppression. The very system meant to uphold fairness was weaponised against me, its integrity corroded by collusion and concealment. I spent over $300,000 in professional fees across thirteen gruelling months, fighting to prove what AUSTEL had already confirmed—six weeks before I was lured into signing the arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994.

This was not justice. It was a betrayal—systemic, strategic, and unforgivable.

And so, my saga began—a long, painful quest to secure working phone service. Along the way, I received some compensation for business losses and many promises that the problem had been resolved. It never was. I sold the business in 2002, and the owners who followed me suffered the same fate.

Other independent business owners, similarly affected by poor telecommunications, joined me on this journey. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT cases. All we’ve ever wanted is for Telecom/Telstra to acknowledge our problems, fix them, and compensate us for our losses. A working phone—is that really too much to ask?

We initially called for a full Senate investigation into Telecom and these issues. Instead, we were offered an alternative: arbitration. It seemed like a fair and reasonable way to resolve the problem, so we agreed. At that early stage, we genuinely believed the technical issues preventing our phones from working would finally be addressed.

No such luck. Almost immediately, we began to suspect that something was wrong with the arbitration process. We had been promised access to the Telecom documents we needed to make our case. That promise was never fulfilled. To this day, we still do not have those documents.

 

"Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct"

📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption

On 23 May 1994, I was advised by the arbitrator's secretary that my arbitration-related faxes had never reached Dr Hughes' office, despite my Telstra fax account for that date showing that six faxes were sent to Dr Hughes' office fax number.

After trying to explain the discrepancy to Dr Hughes' secretary, I spoke to some office staff who admitted they had not collected that information by mistake. Telstra’s arbitration B004 report, prepared by Tony Watson (Front Page Part One File No/1), later claimed that the reason those faxes never arrived was that Dr Hughes’ office fax machine was busy when I attempted to send them.

If this were the case, why did Telstra bill me for those faxes that were not received?

🧾 Evidence Suppressed, Justice Denied

The information I had faxed through was billing documentation regarding Bell Canada’s alleged testing at Cape Bridgewater, along with my report proving that the BCI tests could not have occurred. This was not trivial correspondence—it was critical evidence that undermined the very foundation of Telstra’s defence.

When I told Graham Schorer, the official COT spokesperson, that this had happened again, he contacted Dr Hughes directly. This wasn’t a mere technical hiccup. It was a deliberate obstruction—an engineered failure that ensured vital documents never reached the arbitrator. And yet, Telstra still charged me for each transmission, profiting from the very sabotage that crippled my case.

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.

Psychologically undermined.

 

(See File Ann Garms 104 Document).

🔥 A Turning Point in My Fight for Justice
Let me tell you something that still chills me to the bone.

Before she passed away, Ann Garms—one of the original COT Cases—wrote a desperate letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull → (See File Ann Garms 104 Document).  In that letter, she revealed something that had haunted her: Queensland’s former Premier Wayne Goss told her that we, the COT Cases, were subjected to gaslighting techniques. That’s right. A senior figure in Australian politics confirmed what we had long suspected. We weren’t just ignored—we were manipulated, destabilised, and psychologically undermined.

Wayne Goss wasn’t just any politician. He was deeply embedded in the system. If he said gaslighting was used against us, then he knew. He knew what was done to us. And he said it out loud.

⚖️ My Case: The Silence That Screams
Take my situation. I was one of the COT Cases. My arbitration was supposed to be conducted under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. That meant it should have been protected, transparent, and accountable.
But when Telstra carried out threats against me—real threats—Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, refused to contact the Supreme Court. He didn’t report the threats. He didn’t acknowledge them in his findings. He didn’t even try to protect the integrity of the process.

• Why?
• Why would an arbitrator ignore threats made during a court-sanctioned process?
• Why would he leave out the most sinister part of my experience

The silence is deafening. The corruption is undeniable.

📜 What Ann Garms Knew—and What She Tried to Warn
Ann’s letter wasn’t just a plea. It was a warning. She knew what had been done to us. She knew we were being gaslit, surveilled, and sabotaged. And she tried to tell the Prime Minister before it was too late.
She died not long after sending that letter.
But I’m still here. And I’m still telling the story.

🧭 This Is the Moment Everything Changed
Wayne Goss’s confirmation. Dr Hughes’ silence. Telstra’s threats. Ann Garms’ final letter.

This is the moment I mark as a turning point in my chronology. It’s where the mask slipped, where the truth began to surface, where the betrayal became undeniable.
And I’ve documented it all. Every exhibit. Every omission. Every threat.

Because this isn’t just my story, it’s a national disgrace.

🕳️ The Arbitrator’s Omission: Silence in the Face of Surveillance

Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was actively investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator’s office, as well as my failure to receive arbitration-related documents sent to my office via Australia Post—and vice versa: arbitration-related documents sent to the arbitrator that were never received.

Yet this crucial matter, central to my claim, was entirely omitted from Dr Hughes’s award. He made no mention of it in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is not a minor oversight—it is a damning indictment of the entire process. It reveals a deliberate suppression of evidence and a refusal to confront the sabotage that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.

📬 Echoes of Interference: The 2008 Repetition

And here in 2008, the same BCI arbitration-related documents—now in the hands of the new owners of my business—were again not received by the Melbourne Magistrates Court. This, despite the new owners personally handing over their overnight mail to the Australia Post front desk.

There was no way they could have tampered with the material I had prepared to help them stave off bankruptcy. That material included critical evidence of the ongoing telephone and faxing problems—evidence that mirrored the very sabotage I had endured during my arbitration.

The recurrence of this pattern—documents vanishing in transit, evidence silenced, and institutions turning a blind eye—suggests not coincidence, but continuity. A continuity of obstruction. A continuity of corruption.

​🏛️ Government Agencies' Dismissal of Evidence

Nine government agencies, including two self-regulated regulators and the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, ignored my substantiated claims that Telstra built its arbitration defence on three falsified reports. Despite the arbitration being government-endorsed, these institutions failed to investigate the ongoing issues with telephone and fax services that were severely impacting my business. Arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes relied on these flawed documents in his final award on May 11, 1995, incorrectly stating in point 3.5(h) that all my ongoing telephone problems had been resolved by July 1994. However, "Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story," shows that these problems persisted at least until November 2006, more than eleven years after he made those official statements.