You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting  Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy. 

How does one publish a meticulously detailed and accurate account of the intricate events that unfolded during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations? What rigorous and methodical approaches can an author adopt to substantiate the serious claims that government public servants, entrusted with sensitive information, provided privileged insider knowledge to the government-owned telecommunications carrier—commonly referred to as the defendants—while simultaneously withholding critical documentation from the claimants, who are ordinary Australian citizens seeking justice and accountability?

Furthermore, how can the author compellingly recount the complex narrative of his inadvertent involvement in the controversial shipment of Australian wheat to a desperate, starving communist nation in China during the tumultuous 1960s? This tale gains an added layer of complexity as he and his crew of sailors stumble upon the alarming revelation that a portion of this intended humanitarian aid was being rerouted to North Vietnam—a country engaged in a brutal war against Australia, New Zealand, and the United States—providing nourishment for its troops. How can he share this morally ambiguous story without being unjustly branded a traitor by his fellow countrymen?

Did his participation in this morally ambiguous trade, which persisted even after he courageously brought to light the ethically questionable actions of government officials, play a role in the significant repercussions he endured during the arduous arbitration processes with Telstra Corporation— a company entirely owned by the government— in the 1994/95 arbitration endorsed by the government? Furthermore, could his vocal condemnation of the government’s dealings with the enemy thirty years before his arbitration have influenced the government-appointed arbitrator to downplay the legitimacy of his claims? (Refer to Flash Backs – China-Vietnam. 

My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on a British tramp ship, the Hopepeak. Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Vietcong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong).

As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible. 

The following three statements taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly) only tell part of this tragic episode concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on 18 September 1967 as Minister for the Army.

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569 

"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam".  It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"

If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."

Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."  

How does one construct a narrative so astonishing and far-fetched that it keeps an editor awake at night, wrestling with uncertainties about its credibility until confronted with undeniable evidence that validates its authenticity? What strategies can unveil the troubling collusion between an arbitrator, a cadre of appointed watchdogs (umpires), and the defendants? How can the author expose the unsettling practice of the defendants using their sophisticated network connections to intercept and screen faxed communications emanating from his office, surreptitiously storing sensitive information without his knowledge or consent, and rerouting it to their intended destination? (Refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13)

Were the defendants leveraging these intercepted documents to bolster their defence in arbitration proceedings, ultimately undermining the rightful claims of innocent claimants? How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to such covert hacking? Is this insidious practice of electronic eavesdropping—this unauthorised infiltration—still a pervasive issue in legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

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, 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 about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. Pages 12 and 13 from the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts of their second interview with me during my arbitration extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

It is noteworthy that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator operated in collaboration. Dr. Gordon Hughes supplied Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials months before Telstra should have received these documents, according to the terms of my arbitration agreement.

This situation illustrates a disregard for protocol on the part of Telstra and the individuals overseeing the various COT arbitrations. The processes involved were conducted in a manner likened to a Kangaroo Court.

What circumstances drove the arbitrator, or perhaps more intriguingly, what influences swayed him, to forward the claimant's submission to the defense on 15 June 1994? This action occurred a remarkable five months before he was legally entitled to do so, as stipulated by the arbitration agreement both parties had previously accepted. Adding to the complexity of this situation is the troubling fact that Telstra, the defendant, did not respond to the claimant's claims until 12 December 1994. This was despite the arbitration rules clearly indicating they had only one month to provide a rebuttal to the claimant's submission. 

In January 1999, the claimants involved in the arbitration presented the Australian Government with a distressing report, illuminating how confidential government documents were unlawfully screened before reaching the hallowed halls of Parliament House in Canberra. Will this explosive report ever be acknowledged as authentic by the government, allowing those claimants who are still alive thirty years after the original events to use this official recognition to appeal their past awards, despite the statute of limitations having lapsed two decades ago?

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the claimant's claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable.

The aftermath of the government-endorsed arbitrations uncovered a troubling tapestry of corruption that ran deep within established power structures. These events were fraught with betrayal and deceit, shrouded in a fog of disinformation and duplicity. The landscape was littered with falsehoods, rampant fraud, and staggering hypocrisy that eroded public trust. Lies and treachery infiltrated every level, as various forms of trickery and dishonest practices unfolded, including manipulation, cheating, circumvention, cunning stratagems, and sabotage.

On April 30, 1995, the two arbitration technical consultants, DMR and Lane, presented their report containing essential statements regarding the arbitration process. This document was submitted to the arbitrator as their final evaluation of the case, even though it was not fully complete. In their report, DMR and Lane noted that additional time would be necessary to gather further information and finalise their findings; however, they did not extend their reporting period in the subsequent weeks, leading to gaps in the evaluation. I received this interim report on May 2, 1995, and was informed by the arbitrator that I had a brief window of five days to formulate and submit my response to the evaluation of my claim.

i.e,  “Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”(File 45-c -File No/45-A)and 

“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems. “Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” (See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

A multitude of related concepts surfaced, highlighting the pervasive nature of deceptiveness, dissimulation, and double-dealing. Terms like fraudulence, guile, insincerity, pretence, and trickery vividly illustrate the insidious tactics employed. This culminated in the more extensive ideas of defrauding and the evasive "snow job," which cleverly obscured the truth.

Our thorough investigation into misconduct in public office reveals the staggering extent of regulatory manipulation, peeling back layers to expose hidden realms of influence and control. This wide-ranging inquiry illuminates a dark array of criminal activities—fraud, bribery, and entrenched corruption—each driven by insidious, malicious intent, posing a grave threat to the integrity of governance (Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury).

By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps provided me the ability to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,

Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia, as the following link suggests Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued shows. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Corruption, misleading, and deceptive conduct must not be practised in any shape or form. The criminal exploitation, fraud, and crookedness of Telstra and those who administered the COT arbitrations demoralised the claimants. Telstra's misrepresentation, coupled with jobbery, was clear extortion payola. The conduct of the arbitrations was a fraudulent exercise, subterfuge and an attack against the democratic process that Australia is supposed to be governed by.

Now, turning to a troubling situation involving Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), which the Australian government commissioned to investigate widespread telephone issues across the country. BCI set out to conduct tests based on information about various telephone exchanges, believing they were testing the correct infrastructures. Unfortunately, it was later revealed that the exchanges they were led to believe they were testing were not the actual locations where the tests took place.

Two sets of tests could not have been conducted simultaneously.

In addition, Telstra was running their testing INTO the Cape Bridgewater exchange, between 28 October 1993 and 8 November 1993 from 8 am to 10 pm, using a NEAT testing unit. For 4 of the 5 days in which Telstra alleged BCI had performed their testing at Cape Bridgewater, Telstra ran a series of AUSTEL tests. It was impossible to have the two tests running simultaneously using the same single incoming number, given that the NEAT process must hold the lines open for 120 seconds before the next test is generated? and in the case of the BCI tests that system would have to need fifteen seconds between each successful call to regenerate the next call? In addition, the same telephone number, 055 267211, was allegedly used for both the Telstra and BCI tests, which were conducted simultaneously. This would seem to be highly unlikely.

Although the Canadian government lacked the authority to compel Ball Canada International Inc. to acknowledge the flaws in its testing of the Cape Bridgewater telephone service in Australia, it nevertheless encouraged me to reach out to BCI for clarification and answers regarding my concerns.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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."   

On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of test results provided by Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills in Melbourne). These contentious test results from Bell Canada International Inc. were submitted for review to Mr. Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was set to travel to Portland for an assessment of my mental health amid ongoing arbitration proceedings.

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business." (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. As for bribery and corruption in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard dated 27 February 1998 shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to several Australian politicians and government bureaucrats → Senate Evidence File No 21 Senate Hansard dated 27 Feb 1998 re kick-backs and bribes

We must use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and the Australian government.

It is essential to link here the bribery and corruption issue the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and the selling off of Lanes to Ericsson in 1996 during the COT arbitrations because they are linked to the poor performance of Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment that other countries around the world were removing or had removed from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ).

The Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major telecommunication equipment supplier to Telstra, before Ericsson purchased Lane's? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson purchasing Lanes during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator, ACMA, denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation, which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 → Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued ?

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to our COT story and all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also appropriate that these same subscribers visit my website, absentjustice.com, where they can see for themselves that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.→ Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden

The Ericsson List indicates that the telecommunications corporation Ericsson exhibited a notable willingness to engage with ISIS terrorists during the Iraq War. This is the same Ericsson that the Australian government allowed to acquire Lanes Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a significant arbitration witness. Lanes was appointed by the administrators of the COT Cases arbitration to assess whether the persistent issues with Telstra's service for the COT Cases were attributable to the equipment installed by Ericsson.

Despite formal claims made in 1994 and 1995 during the arbitration proceedings regarding the reliability of Ericsson's equipment, these concerns were not addressed in the COT arbitrations. The decision to permit the primary witness to be acquired by the company under investigation raises serious ethical questions, as such an action is unprecedented in most Western nations, where robust standards for the integrity of arbitration processes are typically upheld.

The inside story of how a telecom giant dealt with terrorists and financed shady deals in pursuit of profits around the globe.

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned since 1992 through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra. This story commenced in April 1988 and is still, in 2025, being ignored by the government.

Introduction

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the COT Four's capacity to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found' when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed, as our story shows.

I am profoundly frustrated and disturbed that I was forced to invest more than $300,000 in arbitration fees to substantiate a case against Telstra, a case that AUSTEL/ACMA had already established (refer AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings,. This situation stems from vital information contained in Telstra's Portland /Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook, which AUSTEL had successfully obtained. Alarmingly, AUSTEL was fully aware that the critical evidence from this logbook was being purposefully withheld from me during the arbitration process. 

Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using dubious strategies, such as intercepting relevant faxes, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), destroying documentary evidence, and fabricating evidence.

The arbitrator ignored the central points of our claim at arbitration, and no effort to address these points bore fruit. During all these travesties, the regulatory bodies—Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers)—failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout our arbitrations and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone, and the system was supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

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?”

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is illegal, and relying on unsigned witness statements is prohibited. The submission of defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.  The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal? What convinced the arbitrator to change the findings in the DMR & Lane report?  

It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, specifically between points 2 and 212, that AUSTEL's use of Telstra's logbook to conduct their findings was extremely valuable, as indicated in point 209. If I had received a copy of this logbook and submitted it to the arbitrator to support my claims, the arbitrator's award would have been significantly higher. Additionally, he would not have been able to state in his award that my ongoing telephone problems were resolved early in the arbitration in July 1994.AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, 

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

After dedicating twenty-eight years of my life to the British and Australian Merchant Navy, I have developed a profound appreciation for the critical role that meticulously maintained records play within a ship's logbook. These logbooks are authoritative documents chronicling the vessel's daily operations and the crew's diverse activities. They are invaluable not only for the current voyage but also for future voyages. By reviewing records, we can identify issues that have arisen on earlier trips and understand the proactive measures taken to address these problems before they escalate into significant challenges. 

This wealth of information could have proven immensely advantageous for the COT Cases during their arbitration processes. Recognising this, I took the initiative to advise the COT Cases to request formal access to their local telephone exchange logbook. 

This logbook was crucial for resolving their cases, as it comprehensively records every fault complaint filed by Telstra customers. Each entry provides insight into customer issues and the responses from the telephone exchange staff, as well as creating a detailed narrative of service discrepancies.

It is particularly concerning that the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook was not made available to me, the arbitrator, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman (refer to File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127). The absence of this information raises serious questions about the reasons for its concealment and what Telstra may be attempting to shield from scrutiny.

AUSTEL requested that I gather testimonials from potential customers to support their thorough investigation into my six-year claim while preparing the FTSP documents. This claim is extensively documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which is dated March 1994. This document clearly outlines that the government’s public servants conducted a comprehensive investigation into the ongoing telephone issues I experienced. They validated my claims against Telstra at several critical points throughout their review process, particularly between Points 2 and 212.

It is evident that, had the arbitrator been presented with the detailed findings described in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, the award I received for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than what was ultimately granted. This discrepancy is troubling, especially considering that AUSTEL relied on a limited timeframe, which may have skewed their conclusions regarding my situation.

During my arbitration, John Wynack from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office was infuriated to find that this vital logbook had been concealed from me. On November 11, 1994, he took the bold step of writing to Telstra's CEO, demanding an explanation for the refusal to grant me access to this logbook. Sadly, he received no response, nor did I, nor did the technical consultants assigned to evaluate my arbitration claims ever gain access to this crucial piece of evidence.

Furthermore, I believe that most, if not all, visitors to absentjustice.com will come to appreciate the reasons behind my decision to share my story. After examining even a small fraction of the 212 points listed in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, I strongly wanted to articulate my experiences. Writing this narrative served as a means of expressing my grievances and an essential step toward finding peace and closure despite the numerous challenges I have encountered throughout this ordeal.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations. 

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity. 

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated. 

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a

Chapter 12

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.