Terms & Conditions

 

 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses but also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have not held Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable. 

Corruption in Arbitration

 

It is imperative to note that in most Western nations that operate under the rule of law, concealing fraud and gross misconduct through a gag clause is strictly prohibited.

 

The arbitration agreement we signed was not what we had agreed upon. Secret alterations were made to the agreement between the time the final agreed arbitration agreement was faxed to our lawyers on April 19, 1994, and when we signed the accepted agreement on April 21, 1994.

The changes were not disclosed to us, except for the removal of clause 10.2.2, and we were left with no choice but to sign the altered agreement. Only during my pending appeal did my lawyers notice that clauses 25 and 26, which had liability caps of $250,000, were missing. The alteration to clause 24 also meant that I could not sue the legal counsel in charge of the arbitrator process.

This was a clear violation of our rights, and we were not able to hold the arbitrator's consultants accountable for their negligence. Despite the unlawful conduct of all parties involved, they are 2024 still managing to conceal these clause issues under the confidentiality rules in the arbitration agreement.

For more information on the secret removal of these clauses, please refer to Part 2 Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct

Between October 18, 1995, and October 4, 1997, I, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations, on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, demanded a copy of Telstra's arbitration file through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This file would have unmasked those within Telstra who knew about the covert removals and changes to the arbitration agreement. Despite Telstra's claim that it had destroyed the arbitration file, Mr Wynack insisted in two of his letters to Telstra Home Page File No/82 that he did not believe they had destroyed this arbitration file. 

Moreover, I took steps to obtain the same arbitration file held by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), containing all variations to the arbitration rules. As the process administrator, the TIO was legally obligated to maintain a copy of all arbitration documents for six years, until 2002, after the statute of limitations expired, so that I could appeal my award. In response to my request for these arbitration records, John Pinnock issued a letter on January 10, 1996, stating: 

"I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

"I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office." (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

A similar group of small business operators Mr Bates vs The Post Office - Absent Justice also found themselves against corruption within the British Establishment. They have now told their true stories on national television: British Post Office scandal  → https://shorturl.at/fjxQT and     https://shorturl.at/lrBW9

 

 

On 23 March 1999, after all of the COT arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to wholly support their claims.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

 

I have raised here four letters, one dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017 and 10 October 2017, from COT Case Anne Garms, just before her death, to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia and Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann See File Ann Garms 104 Document where she exposes the raping of the first nation (aboriginal children by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office (rb.gy/dsvidd). Ann also discloses in her 6 October 2017 letter, which is a single letter marked Doc B, to the Hon Malcolm Turnbull  MP, Prime Minister of Australia, raises several pages in Frank Blount's co-produced book two pages of interest in this book are pages 132 and 133, where the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
• The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127

https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran. Here is substantial evidence indicating that Telstra experienced significant network problems while Senator Bob Collins was handling the COT Cases 1800 billing issues. It is unclear whether Frank Blount, Telstra's CEO at the time, discussed these 1800 billing issues with Senator Collins or whether he informed him that these systemic billing problems could be affecting over 120,000 Telstra customers (Refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

That is why the COT Case FOI requests to Senator Collins's office were so important. It is disheartening to think that a company as large and influential as Telstra would allow such wrongdoing to occur, let alone cover it up.

It is highly likely that one of the reasons the COT Cases were not given access to important Freedom of Information documents held in Senator Bob Collins' office was due to the fear of exposing evidence of the Senator's paedophile activities. The Australian Federal Police was investigating Senator Bob Collins for these paedophile activities during the period Telstra was using their telecommunications network to listen in to the COT conversations, as well as intercept arbitration-related documents. This created a hostile environment and was unsuitable for conducting a government-endorsed arbitration.

Telstra’s FOI document (M34363) dated 4 February 1994 was not made available to the arbitrator or me during my arbitration, even though Telstra’s FOI numbering system (M followed by a number) clearly indicates to Telstra and the TIO’s office that I was still reporting problems with my fax transmissions during my FTSP process Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24).

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police enquiries into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones. Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters.” (This exhibit was not made avaialable to me by the government during my arbitration)

I am providing the exhibit Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24 as an illustration of the government's unfair practice of withholding crucial documents from me during my arbitration. It is evident that the COT Cases were unfairly denied access to essential documents solely because a Senator was under investigation for theft. This is a clear indication of how government ministers are given undue preferential treatment, even to the extent of sabotaging a citizen's chances of winning a claim against a government-owned telecommunications carrier, which was the case with Telstra during the COT arbitrations.

 

 

During the arbitration process of my claim against Telstra, nine senior officials representing the company provided separate witness statements under oath between December 8th and 12th, 1994. These statements affirmed that my business, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, had not experienced any significant telecommunication network faults during my six-year claim period from 1988 to 1994. However, it was later discovered that these statements were lies and that Telstra had tampered with my telephone equipment after it had been collected from my business-Tampering With Evidence.

Furthermore, in October 1997, Telstra provided false written information to a Senate Committee, even though the Senate had requested Telstra to take notice of the request. It is worth noting that supplying false evidence to a Senate Committee under notice is considered Contempt of the Senate and carries a two-year jail term. In essence, Telstra misled and deceived both the arbitration process and the Senate Committee regarding the validity of my claims. In other words, Telstra not only misled and deceived an arbitration process concerning the validity of my claims, but they also misled and deceived a Senate Committee concerning the same issues three years later.

However, as shown above, in 1999, the CEO of Telstra, in his book Managing in Australia, demonstrated that these statements were false and that the officials had perverted the course of justice. This evidence unequivocally indicates that the Telstra officials intentionally misled the arbitrator, and justice was not served in my case. refer to Chapter 3 Lies under oath.

 

"Telstra's intelligence networks that Telstra has established" 

 

 

"Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?"

 

Australian Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 at pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia confirms Senator Kim Carr stated to Telstra’s principal arbitration defence official:

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

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

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

Regrettably, when presiding over my arbitration on behalf of Telstra (the defendant), the same Telstra arbitration official chose to withhold the most relevant freedom of information documents I had requested in May 1994. Three of those F.O.I. documents, 9-A, 9-B and 9-C, are attached to BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. Had I received those documents during my arbitration as AUSTEL, the Australian Government Communications Authority (ACMA) had promised me I would if I went into arbitration, I could have successfully amended my arbitration claim. It was not until two weeks after the arbitrator concluded my arbitration claim on 11 May 1995 that I was finally granted access to said documents on 23 May 1995.

The untimely release of these documents, some twelve months after my request, has had a disadvantageous effect on my unresolved arbitration claims concerning my ongoing telephone faults, which continued for eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

The Telstra Corporation's intelligence networks in Australia are alarming, as discussed in this Senate Hasnard, and it's crucial to consider who has the necessary expertise and government clearance to filter the raw information collected before cataloguing it for future use. It's essential to know how much confidential information was collected during my telephone conversations with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 regarding my Red Communist China episode and whether Telstra officials had confidence in this information. Furthermore, the complete privatisation of Telstra in 2005 raises important questions about which organisation in Australia was given the responsibility to archive the sensitive material Telstra had been gathering about their clients for decades. As concerned citizens, we must demand transparency and accountability from Telstra and the Australian government to ensure the protection of our privacy and civil liberties.

As far as the altercation with the Sheriff and his group of henchmen (as discussed in the same Senate - Parliament of Australia), my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to my property to ensure I stayed on my knees. The Sheriff and his men were about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. During the altercation, I placed a wrestling hold 'Full Nelson' on the Sheriff and walked him out of my office. It is important to note that I did not throw any punches during the incident. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that the story had two sides.

It is critical to understand the value of Telstra being able to use its intelligence networks in its legal proceedings. Despite being aware of these networks, certain ministers and public servants choose to conceal their knowledge of these facts. This concealment is evident on absentjustice.com.  Telstra has even redacted the conversation text from their files, which they released under the Freedom of Information Act, to keep their screening process a secret. It is noteworthy that they documented my conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former prime minister of Australia, but chose to redact (blank out) what was said in those conversations.  You can learn more about Telstra's screening process and the Scandrett & Associates report (see document 767 and document 768).

The fax imprint discrepancies described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell 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)

 

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI document? 

 

 

Deleted information on requested FOI documents 

Individual privacy is a fundamental right that should be respected at all times. Unfortunately, even those in the highest positions of power are not immune to this violation. I had the privilege of having two telephone conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia, The Honorable Malcolm Fraser, which Telstra documented without my consent.

Despite my concerns, Telstra's refusal to provide me with the information they had recorded regarding my conversations with Mr Fraser is unacceptable. It is even more concerning that John Wynack, Directorate of Investigations from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, could not access this information on my behalf as part of my arbitration FOI request on 11 November 1994, refer to File 20 AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47.

In March and October 1997, more than two years after the conclusion of my arbitration (refer to Files 226, 227, 228 and 233 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233), John Wynack was still unable to officially access the information as the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman which I was legally entitled in 1994, as a claimant in my government-endorsed arbitration.

 

Where are my telephone conversations with the Hon. Malcolm Fraser that Telstra recorded?

  

 

Why are these recordings on the NINE audio tapes still being withheld from the COT Cases?

Illegal Interception File No/3 

On 25 March 1994, Ms Phillipa Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the whole of Australia, wrote to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount File 64 AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91  stating, 

"Mr Alan Smith has advised he still awaits many documents" 

Ms Phillipa Smith then goes on to say...

"Your officers also informed Mr Wynack they expected the vetting of the documents would take only a couple of days. Mr Smith informed my officers recently that Mr Black (Telstra's arbitration liasion officer) told him recently that no further documents will be released." 

"Mr Alan Smith also informed my officers that Mr Black informed him that Telecom has lost, or destroyed, a number of files relating to his contacts prior to June 1991 and also some personal files given to Telecom in 1992. Please inform me of the steps Telecom has taken to locate the files or to confirm that they were destroyed."

"I do not accept that the action by Mr Alan Smith in disclosing to the media, and to the AFP (Australian Federal Police) etc etc"    

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

Throughout 1992 and 1993, Telstra repeatedly threatened me. What I didn't know was that if I didn't register my telephone problems with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page in writing, Telstra wouldn't investigate my ongoing fault complaints. I later found out that this was part of Telstra and their lawyers' "COT Case Strategy" to hide all proof of my genuine ongoing telephone problems that were severely affecting my business.

As a result, I had to write up individual telephone faults and provide them to Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the hopes that Telstra would investigate them. Instead of keeping this crucial evidence, I gave it to Telstra, believing that it would help them locate the problems my business was facing. It wasn't until January 1994 that I realized I needed this evidence for an arbitration process in April of that year.

When I tried to retrieve this documentation from Telstra, I found out that they, along with their lawyers, were withholding it from me. I was beyond frustrated. Ms Phillipa Smith attempted to get the documentation for me in her March 25, 1994, letter to Telstra, but it was not provided. This led Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to continue trying to access it in his many letters until October 1997.

 

Threats were made by Telstra's Steve Black and Paul Rumble. 

Two rabid dogs 

These threats were carried out. 

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate why were my FOI documents being withheld from me during my arbitration:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

As I have reiterated throughout this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings came to fruition, and the withholding of pertinent documents is deeply concerning. Regrettably, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact of this malpractice on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Despite my assistance to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the illicit interception of phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, I was at a severe disadvantage during the civil arbitration.

This lack of transparency during my arbitration was unacceptable, particularly in cases where sensitive information was at stake. It is worth noting that Mr Fraser reportedly divulged what he deemed necessary to the media following our telephone conversation. Such unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information can be detrimental to individuals, particularly when there is no consent or authorization.

During my arbitration, I requested that the arbitrator address these privacy issues to ensure that my privacy rights as an individual were protected. Unfortunately, the arbitrator failed to act on these concerns. I also raised these matters with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two articles published in Australian newspapers containing detailed accounts of my conversations with Mr Fraser. One of those articles is produced below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

It is perhaps important to point out here that one of the questions raised with Malcolm Fraser was: How could Australia say their selling of wheat to the Republic of China was on humanitarian grounds when the Australian government knew that some of this same wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, whose soldiers were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops in the jungle of North Vietnam? 

The information that Telstra released to me via two FOI documents has raised concerns about deliberate redaction. As stated above, my previous inquiries regarding the redeployment of wheat to North Vietnam were raised with Malcolm Fraser. The documents I received under FOI only indicated two separate phone calls between Alan Smith and Malcolm Fraser, with three subsequent chapters of information omitted. 

Given the apparent lack of transparency, the arbitrator should have investigated why this information was not being released. The documents' redaction could have grave implications and may have required action on the part of the authorities. As such, it is imperative that the authorities conduct a thorough investigation into the matter to ensure that any pertinent information is brought to light. Australia should have stopped this wheat trade once they were informed some of the wheat was possibly feeding the Vietcong guerilla who were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops.

 

In 1966 and 1967, Australia unapologetically claimed to the world that it was selling wheat to China for humanitarian purposes while being fully aware that China was redirecting some of the grain to North Vietnam. This was happening simultaneously with the presence of Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops being killed and maimed by North Vietnam soldiers - Vietcong guerillas in the jungles of North Vietnam.

Possibly, this killing and maiming of Australian, New Zealand and USA troops happened after the North Vietnam soldiers - Vietcong guerillas had been fed a bowl of Australian wheat.  

This paper, FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, was prepared by Tianxiao Zhu. Between Footnote 82 to 85 - T Zhu names not only the Hopepeak ship, which I was on between 28 June and 18 September 1967 (refer to British Seaman's Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman). Please read the following account of a significant event that took place in history as I vividly remember it. However, the narrative I present is not the one that the Australian government of the time put forth to the Australian public in 1967. Sir John McEwen, the Australian Minister of Trade and Industry, disseminated a press release claiming that the British seafarers aboard Hopepeak had only mentioned their fear of returning to China as an afterthought once they had been flown back to England from Sydney. I must assert, with great conviction, that John McEwen was fully aware that this claim was untrue; the seafarers had indeed expressed their concerns before they departed from Sydney.

It is worth noting that although John McEwen's statements in the Australian Senate Hansard https://shorturl.at/afrv6 align with the points made by Tianxiao Zhu in his research paper, they do not provide any information on the arrival of the Hopepeak in Sydney on 18 September 1967. It was actually the Commonwealth Police who met the ship and recorded official statements from the crew members, including myself, regarding our experiences in China. Additionally, my two-page foolscap letter addressed to the then Minister for the Army, Malcolm Fraser, which the Commonwealth Police witnessed, was not mentioned. The letter informed Fraser that Australian wheat was being redeployed from China to North Vietnam.

If the captain of the Hopepeak ship had not officially recorded bad comments concerning what the crew had experienced and seen in China, the Commonwealth Police would have met the ship. The media would not have interviewed me concerning my arrest and being forced at gunpoint by the Red Guards to write the propaganda I wrote, fearing for my life.

I drafted a comprehensive 22-page letter to my parents in England, in which I confessed to all the unscrupulous activities I engaged in as a young seafarer. The letter also revealed my romantic involvement with a charming lady by the name of Dorothy for five years. My parents, in response to her care for their 18-year-old son, who deserted his ship, the Port Lyttelton, in Melbourne on 20 June 1963 (refer to British Seaman's Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman), had expressed their gratitude to her in prior correspondence. They held Dorothy in high regard and considered her akin to a maternal figure. I wrote the letter out of a sense of impending doom, believing that my time was short and I needed to be honest. Regrettably, the letter was dispatched by the shipping agent before the Hopepeak departure for Moji, Japan, en route to Sydney, and I was unable to retrieve it.

Tianxiao Zhu - footnotes 82 to 84 show that the Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry in Parliament about the truth of the story. John McEwan, Minister for Trade, conveniently failed to state in Parliament that it was my letter to the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, initiated by a crew member of the Hopepeak and witnessed by a Commonwealth Police officer. My letter explaining I had received threats from the Red Guards that I would be shot if I did not write propaganda material praising Mao Tse Tong and stating, "I am a US aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Nationalist Party. The beatings I had seen in the streets during my hospital visit had left me with nightmares, unable to sleep. And much worse memories, which are recorded in my two-page foolscap letter to Mr Fraser

Tianxiao Zhu sets the record straight, having researched what had happened on the wharves, including redeploying the wheat off our ship, the Hopepeak, onto another ship bound for North Vietnam. This is far from the truth of what John McEwen was telling Australia's media and his fellow cabinet ministers in Parliament House Canberra.

It is crucial to uphold the highest standards of honesty and transparency in international affairs, particularly when it comes to assisting those in need. Australia must take complete ownership of its past actions and issue a sincere apology for the harm caused by Sir John McEwen's cover-up, which was motivated by the desire to sell more Australian wheat at any cost. The lies spread by Sir John McEwen deeply unsettled me and the British seamen of the Hopepeak. After being discharged from the ship, I couldn't return to China as my life would have been in danger.

 

Sir John McEwen deceived parliament concerning the Hopepeak.

Finances our own destruction. 

The following report, dated September 4th, 1965, prepared by Kim Beasley, an Australian MP, contains three alarming statements which were unfortunately overlooked by the government of that time. It's deeply concerning that despite the gravity of these statements, no action was taken. It's worth noting that Kim Beasley MP, who authored this report, was the father to Australia's former Defence Minister Kim Beasley AC, now Chair of the Canberra War Memorial. Therefore, it's imperative that we take these statements seriously and consider the consequences of continuing to trade with China despite being aware that some of the wheat was being deployed to North Vietnam while their soldiers were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops during the Vietnam War.

 

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."  .

Why should we seaman have been forced to leave the Hopepeak in Sydney because we feared for our safety? Why was Australia not assisting us seaman when we arrived back in Australia but the skin of our teeth?

Additionally, it was concerning that Australia was still going to sell more wheat to China after I had reported what I had seen. Some of the wheat would no doubt be going into the stomaches of the Vietnamese soldiers before they marched off into the jungle of North Vietnam. The fact that Australia's wheat was ending up in the bellies of the Vietcong upset the US police officers who stayed at my venue in 1972 (see below).

In 1972, I was the Manager and Licensee of the Octagon Motor-Inn in South Yarra, Melbourne. During my tenure, I had the honour of receiving twenty-two police officers and their spouses from the United States of America, most of whom were affiliated with the New York Police Department. During a conversation with six or seven of these police officers, I discussed Australia's involvement in the sale of wheat to China during the mid-1960s when the Vietnam War was being waged. I was aware of the fact that some of Australia's grain was being redirected to North Vietnam; at the same time, North Vietnam soldiers were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops. 

Some of these officers were upset by what I had said. It was extremely difficult for them to believe that Australia knowingly supplied food to the enemy of the USA and Australia. These police officers were talking about trauma flashbacks experienced after years on the streets, and that is how my conversation started because I was still experiencing flashbacks from my past experiences in China (five years before).

Approximately two weeks after the police officers departed Australia, the staff at the Motor Inn informed me that they had received business calls on two separate occasions. During one of these calls, I was firmly instructed to refrain from discussing China and Vietnam. I was also warned that the hospital supplies (old stock hospital supplies that had been donated) had not been dispatched from Australia to China or North Vietnam. That was the first time I had heard of medical supplies being shipped to either China or North Vietnam. Whoever made that call knew something I did not!

As Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong shows, other strange unanswered China-related incidents have occurred over many years.

In China, I witnessed some of the most horrific scenes imaginable, which have left an indelible mark on my psyche. These experiences have haunted me, and I've had trouble sleeping. Recently, I started writing about these events to help myself come to terms with them. We must recognize and confront these incidents, so I wanted to share a valuable resource with you - a first-hand account of a Chinese girl who witnessed similar events. You can read her story at the link https://shorturl.at/ltv89. 

​​​​Might my notification to the government on September 18th, 1967, concerning the redeployment of grain to North Vietnam have contributed to the government's endorsement of the substandard arbitration process? 

 

Justice delayed is justice denied. 

 

Corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy.

Instances of corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy during government-endorsed arbitrations are unacceptable. Such offences are a grave concern that affects the community at large. When 

It is unacceptable that the Australian government-endorsed arbitration process was vulnerable to such corruption. It is time for the government to take a stand against those who interfered with the course of justice and subject them to severe penalties. The community and individuals (namely the Casualties of Telstra) affected by the corruption demand nothing less.

Collusion between arbitrators, appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and defendants is unacceptable. In an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), the defendants used network-connected equipment to screen faxed material leaving the claimants' office. They stored it without their knowledge or consent and only redirected some of these faxed documents to their intended destination.

On 10 February 1994m, AUSTEL, the then government communications authority (now ACMA), wrote to Telstra's Steve Black (who was also Telstra's arbitration liaison officer stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” Illegal Interception File No/3.

On February 25 1994:  When this letter to Telstra's Corporate Secretary from Fay Holthuyzen, Assistant to the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, (AS 772-a - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789 is compared to the letter dated February 3 1994 Exhibit (AS 772-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) that I sent to the Minister's office it is clear that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

On the same day of February 25 1994,  an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AS 773 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789)

On March 3 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

This felony aided the defendants' arbitration defence to the claimants' detriment. 

Dear reader, I strongly recommend that you take the time to thoroughly read all of the files attached to AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789. Doing so will not only give you a better understanding of the case, but it might also encourage you to read all of the files located at the bottom of the page AFP Investigation -2. These files were meticulously attached to this page so that you could see how arbitrations are conducted in Australia, even in cases where the defendants have committed or are still committing crimes against the claimants. So, dive right in and explore all the information available to you with confidence.

Investigating how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to such hacking is essential. Electronic eavesdropping, i.e., hacking into in-confidence documentation, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated during legitimate Australian arbitrations. This matter has still not been investigated.

The Australian government must release the report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) to the Australian public, confirming that confidential, COT arbitration-related documents were also illegally screened before leaving and arriving at Parliament House Canberra. It is unacceptable that the government refuses to do so.