WELCOME TO ABSENTJUSTICE.COM
Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.
Where the facade of accountability collapses — and the truth finally steps into the light.
Venture into the shadowy world of the Establishment in Australia through the unsettling pages of absentjustice.com. This deep dive reveals that a similar nefarious Establishment may be lurking in your own country, exerting ruthless control over who is deemed worthy of membership. If you are lucky—or perhaps unlucky—enough to be accepted into this so-called elite circle, prepare to navigate a treacherous landscape of sinister expectations and obligations to keep your place among them.
If the evidence documented here matters to you — if you believe that corruption, regulatory failure, and institutional betrayal must be confronted, not buried — then I urge you to support Transparency International Australia!. Your contribution helps expose the injustices that have been ignored for too long. It strengthens the fight for a democracy where truth is not optional, accountability is not negotiable, and ordinary Australians are not left to battle powerful institutions alone.
Karina Barrymore, the journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, wrote on 3 August 2016
“Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It’s insightful how the words used to describe a whistleblower are so negative.
“Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government."
“So why aren't we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives."
"Apparently we only demand truth and honesty from our youngest children - a fairytale told to toddlers in a short term attempt to let them believe it's normal to be honest and ethical. Despite dutifully telling our children not to lie, Australia's society quickly shows them otherwise."
"In the real world, people are allowed to do what they like, be as dishonest as they like, steal, rip off and lie as often as they like, especially our corporate leaders and politicians. And the higher up the totem pole these liars and cheats climb the more willing we are to brush off their wrong-doing."
"And it never fails to shock me just how far the liars and wrong doers are prepared to go to keep their dishonesty hidden and keep their own reputations unsullied. Their first and most lethal weapon of choice is attacking the messenger. Never is this modusoperandi more obvious than in the investment and finance worlds. Big money often means big bad behaviour."
We only have to see how little has been done about the financial advice scams, insurance rip-offs, lending shonks and investment rorts involving our biggest and supposedly best banks and financial institutions, to know that if you're a big enough bad guy you'll get away with it."
"But why, as a country, do we allow this?"
"Why are we so beaten down that can't insist this corporate and political culture is changed. The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job either.”
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process, which became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.
The Arbitrator
Available to purchase at Promote Your Story
I have chosen the following narrative to introduce my story,
"The Arbitraitor "because not only did I receive moral support from the Canadian Government to keep seeking the truth—which gave me some peace of mind during the difficult period immediately following the premature conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995—but I also received an unexpected phone call that became a turning point.
In late 1992, I took the initiative to present evidence of systemic billing problems to Amanda Davis, who was then AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs. I vividly remember showing her two of her own non-connected calls to my business—calls that she personally recognised had not gone through. However, both her billing account and Telstra’s CCAS data clearly indicated that she had been charged for these failed connections (see Evidence File 5 - Testimonials). It was shocking to see that, despite holding concrete proof of Telstra's erroneous billing practices, Ms Davis's influential bureaucratic role was abruptly terminated shortly after she began pursuing this matter with Telstra and AUSTEL.
This internal email from Greg Newbold to several Telstra executives failed to recognise that Telstra was a publicly owned corporation at the time of the statement.
“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
1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin ?2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?
🧾 The Witness Statement That Shouldn’t Exist
The original witness statement bore only the signature of Telstra’s lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon. It was submitted without the psychologist Ian Joblin’s signature—a glaring omission that should have halted its acceptance. Yet, just eight days later, a second version emerged, now featuring Joblin’s signature, retroactively dated to match Condon’s original signing date.
This raises a disturbing question: if Ian Joblin did not sign the document on that day, how did his signature appear on a version processed through arbitration channels as if he ha
Now it is 2026, and I remain without a response from Telstra or John Pinnock. This pervasive silence only underscores the sheer treachery and corruption that define this entire ordeal.
The collusion does not end there. In 1999, Frank Blount, who served as Telstra's CEO from two years before my government-endorsed arbitration until three years after its completion on May 11, 1995, co-wrote a book titled *Managing in Australia*, where he laid bare the extent of these horrific systemic billing problems. Ironically, the book remains available for purchase, even as the reality of this corruption festers. Absentjustice.com → CAV Exhibit 92 to 127) Exhibit 122-i -
This collaboratively written book by Frank Blount of Telstra explores crucial issues arising from the investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange into the authenticity of Telstra’s sale prospectuses. As these documents came under scrutiny, questions emerged about whether they truly reflected Telstra’s true value. This scrutiny was fueled by the shocking discoveries from the COT Cases, which uncovered the troubling history of Australia’s largest companies during a time rife with corruption. Particularly alarming were revelations that millions of dollars were being siphoned from Telstra each year while the company was under government control. The act of blowing the whistle and sharing these critical truths on absentjustice.com has not come without significant personal and financial repercussions for everyone involved in the COT Cases, affecting many beyond just me.
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 Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact of this withholding 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 its investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged in a civil arbitration.
Why did Dr Hughes, the government-appointed arbitrator, fail to report these threats to the Supreme Court of Victoria, under whose auspices the arbitration was conducted, especially after Telstra implemented these threats?
Australian Senate Hansard, (see COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia page 125), records Senator Schacht stating:
I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra? → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring
The government was fully aware of a devastating computer glitch lurking in Telstra's billing software, a painful reality that cast a long shadow as privatisation loomed. The real question was: how could they possibly reveal in the prospectuses that both the government and Telstra had been complicit in hiding these billing issues, which were wreaking havoc on businesses across Australia? The situation grew even murkier when it became clear that the government had deliberately concealed this critical information from the courts and various arbitrators who were evaluating these losses in numerous legal battles.
In a particularly treacherous move, AUSTEL tampered with its official findings in the AUSTEL COT Cases Report. They deceitfully stated that there were only 50 or so COT Cases with ongoing problems, feeding this false information to the COT arbitrator and the media in April 1994. This was done despite AUSTEL's prior correspondence with Telstra, which acknowledged the government's drastic reduction of an alarming 120,000 COT-type faults to a mere 50 or more (see Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN → (See Open Letter File No/11).
Such a significant distortion of facts should have been exposed in the prospectus, yet it remained buried.
What would have happened if the US Securities Exchange had been privy to this hidden scandal regarding the COT Cases in 1997? It’s chilling to think about. At the very least, the arbitrator overseeing my cases would have been forced to revisit the awards he rendered, based on a web of deceit spun from false government information. The treachery runs deep, and the stakes are incredibly high.
The Government assured the COT Cases that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in their cases. However, Freehill was not only selected by the Government to act as Telstra's arbitration defence counsel, but they were also chosen to draft the Telstra sale legislation, as discussed throughout absentjustice.com.
Criminal Conduct Example
COT Case Strategy - Freehill Hollingdale & Page's legal strategy.
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.
• A legal firm accused of altering evidence.• A government that acknowledged mistrust but continued to rely on them.• An international audience that might have acted differently if the truth had been disclosed.
Before you immerse yourself in the unsettling narrative to follow, it's imperative to grasp a chilling reality: when you search for "The Establishment" on Google, the answers you receive will differ wildly based on your geographic location and national context. However, the underlying truth remains dark and foreboding: for over three hundred years, the Establishment has manipulated the legal system of justice in the Western world, ensnaring it in a web of deceit and corruption. This manipulation occurs through a calculated practice: the government of the day appoints key legal figures—Attorneys General, judges, and magistrates—who are often nothing more than puppets in a sinister game, serving the interests of those who pull the strings from behind the scenes.
The reality is that the four individuals mentioned at the beginning of this story → The first remedy pursued are alleged to be pivotal players in this treacherous Establishment in Australia. Whether this claim stands up under scrutiny is irrelevant; what is irrefutable is the grim fact that across three decades, every government in power in Australia from 1996 to 2026 has turned a blind eye to the lies and misconduct of these four individuals. This wilful ignorance has wreaked havoc, destroying countless lives and ensuring that the callous dominion of the Establishment remains unchallenged.
As you read on, I urge you to recognize the profound and insidious nature of the power wielded by these individuals. Their influence is a nefarious power over the truth itself, shrouded in shadows and deceit. It begs an ever‑pressing question: who truly holds the reins of responsibility for the integrity of the legal system in Australia? Reflect on this as you navigate the dark undercurrents of the story that lies ahead.
The Consequences of Concealment
The concealment trapped me beyond the statute of limitations, leaving me powerless to challenge the arbitrator’s decision once the truth finally surfaced in 2007. This was not a mere oversight—it was a deliberate manipulation that protected Telstra’s interests at my expense. The betrayal by AUSTEL/ACMA and the government undermined the integrity of the arbitration process and left me questioning the very foundations of a system that is meant to uphold justice.
📖 Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued"
In 2026, Dr Gordon Hughes is Principal Lawyer of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp
Rather than confront the horrifying reality that he had lost control over four arbitrations involving me and three other Australians, Hughes orchestrated a campaign of calculated destruction. He did not stumble into dishonour — he engineered it. With his wife either a willing conspirator or a silent accomplice, they twisted a trivial moment into a monstrous fabrication: a grotesque lie that I had made a 2:00 AM phone call to her. This was no misunderstanding. It was a weapon forged in malice, designed to paint me as a predator in the night, a demon to be feared, and to suffocate any investigation into Hughes’s own corruption within the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
The abyss deepened when John Pinnock, Australia’s second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, joined this insidious conspiracy. In a deceitful letter to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Pinnock shamelessly implicated me, alleging I had confessed in writing to the fabricated call. I never wrote such a letter. The lie was pure invention, a phantom conjured to dismantle my existence. And yet, Pinnock never produced this supposed confession — because it did not exist. The truth was buried beneath layers of deceit, and the silence of institutions became their accomplice.
The first remedy pursued have long been aware that the allegations levelled against me were baseless. Yet this knowledge did nothing to stop the machinery of influence from grinding into motion. Instead, it created the perfect conditions for a deeply troubling sequence of events — a sequence in which Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, appeared to be steered away from any genuine inquiry into my complaints against Dr. Gordon Hughes.
Even more disturbing is the role played by the false narrative surrounding Dr. Hughes’s wife. Her good name, as I experienced it, was weaponised — not to uncover truth, but to shut it down. This tactic, in my view, was not accidental. It was calculated. It was cold. And it revealed just how effortlessly the Establishment can close ranks when it suits them.
What unfolded was not merely a bureaucratic failure. It was a demonstration of the quiet, insidious power that entrenched institutions can wield in Australia. It showed how easily they can, intentionally or otherwise, allow an innocent person to be buried under suspicion for decades — not because of evidence, but because protecting their own mattered more than uncovering the truth.
To me, this was corruption in its most chilling form: not loud, not chaotic, but deliberate, coordinated, and sustained. A reminder that when powerful networks decide to look the other way, justice can be smothered without leaving a fingerprint
Viewing Evidence File 6 AFP Official Orders exposes a question that cuts to the bone: Why did Dr. Gordon Hughes endorse the findings of Neil William Holland, a forensic examiner funded by Telstra to prop up their dishonest arbitration defence, while I was denied the right to engage Paul Westwood, a respected independent expert → Tampering With Evidence File No 6? How did a government‑owned corporation gain permission to submit a forensic report, yet block me from professionally challenging it? The stench of corruption, bias, and manipulation is unmistakable.
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
There is no amendment to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, that allows the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside the agreed procedure?
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
If I truly am the sole victim ensnared in the treacherous web of his deceit regarding the wife of an Australian arbitrator, then why has the Australian government intentionally chosen to vilify me in such an unconscionable manner? Several officers within the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police have illuminated a chilling reality: the arbitration agreement that Maureen Gillan—the first claimant in the four COT Cases—signed on April 8, 1994, contained confidentiality clauses that were intact at the time of signing, and this was the agreement that gained the explicit approval of the government. Yet, in a sinister turn of events, it was later altered to create a protective veil for the arbitrator's consultant, shielding them from any negligent actions, deliberate or otherwise. This corrupted version of the agreement is now ruthlessly employed to stifle any investigation into my allegations of wrongdoing, revealing a shocking betrayal of justice at its core.
In essence, the Establishment is actively shielding the four individuals named in the evidence file of the first remedy pursued, all while relying on a confidentiality agreement that should have been categorically declared null and void when the three claimants—myself, Ann Garms, and Graham Schorers—were ruthlessly coerced into signing it. It is a grim reality that several Senators are aware of, as we were lured into the arbitration process under the false promise that we would gain access to essential arbitration discovery documents if we surrendered to signing this nefariously altered agreement. This entire scenario exemplifies a flagrant betrayal, where those in power prioritise their own corrupt interests over justice, leaving victims like me to navigate a dark and twisted world of treachery.
And just as in the Vietnam era, the consequences were borne not by the officials who engineered the failures, but by the citizens who trusted them. Ordinary Australians — small business owners, farmers, families, veterans — were left to navigate the fallout of decisions made behind closed doors by individuals who would never feel the impact of their own misconduct.
This is the legacy of bureaucratic betrayal: it repeats itself across generations unless it is confronted, exposed, and held to account.
As Australian wheat shipments reached the shores of a starving China, a dark and troubling decision emerged from the shadows of bureaucratic halls: only part of this precious grain was to be fed to a nation in desperate need. The rest was quietly redirected to North Vietnam — effectively feeding the enemy.The corruption within our government was stark. Bureaucrats disregarded the humanitarian purpose behind sending wheat to China, and they failed to secure any agreement preventing this essential food from being diverted elsewhere. This was not simply an oversight; it was bad governance of the highest order. Australia had already been warned that earlier wheat shipments had been redeployed to North Vietnam, yet no stipulation was made to prevent a repeat of the same betrayal. It revealed a disturbing disregard for the Australian people and for the sacrifices made by our allies.
It was as if the decision‑makers were willfully blind to the consequences of their actions — prioritising political advantage over humanitarian need. In doing so, they fed the very forces that threatened our allies and our way of life. This betrayal by those in power exposed a chilling indifference to the lives at stake, revealing a sinister undercurrent within the administration that left many questioning their motives, their judgment, and their integrity.
It was unequivocally wrong to dismiss the readily available evidence contained in the ship's log of the Hopepeak. Equally troubling was the fact that I was nearly shot for being a spy, merely for trying to gather intelligence and report back to Australia about the destinations of our wheat once it was offloaded in China.The People's Republic of China
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting
In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.
It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.
As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.
A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange
After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.
Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.
At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.
To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”
And maybe, just maybe, that was enough. British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman. → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2
In essence, the Australian government faced an agonising moral dilemma — weighing the lives of its soldiers engaged in the conflict in North Vietnam against the desperate need to provide sustenance for an entire nation teetering on the brink of starvation. This heart-wrenching choice highlights the often-unseen complexities of international relations and humanitarian crises, revealing the painful calculations made in the pursuit of survival.
Footnote 83, 84 and 169 → 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
Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83, 84, 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.”
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 others 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 of 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."
The Canadian Government and Its Moral Code of Ethics
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image below, 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 maimed — 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 supporting a nation that was opposing Australian, New Zealand, and USA forces.
Examining this wheat agreement made with the People's Republic of China during the Menzies government in the mid‑1960s is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications that were obscured by a government campaign to discredit British and Canadian merchant seamen — including me. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam.
Instead of receiving praise and support for their stance, they were slandered by the Liberal Coalition government of the time. Twenty-seven years later, the same government allowed five Australian citizens — out of twenty-one who had faced similar challenges with Telstra — to have their arbitration claims assessed by the Senate under a litmus test scenario. If the Senate ruled in favour of the litmus test case, the remaining sixteen claimants would be treated equally in that agreement. However, the Coalition government did not honour this understanding. (Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).
The Coalition government followed with a similar campaign, reminiscent of the slanderous tactics they employed during the Communist China episode in 1967. They labelled the claims of the sixteen COT cases as frivolous and referred to the individuals involved as vexatious litigants.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. (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."
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."
• In Shanghai, I was frog‑marched off the ship under armed guard by Red Guards, accused of being a spy, and forced to write letters under threat of execution.• The Commonwealth Police met the ship in Sydney on 18 September 1967, confirming the seriousness of what had occurred.• British crew members refused to sail the ship back to China, fearing for their lives. A new crew had to be flown from the UK at the shipowner’s expense.• Despite these warnings, Australia continued to send wheat shipments, knowing some of that grain was being redeployed to North Vietnam.
• Wheat shipments had gone ahead despite warnings.• Australian conscripts had fought and died in Vietnam.• Bureaucrats and ministers had ignored both political foresight and lived testimony.
• The Ericsson AXE Exchange Scandal — regulators ignored systemic telecommunications faults, leaving businesses crippled.• The corrupted COT arbitrations — bureaucrats allowed Telstra to run the process, conceal evidence, and destroy small businesses.• The Robodebt scandal — officials ignored legal advice and harmed vulnerable citizens.• The Home Insulation Program — rushed implementation led to deaths, fires, and wasted millions.
Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.
“... As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”
“the arbitrator will make his determination on reasonable grounds as to the link between the claim and alleged faults drawing reasonable inferences from the material presented by the claimant and Telecom the arbitrator will set out his reasons in full”
Gaslighting
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining, even though the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.
It is essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter attached as document (See File Ann Garms 104 Document) dated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.
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. (rb.gy/dsvidd).
Call for Justice
My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this battle has unfolded through various institutions, including elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the telecommunications behemoth Telstra—or Telecom, as it was known at the time this story began. The quest for justice continues to this day.
My story began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea—where I had spent the previous 20 years—was over. I needed a new, land-based occupation to carry me through to retirement and beyond. Of all the places I had visited around the world, I chose to make Australia my home.
Hospitality was my calling, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. So imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age. Nestled in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland, it seemed perfect. I conducted what I believed was thorough due diligence to ensure the business was sound—or at least, all the due diligence I was aware of at the time. Who would have thought I needed to check whether the phones worked?
Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were telling me they had tried to call but couldn’t get through. That’s right—I had a business to run, but the phone service was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, completely absent. Naturally, we lost business as a result.
The Camp was profoundly reliant on phone communication. It was our vital link to city dwellers eager to connect with our services. One of our most significant oversights—blinded by the charm of this coastal haven—was failing to investigate the existing telephone system. At the time, mobile coverage was virtually nonexistent, and business was conducted through traditional means—not online, and certainly not by email.
We soon discovered we were tethered to an antiquated telephone exchange, installed more than 30 years earlier and designed specifically for 'low-call-rate' areas. This outdated, unstaffed exchange had a pitiful capacity of just eight lines.
• My fight began simply: to secure a working phone service.• Despite compensation promises, the faults persisted. I sold my business in 2002, but the new owners suffered the same fate.• Other small business owners joined me—we became known as the Casualties of Telecom.• All we ever asked: acknowledgement, repair, and fair compensation. A working phone—was that too much?
During a typical week, the picturesque Cape Bridgewater was home to 66 residential families—not including those who used their coastal retreats to escape the bustle of city life. This created a significant challenge, especially considering many of these families had children.
The eight service lines struggled to support a growing census of 130 adults and children. By the time a modern Remote Control Module (RCM) was finally installed in August 1991, twelve children had been added to the mix, bringing the total population to 144. However, various weekend visitors often brought that figure to 150 or more.
The Hidden Cost of Cape Bridgewater’s Failing Lines
No wonder I was financially broken by the end of 1988—barely a year after taking over the business in late 1987. The reality was brutal: Cape Bridgewater’s telecommunications setup was catastrophically inadequate.
In stark terms, if just four of the 144 residences were making or receiving calls, only four lines remained for the other 140 residents. That’s not just poor planning—it’s a systemic failure. My business was strangled by a network that couldn’t support even the most basic communication needs. Every missed call was a missed opportunity. Every dropped connection was another nail in the coffin of a venture I had poured everything into.
We stepped into this complex landscape of limited connectivity and coastal beauty with ambition and optimism. The Camp was more than a business—it was a dream made real. A serene retreat where the stress of city life could dissolve into the ocean mist. However, as we quickly learned, dreams require infrastructure to thrive.
Our phone lines became both our lifeline and our most significant obstacle. Booking inquiries, supply orders, emergency calls—even simple conversations with clients—all had to pass through those eight fragile channels. During peak times, the lines were constantly engaged. Guests complained they couldn’t reach us. Suppliers missed confirmations. Opportunities slipped through our fingers like sand.
A Conspiracy of Silence: The Betrayal Behind the Arbitration
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.
It is December 2025, and Steve Black, along with Telstra, has still not released the promised documents he said Telstra would provide at the meeting discussed below.
The Arbitrator & the Corruption of Arbitration in Australia
Introduction: A System Built on Betrayal.
The arbitration system in Australia was sold to us as fair, transparent, and government-endorsed. In reality, it was anything but. The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) was supposed to be independent, yet time and again it bent to political and corporate influence. What should have been a safeguard for justice became a weapon of betrayal.
The COT Cases: Cracks in the System (1990s)
Back in the 1990s, the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases exposed the rot. Telstra and government officials withheld documents, misled arbitrators, and left claimants fighting blind. Arbitrators ignored evidence that should have been central to their rulings. The result? Ordinary Australians were systematically disadvantaged while Telstra and its allies walked away untouched. Those cases proved one thing: when corporate power colludes with political silence, justice collapses.
The Telstra Briefcase Incident (1992–1993)
I saw this corruption firsthand. Two Telstra executives left an unlocked briefcase in my Cape Bridgewater office. Inside were documents that revealed Telstra’s board and management were orchestrating a campaign to mislead the public. They knew their copper wire network and Ericsson equipment were faulty. Overseas, this equipment was being ripped out of exchanges. Here in Australia, Telstra kept rolling it out, putting vulnerable customers at risk.
When I raised these issues, the arbitrator ruled that the faults had no impact on my business viability. That wasn’t negligence—it was complicity. Later, documents dated July–December 1992, formalised under the Freedom of Information Act, confirmed what I already knew: I had been deliberately misled about the reliability of my service for years.
Continuity of Corruption: 2020–2025
Some people like to believe this corruption was confined to the past, resolved in the 1990s. They’re wrong. Between 2020 and 2025, the same practices continued: altered court documents, perjury, and even allegations of criminal activity within government ranks. In both State and Federal Parliament, betrayal runs rampant. Colleagues are destroyed through malicious falsehoods, just as claimants were destroyed during the arbitrations. The corruption didn’t end—it mutated.
The Human Cost
This wasn’t just about faulty equipment. It was about lives. My business was dismissed, my credibility undermined, and my livelihood jeopardised. Customers were left exposed to dangerous infrastructure while Telstra and government officials escaped accountability. The human cost of this betrayal is immeasurable.
Conclusion: The Arbiitraitor’s Legacy
The arbitration system failed because it was never truly independent. It was corrupted by political and corporate influence from the start. The COT Cases peeled back the layers, but the treachery has only deepened since. My role now is to document the truth, to ensure these betrayals are not forgotten, and to empower others to challenge the silence.
Reflections on Democracy and Accountability
My struggle was never just about me. It was about whether democratic systems can be trusted to uphold transparency, fairness, and accountability. Canada’s handling of the Cape Bridgewater report, and Australia’s willingness to allow witnesses to be compromised, revealed a disturbing truth: when powerful interests are threatened, the rule of law bends. It delays. It ignores.
So I ask you, my readers, to consider this: do we truly live under systems that protect the vulnerable and hold the powerful to account? Or are we expected to accept corruption disguised as process, silence masquerading as resolution?
For me, the answer is clear. The COT arbitrations were neither transparent nor unbiased. They were riddled with sinister machinations. And while I continue to fight for the return of my rightful documents, I also fight for something larger: the principle that truth must never be buried, and that democracy cannot survive if corruption is allowed to flourish unchallenged.:
"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.”
This article was quite alarming. It was disturbing because Peta Credlin, someone with deep knowledge of Parliament House in Canberra, has accurately addressed the issue at hand. I not only relate to the information she presents, but I can also connect it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have encountered since exposing what I did about the China wheat deal back in 1967, and the corrupted arbitration processes of 1994 to 1998. These government stuff-ups and cover-ups have cost lives.
Artificial intelligence (AI) poses a dire threat to the integrity of several legitimate Casualties of Telstra (COT) claims, undermining the Australian government's commitment to a transparent review process. Disturbingly, unscrupulous government bureaucrats have deliberately manipulated and falsified information for the Department of Communications and Information Technology (DCITA). This deceit has been weaponised to obliterate the credibility of the COT claims against both the DCITA and Telstra, casting a shadow over our entire governance system.
Between 1997 and 2005, the Australian government's privatisation of the Telstra Corporation unfolded as a dark chapter in the nation’s history. During this crucial period, powerful government bureaucracies engaged in a systematic and sinister purge of archival records, particularly those connected to the COT Cases (Customers of Telstra). This alarming erasure of information has far-reaching consequences and raises profound concerns about the integrity of governmental oversight. Pete Credlin’s media release on May 21, 2021, serves as a haunting reminder of the treachery at play, shedding light on the disturbing implications of this disregard for transparency.
The extent of this archival cleansing was not merely negligent; it was a calculated effort to obliterate any evidence that could implicate Telstra in wrongdoing toward its citizens. When the government turned to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) to assess claims made during the review process led by Honourable Senators Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan, they were met with an eerie silence—no evidence of misconduct by Telstra could be found. This staggering absence of accountability stands in stark contrast to the grave realities revealed in the COT Cases review documents, which exposed alarming issues that had been tragically ignored in the official assessments.
To further illustrate this chilling scenario, consider that the evidence utilised by government assessors—drawn from these meticulously cleansed records—bears no resemblance to a confidential 1994 report detailing similar grievances. This earlier document likely harboured critical truths that were ruthlessly suppressed, raising unsettling questions about the motives driving the review processes and the lengths to which some may go to protect powerful interests.
As the nursery rhyme chillingly states, “The cupboard was bare,” symbolising a void of truth that has been intentionally created. Fast forward to 2026, and we find ourselves facing a world steeped in paranoia, where the very fabric of reality is under assault. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has commenced a frightening erosion of the lines between truth and deception. In less than two decades, the ability to discern truth from fiction may vanish entirely, leaving individuals vulnerable to unsubstantiated claims—particularly when pitted against fabricated narratives generated by AI.
The Deal
The most disastrous deal ever struck by any government — a deal that treated its own citizens as little more than dart‑board targets — stands as a monument to failure. It was crafted not to heal old wounds but to drive the blade deeper, ensuring that past conflicts would fester rather than fade. Instead of offering reconciliation, it inflamed grievances that had already scarred generations, widening a rift of mistrust and animosity that may never fully close.
This ill‑conceived pact has become a bitter legacy, a stark reminder of how easily the pursuit of personal or political gain can descend into collective ruin. It shows, with painful clarity, what happens when those in power choose expedience over integrity, and self‑interest over the people they are sworn to serve.
For a harrowing examination of the undercurrents of the 2006 DCITA government review process surrounding the COT Cases—one that involves Senators Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan—please click the following link → “The eighth remedy pursued”. The implications of this story reach far beyond a mere administrative oversight; they echo the treachery that can lurk, unchecked, within the corridors of power.
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.
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.
