Absentjustice.com is a work in progress, last edited in February 2025. 

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. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the more profound exploration into the world of political corruption, stand shoulder to shoulder with any true cold case crime committed against a citizen whose country purports to be governed by the rule of law.

My book Absent Justice can be Ordered Now—it's Free. This compelling narrative addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity in Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you value the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy. 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up in 2025

Voltaire warned that it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Over two centuries ago, in the year 1816, Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s most enlightened and visionary presidents, articulated two profound statements that still resonate today:

1. "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us bind the latter with the chains of the Constitution, ensuring that it does not become the legalized version of the former."

2. "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and wealthy corporations."

Fast forward to 2025, and we find ourselves in a pivotal moment of contemporary society. As we observe the increasingly pervasive influence of large corporations in shaping the governance of the United States, Britain, Australia, and other once-cherished democracies, the stakes have never been higher. This alarming trend highlights the urgent need to safeguard our democratic ideals and principles. Ordinary citizens are called to action and united in pursuing fair representation and justice, particularly when navigating the complex legal landscape to file claims against powerful government officials and esteemed doctors and within the intricate workings of the judicial and arbitration systems.

In Australia, the actions of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator for the Casualties of Telstra arbitration, and administrator John Pinnock raise critical concerns regarding the intersection of public service and private interests. Mr. Pinnock’s correspondence to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, distressingly alleged that I had admitted to making a 2:00 AM phone call to Mrs. Hughes despite the absence of any such letter. This incident highlights the need for scrutiny regarding the influence of governmental officials on the judicial process.

Upon receiving the misinterpreted communication from Mr Pinnock on February 27, 1996 (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233), Mr James was already engaged in a preliminary investigation regarding my claims of unethical conduct associated with the COT arbitrations involving Dr Hughes. At that time, I had supplied Mr James with Senate Hansard documents illustrating that Telstra had threatened me during my arbitration because I had continued to assist the Australian Federal Police in their inquiries concerning Telstra's unauthorized interception of my arbitration-related telephone conversations.

Furthermore, I provided Mr. James with evidence indicating that Telstra had utilized its telecommunications infrastructure to intercept my arbitration-related faxes directed to Dr. Hughes's office and my arbitration accountant. I also offered Laurie James further evidence demonstrating that Dr. Hughes had allowed Telstra to execute these threats, ultimately impacting the outcome of my arbitration claims before him.

It is pertinent to note that shortly before Laurie James became involved in December 1995, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, travelled from Canberra to Telstra's Freedom of Information viewing room in Melbourne. This visit, which occurred between October 18, 1995, and October 4, 1997, was aimed at accessing my arbitration file documents, which Dr. Hughes's office had been unable to locate. Telstra informed Mr Wynack that they had destroyed my arbitration file, to which he responded twice, expressing his disbelief in Telstra's account (see Home Page File No/82).

I received a similar response from Dr. Hughes's office. I can only conclude that Dr. Hughes misrepresented the facts to Laurie James regarding this matter and discredited the May 12, 1995, arbitration agreement as uncredible and needing to be revised for all future arbitrations (Refer to Open Letter File No 55-A). The agreement Dr Hughes used on my arbitration was revised for the remaining three complaints: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer. All received more than thirteen months to prepare the claims and answer Telstra's defence than Dr Hughes had allowed me.

Disclosure of this agreement would have provided Laurie James with the necessary information to substantiate the validity of my claims. John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for identical 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)

Regrettably, the false statements in this correspondence, which portrayed my character unfavourably, prompted Mr James to terminate his investigation.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

During an exhaustive ten-month hearing at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), I presented a meticulously compiled 158-page report, complemented by over 1,760 exhibits that served as crucial evidence, along with 23 detailed letters and supplementary attachments directed to the board of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). This extensive documentation irrefutably demonstrated that Telstra had infringed upon my human rights. It also highlighted that their chief arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, submitted documents that contained falsehoods to the arbitrator, misrepresenting the results of his purportedly successful service verification testing of my business telephone service lines.

The telephone logbook I was unjustly denied access to would have unveiled the stark reality surrounding these alleged successful test calls. Gamble had to abandon his testing methods due to the failure of the Ericsson testing equipment installed at the local telephone switching device in Cape Bridgewater, which crucially rerouted through the primary Portland telephone exchange. This equipment did not meet the mandatory 120-second government testing requirement, a critical benchmark for service reliability.

Despite my arbitration consultants being experienced former senior police officers—one of whom ascended to the role of Senator—I succeeded in presenting compelling evidence to the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes. This evidence proved that nine technicians from Telstra, including Gamble, made false statements under oath, falsely assuring Dr Hughes that my business had ceased to experience ongoing issues with telephone and fax services. Dr. Hughes accepted these misleading statements and, in a written finding, concluded that my business had no ongoing problems after July 1994. This erroneous conclusion was issued on May 11, 1995, despite his technical advisors warning him in writing just days earlier, on April 30, 1995, that they had not investigated the root causes of the persistent phone problems.

I embarked on one of the most ambitious one-man investigations to gather this proof. I navigated two arduous government administrative appeal processes with the ACMA, which consistently attempted to thwart my efforts to expose the truth. I was branded a vexatious litigant, and my accusations against Dr. Hughes were brushed off as frivolous. Nonetheless, I persisted, channelling my determination into writing a manuscript chronicling this ordeal. I aspire to publish it by the end of this year.

On the October 3, 2008, case (No V2008/1836), senior AAT Judge Mr G.D. Friedman assessed two of these AAT Freedom of Information (FOI) hearings. The proceedings unfolded in an open court setting, with two government attorneys from the ACMA present and several witnesses in the gallery chamber. This marked a significant moment when Mr Freidman turned and faced me, stating:

“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.”

I have only received a small fraction of the freedom of information documents I initially requested, which raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability in the process. One possible explanation for this lack of documentation is the involvement of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the government-appointed technical consultant who assisted the arbitrator during the COT arbitration process. Dr. Hughes was affiliated with Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a company tasked with investigating issues related to the faulty Ericsson telephone exchange equipment.

Midway through the arbitration proceedings, Lane Telecommunications was acquired by Ericsson of Sweden, raising serious ethical questions. Dr. Hughes and the process administrator allowed this acquisition to proceed despite the apparent conflict of interest it presented. Ericsson manufactured the equipment that was being scrutinized for defects, potentially compromising the investigation's impartiality.

Following the acquisition, all business information pertaining to the COT Cases, including sensitive claims made against the malfunctioning Ericsson equipment, was transferred under confidentiality to Ericsson. This means that not only were our complaints and evidence potentially obscured, but the documents and computers utilized by Lane during the arbitration became the property of Ericsson as well.

Given these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that we, the individuals involved in the COT Cases, feel justified in protesting the integrity of the arbitration process. The entire situation raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of the proceedings, and we wonder how this conflict of interest affected our claims and grievances.

Foreign bribery, corrupt practices, and kleptocracy refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden -- Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, and foreign corruption programs exist. 

It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption allegations the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.   

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/)

We must engage with the Ericsson link referenced above and below as part of my ongoing endeavour to encourage the Australian government to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation into my allegations against Telstra. Additionally, this investigation should examine the legitimacy of Ericsson's acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, which has served as the principal witness against Ericsson in this matter. The facts speak for themselves, and I urge you to make your own judgment.

The telecom giant Ericsson played a controversial role in the arbitration process involving Telstra when it strategically acquired Lane, the key witness appointed by the Australian government. Lane was tasked with investigating whether the Ericsson telephone equipment deployed by Telstra throughout Australia was negatively impacting the businesses of the COT Cases currently in arbitration. This scrutiny was part of a more extensive examination led by Dr Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, who was supposed to have looked closely at the implications of this Ericsson equipment's use.

Dr. Hughes denied his arbitration technical consultants the additional weeks they believed were necessary to diagnose my ongoing telephone billing issues. These problems were linked to the Telstra Portland exchange, which operated using Ericsson's AXE equipment—an outdated system that other countries worldwide have either removed or are in the process of removing from their telephone exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ).

However, several years later, grave allegations emerged linking Ericsson to the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State. Reports indicated that the company was operating in an ISIS-controlled city, where it was allegedly paid to smuggle equipment into areas under ISIS influence via a route nicknamed the “Speedway.” This alarming information was revealed in a leaked internal investigation report obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

According to the report, which paints a troubling picture of corporate ethics, Ericsson made tens of millions of dollars in questionable payments over nearly a decade to uphold its business interests in Iraq. These payments reportedly included the establishment of slush funds, all-expenses-paid trips for defence officials, and under-the-table payoffs funnelled through intermediaries to corporate executives and potentially even to members of terrorist groups.

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

In these instances, the appointed arbitrator was covertly briefed by government bureaucrats with a vested interest in the outcomes. These bureaucrats knew that the majority—if not all—of the claims submitted by the affected parties had been thoroughly validated by AUSTEL, Australia’s government communications authority. AUSTEL had conducted meticulous investigations into these claims, ultimately confirming their validity in a covert report. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the arbitrator was constrained to deliver a written ruling that awarded claimants a mere fraction—less than ten per cent—of their justified claims.

How can one comprehensively present a narrative that is supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the appointed arbitration consultants exercised considerable pressure on the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes AM, LLB (Hons), LLM, PhD, MFA, who currently serves as the Principal at Davies Collison Cave? This pressure allegedly compelled him to make significant and unauthorized modifications to the original arbitration agreement. These changes strategically benefitted the arbitration consultants while adversely impacting the claimants involved in the arbitration process.

The transcripts from the clandestine gathering conducted on March 22, 1994, indicate that the COT cases were not represented (refer to Open letter File No 54-A). Mr. Chalmers of Telstra, the author of the minutes, notably omitted points 4 and 5 from the record, with point 6 following point 3. The absence of points 4 and 5 raises significant concerns.

Dr. Gordon Hughes should not have permitted this secret meeting without the representation of the COT cases. In most, if not all, Western democracies, both the defendants and the claimant’s legal representatives are expected to be present in the judge’s chambers during such proceedings. In this instance, the meeting was attended solely by the defendants, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), and his special counsel, and discussions regarding alterations to the arbitration agreement took place.

The lack of documentation concerning points 4 and 5 in the Telstra transcript is particularly troubling. Were the changes to the arbitration agreement agreed upon during this secret meeting, and is this the reason for removing these points?

The attorneys representing the claimants—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and myself—initially endorsed this agreement as a viable framework. However, our legal representatives were not informed that undisclosed proposed modifications would be enacted following the transmission of the unchanged version of the agreement to their offices. Had Ms. Garms, Mr. Schorer, and I participated in the March 22, 1994 meeting, we would not have faced such significant disadvantages during the arbitration process.

The amendments to clause 24 and the complete removal of clauses 25 and 26 from the arbitration agreement (which delineates the procedural rules) effectively released them from any liability arising from errors. Furthermore, these changes also absolved the legal counsel of the arbitration administrator, who initially collaborated with the defendant's legal team in drafting the agreement Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct).

In stark terms, the government-owned Telstra Corporation was granted the unprecedented power to draft its own arbitration agreement, thereby dictating the norms and procedures the appointed arbitrator would follow. As a result, the arbitration outcomes conducted under Telstra's auspices felt less like fair judicial proceedings and more like a kangaroo court, a façade of justice lacking integrity and transparency.

How does the author compellingly illustrate that government public servants entrusted privileged information to the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while simultaneously obscuring the same documentation from the claimants—fellow Australian citizens seeking justice?

What methods can one employ to narrate a story so extraordinary that even the author feels a tinge of disbelief, prompting a thorough examination of records for verification before progressing with the unfolding tale? How can one successfully unveil the intricate collusion involving an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and the defendants? How do we expose the troubling reality that the defendants in this arbitration process—the former government-owned telecommunications carrier—utilized sophisticated equipment linked to their network to intercept and screen faxed materials leaving your office? These documents were meticulously scanned for critical topics to enhance their defence, which was then redirected to their intended destinations as if nothing had occurred.

The defendants, Telstra Corporation, weaponized this screened information to fortify their arbitration defence, causing significant harm to the claimants working to assert their rights.

Grave injustices have been inflicted upon ordinary citizens, severely undermining our integrity and exacerbating our daily struggles. Many of us have faced threats to our livelihoods and sustained significant financial losses, which have negatively impacted our mental health and overall well-being. I feel compelled to bring attention to a particularly troubling situation that warrants public concern.

I was not alone in facing accusations of mental disturbance after I voiced my criticisms of Telstra's telecommunications infrastructure; several others have experienced similar treatment in the context of their complaints. This distressing pattern became evident during my interactions with Telstra's highly paid clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, who conducted my evaluation in an unconventional setting—the Richmond Henty Hotel saloon bar in Portland, Victoria.

During our meeting, Mr. Joblin provided written statements regarding my mental health. However, the integrity of these documents is questionable, as I discovered that Mr. Joblin’s signature was conspicuously absent from the report he allegedly prepared. Instead, the report bore only the signature of Telstra’s lawyer, Wayne Maurice Condon, from the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page. Disturbingly, there was also no signature on Mr Joblin’s sworn statement pertaining to this report, raising further doubts about its authenticity and the allegedly objective nature of his assessment.

In that interview, I presented compelling evidence that another individual named Alan Smith, who resides in Cape Bridgewater, had similarly disputed Telstra's billing practices. This particular dispute was part of the ongoing investigation related to my arbitration case. When Mr. Joblin reviewed this additional evidence, he seemed to shift his perception of our situation. It became clear to him that there were systemic issues affecting Telstra’s telecommunications services in both Portland and Cape Bridgewater, and he appeared to recognize that my concerns were not isolated incidents but rather part of a broader pattern of unresolved complaints. This realization prompted a notable change in his demeanour towards me, suggesting a newfound understanding that there were more complexities involved in the telecommunications failures experienced by both Alan Smith and myself.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness?  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 Arbitration liaison officer Ted Benjamin 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  compared to the signed statement?" 

John Pinnock has never provided me a response to his letter to Telstra's Ted Benjamin File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647.

I have never received a copy of Telstra's Ted Benjamin's response to Mr Pinnock's questions raised in his letter concerning Mr Joblin's report.

Numerous individuals who have analyzed various witness statements submitted by Telstra during different COT case arbitrations, including my own case, find it particularly troubling that, despite the Senate being made aware of discrepancies related to signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to suggest that I was mentally disturbed presents an issue that extends beyond mere criminal misconduct. This situation raises significant ethical concerns.

Moreover, Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he observed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is called into question by the absence of Joblin's signature on the relevant affirmation. This discrepancy indicates a compelling need for a comprehensive investigation into the COT case's circumstances.

For many years, this government-operated carrier mismanaged its services. It reportedly siphoned off millions—potentially billions—of dollars from the Australian public purse, as documented on pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

As shown on page 5169, Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (refer to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). In it, they instructed their client Telstra (naming four COT Cases: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me, as well as our businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege, even though the requested information was not privileged.

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements.  

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

Worse, however, on 24 June 1997, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia,  an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

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-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018 necessitating an extended hospitalization, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.

How many other arbitration processes across Australia have similarly faced this covert interference? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—hacking into highly confidential documentation—still occurring in legitimate Australian arbitrations today? 

As of 2025, I remain concerned about the lack of disclosure from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding the rationale behind Telstra being granted unrestricted access by senior management associated with the Australian Establishment. This authorization allowed Telstra to utilize the government-owned technician network in ways that have intruded upon both my professional and personal spheres.

Furthermore, it has come to my attention that this network has been employed to intercept and analyse sensitive documents pertinent to my arbitration proceedings. These documents were directed toward my technical arbitration adviser as part of a government-sanctioned arbitration process and were unlawfully monitored during transit to the arbitrator. Such actions are in direct violation of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The continued absence of transparency and accountability in this matter raises significant concerns regarding safeguarding individual rights and the integrity of institutional frameworks designed to uphold these rights.

Justice delayed is justice denied. 

When is the government going to open their eyes?

On 7 January 1999, the arbitration claimants submitted a pivotal report to the Australian Government detailing how confidential arbitration-related documents were surreptitiously and illegally screened before arriving at Parliament House in Canberra.

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 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), 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)

Will the Australian government publicly acknowledge this critical report so that the COT Cases can successfully appeal their awards using Article Twelve of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Telecom held an iron grip on the telecommunications sector for decades, allowing the network to deteriorate significantly. Despite the glaring inadequacies of our telephone services, which left countless Australians frustrated and disconnected, the government-endorsed arbitration process fell tragically short of rectifying these issues. Those who sought to hold Telstra accountable were embroiled in a daunting and costly battle, often investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims, only to see many of their issues go unaddressed.

Disturbingly, those complicit in these injustices continue to occupy positions of power today. Meanwhile, the full extent of our experiences remains shrouded in secrecy, as our story is continuously suppressed and overlooked.

During the arbitration process, the arbitrator, who exhibited a considerable degree of aloofness, assured us that if Telstra failed to provide the necessary documents to substantiate our claims, he would initiate a discovery process. This action was contingent upon our decision to forgo the ongoing, government-endorsed commercial assessment process, which Telstra had signed on November 18, 1993, and the agreements of the four COT cases signed on November 23, 1993.

When we requested Dr. Hughes to formally ask Telstra for the local telephone exchange logbook—specifically, the recordings from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange—the arbitrator rejected our request. This refusal occurred despite my submission of a written statement from Amanda Davis, the former government manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, indicating that such a document existed. Consequently, Dr. Hughes did not pursue the request for the logbook, which would have contained records of every telephone fault investigated by Telstra in the Portland and Cape Bridgewater region.

Not Fit For Purpose

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.

The Under Belly Of Telstra

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 unauthorized 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.

Welcome to absentjustice.com, where our mission is to illuminate the challenges surrounding government agencies and public servants who may have misled Australia's citizens under the guise of impartial arbitration and mediation. By sharing my experience, I aim to offer a detailed overview of the facts and supporting evidence in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. I hope to establish a global dialogue that encourages constructive discussions on critical procedural questions within arbitration processes.

For instance, should arbitration claimants be fully informed before signing an agreement that not all of their submitted claim documents may be addressed by government-appointed consultants? These consultants often determine that specific issues are systemic and not solely related to the individual claim. This was a significant aspect of my own arbitration process that I believe warrants discussion.

Furthermore, if the arbitrator considers a claimant's issues to be systemic and communicates this to the government, should the claimant also receive that same information, which is shared with the defence and arbitrator? In my experience, the arbitration process incurred over $300,000 in professional fees, making transparency crucial.

Finally, I pose this essential question for further consideration in Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct: Is it appropriate for arbitrators to remove clauses from arbitration agreements that might hold consultants accountable for not addressing specific claim documents? By examining these questions collaboratively, we can work towards enhancing the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. I have received thoughtful feedback from two international arbitration consultants who were surprised by my findings. One of these consultants, an international arbitrator from Egypt, has generously allowed me to share his insights on the process. His name has been provided to the Australian Federal Police, who have been involved from the beginning, as detailed in my narrative.

As I approach my 81st birthday in May 2025, I am determined to share this important story, despite the challenges it has already cost me—my beloved holiday camp and my partner's venue, Seal Cove Guest House at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria. I firmly believe that with proper funding, this story can be transformed into a compelling documentary that honors the truth of what transpired. I welcome all suggestions and opportunities for collaboration to ensure this story is told accurately and powerfully. Let’s bring this story to life.