Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting

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

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

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

A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83:

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

And here I was, twenty years later, in my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, gazing out at the Southern Ocean. Just a five-minute walk from where I stood in 1994, I found myself reflecting on the tumultuous journey I had endured—almost facing execution in communist China, battling in another war, this time against Telstra, the Australian government-owned entity that had unearthed my past and buried it in internal memos.

Tellstra had linked it to my communications with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. They had documented it, discussed it, and refused to explain why.
I held the memo in my hands and felt a familiar tightness in my chest — the same tightness I had felt in 1967 when the Red Guards shouted accusations I could not disprove. But this time, the fear was different. This time, it wasn’t a foreign regime threatening me.
It was home.

As I worked tirelessly on my arbitration claims, I also faced the arduous task of salvaging a struggling holiday camp. The situation was made even more daunting as I was receiving arbitration documents from Telstra in a slow, piecemeal fashion. The daily demands of managing the camp left me exhausted and overwhelmed, especially during the thirteen months I invested in preparing my claim.

The documents on the table blurred as my eyes filled with tears I had been holding back for years. I had fought so hard — harder than I ever thought I could — to keep my business alive, to keep my sanity intact, to keep believing that the system would eventually do the right thing.
But the system had no intention of doing the right thing, as these two Senate Hansard records show:

Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as shown in the following Hansard link. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”

Telstra had every intention of burying the truth. I looked around the kitchen — the chipped tiles, the old catering equipment, the stack of unpaid bills — and felt the weight of everything I had lost. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had been my dream. A place where children could run free, where families could reconnect, where the world felt safe. But the phone faults had strangled it slowly, like a vine tightening around a tree. Bookings that never came through. Calls that never connected. Faxes that vanished into the ether.

And every time I reported the faults, Telstra told me the same thing:

No fault found.

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 Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement and notably lacked Mr Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I disclosed to Mr Joblin 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 he had been misled by Telstra's legal representatives, 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 note that, despite the gravity of the situation, 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?

📅 Questions That Demand Answers

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) sensed the depth of the treachery and reached out to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin (see File 596 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) with two probing questions:

 

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

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

 

 

It is now 2026, and John Pinnock has yet to provide me with the information he requested from Telstra to support my pending arbitration appeal. This information is crucial for my case, especially since there are still four years left in the statute of limitations for the appeal.

🧾 The Witness Statement That Shouldn’t Exist

The original witness statement bore only the signature of Telstra’s lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon, from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. It was submitted without the psychologist Ian Joblin’s signature—a glaring omission that should have halted its acceptance. Yet, just eight days later, a second version emerged, now featuring Joblin’s signature, retroactively dated to match Condon’s original signing date.

This raises a disturbing question: if Ian Joblin did not sign the document on that day, how did his signature appear on a version processed through arbitration channels as if he had?

Three words that destroyed my business. Three words that nearly destroyed me. I reached for another document — an FOI release that no longer matched the version I had received years earlier. Whole paragraphs were missing. Notes erased. Evidence altered. The truth rewritten by the very people who were supposed to protect it. My hands shook as I turned the pages. And worst of all, no FOI schedules detailing whether they were the documents I had requested.

Not from anger. Not from fear. But from exhaustion — the kind of exhaustion that seeps into the bones and whispers that maybe, just maybe, it would be easier to stop fighting.

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP about the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thereby avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interception (Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process). The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine alongside one installed at Graham’s office.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row avoided disclosing to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The Weight of Treachery

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A), is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that, every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty?

When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2026.

To make matters even darker, Dr Hughes allowed Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, unrestricted access to my claim documents five months before the arbitration rules permitted such access. This blatant favouritism and manipulation underscored the sinister nature of the proceedings.

 

The disparity in treatment I faced seemed not only unjust but corrupt, highlighting a pattern of discriminatory actions intended to undermine my position. This same Paul Rumble further threatened me, stating that if I continued to assist the AFP in their investigations—uncovering the shocking depths of Telstra’s invasion of my privacy, which included intercepting my telephone conversations and hacking into my faxes—Telstra would stop all Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for documents that should rightfully have been available to my claim advisor. This threat is recorded in the AFP transcripts of their interview with me regarding Mr Rumble, revealing a treacherous scheme to silence me and conceal the truth.

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could affect the arbitrator's decisions in my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began asking probing questions about my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

When Paul Rumble stopped providing the requested documents, it was because he discovered that I was assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) by supplying evidence suggesting that Telstra was hacking into my faxes and telephone conversations. Senator Ron Boswell took these serious issues to the Senate.

Threats that became a reality 

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact of this withholding on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen who had assisted the AFP in its investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged in a civil arbitration.

During this corrupt charade, Hughes allowed John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, to weave a sinister narrative that vilified me, branding me as devoid of integrity. Pinnock falsely claimed that I had written to him, confessing to calling Dr Hughes’s wife at 2:00 AM—a complete fabrication, as no such letter existed and no such call took place. 

 

As evidenced in "The first remedy pursued," even more deceitful allegations emerged from the arbitration project manager, who claimed that I had caused substantial damage to his residence while insinuating that Brighton police were poised to interview me. In a twist of events, the Brighton Police confirmed to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police that I have never been a suspect in any criminal damage to anyone's property, including that of John Rundell, the project manager in question. These outrageous accusations distracted the Institute from questioning why Dr Hughes would rely solely on Telstra's drafted agreement, which was used only to deliberate on my claim, while allowing the other three claimants—Garms, Gillan, and Schorer—an additional 13 months to fortify their defences against Telstra. 

 

Furthermore, in a display of utter deceit, Dr Hughes wrote to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, falsely asserting that he and the arbitration resource unit had thoroughly reviewed all of my 24,000 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. I had clearly stated that I did not submit these documents because Telstra had purposefully delayed their arrival until after submitting their defence. 

 

It has since been unequivocally proven by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and GAB Robins International Loss Assessor that those 24,000 documents never entered the arbitration process. This reinforces the undeniable truth: Dr Hughes is not merely dishonest; he is part of a corrupt system that seeks to discriminate against those who dare to challenge it.

 

If you have persevered through this account on absentjustice.com and venture on to Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 13 - Believe it or not, and Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?", you will witness firsthand—through just two of the 187 meticulously documented evidence files—that the bureaucrats orchestrating Australia’s legal and arbitration system were not merely negligent; they were deeply morally compromised, as the Senate In-Camera Hansards from July 1998 chillingly reveal. Those very Hansards expose an even darker reality: the Senate investigated only five of the COT cases—just five—despite having a schedule listing twenty-one names. Senator Chris Schacht boldly cautioned that neglecting the remaining sixteen would be an act of profound injustice, yet his warning was met with a silence that was disconcertingly loud.

 

The five chosen cases received preferential treatment; they were granted invaluable assistance in preparing their technical claims, access to a staggering 150,000 previously withheld FOI documents, and ultimately walked away with nearly $18 million in punitive damages. In stark contrast, the remaining sixteen—including myself—were callously cast aside. We received no assistance, no access to the withheld FOI documents that could have substantiated our claims, and no semblance of justice. We were deliberately excluded, subjected to heinous discrimination, and left to languish while others were expedited through a system designed to present the illusion of fairness.

 

What transpired was not a mere oversight or bureaucratic misstep; it was a calculated act of institutional betrayal, executed in the vile name of justice. In a tragic twist of fate, seventy per cent of those sixteen unresolved cases have succumbed to stress-related illnesses—a devastating toll from a relentless thirty-year battle against a corporate Goliath that demonstrated a shocking and blatant disregard for our suffering. The profound injustices endured by my fellow victims stand as a grim testament to the sinister conduct that has shaped this horrific saga.

 

 

 

 

Senate Evidence File No 12

 

It's essential to recognise the complexities surrounding this situation, which make it challenging for outsiders to fully understand its significance. In August 2001 and December 2004, I received warnings from the Australian Government regarding potential contempt charges related to sensitive documents from July 6, 1998, see Senate Evidence File No 12. While these warnings suggested serious consequences, including a possible two-year prison term, they also highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability. It’s clear that powerful interests are at play, aiming to keep certain truths hidden.

 

And so I am left with a question that has haunted me for decades: Where is the justice in threatening me with jail for possessing the same privileged material that twenty‑four Senators — nearly a third of the entire Senate — had already seen during the COT investigations? How can it be a crime for me to know what they knew?

 

On my second attempt to obtain detailed data from Bell Canada International Inc (BCI), specifically testing data, Paul Rumble, Telstra's arbitration officer, issued yet another threat. He made it crystal clear: if I continued to share this information with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Telstra would cut off all assistance to me. It was an ultimatum—stop supplying the AFP with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents, and Telstra would play ball, providing the arbitrator with whatever evidence I needed.

That’s when it dawned on me: the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes (now a recipient of the Order of Australia), was intricately involved in this web of deceit meant to shield Telstra's failing copper-wire rural telecommunications infrastructure. Rather than standing for integrity, Dr Hughes not only dismissed Rumble’s threats but also refused my request for access to the Cape Bridgewater BCI telephone exchange testing data—a crucial piece of evidence that Telstra was shamelessly using in its defence during the arbitration.

How could an arbitrator blatantly refuse a written request for information that Telstra was prepared to withhold, all because I was assisting the AFP in their investigation into Telstra’s unlawful interception of my telephone conversations and faxes? The whole situation reeked of corruption, betrayal, and a sinister conspiracy lurking beneath the surface. What was truly going on in those shadowy circles?

until after Telstra had submitted its defence, which also hit me? 

D Hughes was involved with Telstra in concealing how bad the Telstra rural 

I refused to be threatened in this manner.  

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House, Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those Government offices have officially organised the Fax Streaming arrangement, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system without the Government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means privacy isn't so private nationwide?

Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra's network were able to use 'keywords' so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close's residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away, he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.

The never-ending saga, who was to blame?  

At first, I blamed the weather. The wind. The salt air. The old lines. Anything but the possibility that the system itself was failing me. I was a reasonable man. I believed in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believed that if you reported a problem, someone would fix it.

But the problems didn’t get fixed. They multiplied. Calls dropped mid‑conversation. Faxes vanished. Lines went dead for hours, sometimes days. People trying to book simply gave up.

I kept a logbook — a habit from my seafaring days — and soon it was filled with dates, times, fault numbers, technician names, and the same three words written over and over again:
No fault found.

Those three words became the slow poison that seeped into every corner of my life. I would stand in the empty dining hall, listening to the silence where children’s voices should have been, and feel a knot tighten in my stomach. I checked the mailbox and found no bookings. I would watch the bank balance shrink and wonder how long I could keep pretending everything was fine. But I didn’t give up.

I couldn’t. The camp wasn’t just a business — it was my home, my livelihood, my future. So I did what any reasonable person would do: I kept reporting the faults.

I called Telstra so often I knew the technicians by name. Some were good men — honest, frustrated, caught in a system that didn’t allow them to tell the truth. They would arrive, shake their heads, mutter that the lines were “a mess,” and then quietly warn me that the problem was bigger than anyone wanted to admit.

But their reports never matched what I saw. Their findings never made it into the official record. And the official record always said the same thing:
No fault found.

I began to feel like I was losing my grip on reality. How could a phone ring for a caller but not ring in my house? How could a fax be sent but never arrive?

How could a business be strangled by a problem that officially didn’t exist? I tried everything. New phones. New wiring. New fax machines. Nothing changed.

The worst part wasn’t the technical failure.

It was the isolation. Running a business in a remote coastal town is hard enough. Running one without a working phone line is impossible. I would watch cars drive past the entrance, knowing that behind the wheel were families who had tried to call, failed to get through, and assumed the camp was closed. I felt helpless. I felt invisible. I felt like I was shouting into a void.

But the real breaking point came when I realised it wasn’t just incompetence.

It wasn’t just bad luck. It wasn’t just a faulty line. It was a system — a system that refused to admit the truth because the truth would cost money, reputation, and political convenience.

I didn’t know it then, but the battle lines had already been drawn. I was no longer a customer. I was a problem. A liability.
A man who had seen too much and asked too many questions.

And Telstra — backed by the government, protected by lawyers, shielded by bureaucracy — had already decided how they would deal with men like me.
They would deny. They would delay. They would destroy. But I didn’t know that yet. All I knew was that my dream was slipping through my fingers, and no matter how loudly I shouted, no one in power was listening.

Not yet.