Bribery Corruption Illicit Dealings
Letter of Claim
The never-ending saga
Exhibit CAV P3- Exhibit 8- Exhibit 9 is a critical piece of evidence that validates the legitimacy of my arbitration claim and the evidence that I submitted to support it, and I will not allow it to be ignored. My Letter of Claim submitted on June 15, 1994, and my 18 January 1995 subsequent reply to Telstra's nine false witness statements (their defence of my Letter of Claim) are clear examples of how lawyers from both sides can manipulate solid evidence against one party to disguise their malevolent acts. Telstra relied on at least three known falsified technical reports and nine false witness statements to conceal a national systemic billing problem that affected up to 120,000 COT-type customer complaints across Australia. Refer to Taking on the Establishment and Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN
The report prepared by several government telecommunications experts on behalf of the regulator, AUSTEL (now called ACMA), dated March 1994, confirms the validity of my claims against Telstra, points 2 to 212. Therefore, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings serves as concrete proof of the factual nature of my Letter of Claim and my response to Telstra's defence. Despite government officials validating my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before I signed the arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994, I was required to incur over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove the already established facts.
This situation is outrageous, and the government needs to be held accountable for its actions. The public AUSTEL COT Cases report, presented to the Hon Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, on April 13, 1994, clearly states that the arbitrator appointed to value the COT Cases claims must ensure that all ongoing telephone problems that led to the COT Cases being referred to arbitration are resolved before an award is granted, if at all. However, in my case, my ongoing telephone problems were not fixed before the arbitrator brought down his award, nor were they addressed for a further nine years following the conclusion of my arbitration, as demonstrated by the following link Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story.
INTRODUCTION
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, started at least in September 1992 (fourteen months before I signed my Fast Track Settlement Proposal on 23 November 1993. This FTSP became my Fast Track Arbitration Procedure on 21 April 1994 and continued throughout my FTAP, which was concluded by the arbitrator on 11 May 1995, regardless of my FTAP still being incomplete.
What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document
The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense
During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”
One of the questions raised with Malcolm Fraser was: How could Australia say their selling of wheat to the Republic of China was on humanitarian grounds when the Australian government knew that some of this same wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam? A country that was killing and maiming as many Australian, New Zealand and USA troops as they could during the Vietnam War?
How was this humanitarian when Australia was contributing to the killing of its own soldiers and the soldiers of its Allies in that War?
Telstra released FOI documents showing someone had listened to my telephone conversations with Malcolm Fraser. Could this FOI document be related to Communist China and what the newspaper journalist told me on 18 September 1967, after I had been forced at gunpoint to write about the USA and their war in Vietnam by saying this, I would be a marked man for the rest of my life Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong.
It is evident that Australia's public servants lacked understanding in the 1960s, even up to more recently, of what the people of Communist China felt towards the West during the Mao Zedong reign. Anyone asking questions about their country was ideally seen as spies and therefore targeted, as was I and at least one other crew member of the Hopepeak. I was a good Australian trying to find out which other country was receiving Australian wheat via China's back door. I thought the Australian government would have been pleased to learn what I had uncovered about North Vietnam receiving Australia's wheat. How wrong I was to think Australa's Establishment would have ceased this trade?
It matters not that I could have been shot or imprisoned for spying. No single government representative has ever asked me to explain what happened in China after I provided my letter of 18 September 1967 to Malcolm Fraser via the Commonwealth Police (now called the Australian Federal Police)
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
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.” 83 (my emphasis). 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.”84--The reason why China became a big market for Australia partially resulted from the competition with the Americans in the world market because of the P. L. 480 plans. Since the U.S. was still on a full embargo with China in the 1960s, Australia had to grab the opportunity. What upset many ordinary Australians in the wheat deals was that the price of wheat sold to China was low, at least lower than the price paid to Australian growers. In April 1965, a resident in Western Australia wrote to the Parliament, saying that “I was surprised to learn recently that a large sale of wheat had been made to communist China at a price of 13/7 per bushel. I understand that the guaranteed price to the farmer is 1/- per bushel above this price and that the Commonwealth Government (ourselves) needed to find an amount of £4,000,000 to make up the difference...We have apparently reached the stage where we are prepared to supply cheap wheat to strengthen an enemy who has sworn to destroy us.” 89
The following three statements taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly) only tell part of this tragic episode concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on 18 September 1967 as Minister for the Army.
Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569
"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"
If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."
Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."
The following three statements taken from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly) only tell part of this tragic episode concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on 18 September 1967 as Minister for the Army.
The sacrifice
Feeding the enemy
1 July 2021 — The editorial in The Australian Financial Review of August 28, 1967, argues why Australia's position on wheat sales to China was rational https://shorturl.at/bosG3
While the Financial Review might argue in this 1 July 2021 editorial that supplying wheat to a starving China saved millions of Chinese lives, one must also ask how many Australian, New Zealand and USA lives were lost after Australia's wheat fed the bellies of the North Vietnamese Vietcong guerrilla's before they marched into the jungle's of North Vietnam to kill and maim as many Australian, New Zealand and USA soldiers as they could.
I reported to the government that Australian wheat shipped on humanitarian grounds to the People's Republic of China was being redirected to another communist country under the cloak of humanitarian aid. This raises serious questions about the legitimacy of shipping food to a country under the guise of humanitarian aid while that country is killing and maiming the soldiers of the country who are supplying this humanitarian aid.
In December 1967, the Trade Minister Sir John McEwen became Australia's 18th Prime Minister. Other Australian Prime Ministers, namely John Howard, have more recently misled and deceived Australian citizens concerning the Iraq War. This misleading and deceiving of the citizens of Australia has hurt many Australians. The government's refusal to accept what happened in China while delivering Australian wheat as a matter of public interest should be addressed. I am hoping my website, absentjustice.com, will do this.
On and around the first few days in September 1967, after members of the Hopeprak crew, which included me after we had left the Peoples Republic of China, alerted the seaman's union and labour government back in Australia to what we had seen with our own eyes regarding the re-shipping of Australia's wheat to North Vietnam the Australian Senate became interested as the following Senate Hasard dated 6 September 1967 https://shorturl.at/ovEW5 shows.
This Hansard https://shorturl.at/ovEW5 shows Dr Patterson (minister in opposition) asking Mr Aldermann, Primary Industry Minister.
"What guarantees has the Australian Government that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China is not forwarding China [sic] 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.
When I commenced writing My Story – Warts and All and this website, I told the whole story – I didn’t leave bits out to avoid embarrassing myself. To say all of my COT stories, I had to go back in time to show how the phone faults affected my well-being and needed to cover some details regarding an incident involving China.
FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978
In January 2024, for the second or third time since 2021, I read through the paper FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu. Between Footnote 82 to 85 - T Zhu names not only the Hopepeak ship which I was on between 28 June and 18 September 1967 (refer to British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman), he tells the story the way it happened (I was there) not the way the government of the day told it to the people of Australia in 1967 through to the present. The Australian Minister of Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, referred to by Tianxiao Zhu as having stated the British seafarers of the Hopepeak ship were fearful of going back to China, was only an afterthought after being flown from Sydney back to England. When John McEwen knew full well, this was not an afterthought.
Those British seaman had witnessed me on two occasions being frog marched off the Hopepeak under armed guard never to be seen again. I was only seen again because my life was not worth 13,600 tons of wheat still in Australia ready to be loaded on to the Hopepeak for her return voyage back to the Peoples Republic of China. The voyage these British seaman was affraid of (for good reason) if they retuned with the Hopepeak.
Interestingly to note, after the crew was flown back to England (I remained in Sydney), a new crew was flown out at the expense of the ship's owners. Had the ship's crew not proven they had good reason to be fearful of returning to Communist China, the ship owner would not have met the cost of flying the two crews.
If the skipper had not reported my experience and that of another crew member of the Hopepeak at the hands of the Chinese Red Guards, on the Hopepeak's return trip to Sydney, the Commonwealth Police (now called the Australian Federal Police) would not have been waiting on the dockside to interview me and this other crew member on 18 September 1967 when we arrived back.
Both the police and media wanted to know why so many crew members feared returning to Red China. For a ship's crew to all refuse to take the ship to sea because it was to travel to a certain destination is unheard of. This refusal to sail was NO afterthought. I reiterate, If what happened was not true, why did the Commonwealth Police and media meet the ship? The captain and ship owner must have notified them that not all was well even before the ship had berthed.
What is not mentioned in the footnotes by Tianxiao Zhu, is that the Australian Trade Minister misled many people about the seriousness of what had taken place so that the Australian government could continue to sell wheat to Red China.
Likewise, the Commonwealth Police asked me to describe to them the context of what I was forced to write under threat of being shot. They would not have done this had there not been some official acknowledgement from the ship's captain that this was what had happened. Why was I escorted off the Hopepeak under armed guard by the Red Guards and taken to the hospital in the manner I was? I was told I had syphilis, which I knew was highly unlikely, and when I refused to be injected with an unsterilized needle, I caused a scene at the hospital.
Refusing any demand by the Red Guards in the People's Republic of China in 1967 was not something one did for no good reason.
I was placed under armed guard for several days, being regularly threatened as was another crew member who had not taken to lightly to being stopped and forced to recite verses from Mao's Red Bible; the ship's officers helped me compile two different letters addressed to Mao and the People's Republic of China. In those two letters, I apologized for causing a problem at the hospital and for my treatment of the Red Guards, whose treatment of me later was threefold.
What the two ship's officers had written differed from what the Red Guards wanted to say in those letters. A third letter was written under pressure from the Red Guards, 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, as Chiang Kai-shek was against Mao Tse Tung, the 'Second Steward' in charge of the ship's correspondence said I was dead if I did not.
At the suggestion of the 'Second Steward,' he stated it would be more powerful if I wrote ", I disliked America and its invasion of North Vietnam" It was agreed for me to hand deliver this letter to the armed guards as a show of respect (I did what I was advised) fearful of loosing my life over an unsterilized needle).
Before leaving the ship with this letter, the '(Third Officer) on the Hopepeak, who was from Mauritius, pulled me aside and informed me the cargo being unloaded had already been paid for by the People's Republic of China. A further load of similar wheat still in Australia had also been paid for with that money held in transit until the Hopepeak returned with the next shipment.
The 'Third Officer' made it noticeably clear to the Chinese Commander that if I were shot, there would be no further wheat sent to Red China, and the fight over what had already been supplied would be arbitrated on with the ship owners winning on appeal because they had completed their first part of the deal. This threat worked, and I returned from delivering this letter in a daze.
After arriving in Sydney on 17 September 1967, I provided the above and below information to the Commonwealth Police and a newspaper journalist they had been contacted by the ships agent.
While the ship was in China, for twenty-four hours a day, (night and day), we could hear a loud voice coming from speakers attached to flood light poles on the quayside, which allowed the wharf labourers to work through the night. In English (not in Chinese), the voice was making propaganda statements about British imperialism. The constant drone of the propaganda recordings day and night was unnerving. A sentry box had been placed at the bottom of the ship's gangway, where a Red Guard, sometimes two Guards, stood (not sat) to check the credentials of everyone boarding or leaving the ship. The ship's crew, from officers down, were told we could have shore leave but only to visit the Seaman's Mission and a Shop that sold trinkets and large bottles of Chinese-made beer.
No fishing lines were allowed to go over the side of the ship. Some ship's crews were treated differently from others. For reasons not known, our crew was being treated harshly. Rumours had it that two young Chinese girls had been seen on a sister ship to ours and had been shot as prostitutes. Their bodies no longer belonged to The People's Republic of China. Those two bodies left with the sister ship to the Hopepeak. While these were only rumours that may have be why our ship had been singled out.
When I found out who was Australia's Minister of the Army, I wrote to the Minister Malcolm Fraser asking him to ensure Australia refrained from sending more grain back to Red China on the Hopepeak with a new crew. The ship still left for Communist China carrying 13,600 tons of wheat regardless of my pleas. Australia will, of course, never find out how much of that wheat went into the bellies of the North Vietnam soldier's/guerillas before they marched off into the jungles of Vietnam in search of Australian, New Zealand and USA blood.
John McEwen could not afford an Australian public to see behind the stand of the crew of a British ship saying we are not going to be a party to the slaughter of those conscripts that the Australian government forced to forfeit their lives for a few bowls of grain. That's what the crew of the Hopepeak did: put their seaman discharge books on the line, knowing some of them might not be allowed to sail again until an investigation proved them to be of sound judgment for having to been forced to take the cargo they refused to take to Red China aware it was being redeployed to North Vietnam. For a seaman to have their discharge book stamped Voyage Not Completed meant some shipping companies would refuse to employ them. Sir John McEwen (Australia's Trade Minister) turned these British Seaman's bravery into something sordid.File number 114 ⇒ AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 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. The letter indicates how desperate I was becoming. I believe in this letter that Mr Wynack made it quite clear to Mr Blount that he would be more than a little concerned if my allegations were proved correct regarding Telstra deliberately blanking out information on documents previously supplied under FOI and the withholding of relevant documents which discussed my conversation with the former prime minister of Australia. What had Telstra deleted from this discussion?
