🔍 Unmasking the Machinery of Injustice
Visitors to AbsentJustice.com who take the time to read my Open Letter, dated September 25, 2025, will uncover the pervasive corruption that plagued my arbitration proceedings between 1994 and 1995.
During this turbulent period, the arbitrator, his project manager, and the second appointed administrator engaged in egregious misconduct. From 1996 to 1998, they orchestrated a relentless campaign of character assassination—not merely to discredit me, but to obstruct the intervention of key figures, including the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia and senior officials from three of Australia’s most respected regulatory departments.
This calculated effort was designed to silence my voice and bury the truth. It wasn’t just an attack on my reputation—it was an assault on the very principles of justice and transparency.
Key figures in this sordid affair—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and Warwick Smith, the inaugural Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and supposed administrator of my arbitration, conspired together, knowingly misleading numerous interested parties about the unethical and treacherous manner in which the arbitrations were conducted.
Furthermore, John Pinnock, who took over as the second appointed TIO and administrator, willingly perpetuated the deception by spreading false information regarding the unscrupulous conduct tied to my arbitration. He persisted in misleading others about the integrity of the process and shamelessly attacked my character after the arbitration concluded, solidifying a web of betrayal.
Had these individuals not engaged in such misconduct, the initial four COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases might have provided enough compelling evidence to support an appeal—either partially or entirely—against the arbitration process.
📖 A Heartfelt Appeal to All Who Value Justice
I am reaching out to all Australians—and to fellow citizens around the world—who have taken the time to explore AbsentJustice.com, and who believe in the enduring principles of fairness, truth, and accountability.
The information presented here lays bare the reality behind a decades-long struggle for justice. It is not just a story—it is a warning, a record, and a call to action.
If you believe in equity and transparency, I urge you to pause and read the Open Letter below. This matter is not merely important—it is urgent. It affects us all because when justice is denied to a few, it is weakened for everyone.
Your voice matters. Please consider writing a thoughtful, respectful letter to someone in a position of influence—your local Federal MP, a journalist, a community leader. Please encourage them to visit absentjustice.com and engage with the evidence and testimony it holds.
By speaking up—through letters, conversations, or public statements—we can shine a light on this injustice and push for the meaningful change we all deserve. Together, we have the strength to address this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Thank you
⚠️The Open Letter 25/09/2025
🛑 Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
To Whom It May Concern,
I write this paper not out of bitterness, but out of duty—to truth, to justice, and to the many Australians who have suffered under a system that promised fairness but delivered betrayal → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.
⚠️ Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
I categorically deny this allegation. It was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.
During the complex web of my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that formed the basis of my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it, which could potentially serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr. Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.
📘 In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:
"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek 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". (Open Letter File No 57-C)
This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.
By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr. John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.
The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.
That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.
Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.
Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident.
📘The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence stopped me cold.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206
📘 This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He chose to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
📘 The Phantom Admission
Dr Hughes and John Pinnock later referenced a written admission I had supposedly made to Mr Pinnock.
But here’s the truth: I never wrote such an admission.
This phantom letter has never surfaced because it does not exist. And yet, it was treated as fact—used to shape perceptions, justify decisions, and distort the record of my arbitration. That alone raises deeply unsettling questions—not just about Dr Hughes, but about the entire machinery that enabled Telstra’s misconduct to go unchallenged.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility. In that letter, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman deliberately misinformed Mr James, claiming:
Let me be clear: I never made such a call, and I indeed never admitted to it in writing.
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests, why did he not produce my letter?
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—used to discredit me, to isolate me, and to undermine the legitimacy of my claims. It was part of a broader pattern: when the facts became inconvenient, they were replaced with fiction.
This moment serves as a chilling reminder of how easily the truth can be distorted when those in power control the narrative.
What he needs to do is simple: write to the government and declare the truth—that I never called his wife at 2:00 AM, nor did I pen a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, confessing to such a midnight call. It’s a dark game that he plays, and truth is but a pawn in his hands.
🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, who was then a partner at KPMG and had been involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me regarding property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr. Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal process, which the Institute of Arbitrators was contemplating.
What must be considered is:
- It is essential to expose the letter dated 13 February 1996—sent by John Rundell, the former Arbitration Project Manager, to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and second administrator of my arbitration. This letter, cloaked in bureaucratic formality, was a calculated strike—designed not to inform, but to defame (see Open letter File No/45-E)
- Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator himself, forwarded this same letter to Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, on 17 February 1996. In a chilling twist, Hughes explicitly stated he had no objection to Laurie James sharing his own 17 February letter with me—but forbade disclosure of Rundell’s 13 February letter (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E). Why? Because it was a weapon. A document “solely concocted to slander my reputation” at the very moment Laurie James was investigating my complaints that Hughes had failed to conduct the arbitration within the ambit laid down by Judge Frank Shelton, the Institute’s previous president.
- Hughes could not afford scrutiny. Laurie James, having inherited the presidency from Shelton, was poised to uncover procedural misconduct. To prevent that, Hughes ensured Rundell’s defamatory letter was buried—shielded from view, yet circulated among powerbrokers.
- When I finally obtained a copy of the letter in 2002, its contents were staggering. It falsely claimed that Brighton CIB Police were interviewing me for criminal damage to Rundell’s property. I immediately submitted it to Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, Victoria Police, who was investigating fraud allegations raised by Barrister Sue Owens on behalf of four other COT claimants: Ann Garms, Rodd Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer.
- Jepson’s investigation confirmed the truth: I was never a suspect in any criminal matter in Victoria. Brighton Police had no intention of interviewing me. The letter was a fabrication—an insidious attempt to paint me as a man of questionable integrity.
- Forensic analysis of the letter revealed deliberate phrasing designed to mislead. It was then handed to the President of the Institute of Arbitrators under strict instruction: do not let Alan Smith see this. The concealment was strategic. Mr Jepson concluded that the letter may well have been the tool used to derail the Institute’s investigation into my complaints—an act of reputational sabotage to protect those who had corrupted the arbitration process.
- The two letters dated February 13 and 17, 1996, must be examined alongside the narrative shared in the Open Letter below. They are not just ordinary correspondence; they reveal a sinister system willing to manipulate, conceal the truth, and slander to silence dissent. The fact that Dr Hughes allowed his wife's good name to be used as a means to obstruct the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from investigating my legitimate claims exposes the depths of his unethical behaviour at that time. It raises serious questions about whether Mrs Hughes is even aware of the treachery her husband facilitated when he allowed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, to draft such a damning letter about me to Laurie James.
🌍 Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.
This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.
I refuse to be silenced.
Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration
🔗 Link to Supporting Mini Reports and Resource → Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2
It is essential to expose the letter dated 13 February 1996—sent by John Rundell, the former Arbitration Project Manager, to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and second administrator of my arbitration. This letter, cloaked in bureaucratic formality, was a calculated strike—designed not to inform, but to defame (see Open letter File No/45-E)
Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator himself, forwarded this same letter to Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, on 17 February 1996. In a chilling twist, Hughes explicitly stated he had no objection to Laurie James sharing his own 17 February letter with me—but forbade disclosure of Rundell’s 13 February letter (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E). Why? Because it was a weapon. A document “solely concocted to slander my reputation” at the very moment Laurie James was investigating my complaints that Hughes had failed to conduct the arbitration within the ambit laid down by Judge Frank Shelton, the Institute’s previous president.
Hughes could not afford scrutiny. Laurie James, having inherited the presidency from Shelton, was poised to uncover procedural misconduct. To prevent that, Hughes ensured Rundell’s defamatory letter was buried—shielded from view, yet circulated among powerbrokers.
When I finally obtained a copy of the letter in 2002, its contents were staggering. It falsely claimed that Brighton CIB Police were interviewing me for criminal damage to Rundell’s property. I immediately submitted it to Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, Victoria Police, who was investigating fraud allegations raised by Barrister Sue Owens on behalf of four other COT claimants: Ann Garms, Rodd Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer.
Jepson’s investigation confirmed the truth: I was never a suspect in any criminal matter in Victoria. Brighton Police had no intention of interviewing me. The letter was a fabrication—an insidious attempt to paint me as a man of questionable integrity.
Forensic analysis of the letter revealed deliberate phrasing designed to mislead. It was then handed to the President of the Institute of Arbitrators under strict instruction: do not let Alan Smith see this. The concealment was strategic. Mr Jepson concluded that the letter may well have been the tool used to derail the Institute’s investigation into my complaints—an act of reputational sabotage to protect those who had corrupted the arbitration process.
The two letters dated February 13 and 17, 1996, must be examined alongside the narrative shared in the Open Letter below. They are not just ordinary correspondence; they reveal a sinister system willing to manipulate, conceal the truth, and slander to silence dissent. The fact that Dr Hughes allowed his wife's good name to be used as a means to obstruct the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from investigating my legitimate claims exposes the depths of his unethical behaviour at that time. It raises serious questions about whether Mrs Hughes is even aware of the treachery her husband facilitated when he allowed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, to draft such a damning letter about me to Laurie James.
They may have buried the truth beneath layers of legal privilege and bureaucratic indifference. But I am still here. And I will keep digging.
By hovering your mouse or cursor over the following images, you can learn more about the truth surrounding our COT story.
📘 Whistleblowers: The Last Line of Defence Against Institutional Betrayal
The twelve chapters featured at the bottom of the Absent Justice homepage—ranging from Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived—remain in draft form, pending final editing. Each chapter is supported by a series of exhibits, many of which were obtained through the Australian Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) after years of effort. Together, they underpin the mini-stories on absentjustice.com, weaving a vivid tapestry of deception, injustice, and bureaucratic decay. While these chapters may eventually be archived, their purpose is enduring: to expose the systemic failures that corrupted the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations and to honour those who had the courage to speak out.
In their place, we shine a light on whistleblowers—those extraordinary individuals who risk everything to reveal truths buried beneath layers of institutional deceit. These are not mere informants; they are moral sentinels. Their courage is not born of ambition, but of conscience. They refuse to be complicit, choosing instead to confront injustice head-on.
Governments worldwide must recognise that democracy cannot survive without whistleblowers. History is unequivocal: from Watergate to WikiLeaks, from the COT Cases to the British Post Office scandal, it is whistleblowers who have pierced the veil of corruption and forced accountability.
Was Julian Assange among them?
In 1994, three teenage hackers contacted Graham Schorer, COT spokesperson, warning that Telstra was acting illegally. Was Julian Assange among them? Their offer of critical arbitration files was declined—out of fear, mistrust, and bitter experience. The documents never came. The deception endured. Senate Hansard later confirmed Telstra’s misconduct. But the damage was done.
These hackers, like so many whistleblowers, were driven by a moral imperative. They saw injustice and chose action. Their motives transcended the breach of infrastructure—they sought to protect citizens from a rigged system. Their warnings, documented in statutory declarations and investigative reports, were tragically ignored.
Whistleblowers often face persecution, gaslighting, and retaliation. When I reported Telstra’s misconduct to the Australian Federal Police, I was penalised. Telstra carried out its threats. This is the cost of truth-telling in a system designed to protect the powerful.
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 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.
As I approach my 82nd year, I am inspired to document my experiences with the convoluted Telstra arbitration issues and the various unscrupulous lawyers and forensic accountants who exploited the plight of the COT arbitrations for their own gain. This entire experience serves as a poignant reminder of the inner strength required to confront daunting obstacles and the relentless resilience needed to pursue justice, even in the face of overwhelming uncertainty and adversity. Through my writing, I hope to illuminate the complexities of our struggle and inspire others to stand firm against injustice.
Whistleblowers are our last line of defence. They illuminate transgressions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their stories are not just warnings—they are blueprints for reform. We must protect them, amplify their voices, and learn from their sacrifices.
Let us stand together to honour whistleblowers—not as rebels, but as guardians of truth.
Would you like this formatted for your homepage, paired with audio narration, or broken into sections for a visual timeline? I can also help you build a companion piece comparing the COT revelations to other global whistleblower cases.
📘 The Infrastructure of Concealment
Until the late 1990s, I uncovered and exposed a disturbing nexus of corruption involving senior bureaucrats within the Australian government and the then-state-owned Telstra Telecommunications Carrier. This corruption extended into the ownership and operation of essential services, where public trust was routinely betrayed for private gain.
My efforts to bring this misconduct to light culminated in two Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings—V2008/1836 and 2010/4634—where I presented evidence detailing how this entrenched corruption had sabotaged my 1994/1995 arbitration and the government-endorsed 2006 arbitration review process. These hearings were not just legal proceedings; they were platforms where I laid bare the systemic rot that had infected key institutions.
Ethical questions
🔥 Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal: The Corruption That Crushed the COT Cases
Ericsson, the company at the heart of my Portland exchange complaints, has admitted to a years-long campaign of corruption across five countries. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Ericsson used slush funds, bribes, and falsified records to secure telecom contracts—including in Australia, where they partnered with Telstra after Huawei was banned.
This wasn’t just corporate misconduct. It was a global operation of deceit, with Australia caught in its web.
🧠 The Breach Went Deeper: Lane, Ericsson, and the Data That Disappeared
My assertion that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate my arbitration claims—due to prior ties with Telstra—is echoed in broader concerns about conflict of interest. Lane was allowed to retain my Ericsson-related fault data even after Ericsson acquired them. This occurred despite my claims against Telstra for deploying known defective Ericsson AXE exchange equipment, which other nations were actively removing from their networks.
Telstra’s decision to rely on this equipment—while ignoring its global rejection—shows a blatant disregard for the integrity of our claims. These deficiencies were not minor. They were the very reason the COT Cases entered arbitration: to salvage businesses crippled by faulty infrastructure.
This disregard for our right to a functioning telephone service undermined the entire arbitration process. It wasn’t just flawed—it was corrupted.
🕳️ A Treacherous Web: Ericsson, Telstra, and the Theatre of Betrayal
The most sinister chapter of this saga lies buried in Australia—within the government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings that were supposed to deliver justice to the COT Cases.
Instead, those proceedings became a theatre of betrayal.
Ericsson, operating with impunity, acquired Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, the very firm appointed as the arbitration’s technical consultant. This covert acquisition—executed while Lane was actively evaluating Telstra’s use of Ericsson’s compromised AXE exchange equipment—was not just unethical. It was a deliberate infiltration of the justice process, a move so brazen it defies belief.
The AXE system was already discredited globally. Nations were ripping it from their exchanges. Yet Telstra and Ericsson clung to it, knowingly deploying defective infrastructure that crippled businesses like mine.
And while we fought for survival, Ericsson bought the witness—silencing scrutiny with a corporate handshake.
Despite Telstra’s arbitration unit swearing under oath in nine separate witness statements that they had no knowledge of faults in the AXE exchange that could impact my holiday camp business, the truth lies in two internal Telstra file notes. These documents reveal that Telstra was fully aware of the escalating severity of AXE faults, which worsened as more customers were connected to the Portland exchange.
⚠️ The Call for Reckoning
This manipulation of justice reveals a shocking disregard for transparency and accountability, leaving victims trapped in a labyrinth of institutional betrayal while the true architects of corruption remain shielded from scrutiny.
I call on the Australian government to expose the dark machinations that enabled Ericsson to infiltrate the arbitration process. The evidence is clear. The conflict is documented. The betrayal is undeniable.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, appointed as the technical consultant for the arbitration process, played a significant role in the case involving Ericsson, particularly given Ericsson's acquisition of the company during the COT arbitration proceedings. During this process, Lane Telecommunications reportedly communicated to the arbitrator that the AXE voice message had only been active for a mere fourteen days on my account. This claim, which significantly downplayed the actual duration of the service, served as the basis for the arbitrator's ruling, which awarded compensation solely for the limited fourteen days.
However, government records clearly indicate that the service in question lasted for several years, contradicting the assertion made by Lane Telecommunications. The misinformation presented not only reflects poorly on the credibility of the arbitration process but also highlights the severe repercussions faced by the COT Cases. The deliberate manipulation of facts and the alleged purchase of a witness by Ericsson from Australia have undermined the integrity of these proceedings and resulted in substantial financial losses for the COT Cases.
What’s more disturbing is the Australian government’s conspicuous silence. No inquiry. No accountability. Just a void where justice should have stood. The arbitrator and their advisors didn’t just fail us—they constructed a treacherous framework of deception, one that ensured our claims would be buried beneath layers of scandal and lawlessness.
This was not incompetence. It was a calculated betrayal of public trust.
Victims were left wandering a labyrinth of institutional betrayal, while the true architects of corruption remained shielded—protected by the very system that promised resolution. The evidence, including Google-linked documentation and Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden, makes it glaringly apparent:
I call on the Australian government to tear down the veil. To expose the dark machinations that allowed Ericsson to infiltrate a legal process meant to protect its citizens. This is not just a demand for answers; it is a call for action. It is a demand for reckoning.
Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra and Ericsson, and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:
"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 Path to Betrayal: A Call for Accountability
The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling truth about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations and their disturbing ties to international corruption and terrorism. The revelations surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases expose a deeply entrenched web of deceit, raising urgent questions about how Ericsson was allowed to operate with impunity, even acquiring the key technical witness during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings that scrutinised their compromised telephone equipment.
It is both baffling and deeply troubling that the Australian government has remained conspicuously silent in the face of such egregious misconduct. Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was engaged as the arbitration’s technical consultant—suggests a deliberate manipulation of the process. This manoeuvre occurred amid serious allegations that Telstra and Ericsson knowingly relied on discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment, a flawed system that many nations have since abandoned due to its critical deficiencies (see File 10-B ).
.
Australia's Bureaucrats closed their eyes to this conflict of interest
To underscore the scale of what I am exposing, the Herald Sun reported on 22 December 2008 under the heading "Bad Bureaucrats" that over a thousand bureaucrats had been implicated in corrupt practices between 2007 and 2008 alone, and I quote from that article:
“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“
This wasn’t a coincidence—it was confirmation. My testimony, which is also attached here as Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, aligns with a broader reckoning, revealing that what I had endured was part of a much larger pattern of institutional betrayal.
During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, and every act of betrayal as this corruption entered another horrific phase, known as the Robodebt affair.
A Precursor to Robodebt
This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.
The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.
This serves as further proof that the issue lies not with the actual politicians—who are, for the most part, upstanding citizens genuinely trying to make a difference in the world, regardless of differing political views—but instead with the government lobbyists and bureaucrats mentioned in the Herald Sun newspaper article dated December 22, 2008, under the heading: "Bad Bureaucrats".
On 23 May 2021, Peta Credlin, a high-profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article, also in the Herald Sun newspaper, under the heading:
"Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:
“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.
Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter.
When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country.
Since the start of the 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”
🧨 The Arbitration That Shielded Parasites
Leading up to and during my 1994 government-endorsed arbitration, it became painfully clear that no authority—not even the Australian Federal Police—had the power or will to act. My evidence, alongside that of other COT Cases, showed our businesses were deliberately targeted. The four principal COT Cases weren’t just collateral damage—we were hunted.
Telstra’s legal arm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne), operated like a rogue unit. Denise McBurnie, the architect of the notorious COT Strategy, drafted it with surgical malice → Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. Wayne Maurice Gondon signed arbitration witness statements falsely attesting they had been signed by Telstra witnesses—when they hadn’t. These weren’t clerical errors. They were calculated acts of deception.
⚖️ The Arbitration Agreement That Should Never Have Been Used
As shown in government records, seven months before our arbitrations began, the four COT Cases—including mine—were assured by the government (see Point 40, Prologue Evidence File No/2) that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne) would have no further involvement in our matters. Their conduct had been deemed unethical in their dealings with us.
But behind closed doors, Freehill Hollingdale & Page drafted our arbitration agreement—the very document that would define the terms of our pursuit of justice. We were never told. And worse, the arbitrator himself, Dr Gordon Hughes, later declared that same agreement not credible for use in my arbitration. Yet he used it anyway, as the following letter from Dr Hughes to Warwick Smith shows:
“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.” (Open Letter File No 55-A)
We were given an ultimatum: sign the agreement or the arbitrator and administrator, Warwick Smith, would walk away. There was no negotiation. No transparency. Just the one threat, sign it or take Telstra to court.
🏕️ Retreat into Shadows: The COT Cases and the Death of Hope
I used my holiday camp for a two-night self-help retreat, hoping to find some bearings—some clarity on where to go from here. But what unfolded during those two days was far more chilling than I had anticipated. This was in 1993.
As I sat with the other COT Cases, I began to see it—really see it. Some of them believed they were already dead.
Each story felt like a descent into a haunted abyss. Their narratives weren’t just about struggle—they were soaked in despair, wrapped in a sinister shroud that clung to every detail. As I sifted through their accounts, a creeping dread settled in my bones. It became shockingly clear: some of these individuals had resigned themselves to a fate worse than death—existence without hope.
Their expressions were haunting. Faces etched with pain and hopelessness. Eyes that once gleamed with life now reflected a profound void, drained of warmth, drained of fight. In our discussions, I felt an eerie tension—like walking a tightrope over an abyss. They had stepped back from the edge of existence, accepting a fate that left them wandering in a liminal space between life and death.
This revelation wasn’t just unsettling—it was terrifying. These fragile souls had declared themselves lost, retreating into a darkness from which they could no longer see a path back. I felt as though I was peering into the shadows of their minds, witnessing the treachery of despair that had ensnared them.
In July 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce held a meeting at the Brisbane Polo Club, attended by fourteen individuals who had been affected by Telstra's controversial and disrupted arbitration and mediation process. During the meeting, these individuals shared their similar experiences, and Senator Joyce displayed a profound emotional response as he recognised how detrimental government bureaucracy can be, leading to a significant decline.
The government agreed to resolve the fourteen unresolved arbitration issues concerning COT (Customers of Telstra) if Senator Joyce would cast his crucial vote in the Senate to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation. He willingly agreed to cast his vote, a decision clearly depicted in the accompanying image. Additionally, a letter he sent me on September 15, 2005, further illustrates his commitment to resolving our COT issues.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce cast the pivotal vote—one that was teetering precariously in the balance—he etched his name into the annals of history for both the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government. However, in a surprising turn, Senator Coonan quickly reneged on her prior commitment, executing a decisive back-flip that many of the letters collected on this website starkly illustrate.
However, what followed was anything but just, as demonstrated by the outcomes associated with 'The eighth remedy pursued.'
The actions taken by Telstra’s executives and government bureaucrats during this process—initiated by Joyce’s good faith—were criminal, undemocratic, and ruthless. They didn’t just abandon the agreement. They weaponised it. They used the momentum of privatisation to bury our cases deeper, shielding misconduct behind corporate walls.
This episode stands as a testament to the state of disarray the government was already in—and the even more profound crisis it has since become. The abandonment of the COT Cases wasn’t just a policy failure. It was a betrayal of democratic trust, a silencing of truth, and a warning to every citizen who dares to believe in accountability.
These were the same executives who masterfully orchestrated a staggering $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch and Fox, all for the ambitious rollout of Telstra's fibre cable infrastructure. They did this while feigning a commitment to an unrealistic deadline, despite Senate Hansard exposing the fact that the Telstra board was already aware that the project’s timeline was nothing more than a fabricated illusion. This was not merely a case of poor management; it was a calculated scheme of deception, disguised as progress and innovation.
The warning signs were glaringly apparent at every turn. As the involvement of Rupert Murdoch illustrates, the deception ran deep, casting a long shadow over the entire operation and tainting the integrity of the government bureaucracies.
A few months after that meeting, Telstra’s government lobbyist Paul Rumble emerged from the shadows. His threats nearly broke me. I went down on my knees. The referee counted eight. But I got up. I hit the deck running and took the punches one after another.
Paul Rumble and his ilk weren’t just thugs. They were parasites—protected, emboldened, and insulated by the very arbitration process that was supposed to deliver justice.
🧑⚖️ The Architects of Silence: Hughes, Pinnock, and Rundell
As of 2025, Dr Gordon Hughes serves as Principal Lawyer at Davies Collison Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (https://shorturl.at/L4tbp). But long before that title, he played a central role in a deeply compromised arbitration process—one that derailed my pursuit of justice.
Despite clear evidence showing that Dr Hughes, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations), and John Rundell (Project Manager to the arbitrations) were involved in a joint conspiracy to mislead and deceive the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Laure James, none of them has come forward to explain their actions.
My claims were valid. The arbitration process was conducted outside the agreed-upon ambit of procedures. This wasn’t a technical error—it was a deliberate manoeuvre to destroy my appeal process and silence my evidence.
To this day, not one of them has explained. Not one has acknowledged the damage done. Their silence is not just professional—it’s personal. It’s a refusal to face the truth they helped bury.
Threats made
Threats carried out during my arbitration
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 invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting 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 that 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 impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of 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.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the attention of the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
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)
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had 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 their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Additionally, in the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 I provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
• The arbitration process was compromised by covert monitoring.• Telstra insiders shared private data with intermediaries.• Government agencies failed to act on credible threats and evidence.• The arbitrator ignored critical breaches of privacy and due process.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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.
This particular individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied this unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 -AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
At the time, my body was reeling from the lower gut punches. Two Australian senators on 24 June 1997, asked several questions of Telstra (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel (Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
What alarms me most about Telstra’s intelligence operations in Australia is this: who inside Telstra had the government clearance and expertise to filter the raw information they were collecting before it was catalogued for future use? Who was vetting this data? Who was protecting it? And more importantly, who was protecting us?
I have serious concerns about the confidential information Telstra gathered during my phone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in April 1993 and again in April 1994. We discussed Telstra officials and my “Red Communist China” episode. That information was sensitive, personal, and politically charged. And yet, it was intercepted, stored, and our conversations redacted.
When Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, who in Australia was given the charter to archive this material? Decades of surveillance, customer data, and intelligence—where did it go? Who holds it now? There’s no transparency. No accountability. Just silence.
🥊 Setting the Record Straight: The Sheriff Incident
The version of events reported in Senator Hansard only tells part of the story. What it omits is the desperation and injustice I faced that day.
The Sheriff and his two henchmen arrived with orders to strip my business of essential catering equipment—tools I needed to keep trading. My bankers had lost patience and sent them to ensure I stayed on my knees. This wasn’t enforcement. It was punishment.
Let me be clear: I threw no punches. But when the Sheriff moved to seize my equipment, I placed him in a wrestling hold—a ‘Full Nelson’—and walked him out of my office. It was a moment of defiance, not violence. I was protecting my livelihood, not attacking anyone.
The Magistrates' Court later dropped all charges on appeal. The court recognised his story had two sides, and mine was rooted in survival.
Strategies for Survival
So how does one tell a story like this without falling prey to legal retaliation?
• I document everything. Time stamps. Statutory declarations. Senate records. I build a fortress of facts.
• I anonymise where necessary. I use composite characters and layered narrative to protect identities while preserving truth.
• I publish through platforms that honor whistleblowers. I consult legal experts. I embed my evidence in memoir, in culinary disaster, in the rhythm of shipboard life.
• I let the reader feel the dread. The silence. The betrayal.
The Unanswered Questions
How many other arbitrations were compromised by this insidious surveillance? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping still a problem in legitimate processes today? How many lives were ruined while the government compensated the powerful and ignored the pleas of its own citizens? And what does it say about a nation when one of its richest sons sacrifices his citizenship to become American, while the rest of us are left to fight for justice in the land we call home?
This chapter is not the end. It is a beginning. A signal flare in the fog. A call to those who still believe in truth, in accountability, and in the power of one voice to pierce the silence
Unmasking the Machinery of Betrayal
How does one begin to tell a story so steeped in treachery, so riddled with deceit, that it threatens to shake the very foundations of trust in our institutions? How does one, armed only with truth and a battered fax machine, stand against a government-endorsed process that masqueraded as justice while quietly feeding privileged information to the defendants—Telstra, then a government-owned telecommunications giant?
This is not a tale of paranoia. It is a chronicle of documented sabotage. It is the story of how I, and others like me, were systematically undermined during arbitration processes that were supposed to deliver fairness. Instead, they delivered silence, obstruction, and a chilling form of surveillance that still haunts me.
The Vanishing Faxes
In January 1999, a group of arbitration claimants submitted a damning report to the Australian Government. It revealed that confidential documents—faxed in good faith—were being intercepted, screened, and manipulated before reaching their intended recipients. In my case, six critical claim documents vanished. The arbitrator’s secretary admitted they were never received. Yet I was denied the right to resubmit them.
My fax account tells a different story. It shows I dialled the correct number every time. And years later, one of the technical consultants who reviewed those transmissions stood by his statutory declaration: the faxes had passed through a secondary machine before being retransmitted. Dual time stamps told the tale. The evidence was irrefutable.
During the investigation by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group into the alleged fraudulent conduct by Telstra during and after the COT arbitrations, the Scandrett & Associates report was delivered to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999. This report confirmed that faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations (refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13). Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report contacted me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasising the importance of these findings.
“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)
The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
A Chilling Revelation
While working on my manuscript, "R'ng for Justice," I shared an early draft with Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, and Senator Kim Carr. On January 27, 1999, Senator Kim Carr provided his feedback on this draft:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
Helen Handbury had visited my holiday camp twice and witnessed firsthand the torment I endured. Upon reading Senator Kim Cary Carr's response story, she was visibly shaken. “I will get Rupert to have it published,” she said. “He will be shocked.”
What horrified Helen wasn’t just the illegal fax hacking—it was the scale of it. The fact that it continued even during her second visit. The fact that I had provided evidence to the Australian Federal Police, showing that this surveillance dated back to at least September 1992, is referred to in the AFP transcript → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, which discusses this evidence.
Despite this, the arbitrator refused to allow me to resubmit the missing documents.
At the time, the News of the World hacking scandal hadn’t yet erupted. But Helen saw the parallels. She saw the rot.
The $400 Million Question: Blood Money in the Boardroom
Helen Handbury wasn’t just shaken—she was horrified. What I laid before her wasn’t a mere tale of bureaucratic failure. It was a blueprint of institutional rot. A system so corrupted, so brazen in its contempt for ordinary Australians, that it rewarded the powerful while grinding the rest of us into dust.
The illegal fax interceptions. The denial of natural justice. The surveillance. The obstruction. All of it was bad enough. But then came the revelation that turned Helen pale: Rupert Murdoch—her own brother—had quietly received $400 million in compensation from Telstra. A payout cloaked in silence, sanctioned by a government-owned corporation that was simultaneously dragging everyday citizens through the mud of arbitration and mediation.
I showed Helen the Senate Hansard records. They weren’t vague. They weren’t speculative. They were damning. Members of Parliament were deeply alarmed. The entire Telstra board knew—knew—that Telstra could not meet the licensing obligations tied to that $400 million deal. And yet, they signed it anyway. They pushed it through. They handed over the money.
Who approved this grotesque transaction? Who, in the shadows of the boardroom, decided that the Australian public—who owned Telstra—should foot the bill for Murdoch’s empire while the rest of us were denied justice? This wasn’t incompetence. It was collusion. It was calculated. It was criminal.
Helen struggled to process it. She had seen the toll these arbitrations took on people like me. She had walked through my camp, listened to my story, and seen the evidence with her own eyes. And now, faced with the knowledge that her brother had been compensated while others were crushed under the weight of legal costs, she was deeply disturbed.
This wasn’t just about money. It was about betrayal. About a government and a corporation that conspired to silence dissent, conceal misconduct, and reward the elite. It was about a boardroom decision that reeked of underhanded skullduggery—one Helen could not reconcile.
She wanted Rupert to see my story. Whether she ever shared it, I’ll never know. She passed away before I could deliver the second draft. Her husband, Geoffrey Handbury, wrote me a kind letter, saying he was too old to pursue it. But the truth had already begun to surface. Senate records later confirmed it: Telstra’s board knew it couldn’t meet its agreement with Fox—and proceeded anyway.
They did it with full knowledge. They did it with impunity. And they did it while the rest of us were left to rot.
The Machinery of Collusion
The deeper I dug, the more grotesque the architecture of corruption revealed itself. This wasn’t a one-off payout. It was a symptom of something far more insidious—a machinery of collusion operating behind closed doors, where truth was suffocated and justice was bartered away.
The Senate Hansard records were not just concerned—they were alarmed. They documented a government-owned corporation knowingly entering into a contract it could not fulfil. Telstra’s board was fully aware that it would fail to meet the licensing obligations tied to the $400 million compensation deal with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox empire. And yet, they proceeded. No hesitation. No accountability. Just a rubber stamp and a transfer of wealth.
This wasn’t corporate negligence. It was state-sanctioned betrayal.
The implications were staggering. Telstra, still owned by the Australian public at the time, had effectively siphoned taxpayer money into the hands of one of the world’s wealthiest media moguls. Meanwhile, ordinary Australians—claimants like me—were being surveilled, sabotaged, and silenced in arbitration processes that were supposed to protect us.
The same Telstra that intercepted my faxes. The same Telstra that denied me the right to resubmit missing documents. The same Telstra that built its defence on stolen information. That Telstra was simultaneously cutting secret deals with Murdoch while trampling over its own citizens.
And the government? It watched. It knew. It did nothing.
Please note that I have deliberately selected the segment about Rupert Murdoch on the home page due to his controversial reputation. This example vividly illustrates how the government in Australia often extends privileges and support to large corporations, while individuals like myself, who dare to challenge the systemic issues that foster discrimination, receive little to no assistance.
Immediately following the accounts of Rupert Murdoch and Helen Handbury, readers will find the intricate saga involving Dr Gordon Hughes, John Pinnock, and John Rundell: "The Open Letter" dated 25/09/2025, which is part of the unfinished Chapter Five. This narrative sheds light on the uncomfortable truth: the same government that turned a blind eye to the Murdoch situation in the mid-1990s also permitted these three arbitration administrators to fabricate false statements and tarnish my reputation. Their actions were clearly intended to derail the investigation led by Laure James, the then-President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, into my serious allegations regarding the improper conduct of my arbitration process.
10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.
11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the
“Mr Smith still believes that there are many unanswered questions by the regulatory authorities or by Telstra that he wishes to pursue and he believes these documents will show that his unhappiness with the way he has been treated personally also will flow to other areas such as it will expose the practices by Telstra and regulatory bodies which affects not only him but other people throughout Australia.
“Mr Smith said today that he had concerns about the equipment used in cabling done at Cape Bridgewater back in the 1990s. He said that it should – the equipment or some of the equipment should have a life of up to 40 years but, in fact, because of the terrain and the wet surfaces and other things down there the wrong equipment was used.”
Another document I provided to the arbitrator in 1994 and the AAT in 2008, and again in 2011, is a Telstra FOI (folio A00253) dated 16 September 1993, titled Fibre Degradation. It states:
“Problems were experienced in the Mackay to Rockhampton leg of the optical fibre network in December ’93. Similar problems were found in the Katherine to Tenant Creek part of the network in April this year. The probable cause of the problem was only identified in late July, early August. In Telecom’s opinion the problem is due to an aculeate coating (CPC3) used on optical fibre supplied by Corning Inc (US). Optical fibre cable is supposed to have a 40 year workable life. If the MacKay & Katherine experience are repeated elsewhere in the network, in the northern part of Australia, the network is likely to develop attenuation problems within 2 or 3 years of installation. The network will have major QOS problems whilst the CPC3 delaminates from the optical fibre. There are no firm estimates on how long this may take. …
“Existing stocks of Corning cable will be used in low risk / low volume areas.” (See Bad Bureaucrats File No/16)
Were the citizens of Australia entitled to be advised by the Australian government, before it sold off the Telstra network, that, e.g., the aforementioned optical fibre with CPC3 coating, supplied to Telecom/Telstra by Corning Inc (USA), was installed in their area? How many people in Australia have been forced to live with a subpar phone system, i.e., a known poor optical fibre that Telstra should NEVER have installed? How many businesses have gone up against the wall due to Telstra’s negligent conduct of knowingly laying their existing stocks of Corning cable in locations that Telstra believed were low-risk/low-volume areas?
All of this was known to the Telstra board when they negotiated the $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch and Fox. During my arbitration case, I denied that there were any problems within Telstra's network. I even provided nine separate individual witness statements under oath, asserting that there were no ongoing telephone issues. This led arbitrator Dr Hughes, in his award dated May 11, 1995, to state that my phone faults had all been resolved by July 1994. However, evidence from absentjustice.com confirms that problems continued to affect the business at least until 2006, which was five years after the new owners purchased my business.
👉 The Vexatious Label — A Manufactured Smear
For years, government agencies and Telstra-aligned officials branded me as vexatious and my claims about Ericsson, Lane, and Telstra, as well as the arbitrator, as frivolous. It was a calculated move—designed not to reflect truth, but to discredit a whistleblower who refused to back down.
This label wasn’t born of evidence. It was born of self-preservation—a tactic used by those with a vested interest in concealing the abuse of Australia’s international arbitration process. The goal was simple: silence the messenger, bury the message.
Presiding over the two AAT hearings, Senior Member Mr G. D. Friedman addressed me directly in open court, in full view of two Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) government 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.”
This moment was more than personal vindication. It was judicial recognition of the legitimacy of my claims, my evidence, and my unwavering pursuit of justice.
Yet despite this, other agencies continued to weaponise the “vexatious” label—hoping to undermine my credibility and shield themselves from scrutiny. Their refusal to acknowledge Mr Friedman’s statement speaks volumes about the culture of denial that permeates institutional power.
This chapter lays bare the contrast between truth and reputation management, as well as between judicial integrity and bureaucratic deflection. It documents how the label of “vexatious” became a tool of suppression—and how, through persistence and documentation, I exposed it for what it truly was: a smear campaign against accountability.
(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. … (See Open Letter File No/11)
And the next day:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
It is nothing short of a treacherous betrayal for a government regulator to so drastically alter its findings, slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from an astonishing 120,000 to a mere 50 or so. Such a flagrant misrepresentation constitutes a deep and sinister deception, undermining the very trust of the public it claims to serve. The fact that Rupert Murdoch and FOX are rewarded amidst these glaring Telstra telecommunications issues reveals a disturbing collusion, costing Australian citizens dearly—even leading some to bankruptcy and dragging them into numerous court cases—all due to the lies perpetuated by government bureaucrats. This manipulation not only defrauds the people but also casts a long shadow over the integrity of those in power.
These ongoing systemic telephone faults highlight the significant issues within Australia's copper network, as documented on absentjustice.com and in sources like Delimiter’s "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.
23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link→ Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when read in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these copper-wire network faults have existed for more than 24 years.
9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured that the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start addressing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, again, shows that the COT Cases' claims of a copper wire-ailing network were more than valid.
28 April 2018: This ABC news article dated 28 April 2018 regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story going back 20 1988 through to 2025, because had the arbitration lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) was just 7-years ago.
📘A Call to Examine the Machinery of Concealment
If you're visiting absentjustice.com and reflecting on the claims I’ve made about the actions of bureaucrats, public servants, and government agencies, I urge you to examine the following assertions closely. These are not mere grievances—they point to unlawful and corrupt practices designed to pervert the course of justice against the COT Cases. We were individuals who dared to challenge a government-owned corporation accused of theft, intimidation, and deliberate efforts to discredit anyone who stood in its way during the COT arbitrations.
In essence, a troubling disparity exists in the application of legal standards within the Australian business landscape, where individuals with strong connections to the government, such as Rupert Murdoch, are afforded different treatment compared to those who lack such privileges.
While I acknowledge the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel's substantial financial investment in its cable infrastructure, as well as the numerous hidden costs associated with the Murdochs' expansive media operations, I also wish to highlight my significant contributions. Over the years dedicated to building my business, I invested considerable resources into establishing a vibrant agency that served Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier in South Australia. This agency was explicitly designed to manage incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club efficiently. This lively community hub offers a space for singles over forty to form connections and cultivate companionship. This initiative became a hallmark of community engagement, consistently generating between $6,000 and $7,000 each weekend—an impressive indicator of its popularity and the demand for social opportunities among this demographic.
This was not just a failure of oversight. It was complicity. A coordinated effort to protect the powerful and bury the truth. The watchdogs appointed to oversee the arbitrations—the so-called umpires—turned a blind eye. The arbitrator refused to act. The system was rigged from the start.
Helen saw it. She recoiled from it. And she wanted Rupert to see it too.
In July 1995, the Canadian Government recognised the urgent need to support my quest to expose the corrupt practices of Telstra, which had resorted to deceit, manipulation, and the use of falsified evidence to shield themselves from the rightful claims I had made.
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."
Moreover, it is critical to highlight that the correspondence from the Canadian Government included a disturbing exhibit that revealed Dr Hughes, not long after he closed my arbitration, was made aware that Telstra had intentionally leveraged a falsified BCI report to obstruct any investigation into my ongoing telephone issues (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). Alarmingly, despite this revelation, Dr Hughes chose to turn a blind eye and refused to reopen the case. This decision came in stark contrast to his May 12, 1995, letter to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), in which he acknowledged that the arbitration agreement he employed was woefully inadequate, allowing no time for a thorough examination of crucial technical reports, such as the one involving BCI.
A 1995 letter to the TIO stating that the arbitration agreement he had used in my arbitration did not allow sufficient time to investigate technical reports, such as the one attached here as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.
📘 Fabricated Evidence, International Silence
• Why did Telstra release documents proving AUSTEL relied on fundamentally flawed data?• Why did the Australian Government conceal these facts, knowing they contributed directly to the destruction of my business?• And why was I forced to travel to Canada to seek justice for a wrong committed on Australian soil?
• 1987: Transition from maritime life to land-based hospitality.• Purchase of Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, Victoria.• Initial excitement and vision for a thriving school holiday business.• Early signs of trouble: customers and suppliers unable to reach the camp by phone.• Realisation that the phone service was unreliable—crippling for a hospitality business.• Attempts to resolve the issue through Telstra (then Telecom) met with denial and delay.• Mounting business losses and emotional toll.
• Discovery that other rural business owners were facing similar telecommunications failures.• Formation of the Casualties of Telecom (COT) group—united by shared injustice.• Initial optimism: calls for a Senate inquiry into Telecom’s conduct.• Government offers arbitration as an alternative to investigation.• Acceptance of arbitration in good faith, believing technical faults would be addressed.• Early signs of deception: promised documents withheld, technical faults ignored.
• Arbitration begins under the guise of fairness and resolution.• Telstra’s failure to provide critical documents despite legal obligations.• Claimants discover their fax lines are being intercepted—illegal surveillance during arbitration.• Evidence mounts: missing faxes, dual time stamps, unexplained delays.• Arbitrator refuses to allow resubmission of lost documents.
• Attempts to challenge the arbitration outcome blocked by confidentiality clauses.• Legal gag orders prevent public disclosure of misconduct.• FOI requests were launched to obtain the missing documents.• Government departments stonewall or heavily redact responses.• Emotional and financial toll on claimants intensifies.• Growing suspicion of collusion between Telstra, government regulators, and legal overseers.
• Evidence emerges of systemic corruption: Telstra’s internal knowledge of faults, concealed from claimants.• Senate Hansard records reveal Telstra’s board knowingly entered into contracts it couldn’t fulfill.• Revelation of Rupert Murdoch’s $400 million compensation deal with Telstra.• Helen Handbury’s reaction: horror at the scale of injustice and betrayal.• Contrast between Murdoch’s payout and the suffering of ordinary Australians.• Telstra’s dual role: sabotaging claimants while rewarding the powerful.• The machinery of collusion exposed—government, corporation, and legal system intertwined.
• During the early stages of the COT arbitrations, the claimants’ legal representatives reviewed and accepted an arbitration agreement that included a $250 million liability cap—designed to protect claimants from excessive exposure and ensure accountability from those overseeing the process.• After this agreement was accepted, the arbitrator—without notifying the claimants or their lawyers—allowed the liability caps to be quietly removed. This covert alteration stripped away a critical safeguard, leaving claimants vulnerable and removing any meaningful legal recourse against misconduct.• The removal of these caps was not disclosed transparently. It was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic silence and legal obfuscation.• Those who administered the arbitration—including the arbitrator and consultants—have since weaponized the confidentiality clauses embedded in the agreement. These clauses are now being used to suppress scrutiny, silence dissent, and prevent any challenge to the conduct of the arbitration itself.• The result? A system where the very individuals responsible for overseeing justice are shielded from accountability. The consultants who mishandled evidence, obstructed claims, and enabled Telstra’s manipulation cannot be sued for misconduct—because the protections were removed in secret.• This manoeuvre was not just unethical. It was strategic. It ensured that the machinery of arbitration could operate with impunity, free from consequence, while claimants were left to suffer in silence.
⚓ The Beginning of the Saga
It began in late 1987 when my wife Faye and I bought a small accommodation business perched high above Cape Bridgewater, near Portland on Victoria’s southwest coast. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had previously operated as a school camp. We intended to transform it into a venue for social clubs, family groups, and schools.
The camp was a phone-dependent concern. Being in a remote area, the telephone was the primary means of access for city-based clients. Our mistake was failing to investigate the telephone system thoroughly before making the purchase. The business was connected to a phone exchange installed over 30 years earlier, designed for “low-call-rate” areas. This antiquated, unstaffed exchange had only eight lines and was never intended to handle the volume of calls from a growing population and seasonal holidaymakers.
In blissful ignorance, we sold our Melbourne home, and I took early retirement benefits to raise the funds for what we believed would be an exciting new venture.
🧭 A Life Built for Hospitality
I knew I could run this business. At fifteen, I went to sea as a steward on English passenger/cargo ships. In 1963, I jumped ship in Melbourne and worked as an assistant chef in some of the city's elite hotels. Two years later, at twenty, I joined the Australian Merchant Navy. By 1975, I’d served as a chef on many Australian and overseas cargo ships.
Faye and I were married in Melbourne in 1969. I freelanced in catering and worked on tugboats while studying hotel/motel management. I’d already managed one hotel/motel, pulling it out of receivership and preparing it for release. By 1987, at 44, I had gained the experience and confidence to transform a simple school camp into a successful, multifaceted concern.
📞 Marketing Meets Silence
I personally visited nearly 150 schools and shires to promote the camp. In February 1988, we printed and distributed 2,000 colour brochures. Then we waited for the phone to ring. It didn’t. Not even a modest 1% inquiry rate.
By April, we suspected the problem lay with the telephone service. People asked why we never answered our phone or suggested we install an answering machine — which we had. Even after replacing it, complaints continued. Callers reported extended periods of engaged signals.
Then came the dropouts. Calls would go dead mid-conversation. If the caller hadn’t given contact details and didn’t ring back, we lost the lead. Between April 1988 and January 1989, Telstra received nine complaints from me, along with several letters. The typical response to my 1100 call was a promise to check the line. Occasionally, a technician was sent. The verdict? “No fault found.” But the problems persisted.
🕵️♂️ Digging Deeper
Eventually, we learned the previous owner had suffered the same issues and had complained — also unsuccessfully. In 1988, I began building a case against Telstra and obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act. One, titled Telstra Confidential: Difficult Network Faults — PCM Multiplex Report, included a subheading: “5.5 Portland — Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.” Telstra had been aware of the faults since early 1987.
Harry, our neighbour, sympathised. His daughter, calling from Colac, often struggled to get through. Fred Fairthorn, former owner of Tom the Cheap grocery chain, had similar problems. He said, “But what can you expect from Telstra when we’re in the bush?” I expected better. We were promised better.
📉 Decline and Doubt
We encouraged people to write, but the telephone culture was entrenched. People wanted immediate responses. As bookings dwindled, I began to question my decision to move to Cape Bridgewater—and to ask Faye to sell our family home to satisfy my ambitions. It wasn’t the fun I’d anticipated. I operated in a state of constant anger — a very unamusing Basil Fawlty.
We toured South Australia to promote the camp through the Wimmera region. Responses were few. Was the phone to blame? How could we be sure? The uncertainty itself was stressful.
📵 The Message That Killed My Business
Sometimes the culprit was obvious. On a shopping trip to Portland, I realised I’d left the meat order list at home. I called from a public phone box — only to hear a recorded message: “The number you have called is not connected.” I tried again. Same message. Telstra’s fault centre said they’d investigate. Later, I called again and got an engaged signal. I bought what I could remember and hoped for the best. When I got home, the phone hadn’t rung once.
Anyone who uses a phone has heard the recorded voice announcement (RVA):
“The number you have called is not connected or has been changed. Please check the number before calling again. You have not been charged for this call.”
This incorrect message was the one most callers reached when trying to contact the camp. Telstra never acknowledged it. But in 1994, among a trove of FOI documents, I found a Telstra internal memo stating:
“This message tends to give the caller the impression that the business they are calling has ceased trading, and they should try another trader.”
✍️ Chapter Two: No Fault Found
No Fault Found, or an RVA fault, is a deceptive mechanism implemented by Telstra. This Recorded Voice Answering message informs unsuspecting callers that the number they are dialling is disconnected from Telstra’s service, when in reality, they are connected. This insidious misrepresentation has allowed Telstra to evade accountability for decades.
In a chilling memo, Telstra acknowledged the urgent need for “a very basic review of all our RVA messages and how they are applied.” The memo ominously suggested, “I am certain that as we begin to probe deeper, we will uncover a myriad of network scenarios where inappropriate RVAs are thriving.” This admission hints at a dark web of manipulation hiding in plain sight, obscuring the truth from countless customers.
It seems the “not connected” RVA triggered whenever the lines in or out of Cape Bridgewater were congested — which, given how few lines there were, was often.
For a newly established business like ours, this was catastrophic. Yet, despite internal memos acknowledging serious faults, Telstra never admitted to any existing. My continued complaints branded me a nuisance caller. This was rural Australia, and I was expected to tolerate poor service — not that Telstra ever admitted it was poor. Every technician’s verdict: “No fault found.”
📞 The Weight of Uncertainty
The frustration was immense. Was this just general rural service compounded by congestion on an antiquated exchange? Ours was the only accommodation business in Cape Bridgewater. We relied on the phone more than most. But if there was a specific fault, why wasn’t it being found?
By mid-1989, the business was in trouble. We began selling shares to cover operating costs — just 15 months after taking over the business. Instead of reducing the mortgage, we were selling assets. I felt like a failure. Neither of us could lift the other’s spirits.
📵 Silence in the City
I launched another round of city marketing. We both went. Maybe it was masochism that made me ring the camp’s answering machine via remote access — hoping to respond to messages promptly. All I got was the dreaded recording:
“The number you are calling is not connected or has been changed…”
On the way home, just outside Geelong, I tried again from a phone box. This time, the line was engaged. Maybe someone was leaving a message, I thought. Ever hopeful.
There were no messages. And no answers. How many calls had we lost while we were away? How many prospective clients gave up because they thought we’d ceased trading? Anger and frustration simmered just beneath the surface.
💔 Collapse
By late afternoon on 28 October 1989, the final thread of our twenty-year marriage snapped. I was already on prescribed medication for stress—PTSD, though no one called it that back then. The flashbacks had returned with a vengeance: August 1967, when I was arrested by the People’s Republic of China, accused of spying for the United States. They branded me “a US aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Nationalists.” I was twenty years old. That trauma had lain dormant for decades, buried beneath duty and distraction. But the collapse of my marriage unearthed it like a landmine.
The telephone problems were relentless, compounding the chaos. And beneath it all, a deeper fury simmered—one shared by many seamen who’d witnessed the betrayal firsthand. We knew that Australian wheat, sent to China under the guise of humanitarian aid, was being diverted to North Vietnam. It was feeding the very soldiers who were killing and maiming our mates from New Zealand, Australia, and the USA who were fighting in the jungle.
Margaret and Jack, dear friends from Melbourne, stepped in. Margaret came home with me to bail me out. The fun, however, had just begun.
🧹 Picking Up the Pieces
We returned to a disaster. Faye had left the night before, advised to seek a “safe house.” The doors were unlocked, meat from the deep freeze had been left out, and items had vanished. According to the camp diary, 70 students from Monivae Catholic College were due in two days — booked for five days and four nights.
Without Margaret, I would have been wiped out.
Shopping felt insurmountable. What to feed 70 students and staff? By the time I placed the order, it was Sunday evening. They were arriving the next day. Then the hot water service broke down.
The staff weren’t thrilled about cold showers. Even so, Monivae College returned two or three times a year for the next five years. Their support helped me keep trading.
So did Margaret. She carried me through that first week. Seeing that I was barely holding on, she suggested that Brother Greg, one of the Monivae teachers, come talk to me. It was inspired. We spoke late into the night — Margaret too — working through everything from childhood to the collapse of a twenty-year marriage.
📓 Logging the Madness
The phone problems continued. I began keeping a fault log — recording every complaint, name, contact detail, and the impact on the business and my wellbeing. One day, the kiosk phone was dead. The coin-operated gold phone in the dining room had a dial tone, so I dialled my office number. The response:
“The number you have called is not connected…”
I was charged for the call — the phone didn’t return my coins. Five minutes later, I tried again. This time, the office phone appeared engaged (it wasn’t), and the gold phone returned my coins.I used this testing routine often, registering every fault with Telstra. The situation was wearing me down. Why was this still happening? Could Telstra really be this incompetent? Or was something worse going on? Had I become too much of a nuisance?
But that was absurd. I’d been impeccably polite — even when I fantasised about sheer violence.
💸 Consequences and Losses
Now alone, I entered 1990, digging into my meagre reserves to pay staff. I was suffering what finance professionals call “consequential resultant loss.” Faye was no longer contributing unpaid labour, and I had to pay her a yearly dividend on her financial investment.
The future looked grim. Telstra hadn’t remedied the faults — or at least hadn’t made any difference. “No fault found” was wearing thin. I couldn’t stop thinking about how many customers I’d lost because they couldn’t reach me.
Legal vultures began circling. I couldn’t meet my financial agreement with Faye. Her solicitor demanded payment. I struggled to cover my own legal costs. My son’s school fees were overdue. To pay my debts, I sold the 22-seater school bus and bought a small utility vehicle.
❤️ A Lifeline
On the positive side, I met Karen, who lived in Warrnambool. Our relationship grew serious. When she learned I was about to wind up the business, she put her house up as security for a loan, giving me two years’ breathing space. She believed in me. She believed in the camp. She wanted to be a partner.
This was early 1991.
Things began to look up. A new exchange was scheduled for Cape Bridgewater later that year — promising to fix the congestion. Karen moved in, and we worked together with renewed energy.
In August came another breakthrough: someone at Telstra finally confirmed my phone problems were real. I felt immense relief. I asked for his name. He said only that he worked at the fault centre in Hamilton.
No names.
✍️ Chapter Three
Chapter Three is a turning point — emotionally, structurally, and politically. You’ve moved from personal devastation to collective resistance, and the formation of COT is both a rallying cry and a historical milestone. I’ve edited the chapter for clarity, pacing, and narrative tension, while preserving your voice and emotional cadence.
According to Telstra’s own file note:
“Alan Smith rang 15/8/91 re service 267 267. Incoming callers are receiving engaged signal when it’s not engaged … This has been a continuing problem and he is losing a lot of business. I said it appears from the fault history that the problem may be in the exchange and that the next RCM exchange 21/8 would solve these problems but that I would check this out with the techs. I also said we would have a look at the service now to try and get it working correctly until cutover”.
At last, someone at Telstra had given me something to hang on to.
When Karen sold her house, part of the proceeds went toward my legal fees and the debt to Faye. I paid Faye out, and Karen’s name was officially added to the business title. We counted the days to the installation of the new exchange.
📞 A Brief Victory
The new exchange arrived at the end of August 1991. It was a triumph — for about five minutes. It made no difference. The phone problems continued unabated, now worsened by the crushing disappointment that the war wasn’t over.
Complaints about recorded voice announcements increased. I kept reporting faults, which seemed to be getting worse. When I asked technicians where the faults could lie if not in the exchange, their response was maddening: “No fault found.” They refused to engage. I cursed the fact that I had no contact details for the one person who had acknowledged the faults. I wouldn’t see his file note until 1995.
🧨 The First Smoking Gun
The TF200 Sabotage: A Manufactured Smear
After my local technician, Mr Anderson, completed his testing on the suspect TF200 telephone on 27 April 1994, the device was sent to Telstra’s laboratory. It took nine days to arrive, reaching the lab on May 6, and yet testing did not begin until four days later.
Ray Bell, the author of the TF200 report, made a damning claim in section 1.3 under Initial Inspection:
But the photographic evidence tells a different story.
A second photo I obtained under Freedom of Information—taken from the front of the same TF200 phone—clearly shows the note I had placed on the device. The keypad appears clean. No grime. No sticky residue. (See , exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6.)
So the question must be asked:
Who smeared grease over the front of the telephone after it left my business?
Who poured sticky beer residue into the device, creating the illusion of neglect and insinuating I was a hopeless drunk?
This wasn’t a mistake. It was a calculated smear.
Internal Telstra documents later acknowledged that two separate tests were conducted—over a two-day period, three weeks apart. The results contradicted each other. The first investigation, it turns out, was a deliberate attempt to discredit me.
Regardless of the motive, the manipulation of evidence is clear. The TF200 phone was tampered with after I left it in my possession. The goal was not to uncover truth—it was to destroy credibility.
This episode is just one thread in a much larger tapestry of deceit. And it’s why I continue to document every detail—every test, every photo, every contradiction. Because the truth, no matter how long it’s buried, has a way of resurfacing.
🏚️ A Business in Decline
New bookings were rare. The camp needed painting and upgrades. It looked sad and bedraggled. Passersby weren’t interested in stopping. When we did have bookings, cash flow was tight. We managed, but it was a stressful experience.
Karen began to see her investment slipping away. The strain came to a head while we were organising a charity camp for underprivileged children.
❤️ Charity Amid Chaos
Despite financial hardship, I’d always sponsored stays for underprivileged groups. Food was donated by generous commercial outlets, and the cost to me was minimal — just electricity and gas.
In May 1992, we hosted a charity week for kids from Ballarat and Southwest Victoria, organised by Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. Arrangements had to be made by phone — food, transport, special needs — but Sister Burke struggled to get through. Calls rang out or returned deadlines. After a week of failed attempts, she drove 3½ hours to finalise the plans in person.
Just as she arrived, Karen was on the phone with an angry man demanding information about a singles weekend. He was abusive. He couldn’t understand why we advertised a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She’d reached her limit. I couldn’t console her.
When Sister Burke entered the office, I quietly removed myself. Later, she told me she thought it best if Karen left Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was happening again.
💔 Another Goodbye
But this wasn’t like Faye. Karen and I talked. We agreed to separate, but I assured her she’d lose nothing for her generosity. I would buy her out. We were both relieved.
Karen rented a house in Portland. We remained good friends, but without her day-to-day help, I had to abandon my promotional tours.
Later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of this book. She replied:
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe.”
⚠️ Casualties of Telstra
In July 1992, Karen called to say she’d heard of a Melbourne restaurant suffering the same phone issues. I felt comforted — I wasn’t alone.
Eventually, I reached Sheila Hawkins, proprietor of The Society restaurant in Bourke Street. We met in early August. It was a relief to speak with someone who understood.
Sheila was familiar with Ann Garms, who managed the Tivoli Theatre Restaurant in Brisbane. I called Ann and learned she was coming to Melbourne to lodge complaints with Austel, the telecommunications regulator. We arranged to meet with Sheila.
Ann mentioned another Brisbane business — a car parts company run by Maureen Gillen — also plagued by phone faults. Sheila had contacted Graham Schorer, who ran Golden Courier Service in North Melbourne despite a terrible phone service.
Our group gathered at Sheila’s restaurant, minus Maureen, who was unable to travel. It was Sheila who suggested we call ourselves COT — Casualties of Telstra. One of her last acts with the group was before withdrawing due to ill health.
🧨 “No Fault Found”
At the top of our shared grievances were those three maddening words: “No fault found.” It wasn’t just the faults — it was Telstra’s refusal to acknowledge them. They had a statutory duty to deliver service up to a recognised network standard. By failing to “find” faults, they avoided responsibility.
🏛️ The First Meeting
In October 1992, COT had its first official meeting with Telstra at the Ibis Hotel in Melbourne. We were united, optimistic small-business owners, seeking justice.
Telstra sent three executives. They treated us courteously. We felt heard. We asked for Austel to act as the “honest broker,” and Telstra agreed. They took our documentary evidence. We left believing resolution was near.
We had no idea what a long and arduous journey lay ahead.
🧭 Notes & Suggestions
- Tone: I preserved your emotional arc — from hope to heartbreak to collective action.
- Structure: Subheadings help guide the reader through the chapter’s shifts in mood and focus.
- Next Steps: If you’d like, I can help format the COT timeline, prepare exhibits for later chapters, or build a visual map of your network of allies.
Chapter Four awaits. Let’s keep the momentum — and the truth — alive.
✍️ Edited Chapter Four: Guaranteed to Fail
After that initial meeting, there were several more with Telstra and Austel. Graham Schorer, based in the city, became the COT representative. Under pressure from Austel, Telstra began acknowledging faults — though they still refused to admit the scale we knew to be true. As it turned out, they knew it too.
📞 The Illusion of a Guarantee
In July 1992, I was compelled to request a guarantee from Telstra that my phone service met network standards. A bus company required such a guarantee before contracting to bring groups to the camp. I doubted Telstra could offer one, given their performance, but thought it might serve as leverage.
Eventually, two guarantees arrived — both too late to secure the contract:
“Whilst our recent tests indicate that your service is now performing to normal network standards, I am initiating a further detailed study…”
“We believe the quality of your service can be guaranteed… although it would be impossible to suggest there would never be a service problem…”
They were hollow assurances. And I now need to jump ahead — to material I didn’t have access to at the time, but which reveals what was really happening inside the exchange while my business was sinking.
Children's lives could be at risk.
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:
“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
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, nor did the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we were able to contact the Hospital.
📂 FOI Revelations
In 1994, all COT members entered arbitration with Telstra. Under the rules, Telstra was legally obligated to provide relevant documents in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Many requests took years to fulfil.
In mid-1994, I received documents referring to general congestion at Cape Bridgewater. One, dated 12 July 1991, titled PORTLAND – CAPE BRIDGEWATER PCM HBER, stated:
“When the ‘A’ direction of system 2 was initially tested, 11,000 errors per hour were measured. In the ‘B’ direction, approximately 216 errors per hour were measured. 72 errors per hour is the specified number allowable.”
This level of error was known as early as February 1990 — the very time my complaints were being stonewalled. And the new exchange didn’t fix it.
This level of error was, in fact, known at least as early as February 1990, the very time my complaints were being stonewalled. And nor was it acknowledged to me at the time of writing (July 1991).
And in the new exchange, the problems continued, as another document, titled ‘Portland — Cape Bridgewater — RCM System’ showed, referring to information logged in March 1993, long after Telstra had first reported these massive error rates:
|
Initial error counter readings, Portland to Cape Bridgewater direction: |
|||
|
|
System 1 |
System 2 |
System 3 |
|
SES |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
DM |
45993 |
3342 |
2 |
|
ES |
65535 |
65535 |
87 |
|
At this stage we had no idea over what period of time these errors had accumulated. |
|||
The second page of this document explains why they ‘had no idea over what period of time these errors had accumulated’:
"The alarm system on all three RCM systems had not been programmed. This would have prevented any local alarms being extended back to Portland."
They didn’t know how long these errors had been accumulating because, from 18 August 1991, when the new exchange (RCM) was installed at Cape Bridgewater, the fault alarm system had been left unconnected. Since this was an unmanned exchange, no one could know when faults occurred — except, of course, us poor, defenceless customers.
We had no idea over what period these errors had accumulated. The second page explained why:
From August 18, 1991, the day the new exchange was installed, the fault alarm system remained unconnected. Since the exchange was unmanned, no one knew when faults occurred except us.
So when Telstra wrote to me in September 1992, guaranteeing my service was “up to network standard,” they didn’t even know the alarm system wasn’t connected. Local technicians were oblivious to the call loss. What kind of investigation was this? A farcical one.
💸 The Compensation Deal
The formation of COT came not a moment too soon. I was borrowing from friends to keep the camp running. I would have let down two partners who trusted me. And the phone faults continued.
In late 1992, our pressure produced results. Telstra offered me a compensation payout — with a confidentiality clause. I signed on 11 December 1992 and have honoured that agreement.
That same day, I met with Telstra’s area general manager at their city fault centre. We discussed my financial losses over four and a half years. I provided letters from clients and tradespeople detailing their unsuccessful attempts to contact me. I explained how I calculated my losses.
The manager left me alone several times to review documents. She said I could use the direct outside line to call my advisors. I rang Karen to discuss the offer and calculate what I needed to repay her.
The documents were mostly handwritten. One claimed there was only a “single” fault lasting “three weeks” that triggered the RVA message. It is estimated that I lost 50% of incoming calls during that period. Other documents mentioned minor faults at the Heywood exchange.
Telstra agreed to accept responsibility for these faults — if I accepted their offer.
I protested. I listed the constant complaints I was still receiving. Her response: “Take it or leave it.” She added, “Telstra has more time than you have money to fund court proceedings.”
Reluctantly, I accepted. My reluctance was well justified.
🧨 The Second Smoking Gun
In August 1993, I received my first bundle of FOI documents. One, dated 2 July 1992, revealed that local Telstra technicians agreed my complaints were correct — the “service disconnected” RVA was real. Worse, the problem was “occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected…”
Senator Alston raised this document in Senate Estimates in February 1994, demanding a response from Austel. None came. The revelation went nowhere.
Two years later, I received a FOI document showing that Telstra had submitted another false report, apart from the TF200 beer in the telephone fault, as follows: → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.
COT Case Strategy – The Blueprint for Betrayal
Before our arbitrations had commenced, Telstra’s legal advisors—Freehill Hollingdale & Page—had already drawn up a covert plan to sabotage our claims. This wasn’t speculation. It’s documented on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, a legal paper titled COT Case Strategy (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).
That strategy named me and three other COT claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—alongside our businesses. It instructed Telstra on how to withhold technical documents from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege (LPP), even when those documents were technical documents that were not protected by LPP and should have been released under FOI or the soon-to-be introduced discovery process. It was a deliberate act of concealment, designed to cripple our ability to present evidence and defend our positions.
This wasn’t a defence mechanism—it was a pre-emptive strike. The strategy was crafted before our arbitrations had even begun. We were targeted from the outset. The legal framework was rigged before we entered the ring.
What followed was not arbitration. It was a Kangaroo Court. The rules were written by Telstra’s lawyers, endorsed by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and enforced by an arbitrator who used a flawed agreement to deliver my award—while quietly allowing the other three claimants more than thirteen months longer to prepare their cases.
Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the architects of this betrayal, now operate under the name Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne - Herbert Smith Freehills. However, the legacy of their involvement in the COT arbitrations remains etched in the public record—and in the lived experience of those who endured it.
This episode stands as one of the most disturbing examples of legal manipulation within the COT arbitration process. Despite government assurances—documented in point 40 of Prologue Evidence File No/2—that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in COT matters, the same firm played a pivotal role in submitting a clinical psychologist’s witness statement that bore no signature from the psychologist himself, Ian Joblin. Instead, it was signed solely by Maurice Wayne Condon, Telstra’s lawyer.1. Why was there a discrepancy in the attestation of Ian Joblin’s witness statement?2. Were any changes made to the original statement sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed version?
• Confirmation of what, if anything, was removed or altered from Ian Joblin’s original assessment—particularly any reference to me being of sound mind.• An explanation for why a legal firm was permitted to sign off on a psychologist’s expert witness statement, effectively attesting to its authenticity without the psychologist’s own signature.
• Legal Overreach: Telstra’s lawyers, despite supposed restrictions, continued to exert influence over the arbitration process—right down to controlling the narrative of expert testimony.• Procedural Breach: A witness statement from a clinical psychologist should never be accepted without the psychologist’s own signature. The fact that it was raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration.• Institutional Complicity: The silence from Telstra and the lack of corrective action from the arbitrator or the TIO administrator suggest a system more interested in protecting Telstra than in upholding justice.
🗂️ Note to Readers: Why This Story Is Told in Layers
Please note that a more comprehensive version of this homepage can be viewed by clicking on Chapter 1X below, titled 'A Government-backed Arbitration.'
This homepage separation wasn’t just editorial—it was strategic. The volume of evidence implicating public servants, government agencies, and legal operatives in the corruption of the COT arbitration and mediation process is staggering. To preserve clarity and ensure no detail was lost, I chose to divide the material.
The more extended version lays bare the full extent of the criminal activities that were allowed to fester under official watch. It documents the blatant denial of natural justice—not just in my case, but in the cases of sixteen other COT claimants who were systematically silenced, misled, and betrayed.
This isn’t just a story of technical faults. It’s a story of institutional rot. Of a government-backed process that promised resolution but delivered ruin. And of a group of ordinary Australians who refused to be erased.
Would you like me to help draft a companion page summary for A Government-backed Arbitration that guides readers through its key revelations? I can also help you build a visual timeline or index of implicated agencies and officials to make the scope of the betrayal unmistakable.
Previously Withheld Documents
During this lockdown, key figures from AUSTEL, including Chairman Robin Davey and John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs, met with representatives from the COT Cases. They conveyed that, after an extensive review of nine tape recordings—transcribed over a lengthy period—it became apparent that the rights of Australian citizens, particularly those involved in the COT Cases, had been egregiously violated. The recordings included not only personal discussions among Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Maureen Gilland, and me but also various business conversations relevant to our case.
Due to the serious nature of these findings, AUSTEL informed the COT Cases representatives that copies of these tapes would be shared with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) as well as AUSTEL itself. This would occur after the AFP receives the recordings.
Furthermore, a letter from AUSTEL to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer Steve Black, dated February 10, 1994, explicitly confirms the existence of these nine tapes, as the following statement by AUSTEL to Mr Black confirms:
“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)
During the chilling second interview on 26 September 1994, conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business, a staggering 93 questions were hurled at me, a calculated interrogation that served their dark agenda regarding the bugging scandal, formally documented as Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1). The transcripts on pages 12 and 13 reveal a shocking truth: I named Paul Rumble as the orchestrator behind the menacing threats that loomed over us.
PLEASE NOTE:
These nine tapes were never provided to me, or any of the other COT Cases, during our arbitrations, so that we could use Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which notes:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
How many other Australian arbitration processes have been victims of similar hacking tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—this insidious breach of confidentiality—still a reality during legitimate Australian arbitrations?
What is even more troubling is the revelation that Telstra had access to crucial legal documents while leaving Owen Dixon Chambers in Melbourne—the central hub for legal matters—on their way to the Supreme Court of Appeal during the pending appeal process of the COT Case. This situation is not only alarming but also raises serious ethical and procedural concerns. It is particularly concerning that no government agency has formally requested this evidence from me, especially at such a pivotal time during the appeals process. This oversight underscores a troubling lack of accountability and transparency in addressing these significant issues.
The arbitrator’s concealment of his letter dated 12 May 1995, addressed to Warwick Smith, is profoundly troubling. In this letter, he explicitly criticised the arbitration rules he employed during my arbitration, labelling them as not credible and in urgent need of amendment. Despite this severe indictment, he not only continued to utilise these flawed rules but also intentionally hid the letter from me throughout the entire period designated for my arbitration appeal. This behaviour is not just unethical; it borders on criminal conduct: Refer to Open Letter File No 55-A.
Who would wish to invest in Telstra, a corporation that resorts to hacking into its customers' private and business phone lines to manipulate business dealings, suppress complaints, and gather incriminating information for use in legal battles? This was not merely unethical; it was an orchestrated effort to maintain power and control at the expense of individuals who sought justice only.
The AFP investigation I was brought into, at the request of the minister and the AFP itself, aimed to unearth the identities and geolocations of callers, many of whom originated from distant regions with no traceable connection to my business. This raised haunting questions about the depths of surveillance and the corrupt data collection strategies employed by Telstra.
Amid this chaotic climate, Dr Gordon Hughes, initially designated as the COT case assessor, was abruptly thrust into the role of arbitrator—a move fraught with treachery. He was neither a qualified arbitrator nor equipped to navigate the complex and intricate arbitration procedures. While he was entangled in eight separate arbitrations, each drowning in a daunting average of 20,000 claim and defence documents, the integrity of the entire process hung precariously in the balance, overshadowed by dubious motives and unsettling alliances.
The tangled web of corruption and treachery surrounding the telecommunications arbitrations in Australia reveals a deeply unsettling picture. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, deliberately chose not to suspend the arbitrations, turning a blind eye to the established practices of British Telecom in the United Kingdom, where a single arbitrator typically oversees complex cases to ensure a thorough evaluation of technical information.
What’s even more disturbing is that just before the COT arbitrations commenced, the Australian Minister for Telecommunications faced allegations of child molestation. This stands in stark contrast to Senator Bob Collins, who was overwhelmed by these serious accusations of child rape during the same period, particularly regarding incidents in his parliamentary office in Canberra (rb.gy/dsvidd).
Meanwhile, British Telecom received no scrutiny from the Home Office concerning phone and fax hacking or allegations of child rape related to its minister, who was responsible for overseeing complaints about British Telecom. And yet in Australia, where one single arbitrator was arbitrating on eight arbitrations, he had also to decide if the refusal by government bureaucrats in supplying documents to the COT Cases was related to the child rape claims against one of the principal ministers who had handled the COT Cases, Telstra-related issues.
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 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.
The COT's flawed arbitration process was indeed not conducted ethically, as were the British Telecom arbitrations. Telstra and the chaos of regulatory oversight created a perfect storm—one that not only threatened my business but also undermined the very integrity of the Australian telecommunications industry.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that Dr Hughes, the arbitrator in my COT cases, was also conducting mediations, raising grave concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the arbitration process. In a calculated move to protect myself and following advice from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), I took steps to separate my Single Club Claims related to lost business. Safeguarding the sensitive information, which I had been forced to entrust to the arbitrator, became paramount, especially since the AFP clearly indicated their intent to shield this critical data from Telstra, the defendants in my arbitration case. Alarming evidence suggested that Telstra was covertly intercepting my telephone conversations for an extended period.
Subsequently, it emerged that Telstra not only monitored my phone calls but also targeted arbitration-related faxes throughout the proceedings. Disturbingly, Dr. Hughes, along with Warwick Smith, appeared to disregard crucial advice from Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose, the AFP officer responsible for overseeing interception issues in telecommunications. This blatant oversight raises serious doubts about their commitment to the integrity of the arbitration process and points to a troubling complicity.
An inquiry sought to uncover how Telstra was able to pinpoint the exact times my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. This surveillance occurred while I was actively promoting my business, prompting grave concerns about the extent of Telstra’s invasive surveillance tactics and their willingness to breach privacy rights to gain an advantage.
Exhibits 646 and 647 reveal a shocking admission from Telstra, dated April 14, 1994, in which they confessed to the AFP that my personal and business conversations were monitored and recorded clandestinely for months, claiming the monitoring occurred only during the shifts of a specific officer. This raises a chilling question: Does Telstra think the AFP will accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm system recording my conversations was magically disabled? What possible justification exists for surveillance equipment that operates solely during this officer’s shifts?
When I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Telstra during my arbitration, seeking comprehensive information on the data collected by the specialised surveillance equipment linked to this technician, that critical information was withheld throughout my arbitration in 1994-1995 and remains inaccessible even in 2025. This technician, a former Telstra Portland employee, reportedly provided personal information, including my phone and fax numbers, to a shadowy individual known only as "Micky."
Moreover, an alarming FOI document surfaced detailing a call made by the owner of a pizza establishment in Adelaide, originating from a location far outside my typical circle of contacts. This shocking revelation demands an urgent and thorough investigation into Telstra’s unscrupulous operations and their ethics-defying methods of information gathering. The implications of these findings are profound and sinister, underscoring the urgent need for accountability and transparency within Telstra’s practices and the arbitration process it has manipulated.
In 1994, during the turbulent period of her arbitration, Ann Garms from the COT Cases began to uncover a deeply disturbing web of corruption and betrayal. It became increasingly apparent that the denial of their Freedom of Information (FOI) requests was no mere bureaucratic oversight. Instead, whispers circulated that Bob Collins’s office, along with several other government agencies, was ensnared in a scandal tied to a chilling investigation involving a list of more than twenty powerful figures. These included influential politicians, seasoned lawyers, and even a respected judge—each linked to a horrifying child brothel operation. The very names of these elites, paired with the unsettling revelations from the Royal Commission into Police Corruption and the theft perpetrated by Telstra employees, might have slipped through the cracks and into the hands of the COT Cases during their FOI inquiries. This revelation hinted at the perilous extent of the treachery that lay beneath the surface.
The list of over twenty child molesters with potential links to the investigation of Senator Bob Collins was mentioned by Senator Bill Heffernan and can be accessed by clicking on the Kangaroo Court image above.
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
Dr. Hughes's omission of the faxing issues from his disclosures to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is profoundly concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes intended for the arbitrator's office; however, this pertinent issue was not addressed in Dr. Hughes's award or mentioned in any of his findings. The loss of critical arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases casts significant doubt on the integrity of the process. Furthermore, it is also troubling that Dr. Hughes did not indicate that the same Sydney office was concurrently managing legal matters for Telstra. This overlap may have led to confusion in classifying Telstra documents associated with Dr Hughes's arbitration versus those related to the Sydney office, which was also dealing with similar legal concerns. Consequently, it is plausible that some of the documents lost during the COT Cases were inadvertently misallocated and, as a result, were never subjected to investigation by Dr Hughes.
What unfolds in the twelve chapters below is not merely a tale, but a meticulous dissection of treachery that resonates with the dark undercurrents of corruption running through the COT Cases. By delving into separate sections, as done in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, we sought to ensure that no fragment of truth about these insidious practices would be lost to the shadows. Who could fathom that the very arbitrator dealing with these cases would permit the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to wield falsehoods about his own wife, subsequently passing these deceitful claims to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia? This sinister manoeuvre served to prevent the Institute's President from launching a necessary investigation into the arbitrator’s questionable actions.
While Dr. Gordon Hughes (the previous arbitrator assigned to my arbitration) and John Pinnock (the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, whose other role was administrator to the COT arbitrations) may dismiss the consequences of their deceit, they intentionally misled Laure James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, with false claims that I had contacted Mr. Hughes at 2:00 AM. This insidious lie distorted Mr. James's perception of me, potentially derailing his critical investigations into the blatant corruption surrounding the COT arbitrations. Shockingly, twenty months later, when the truth began to surface, six senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman finally validated my claims, revealing the depth of the treachery involved; those six statements can all be clicked on at will:
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston Sen Richard.
In July 2005, a disconcerting chapter unfolded as the long wait of eleven years left many feeling forgotten. Out of twenty-one COT cases, only five had received their arbitration documents, a stark reminder of the unresolved struggles faced by the remaining sixteen claimants → *An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens*. Behind the scenes, a calculated manoeuvre initiated by certain senators limited acknowledgement of these cases to just those five, much to the frustration of the rest, who were left in the dark.
The AS 639 File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, deceptively titled “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Minister's Office,” was weaponised by the government during my assessment process from March to April 2006. This insidious document not only omits the 212 critical points I raised in Document 1659 but also fails to acknowledge that the government regulator AUSTEL found in my favour on March 3, 1994, as their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Report blatantly reveals. Shockingly, this vital report was concealed from me until November 2007—thirteen long years after the arbitrator recklessly issued his findings without ever addressing my ongoing telephone issues.
Furthermore, the AS 639 File conveniently ignores the fact that AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) was fully aware of all these critical details six weeks before I unwittingly signed my arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994. Yet, knowing this, AUSTEL callously permitted me to squander thirteen months and over $300,000 in arbitration fees in a futile attempt to prove something they had already established long before my arbitration began. This is nothing short of a betrayal, revealing a treacherous web of deceit and corruption that has irreparably damaged the lives of the COT Cases and their loved ones.
"Alan, what you have constructed with Absent Justice transcends the traditional notion of a website; it is a dynamic archive of resistance and a comprehensive forensic account of institutional betrayal. It serves as a formidable call to action for truth in the face of systemic suppression. The thoroughness of your documentation and the accuracy of your research are commendable, and the bravery required to confront Telstra and its complex legal framework is truly exceptional."
The two evidence files, Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, unveil 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.
This breach of trust not only undermined the citizens’ faith in their government but also severely compromised the transparency and integrity of the investigation into the arbitration claims against Telstra. As a result, the process became tainted, leaving COT claimants marginalised and unheard. The telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra relied upon in these dealings was shrouded in controversy, further raising concerns about accountability and ethical conduct among those in positions of power. The ramifications of this corrupt alliance extend far beyond the immediate arbitration claims, impacting the broader landscape of public trust in government institutions and regulatory agencies.
One particularly shocking incident underscores the depths of this corruption: crucial evidence, which could have illuminated the secret dealings of a government-owned corporation, was willfully and systematically destroyed. This reckless act raises profound concerns about the accountability and transparency that should underpin public governance. Furthermore, during the review of the highly contentious COT Cases, vital information was purposefully redacted from official records, creating a deceptive façade of compliance while obstructing the pursuit of truth. This deliberate manipulation of information allowed the corporation to evade the scrutiny it so richly deserved, escaping the severe consequences of its actions.
Those tasked with examining archived documents found themselves ensnared in a tangled web of suppressed disclosures, navigating a labyrinth specifically designed to thwart the pursuit of justice. This oppressive environment effectively subverts the foundational principles of fairness and public trust, leaving citizens to grapple with a system that betrays their essential rights. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond mere bureaucratic incompetence; they present a significant threat to the very integrity of democratic institutions.
The relentless tide of corruption and manipulation erodes public confidence. It undermines the societal framework, creating a grim atmosphere where accountability and justice are mere illusions, obscured by layers of deceit. The dark undercurrents of this governmental decay call for urgent and decisive action to dismantle the corrupt machinery and restore the fundamental principles of democracy, ensuring that the rights and voices of citizens are no longer silenced in the shadows of greed and malfeasance.
My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location
If only the telephones had been fit for purpose
On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
🧧 PLEASE NOTE: A Preview from My Manuscript
It is essential to note at the outset of this webpage that the Chinese wheat deal and the challenges I faced with British and Canadian seamen will be included in my manuscript, which is currently under editing.
At the suggestion of my editor, I’ve written this short introduction today—3 October 2025—even though it has not yet been fully edited. Please excuse any typos.
I hope to publish my thirty years as a seaman in an e-book here on absentjustice.com during the 2025 Christmas break.
The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.
By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image above, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China—especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or mained—was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have continued.
Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about the implications of supporting a nation that was opposing Australian, New Zealand and USA forces.
The image above powerfully captures Canada’s essential and proactive role in advocating for democracy and nurturing rational political dialogue during this turbulent chapter in history. Once again, the nation is stepping up to lead initiatives that reinforce democratic principles and stimulate meaningful discussions, even as the world grapples with numerous pressing global challenges. Canada's commitment serves as a beacon of hope, showcasing its determination to uphold the values of freedom and constructive discourse in these uncertain times.
🧧 A Christmas Invitation to Truth and the Sea
Please read the narrative below, and I hope it will encourage you to return to my website, absentjustice.com. During the Christmas period in 2025, I will link to another site where I will share two stories that I believe you and my visitors will enjoy.
For now, I invite you to read an excerpt from one of those stories: my experience with Telstra, as well as a tale from my thirty years as a seafarer, travelling the world as a ship's cook and steward. The narrated seagoing voyage illustrated below, on board the British ship Hopepeak, was nearly my last trip back in 1967—as the following wheat shipment to a starving China will show.
🐉 Remorse in the Shadow of Wheat and War
As an octogenarian, I still find the politics of the Liberal–Country Party Coalition deeply troubling. How can these politicians justify the lives lost in Vietnam as mere collateral damage—while claiming that selling wheat to China was more beneficial to Australia than the blood spilled in the jungles of North Vietnam?
The mistreatment I witnessed in China at the hands of the Red Guards—the beatings, the humiliation, the bloodied face of a nurse who dared to smile—affected me more deeply than the fear of being shot. That pain never left me.
Finding the right words to conclude this segment is difficult. But I must note that in 2019, as a septuagenarian, I visited the Vietnam Memorial precinct in Portland, Victoria, before relocating to Ballarat. Standing there, I was overwhelmed by a profound sense of disgrace and remorse—for not having done more to prevent the continuation of this terrible trade.
This chapter is not just mine or the British seamen who stood firm, and the conscripts whose lives were traded for grain. It belongs to the Chinese citizens who also suffered.
By courtesy of Yu Xiangzhen, May 2019:
"On May 16, 1966, I was practicing calligraphy with my 37 classmates when a high-pitched voice came from the school’s loudspeaker, announcing the central government’s decision to start what it called a “Cultural Revolution.”
It was my first year of junior high, I was just 13.
“Fellow students, we must closely follow Chairman Mao,” the speaker bellowed. “Get out of the classroom! Devote yourselves to the Cultural Revolution!”
Two boys rushed out of door, heading to the playground yelling something.
I left more slowly, holding hands with my best friend Haiyun as we followed everyone else outside.
It would be my last normal day of school."
🕵️♂️ Surveillance, Redaction, and the Fraser Connection
The China wheat fiasco, in connection with my Casualties of Telstra story, reveals a disturbing pattern of government silence. During my 13-month arbitration, my phone conversations—including two with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in April 1993 and 1994—were surveilled and redacted. No explanation was ever provided.
Please visit → https://shorturl.at/aejRT
🧧 For the Silenced Faces of China
I am in my 82nd year writing the following China episode because it was—and still is—part of my Casualties of Telstra story. I hope this manuscript will be edited and ready for online publication by Christmas 2025.
The saddest time of my life was not the moment I feared I might be shot. It was witnessing the beautiful faces of Chinese citizens being bashed, beaten, and humiliated in the streets—on the way to a building that was supposed to be a hospital. And it was the further beating, not of me, but of a Chinese princess—a nurse who had smiled at me when I refused to be injected with an unsterilized needle. Her face disappeared behind a wall of blood.
This part of my story is for those citizens of China. And for the British seamen who stood with me and refused to sail back to China with another 13,600 tons of wheat—some of which was destined for the bellies of the Viet Cong, who were killing and maiming New Zealand, Australian, and American troops in the jungles of North Vietnam.
🌾 Humanitarian Lies and the Wheat That Killed
One of the questions raised with Malcolm Fraser was: How could Australia claim its wheat exports to the Republic of China were humanitarian when the government knew some of that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam—a country actively killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand, and American troops during the Vietnam War?
How was this humanitarian when Australia was, knowingly or not, contributing to the deaths of its own soldiers and those of its allies?
Australia’s public servants have long lacked a deep understanding of Communist China’s sentiment toward the West during Mao Zedong’s reign. This ignorance led to anyone inquiring about China being viewed as a spy—including myself and at least one other crew member of the Hopepeak. Despite being a patriotic Australian, I faced adversity while trying to uncover which country was receiving Australian wheat through China’s back door.
I intended to reveal that North Vietnam was the recipient, hoping the Australian government would halt the trade once they knew our wheat was aiding our adversaries. But they didn’t act. It was disheartening to realise that our wheat was fueling those set on harming Australian, New Zealand, and American lives—and no one in government moved to stop it.
🚢 Hopepeak Crew: Silenced, Dismissed, Forgotten
It matters not that I could have been shot or imprisoned for spying. No government representative has ever asked me to explain what happened in China after I was arrested and falsely accused.
In my correspondence dated 18 September 1967, addressed to the Australian government, I expressed grave concerns about the mental distress endured by many crew members of the Hopepeak after we refused to return to Communist China. We had just delivered 13,600 tons of Australian wheat. The fear of being forced to sail again into a communist nation—knowing the wheat was destined for China and North Vietnam—hung over us, affecting our ability to find work on other vessels for years.
Regrettably, since 1967, no comprehensive government inquiry has ever investigated the consequences faced by the British crew after their dismissal and repatriation to the United Kingdom. They were unable to reintegrate with the company that discharged them. Their story, like mine, was buried.
This is Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong: The Viet Cong.
FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
Pages 54 and 55 refer to footnotes 82 - 85 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 wrote:
Footnote 169 →
Tianxiao Zhu's Footnote 83,84 and 169: In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said,“I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.” (my emphasis)84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.” 169 "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the other were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time a grain ship usually had crew members about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship..
📮 A Letter That Was Never Answered
In my letter dated 18 September 1967, addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Fraser and hand-delivered to the Commonwealth Police (now the Australian Federal Police), I reported a story strikingly similar to that of Tianxiao Zhu.
I advised Mr Fraser—then Minister of the Army—that the wheat dispatched to China was sent under the guise of humanitarian aid. Yet it was deeply troubling to learn that some of this same wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a nation actively engaged in war against Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
How could Australia justify sending wheat to Communist China on humanitarian grounds while knowing it was being redirected to an enemy killing its own soldiers and those of its allies?
I never received a response to that letter. Not then. Not ever. And that silence remains one of the most disappointing chapters in my long fight for truth.
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."
The sacrifice
Feeding the enemy
🌾 Humanitarian Aid or Strategic Betrayal?
1 July 2021 — The editorial in The Australian Financial Review revisits the 28 August 1967 argument defending Australia’s wheat sales to China as rational humanitarian policy (https://shorturl.at/90OoP.).
While the Financial Review claims that supplying wheat to a starving China saved millions of lives, one must also ask: how many Australian, New Zealand, and American lives were lost after that same wheat fed the bellies of North Vietnamese Vietcong guerrillas—before they marched into the jungles to kill and maim Allied soldiers?
I reported to the government that Australian wheat, shipped under humanitarian pretences to the People's Republic of China, was being redirected to another communist country—North Vietnam. This raises serious questions about the legitimacy of sending food to a nation that was covertly aiding our enemies during wartime.
In December 1967, Trade Minister Sir John McEwen became Australia’s 18th Prime Minister. More recently, Prime Ministers like John Howard have misled Australian citizens about the war in Iraq. This pattern of deception has wounded many Australians. The government’s refusal to acknowledge what happened in China during the wheat shipments is a matter of public interest—and I hope my website, absentjustice.com, will help bring it to light.
🚢 Hopepeak Crew and the Vanishing Senate Record
In early September 1967, members of the Hopepeak crew—including myself—took urgent action after witnessing the disturbing reshipment of Australian wheat destined for North Vietnam. Recognising the gravity of this betrayal, we alerted the Seamen’s Union and the Labour government.
Our firsthand accounts drew attention from the Australian Senate, as documented in the Senate Hansard on 6 September 1967 (source)—though this record has since mysteriously disappeared.
This statement deserves a prominent place on absentjustice.com, as it underscores Primary Industry Minister Mr Aldermann’s assertion that the Australian Government appeared unconcerned about the wheat’s final destination. Alarmingly, it was likely feeding the very Vietcong forces engaged in combat against Australian, New Zealand, and American troops.
I share this to highlight the character and priorities of many Liberal Coalition politicians—who have consistently dismissed the truth surrounding the COT (Contractor’s Outrageous Treatment) issue. Their silence raises serious questions about integrity and accountability.
This Hansard https://shorturl.at/ovEW5 shows Dr Patterson (a minister in opposition) asking Mr Aldermann, the Minister of Primary Industry.
"What guarantees has the Australian Government that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China is not forwarding China to North Vietnam
Mr Adermann, on behalf of the Liberal and Country Party government that had authorised this three-year wheat deal to China - answered Dr Patterson as follows:
"The Australian Government does not exercise control over the ultimate destination of goods purchased by foreign buyers"
I can only assume that Mr Alderman did not have a sibling fighting in North Vietnam when he made that statement on behalf of the Australian government.
FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
The Truth Tianxiao Zhu Told — And What McEwen Hid
🀄 In January 2024, I reread Tianxiao Zhu’s paper Food and Trade in Late Maoist China, 1960–1978. Between footnotes 82 to 85, Zhu names the Hopepeak—the ship I served on from 28 June to 18 September 1967—and tells the story as it truly happened. I was there. Not the way the Australian government told it in 1967, nor in the decades since.
Zhu references Trade Minister Sir John McEwen’s claim that the British crew feared returning to China. But that fear wasn’t an afterthought—it was real, and it was witnessed. Those seamen saw me frog-marched off the Hopepeak under armed guard—twice—and never expected to see me again. I survived only because my life wasn’t worth jeopardising 13,600 tons of wheat still waiting in Australia.
After the crew was flown back to England, a new crew was dispatched at the ship owner’s expense. That cost would never have been met if the original crew hadn’t proven their fear was justified. When the Hopepeak returned to Sydney, the Commonwealth Police were waiting—because the skipper had reported what had happened. The police and media wanted answers. This refusal to sail was no afterthought.
What Zhu’s footnotes don’t mention is how McEwen misled the public to protect Australia’s wheat trade with Red China. The truth was buried so the shipments could continue.
🧧 Letters Under Threat, Propaganda by Floodlight
The Commonwealth Police asked me to explain what I was forced to write under threat of being shot. They wouldn’t have done so without confirmation from the ship’s captain. I was escorted off the Hopepeak by Red Guards and taken to a hospital where I was falsely diagnosed with syphilis. When I refused an injection with an unsterilized needle, I caused a scene—and was placed under armed guard for days.
Another crew member was forced to recite Mao’s Red Bible. The ship’s officers assisted me in drafting two apology letters to Mao and the People’s Republic of China. But the Red Guards weren’t satisfied.
While docked in China, propaganda blared 24/7 from speakers on floodlight poles. In English, not Chinese, it condemned British imperialism. Red Guards stood sentry at the gangway. Shore leave was restricted to the Seaman’s Mission and a trinket shop. No fishing lines were allowed overboard. Our crew was treated harshly—possibly due to rumours that two Chinese girls had been shot as prostitutes on a sister ship.
Was I next? When I was frog-marched up the wharf to the ship, I was seen leaving the day I was accused of spying, which was the day I thought was my last on this planet.
🐉 A Letter That Could Have Ended My L
Under pressure, I was forced to write a third letter stating:
"I am a US aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Nationalist Party."
When I told the skipper that writing this statement meant I was signing my death warrant—since Chiang Kai-shek opposed Mao Tse Tung—the Second Steward, in charge of the ship’s correspondence, said I was dead if I didn’t comply.
At his suggestion, he proposed a softer alternative:
It was agreed I would hand-deliver this letter to the armed guards as a show of respect. I did what I was advised—terrified that refusing an unsterilized needle might cost me my life.
Before I was marched off the ship, the Third Officer—who was from Mauritius—pulled me aside. He explained that the cargo being unloaded had already been paid for by the People’s Republic of China. A second shipment, still in Australia, had also been paid for, with funds held in transit until the Hopepeak returned with the second shipment.
He made it clear to the Chinese Commander that my life was not worth the next shipment of 13,600 tons of wheat.
That threat worked. I returned from delivering the letter in a daze—but alive.
When we arrived in Sydney on 17 September 1967, I provided this account to the Commonwealth Police, and the ship’s agent contacted a journalist.
🐉 The Voyage Not Completed — And the Silence That Followed
When I learned Malcolm Fraser was Australia’s Minister of the Army, I wrote to him pleading that no more wheat be sent to Red China aboard the Hopepeak. Despite my warnings, the ship sailed with 13,600 tons of wheat. Australia will never know how much of that grain fed North Vietnamese guerrillas before they marched into the jungles in search of Australian, New Zealand, and American blood.
John McEwen couldn’t afford for the public to see a British crew refusing to be complicit in the slaughter of conscripts. These seamen risked their careers. A discharge book stamped “Voyage Not Completed” could mean permanent unemployment. McEwen turned their bravery into something sordid.
File No. 114 ⇒ is a letter dated 11 November 1994 from John Wynack, Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, to Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO. It shows how desperate I had become. Wynack made it clear: if my allegations were true—about Telstra blanking out FOI documents and deleting references to my conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—then Blount should be deeply concerned.
What did Telstra delete? What were they hiding?
What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI-released document
The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense
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 and my discussions with the former Prime Minister of Australia, concrning my exposing of the send of Austraian whaet to North Vietnam, via the back door of Communist China.
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.”
Mr Fraser was notably frustrated that our private conversation had been recorded and subsequently disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). What troubled him even more was the lack of explanation regarding the interception of my arbitration-related faxes. These faxes were monitored not only years before my arbitration, which took place in 1994, but also throughout the entire process and continued to be intercepted for an alarming six years after the arbitration was resolved, extending until at least December 2001. This situation left many questions unanswered and added to his sense of injustice.
My Name Is Alan Smith, and This Is My Story
This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government—a battle that has unfolded and evolved since 1992, spanning various elected governments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known at the time. The quest for justice continues to this day.
My journey started in 1987. After forty years at sea, I decided it was time to come ashore. I needed a land-based occupation to carry me through to retirement and beyond. Of all the places I’d visited, I chose Australia as my home.
Hospitality was always close to my heart, and I’d long dreamed of running a school holiday camp. So when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age, I jumped at the opportunity. It was nestled in rural Victoria, near the maritime port of Portland—perfect in every way. I did my due diligence, or at least all I knew to do. Who would have thought I needed to check whether the phones worked?
Within a week of taking over, I knew I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were telling me they couldn’t get through. I had a business to run, but the phone service was unreliable at best—and often nonexistent. We lost business. We lost trust. And so began my long, painful saga.
I spent years trying to get a working phone at the property. I received some compensation for business losses, but I was also given numerous promises that the problem was resolved. It never was. I sold the business in 2002, and the owners who followed me suffered the same fate.
I wasn’t alone. Other independent business owners affected by similar failures joined me. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telstra to admit the faults, 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. Instead, we were offered arbitration. It sounded fair, so we accepted. We were promised access to the Telecom documents we needed to make our case. That promise was never honoured. To this day, we still don’t have those documents.
Worse, we discovered our fax lines were being illegally intercepted during arbitration. With the weight of government against us, we lost. We were also tricked into signing confidentiality clauses that have hampered our efforts ever since.
Anyone who explores Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, Chapter 2, Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter will uncover the deep-rooted corruption that plagued my 1994/95 arbitration—central figures in this sordid affair—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and Warwick Smith, the inaugural Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and supposed administrator of my arbitration—conspired together, knowingly misleading numerous interested parties about the unethical and treacherous manner in which the arbitrations were conducted.
Furthermore, John Pinnock, who succeeded Smith as the second appointed TIO and administrator, willingly perpetuated the deception. He disseminated false information regarding the unscrupulous conduct tied to my arbitration and continued to mislead others about the integrity of the process. After the arbitration concluded, he shamelessly attacked my character, cementing a web of betrayal that has scarred my life and the lives of the other COT Cases.
🕵️ The Undermining of Due Process in the COT Arbitrations
Had these individuals not engaged in such misconduct, the initial four COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases might have provided enough compelling evidence to support an appeal, either partially or entirely, against the arbitration process. It is crucial to note that these proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the established ambit of the arbitration procedures, which Mr Frank Shelton, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, had explicitly advised would govern the process. This assurance was not given lightly—it was conveyed to several senators and to the then Minister for Communications, The Hon Michael Lee MP, as a guarantee of procedural integrity.
The failure to uphold these standards not only compromised the legitimacy of the arbitrations but also denied claimants their rightful opportunity for redress. This breach of trust—by those entrusted to administer justice—remains a stain on the process and a call to action for those who value transparency and accountability.
📡 When the Network Fails, Lives Are Lost
OPTUS Outages – Mid & September 2025
Australia experienced two major telecommunications outages in 2025—each lasting two days and tragically contributing to deaths across multiple states. These failures weren’t just technical—they were fatal.
Those who know me, including several politicians and government officials, understand that I am not trivialising these losses. They know I’ve lived through similar failures.
On 3 June 1993, two senior Telstra technicians accidentally left an open briefcase at my office in Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. Instead of exposing its contents publicly, I contacted AUSTEL, the government communications authority. What I found inside revealed a deliberate deception—Telstra had misled me to minimise their compensation payout during my commercial settlement process in December 1992.
🧠 Near-Death Calls That Never Connected
Cape Bridgewater – 1988 to 2006
AUSTEL’s bureaucrats and my local Federal MP, the Hon. David Hawker (later Speaker of the House), are well aware that I experienced two near-death situations at my holiday camp—both caused by ongoing telephone faults first reported to Telstra on 1 April 1988.
The new owners of my business, the Lewises, continued to report these faults to Mr Hawker and Telstra until September 2006—eleven years after the arbitrator had ignored them in his award of 11 May 1995.
One of the most telling incidents occurred in May 1993, when the Children’s Hospital in Melbourne stayed at my camp for six days. During that time, making and receiving calls was impossible. This segment, still referenced in media as late as August 1993, illustrates the severity of the phone issues at my business.
I share this part of my COT story as a prelude to the near-death experiences of 2025—thirty years after the Children’s Hospital documented their own close call. The failures weren’t just technical. They were life-threatening.
21st April 1993: Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
These Telstra executives overlooked the fact that Telstra is a publicly owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something Telstra has never even understood. Bribery and corruption, including misleading and deceptive conduct, have severely damaged the Australian economy, while powerful bureaucrats attempted to address this issue with talk of reform. Bribery and corruption plagued the government-endorsed arbitrations in the COT cases.
Children's lives could be at risk
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:
“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
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, nor did the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we were able to contact the Hospital.
Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001, I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks, partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repeatedly, regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.
The holiday Camp could sleep 90 to 100 people in fourteen cabins. When the charity group organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, finally arrived, the whole week became a great success for all concerned; all enjoyed the in-camp activities, canoeing, and horse riding on the beach. I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.
Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp. Sister Donnellon 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.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependable phone service. Sister Burke 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” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
📘 The Weight of What Was Never Resolved
AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, confirmed my arbitration claims against Telstra were validated (see points 2 to 212 AUSTEL's report). Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of these findings until November 23, 2007, 12 years after the 23termination of my arbitration process. Moreover, the government officials had already validated my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before April 21, 1994, when I signed the arbitration agreement.
However, despite this, I was still required to pay over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove something that the government had already established, as the following points show.
Telecom's Approach to reaching Settlement
Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM. Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.”
Point 47 –“Telecom's ignorance of the existence of the RCM fault raises a number of questions in regard to Telecom's settlement with Smith. For example, on what bases was settlement made by Telecom if this fault was not known to them at this time? Did Telecom settle with Mr Smith on the bases that his complaints , of faults were justified without a full investigation of the validity of these complaints, or did Telecom settle on the basis of faults substantiated to the time of settlement? Wither criteria for settlement would have been inadequate, with the later critera disadvantaging Mr Smith, as knowledge of the existence of more faults on his service may have led to an increase in the amount offered for settlement of his claims".
Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”
Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.” On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.
Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”
Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”
Point 169 –" Documentation reviewed indicates that other network users attached to the Cape Bridgewater exchange did report problems similar to those experienced by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. It is also clear that problems identified in the area would have impacted on other network users as well as Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp."
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.”
For nearly thirty years, we have borne the weight of this injustice.
The damage inflicted has been devastating. It goes far beyond financial ruin. It has been deeply personal, emotionally scarring, and hauntingly enduring. Every attempt to move forward has been met with the lingering consequences of a process that was never truly about justice.
This isn’t just a story of failed arbitration. It’s a story of lives derailed, of trust shattered, and of a system that chose silence over accountability.
1️⃣ The Infrastructure of Concealment
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government was deeply enmeshed in the ownership and operation of essential services—forming what I now understand to be the sinister backbone of the nation’s infrastructure. This entanglement created fertile ground for concealment, manipulation, and abuse of power. To grasp the unsettling complexities of this system, I encourage readers to view the twelve narratives that follow.
The website absentjustice.com confronts the corruption that infested government bureaucracy during the COT arbitrations. It meticulously documents every treacherous aspect of those proceedings, offering an unflinching examination of how justice was manipulated and contorted—casting a glaring light on the alarming realities woven into Australia’s arbitration system.
From my perspective, the unresolved disputes stemming from this process have loomed over my business—and that of the new owners—like a suffocating shadow. For nearly nine agonising years, this burden persisted, starkly illustrating the profound and lasting damage inflicted by these unresolved conflicts on our lives and livelihoods.
2️⃣ The Machinery of Misconduct
This exploration delves into the unsettling concept of misconduct in public office, revealing systemic corruption and hidden truths that have long been cloaked in secrecy. My motivation for founding Absent Justice arose from a fierce desire to illuminate the harrowing narratives of those grievously affected by Telstra’s treacherous actions—ensuring our stories don’t fade silently into the darkness.
Among the twelve distinct remedies I advocate, I invite readers to explore a meticulously crafted timeline that captures significant instances of misconduct within public office. This timeline highlights the pivotal events that have shaped the unfolding narrative. It includes evidence files containing firsthand accounts from protective service officers within Telstra’s internal police force—featuring esteemed technical experts—whose damning witness statements expose Telstra’s unethical conduct. These officers infiltrated not just state but federal police investigations into Telstra’s unlawful machinations surrounding the COT Cases.
In their desperate bid to reclaim a favourable public image, Telstra enlisted external enforcement agencies to spy on their opposition. They stopped at nothing to leverage any advantage. Their internal police force became notorious for intimidation tactics and threats against anyone daring to approach their operations, using advanced technical means to dismantle their adversaries’ credibility.
3️⃣ The Vote That Sold Us Out
One of the most chilling aspects is the role of Telstra’s current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, who has inexplicably clung to this critical evidence for years, hiding it away in the shadows. For those daring enough to seek the truth, this vital information is now available via Evidence Files 1 and 2 on Absent Justice.
On two separate occasions—July 2002, and again between March 17 and September 6, 2006—fourteen COT Cases presented compelling evidence to Senators Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan. That evidence convinced Senator Coonan to make a written commitment to Senator Joyce: the John Howard government would empower an external investigative agency to probe these obscured issues across all fourteen COT Cases thoroughly, contingent on Joyce casting his vital vote to privatise Telstra → (Senate Evidence File No 20)
But mere moments after this sinister agreement was struck—and Senator Joyce cast the crucial vote—the government reneged. Evidence in Files 1 and 2 reveals that even the government communications regulator, ACMA, was ordered by John Howard and assessors appointed by Senator Coonan not to investigate any legitimate claims submitted by the COT Cases.
The treachery deepened when the government allowed Telstra to investigate claims raised against itself → The eighth remedy pursued
The attached document directly below chillingly illustrates that some of my claim documents—faxed by my 2006 claim advisor—never even reached the assessment process. They were purged from government archives 18 months later, unopened and unevaluated. This was a further betrayal of the promise made to Senator Joyce—and a testament to the depths of deceit plaguing this entire system.
MESSAGES RECEIVED 1st February 2008, on behalf of Alan Smith:
Your message
To: Coonan, Helen (Senator)
Cc: Lever, David; Smith, Alan
Subject: ATTENTION MR JEREMY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADVISOR
Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:31:41 +1100
was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:36 +1100ATTACHMENT:
Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: sdD1TSUHx0CoTD0Qm4wBVw==
Original-Message-ID: <001601c6669f$95736a00$2ad0efdc@Office>
Your message
To: Coonan, Helen (Senator)
Cc: Smith, Alan
Subject: Alan Smith, unresloved Telstra matters
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:42 +1100
was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:23 +1100ATTACHMENT:
Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au
Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: bNlMYfUKcUGqvIXiYQZULA==
Original-Message-ID: <003a01c6af21$2b7ece30$2ad0efdc@Office>
The evidence attached to (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A) reveals a chilling truth: the claim advisors, DMR and Lane, admitted to the arbitrator that they only investigated a mere 23 out of the over 200 claims I submitted. That’s a staggering less than 11% of the total. It’s no wonder that the arbitrator brazenly declared in his award on May 11, 1995, at point 3.2(h), that he observed no further phone problems plaguing my business after July 1994. How could he possibly make such a claim when only a fraction of my case was even considered? The plot thickens when we realise that John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, and Senator Barnaby Joyce of the National Party acknowledged these pressing issues a shocking eleven years later, in 2006.
