You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in 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 wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the arbitration system in Australia, certainly for a further sixteen years after the COT arbitrations were conducted in the most undemocratic and appalling atrocious way. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers who were given the key to destroying as many Australian citizens as was necessary to ensure the Telstra Corporation was privatised at all costs. 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!

Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition? 

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority (now operating under the banner of ACMA) seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 - (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

No one, from the government, even AUSTEL (now ACMA), would investigate why Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne).  

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

In response to their inquiry on 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson from AUSTEL wrote,

"The tests you refer to were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be directed to those who conducted or claimed to have conducted them."

A storage letter to have been sent after Cliff Mathieson had already written eighteen months previous on 9 December 1993, before Telstra used the BCI report as Defence Material, advising Telstra to provide the “assessor(s)” of the COT processes with a copy of his letter regarding the BCI tests, which he declared did not go far enough. This letter was NOT provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) or the COT Cases, as AUSTEL had directed, which makes Telstra’s use of the BCI Report even more unconscionable.

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being of sound mind?

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal arbitration system in Australia.

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, proving that the COT story must be investigated.  

Upon being informed of this deception, Ian Joblin expressed his significant concerns. When I made it clear to him that he had been misled, he acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. He indicated that he would advise Telstra to thoroughly examine the evidence I had provided. His acknowledgement of the validity of certain aspects of my claims underscored the weight of the matter, and he assured me that this would be prominently included in his forthcoming report.

After learning of the deception regarding Bell Canada International (BCI )'s fundamentally flawed report, which Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne) had provided him as the principal evidence against me, insinuating I was paranoid, because how could my phone problems be ongoing when the BCI tests results showed otherwise, Ian Joblin expressed significant concerns. He acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and indicated he would advise Telstra to review the evidence I provided thoroughly. His recognition of the validity of my claims underscored the gravity of the matter, which he promised to include in his upcoming report.

Australian Senate Hansard, Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating: 

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

On pages 107 and 108 of this same Senate – Parliament of Australia, Senator Schacht asked several questions of Telstra (see also Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring)

Senator Schacht —"Did Simone Semmens, on behalf of Telstra, state on Channel 9’s Current Affair program in August 1996 that the findings of the Bell Canada International report into the performance of the Telstra network substantiate that there were no systematic problems within Telstra’s billing system?"

Telstra's Mr Benjamin — "I am not aware of that particular statement by Simone Semmens, but I think that would be a reasonable conclusion from the Bell Canada report.

Senator SCHACHT— Since then of course—not in conversations but elsewhere— we now have major litigation running into hundreds of millions of dollars between various service providers and so on which are complaints about the billing system. Does that indicate that she may have been partly wrong?

Senator SCHACHT—The claim is that she said that Bell Canada’s international report substantiated that there were no systematic problems within Telstra’s billing system; that was her claim. I am just saying that, since then, you have got major litigation running into hundreds of millions of dollars between various service providers and other telecommunications providers claiming false overbilling running into hundreds of millions of dollars.

This situation revolves around the troubling falsified testing process executed by Bell Canada International and the pervasive billing issues that I had previously brought to Ian Joblin's attention. The 008/1800 billing complications were ignored mainly by Bell Canada, resulting in a staggering 47 percent of my incoming calls being incorrectly logged under my 008/1800 number. This skewed the billing data and compromised the integrity of the report prepared by Telstra's lawyers for Mr. Joblin. The consequences for my business were severe, as it was experiencing significant financial loss.

 At the time of my meeting with Mr. Joblin, I remained blissfully unaware that Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator, would deny DMR & Lane, my technical resource team, the critical time they required to thoroughly investigate the persistent faults plaguing my 008/1800 service.

What is particularly disheartening is the realization that the sole entities willing to confront the alarming fraud perpetrated by Bell Canada International (BCI) were representatives from the Canadian government. They understood that a Canadian company was responsible for inflicting considerable damage not only on the COT Cases but also on many other Australian citizens. This situation was further exacerbated by the fact that the Telstra Corporation, in tandem with the Australian government, leveraged the falsified BCI test results to bolster the dubious sale prospectus, all while being acutely aware that the Telstra telecommunications network was

However, a troubling oversight occurred when the report was submitted to arbitration. The ‘witness statement’ supporting Mr. Joblin's findings was signed only by Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne).

During the months of June and July in 2009, a pivotal period that marked my eleventh pursuit of a remedy, I decided to reach out to The Hon. Michael D. Kirby AC, CMG, who was then serving as the President of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA). My correspondence focused on a troubling issue: John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, had allowed Lane Telecommunications—the technical consultant appointed by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)—to evaluate my arbitration claim. This decision was particularly perplexing given that the principal technical officer, Paul Howell, hailing from Canada, was far more qualified for the task.

To bolster my claims, I provided an extensive collection of evidence on a CD, meticulously documenting how Mr. Rundell had undermined my credibility and character through a series of false statements. His actions appeared calculated to obstruct the investigations initiated by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia in 1996 regarding my legitimate claims, while simultaneously aiding Telstra (the defendants) in reducing their liability.

The IAMA was deeply concerned about a potential conflict of interest involving Dr. Hughes, who was serving as the arbitrator in the COT Cases. This concern arose from the fact that his law firm, which is a prominent player in Sydney and Melbourne’s legal landscape, was also representing Telstra employees in their disputes against the company. This situation unfolded during a time when several Telstra employees were under investigation by both the New South Wales State Police and the Australian Federal Police for significant fraudulent activities, involving the misappropriation of millions of dollars from the Australian government. Recognizing the gravity of my allegations, the IAMA agreed to conduct a thorough investigation into my claims of conflict of interest. Furthermore, I suspected that instances of fraudulent activity were intricately linked to lost arbitration-related faxes that had been mistakenly sent from Dr. Hughes’ office to his Sydney branch, raising further questions about the integrity of the arbitration process.

I must take the reader forward sixteen 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.

Dr. Hughes's failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my arbitration raises significant concerns. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office; however, this critical matter was a pivotal aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or include in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the process.

Moreover, it is particularly troubling that Dr Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven cases, all coordinated within a six-month period. During this time, COT claimants—two based in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently articulated their frustrations regarding the arbitrator's office's failure to respond to their faxes. This situation prompts serious questions concerning potential criminal negligence and the overall integrity of the arbitration process.

Who had the authority within the arbitration process to investigate a mere eleven per cent (11%) of my legally submitted claim documents? This raises the question of fairness and accountability. Furthermore, why did the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) initiate three separate investigations into my arbitration claims against Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator? These inquiries occurred in 1996, again in 2001, and for a third time in 2009, yet IAMA decided not to issue a finding on each occasion.

Compounding my frustration, during the last investigation in 2009, IAMA refused to return the 23 meticulously organized spiral-bound files of evidence I had compiled at their request over several months, from July to November. This situation left me questioning the integrity of the process. Please refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued for further insight.

Six months before the arbitrations began, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, boldly requested access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured that the arbitrator would provide these logbooks once we signed our arbitration agreements. However, this crucial document was never made available to claimants.

This story is nothing short of extraordinary, revealing a shocking reality that even two editors, initially assisting in piecing together our narrative, found hard to grasp. It delves into a past where government ministers, lawyers, and public servants allowed themselves to become embroiled in compromises that echo through the corridors of power even today. These incidents, some unthinkable decades ago, linger on, involving individuals who have now retired yet whose legacies continue to influence those who once regarded them as the bedrock of our society.

To preserve clarity and enhance engagement, we chose to intertwine these two compelling stories, enabling readers to journey through the narrative without losing their way—a challenge the editors faced until we decided to separate the accounts.

For those eager to delve into the chronology of events, you may access “My Story Warts and All." with just a click. There, you will find a comprehensive review of the various chapters, complete with supporting evidence files that can be downloaded as you progress through each segment of these captivating mini-stories. The twelve chapters featured below this homepage are an insightful introduction to the saga ahead, inviting you to explore and reflect on the unfolding narrative.

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organizations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of my single club members over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

Subsequent to this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, as a major entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions seemingly unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, similarly declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra was able to determine the exact times at which my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence while I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.

 

 

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, which emphasize the need for transparency and accountability Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

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 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.”