Rupert Murdoch - Cable Roll Out

 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

 

I'm grateful for her Helens comments. 

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to pass along my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed that he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices and the promises they rarely ever kept because I greatly respected her. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue that should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the specified deadline. My primary concern, however, does not revolve around the fulfilment of this compensation in the event of a missed deadline by Telstra. Instead, I am troubled by the failure to transparently address the persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration of April 7 and 8, 1994. Despite the prior validation of our claims by the government regulator and the substantial upfront arbitration fees paid by the COT Cases, our ongoing faults remained unremedied. This disparity underscores a concerning discrepancy in treatment between influential personalities like Rupert Murdoch and ordinary Australian citizens striving to maintain businesses reliant on a dependable phone service. This asymmetry serves to underscore the one-sided nature of the COT story.

An example of the corroded copper wire that the COT Cases and some 120,000 COT-type Australian citizens experienced after the COT Cases arbitrations 1.e.:> Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter. In my case, I refer to problems that the new owners of my business were experiencing after they purchased my business in December 2001, six years after the conclusion of my arbitration Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

 

 

After learning about potential illegal phone hacking, the British government did not conceal the information. They were ready to take action against whoever was responsible for the misconduct. However, when Australian politicians discovered that individuals making COT claims were experiencing phone and fax hacking during a government-endorsed legal process, including illegal interference in the transmission of legal documents and Senate estimate committee hearing material, this information was intentionally hidden to the detriment of the claimants. In the UK, the government acted in the best interests of the victims whose lives were severely affected by the hacking. However, in Australia, the government handled the COT cases poorly, treating the claimants as criminals instead of addressing those who used Telstra's network to hack into their confidential legal documents.

The British Government

 

In 1999, while I was working on the first draft of Absent Justice, I shared it with Rupert Murdoch's sister, Helen Handbury. She was shocked by the clear denial of natural justice that I had experienced. After reading the draft, Helen visited my holiday camp twice and expressed her intention to have Rupert publish it. She believed he would be surprised by the content.

Although I appreciated her offer to have her brother, Rupert, publish my book, he was unlikely to become involved in my publication due to the history between her brother and Telstra (refer to point 10 page 5164 → SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. This was especially true since my book criticized Telstra's poor workmanship and unlawful conduct towards me. Helen and her friends were impressed by the 1870 Church on my property, which I had turned into charming accommodation. This brought visitors back to my holiday camp year after year.

Helen was amazed by the evidence I had gathered, demonstrating how long I had been affected by illegal fax hacking. The evidence included threats by Telstra, which were eventually carried out by their associates when I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into phone and fax hacking into my private and business affairs Refer to Senate Evidence File No 31) and Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Of course, 1999 was before the hacking scandal linked to Rupert Murdoch and the News of the World saga.

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, on 26 September 2012, I sent a draft of the original version of this manuscript to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him about my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

On October 17, 2012, Mr. Handbury replied in a handwritten letter, showcasing beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship. At the time, he was 87 years old, and despite being highly respected for his philanthropic support of various projects in Victoria, he regretfully couldn't assist me due to too much time had passed. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the comments of the sister of the most prominent newspaper owner in the world, who believed that my "intriguing story" was one that her brother should publish.

Interestingly, on October 13, 1993, a Telstra auditor and his secretary visited Cape Bridgewater. By 2015, the auditor had risen to a very senior executive position within Telstra and is now on the board of Murdoch’s Foxtel. He remembers how shocked he and his secretary were when they saw the information I presented about my Telstra problems. They both commented that they could not believe how poorly Telstra had treated me over the previous five years. These five years were confirmed in a letter from AUSTEL dated June 9, 1993 (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212). The letter suggested that Telstra knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement in December 1992, which shocked them the most.

I included that letter from AUSTEL in the draft of Absent Justice that I provided to Helen Handbury, and I believe that was what prompted her to say I should get Rupert to publish it. The British Government pulled no punches about the ongoing saga now, in 2015, three years after it first went viral across the world. But in Australia, although the government knows that not only did many COT members have their phone lines illegally bugged during their arbitration with Telstra (and after my arbitration was over), but our faxes were ALSO being screened/intercepted by a secondary fax machine (in my case, for at least seven years before sent on to the intended destinations.

In Australia, the COTs have suffered too, just like those victims of the News of the World disaster in Britain; for instance, we couldn’t make a phone call or send a personal fax without being aware that somebody was probably listening in to those calls or intercepting those faxes., Scandrett and Associates prepared the Fax Interception Technical Report exhibit (Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), and Peter Hancock of Total Communications Victoria provided a sworn statement to 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)

It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1, File No/2-A to 2-E, File No/3, File No/4, and Front Page Part One File No/5 that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator's office did not reach their intended destination.

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that the AUSTEL, the Government Communications Authority General Manager of Consumer Affairs (John MacMahon), had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts?

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

However, as to the validity of that report, Senator Boswell never contacted me regarding the outcome of the Senate estimate’s investigation or any other government investigation into this report, which is easily comparable to the News of the World hacking scandal.

The Federal government has not contacted me concerning this fax hacking/interception issue. Still, if such hacking had taken place in the halls of Britain’s parliament, it would have been even more significant than the News of the World Murdoch hacking fiasco that led to the 2011 shutting down of that newspaper, first circulated in 1847.

In Australia, though, during a government-endorsed arbitration process, with faxes travelling between claimants, their lawyers and advisors, various government officials, at least one senator and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, the Telstra Corporation had so much power, even over the government-endorsed legal process, that it was able to cover up this hacking scandal.

On page 15 of The Most Dangerous Man in the World, written in 2011 by ABC’s Four Corners journalist Andrew Fowler, Mr Fowler notes that Julian Assange was one of those who hacked into Telstra’s Lonsdale Street telephone exchange computer system in the centre of Melbourne. The covert AUSTEL draft report (see ) concerning my telephone problems and faults refers to this same exchange where, for some seven months, Telstra forgot to program in the 055 267 telephone prefix for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange.

Page 21 in the 26 November 1996 Telstra Arbitration Briefing Document for Graham (Golden Messenger) also refers to problems at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange, stating the problems affected the service lines into Golden Messenger over an extended period. So what did Julian Assange and his friends find at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange that prompted them to telephone Graham?

My statement to the TIO in my 20 October 1995 letter that “This phrase has now come home to roost” (File GS 537- GS-CAV 522 to 580) reflected that I believed the advice Graham received from these hackers – that Telstra and others associated with the COT arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT cases – was the truth.

Graham's statutory declaration regarding these hackers, which I provided to Victorian Attorney-General Hon. Robert Clark in 2011, includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his  Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

On April 18, 1995, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, communicated with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Warwick Smith, and copied the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes and the arbitration Special Counsel, Peter Bartlett, to explain that unforeseen circumstances beyond their control had caused delays in their work (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). These "forces at work" may have been the same "forces at work" Julian Assange warned Graham Schorer about in April 1994, a year earlier.

Is this why Warwick Smith and others would not investigate what the hackers had warned Graham Schorer about because to do so would have exposed the raping of aboriginal Childen in Senator Collin's office and other places where this rape occurred? 

During a Senate estimates committee hearing on 24 June 1997, Senator Kim Carr and Senator Schacht asked Telstra’s arbitration FOI coordinator:

Senator Carr – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? ...”

Senator Schacht – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. That is a matter that has nothing to do with his telecommunications business. It seems that someone thinks this is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him. If it is true, I do not know why you would be collecting that information.”

Senator Kim Carr then asked Telstra’s group general manager:

“Mr Ward (Telstra), 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?” (See Senate Evidence File No/2A)

 

George Close - COT Case Technical Consultant

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records that the fax was sent from Mr Close’s residential fax number at 17:54. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) contains the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the fax header does not include the correct business identification of the respective COT business, it indicates that a secondary fax machine intercepted those faxes and then redirected to the intended destination. This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, raising several important questions. It is worth considering whether government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra’s Fax Streaming centre, and if so, what could happen to the documents that go through that system without the government’s knowledge. This prompts the question of whether privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra's Fax Streaming process, meaning that private information may not be as secret as assumed.

Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not diminish the fact that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page (see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC—17:34). In simple terms, those with access to Telstra’s network were able to use ‘keywords’, so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close’s residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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)

We should never have been forced into such a position when so much evidence concerning our claims held by the government was never released.

When Geroge Close (the arbitration technical advisor to the COT Cases) visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after learning his Buderim (Queensland) residence and his office was the conduit (the central location) to where this screening of the advice he gave the COT Cases on what documents they needed to access from Telstra under FOI detailing why this technical information was needed to support their arbitration claims, I showed him Open Letter File No/12, File No/13, Front Page Part One File No/1,Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E, Front Page Part One File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on the COT Cases overall submissions to the arbitrator. Mr Close later sent me an email on 5 August 2011 to assist me in exposing what the Telstra Corporation had been able to do (and get away with) during the COT arbitrations to gain an advantage over all of the COT Cases claims before the arbitrator. His eyes were full of sadness, thinking it was his residence and office, and the advice was given to the COT Cases from it that had caused the COT Cases so much damage (see Front Page Part One File No/26).

“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.

“He had been shown fax’s  which had clear indication of change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.

“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.

“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred the offender(s) would be jailed.

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives.

 

 

Helen Handbury expressed keen interest in two letters from David Hawker MP. She and her family from the Hamilton area had experienced phone faults similar to mine. In response, Mr. Hawker shared my contact information with his constituents and requested they provide written details of their phone issues. This information was to be submitted to the Senate for further action (refer to Chapter 1—Can We Fix The CAN).

The Hon. David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me for some time, concerned that people in his electorate were being treated as second-class citizens. On 26 July 1993, Mr Hawker wrote:

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”(See Arbitrator File No/76)

On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP again wrote to me, noting:

“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (See Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)

On 9 December 1993, The Hon David Hawker MP, my local federal member of Parliament, wrote to congratulate me for:

“your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”  (File 837 -  AS-CAV Exhibit 819 to 843)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor Government, to Senator Michael Baume, Senator for New South Whales, which said:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82)

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

Sister Maureen Burke drove the three-hour drive to confirm the booking. 

Forty-five smiling children - nothing like it in the whole world

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins. I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities — it didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas. Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland. This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact; calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a very angry man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp.   Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these wonderful women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line. Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

 

I want to emphasize that I chose to include the connection between Helen Handbury and Rupert Murdoch in my story for a specific reason. Much like Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon, Helen would drive to the holiday camp from Sandford House in Hamilton, where she and her husband Geoff Handbury AO PhD (h.c) lived. This was in contrast to simply calling and receiving an electronic message stating "the number you are calling is not connected" or encountering a dead silence on the line.

 

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government communication authority AUSTEL (now ACMA) investigated my ongoing telephone problems concerning my belief that hundreds if not possibly thousands of residents in Ballarat Victoria had problems like Loreto College in tying to telephone my business. It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings that AUSTEL/ACMA found my claims were valid concerning Ballarat as the following point 115 notes:

“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

The document unequivocally demonstrates that systemic Ericsson AXE billing faults were present as early as July 1992. After reviewing additional Ericsson AXE documents, it becomes increasingly clear that the billing problems were deeply rooted within Telstra's systems, at least by October 1997.

 

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” False Witness Statement File No 3-A

Folios C04006, C04007, and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET Exhibit Front Page Part Two 2-B, serve as undeniable proof that Telstra was fully aware of the extent of my telephone problems. Despite this knowledge, nine Telstra employees knowingly committed perjury by submitting nine arbitration Witness Statements to the arbitrator under oath, falsely claiming that no such phone problem had existed.

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

The world of political corruption 

Graft, malfeasance, and nepotism

The documented evidence indicates that Telstra's CEO and the entire board possessed foreknowledge of millions of dollars being unlawfully withdrawn from government funds. These funds were utilized to exert control over 45 prominent legal firms, thereby obstructing ordinary citizens with claims against Telstra from pursuing legal remedies. This crucial information is publicly available on absentjustice.com, shedding light on pervasive unethical practices and erroneously billed accounts.

Senator Mark Bishop's denouncement of Telstra's utilization of these 45 prominent legal firms against ordinary Australian citizens and small business operators, who had lodged complaints solely regarding inadequate service, is accessible at parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11. His condemnation of this unjust practice underscores the enormity of a government-owned entity, Telstra, employing public funds in opposition to the public interest, constituting an abuse of power. The enduring absence of an investigation into this scandalous matter is noteworthy.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

Heavy-handed tactics 

$24 million of moneys being used to crush these people 

On March 11, 1999, after Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith utilized heavy-handed tactics to handle the COT Cases, their arbitrations were concluded, with less than 11 per cent of the claims being met. Senator Kim Carr criticized the handling of the COT arbitrations, as evidenced in the following Hansard link shows:

Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Telstra's misuse of public funds, which should have gone to the Australian government instead of paying yearly retainers to 45 leading legal firms, is concerning. Moreover, during the COT arbitrations, they spent an additional $24 million to suppress sixteen Australian small business operators, hindering their efforts to prove events over two decades. This also affected around 120,000 similar COT cases, where individuals were fighting Telstra for a reassessment of their wrongly billed accounts. Senator Kim Carr's statement about the $24 million is deeply troubling for COT cases. 

Senator Schacht was even more vocal:

 

Who had the authority in Australia to convince the senator to investigate and grant damages to only five of the twenty-one COT Cases with unresolved FOI issues?

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Welcomed news for five COT's, but not for the remaining sixteen COT cases discarded by the senate  

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

Five years too late

On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Many of the documents were unreadable. 

Telstra was the CAT, and the COT Cases were the mouse.

In the case of Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT arbitrator, it is important that he should have disclosed to the COT Cases and their legal representatives that he operated as an 'ungraded arbitrator' and achieved graded status only after the conclusion of my arbitration. Additionally, he should have informed the COT Cases and their legal representatives that his Sydney-based firm was examining the business affairs of the NSW (Sydney) arm of several Telstra employees. It is also important to note that he should have disclosed that the faxes intended for the COT Cases sent to his Melbourne office were rerouted to his Sydney office outside of standard business hours and during weekends.

When the arbitrator returned the claim documents we had submitted after our arbitrations, we were surprised to discover that many documents and reports were stapled together with unrelated material. Some of the documents even belonged to a different claimant. Despite reporting the issue to the arbitrator and arbitration administrator, John Pinnock, no investigation was conducted as our arbitrations had concluded.

This document mixing-up occurred one month into my arbitration after I received documents and reports from Telstra under Freedom of Information (FOI). The FOI documents did not match the accompanying text and fax-header sheets in several instances. Realizing the seriousness of the issue, I sought intervention from Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police on May 14, 1994.

He encouraged me to provide evidence of this misconduct to the arbitrator and administrator through a statutory declaration, which I promptly did. Refer to File 76 and 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91. Despite providing the arbitrator and the administrator with a copy of Statutory Declaration File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), which had been given to the Federal Police, neither investigated the FOI document issue.

Concerning document 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91, Sue Harlow, Deputy (TIO) Ombudsman, was entrusted with evidence regarding 56 reports that had been tampered with to the extent that they were indecipherable. Notably, the issues relating to tampered arbitration documents from 1994 and 1995 remain uninvestigated as of 2024.

It is deeply concerning that neither Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) nor Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) saw fit to investigate why Telstra was engaging in such questionable practices when supplying FOI documents. In my case (File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), I confirmed I found that '56 reports' fax header introduction pages' were stapled with information irrelevant to the attached content. This blatant disregard for proper document handling was unacceptable and warranted immediate attention. It received no response whatsoever.

The government regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) played politics  

AUSTEL provided Telstra assistance in winning their defence of my arbitration claims. 

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated 4 March 1994, confirmed that my claims against Telstra were validated (see points 2 to 212 in that report). Another document Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551 reveals that the government communications regulator (AUSTEL's adverse findings) was given to Telstra (the defendants in my arbitration) one month before Telstra and I signed the arbitration agreement.

Unfortunately, I did not receive a copy of these findings until November 23, 2007, 12 years after the termination of my arbitration process. Moreover, the government officials had already validated my claims as early as March 4, 1994, six weeks before I signed the April 21, 1994 arbitration agreement. But despite that, I was still required to pay over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove something the government had already established.

Next Page ⟶