Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

 

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

― Maya Angelou

After completing my initial draft of absentjustice.com, I received invaluable feedback from two insightful editors—one based in the picturesque landscapes of New Zealand and the other in the vibrant city of Melbourne. They suggested that I delve deeper into the narratives, emphasizing that this focus would help shed light on the intricate web of collusion, misconduct, and deceit that permeates various levels of accountants and government officials.

I am developing a detailed timeline of events for my manuscript, ABSENT JUSTICE—Part 2. This timeline is in draft format as I diligently work toward its finalization. I invite you to explore the “Lies Deceit And Treachery” section to glimpse the unfolding story.

I initially crafted and refined the additional mini-stories featured throughout the website and continue enhancing them on the Home Page. As visitors engage with absentjustice.com daily or weekly, they will witness the ongoing evolution of the narrative, with fresh updates that will keep the content dynamic and engaging. These updates will persist until this significant chapter of our story reaches its conclusion.

This unfolding experience, rich in detail and emotion, may prove compelling in its own right, and I envision transforming it into a thought-provoking documentary. If anyone reading this narrative feels inspired and is interested in investing in such a project, I wholeheartedly encourage you to contact us through the website. Your support could help bring this vital story to a broader audience.

The holiday camp (my business) heavily relied on landline phones as the only means of communication except for passing trade. When we first fell in love with the place, we overlooked the outdated telephone system. In those days, there was no mobile coverage, and business was not conducted through the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility, which was then routed to the central telephone exchange in Portland, 20 kilometres away. This facility, installed over 30 years ago, was designed for low-call-rate areas and had only eight lines to serve 66 families, totalling 132 adults and children.

If four callers were trying to connect to or from Cape Bridgewater, there were only four available lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children to make or receive calls. During peak times—such as weekends and holidays—when more visitors flocked to the seaside resort, the demand for calls increased significantly. This often resulted in the lines becoming jammed and non-responsive

After three and a half years of utilizing outdated equipment, Telstra ultimately implemented a new system. However, they erroneously failed to program this system through the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. Such workmanship is considered unacceptable. This issue is further illustrated by a government document AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between  Points 2 to 212, the public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated.

My name is Alan Smith, and I want to share my story and the harrowing experiences of other business owners who have endured significant hardships at the hands of Telecom, now rebranded as Telstra. We became known by the poignant acronym COT—Casualties of Telecom.

Until the late 1990s, Telecom was the backbone of Australia's communication infrastructure, serving as the government’s telephone network and primary communication carrier. It was a time when reliable communication was vital for businesses and communities. However, as the century turned, Telecom faced a significant transformation; it was privatized and adopted the name Telstra. This change, heralded as a move toward modernization and efficiency, marked the beginning of a decline. Once a monopoly in the telecommunications sector, Telstra became mired in rampant mismanagement at every level. The result was a crumbling network that poorly served countless customers reliant on consistent communication for their operations and connections with clients.

In a misguided effort to rectify the mounting communication crises that plagued businesses, the government instituted an arbitration process. This was intended to be a lifeline to address and resolve ongoing issues with faulty telephone services. However, the reality unfolded starkly differently. What began as a possible avenue for redress quickly devolved into a skewed power struggle between the COT claimants and the formidable, government-backed Telecom. As four claimants, we found ourselves ensnared in a daunting duel that felt insurmountable. Our mounting frustrations with unreliable telephone and fax services only compounded our challenges, leading to spiraling costs and staggering losses. Our legitimate concerns were met with a cold indifference, as if they were mere inconveniences rather than serious impediments to our livelihoods.

The impact of this turmoil was both profound and personal. Our integrity was questioned; reputations painstakingly built over the years were systematically dismantled. In some troubling instances, outright criminal acts were perpetrated against us. Telecom attempted to divert the blame onto small business owners, casting us as the architects of our misfortunes. In truth, we suffered from the severe consequences of their negligence, facing a devastating erosion of our livelihoods due to the failure of essential communication services to uphold our connections with clients.

As COT claimants, we collectively incurred losses amounting to millions of dollars. The toll on our mental well-being was nothing short of devastating; many of us experienced a drastic decline in our health as stress and despair took hold. Eventually, our once-thriving businesses crumbled into ruins. Meanwhile, those entrenched in government—the very architects of this outrageous injustice and widespread corruption—continue to inhabit positions of power to this day. The tragic truths of our experiences remain shrouded in obscurity, suffocated under layers of bureaucratic red tape.

These stories carry immense significance even now as the cover-up continues unabated. They serve as a stark reminder of how, amidst rapid technological advancements, large organizations can exploit their clients, conceal corrupt practices, and evade accountability for their mismanagement. This narrative is steeped in themes of egregious government malfeasance, deep-seated injustices, and alarming criminal behavior, echoing the treachery traditionally associated with organized crime syndicates.

In preparing the introduction to Gaslighting, it was essential to show how Telstra's gaslighting conduct towards its customer base, particularly regarding allegations of malfeasance, impropriety, and malpractice; it is pertinent to note that certain Telstra employees themselves faced accusations of delinquency, impropriety, and malversation. These individuals were purportedly involved in unethical activities commonly known as naughtiness, legal bullying and rudeness. This led to malpractice and mismanagement claims against its senior officials for their offensive transgression and wrongdoing towards the COT Cases.

 

This hypocritical, leaning towards untrue and fallacious insincere, perjurious and two-faced double, dealing smooth-tongued mealymouthed behaviour is what the COT Cases tried to have the arbitrator take on board—the arbitration proceedings of the COT Cases endeavoured to bring attention to these issues. However, the considerable duration, spanning over three years, during which Telstra remunerated the arbitrator's fees presented a formidable challenge.

A government-endorsed arbitration process was established to assist business owners in addressing ongoing communication issues and resolving persistent problems with faulty telephone services. Unfortunately, this initiative quickly devolved into a one-sided struggle between the COT Cases and the government-supported telecom provider, leaving the four claimants—including myself—unable to achieve a fair resolution. Our difficulties with telephone and fax services worsened as our financial burdens grew, exacerbated by the failure to repair inadequate services and the lack of direct attention to our concerns. This lack of support was especially disheartening given the government's previous assurances in their April 1994 public COT Cases Report and various media releases from Canberra Parliament House.

Amidst this turmoil, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed commercial assessor for the proposed arbitrations and a former President of the Law Council of Australia, along with Warwick Smith, the newly appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and a former government minister, informed us and an expanding group of other individuals affected by similar chronic phone issues about the urgent need for a proper arbitration process. The initial four COT Cases, recognized as trailblazers for highlighting the significant inadequacies in the Telstra network, were ultimately offered an alternative: instead of pursuing arbitration, we were presented with a commercial assessment process to acknowledge our efforts. Telstra signed this agreement on November 18, 1993, followed by the four COT Cases on November 23, 1993.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, before we agreed to the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), Warwick Smith—the administrator of the FTSP—was secretly given privileged government information that was shared with Telstra's upper management. This confidential information indicated that the COT Cases were losing the government support that had initially backed a Senate investigation into Telstra. This strategic move allowed Telstra to stall the FTSP process, denying the four COT Cases access to essential discovery documents we would receive under the established Freedom of Information (FOI) framework. As Telstra exploited this delay to their advantage, their legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, seized the opportunity to draft an arbitration agreement that was heavily skewed in favor of Telstra.

On 10 January 1994, a significant document from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), referenced as File 56-B - Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D, was issued confirming that Warwick Smith had granted authorization to Grant Campbell of Telstra. This authorization empowered Campbell to thoroughly assess my FTSP claims against Telstra. Notably, this evaluation occurred a full five months prior to the appointment of Dr. Gordon Hughes as the Arbitrator in this matter. As a result, Telstra possessed crucial insights into my strengths and weaknesses before I formally signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994, thus impacting the dynamics of the following negotiations.

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

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

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

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

On January 10, 1994, Warwick Smith received a copy of the arbitration agreement crafted by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, which was subsequently handed over to Dr. Gordon Hughes as the FTSP assessor.
 

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's 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.

Transcripts from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 8 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) reveal significant testimony provided by Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT cases. In an official capacity under oath, Mr. Schorer conveyed to two government attorneys and a senior member of the AAT panel that he and I were actively seeking access to a series of freedom of information documents that Telstra had withheld during the critical arbitration discovery process. Our primary objective was to compile a comprehensive and factual narrative that would illuminate and potentially open doors for other similar cases—fewer than sixteen—that could prompt the Senate to advocate for a thorough government investigation into the validity of our claims.

What Mr. Schorer failed to disclose to the attorneys or the presiding judge, Mr. GD Friedman, was a crucial detail that had a bearing on our case: unbeknownst to me, the government had concealed AUSTEL Adverse Findings from both itself and the arbitrator in March 1994. Alarmingly, these findings were provided to Telstra a mere six weeks before I signed my arbitration agreement. This transfer of information was strategically timed to assist Telstra in mounting a defence against my claims regarding the persistent problems I was experiencing with telephone and fax services, continuing even on the day the information was bestowed upon them.

The government appeared to operate under the belief that preventing me from substantiating my claims was imperative. It was not until November 2007—twelve years after the government initially supplied these AUSTEL Adverse Findings to Telstra—that I received access to this critical document. By this point, the utility of the findings had diminished significantly, as they were now five years past the six-year statute of limitations for filing an appeal against my award.

A thorough examination of this report may lead an impartial observer to conclude that the government has patently breached its obligations towards me as an Australian citizen. This breach appears to stem from a discriminatory practice favouring Telstra, a corporation wholly owned by the Australian government and representing the collective interests of the Australian people, during that significant period in March 1994, Refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings

Points 2 to 212, in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirm that the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings.  

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered this AAT hearing and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”