I am pleased to announce the release of my book, Absent Justice. Order 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.

How does one effectively communicate a narrative so remarkable that even the author grapples with its credibility, prompting an exhaustive examination of records prior to proceeding? How does one illuminate the intricate collusion among various appointed government entities and the defendants, Telecom (currently known as Telstra), which was under government ownership at the time? This case is situated within the context of the most significant arbitration ever conducted in Australia. The complexities deepen with the arbitrator's involvement, who currently leads a prestigious law firm in Melbourne that maintains offices throughout Asia, including key financial hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore, where many significant international arbitrations occur.

Moreover, the former Principal Arbitration Project Manager, who transitioned to a partnership at KPMG in 1996, after the conclusion of my arbitration 11 May 1995, in 2025, now oversees arbitration centres in both Melbourne and Hong Kong, is he conducting arbitrations in those centres as he did during my arbitration process? If the answer is yes then my story on absentjustice.com could be seen as a matter of public interest,

How can one reveal that the defendants (Telstra), during these selected arbitration proceedings, illicitly intercepted faxed arbitration-related documents sent by the claimants? This unauthorized access and misuse of confidential information served to fortify the defendants’ position while causing severe detriment to the claimants, who were collectively identified as the Casualties of Telstra (COT).

Furthermore, it is imperative to consider the broader implications: how many other arbitration processes within Australia may have encountered similar compromises? Are this electronic surveillance and the breach of confidentiality still prevalent in legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

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 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)

This report was subsequently communicated to other senior members of the Liberal Coalition in Parliament by Senator Ron Boswell. It substantiates allegations of covert and unlawful interception of confidential documents pertaining to arbitration, occurring both prior to their transmission and during the arbitration proceedings, as well as in relation to communications to and from Parliament House in Canberra. The pressing question remains: will this significant report receive the official acknowledgment it warrants from the government? Such recognition would facilitate the remaining COT Cases in pursuing appeals of their government-sanctioned arbitrations, thereby underscoring the issue as one of public interest.

To provide the reader with a thorough understanding of these complex issues, I have meticulously collated and scanned over 36,000 exhibit documents drawn from 130,000 documents related to six of the twenty-one COT Cases. These documents have been carefully organized and are accessible through Evidence File One and Evidence File Two.

The narrative on absentjustice.com is structured into more than 70 mini-reports (as indicated in the menu bar above). I am concurrently utilizing the Home page and the Confronting Despair page, amalgamating that content into a more comprehensive publication that surpasses the introductory material currently offered for free.

As you navigate these two pages, which direct you to various sections of the website and the locations of the Evidence Files that substantiate my claims, I urge you to consider that I am nearing 81 years old. I initially agreed to enter into arbitration for my claims, endorsed by the government, when I was 49. My extensive experience and involvement in this process underscore the urgency and significance of revealing the truths contained within this narrative.

The Republic of China 

This analysis examines the notable similarities among the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Canadian government, and Telstra Corporation in Australia, particularly in the context of my experiences with Telstra's government-endorsed arbitration process, which exhibited characteristics reminiscent of kangaroo court practices. These scenarios raise significant questions regarding fairness, due process, and the efficacy of established conflict resolution mechanisms.

I question whether the Australian government ought to have contacted me concerning my discovery of evidence that the People's Republic of China was redeploying Australian wheat to North Vietnam during a conflict that resulted in casualties for Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Moreover, the Canadian government expressed apprehension regarding the involvement of one of its prominent telecommunications companies, Bell Canada International Inc., in a fraudulently conducted arbitration process in Australia. It is imperative to reflect on the implications of these issues for the integrity of conflict resolution frameworks within these jurisdictions.

Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the arbitration system in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Uncover who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur!

After my interview with the Commonwealth Police (now known as the Australian Federal Police) on 18 September 1967, where I discussed observations made by myself and several British and West Indian seamen regarding the redeployment of Australian wheat to North Vietnam, I have not received any follow-up from the government since September 1967. They have neither asked for more information nor refuted my claims. I was certainly no hero; I was just a young man who knew right from wrong.

Explore the reasons the China Cultural Revolution plays such a significant role in my life. I, along with several British seamen, found ourselves in the People's Republic of China during a chaotic confrontation. In my case, I was almost shot for being suspected of being a spy and was marched off the Hopepeak ship under guard by two Red Guards and forced to make statements that almost had me shot.

What the two ship's officers had written under my instruction differed from what the Red Guards wanted me to say in my third and last letter. This third letter was written under pressure from the same Red Guards and the now commanding officer: the words I hand wrote were,  "I am a US aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Nationalist Party." When I told the skipper that writing this statement meant I was signing my death warrant, as Chiang Kai-shek was against Mao Tse Tung, the 'Second Steward' in charge of the ship's correspondence said I was dead if I did not.

The central focus of this discourse is to examine the intricate relationship between Communist China and North Vietnam as it pertains to my early experiences in the British and Australian Merchant Navy from 1967 to the 1970s. This exploration is crucial for highlighting the unethical conduct of the Liberal-Country Party Coalition government during the Vietnam War era. This period was characterized by significant loss of life, with the sacrifices made by Australians, New Zealanders, and Americans appearing to hold little significance to political leaders whose primary objective was the preservation of their own power.

The government's indifference to the welfare of its citizens was particularly evident in its decision to privatize the Telstra Corporation, a move executed without consideration of the detrimental effects on numerous individuals and communities. This situation, encapsulated in our Coalition of the Tainted (COT) narrative, highlights the troubling intersection of political decisions and human costs. By analyzing this historical context, one can gain insight into the ethical shortcomings that continue to impact governance today.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned and operated the nation's telephone network through a government agency known as Telecom, which has since been privatized and renamed Telstra. During its tenure as a government-owned entity, Telecom maintained a monopoly on telecommunications services, resulting in a gradual decline of the network's infrastructure and service quality. Instead of taking effective action to remedy the chronic deficiencies in telephone services, the government established an arbitration process that became an uneven battleground for a small group of Australian citizens who called themselves the Casualties of Telstra (COT).

Following my interview with the Commonwealth Police (now referred to as the Australian Federal Police) on 18 September 1967 regarding the observations made by myself and several British and West Indian seamen concerning the redeployment of Australian wheat to North Vietnam, I have not received any subsequent approach from the government since September 1967, asking for more information or refuting my claims.I was certainly no hero only a boy that knew right from wrong.

The Australian government and its arbitration system, which I describe as a "Kangaroo Court" due to its questionable adherence to principles of fairness, allowed Telstra to submit test results from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) that were subsequently determined to be falsified. These results were allegedly obtained from tests conducted at the specific location of Cape Bridgewater/Portland in Victoria, Australia; however, it is essential to clarify that these tests were never executed. This severe discrepancy is highlighted in the BCI Addendum report dated November 10, 1993, which attests to the BCI tests meeting all world standards when this was not the case at the actual testing Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange site.

The consequences of this fraudulent submission are far-reaching, especially within a government-endorsed arbitration process. Regrettably, the Australian government did not recognize the magnitude of the fraud committed and failed to acknowledge its implications for my arbitration proceedings. This gross oversight compromised the integrity of the arbitration process. It caused substantial and lasting damage to my business activities as Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5, Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct, illustrate that the phone faults continued to persist until at least November 2006, a full eleven years after the arbitration was finalized. as the following two absentjustice.com links show.

Remarkably, the Canadian government provided support in a situation that was beyond their jurisdiction. Additionally, a Canadian technical consultant traveled from Canada to assist the arbitrator assigned to my case after informing them that my claim was incomplete. Despite this, the arbitrator submitted the report as the completed final document, as illustrated in the image and story below

In contrast, I received crucial support from the Canadian government on July 7, 1995, which notes 

"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." 

On May 31, 1995, at 2:45 p.m., I received an unexpected phone call from Paul Howell, a representative of DMR Group Inc. in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He wished me a speedy recovery from my suspected heart attack, which had resulted in a five-day hospital stay. Although we had never spoken before, his gesture was both surprising and appreciated, highlighting the concern regarding my situation and my reports to him and his colleague, David Read, about the impractical tests conducted by Bell Canada International Inc. in Cape Bridgewater.

As the independent arbitration technical consultant, I had previously provided Paul Howell and David Read with clear evidence that Telstra and their arbitration lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, were relying on the BCI test to support their claim that my business was not experiencing ongoing telephone problems, which needed further investigation.

Mr. Howell informed me that the arbitrator would not grant him any additional time to investigate my ongoing billing issues directly related to the falsified BCI report from Cape Bridgewater.

The following statement at point 2.23 in Paul Howell's report jointly prepared by Mr Howell (DMR Group Inc. (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia) submitted to the arbitrator on April 30, 1995, clearly indicates that my ongoing 008 billing claims had not been diagnosed. As a result of DMR & Lane not diagnosing these ongoing arbitration complaints, DMR & Lane to state the fault causes would remain "Open" (not my emphasis).

Point 2.23: “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’,”  (See Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

“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.” (See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D

For further clarification, please refer to Chapter 1—The Collusion Continues. It highlights that only 23 assessments were conducted out of more than 200 fault complaints I filed between December 1992 and October 1994. This amounts to less than eleven per cent of my claim being evaluated. I would like to quote the DMR & Lane report at Point 3, which states: Chapter 1—The Collusion Continues 

"About 200 fault reports were made over December 1992 to October 1994. Specific assessment of these reports other than where covered above has not been attempted".

Consequently, the arbitrator considered less than eleven per cent of my fault complaints during the arbitration, which cost me more than $300,000 in professional preparation fees. Therefore, the telephone call I received from Paul Howell on May 31, 1995, at 2:45 p.m., (see above) represented a significant development in this terrible denial of justice.

Following that telephone conversation, I submitted a statutory declaration to the government concerning my case. This declaration contained statements from Mr. Paul Howell, who had been brought in from Canada to assist with the COT arbitrations. In his remarks, Mr. Howell characterized my situation as the most severe he had encountered throughout his professional career. He underscored the unethical nature of my arbitration process, asserting that such conduct would be deemed unacceptable in Canada.

In simple, two Canadian stalwarts of justice, the Canadian Government and DMR Group Inc., also from Canada, were prepared to state what they did. In contrast, the Australian Government has continued to bury their heads when justice for their citizens should have been a priority.

My story demonstrates how the government has consistently deflected the truth regarding its misguided judgments in world affairs, dating back to the Vietnam War. It even provided covert assistance to North Vietnam—the very nation that Australia, New Zealand and the USA were actively engaged in conflict against. This narrative illustrates the depth of this deception.

It is essential to thoroughly investigate the wheat deal with The Peoples Republic of China, orchestrated during the Menzies Liberal-Country Party government in the mid-1960s. This contentious agreement had significant implications primarily hidden behind a well-crafted government campaign aimed at discrediting the credibility of certain British merchant seamen and myself. These brave individuals brought to light a disturbing reality: a portion of the wheat, after being offloaded by Chinese peasants, was being repurposed by The People's Republic of China to support North Vietnam during its intense conflict with the United States, New Zealand, and Australia.

Despite the gravity of these revelations, the Australian government actively sought to divert attention from the alarming findings I presented, along with the reports submitted by several British seamen to the Australian Commonwealth Police (now called the Australian Federal Police) and various government officials upon their discharge in Sydney and subsequent return to England. This tactic of undermining our credibility was not simply a means of shifting public focus; it represented a deliberate strategy that effectively silenced opposition voices and obscured the troubling truths surrounding this trade.

This situation underscores the importance of documenting the misleading and deceptive practices enacted by the Australian government. My experience with the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) COT Cases testing process exemplifies this broader issue. I demonstrated that the testing process, which was purportedly conducted to assess the telephone exchanges servicing Telstra's casualties, was impractical. In reality, no testing occurred at the locations that Bell Canada International Inc. claimed in their official reports. These reports were submitted as evidence in government-endorsed arbitrations resembling Kangaroo Courts, lacking the transparency and objectivity expected in such serious matters.

The stark discrepancy between what the Bell Canada International Inc. report claimed and the actual circumstances calls into question the integrity of the government and its public servants, who persistently refused to investigate or acknowledge my evidence. Rather than engaging with my substantial claims and initiating a genuine inquiry into these pressing concerns, the government opted to discredit me. They framed me as an unreliable source, attempting to undermine my credibility despite the overwhelming factual evidence I provided to both the government and the arbitrator involved. This pattern of behaviour echoed my experiences in 1967 when I was nearly shot for spying—a situation in which I was caught red-handed.

It is crucial to connect the alarmingly parallel issues surrounding The Peoples Republic of China and Bell Canada International Inc., even though they occurred twenty-five years apart. This connection reveals that public servants in the Australian government have been responsible for disseminating serious falsehoods to the citizens of Australia to shield the government's interests at any cost—even if it meant compromising the safety and well-being of troops deployed in North Vietnam. The implications of these actions are profound and warrant serious reflection on government accountability and the importance of transparency in public service.

My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on a British tramp ship, the Hopepeak. Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Vietcong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

My involvement in the COT Cases arbitration disaster appears deeply intertwined with events from June to September 1967, marked by significant turmoil. During this time, I was serving in the Australian Merchant Navy, navigating the challenging waters of international waters and geopolitical tensions. During this tenure, the British Seamen's Union approached me with an unexpected opportunity: to join a British-registered ship called Hopepeak in Melbourne as a Cook- Steward following the sudden illness of a previous crew member.

Accepting this position was particularly pivotal for me, as it offered a chance to erase my previous registered Bad Discharge, 'Voyage Not Completer,' stamped in my seaman's book from the Port Lyttleton ship five years prior (British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman). This resolution meant I could navigate a more promising path, allowing me to operate under two registrations—one British and one Australian—enabling me to work on ships and in various ports across the globe.

Without thoroughly investigating the nature of Hopepeak’s journey, I eagerly accepted the role. I later learned that the ship was headed to Communist China to deliver a substantial shipment of Australian wheat, approximately 13,600 tons. This was a significant and ironic twist, especially given that during this period, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand were deeply involved in the Vietnam War. This conflict should never have occurred. Meanwhile, Communist China and Russia were actively supporting that war. The implications of this journey weighed heavily on my conscience, contributing to a complex moral landscape that I would struggle with for years to come.

Reflecting on these events, particularly the narrative surrounding Communist China and North Vietnam, presents a multifaceted challenge that compels deep introspection. In 2019, at seventy-five, I revisited the Vietnam Memorial precinct in Portland, Victoria. This site has held profound emotional significance for me throughout the decades. The park's tranquil atmosphere often envelops me in a blanket of silence as I confront a lingering sense of shame. I wrestle with the reality that I felt powerless to influence or halt the devastating trade underpinning these historical conflicts. This ongoing reflection invites me to consider my actions and the broader implications of our choices in political strife.

During the quiet moments in Portland's Memorial Peace Park, I vividly remember the frustration I had previously shared with several British seamen I know as we watched Australian wheat being unloaded from our ship, the Hopepeak. The sight was jarring—the golden grain cascading onto another vessel bound for Saigon, the very city where North Vietnamese forces were actively slaughtering and maiming as many soldiers as they could from Australia, New Zealand and the USA. 

Before I moved to Ballarat, Victoria, I felt compelled to pay tribute to the Portland Memorial Peace Park one last time and reflect on the memories and the weight of those years. On my way to Ballarat via Dunkeld, I stopped at the not-so-private memorial statue adjacent to the local swimming pool. During that brief stop, I reminisced about the not-so-peaceful times of 1967, and I knew I had to document this part of my Casualties of Telstra story.

Unfortunately, I cannot return to Cape Bridgewater, where my once-beloved Holiday Camp has changed owners for the second time. If the phone problems had been resolved as part of my costly arbitration with the government-owned Telstra Corporation—something I was promised would happen—I would still be living there.

Portland Memorial Vietnam Peace Park

Please visit → https://shorturl.at/aejRT

The following three statements are from a report prepared by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on 4 September 1965 (father of Australia's former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly). 

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569 

"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam".  It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"

If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."

Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."  

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

It is essential to advise new visitors to this website absentjustice.com that they can access the comprehensive narrative I am refining for enhanced clarity by hovering your cursor over the two provided links. The links "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam and Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong".

These links offer critical insights relevant to my side of the "Casualties of Telstra" narrative and the intertwining of both.

These links illustrate that, in 1967, during the Vietnam War, the Liberal-Country Party government continued to trade with Communist China despite awareness that this wheat was being redirected to North Vietnam. Additionally, the government disseminated misleading information regarding the circumstances under which I and several British seamen declined to embark on a subsequent voyage. This misinformation was perpetuated by the Trade Minister, Sir John McEwen, who later served as Australia’s 18th Prime Minister. 

Our direct accounts of the events drew considerable attention from the Australian Senate, as documented in the Senate Hansard on September 6, 1967 - https://shorturl.at/ovEW5 shows. Dr Patterson (minister in opposition) asked Mr Aldermann, Primary Industry Minister. 

"What guarantees has the Australian Government that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China is not forwarding China to North Vietnam 

Mr Adermann, on behalf of the Liberal and Country Party government that had authorised this three-year wheat deal to China - answered Dr Patterson as follows:

"The Australian Government does not exercise control over the ultimate destination of goods purchased by foreign buyers"

I can only assume that Mr Alderman did not have a sibling fighting in North Vietnam when he made that statement on behalf of the Australian government.

Despite the gravity of the situation, no one in the Australian Government— including the former Prime Minister—was willing to confront the reality that engaging in trade with the enemy represents one of the most reprehensible actions a country can take. This reluctance to acknowledge the implications of such actions is clearly illustrated in the content of the following image, which highlights the serious moral and ethical dilemmas involved in supporting adversaries.

One of the most extraordinary and troubling issues I faced regarding the ongoing trade with China involved Malcolm Fraser, the Minister of the Army at the time and later became Australia's 22nd Prime Minister. On September 18, 1967, the day I returned from this terrible ordeal, I carefully composed a letter to Mr Fraser outlining my significant concerns about the implications of this trade. The situation escalated when the Commonwealth Police, now known as the Australian Federal Police, boarded the Hopepeak when she that docked.

Australian media and government officials showed a strong interest in my previous arrest by the Red Guards on spying charges, adding a compelling layer of intrigue to my situation. Given these circumstances, I took the initiative to request that the Commonwealth Police ensure Mr Fraser received my correspondence, which included vital information about the coerced statements I had made under the threat of being shot (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong).

In April 1994, during an in-depth discussion regarding my earlier correspondence, Mr. Fraser expressed uncertainty about whether his office had received my letter, which frustrated me over the communication lapses. I clarified that Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) had been brought to Australia to investigate the COT cases, which were intricately linked to the telephone exchanges used for their business operations. I emphasized that the test results from this investigation were fundamentally flawed, raising serious concerns about the government bureaucrats involved in my government-endorsed arbitration. Mr. Fraser suggested that I seek assistance from the Australian Government to address my concerns. I later realized that the restricted information in Telstra's internal memo, which Malcolm Fraser discussed with the media concerning his telephone conversations with me, might have originated from my original contact with him on September 18, 1967, about Australia’s trade with its adversaries. 

The documentation in File 114 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127, dated 12 November 1994, provides a comprehensive account of the considerable efforts undertaken by John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to assist me in gaining access to my Telstra arbitration file through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. This file is particularly significant as it references three Telstra employees who claim I had previously discussed my private telephone conversations with them concerning my previous telephone calls to Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. In my sworn testimony, which I provided to Mr. Wynack, I categorically stated that such conversations did not occur with these individuals. Despite exhaustive efforts to investigate this matter, the names of these employees were never released to Mr Wynack or myself.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. The transcripts explicitly states,

"... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it.

Moreover, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) informed me that my telephone conversations were subjected to interception over a prolonged period. This unauthorized monitoring may have allowed Telstra to incorporate specific details from my conversations into their official records, thereby raising serious concerns about the veracity of the information utilized against me during the arbitration process. Relevant excerpts from the AFP transcripts of my second interview, conducted on September 26, 1994, illuminate my interactions with Malcolm Fraser and the threats issued by Telstra's Paul Rumble throughout my arbitration.

Regrettably, the appointed arbitrator, the administrator overseeing the arbitration process, and the Australian Federal Police could not effectively address the threats of Paul Rumble of Telstra. These threats emerged following Telstra's submission of a formal defence regarding my case on December 12, 1994, and they significantly compromised the integrity of my arbitration claims process, thereby undermining my pursuit of justice.

In a significant development, Mr. Wynack continued his investigations, which began on November 11, 1994, and concluded on October 4, 1997. He aimed to identify the three Telstra employees who claimed I had extensively discussed (with them) my conversations with former Prime Minister Mr Fraser. This allegation was why Mr. Fraser's name appeared in restricted file notes related to my matters, which I obtained from Telstra under the Freedom of Information Act. This three-year investigation conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman highlighted the need to clarify whether the references to Communist China and North Vietnam in the restricted Telstra file notes were related to my disclosure to the government in September 1967 about what I witnessed in the People's Republic of China, or my government-endorsed arbitration.

Mr. Wynack expressed scepticism in his letters regarding Telstra's assertion that my arbitration file had been irretrievably destroyed. (Refer to (Home Page File No/82)

Hover your cursor over the image below to understand the significance of the Canadian government's positive response. This response was crucial in effectively addressing the issue, especially after the Australian government refused to take action against corrupt practices in Australian-administered arbitrations. Please note the Canadian Government's interest in the BCI issues has also been briefly mentioned above. 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I received a letter of support dated July 7, 1995, which acknowledged the situation.

"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."    

In May 1995, I experienced a suspected heart attack that forced me to confront numerous ongoing issues related to my telephone service. This incident occurred just days after the arbitrator issued findings concerning these problems, but unfortunately, the underlying issues remained unresolved. As a result of my situation, I had to hire a caretaker to assist me during this challenging time. She informed me that she had received three separate calls that day from various groups expressing their ongoing complaints about telecommunications problems.

During this same period, on 31 May 1995, at 2:45 p.m., I received an unexpected phone call from Paul Howell, a representative from DMR Group Inc. in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He wished me a speedy recovery even though we had never spoken before. His gesture was both surprising and appreciated, as it highlighted the concern surrounding my situation.

Following that telephone conversation, I submitted a statutory declaration to the government concerning my case. This declaration contained statements from Mr. Paul Howell, who had been brought in from Canada to assist with the COT arbitrations. In his remarks, Mr. Howell characterized my situation as the most severe he had encountered throughout his professional career. He underscored the unethical nature of my arbitration process, asserting that such conduct would be deemed unacceptable in Canada.

Accessing Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues provides valuable insights into the severely flawed testing process employed by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) concerning the telephone and switching exchange at Portland and Cape Bridgewater. This section highlights irrefutable evidence that Paul Howell and Lane Telecommunications submitted their findings without receiving the additional weeks they specifically advised the arbitrator were necessary on April 30, 1995, to conclude their investigations into the 008 billing discrepancies adequately. The arbitrator's decision to deny this request for an extension resulted in the persistence of my 008 faults for several years following the conclusion of the arbitration process.

The COT case revealed evidence that Bell Canada International Inc. was specifically commissioned from Canada to investigate claims of systemic issues affecting Telstra's telecommunications network. Unfortunately, we encountered dishonesty and mistreatment throughout this process, culminating in the COT arbitrator's refusal to examine our assertions that our telephone problems persisted even as the arbitration concluded.

In my case, the testing allegedly occurring over five days in November 1993 was not conducted on the telephone and switching devices at Portland and Cape Bridgewater. Nonetheless, Telstra's attorneys submitted erroneous test results from Cape Bridgewater during the arbitration, misleading the arbitrator. These false results were ultimately utilized to obscure Telstra's deficiencies.

Despite my persistent efforts, the government refused to investigate my allegations that Telstra and AUSTEL were using the BCI tests to conceal Telstra's systemic and ongoing telephone problems. The only person who showed concern about this fraudulent conduct was the communications minister in Canada. 

On 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson, a government representative speaking on behalf of AUSTEL (now ACMA), responded to my inquiries regarding the authenticity of the BCI testing by saying:,

"The tests to which you refer were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be referred to those who carried them out or claim to have carried them out." (Refer to File 186 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

This unusual response prompted me to follow up on the BCI testing at Cape Bridgewater. However, it was widely known and documented in the AUSTEL COT Cases Report dated 13 April 1995 that AUSTEL had allowed BCI to limit their testing (Refer to page 243 - point 11.8 in the government-prepared report). In response, I researched Mr. Cliff Mathieson and discovered a secret letter he had written to Telstra on December 9, 1993, six months before my arbitration began (Refer to File 20-A BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46). This letter was not included in the arbitration schedule list of recorded documents provided to the arbitrator before the COT arbitrations. This omission indicates that the Australian government, Telstra, and their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, withheld crucial evidence from the arbitration process they had endorsed. Consequently, the government played a role in jeopardizing the lives of those involved in the COT Cases and their loved ones.

What circumstances influenced Dr Gordon Hughes AM, the arbitrator responsible for my case and currently the Principal Partner at Davies Collison Cave in Melbourne, to refuse a comprehensive investigation into my legally submitted arbitration claim?

The information presented in the following image prompts critical questions about why Dr. Hughes AM and Warwick Smith AM have not been publicly called upon to clarify why the arbitrator was allowed to proceed with the COT arbitrations, despite lacking control over the process, which was clearly conducted outside the agreed-upon procedures.

The analysis of Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 reveals a troubling pattern of deceit by the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Lava. She has deliberately misled the Senate about the accuracy of the Cape Bridgewater BCI testing results. This misrepresentation is particularly concerning given the Senate's explicit directive on 26 September 1997, which required Telstra to provide truthful information 'On Notice.'

Despite this clear mandate, Telstra has persistently denied the existence of the false BCI information submitted at the Senate's request in October 1997. Such actions undermine the integrity of the Senate and amount to profound contempt of its authority. Providing knowingly false information to the Senate, especially in a formal context, 'On Notice,' is not merely a procedural issue; it constitutes a chargeable offence, 'Contempt of the Senate, ' which carries a potential maximum sentence of two years in prison. 

In this complex scenario, grave injustices were perpetrated against us in sixteen COT Cases; all Australian citizens who, through the government-endorsed arbitration and mediation process, faced attacks on their integrity and reputations. The emotional toll was substantial; many saw their livelihoods devastated, resulting in losses amounting to millions of dollars. Additionally, their mental health suffered due to the prolonged stress and uncertainty—yet those who committed these wrongs remain entrenched in positions of power today.

A dark cloud of secrecy surrounds the COT story, as efforts to reveal the truth have been persistently suppressed. This narrative involves egregious crimes, unscrupulous individuals, and a network of corrupt politicians and lawyers who orchestrated the arbitration process to protect Telstra from scrutiny. This system allowed the reality of Telstra's failing telecommunications network to remain hidden, revealing the collusion between influential stakeholders.

The type of corroded copper wire that the COT Cases and more than 120,000 other COT-type Australian citizens experienced reflects the serious shortcomings in the government's investigation of our arbitration claims. My concerns, including those related to the lack of action from the government regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA), were warranted, especially given that the arbitrator and Telstra did not address the systemic billing claims during the arbitration process. This situation highlights the significant issues within Australia's copper network, as documented on absentjustice.com and in sources like Delimiter’s "Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter. 

The actions taken by these individuals during the arbitration are characterized by terms like "shameful," "hideous," and "treacherous," reflecting the profound moral failings involved. Corruption and misleading conduct hindered justice throughout the COT arbitrations, as arbitrators ignored unethical behaviour. Understanding who played a role in these crimes is crucial, as is recognizing how they influenced the arbitrators who were supposed to ensure fair outcomes.

Moreover, the narrative unveils the pervasive corruption within government bureaucracy that complicated the COT arbitrations. It is essential to explore who was responsible for these egregious acts and where they currently stand within the Australian political Establishment and legal system that permitted these injustices to fester. By examining the complexities of corruption in arbitration, readers can gain deeper insights into the intricate issues surrounding this critical topic known as Absent Justice. 

In the world of political and media misinformation that is attached to the National Broadband Network (NBN), there is one crucial issue that hasn’t been fully addressed – Did Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements when the government privatised the first part of Telstra in 1997? When the COT arbitrator was officially provided (in my case) nine separate sworn Telstra witness statements that my service was now up to network standard, i.e., no more ongoing telephone problems, were these nine sworn statements made under oath true or false? 

If this question is answered honestly, it would not only directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending but also mean the arbitrator hearing my cases was lied to so that Telstra could minimise their liability towards me. As seen from the following exhibit, my phone problems continued for eleven years after the arbitrator found them in favour of Telstra, i.e., they had now fixed their network.

For the government regulator, AUSTEL (now ACMA), to reduce their findings from 120,000 COT-type complaints to read 50 or more COT-type customer complaints in their public report is one ‘hell of a lie told to the citizens of Australia’ (Refer to Open Letter File No/11).

Telstra had so much power over AUSTEL (the then governemnt communications regulator (now ACMA) that it forced AUSTEL to drastically reduce the numbers, as shown in the official government regulatory COT Case April 1994 Report, from some 120,000 COT-type customers who had similar CAN and Ericsson AXE problems, right around Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) to 50-plus. Telstra was also somehow able to force AUSTEL to submit fabricated SVT reports to the minister via their third quarterly COT Cases Report of 2 February 1995.

Of course, since the arbitrator was protecting the government during our arbitrations, he found that there were no more ongoing problems affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and his award of 11 May 1995 only reported on old, historic, anecdotal Telstra-related faults and ignored the still-ongoing faults that were still occurring.

Were these 120,000 COT-type customers who were having similar major problems right around Australia (see Falsification Report File No/8) also related to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems that were worrying AUSTEL, as well as the CAN and Ericsson AXE problems? The information I supplied to AUSTEL between June and August 1993 (inadvertently left inside the allusive briefcase at my premises) showed this was possibly the case (refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN).

For a government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. This lie allowed for the ongoing telephone problems to be ignored by the arbitrator, resulting in continuing issues until at least 2015, 2017, and 2018, as the following three examples show.

Had AUSTEL (now ACMA) dealt with the truth in 1994 when the COT Cases exposed how bad the phone system was, instead of ignoring the faults, the problems might have been fixed two days again; this non-action by ACMA supported the COT cases that our arbitrations should be reinvestigated to learn what went wrong?

23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.

9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the issues we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095 and absentjustice.com/Introduction again shows that the COT Cases claims of ailing copper wire network were more than valid.  

Almost two decades after this cover-up had been executed, with the government spin doctors successfully branding my claims as frivolous and me as a vexatious litigant, I have been left the government stopped financing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which still utilises part of the existing, seriously degraded copper network. In fact, “28 April 2018: This ABC news article regarding the NBN see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow ... needs to be read in conjunction with my own story because had these lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees had not occurred then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) was just 7-years ago.

Why did Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page submit a witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, in which Mr Condon attests that the witness statement and report authored by Mr Joblin, Telstra's clinical psychologist, were signed off, even though neither document had been signed? Furthermore, why was Mr. Condon the sole individual to provide a signature on these two combined documents? It is also pertinent to inquire why Telstra permitted Freehill Hollingdale & Page to submit the inaccurate Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater test results to Mr. Joblin. BCI asserted that 13,590 test calls were successfully transmitted to the Cape Bridgewater telephone switching exchange, even though the nearest exchange capable of accommodating the specialized BCI equipment utilized for these tests was located in Warrnambool, 115 kilometres away.

Of course, Mr Joblin thought I was mentally disturbed when I was told 13,590 test calls were generated over different periods of the day over five days. Why didn't Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now rebranded as) Herbert Smith Freehills apologize for providing Ian Joblin with this false Cape Bridgewater BCI report before Mr Joblin interviewed me? 

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 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 compared to the signed statement?" 

I have not received a response from Telstra's Ted Benjamin regarding John Pinnock's official request. See also Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page 

Explore the second phase of Australian Federal Police Investigations, where intricate cases and deeper insights are rigorously examined. However, one must question whether this scrutiny remains consistent when the government-owned corporation in question is Telstra

Multinational law firm,

When the government engages prominent legal firms such as Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating under Herbert Smith Freehills, a well-established Multinational law firm, to represent its public servants, bureaucrats, and various government-funded agencies, ordinary citizens face significant challenges in accessing justice. This engagement often results in an unequal playing field, where these legal entities' substantial resources and expertise can overshadow individual citizens' voices and legal capabilities.

I want to raise two critical questions:

Firstly, when Freehill Hollingdale & Page became aware that Wayne Maurice Condon had sworn under oath that he had seen Ian Joblin’s signature, a clinical psychologist, on both the witness statement and the accompanying report—even though no such signature was present—why did they not remove these statements from Telstra's arbitration defence after Condon made this sworn declaration?

Secondly, when Freehill Hollingdale & Page discovered that the Cape Bridgewater BCI report they provided to Ian Joblin contained significant flaws and was fundamentally unsuitable for its intended purpose, why did they not take immediate and decisive action to have this report removed from the arbitration, especially considering that Telstra had also supplied the arbitrator with a copy?

The original introduction to this Home page comprised twelve chapters. As the story evolved and the supporting evidence expanded, I recognized the need to restructure the narrative into these twelve distinct chapters. At 81 years old, I am committed to having these chapters fully edited and finalized by the end of February 2025

oOo

On the Australian Government’s website for Foreign Trade, under the heading Anti-corruption and bribery, it is noted that:

“The Australian Government supports ethical business practices and the prosecution of those who engage in illegal practices. This helps to improve Australia’s investment opportunities overseas and is an important aspect of Australia's global reputation.”

If the Australian Government are unwavering in their support of ‘ethical business practices, and the prosecution of those who engage in illegal practices’, then why haven’t those Telstra employees who were involved in the government-endorsed COT arbitrations been prosecuted by the government concerning the serious crimes they committed against other Australian citizens, as evidenced on absentjustice.com?

When and if the Crown's Ministers place themselves beyond the law and constitutional custom, the ultimate guardian is the Crown itself. In Australia's constitutional monarchy system, the role of the Governor-General or State Governor—as Head of State—must be to invoke the Crown's discretionary reserve powers as a last resort to ensure compliance with the general law and the effective working of parliamentary democracy.

We may have an extraordinary circumstance now in the shape of the unaddressed sixteen COT Cases on the Senate Schedule B list of unresolved FOI claimants — An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

Even after thirty years, the government must consider invoking the Governor's Discretionary Reserve Powers and resolve these unresolved issues.