Discrimination
Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the system of arbitration in Australia
After spending twenty-eight years in the British and Australian Merchant Navy (as well as serving as a ship's delegate on some of those vessels), I emerged with a harrowing understanding of the treachery that often lurks beneath the surface of seemingly mundane logbook entries. These records, which should stand as the authoritative chronicles of a vessel's journey, are instead manipulated and distorted by those who wield power. They are meant to capture the truth of daily operations and crew activities, yet they often disguise the dark underbelly of systemic failures and hidden agendas.
In the case of the COT Cases during their arbitration processes, the strategic withholding of crucial information proved devastating. Aware of the implications, I urged the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook formally. But the sinister forces at play rendered this request futile. This logbook held damning evidence against Telstra, documenting every fault complaint from hapless customers. Yet, I found it suspiciously absent—conveniently hidden from me, the arbitrator, and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman (refer to File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127). Why? What were they afraid of revealing? The shadows of deceit loomed large, suggesting that Telstra was determined to shield its incompetence from prying eyes.
The logbook for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange is not just a crucial document; it is a testament to the betrayal that AUSTEL and Telstra inflicted upon the COT Cases. In a duplicitous gesture, they assured us that this logbook would be made available before the arbitration agreement was signed on April 21, 1994. Had they honoured this promise, it might have shed light on the myriad telephone problems that continued to plague my business, altering the arbitrator’s perception of our plight significantly. The betrayal we suffered culminated in an irrevocable decision that devastated both my life and that of my partner, Cathy.
When Dr. Gordon Hughes was commissioned as a commercial assessor for the fast-track settlement proposal in January 1994, he entered the arena unarmed—lacking the practical wisdom required for such a high-stakes role. A written confirmation from the President of the Institute of Arbitrators, Mr. Ian Nosworthy, revealed that Dr. Hughes did not achieve graded arbitrator status until long after May 11, 1995, after presenting findings based on an incomplete and uninvestigated claim from DMR Group Inc. of Canada and Lans Telecommunications Pty Ltd. of Australia. Even as these advisors submitted their half-baked findings, I was actively lamenting the ongoing telephone faults that continued to cripple my business. Yet, my voice was drowned out in a cacophony of negligence and indifference.
Understanding what transpired before the arbitration agreements were signed is essential. The truth is, AUSTEL never intended for pioneers like myself, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer to endure a meaningful arbitration process. We were mere casualties, victims of a system that aimed to protect Telstra's glaring inadequacies. The COT Cases group, forged in the fires of our shared struggles, endeavoured for a resolution. But as the relationship between AUSTEL and Telstra revealed, we were pawns in their unholy alliance, deprived of justice for over six or seven long years.
In a chilling display of power, AUSTEL's then-Chairman, Robin Davey, brokered a deal with Telstra, establishing the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) to silence our claims. The assessment of our grievances would hinge solely on manipulated logbooks—documents that had been scrubbed of the truths we needed to expose the ongoing failings of Telstra.
The scheme came to light in a shocking agreement dated October 5, 1995, directed at Mr. Ian Campbell, Telstra’s General Manager of Commercial. AUSTEL expressed grave concerns in point 40, apprehensive that Freehill Hollingdale & Page might interfere with the FTSP assessment process. Alarmingly, when I attempted to document my ongoing telephone complaints, Telstra insisted that I report them in writing to their lawyer, Denise McBurnie. It became patently clear that I was ensnared in a web of deceit, with Telstra’s Bendigo Fault Centre as my only outlet for voicing issues that they had no intention of resolving.
This is the harrowing tale of corrupt machinations designed to silence the innocent and conceal the truth. It is a narrative steeped in betrayal, one that demands to be told, lest the voiceless continue to suffer in the shadows.
Six months before the arbitrations commenced, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (1984) to access the telephone exchange logbooks from our local exchanges. We were informed that the logbook would be made available to the appointed arbitrator after signing our arbitration agreements. However, this logbook was never provided to any of the claimants.
Having devoted twenty-eight years to the British Australian Merchant Navy, I have gained a profound understanding of the importance of meticulously maintained records within the ship's logbook. These records document the daily operations of the vessel and the activities of the crew, serving as a critical resource not only for the current voyage but also for future reference.
This understanding prompted me to advise the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook. Should their request be denied, I recommend pursuing access through the arbitrator and, if necessary, escalating the matter to the Commonwealth.
The content of this logbook is fundamental to the resolution of their cases, as it contains a comprehensive record of every fault complaint submitted by Telstra customers.
It is imperative to highlight that the logbook from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange was not provided to me, the arbitrator, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), which raises significant concerns regarding why was it not provided? What was Telstra afarid of it exposing?
Throughout my unsettling years as a delegate on several ships, I bore witness to grave discrepancies—an unsettling pattern of deceit—between the incident records in the ship's logbook, meticulously crafted by one party, and the damning truths buried within the final findings.
In 2006, during the highly questionable government-endorsed review of the (COT) claims led by the elusive Senator Helen Coonan, her bureaucratic minions relied on carefully curated records from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These records, conveniently extracted from their COT archives, culminated in a report that included Exhibit AS 639, ominously titled “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for the Minister's Office.”
Yet, what this document blatantly ignored were the critical findings from AUSTEL (now operating under the inscrutable guise of ACMA). AUSTEL's Adverse Finding, dated back to March 1994, unveiled a web of serious misconduct surrounding Telstra that should have been front and centre in the review. Anyone daring enough to delve into AUSTEL’s March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212.
Had Senator Coonan’s bureaucratic entourage ventured to confront the truths laid out in AUSTEL’s Adverse Finding in 2006, they would have been faced with irrefutable evidence demanding the recognition of my claims. Instead, they chose the treacherous route of dismissal—a calculated manoeuvre that left my legitimate grievances shrouded in darkness.
Moreover, the spectre of organised crime has long haunted the corridors of power within the Australian government, rooted in a conspiracy that dates back to September 18, 1967. On that fateful day, I exposed the insidious reality that Australian wheat, purportedly sent to China on humanitarian grounds, was being clandestinely offloaded and rerouted to North Vietnam.
This treacherous operation unfolded during a dark period when our valiant troops from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States found themselves ruthlessly slaughtered and mutilated in the unforgiving jungles of North Vietnam. This grim reality emerged after North Vietnamese soldiers had possibly dined on a bowl of Australian wheat, insidiously tainted by betrayal, funnelled through clandestine channels by "The People's Republic of China".
Had I access to this logbook during my arbitration appeal
I would have proven my phone problems were still ongoing.
However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under Freedom of Information (FOI Act) from Telstra, a copy of their arbitration file, which would have shown who had been involved in altering clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 in my arbitration agreement. This information would have shown when AUSTEL received a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file.
I tried to obtain a copy of the arbitration file the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) held. As the process administrator, the TIO is unequivocally required to retain all documents relevant to the arbitration. This includes my formal request to the arbitrator, in which I insisted on accessing the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook and all correspondence exchanged among the involved parties while drafting the arbitration rules. Obtaining this information was essential for my appeal attorneys at Law Partners of Melbourne, who were poised to leverage the negligent actions of DMR and Lane from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory. It is critical to highlight that both individuals submitted incomplete reports to the arbitration process while misrepresenting them as final.
John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to 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.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (where the Australian Government ACMA was the respondent) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Telstra installed Ericsson AXE telephone equipment right across Australia. Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008, Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
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."
It was not of Mr Joblin's hand.
It bore no signature of the psychologist.
As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2) that Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues. The same legal firm that provided Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's. The psychologist's signature was missing.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me because I was of sound mind?
On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking:
1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?"
It is 2024, and I have yet to see a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature indicates how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, including mine, is the following: although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged in different cases or altered as in mine - changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed - is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. For Maurice Wayne Condon to have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist when Ian Joblin’s signature did not appear on this affirmation is further proof the COT story must be investigated.
If I had been given access to this logbook during my arbitration, the resulting evidence would have substantiated my assertion that Telstra lacks trustworthiness. The continued ambiguity surrounding this matter has permitted the use of misleading information during the Senate investigation. Knowingly submitting false information to the Senate "On Notice" constitutes Contempt of the Senate, a chargeable offence that may result in a two-year imprisonment if proven. The logbook would still serve as evidence today if it were made available.
Government Corruption - Gaslighting
Absentjustice.com boldly uncovers the deception, fraud, and corruption entrenched in the COT Cases. Check out the gaslighting methods employed against the COT Cases, including the character assassination that occurred both during and after their arbitration. Understanding these strategies is essential for recognizing the challenges the individuals involved face.
Delve into the shocking, unresolved crimes inflicted on innocent Australian citizens during government-sanctioned arbitrations overseen by compromised officials with a single objective: victory at all costs. Witness how unscrupulous and well-compensated legal professionals orchestrated these events while Telstra officials manipulated the process from behind the scenes.
These lawyers exploited COT claimants, stripping them of their fundamental right to discovery through underhanded tactics rarely seen in arbitration.
Uncover the depths of government corruption, where public servants employed gaslighting techniques to obscure these egregious injustices against fellow Australians.
Investigate the crimes perpetrated against citizens forced into a rigged arbitration system. Learn who allowed these horrifying acts to flourish, undermining our justice system.
Examine the pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy that tainted the COT arbitrations. Discover the individuals responsible for these heinous crimes and their roles within Australia’s Establishment and Legal Framework, which permitted such profound injustices.
Despite these unresolved phone faults, which were instrumental in initiating the COT Cases, the arbitrator concluded all arbitration proceedings prematurely. The substantial issues raised during the COT arbitrations from 1994 to 1998 remained glaringly evident as late as April 2018, eighteen to twenty years later. The four exhibits Google links presented below this narrative serve as compelling evidence of these enduring challenges.
Six years after the arbitrator failed to compel Telstra to resolve my persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration from April 21, 1994, to May 11, 1995, I made the prudent decision to sell the business when it became evident that the telephone issues were systemic. The sale was conducted at land value only, as the enterprise had no remaining goodwill. The four legal firms and the four real estate offices were fully aware of the challenges I encountered, a sentiment echoed by many businesses in Portland, including the Portland Observer newspaper. This publication has supported my efforts for over a decade to resolve the ongoing issues with Telstra. Their assistance in my matters is comprehensively documented on my website and within the accompanying manuscript.
BCI and SVT reports - Section One
Who hijacked the BCI and SVT Reports
In December 2001, after working with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and still not seeing results, I sold the business to Darren and Jenny Lewis (Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).
On January 6, 2003, I received a letter from the Hon David Hawker MP, who had been advocating for a resolution to my ongoing telephone and faxing problems since 1992, wrote to me noting:
“Thank you for your correspondence received throughout December, 2002. Copies will be forwarded to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, along with the videotape, “Phone Wiring Details at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.”
On 28 January 2003, a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO officer) Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:
“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:
That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.
That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)
Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?
This is the same Tony Watson referred to in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (see It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1). Tony Watson states that my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I tried to send them. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines. This statement by Tony Watson does not match Telstra's billing records for those six faxes.
The attached exhibits (see Front Page Part One File No/1) indicate that I was charged for allegedly not receiving faxes. Such misleading and deceptive statements from Tony Watson have significantly undermined the efforts of the COT Cases over nearly thirty years, during which they have contended with challenges created by individuals like him. It is pertinent to question why Telstra issued a charge for these six faxes if they did not reach the arbitrator's office. Furthermore, if the arbitrator's office did not receive these six arbitration claims documents, then who was the recipient?
How dare Tony Watson threaten Darren Lewis not to speak with me when I lived next door to the holiday camp and remained there until 2019.
The holiday camp I operated had historically relied on landline telephones as the sole means of communication, apart from incidental trade. Upon our initial appreciation for the property, we overlooked the obsolete telephone system prevalent at that time. Mobile network coverage was nonexistent during that period, and business transactions were not conducted via the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility that routed calls to the central telephone exchange located 20 kilometres away in Portland. This facility, which had been in place for over 30 years, was designed for low-call-rate areas and was equipped with only eight lines to service 66 families, amounting to 132 adults and children.
Consequently, only four lines were available for the remaining 128 adults and their children. During peak periods—such as weekends and holidays—when visitor numbers surged at the seaside resort, the demand for telecommunication increased substantially, resulting in recurring line congestion.
After three and a half years of operating with this outdated infrastructure, Telstra finally installed a new system. Regrettably, they neglected to connect it to the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. This unacceptable oversight is further documented in a government report dated March 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which identifies issues from points 2 to 212.
The findings in that report stem from the fault reports extracted from the Portland Telstra telephone exchange logbook. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, I was denied access to this logbook during my arbitration. AUSTEL could only have reached such precise conclusions in the 69-page, 212-point report by utilizing that source.
Before the agreement was entered into
In July 2005, eleven years after the first four government-endorsed arbitration agreements had been signed, 14 COT members met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia), and each provided him with their stories. The Senator visibly became very emotional during this meeting when several of the COT Cases provided clear proof our arbitration-related faxes were being screened via Telstra's telecommunications network en route to the arbitrator and our advisors before being redirected to their intended destination. However, the Senator appeared to be even angrier when COT case Ann Garms and I explained the resultant effect of not having the logbook of the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange, which serviced Ann's business and the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook of the exchange that serviced my business.
Simply put, Telstra knew how strong or weak each COT case claim was before they defended them. This upset the Senator and his political advisor. I provided the Senator with proof that some faxed documents en route to the arbitrator were not redirected to the arbitrator's office, meaning these claim documents were never assessed at all. I also raised with the Senator on the telephone after this meeting that, in my case, Telstra had admitted to the Australian Federal Police that local Telstra technicians had been intercepting my telephone conversations, which they had recorded and entered in a fault log. I assume this fault log, which was not provided to the arbitrator or me during the arbitration, would have been mentioned in the Portland/Cape Bridgewater log book.
It was the withholding of the telephone exchange Logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that serviced the COT Cases business, including the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which most of the COT Cases believe prompted Senator Joyce to ensure we COT Cases finally get the justice that was denied us during the COT arbitrations. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce is still a very prominent member of the National Party government.
After this meeting, Senator Joyce made a historic agreement with the Australian government. If the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the Senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.
To salvage something from this situation, Senator Joyce compromised with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA) to assess the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking involvement. However, after securing Senator Joyce’s vote, the government backtracked, insisting on using only their government-employed assessors instead of the independent assessor that had been promised.
Had I been allowed to use the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim material could have received a far more favourable assessment. The DCITA's reliance solely on their government archive information skewed the evaluation process dramatically. This misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA bureaucrats during the independent assessment, particularly their dependency on exhibit AS 639—entitled “Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers Office”—. No extracts from the telephone exchanges were recorded in this DCITA archive document.
By neglecting AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. The failure to withhold this critical logbook from being discovered when it was legally requested not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1996 but (not having it for showing purposes) also prevented the government DCITA assessors in 2006 from accurately valuing the claims of those who chose to participate in the Senators Coonan and Joyce review process.
