No Donate Button—But a Call to Action
If, while reading this narrative, you find yourself wondering where the donate button is—there isn’t one.
This website does not seek personal donations. Instead, if you believe this work presents a compelling case for justice and equity within Australia’s arbitration system, and if you see value in the research, evidence, and advocacy behind it, I invite you to support a cause that aligns with these principles.
Consider donating directly to Transparency International Australia. Your contribution will help raise awareness of the injustices that threaten our democracy and support efforts to hold institutions accountable.
This work is offered freely, driven by a moral obligation to expose the truth. But the fight for transparency is bigger than one voice—it needs all of us.
A brief overview
For decades, the Australian government held absolute control over the nation’s telephone network through its wholly owned communications carrier, Telecom — now privatised and rebranded as Telstra. This monopoly, unchecked and unchallenged, allowed the network to rot into a state of disrepair. However, the true betrayal came not only from neglect.
When citizens sought justice through a government-sanctioned arbitration process, they were led into a rigged arena — a façade of fairness masking a brutal, one-sided war. The very system designed to resolve our grievances became a weapon against us. Our broken services were deliberately excluded from resolution, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars we had invested in our claims.
What unfolded was not mere bureaucratic failure — it was a campaign of calculated sabotage. Crimes were committed against us. Our reputations were smeared, our integrity dismantled. We lost our businesses, our savings, and our mental health. And yet, those responsible — the architects of this deception — remain shielded by power, untouched and unaccountable.
To this day, the truth is buried. Our story is suppressed. The cover-up continues.
🕱 Turning Point: The Moment the Mask Slipped
“Why would one of Australia’s most respected lawyers, his KPMG-linked project manager, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman conspire to deceive the President of the Institute of Arbitrators?” Refer to "The first remedy pursued"
Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.
As you penetrate these opening paragraphs, a chilling question will undoubtedly arise: Why would government officials deliberately choose to enter into a convoluted and legalistic arbitration agreement—one surreptitiously crafted by the very lawyers for the defendants—rather than appointing an independent body, as our government and legal representatives cynically assured us? What sinister influence lurked within the government corridors to compel Dr Hughes, the chosen arbitrator, and Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the overseer of the supposed government-endorsed arbitration process, to unscrupulously abolish the $250,000 liability caps that had been a cornerstone of one of the four COT Cases, signed on April 8, 1994? Why were we, the beleaguered participants in COT Cases—including Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and myself—forced into signing an altered agreement that stripped away these crucial liability caps? The pressure was unmistakably coercive: refuse to sign this nefariously modified document, and Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith would withdraw from the process entirely, leaving us isolated and powerless against an unforgiving system.
Discrimination
This entire ordeal epitomises the most insidious form of corruption. Even more alarming, two months after we were compelled to accept these underhanded changes, the $250,000 liability caps were reinstated in the agreements of the remaining twelve COT Cases—a manoeuvre executed without our knowledge. These revamped agreements would become the standard for anyone in Australia attempting to arbitrate with Telstra. The original $250,000 liability caps were crucial, as they allowed claimants to pursue legal action against the arbitrators' consultants for gross negligence during the claim assessment process. Yet, as the evidence laid bare on this site demonstrates, negligence was not merely a possibility—it was a blatant reality that contaminated my experience and threatened our very pursuit of justice.
Dr Gordon Hughes, John Rundell, and John Pinnock—the second-appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—three men entrusted with integrity—collaborated to issue known false statements to Laurie James, then-President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a coordinated strike, launched just as Mr James began investigating my evidence of fraud, bias, discrimination, and gross misconduct by all three.
Once you’ve read my Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued", you’ll begin to understand why this betrayal has weighed on me for thirty years. Living with the knowledge of what these men did—and how the system shielded them—is a torment I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
⚖️ False Allegations and the Fabrication of Criminal Suspicion: A Legal Turning Point
In 1998, amidst a whirlwind of investigations into serious allegations of fraud, the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group seconded me to assist in a particularly high-profile case that had captured public attention. Barrister Sue Owens brought forth the allegations on behalf of four individuals entangled in the COT Cases arbitrations—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ross Ploughmen, and Ralph Bova. Their claims painted a complex and troubling portrait of deceit and misconduct within the arbitration process.
During this turbulent period, I informed Mr. Neil Jepson, a barrister with the Major Fraud Group, of a deeply unsettling development: John Rundell, who had served as the Arbitration Project Manager for my arbitration from April 1994 to May 1995 and was now a representative of KPMG, had officially contacted John Pinnock, the second-appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Rundell’s letter designated me as a suspect in an alleged case of criminal damage involving his property in Brighton, a suburb in Victoria. The letter claimed that the Brighton police Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) were either preparing to interview me or had already begun inquiries into damage that supposedly occurred prior to Rundell’s letter dated 13 February 1996.
By December 1998, I had not been interviewed by police, raising serious concerns about whether this lingering accusation—now two years old—might hinder my ability to assist the Major Fraud Group in their broader inquiries.
Mr. Jepson acknowledged that my status as a suspect could complicate my involvement and potentially make it inappropriate for me to participate in their investigations. To clarify the situation, he promptly contacted the Brighton CIB to discuss the contents of Rundell’s letter. Unsurprisingly, the officers at Brighton CIB were entirely unaware of me and confirmed that my name did not appear in any records related to criminal damage in the State of Victoria.
After uncovering these revelations, I notified John Pinnock of what had transpired and expressed the need for an apology—not only regarding the Rundell property issue but also concerning two other unresolved matters that had persisted for two years. I received no response.
🖋️ A Pivotal Moment in the COT Chronology
I later discovered that Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case, had sent a copy of Rundell’s 13 February 1996 letter to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, instructing him not to disclose its contents to me. Feeling compelled to address the fallout from this troubling episode, I wrote to Dr Hughes seeking an apology for the correspondence he had forwarded. I emphasised that receiving this apology could be crucial in persuading the Institute to revisit its earlier dismissal of investigations into his conduct as arbitrator. Unfortunately, I received no response from Dr Hughes.
As you reflect on the troubling facts concerning Dr Gordon Hughes, John Rundell, and John Pinnock, consider the implications of what these three Australian citizens did—not only to me, but to many others across the country whose businesses collapsed or whose lives were irreparably damaged. Had these individuals come forward in 1995 and demanded an investigation into the conduct of the COT arbitrations, the outcomes might have been vastly different for all those affected by their silence and complicity..
But this is only the beginning, as the following twelve chapters below, titled "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page" to "The Promised Documents Never Arrived" show.
This moment marks the rupture. The mask of legitimacy slips, revealing the grotesque machinery beneath. If you continue to scroll, you’ll see how deep the rot goes—and why the COT story is not just mine, but a national reckoning waiting to happen.
🕷️ The Architects of Deceit: Australia’s Legal Underworld Unmasked
Descend into the abyss of Australia’s institutional corruption—a ruthless syndicate of bureaucrats, legal operatives, and political puppeteers who have weaponised the very systems meant to protect the innocent. This is not mere negligence. It is a calculated orchestration of betrayal, where the overseers of justice are the engineers of its demise.
These so-called investigators—tasked with exposing corruption—are in fact its architects. Their inquiries are grotesque performances, designed to suffocate truth beneath layers of procedural theatre and bureaucratic fog. Victims are not heard; they are buried. Their evidence is not examined; it is entombed.
The monstrous betrayal is laid bare in three separate investigations into my formal complaints lodged with the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) in 1996, 2000, and 2009 (Refer to "The eleventh remedy pursued". Each probe revealed damning evidence of corruption by the arbitrator and the arbitration administrator, who simultaneously held the role of Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Yet between July and November 2009, despite receiving 23 bound spiral files of irrefutable evidence, the IAMA refused to act. Worse, they refused to return the files, even when I demanded they be handed to a mutually agreed-upon legal firm. That evidence—now publicly available in (Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2)—remains suppressed.
These individuals continue to practice law and arbitration in Australia and Hong Kong, shielded by a system designed to protect the powerful and silence those who have been betrayed. The very mechanisms of justice have been hollowed out and repurposed into a fortress of deceit.
Words like “shameful” and “treacherous” are feeble against the venom coursing through the COT arbitrations. This is not justice delayed—it is justice assassinated. The system is rigged, fortified against scrutiny, and cloaked in the false authority of legal process. It crushes dissent, buries truth, and perpetuates injustice with surgical precision
⚖️ Integrity on Trial
Such bold statements raise profound questions regarding the integrity and veracity of Telstra's claims. When public messaging and sworn testimony diverge so dramatically, the issue is no longer technical—it becomes ethical, legal, and deeply personal.
The twelve narratives that follow serve as a seamless continuation of the content mentioned on the homepage above. It has been thoughtfully edited to enhance clarity and engagement, with the latest revisions completed on October 15, 2025. This update brings fresh insights and refined details to ensure that the reader is fully immersed in the experience we aim to convey.
The second part of this narrative, titled "Confronting Despair," is a continuation of the above homepage, which we have now condensed for easier reading.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
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."
📬 A Letter That Could Have Opened The Floodgates Had I Exposed It To The Media
Seven days after receiving the 7 July 1995 letter from the Canadian Government, I was surprised to receive further rewarding correspondence—this time dated 15 July 1995, from Amanda Davis, General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL. Her letter expressed deep concern about the treatment we, the four COT cases, had endured before and during our government-sanctioned arbitrations. It was a pivotal moment. Amanda’s words opened the door to a deeper investigation, one that would involve multiple ministers and expose the rot beneath the surface.
“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 )
🏛️ Senate Shock: The Truth Behind the Numbers
‘Senator Boswell’s meeting with Amanda Davis was not just a meeting — it was a reckoning. The evidence she presented, much of which is now publicly available on absentjustice.com, was damning. It exposed a grotesque betrayal of public trust and a systemic cover-up orchestrated at the highest levels.
AUSTEL, the very body entrusted with regulating telecommunications in Australia, had publicly claimed there were only “around 50” COT-type complaints nationwide. But this was a deliberate lie. The truth — buried and suppressed — was that over 120,000 Telstra customers were suffering from the same unresolved, debilitating telephone faults. This staggering figure was not a mistake. It was intentionally erased from the official record at the behest of Telstra.
Telstra, the corporate giant under investigation, dictated terms to its own regulator. AUSTEL’s Chairman, rather than defending the public interest, capitulated to Telstra’s demands, reducing the number of complaints to a mere “hundred or more.” This manipulated figure was then fed to the COT Cases' arbitrator, ensuring the arbitration process was built on a foundation of lies.
This is not just regulatory failure — it is state-sanctioned corruption. AUSTEL, now rebranded as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), carries the legacy of this betrayal. If it could be so easily compromised in 1994, what guarantees do we have that it cannot still be manipulated today?
On September 20, 1995, Senator Boswell stood in the Senate under the banner of “A Matter of Public Interest.” His voice trembled with fury as he laid bare the treachery of AUSTEL’s bureaucrats. He named the victims — Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me — and exposed the corrupt arbitration process that destroyed lives while shielding the powerful.
This was not mere negligence. It was a calculated conspiracy, a betrayal of justice, and a chilling reminder of how deeply corruption can infect the institutions meant to protect us.
“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)
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
