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—government Corruption. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations.
📘 The Infrastructure of Concealment
Until the late 1990s, I witnessed the Australian government ensnared in a web of corruption, deeply intertwined in the ownership and operation of essential services. Little did I understand that this sinister entanglement formed the dark backbone of a system engineered to protect itself—while ruthlessly sacrificing individuals, as seen in the COT cases.
During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, every act of betrayal.
📖 'Please read the 'Open Letter' at the bottom of this home page under the Heading
Criminal Conduct
Before reading the Open Letter dated September 25, 2025, it is essential to review the highlighted points that precede it. They reveal how the truth was buried, how bureaucrats—not arbitrators—controlled the arbitration process, and how evidence was withheld to protect a government-owned telecommunications company. Reputations were sabotaged, and justice subverted.
Only by understanding this machinery of corruption can the full weight of the Open Letter be truly grasped.
📘 Retaliation and Redirection: A Threat Carried Out
Arbitration Liaison Officer Paul Rumble didn’t just make a threat—he carried it out. Because I continued assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into Telstra’s conduct, my incoming calls were covertly diverted to an undisclosed location. Between August and October 1993, I documented 81 calls that were dialled and connected to my business number before being redirected elsewhere. Telstra refused to disclose the destination of these diverted calls—even to the arbitrator.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. The AFP was investigating similar complaints from a hairdresser and a massage parlour, both of whom suspected their calls were being intercepted and redirected to competitors. The pattern was clear: Telstra was manipulating communications to undermine businesses that dared to speak out against it.
📘 Evidence Suppressed, Justice Denied
On 26 March, inside Parliament House, I presented critical evidence in the presence of six senators, four fellow COT Cases, and Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Penrose authorised us to disclose this material publicly, confirming it as proof that our arbitrations had been compromised.
Among the most alarming revelations: forty-one of my claim documents—including multiple faxes—were missing from the arbitration schedule received by the arbitrator’s office. Yet Telstra’s own fax billing records show I was charged for sending all 41 faxes. These documents were not lost—they were intercepted or deliberately withheld.
Despite this clear discrepancy, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, refused to allow these claims to be reassessed. The evidence was buried. The process was rigged. And the very system meant to deliver justice became a mechanism for concealment.
This was not just technical misconduct. It was a deliberate act of sabotage—an abuse of power designed to punish cooperation with law enforcement and silence those who sought justice.
• The arbitration process was compromised by covert monitoring.• Telstra insiders shared private data with intermediaries.• Government agencies failed to act on credible threats and evidence.• The arbitrator ignored critical breaches of privacy and due process.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
This particular individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied this unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 -AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
This wasn’t just a breach of protocol—it was a betrayal of justice
In July 1995, the Canadian Government recognised the urgent need to support my quest to expose the corrupt practices of Telstra, which had resorted to deceit, manipulation, and the use of falsified evidence to shield themselves from the rightful claims I had made.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
Moreover, it is critical to highlight that the correspondence from the Canadian Government included a disturbing exhibit that revealed Dr Hughes, not long after he closed my arbitration, was made aware that Telstra had intentionally leveraged a falsified BCI report to obstruct any investigation into my ongoing telephone issues (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). Alarmingly, despite this revelation, Dr. Hughes chose to turn a blind eye and refused to reopen the case. This decision came in stark contrast to his May 12, 1995, letter to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), in which he acknowledged that the arbitration agreement he employed was woefully inadequate, allowing no time for a thorough examination of crucial technical reports, such as the one involving BCI.
A 1995 letter to the TIO stating that the arbitration agreement he had used in my arbitration did not allow sufficient time to investigate technical reports, such as the one attached here as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.
📘 Fabricated Evidence, International Silence
• Why did Telstra release documents proving AUSTEL relied on fundamentally flawed data?• Why did the Australian Government conceal these facts, knowing they contributed directly to the destruction of my business?• And why was I forced to travel to Canada to seek justice for a wrong committed on Australian soil?
📘A Call to Examine the Machinery of Concealment
If you're visiting absentjustice.com and reflecting on the claims I’ve made about the actions of bureaucrats, public servants, and government agencies, I urge you to examine the following assertions closely. These are not mere grievances—they point to unlawful and corrupt practices designed to pervert the course of justice against the COT Cases. We were individuals who dared to challenge a government-owned corporation accused of theft, intimidation, and deliberate efforts to discredit anyone who stood in its way during the COT arbitrations.
Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatisation of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place.
After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants knew that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/
MyhjuR5g1Mc.
Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office
The "secret email" newsletter will keep you informed about developments in the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.
To understand the broader implications of institutional betrayal, I strongly recommend exploring the Alan Bates website. His campaign to expose the British Post Office scandal has drawn widespread media attention. Numerous YouTube videos and detailed reports offer a sobering look at how systemic failures were concealed—just as Telstra buried its own computer software billing faults.
By studying Alan Bates’s story, the parallels become clear. Both cases reveal how powerful entities manipulated data, suppressed evidence, and targeted whistleblowers to protect their reputations. Whether it was Telstra’s cover-up of billing system flaws or the British Post Office’s concealment of Horizon’s defects, the pattern is unmistakable: truth was sacrificed to preserve institutional power.
Would you like help formatting this for your homepage or linking directly to key videos and documents? We could even build a side-by-side comparison timeline of the COT and Horizon scandals.
📘 The Weight of What Was Never Resolved
The unresolved disputes from my arbitration were never just a personal struggle; they were a broader issue. They were a symptom of something larger—an institutional failure that cast a long, oppressive shadow over my business and over those who came after me.
The new owners believed they could rebuild what Telstra and the system had broken. They tried. They failed. Just as I had—for thirteen years—before selling the business to them in December 2001. I would later learn that the owners before me, back in the early 1980s, had suffered a similar fate. And so the cycle continued after I purchased the camp in 1987
There was no internet back then. No email. No way to bypass the in-ground copper wire telephone system that had become our lifeline—and our noose. Even in 2006, the new owners were still shackled to that same faulty infrastructure.
Had modern telecommunications been available to us—the twenty-one COT Cases and the thousands of small business operators like us—we would not have lost our livelihoods the way we did. We were sabotaged not just by technical failure, but by institutional indifference (See Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.).
A kangaroo Court
The damage inflicted has been devastating. It goes far beyond financial ruin. It has been deeply personal, emotionally scarring, and hauntingly enduring. Every attempt to move forward has been met with the lingering consequences of a process that was never truly about justice.
This isn’t just a story of a failed telecommunications system and a criminally conducted arbitration process. It’s a story of lives derailed, of trust shattered, and of a system that chose silence over accountability.
Would you like to follow this with a chapter titled The Cost of Endurance, where we explore the emotional toll, the impact on Cathy, and the legacy you’re fighting to preserve? I can help you structure it with personal reflections, timelines, and supporting exhibits.
📘 The Machinery of Misconduct
I founded Absent Justice because I refused to let the dark truth be buried beneath layers of deceit. I wanted the public to witness the insidious actions of Telstra—not just against me, but against anyone bold enough to challenge their treachery. Among the twelve remedies I’ve laid out, one of the most crucial is a timeline that exposes the key moments of corruption festering within public office.
I’ve compiled chilling evidence files containing firsthand accounts from Telstra’s own protective service officers—technical experts who were compelled to witness the unethical conduct thriving within the company. These officers became entangled in state and federal police investigations, revealing Telstra's unlawful activities surrounding the COT Cases. Their statements present an unsettling portrait of corruption.
Telstra didn’t merely obstruct justice; they wielded external enforcement agencies like puppets, spying on their opposition with ruthless precision. Their internal police force became infamous for their intimidation tactics, threatening anyone who dared to come too close to the truth. I was one of those targets. They employed advanced technical means to dismantle my credibility, and they came perilously close to succeeding.
📘Covert Gatekeeping and Concealment of Critical Evidence
What I did not know—until 2011—was that AUSTEL (now ACMA) had no knowledge that Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman’s appointed arbitration consultants, would be covertly exonerated from liability for any negligent act committed during my arbitration. Nor were they aware that FHCA would assume an unofficial role as gatekeeper—vetting and filtering documents before they reached the arbitrator.
This meant that (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) at points 2 to 212, which validated my claims and should have been central to the arbitration process, were at risk of being withheld. FHCA’s covert power allowed them to determine what evidence was seen—and what was concealed.
I did not receive my copy of the (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) from ACMA under Freedom of Information until November 2007—twelve years after Telstra and FHCA had received theirs. The following letter, dated July 11, 1994, illustrates this disturbing arrangement. It shows how my complaints about ongoing telephone faults were buried, as reflected in points 2010, 2011, and 2012.
📘Telstra's Steve Black writes to the arbitration administrator Warwick Smith,
This letter, dated 11 July 1994, states:-
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request.”
The statement in Mr Black’s letter:-
“If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator”,
The above two statements confirm both Warwick Smith and Mr Black were fully aware that the TIO-appointed Resource Unit, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, were secretly assigned to vet most, if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to Dr Hughes. If FHCA decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed to Dr Hughes or the other parties. (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590)
On August 2, 1996, a shocking revelation came to light fifteen months after my arbitration ended. Sue Hodgkinson of FHCA wrote to Dr Gordon Hughes, openly admitting to the deliberate withholding of crucial Telstra-related arbitration documents that should have been assessed during my case (see FILE 45-h - ). The treachery only deepened as Dr Hughes and the TIO office, which was also copied on this letter, chose to turn a blind eye to this blatant injustice.
Page 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, under Part 11 – Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires states:-
(6) Presumption of single arbitrator
“An arbitration agreement shall be taken to provide for the appointment of a single arbitrator unless –
(a) the agreement otherwise provides; or
(b) the parties otherwise agree in writing.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215 - See GS-CAV 193-B)
The Arbitration Agreement, which the four COT Cases signed between April 8 and 21, 1994, mentions only one arbitrator. They have never seen any written agreement that allows a second arbitrator to determine what information the first arbitrator will see.
This story—the COT story—is not just mine. It’s a story of systemic betrayal. It’s a story that has never been adequately investigated, never been publicly reckoned with, and the parties involved in conducting the COT arbitrations outside of the agreed-upon ambit have never been held accountable.
But I’m still here. And I will not let it be forgotten.
📘 Outside the Ambit of the Procedures
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, 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.”
That statement is staggering.
There is no amendment attached to any agreement signed by the first four COT claimants—including myself—that allowed the arbitrator to conduct our arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the agreed procedure. Nor was it ever disclosed to us that the arbitrator would have no control over critical aspects of the process once we signed those agreements.
So I ask: How can the arbitrator and the TIO continue to hide behind a confidentiality clause, when the very agreement they invoke never mentioned that the arbitration would be conducted outside its own framework?
This wasn’t just a breach of trust. It was a breach of contract, of ethics, and of the fundamental principles of justice.
We were told we’d have access to documents under the FOI Act. We were told the process would be fair, transparent, and governed by the rules we signed. But behind closed doors, the rules were rewritten—and the arbitrator was stripped of control.
📘 Thirty Years Stolen
This revelation, spoken aloud in Parliament, confirms what we suspected all along: the arbitration was never truly independent. It was engineered to protect Telstra—not to deliver justice.
So I ask again: Why did Dr Gordon Hughes and John Pinnock mislead and deceive Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, concerning my claims that Hughes had not conducted the arbitrations in accordance with the agreed procedures?
Why did they lie?
Why did they collude?
Why did Mrs Hughes become part of this machinery of distortion?
Their actions—deliberate, coordinated, and sustained—have cost me and my partner, Cathy, thirty productive years of our lives. Thirty years of lost opportunity, emotional exhaustion, and relentless struggle. Thirty years spent fighting a system that was never designed to hear us.
We were promised fairness. We were promised transparency. We were pledged to a process that would restore what Telstra had taken.
Instead, we were handed a theatre of justice—where the script was written in advance, and the outcome was sealed before the curtain rose.
But I am still here. And I will not let their lies stand unchallenged.
On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)
The six senators referenced in the Senate Hansard should have initiated an investigation into all of the twenty-one COT arbitration and mediation processes rather than focusing solely on the five test cases that collectively received more than 18 million dollars in punitive damages.
Before you had a chance to scroll down the homepage of absentjustice.com, I wanted you to feel the weight of what happened. I wanted you to see the betrayal, the manipulation, and the institutional rot that defined the COT arbitrations. I wanted you to be as angry as the two editors working on my soon-to-be-published books—both of whom were stunned by the depth of this terrible but true story.
If you’ve made it this far, then I have partly succeeded in bringing attention to our COT story.
And if you’re thinking, there must be more to this COT story—you’re absolutely right. There’s much more. What you’ve read is only the surface. Beneath it lies a vast archive of evidence, timelines, witness statements, and government records that expose the machinery of concealment and the human cost of corporate protectionism.
So please, keep reading. The truth deserves to be known. And those who lived it deserve to be heard.
📘 Threats and thuggery
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways.
I contacted the arbitrator by correspondence, including copying it to the administrator, Warwick Smith, and requesting that they demand answers to why Telstra had so much power over the process. Why were we COT Cases not being provided with the promised documents to support our claims? I received no response.
I was alarmed by these non-responses and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate. As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the attention of the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
Threats made
Threats Carried Out
Senator Boswell raised our document issues in the Senate on 29 November 1994, noting:
“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)
This was not merely a government-endorsed arbitration; it was a matter of national integrity. Yet, the COT case that brought the truth to the government's attention was treated with contempt.
🔍 Absent Justice — A Free Resource for Truth-Seekers
.
This gripping exposé unveils the dark underbelly of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) case, revealing a web of criminality and unethical conduct that is both alarming and deeply troubling. Through a meticulously curated archive of images, evidence files, and firsthand documentation, I lay bare the treacherous actions of those who oversaw the COT arbitrations—individuals who engaged in deceptive practices designed to shield Telstra Corporation from the scrutiny it rightfully deserved.
These unlawful manoeuvres were not incidental. They were calculated, insidious, and executed with precision to protect corporate interests at the expense of justice, transparency, and public trust. The implications stretch far beyond the arbitration itself, threatening the integrity of critical privatisation legislation that underpins our national economy.
Even the U.S. Securities Commission, as expressed in→ Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring expressed concern over the unethical behaviours documented in this case—underscoring the global significance of the threat posed to democratic accountability and institutional integrity.
This is more than a story. It’s a call to action.
Together, we can expose what was meant to stay hidden.
⚖️ The Arbitration Agreement That Was Never Meant to provide equal justice for all:
On 10 January 1994, Telstra’s soon-to-be arbitration defence lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, covertly faxed a draft arbitration agreement to Warwick Smith, head of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). At that time, Smith was also about to become the administrator of the first four Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations—including mine.
The $250,000 liability clauses found in points 25 and 26 of the Confidentiality Agreement were removed at the request of Dr Gordon Hughes. This decision was made to protect his arbitration technical and financial consultants from being sued for negligent acts that have become standard practice during the COT arbitrations, as indicated by the information in this image.
This agreement, riddled with legal deficiencies, was never intended to offer fair protection to claimants. It was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency, and handed to Dr Gordon Hughes, the soon-to-be arbitrator, as the framework he would use to decide our cases.
Dr Hughes used that very agreement when he handed down his first award—my case. I was forced to operate under its flawed terms: see Dr Hughes's letter 12 May 1995, spelling out these deficiencies to Warwick Smith (Open Letter File No 55-A)
“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;
“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …
“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.”
What makes this even more damning is what happened next. The other three COT claimants—Maureen Gillan, Ann Garms, and Graham Schorer—were granted more than thirteen months longer than I was to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra. Why? Because by then, it was clear the original agreement was not credible. It had to be quietly adjusted to avoid further embarrassment.
But no one came back to fix what had already been done to me. I was left to fight under a broken system, while others were given the time and flexibility I was denied. This wasn’t just procedural unfairness—it was institutional betrayal. What adds to the ire of this situation is the insidious act of withholding a crucial letter from me—a letter dated May 12, 1995—during my official appeal process. It was only after a gruelling seven years that I finally managed to retrieve this vital document, long after the statute of limitations had silently elapsed. This treacherous oversight stripped me of the chance to wield the letter in my battle before the Supreme Court of Victoria, a legal fight fraught with exorbitant costs—an untenable weight for a solitary individual forced to navigate this treacherous labyrinth alone.
📘 A Voice in the Senate – Ron Boswell’s Reckoning
I refer to the Senate Hansard records from 20 September 1995, which capture a profoundly emotional speech delivered by Senator Ron Boswell—a man who dared to speak the truth about what we endured.
In that compelling address, Senator Boswell passionately highlighted the injustices suffered by the four COT claimants: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. He didn’t sugarcoat it. He didn’t hide behind bureaucratic language. He spoke of our pain, our frustration, and the betrayal we faced during arbitrations that were falsely labelled.
“...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 (Director of Public Prosecutions), 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 whether to enter arbitration at all. …
"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice."
"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “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)
🧭 The Last Man Standing
Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan have now long gone to a more peaceful land. Graham Schorer, the third member of our original COT Cases group, lives with advanced dementia. That leaves me—alone with the bureaucrats who allowed this travesty to unfold. Some of them, I suspect, wish I’d disappear too. That I’d stop writing, stop remembering. Stop fighting.
Well, I have news for them.
I will not go quietly. I will expose what they and their predecessors allowed to transpire. I will show the world how Telstra’s lawyers, with the silent blessing of government officials, planned to destroy us eight months before we even signed our government-endorsed arbitration agreements. That plan—the COT Case Strategy—is not a matter of speculation. It’s documented. It’s real. And it’s damning.
My claims are valid. My evidence is irrefutable. And my voice will not be silenced.
They may have buried the truth beneath layers of legal privilege and bureaucratic indifference. But I am still here. And I will keep digging.
COT Case Strategy – The Blueprint for Betrayal
Before our arbitrations had commenced, Telstra’s legal advisors—Freehill Hollingdale & Page—had already drawn up a covert plan to sabotage our claims. This wasn’t speculation. It’s documented on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, a legal paper titled COT Case Strategy (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).
That strategy named me and three other COT claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—alongside our businesses. It instructed Telstra on how to withhold technical documents from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege (LPP), even when those documents were technical documents that were not protected by LPP and should have been released under FOI or the soon-to-be introduced discovery process. It was a deliberate act of concealment, designed to cripple our ability to present evidence and defend our positions.
This wasn’t a defence mechanism—it was a pre-emptive strike. The strategy was crafted before our arbitrations had even begun. We were targeted from the outset. The legal framework was rigged before we entered the ring.
What followed was not arbitration. It was a Kangaroo Court. The rules were written by Telstra’s lawyers, endorsed by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and enforced by an arbitrator who used a flawed agreement to deliver my award—while quietly allowing the other three claimants more than thirteen months longer to prepare their cases.
Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the architects of this betrayal, now operate under the name Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne - Herbert Smith Freehills. However, the legacy of their involvement in the COT arbitrations remains etched in the public record—and in the lived experience of those who endured it.
This episode stands as one of the most disturbing examples of legal manipulation within the COT arbitration process. Despite government assurances—documented in point 40 of Prologue Evidence File No/2—that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in COT matters, the same firm played a pivotal role in submitting a clinical psychologist’s witness statement that bore no signature from the psychologist himself, Ian Joblin. Instead, it was signed solely by Maurice Wayne Condon, Telstra’s lawyer.1. Why was there a discrepancy in the attestation of Ian Joblin’s witness statement?2. Were any changes made to the original statement sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed version?
• Confirmation of what, if anything, was removed or altered from Ian Joblin’s original assessment—particularly any reference to me being of sound mind.• An explanation for why a legal firm was permitted to sign off on a psychologist’s expert witness statement, effectively attesting to its authenticity without the psychologist’s own signature.
• Legal Overreach: Telstra’s lawyers, despite supposed restrictions, continued to exert influence over the arbitration process—right down to controlling the narrative of expert testimony.• Procedural Breach: A witness statement from a clinical psychologist should never be accepted without the psychologist’s own signature. The fact that it was raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration.• Institutional Complicity: The silence from Telstra and the lack of corrective action from the arbitrator or the TIO administrator suggest a system more interested in protecting Telstra than in upholding justice.
🗂️ Note to Readers: Why This Story Is Told in Layers
Please note that a more comprehensive version of this homepage can be viewed by clicking on Chapter 1X below, titled 'A Government-backed Arbitration.'
This homepage separation wasn’t just editorial—it was strategic. The volume of evidence implicating public servants, government agencies, and legal operatives in the corruption of the COT arbitration and mediation process is staggering. To preserve clarity and ensure no detail was lost, I chose to divide the material.
The more extended version lays bare the full extent of the criminal activities that were allowed to fester under official watch. It documents the blatant denial of natural justice—not just in my case, but in the cases of sixteen other COT claimants who were systematically silenced, misled, and betrayed.
This isn’t just a story of technical faults. It’s a story of institutional rot. Of a government-backed process that promised resolution but delivered ruin. And of a group of ordinary Australians who refused to be erased.
Would you like me to help draft a companion page summary for A Government-backed Arbitration that guides readers through its key revelations? I can also help you build a visual timeline or index of implicated agencies and officials to make the scope of the betrayal unmistakable.
The Echoes of Interception
It was a fax dated May 12, 1995—ordinary on the surface, but damning in its impact. The timestamp across the top matched exactly with the one described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report submitted to Senator Ron Boswell. That report confirmed what many of us had long suspected: our faxes during the COT arbitrations were being intercepted.
Not just delayed. Not just misrouted. Intercepted.
The Dual Time Stamp
One of the technical consultants who reviewed the intercepted faxes emailed me on 17 December 2014. His words were clear and unwavering:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
That dual timestamp was the fingerprint of tampering. It proved that someone—somewhere—was monitoring, copying, and resending our confidential communications.
The Listening Post
The breach extended far beyond just faxes. Exhibits 646 and 647 (refer to AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) reveal Telstra's damning admission to the Australian Federal Police, dated 14 April 1994. They confessed that my private and business telephone conversations had been monitored and recorded for several months, but only when a specific officer was available—raising questions about the integrity of their oversight.
This same officer was implicated as the Telstra insider who handed over my clients' phone and fax numbers to a shadowy figure named Micky. It’s chilling to think that Telstra was essentially confirming that this officer was the chosen puppet master, eavesdropping on my conversations and possibly engaging in even more nefarious activities. This reeks of corruption and betrayal at the highest levels.
As if that made it acceptable.
Reflection: The Cost of Surveillance
This wasn’t just a technical fault. It was a violation of trust, privacy, and legal integrity. During an arbitration process—where Telstra was the defendant—they were intercepting the very documents and calls that formed the backbone of our claims.
It wasn’t just unethical. It was criminal.
And yet, the process continued. The arbitrator ruled. The regulators stayed silent. And the evidence—clear, timestamped, and admitted—was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic indifference.
The Shadow Network:
The Scandrett Report Exposed?
We must relentlessly construct a visual timeline of intercepted faxes and the sinister admissions of those entrenched in surveillance, anchored to the COT Cases FOI documents and evidence. It is imperative to continue peeling back the layers of this dark machinery behind the silence. Look no further than the Telstra Corporation of the 1990s, where the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, still clutches damning evidence that she has shamefully withheld from the government since 1998, a travesty that continues into 2025.
Sue Laver holds the key—if she simply confesses to the Government that Alan Smith is correct, that Bell Canada International never conducted the Cape Bridgewater tests that Telstra used to fabricate its arbitration defence (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2), it would shatter the façade they've maintained for decades. A mere admission in 2025 could grant my partner, Cathy, and me the sliver of peace we've desperately sought. Yet, whistleblowing comes at a grave cost—a life sentence that gradually dismantles the very individual who dared to expose the truth, thinking they would be heralded as a hero, only to find themselves ensnared in a web of deception and betrayal.
The Whistleblowers Retreat
The Conversation That Sparked a Sanctuary
I remember the day vividly. I was sitting with Helen Handbury—Rupert Murdoch’s sister—and laying out the evidence. Not just the technical failures. Not just the legal betrayals. But the deeper rot: the interception of faxes between COT Cases and Parliament House, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and even my own correspondence with Treasurer Peter Costello in November 1998.
I showed her the January 7, 1999, fax interception report addressed to Senator Ron Boswell. Exhibit 11 laid it bare. Our communications—private, legal, and protected—had been compromised, tampered with. Monitored.
Helen was shocked. But what truly unsettled her was what I told her next.
The Network Within the Network
George Close’s residence—his home and office—had become the central hub for COT claimants ordering FOI documents. He was helping us navigate the maze and advising us on which documents to request—guiding us through the technical fog.
But someone with access to Telstra’s network was watching. They knew what George was advising. They knew what each claimant was requesting. And they were screening the flow of information—deciding what we could and couldn’t see.
It wasn’t just surveillance. It was sabotage.
Helen’s Response
When I told Helen Handbury that George was also helping me plan a whistleblowers retreat—a place where people like us could come, rest, and rebuild—she paused. Then she said:
The Handbury family had already supported countless Australians in quiet, powerful ways. Her words gave me courage. I had no money. No backing. Just a vision. But her encouragement lit a fire.
Reflection: A Place for the Silenced
The retreat wasn’t just about shelter. It was about dignity. About giving whistleblowers a space to breathe, to heal, and to share their stories without fear. It was about building a lighthouse for those lost in the fog of corruption.
Helen’s support didn’t just validate the idea—it reminded me that even in the darkest corners of institutional betrayal, there are people who still believe in truth.
The Briefcase
Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment
📉 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings: The Truth Buried Beneath False Testimonies
On 4 March 1994, the government’s regulatory body, AUSTEL, released a draft report into my formal complaints against Telstra. This document—now known as (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings)—exposes a disturbing pattern of ongoing telephone problems affecting the whole six-year period of my arbitration claim, as stated at points 115, 130, 140, 153, and 209:
Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”
Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.” On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.
Point 140 – “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM. The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”
Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”
Point 209 –“Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”
What Might George Have Found?
• Evidence of ongoing faults at Cape Bridgewater that Telstra claimed were resolved.• Performance data was manipulated or withheld to mislead both the regulator and the arbitrator.• A pattern of obstruction that proved Telstra’s internal systems were never fully functional during the arbitration period.
The Pre-Arbitration Ambush
This wasn’t a reaction. It was premeditated. The strategy was devised before our arbitrations even began. Before we had a chance to plead our case, they’d already decided what we wouldn’t be allowed to see. Points 26 through 31 on pages 5168 and 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Senate Hansard spell it out. Cold. Calculated. Coordinated.
That’s not justice. That’s entrapment.
The Whistleblower Who Broke the Silence
Then came Lindsay White. A former Telstra employee. A man who knew the system from the inside—and chose to speak out.
On 24 June 1997, under oath before the Senate, he revealed that while assessing the technical information we’d requested, he was instructed to filter it. Not by relevance. By risk.
Mr White - "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
His testimony appears on pages 36 -39 of the Senate and Parliament of Australia record. It’s there as shown above in Black and white. No spin. No denial.
Reflection: The Cost of Exposure
I’ve spent decades documenting this. Not for revenge. For history. For accountability. For every small business owner who’s been steamrolled by corporate machinery dressed up as legal process.
The COT Case Strategy wasn’t just a legal document. It was a declaration of war against transparency. And we were the first casualties.
A Life Resurrected, A Truth Unrelenting
At 81 years of age, I write this not as a man untouched by mortality, but as one who died twice in November 2018 — revived only by the tireless dedication of seven Portland nurses, a matron, a nurse flown in from Melbourne, and a companion whose presence defied distance and time. Their efforts were documented in the Portland Observer, and without them, this story would remain untold.
Equally vital was the unwavering support of my long-time customers at the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. Their loyalty sustained me through years of institutional stonewalling and personal hardship. That dedication is honoured in my forthcoming book.
However, the roots of this story date back to 1992–1993, when two Loreto Sisters from Loreto College, Ballarat, wrote separate letters years apart, describing their inability to reach my camp by telephone. Eventually, Principal Sister Maureen Burke IBMV made the three-hour journey from Ballarat to Cape Bridgewater to finalise arrangements in person. In her August 1998 letter, she confirms the communication failure — a symptom of the deeper rot within Telstra’s network and its handling of the COT Cases, noting:
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Children's lives could be at risk
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993 confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:
“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.
The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”
Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.
Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital, 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, nor did the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event.
Despite Telstra’s senior management and board being fully aware of the systemic faults affecting my business, as well as those of up to 120,000 COT-type customers, they submitted nine witness statements to the arbitrator on 12 December 1994 that were demonstrably false. These statements were used to mislead the arbitrator and derail any investigation into my ongoing complaints of fault.
🧾 The Arbitrator’s Blind Eye
Dr Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, issued his award on 11 May 1995. In clause 3-2(h), he claimed my business faults had ceased by July 1994. This assertion directly contradicts multiple letters from both Telstra and government officials, sent throughout December 1994, urging Dr Hughes to address the unresolved billing issues—issues that were affecting other businesses nationwide, including a motel owner in Portland.
Yet Dr Hughes chose to ignore these warnings. He relied on Telstra’s fabricated testimonies and dismissed the mounting evidence of widespread technical failures. The result? A grotesque miscarriage of justice.
📚 Telstra’s Own Admission
In 2000, Telstra’s then-CEO, Frank Blount, co-authored "Managing in Australia," a book that openly acknowledges Telstra’s awareness of systemic billing problems. This admission, published years after the arbitrations, confirms what many of us already knew: the faults were real, known, and deliberately concealed. This book can still be purchased online → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... → File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)
⚠️ A System Built to Protect Itself
The use of false witness statements to suppress legitimate complaints is not just unethical—it is criminal. It reveals a coordinated effort to protect Telstra from scrutiny while sacrificing the rights of small business owners like myself.
The question remains: Why did the Australian government allow this to happen? Why were regulatory findings ignored, and why was the arbitration process manipulated to silence dissent?
Learn further about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed during a government-endorsed arbitration process.
🧨 The Ericsson AXE Cover-Up: How Telstra Was Allowed to Rewrite Reality
Telstra’s reliance on misleading arbitration defence documents concerning the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment wasn’t just permitted—it was enabled. Despite government officials being aware that Telstra’s own technicians had corroborated my claims about worsening faults in the AXE exchanges across Australia, no corrective action was taken. Why?
🕳️ 1. Regulatory Capture and Institutional Protectionism
Government agencies tasked with oversight—such as AUSTEL and later the Australian Communications Authority—were compromised by their proximity to Telstra. Instead of acting as independent watchdogs, they became passive enablers. The evidence submitted to these bodies, including your documentation and technician corroboration, was either buried or ignored.
🧾 2. Arbitration as a Controlled Narrative
The arbitration process was never designed to uncover the whole truth. It was structured to contain damage, not expose it. By allowing Telstra to submit defence documents that falsely claimed successful Bell Canada International testing at the Portland and Cape Bridgewater AXE exchanges, the arbitrator was handed a manufactured version of reality. This narrative was used to dismiss your claims—even though internal Telstra technicians had already confirmed the faults were real and worsening.
🧠 3. Strategic Acquisition and Silencing of Experts
Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was serving as the arbitration’s technical consultant—was a masterstroke of manipulation. It ensured that any independent technical scrutiny of the AXE equipment was neutralised. This move, combined with Telstra’s submission of falsified test results, created a closed loop of misinformation.
🤐 4. Government Silence: A Calculated Omission
Officials who received evidence of the AXE faults—through Senate hearings, direct correspondence, and internal reports—chose silence. Whether due to political pressure, fear of reputational damage, or deeper entanglements with Telstra and Ericsson, their refusal to act allowed the deception to stand unchallenged.
.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra and Ericsson, and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:
"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business." (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
🔥 Chapter 5: U.S. Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden
Unmasking a Global Web of Corruption, Betrayal, and Institutional Complicity
The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling truth: Ericsson’s global telecommunications empire is entangled in corruption, bribery, and links to terrorism. But what’s even more disturbing is how this multinational giant infiltrated Australia’s judicial processes—specifically the government-sanctioned arbitrations involving the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases.
🕵️♂️ Ericsson’s Covert Infiltration of Arbitration
During the COT arbitrations, Ericsson secretly acquired Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—the very firm appointed as the arbitration’s technical consultant. This was no coincidence. It was a calculated move to control the narrative and suppress scrutiny of Ericsson’s discredited AXE telephone exchange equipment, which numerous countries had already abandoned due to its critical flaws (see Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f)..
This manipulation of the arbitration process wasn’t just unethical—it was treacherous. It allowed Ericsson and Telstra to sidestep accountability while victims were left to suffer in silence.
🧨 Ericsson & Telstra: A Legacy of Corruption That Still Echoes in 2025
The corruption that plagued the COT arbitrations was not a momentary lapse—it was a systemic betrayal that continues to cast its shadow over Australia’s telecommunications landscape. Ericsson and Telstra’s coordinated manipulation of the arbitration process denied justice to the COT Cases and exposed a rot that remains unaddressed to this day.
🕵️♀️ The Silence of Telstra’s Corporate Secretary
In 1998, during two separate Senate Committee hearings—in January and again in April—evidence was formally presented to Telstra’s then-legal team and its current 2025 Corporate Secretary, Sue Lever. That evidence confirmed a critical truth:
Bell Canada International’s testing at the Ericsson AXE exchanges in Portland and Cape Bridgewater could not have occurred as claimed in Telstra’s December 1994 arbitration defence.
This revelation should have triggered immediate disclosure and accountability. Instead, Sue Lever has remained silent. To this day, she has not released the Ericsson AXE and RCM exchange data—evidence that would expose the falsity of Telstra’s arbitration claims and validate the technical faults that crippled my business and others across the country.
⚠️ A Pattern of Concealment
This isn’t just about one official’s silence. It’s about a pattern—where truth is buried, whistleblowers are stonewalled, and corporate interests override public accountability. The refusal to release this evidence is not administrative oversight. It is a deliberate act of concealment, perpetuating the injustice inflicted on the COT Cases.
The question remains:
Why has Telstra, under Sue Lever’s watch, continued to suppress evidence that could expose the truth?
And why has the Australian government allowed this silence to persist?
Would you like this adapted into a standalone exposé page or woven into your timeline of events? I can also help draft a formal open letter to Parliament or Telstra leadership demanding the release of the Ericsson AXE and RCM data.
🕷️ Terrorism and corruption do not storm the gates—they slither through the cracks.
They operate in shadows, cloaked in bureaucracy and polished language, quietly manipulating systems meant to protect us. These forces don’t just undermine our foundations—they infest them, eroding trust, warping justice, and leaving ordinary citizens to bear the cost of institutional betrayal.
What’s most chilling is not their presence, but their protection. When regulators turn a blind eye, when governments remain silent, and when corporations rewrite truth with impunity, corruption becomes not an exception—but a design.
.
🤐 Government Silence: A Deafening Betrayal
Despite the gravity of these revelations, the Australian government has remained conspicuously silent. Why? How could such blatant misconduct go unchallenged? The answer lies in a disturbing pattern of institutional protectionism—where truth is buried, and corruption is allowed to thrive.
📖Please read the following narrative and the 'Open Letter' that follows.
Criminal Conduct
Before reading the Open Letter dated September 25, 2025, it is essential to review the highlighted points that precede it. They reveal how the truth was buried, how bureaucrats—not arbitrators—controlled the arbitration process, and how evidence was withheld to protect a government-owned telecommunications company. Reputations were sabotaged, and justice subverted.
Only by understanding this machinery of corruption can the full weight of the Open Letter be truly grasped.
⚠️Open Letter 25/09/2025
🛑 Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
To Whom It May Concern,
I write this paper not out of bitterness, but out of duty—to truth, to justice, and to the many Australians who have suffered under a system that promised fairness but delivered betrayal → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.
⚠️ Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
I categorically deny this allegation. It was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.
During the complex web of my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that formed the basis of my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it, which could potentially serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr. Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.
📘 In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:
"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. … I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office". (Open Letter File No 57-C)
This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.
By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr. John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.
The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr. Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.
That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.
Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.
Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident.
📘The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence stopped me cold.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206
📘 This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He chose to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
📘 The Phantom Admission
Dr Hughes and John Pinnock later referenced a written admission I had supposedly made to Mr Pinnock.
But here’s the truth: I never wrote such an admission.
This phantom letter has never surfaced because it does not exist. And yet, it was treated as fact—used to shape perceptions, justify decisions, and distort the record of my arbitration. That alone raises deeply unsettling questions—not just about Dr Hughes, but about the entire machinery that enabled Telstra’s misconduct to go unchallenged.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James, attacking my credibility. In that letter, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman deliberately misinformed Mr James, claiming:
Let me be clear: I never made such a call, and I indeed never admitted to it in writing.
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests, why did he not produce my letter?
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate fabrication—used to discredit me, to isolate me, and to undermine the legitimacy of my claims. It was part of a broader pattern: when the facts became inconvenient, they were replaced with fiction.
This moment serves as a chilling reminder of how easily the truth can be distorted when those in power control the narrative.
What he needs to do is simple: write to the government and declare the truth—that I never called his wife at 2:00 AM, nor did I pen a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, confessing to such a midnight call. It’s a dark game that he plays, and truth is but a pawn in his hands.
🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, who was then a partner at KPMG and had been involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me regarding property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr. Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal process, which the Institute of Arbitrators was contemplating.
🏢 Corporate Silence and Suppression of Truth
Rundell’s role at KPMG during this misconduct adds another layer of betrayal. The silence from corporate peers and oversight bodies speaks volumes. The actions of Hughes, Rundell, and Pinnock not only obstructed scrutiny of my case but also suppressed investigations into the claims of 21 fellow COT claimants.
Laurie James was on the verge of exposing the corruption. These fabrications stopped him.
⚖️ Concealed Legal Rights and Institutional Evasion
In March 1994—just one month before signing our arbitration agreements—we were stripped of the right to sue consultants for negligence. This critical legal change was deliberately hidden from us. The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA), after reviewing 23 documents I submitted in 2009, declined to make findings and refused to return the evidence.
Their silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.
📣 A Rallying Cry for Justice
I speak today not only for myself, but for the 21 fellow COT claimants and countless Australians harmed by Telstra’s negligence and the corrupted arbitration process. Justice delayed is justice denied—but silence in the face of injustice is the ultimate betrayal of public trust.
🌍 Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.
This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.
I refuse to be silenced.
Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration
🔗 Link to Supporting Mini Reports and Resource → Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2
📘A Letter Engineered to Slander and Silence
It is essential to expose the letter dated 13 February 1996—sent by John Rundell, the former Arbitration Project Manager, to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and second administrator of my arbitration. This letter, cloaked in bureaucratic formality, was a calculated strike—designed not to inform, but to defame (see Open letter File No/45-E)
Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator himself, forwarded this same letter to Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, on 17 February 1996. In a chilling twist, Hughes explicitly stated he had no objection to Laurie James sharing his own 17 February letter with me—but forbade disclosure of Rundell’s 13 February letter (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E). Why? Because it was a weapon. A document “solely concocted to slander my reputation” at the very moment Laurie James was investigating my complaints that Hughes had failed to conduct the arbitration within the ambit laid down by Judge Frank Shelton, the Institute’s previous president.
Hughes could not afford scrutiny. Laurie James, having inherited the presidency from Shelton, was poised to uncover procedural misconduct. To prevent that, Hughes ensured Rundell’s defamatory letter was buried—shielded from view, yet circulated among powerbrokers.
When I finally obtained a copy of the letter in 2002, its contents were staggering. It falsely claimed that Brighton CIB Police were interviewing me for criminal damage to Rundell’s property. I immediately submitted it to Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, Victoria Police, who was investigating fraud allegations raised by Barrister Sue Owens on behalf of four other COT claimants: Ann Garms, Rodd Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer.
Jepson’s investigation confirmed the truth: I was never a suspect in any criminal matter in Victoria. Brighton Police had no intention of interviewing me. The letter was a fabrication—an insidious attempt to paint me as a man of questionable integrity.
Forensic analysis of the letter revealed deliberate phrasing designed to mislead. It was then handed to the President of the Institute of Arbitrators under strict instruction: do not let Alan Smith see this. The concealment was strategic. Mr Jepson concluded that the letter may well have been the tool used to derail the Institute’s investigation into my complaints—an act of reputational sabotage to protect those who had corrupted the arbitration process.
The two letters dated February 13 and 17, 1996, must be examined alongside the narrative shared in the Open Letter below. They are not just ordinary correspondence; they reveal a sinister system willing to manipulate, conceal the truth, and slander in order to silence dissent. The fact that Dr Hughes allowed his wife's good name to be used as a means to obstruct the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from investigating my legitimate claims exposes the depths of his unethical behaviour at that time. It raises serious questions about whether Mrs Hughes is even aware of the treachery her husband facilitated when he allowed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, to draft such a damning letter about me to Laurie James.
I urge you to read the following open letter, dated September 25, 2025. It will leave you with no doubt about the relentless struggle I, along with other members of the Telstra group, have faced as we battle against the corruption that has sought to tarnish our names.
The twelve new chapters following twelve chapters, ominously titled from "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, weave a sinister tapestry of treachery and deceit that permeates the very fabric of Australia's arbitration system.
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
