After receiving confirmation on March 17, 2006, from David Lever, representing Senator Helen Coonan, I was led to believe the DCITA assessment process would take my claims of phone and fax hacking seriously. This was no mere bureaucratic oversight; it fell squarely within the realm of unlawful conduct. David Lever assured me that the government would bring these serious matters to the attention of the authorities, yet this promise was nothing but a hollow echo—never fulfilled.

In this daunting territory, I was fortunate to find a valuable ally—an advisor who was a former high-ranking police officer in Victoria. He became my guiding light, illuminating my path as I navigated the murky waters of my situation. Together, we embarked on a series of challenging discussions with Peter Hiland, a barrister deeply entrenched in the convoluted CAV process. How were Crown's faxes arriving at my business when my business had nothing to do with gambling? 

From October 2007 to late 2008, it became glaringly evident that these so-called guardians of justice were not merely bystanders; they were intricately involved in a disturbing scheme that far exceeded anything I could have anticipated. Hiland’s disconcerting delight in the intercepted faxes—documents that once moved through the illustrious corridors of Sir Owen Dixon Chambers, a hallmark of legal integrity—sent shivers down my spine. His palpable anxiety regarding the interception of crucial evidence meant for the Supreme Court further led me to believe that there was still a glimmer of hope for justice for those entangled in the COT Cases, all of whom had suffered the devastating loss of arbitration-related documents. This tragic loss meant that their essential evidence remained unexamined by arbitrators or their advisors.

It was utterly bewildering that vital documents, intended for guests at the opulent Crown Casino, had somehow ended up in my humble fax machine, nestled in the tranquil isolation of my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. After enduring a gruelling four years filled with uncertainty and despair, CAV finally returned my evidence. However, how it was presented struck me as anything but straightforward. The chaotic disorganisation of the returned documents suggested a deeply unsettling investigation had unfolded behind the scenes. Much like my previous disappointing experiences with the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA), this encounter culminated not in the resolution I had fervently sought but in a profound sense of betrayal (Refer to The eleventh remedy pursued).

Those assigned to evaluate my claims—whom I had once regarded as paragons of fairness—began to reveal themselves as complicit in a far-reaching conspiracy. Hiland's unsettling enthusiasm for the intercepted faxes, especially one that implicated a senior lawyer, only exacerbated my unease. 

Adding another layer of complexity to this intricate case was the unwavering support from this highly decorated senior Victorian police officer, whose guidance proved invaluable throughout this harrowing ordeal. Without his steadying presence, I would have likely faltered long ago. He had previously encountered Hiland in a professional court setting and navigated both sides of the law with a democratic spirit—a rare quality during the COT arbitrations. Despite their past conflicts, a friendly rapport had surprisingly developed between them, which I hoped would be beneficial as our case progressed.

This former officer generously visited my premises three times between 2006 and 2007, offering his expertise as we painstakingly compiled an enormous 36-volume set of evidence files. These files were meticulously organised and now reside securely in a safe house, protected from prying eyes. When I presented these carefully curated files to Hiland in October 2007, I felt an overwhelming pressure to convert them into a CD. This exhausting task consumed four gruelling days of my life, ostensibly for the benefit of CAV officials scrutinising my claims against influential senior lawyers.

However, when I finally received my evidence back—four long years later, polished yet disconcertingly complete—it felt like a masterfully constructed façade intended to conceal more profound, unresolved malevolence. The entire investigation reeked of a calculated cover-up, echoing my tumultuous interactions with the IAMA, both of which had led to frustrating dead ends and left a bitter aftertaste of disillusionment. 

The depths of this betrayal were staggering; those who vowed to uphold justice had instead shown themselves to be mere pawns in a sinister, corrupt agenda—binding me deeper into this unsettling narrative that seemed to defy logic and reason at every turn.

The Brotherhood 

Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith - Order of Australia

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

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

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

When I inquired about obtaining copies of all relevant transactions that would clarify when Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, lost control over the arbitration process—particularly whether this loss of control occurred before we officially signed our agreements or during the arbitration proceedings—I was met with silence. Over twenty-eight years, despite my persistent efforts to seek answers, I received no response.

As my arbitration appeal moved forward, I also reached out to John Pinnock, who had been appointed as the second administrator for my arbitration. He also served as the second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I hoped he might provide additional insights or assistance regarding my ongoing concerns.

John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

It is evident to all visitors of my website, absentjustice.com, that my claims are neither frivolous nor vexatious. As an individual of 81 years of age, I believe I am entitled to be informed regarding the circumstances under which Dr. Gordon Hughes lost control over my arbitration. This process has had a profound negative impact on my life and that of my partner, Cathy, with whom I have shared thirty-eight years.

 

 

 

 

Consequently, Dr. Gordon Hughes, whose impressive legal credentials were supposed to lend authority and credibility to the arbitration process, became entangled in what could justifiably be labelled a "Kangaroo Court-style" arbitration scheme. The confidentiality clauses woven into the Arbitration Agreement were misused not solely to safeguard sensitive information but also to function as a gag order, effectively stifling any legitimate investigation into the TIO's conduct and that of his appointed arbitration consultants during the COT arbitrations. 

 

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal AAT hearings (respondents the Australian Communications Media Authority - ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show the judge (senior members hearing my AAT - Freedom of Information (FOI) case did not find me vexatious or my claims frivolous. However, other government agencies have branded me vexatious and my claims frivolous because they have a vested interest in concealing the truth surrounding my claims that the international arbitration process in Australia was legally abused to protect the Telstra Corporation at all costs.

During this ten-month AAT hearing, I provided the AAT with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the ACMA board, proving beyond all doubt that Telstra had violated my human rights and that their leading arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, had submitted known false documents to the arbitrator concerning his alleged successful service verification testing of my business telephone service lines.

I presented damning evidence to the AAT and the two attorneys representing ACMA, revealing that it was AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) that visited my business on December 19, 1995, a full eight months after my arbitration had concluded. They openly acknowledged that none of the ongoing billing issues had been thoroughly investigated or resolved during the arbitration process. The arbitrator's technical advisors had informed Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) that they were unable to diagnose my persistent phone problems because they required additional weeks—weeks that Dr. Hughes callously refused to grant.

When this evidence reached the two lawyers, the atmosphere turned electric. Mr. G.D. Friedman nearly lost his composure, fully aware that this revelation confirmed the arbitration was nothing more than a meticulously orchestrated farce—a facade put in place to shield Telstra from accountability at all costs. The corruption ran deep, revealing a disturbing alliance determined to suppress the truth and protect their interests, leaving me to grapple with the fallout of their deceit.

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G. D. Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.