Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Privacy Policy

Corporate Corruption vs Immoral Corruption 

Examine the deeply troubling landscape of government dysfunction surrounding the Australian government’s handling of claims, particularly in cases where citizens challenge the opaque and inconsistent system governing service‑delivery obligations. A striking example of this disparity involves Rupert Murdoch, who renounced his Australian citizenship to become a U.S. citizen in order to expand his media operations. When Telstra — then a government‑owned telecommunications carrier — failed to meet its contracted service obligations to Fox, the resulting disruption to Fox’s business operations led to a compensation payout reportedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This outcome raises serious questions about how the government prioritises and resolves disputes involving powerful commercial entities.
 
In stark contrast, several ordinary Australian citizens entered into agreements with Telstra under the belief that the company would provide essential telecommunications services necessary for their businesses to function. When Telstra failed to meet those obligations, these individuals were forced into a government‑endorsed arbitration process intended to protect their rights and ensure accountability. Instead, they found themselves at a disadvantage at every turn. Rather than receiving compensation for Telstra’s service failures, many were left burdened with substantial legal costs and financial penalties — effectively punished for Telstra’s inability to deliver the very services it had contractually promised.
 
To understand the gravity of this imbalance, it is necessary to examine the broader network of relationships between influential legal, political, and corporate figures operating at the time. Some individuals who played key roles in shaping the regulatory and commercial environment later moved into senior positions within major media organisations, including Fox‑related entities. This overlap of interests — while not inherently improper — highlights the structural vulnerabilities within Australia’s governance framework. It underscores how easily transparency can erode when powerful institutions operate within interconnected circles, leaving ordinary citizens exposed to processes that lack fairness, independence, and genuine accountability.

Absent Justice - TF200 EXICOM telephone

 

In February 1996, while Hughes and Pinnock were weaving a complex web of deceit to mislead Lauria James about my claims and those of Garry Ellicott—a Senior Detective Sergeant in the Queensland Police and a former National Crime Authority officer—Telstra was carrying out a sinister plot. They tampered with evidence related to my claim after it left my premises, introducing a damaging substance to undermine an investigation into their own corrupt practices. This fraudulent act, now referred to as "Tampering with Evidence," was a calculated move by Telstra to deceive the arbitrator into believing that I had no ongoing telephone issues impacting my business.

Point 3.2 (h) of the arbitrator's award chillingly states that my business had no further phone faults after July 1994—just weeks after Telstra's laboratories executed this deceitful scheme. Their malicious fraud shifted the balance in their favour. The evidence file I submitted in November 1995 was irrefutable and remains so in 2026. Yet, in their relentless pursuit to protect Telstra from the consequences of its unethical actions, Hughes and Pinnock blatantly deceived Lauria James. Their complete disregard for justice and truth illustrates the depths of their treachery and complicity in a corruption that festers within our institutions.

The following four examples illustrate clear, factual, and well-documented cases of government-linked corruption or deception from the last 30 years—one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from Australia. Each case demonstrates how such misconduct has caused real harm and eroded public trust. All four examples can be easily found through Google search results, highlighting the importance of discussing corruption openly. I’ve presented them in a direct, sober tone that aligns with my research on absentjustice.com, focusing on the human cost involved.

 
1. United States — Misuse of COVID‑19 Relief Funds (2025)
In 2025, several high‑ranking U.S. officials were exposed for diverting emergency COVID‑19 relief funds — money intended to keep families, small businesses, and community services alive during the crisis — into private pockets. One of the most striking cases involved John Diehl, former Missouri House Speaker, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud after diverting $379,000 of federal pandemic relief funds for personal use. Another case involved Andrew Hoang Do, a former Orange County official who accepted more than $550,000 in bribes in exchange for steering over $10 million in relief funds to preferred entities.
 
These were not victimless crimes. Every dollar stolen was a dollar denied to struggling families, frontline workers, and small businesses fighting to survive. The betrayal deepened public cynicism at a time when trust in institutions was already fragile. When leaders exploit a national emergency for personal gain, the damage extends far beyond the financial loss — it corrodes the belief that government can be relied upon in moments of crisis.
 
2. Royal Commission Robodebt Scheme (2015–2023)
One of the most devastating examples of government deception and unconscionable conduct in Australia’s recent history was exposed through the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which delivered its findings in 2023. The Robodebt program, introduced in 2015, used an automated debt‑recovery system that unlawfully issued debt notices to hundreds of thousands of Australians — many of them vulnerable, unemployed, disabled, or already struggling to survive. The scheme reversed the burden of proof, forcing innocent people to prove they did not owe money, even when the government had no lawful basis for claiming the debts in the first place.

The Royal Commission found that senior public servants, departmental lawyers, and ministers were repeatedly warned that the scheme was illegal, inaccurate, and harmful, yet allowed it to continue for years. Internal documents revealed that officials ignored legal advice, concealed critical information, and misled oversight bodies. The consequences were catastrophic. People lost homes, lost savings, lost mental stability — and in several tragic cases, lost their lives after receiving aggressive, incorrect debt notices that pushed them into despair.

The Commission described the conduct behind Robodebt as “cruel,” “dishonest,” and “a shameful chapter in public administration.” It shattered public trust because it showed that a government could knowingly operate an unlawful system, target its own citizens, and then attempt to hide the truth until the evidence became impossible to suppress. For many Australians, Robodebt was not just a policy failure — it was a betrayal of the most basic expectation citizens have of their government: that it will act lawfully, ethically, and with a duty of care toward the people it serves.
 
3. United Kingdom — Widespread Public‑Sector Corruption Cases (2019–2025)
Between 2019 and 2025, the UK faced more than 45 major corruption cases involving public officials, elected representatives, and government administrators. These cases included bribery, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and the misuse of public funds. One of the most damaging examples was the conviction of Michael Madigan, a long‑serving political powerbroker, for bribery and wire fraud. Although his case occurred in the U.S., the UK saw parallel scandals involving local councillors, procurement officers, and public‑sector managers who abused their authority for personal gain.
 
4. The Alan Bates vs the British Post Office Story
 
The Alan Bates vs British Post Office story - Absent Justice

 

What makes the scandal so disturbing is that public servants inside the British Post Office knew the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the catastrophic accounting and billing errors. Yet they continued to blame innocent sub‑postmasters, many of whom were financially ruined, prosecuted, or imprisoned.

After almost two decades, the British public—and a growing number of British politicians—have insisted that the British Post Office scandal is a matter of profound public interest and must no longer be concealed by the government, the civil service, or the Establishment. For England’s sake, this injustice demands a complete and transparent investigation. Click here to watch the Australian Channel 7 trailer for Mr Bates vs the Post Office, which aired in February 2024, and captures the scale of this national betrayal.

This pattern is painfully familiar to those of us who lived through the Australian COT arbitrations. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee our cases, refused to allow his own technical consultants the additional time they needed to diagnose the ongoing faults in Telstra’s Ericsson billing software. The parallels between the British Post Office scandal and the Australian Telstra scandal are unmistakable. In both cases, faulty technical equipment was at the heart of the problem, as demonstrated in this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc..

The cumulative effect of these scandals was profound. Each case chipped away at public confidence in government oversight, ethical standards, and the integrity of public institutions. When corruption becomes systemic — spanning multiple departments and levels of government — citizens begin to question whether the system can police itself at all.
 
Phone Hacking
 
When I took over ownership of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in February 1988. Within days, it became clear that the previous owners had encountered problems with the phone service. Had they informed me of these issues, it likely would have stopped me from purchasing what I initially thought was a pristine property. 
 
Before I contine with this story, I would like to prove to every single person viewing this website that, in Australia, during arbitration, mediation, and Supreme Court action, faxes relevant to those processes are often screened by a secondary fax machine before the information is redirected to the intended destination. 

 

By November 1994, the atmosphere surrounding the COT arbitrations had become unmistakably sinister. I took the escalating threats directly to Senator Ron Boswell, alerting him to the Australian Federal Police’s concerns. What made the situation even more disturbing was that neither the administrator of my arbitration, Warwick Smith, nor the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, made any attempt to investigate the threats or the evidence behind them.
 
I provided Senator Boswell with proof that more than 56 mini‑reports, each attached to its own fax header sheet, had been tampered with. Some were altered. Others were padded with irrelevant or misleading material. This is documented in File 76  – my statutory declaration of 16 May 1994, stamped PROTECTED by the AFP. In that declaration, I recorded that AFP Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose advised me to notify both the arbitrator and the administrator about what I had uncovered.
 
File 77  shows that Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Sue Harlow acknowledged receipt of the evidence I hand‑delivered. That evidence demonstrated that manipulating the 56 fax headers rendered the reports indecipherable. Senator Boswell later raised these unresolved issues in the Senate on 29 November 1994, placing them on the public record.
 
Yet the confidentiality agreement governing my arbitration seemed engineered to bury these threats beneath layers of secrecy. It raises a disturbing question: How many government‑sanctioned arbitrations rely on confidentiality clauses that effectively conceal wrongdoing against ordinary citizens?
And then comes the darkest question of all.
 
During the same period that the COT arbitrations were underway, deeply troubling allegations of child abuse within Parliament House, Canberra, began to surface publicly. I cannot ignore the possibility that these revelations—and the political panic surrounding them—may have influenced the government’s refusal to release the FOI documents we were entitled to.
 
But for me, there was another layer—one stretching back decades.
 
Years earlier, I had alerted the Australian Government that wheat shipped to Communist China was being rerouted to North Vietnam, feeding the very forces Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers were fighting in the jungle. It was a revelation that embarrassed powerful people and contradicted the official narrative of the time.
 
Not long after raising those concerns, I began to suspect that my telephone calls were being monitored. Whether those suspicions were justified or not, the pattern was chilling: whenever I attempted to expose uncomfortable truths, something in the machinery of government shifted against me.
 
So when the COT arbitrations began—and when the FOI documents we were promised mysteriously failed to appear—I could not help but wonder whether old wounds inside government had been reopened. Had my earlier warnings about the wheat shipments placed me on a list of “problems” to be contained?
 
Had my calls, my faxes, my attempts to obtain evidence been quietly intercepted or obstructed?
 
The Senator responsible for overseeing our claims against Telstra was, at the same time, facing allegations of serious misconduct involving a child. Against such a backdrop, the sudden disappearance of our promised documents takes on a far more sinister tone.
 
Letters from Ann Garms, written in 1994, shed further light on this disturbing chapter. They reveal the gaslighting tactics officials use to undermine the COT Cases and discredit legitimate claims—tactics designed to keep our story out of public view.
 
It is important to be clear: I am not equating the suffering of the COT Cases—who lost their businesses, livelihoods, and dignity—with the horrific trauma experienced by vulnerable children. Those crimes stand alone in their gravity. At the time, we had no knowledge of what was unfolding inside Parliament House. We were simply trying to obtain the documents we were promised—documents held in the same ministerial office where these allegations later emerged.
 
But one fact remains impossible to ignore:
 
When the government concealed documents relating to crimes against children, they also concealed the documents the COT Cases were entitled to. The same office that handled our telephone‑fault complaints was engulfed in allegations of abuse. Bureaucrats appeared terrified of releasing anything that might expose misconduct—whether related to the children, to Telstra, or to the politically explosive wheat‑to‑North‑Vietnam scandal I had raised years earlier.
 
In the end, the pattern is unmistakable:
 
The government protected a minister, protected itself, and protected a once‑government‑owned telecommunications corporation at all costs, even if it meant sacrificing the truth, the victims, and the citizens caught in the machinery of arbitration.

A System Built on Silence

📠 The Vanishing Faxes: A Calculated Disruption

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted 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 Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518, FOI folio document K03273 - ).

To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?

This phone-bugging of my calls and interception of my arbitration-related documents appear to go back to the 1960s, 
 
Echoes of Betrayal: Wheat Sales to China.
 

EXAMPLE 1

 
Absent Justice - Listening In
 
Government Corrupt Illicit Fax Screening
 
By clicking that page, you can locate the following text and better understand the truth behind my statements this morning re fax hacking →
 

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

  1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
  2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
  3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

  • the header strip of various faxes is being altered
  • the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
  • In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
  • The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
  • Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
  • The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and ), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“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)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) 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. 

The evidence within the second section of the report → File No/13) indicates that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

 

On pages 12 and 13 of the transcripts from my second interview with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on 26 September 1994, a troubling narrative unfolds under Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. The AFP expressed concern over a returned letter I sent to Telstra in 1992, which included a handwritten notation naming a bus company, O'Meria. This company was part of my tender to transport children and members of a social club to my holiday camp. 

What’s even more alarming is the revelation that Telstra’s monitoring of my communications was far more extensive and insidious than I had imagined. The AFP highlighted that documents I accessed under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act showed that the practice of collecting and disclosing parties' addresses and phone numbers had been ongoing since at least September 1992. This raises disturbing questions about the transparency and integrity of Telstra’s operations.

Even more treacherous, it became evident that this surveillance extended into 1998, a staggering six years later, with Telstra seemingly reporting my activities directly to Australia’s Treasurer, Peter Costello. This blatant intrusion into my personal and professional life speaks to a deep-seated corruption in which powerful entities manipulate information for dubious purposes while masquerading as public service. The sinister implications of this ongoing surveillance are troubling, leaving me to wonder how many others have fallen victim to such betrayal.

Absent Justice - Australian Senate
I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, as published by the Parliament of Australia, (see also https://shorturl.at/URa5h which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that the company would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as severe discrimination, what does? 

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly. 

 11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister".
 
Despite Telstra's obligation to resolve my ongoing telephone issues as part of the government-endorsed arbitration in 1994 and 1995, AUSTEL (now ACMA) stipulated that no final binding decision could be made by the arbitrator until all the problems mentioned in the arbitration were proven to be fixed. However, Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, issued a finding on May 11, 1995, claiming at point 3.2 (h) in his award that the problems had been resolved in July 1994. In reality, these issues were not fixed by December 2001, which ultimately forced me to sell my business six years after its establishment because Telstra had still not addressed the problems.
 
As demonstrated in the following two links, Telstra continued to be unable to resolve these issues, which were inherited by the new owners of my business by 2008, leading them to bankruptcy. (See "Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).
 
If you click on either of the two links titled Organised Crime and Corruption - Absent Justice and The first remedy pursued, or click on both after reading the first link, this small exercise will allow you to step directly into the murky depths of a conspiracy that has irrevocably altered my life and the lives of countless others. These two short pieces are not side notes or optional extras; they are the doorway into understanding how a chain of decisions, cover‑ups, and institutional betrayals grew into a system of corruption that no one in authority has yet been willing to confront. By following these links, you will see how the story unfolds — not as a simple dispute with a telecommunications company, but as a coordinated effort to silence, obstruct, and ultimately destroy the truth before it reaches the public.

 

Absent Justice - Hon David Hawker MP

 

 Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two)

The reason for presenting Example 1 at the beginning of this story is simple: it helps readers understand that there may be far more to my story than the Australian Government has ever been willing to admit. Acknowledging the truth of what happened to me would expose the uncomfortable fact that the government should have acted in March 1996, when the newly sworn‑in Minister for Communications in the John Howard Government, Senator Richard Alston, asked The Hon. David Hawker MP and me to prepare a detailed report on my claims surrounding the COT arbitrations. I prepared that report by hand and personally delivered it to Mr Hawker, who, in turn, hand‑delivered it to Senator Alston in June 1996. Yet nothing was done — not in 1996, and not at any point in the twenty years that followed. That failure to act speaks volumes about how deficient governments can be when they choose silence over accountability.
 

Please continue reading this unbelievable — but entirely true — story.

On 19 December 2019, Australian media reported that Ericsson of Sweden, a major partner in Telstra’s 5G rollout, had admitted to a years-long bribery and corruption campaign across five countries. The US Department of Justice investigation culminated in Ericsson agreeing to pay over $1.4 billion in penalties—one of the largest settlements ever under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). From Jefferson to Ericsson — A Warning Ignored

Jefferson’s words were not prophecy—they were a blueprint for vigilance. And yet, in the 21st century, we’ve watched as global corporations like Ericsson have infiltrated the very institutions meant to regulate them. Between 2000 and 2016, Ericsson orchestrated a systematic and calculated campaign of bribery and corruption, culminating in a $1.4 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The acquisition of Lane by Ericsson, along with the dealings surrounding the COT Cases, was nothing short of a calculated conspiracy against Australia’s democratic system of justice. This insidious operation has gone largely unacknowledged, revealing a disturbing truth.

The corruption exposed by absentjustice.com is not merely partisan; it reflects a deep-seated, systemic rot that permeates the USA and extends globally. Thomas Jefferson himself would have recognised this treachery. Mighty corporations, like Ericsson, have become predators, systematically devouring the world's integrity. 

Ericsson’s ruthless infiltration of Australia's arbitration system is undeniable and raises alarming questions. Why has this company evaded accountability for its questionable actions during the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) arbitrations? This situation is not just a political issue; it demands urgent action that cuts through the fog of party lines and unearths the treacherous conduct at play.

 

Absent Justice - Thomas Jefferson
 

During my arbitration, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was officially appointed as the technical consultant to the arbitrator. Lane had access to sensitive materials, including evidence implicating Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment—the very hardware that plagued my business and those of other COT claimants.

Yet, in a move that reeks of collusion, Ericsson callously and immorally acquired Lane for an undisclosed sum while confidentiality agreements still bound them. This acquisition occurred during the arbitration period, effectively transferring privileged evidence into the hands of the very company under scrutiny. While reading this section of my story, don't forget what you have already read in 2 Organised Crime and Corruption - Absent Justice

 
Absent Justice - Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

 

Hovering your cursor or mouse over the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp image below will lead you to a document dated March 1994, referenced as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. This document confirms that government public servants investigating my ongoing telephone issues supported my claims against Telstra, particularly between Points 2 and 212. It is evident that if the arbitrator had been presented with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, he would have awarded me a significantly higher amount for my financial losses than he ultimately did.

He may have spun a web of deception to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, on 17 February 1996, regarding his collusion with David Read from Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. These technical consultants were supposedly brought in to assist DMR Group Canada in evaluating the faults within the AXE Portland telephone exchange—an exchange crucial to my business operations at Cape Bridgewater.

The situation grew more sinister when AUSTEL, the government communications authority at the time (now ACMA), intervened. They wrote to Telstra's arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, not once but twice—on 11 October 1994 and 16 November 1994—condemning his sham of an arbitration service verification testing for my three service lines. They demanded to know what nefarious plans he and Telstra harboured regarding the testing. By February 1995, despite the gravity of the situation, no follow-up testing of those lines had been conducted. I raised this alarming fact with Dr Hughes, who responded with an unsettling calm, allowing Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to oversee Telstra's testing.
 
What ensued was a farce. My technical consultant, George Close & Associates, revealed that a staggering 40% of my incoming calls were being misrouted, obstructing the very testing intended to verify Telstra’s decency. On 6 April 1995, when David Read and Peter Gamble finally arrived, they brazenly refused to conduct any actual testing. Instead, we were led on a hollow tour of the AXE telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater switching device, while the real testing of my service lines was swept under the rug.
 
 
Absent Justice - Government

 

Telstra's Falsified SVT Report

In essence, the most pivotal aspect of my arbitration was intentionally sabotaged. Had the testing of the Ericsson AXE exchange equipment proceeded as it should have, the dark truths would have come to light. Instead, as with so many secrets in this murky affair, no testing ever took place. What was meant to be a fair evaluation turned into a treacherous cover-up, where corruption thrived, and truth was buried. 
 
Government records indicate (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) that AUSTEL's adverse findings concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE exchange were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not receive copies of these findings until November 23, 2007—12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated 4 March 1994, confirmed that my claims against Telstra were validated (see points 2 to 212 in that report). Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of these findings until November 23, 2007, 12 years after the termination of my arbitration process. Moreover, the government officials had already validated my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before April 21, 1994, when I signed the arbitration agreement.

But despite that, I was still required to pay over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove something the government had already established in my case, that Telstra was still not meeting their General Carriers licensing conditions in regard to my service lines at the time the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes stopulated in his award findings that Telstra had met those continues after July 1994 as point 2.23 (h) in his award states.

In straightforward terms, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) failed in its legal obligations to me by not directing the arbitrator to modify his decision until Telstra could demonstrate compliance with its licensing conditions. The attached evidence, Chapter 4: The New Owners Tell Their Story, shows that Telstra was still not meeting those licensing conditions as recently as November 2006, nine years after the arbitrator prematurely issued his findings.

What is important to add here is that the Candadian Prinipal technical advisor, Paul Howell, in his 30 April 1995 formal report, advised Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) that: 

“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.

“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” ( Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

and 

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC  service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”  (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

As of 2026, Dr Hughes has not provided any explanations regarding why he and his technical consultants failed to diagnose the issue. Additionally, he has not addressed the issue of my two service lines being locked, which was causing my ongoing billing issues.

 

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

 

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."   

The Canadian Government's stance on the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange report reveals a troubling scenario: in Australia, no entity—be it the government, legal professionals, or those who oversaw the arbitration process—made any effort to uncover the truth. A Canadian technical consultant was dispatched to Australia, ostensibly to address critical concerns; still, in reality, this was merely a façade to conceal the findings of the principal technical consultant, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia).

Lane was entrusted with the pivotal task of investigating severe deficiencies in the Ericsson telephone exchanges, which not only affected the COT cases but also underpinned telecommunications across much of Australia. In the middle of 1995, amid escalating tensions surrounding telecommunications quality, arbitration administrators appointed Lane under the directive of DMR Group Canada Inc. This group had been specifically chosen to scrutinise my allegations that Telstra had manipulated the Cape Bridgewater testing processes attributed to Bell Canada International.

Such manipulation severely compromised my ability to demonstrate that my telephone service remained subpar, even as Telstra continued to use the notoriously faulty AXE Ericsson telephone equipment. Lane’s investigation unfolded just before the Canadian team arrived, leading to an astounding turn of events when Ericsson later acquired Lane (purchasing it for an undisclosed sum) during the turbulent COT arbitration period.

Unbeknownst to the Canadian authorities at the time, they believed that if my claims against Bell Canada International were substantiated, it would not only reveal significant flaws within their system but also damage the reputations of other respected Canadian telecommunications companies known for their technological expertise.

As this situation unfolded, Canada’s integrity was about to undergo another major test—one that would connect my personal experience to their broader stance in a distant part of the world. DMR Group Canada Inc., which was meant to be monitoring Lane, did provide me with a signature on their combined findings regarding my DMR and Lane report from April 30, 1995, but this was not received until August 1997—eighteen months after my arbitration with Lane had concluded, and without having signed it off.

Corruption reigned as Lane was swiftly acquired by Ericsson during the COT Case arbitrations, even while it was investigating the flawed Ericsson telephone equipment. The Australian Government, complicit in this treachery, permitted the foreign giant to buy the very witness that should have exposed their wrongdoing. Lane, which had the potential to deliver damning evidence against the faulty Ericsson AXE testing procedures at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, instead made no findings regarding the ongoing telephone problems experienced with the Ericsson AXE equipment installed in the exchanges at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.

How could such blatant and unethical manipulation occur in a supposedly impartial system? Just weeks earlier, on March 9, 1995, Warwick Smith had provided written assurances that Lane would support only DMR Canada, noting that DMR was the principal investigator overseeing the situation. This was particularly concerning because, before Smith’s assurance, the COT cases had explicitly rejected Lane’s involvement due to their ties as former Telstra officials, raising significant questions about their objectivity.

However, what the Australian Government was unaware of was that Australia’s first appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), Warwick Smith—also the first appointed arbitration administrator—was, six months before the first four government‑endorsed arbitrations commenced (my arbitration being one of those four), secretly assisting the government‑owned Telstra Corporation to undermine those arbitrations. He did this by providing in‑house, Parliament House–confidential COT Cases information, which not only assisted Telstra in defeating the COT Cases but also helped Telstra conceal the true extent of the defectiveness of its Ericsson AXE telephone equipment.

 
Why Reliable Telecommunications Were Critical in the 1990s — and Why My Arbitration Threatened Powerful Interests
In the 1990s, the world was undergoing a telecommunications revolution. Reliable phone systems weren’t a luxury; they were the backbone of business, government, finance, emergency services, and international trade. The International Telecommunication Union described this period as the age of data, when the ability to transmit information accurately and consistently became essential to economic and social life.
 
For businesses like mine, a faulty telephone service didn’t just cause inconvenience — it destroyed our ability to operate. And for governments and major telecommunications companies, any public admission that their digital exchanges were unreliable would have been catastrophic.
This is the environment in which my arbitration took place.
 
Why My Case Was So Dangerous to Ericsson and Telstra
Ericsson’s AXE digital switching system was its flagship product. It was installed across Australia and much of the world. If my arbitration had formally proven that the testing equipment at Cape Bridgewater was defective, the consequences would have been enormous:
•  major international contracts could have been jeopardised
•  government infrastructure plans would have been called into question
•  Telstra’s credibility as a national carrier would have been damaged
•  Ericsson’s global reputation would have taken a direct hit
The telecom market in the 1990s was fiercely competitive and unstable. Companies were investing billions into digital networks. A single proven fault in a major switching system could trigger regulatory intervention, litigation, and loss of investor confidence.
In that climate, my arbitration — which directly challenged the reliability of the AXE system — posed a serious commercial threat.
 
Why Stopping My Arbitration From Exposing the Truth Was So Valuable
Arbitration findings become part of the public record. If an independent technical consultant had confirmed that the Ericsson AXE system was faulty, that finding could have been used by:
•  other customers
•  regulators
•  international carriers
•  courts
•  procurement bodies
It would have set a precedent that Ericsson and Telstra could not afford. That is why the role of the arbitration technical consultants was so critical. Lane Telecommunications, appointed to assist the Canadian technical adviser, Paul Howell, were in the perfect position to confirm my claims. They had access to the exchanges, the test data, and the technical documentation. And yet Lane made no findings on the AXE faults — despite having drafted the evaluation that served as the basis for the final technical report used by the arbitrator.
 
Then, in the middle of the COT arbitrations, Ericsson acquired Lane. The one entity capable of validating my claims was suddenly owned by the very company whose equipment I had challenged.
 
What Paul Howell Told Me — and Why It Matters
 
Four days after my arbitration on 11 May 1995, I was hospitalised with what was suspected to be a heart attack. When I returned home, I received a call from Paul Howell of DMR Group Canada. I had never spoken to him before. He wished me a speedy recovery — and then told me something I will never forget.
 
He said my arbitration was “nothing but a criminal cover‑up," and was deeply concerned about how the process had been conducted. He apologised for what he had witnessed. My recollection of what he had informed me was included in a statutory declaration submitted by me to the Minister for Communications, The Hon. Michael Lee MP. I never received a response. When I informed four representatives from AUSTEL (now ACMA) about Howell’s concerns — particularly regarding the Bell Canada test calls, Telstra relied upon during their arbitration defence of my Ericsson AXE faults — all four AUSTEL/ACMA representatives refused to get involved.
 
Had anyone listened to Howell, the truth would have been unavoidable.
The 13,590 test calls — if they had been generated — would have proven beyond doubt how unreliable the AXE exchange was.
But no one reopened my arbitration.
 
Why I Believe the Canadian Government Became Concerned
 
DMR Group Canada had been appointed to oversee Lane’s work. Howell was brought in specifically to investigate my claims that the AXE exchange was fundamentally flawed. When he discovered that Lane had drafted the evaluation but made no findings, he refused to sign the final report dated 30 April 1995. That report — unsigned, incomplete, and technically unsound — was still used by the arbitrator to determine my claim.
 
Given the international implications, I believe this is why the Canadian Government took an interest. If my allegations were proven, it would not only have exposed failures in the AXE system but also damaged the reputations of Canadian telecommunications companies involved in the testing processes.
 
The Bigger Picture
My arbitration wasn’t just about one faulty phone service in a small coastal town. It intersected with:
•  global telecommunications competition
•  billion‑dollar equipment contracts
•  government credibility
•  international corporate reputations
•  and the integrity of Australia’s first industry‑wide arbitration process
In the 1990s, telecommunications reliability was everything. And proving that a major digital exchange was defective threatened too many powerful interests. That is why my case was never allowed to reach the truth.
 

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration

 

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he provided the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Thus, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

To further give Telstra a winning edge in the COT Cases, Warwick Smith and the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, allowed Telstra to draft its own arbitration agreement rather than an independent agreement designed to give each side an equal chance of success.

In my case, even though Dr Hughes condemned the arbitration agreement he had just used in my 11 May 1995 arbitration—writing to Warwick Smith on 12 May 1995 to show him where the arbitration rules had disadvantaged me—he still covertly used that same agreement in my arbitration. I believe this is what concerned the Canadian Government, and why they attempted to assist me in this matter.

 

Canadian Flag 2

 

In assessing my case, Lane investigated and commented on only 23 of the more than 200 complaints I had submitted for arbitration. Though DMR Canada was obligated to visit my business and the two telephone exchanges with which I was connected, they failed to conduct the necessary tests on my three telephone lines or the Ericsson equipment at these exchanges, even though this equipment was under scrutiny, the critical reason the COT cases were being arbitrated.

Corruption reigned as Lane was swiftly acquired by Ericsson during the COT Case arbitrations, even while it was investigating the flawed Ericsson telephone equipment. The Australian government, complicit in this treachery, permitted the foreign giant to buy the very witness that should have exposed their wrongdoing. Lane, which had the potential to deliver damning evidence against the faulty Ericsson AXE testing procedures at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, instead made no findings regarding the ongoing telephone problems experienced with the Ericsson AXE equipment installed in the exchanges at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.
 
This shocking reality paints Australia as not just a country that claims to uphold the rule of law, but as a nation willing to sacrifice its integrity to allow foreign interests to dictate outcomes. It is a betrayal of trust, a treacherous alliance that undermines the principles of justice and fairness, echoing the chilling truth that in the shadows of power, corruption thrives (See Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).
 
How could they? They had already aligned themselves with Ericsson.
🧩 Implications for Corporate Alliances
•  The Ericsson case highlights how corporate decisions—such as acquiring compliant consultancy firms—can be influenced by broader geopolitical and legal pressures.
•  It also underscores the risks of opaque alliances and the importance of transparency, especially when operating in conflict zones or under authoritarian regimes.
ERICSSON

None of the COT Cases was granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded. It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.   

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/)

To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.

📉 Ericsson’s Global Corruption Scandal
In December 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Ericsson, Sweden’s telecom giant, had admitted to a 17-year campaign of corruption across five countries—Djibouti, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait. The company used slush funds, bribes, and sham contracts to secure telecom deals, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
•  Ericsson paid $1.06 billion in penalties:
•  $520 million to the DOJ
•  $540 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
•  In 2023, Ericsson paid an additional $206 million for breaching its deferred prosecution agreement by withholding misconduct details, including alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq.
⚠️ Ericsson’s Role in the COT Arbitration
Ericsson’s equipment was central to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration in Australia. According to documents on AbsentJustice.com, Telstra installed Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment despite knowing it was faulty and incompatible with certain terrains. This equipment caused call dropouts and outages, devastating small businesses reliant on reliable communication.
•  In 1993, a Telstra briefcase left at Cape Bridgewater revealed internal knowledge of Ericsson faults dating back to 1988.
•  AUSTEL (now ACMA) condemned Telstra’s testing as grossly deficient in 1994, but these findings were withheld from claimants until years later.
•  Ericsson acquired Lane Telecommunications, the technical consultant to the arbitrator, during the arbitration—raising serious conflict of interest concerns.
Despite these revelations:
•  The arbitrator did not halt proceedings.
•  COT claimants were not allowed to amend their claims.
•  Telstra denied equipment faults under oath—reportedly over 30 times.
🏛️ Government Dealings and Political Complicity
Evidence suggests that Australian government officials were aware of Ericsson’s equipment failures and Telstra’s misconduct:
•  Senator Richard Alston raised concerns in Parliament in 1994, citing the severity of Ericsson’s faults.
•  The Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House, supported efforts to resolve the issues in his Wannon electorate.
•  Internal Telstra emails and Senate Hansard entries reveal pressure to suppress COT claims and protect Telstra’s privatization interests.
There are allegations that Senators brokered deals to support Telstra’s privatisation—using manipulated COT evidence—and later reneged on promises to investigate Ericsson’s role. These claims are documented in Evidence File 7 on AbsentJustice.com.
 
🔍 What Needs to Be Investigated
•  Why was Ericsson allowed to acquire Lane Telecommunications mid-arbitration?
•  Who in government knew about the equipment faults and failed to act?
•  Why were arbitration findings based on suppressed or falsified evidence?
•  What role did political deals play in shielding Ericsson and Telstra from accountability?
The COT saga is not just a story of technical failure—it’s a case study in regulatory collapse, corporate influence, and political betrayal.
 
Four days after my arbitration on May 11, 1995, I experienced what was suspected to be a heart attack and spent five days in the hospital. On the day I returned home, I received a phone call from Paul Howell at DMR Canada Group, Inc., who wished me a speedy recovery. Mr Howell flew in from Canada on April 13, 1995, to review my technical documents for the 1994/95 arbitration on behalf of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who was administering my case.

I had never spoken to Mr Howell before, but he stated that my arbitration was nothing but a criminal cover-up. He expressed concern about how the proceedings were conducted while serving as a technical adviser. His apology, along with his notes, was included in a statutory declaration submitted to The Hon. Michael Lee MP, the Minister for Communications. Unfortunately, I have not received a response from the Minister.

When I informed four different representatives from AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) about Mr Howell's alarm regarding the Bell Canada test calls used in my arbitration by Telstra and Dr Hughes, which they claimed demonstrated that my business was not experiencing additional telephone issues, all four representatives refused to get involved.

Had someone listened to Paul Howell, who was specifically brought in from Canada to investigate my claims that the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange serving my business was fundamentally flawed, the 13,590 test calls—if generated—would have proved just how unreliable the Ericsson equipment was. Unfortunately, no one took action to reopen the arbitration process for me.

During my arbitration, I discovered that the arbitration technical consultants Lane, appointed to assist Paul Howell, had conducted all the groundwork for my Ericsson claim documents. This included drafting the evaluation dated April 6, 1995, which served as the basis for the formal, final technical report used by Dr Hughes to determine my claim. Lane did not make any findings in the report provided to Paul Howell, who then explained that this was why he refused to sign his report dated April 30, 1995. Dr Hughes had ordered this report under the arbitration agreement, and I was required to respond to it, even though it had not been signed off as complete.

After my complaints were investigated by Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Lane was subsequently acquired by Ericsson for an undisclosed amount. At that time, they were still evaluating several other Claims of Time (COT) cases against Ericsson. Additionally, Lane took with them all of my technical Ericsson data and personal diary logbooks, putting them in a similar situation to the other COT cases, despite the Confidentiality Agreement prohibiting such influence in our arbitrations. Ericsson already had a bad reputation, and the following link concerning alleged terrorist ties to Iraq and ISIS only compounded the issue 

Contact Absent Justice

 

 

 

Quote Icon

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“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”

Sister Burke

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
 Contact Us