Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury
HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch
I'm grateful for her Helens comments.
When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp for the second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she expressed her commitment to sharing my evidence supporting this website with Rupert. She firmly believed he would be shocked by Telstra's blatant disregard for justice. I held back from mentioning that Rupert was already aware of Telstra's unethical practices, as this has been discussed on absentjustice.com and in my second report on Helen Handbury and Rupert Murdoch.
The Rupert Murdoch and Helen Handbury page is crucial because it directly follows the logbook issues outlined on our Home page. Helen became particularly intrigued by one crucial document: the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook revealed during my arbitration under the discovery process, could have significantly altered the arbitrator's perception of my claims regarding ongoing telephone issues in late March and April 1995. This was just before he issued his award on May 11, 1995, without addressing the persistent phone problems.
She was dismayed when I presented Helen with Dr. Hughes' award, which stated that no phone problems existed after July 1994. The logbook would have offered evidence to the contrary, highlighting a troubling oversight. This resonated with her, as she too experienced phone difficulties when attempting to make bookings during our communications in 1998 and 1999.
The critical point for the reader to understand is the following logbook issues, which are similar to what Helen Handbury would have read from my draft notes concerning the importance of the logbook.
Six months before the arbitrations commenced, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (1984) to access the telephone exchange logbooks from our local exchanges. We were informed that the logbook would be made available to the appointed arbitrator after signing our arbitration agreements. However, this logbook was never provided to any of the claimants.
This single document was essential for the claimants to demonstrate to the arbitrator that their telephone issues remained unresolved. As a result, the arbitrator could dismiss a claim as settled until Telstra, the defendant in each case, could unequivocally prove that no further issues were affecting their telephone services.
In my particular case, even the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman sought access to this same logbook from the then-CEO of Telstra. Regrettably, the Ombudsman’s request yielded no response. Suppose the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who oversees investigations for a fully funded government agency, could not obtain the most pertinent documents within the entire arbitration process on my behalf. What prospects did I or any of the other claimants possess in substantiating our claims against Telstra?
Having devoted twenty-eight years to the British Australian Merchant Navy, I have gained a profound understanding of the importance of meticulously maintained records within the ship's logbook. These records document the daily operations of the vessel and the activities of the crew, serving as a critical resource not only for the current voyage but also for future reference.
This understanding prompted me to advise the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook. Should their request be denied, I recommend pursuing access through the arbitrator and, if necessary, escalating the matter to the Commonwealth.
The content of this logbook is fundamental to the resolution of their cases, as it contains a comprehensive record of every fault complaint submitted by Telstra customers.
It is imperative to highlight that the logbook from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange was not provided to me, the arbitrator, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), which raises significant concerns regarding why was it not provided? What was Telstra afarid of it exposing?
On September 22, 1994, a vital transcript emerged from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office featuring AUSTEL, Bruce Matthews, and John McMahon representatives. During this session, Commonwealth Ombudsman officer John Wynack inquired about the release date of the AUSTEL report. (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, Mr. Matthews stated,
"The final report was released in April; I can’t recall the exact date, but it was April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received its copy then.”
The FOI ACMA release of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings clearly shows that I only received my copy of the AUSTEL report in November 2007—thirteen years after Telstra obtained theirs in March 1994. AUSTEL's conduct represents a significant abuse of process. They allowed me to engage in arbitration and legal actions against Telstra while deliberately withholding crucial documents essential for supporting my claims. This situation is profoundly concerning.
Moreover, I incurred expenses exceeding $300,000 in arbitration fees as I sought to prove a case that the government had already substantiated against Telstra, relying on extracts from Telstra's Portland telephone exchange logbook. This is the same logbook that was denied to me during discovery. Consequently, AUSTEL has neglected its statutory responsibilities to me as a citizen of Australia, fully aware that without access to that logbook or the AUSTEL report, I could not prove my claims—an outcome that ultimately materialized adequately.
Had I access to this logbook during my arbitration appeal
I would have proven my phone problems were still ongoing.
However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under Freedom of Information (FOI Act) from Telstra, a copy of their arbitration file, which would have shown who had been involved in stopping me at all cost in proving my claims and why only AUSTEL received a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater but not my arbitration team. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file.
I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who, under the rules of the arbitration agreement, had to receive every single arbitration document as the process administrator, including receiving my request to the arbitrator asking him to access the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. As the administrator of my arbitration – under law – the TIO had to retain a copy of those documents for at least six years, until 2002.
John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:
“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)
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (where the Australian Government ACMA was the respondent) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Telstra installed Ericsson AXE telephone equipment right across Australia. Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008, [Judge] Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings 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.”
A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
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."
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. The signature of the psychologist was missing.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me, being that I was 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 (see 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 [clinical psychologist’s].
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?"
It is October 2024; I have yet to see a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehills, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature indicates how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, including mine, is the following: although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged in other cases or altered as in mine - changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed - is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. For Maurice Wayne Condon to have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when Ian Joblin’s signature did not appear on this affirmation, is further proof the COT story must be investigated.
If I had been given access to this logbook during my arbitration, the resulting evidence would have substantiated my assertion that Telstra lacks trustworthiness. The continued ambiguity surrounding this matter has permitted the use of misleading information during the Senate investigation. Knowingly submitting false information to the Senate "On Notice" constitutes Contempt of the Senate, a chargeable offence that may result in a two-year imprisonment if proven. The logbook would still serve as evidence today if it were made available.
Government Corruption - Gaslighting
Absentjustice.com boldly uncovers the deception, fraud, and corruption entrenched in the COT Cases. Checkout the gaslighting methods employed against the COT Cases, including the character assassination that occurred both during and after their arbitration. Understanding these strategies is essential for recognizing the challenges faced by the individuals involved.
Delve into the shocking, unresolved crimes inflicted on innocent Australian citizens during government-sanctioned arbitrations, overseen by compromised officials with a single objective: victory at all costs. Witness how unscrupulous and well-compensated legal professionals orchestrated these events while Telstra officials manipulated the process from behind the scenes.
These lawyers exploited COT claimants, stripping them of their fundamental right to discovery through underhanded tactics rarely seen in arbitration.
Uncover the depths of government corruption, where gaslighting techniques employed by public servants were used to obscure these egregious injustices against fellow Australians.
Investigate the crimes perpetrated against citizens forced into a rigged arbitration system. Learn who allowed these horrifying acts to flourish, undermining our justice system.
Examine the pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy that tainted the COT arbitrations. Discover the individuals responsible for these heinous crimes and their roles within Australia’s Establishment and legal framework, which permitted such profound injustices.
Despite these unresolved phone faults, which were instrumental in initiating the COT Cases, the arbitrator concluded all arbitration proceedings prematurely. The substantial issues raised during the COT arbitrations from 1994 to 1998 remained glaringly evident as late as April 2018, eighteen to twenty years later. The four exhibits Google links presented below this narrative serve as compelling evidence of these enduring challenges.
Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.
23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.
9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095 and absentjustice.com/Introduction again shows that the COT Cases claims of ailing copper wire network were more than valid.
Almost two decades after this cover-up had been executed, with the government spin doctors successfully branding my claims as frivolous and me as a vexatious litigant, I have been left the government stopped financing the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which still utilises part of the existing, seriously degraded copper network. The “… state of the copper network is considerably worse than expected, leading to extensive work beyond the node,” say leaked documents.
28 April 2018: This ABC news article regarding the NBN (see >NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow) needs to be read in conjunction with my own story because had these lies told under oath by so many Telstra employees not occurred, then the government would have been in a better position to evaluate just how bad the copper-wire Customer Access Network (CAN) really was just four years ago.
Sadly, many Australians living in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This wouldn’t have been the case if the Australian Government had ensured the arbitration process they endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing communication problems had been conducted lawfully.
Six years after the arbitrator failed to compel Telstra to resolve my persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration from April 21, 1994, to May 11, 1995, I made the prudent decision to sell the business when it became evident that the telephone issues were systemic in nature. The sale was conducted at land value only, as there was no remaining goodwill in the enterprise. Both the four legal firms and the four real estate offices were fully aware of the challenges I encountered, a sentiment echoed by many businesses in Portland, including the Portland Observer newspaper. This publication had supported my efforts for over a decade to resolve the ongoing issues with Telstra. Their assistance in my matters is comprehensively documented on my website and within the accompanying manuscript
BCI and SVT reports - Section One
Who highjacked the BCI and SVT Reports
In December 2001, after working with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and still not seeing results, I sold the business to Darren and Jenny Lewis (Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).
On January 6, 2003, I received a letter from the Hon David Hawker MP, who had been advocating for a resolution to my ongoing telephone and faxing problems since 1992, wrote to me noting:
“Thank you for your correspondence received throughout December, 2002. Copies will be forwarded to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, along with the videotape, “Phone Wiring Details at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.”
On 28 January 2003, a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO officer) Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:
“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:
That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.
That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)
Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?
This is the same Tony Watson who is referred to in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (see It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1) who states my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I tried to send my faxes. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines. This statement by Tony Watson does not match Telstra's billing records for those six faxes.
The attached exhibits (see Front Page Part One File No/1) indicate that I was charged for allegedly not received faxes. Such misleading and deceptive statements from Tony Watson have significantly undermined the efforts of the COT Cases over nearly thirty years, during which they have contended with challenges created by individuals like him. It is pertinent to question why Telstra issued a charge for these six faxes if they did not reach the arbitrator's office. Furthermore, if the arbitrator's office did not receive these six arbitration claims documents, then who was the recipient?
How dare Tony Watson threaten Darren Lewis not to speak with me when I lived next door to the holiday camp and remained there until 2019.
The holiday camp I operated had historically relied on landline telephones as the sole means of communication, apart from incidental trade. Upon our initial appreciation for the property, we overlooked the obsolete telephone system prevalent at that time. During that period, mobile network coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted via the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility that routed calls to the central telephone exchange located 20 kilometres away in Portland. This facility, which had been in place for over 30 years, was designed for low-call-rate areas and was equipped with only eight lines to service 66 families, amounting to 132 adults and children.
Consequently, only four lines were available for the remaining 128 adults and their children. During peak periods—such as weekends and holidays—when visitor numbers surged at the seaside resort, the demand for telecommunication increased substantially, resulting in recurring line congestion.
After three and a half years of operating with this outdated infrastructure, Telstra finally installed a new system. Regrettably, they neglected to connect it to the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. This unacceptable oversight is further documented in a government report dated March 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which identifies issues from points 2 to 212.
The findings in that report clearly stem from the fault reports extracted from the Portland Telstra telephone exchange logbook. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, I was denied access to this logbook during my arbitration. It's evident that AUSTEL could only have reached such precise conclusions in the 63-page, 212-point report by utilizing that source.
As a writer, I aim to transport you back to the 1990s. While some may view that decade as a distant past, it’s just thirty years ago, and Australia was significantly behind other Western nations in telecommunications. In Chapter One, I pose a question: Have you ever had a complaint about your telephone account? Picture this — countless Australians grappled with the same frustrating issue for years. As you delve into our COT story, you’ll see just how widespread this experience was and why it matters.
Helen Handbury (sistet to Rupert Murdoch expressed her belief that Rupert Murdoch would be astounded by the actions of Telstra and their defense counsel in withholding a crucial document from my arbitration proceedings. This document is particularly significant as it relates to several individuals in south-west Victoria, including former Prime Minister Malcolm, who is well-acquainted with my arbitration case. He has also sought explanations from Telstra regarding the recording of our telephone conversations, which appeared to have been redacted when obtained through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
The situation has been further exacerbated by Telstra’s refusal to provide an unredacted version of these fault files and similar documents. Telstra communicated to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that the technician managing my fault complaints had been intercepting my telephone conversations to catalog the reported faults. These issues had also been documented in correspondence with Telstra's attorney, Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale and Page. Telstra insisted that my fault complaints would only receive attention if submitted formally in writing to Denise McBurnie.
While it would have been preferable not to identify the individual responsible for my telephone complaints, the circumstances necessitate this disclosure. The failure of both Telstra and the arbitrator to address the privacy concerns articulated in my Letter of Claim has left me with no alternative. These privacy concerns have significantly impacted me, and it is essential to note that arbitration-related faxes were intercepted between January 10, 1994, and November 2, 1998—three years following the conclusion of my arbitration.
Therefore, I must identify Gordon Stokes as the individual responsible for my telephone complaints. His testimony made under oath during the arbitration does not coincide with the government’s findings from March 1994 regarding these telephone issues. The logbook in question likely contains records of the fault complaints and privacy matters, including who authorized the connection of monitoring equipment to my business lines. Despite my formal request under FOI, Telstra declined to provide the fault information discussed with Denise McBurnie. Following our written exchange concerning these faults, Telstra classified the document as subject to legal professional privilege.
This correspondence unequivocally addresses Gordon Stokes, whose actions are clearly documented in subsequent Telstra Freedom of Information (FOI) materials. It is particularly alarming that Mr. Stokes was willing to disclose confidential details regarding my telephone conversations, including the phone numbers of individuals I contacted, to an unidentified individual referred to as Micky.
During the arbitration process, an FOI document provided by Telstra to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on April 7, 1994, revealed that the technician responsible for managing my complaints had installed an 'alarm bell' at the Portland telephone exchange. This device was connected to my telephone service lines, enabling him to detect recorded faults and comprehensively document the extent of these issues.
Importantly, the document explicitly states that this 'alarm bell' was only activated in the technician's presence. The AFP has indicated that they suspect my privacy issues began in September 1992 and became increasingly apparent by September 1993. I have sought clarification from both the AFP and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman regarding whether the alarm functioned solely when Gordon Stokes was present in the central telephone exchange. If this is indeed the case, it raises serious questions as to why the 'alarm bell' failed to sound during Mr. Stokes's off-duty hours.
I have collected over seventy testimonials from individuals who were unable to reach me via my service, with calls made both at night and during the day. This situation calls into question the reliability of the 'alarm bell' if it operated exclusively when Gordon Stokes was on duty.
The logbook for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater facility should indisputably contain records of the technicians on duty during both day and evening shifts, as well as daily documentation related to phone complaints.
It is a matter of record that I confronted Gordon Stokes at his residence after discovering that my private and business calls were being monitored. This interaction was driven by a report from the Portland newspaper, The Observer, which confirmed that the AFP was investigating phone bugging incidents. As a direct result, many patrons from my Forties Country Getaways single club demanded urgent answers regarding the potential compromise of their conversations with me. This situation resulted in a significant loss of that segment of my business, compelling me to seek answers from Mr. Stokes during my visit. He candidly admitted that he was not the only Telstra technician in Portland who had listened to my telephone conversations.
The Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook is of paramount importance for several reasons. Official arbitration technical information indicates that the installation of a listening device on my service lines resulted in my phone service becoming inoperative. In 1993, Robin Davey, Chairman of AUSTEL, documented the exacerbation of phone faults that occurred when Telstra connected an unauthorized device to my service lines, leading to significant financial losses for my business.
This situation underscores the necessity for the telephone logbook to be incorporated into my arbitration proceedings, as the complications experienced by my business extend beyond mere anomalies in the Telstra telecommunications network.
Furthermore, records from Senate Hasard dated June 24 and 25, 1997, indicate that Denise McBurnie from Freehill Hollingdale & Page produced a legal document entitled "The COT Strategy" on behalf of Telstra. This document reveals how Telstra could potentially obscure fault complaint records under the pretext of Legal Professional Privilege (refer to document G/ dated September 10, 1993). It specifically identifies my business as one of the FOI COT Cases from which requested technical documentation should be withheld.
A critical question emerges: Why was Telstra monitoring my telephone conversations, including those with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser? This practice persisted even after John Wynack, Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, demanded explanations from Telstra regarding their concealment of this logbook. The implications of this situation warrant serious consideration and action.
Before the agreement was entered into
In July 2005, eleven years after the first four government-endorsed arbitration agreements had been signed, 14 COT members met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia), and each provided him with their stories. The Senator visibly became very emotional during this meeting when several of the COT Cases provided clear proof our arbitration-related faxes were being screened via Telstra's telecommunications network en route to the arbitrator and our advisors before being redirected to their intended destination. However, the Senator appeared to be even angrier when COT case Ann Garms and I explained the resultant effect of not having the logbook of the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange, which serviced Ann's business and the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook of the exchange that serviced my business.
Simply put, Telstra knew how strong or weak each of the COT case claims was before they defended them. This upset the Senator and his political advisor. I provided the Senator with proof that some faxed documents en route to the arbitrator were not redirected to the arbitrator's office, meaning these claim documents were never assessed at all. I also raised with the Senator on the telephone after this meeting that, in my case, Telstra had admitted to the Australian Federal Police that local Telstra technicians had been intercepting my telephone conversations, which they had recorded and entered in a fault log. I assume this fault log, which was not provided to the arbitrator or me during the arbitration, would have been mentioned in the Portland/Cape Bridgewater log book.
It was the withholding of the telephone exchange Logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that serviced the COT Cases business, including the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which most of the COT Cases believe prompted Senator Joyce to ensure we COT Cases finally get the justice that was denied us during the COT arbitrations. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce is still a very prominent member of the National Party government.
After this meeting, Senator Joyce made a historic agreement with the Australian government. If the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the Senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.
To salvage something from this situation, Senator Joyce compromised with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA) to assess the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking involvement. However, after securing Senator Joyce’s vote, the government backtracked, insisting on using only their government-employed assessors instead of the independent assessor that had been promised.
Had I been allowed to use the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim material could have received a far more favourable assessment. The DCITA's reliance solely on their government archive information skewed the evaluation process dramatically. This misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA bureaucrats during the independent assessment, particularly their dependency on exhibit AS 639—entitled “Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers Office”—. No extracts from the telephone exchanges were recorded in this DCITA archive document.
By neglecting AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. The failure to withhold this critical logbook from being discovered when it was legally requested not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1996 but (not having it for showing purposes) also prevented the government DCITA assessors in 2006 from accurately valuing the claims of those who chose to participate in the Senators Coonan and Joyce review process.
My Story Warts and all
I am committed to presenting My Story Warts and All using images and the extensive exhibits supporting Absent Justice. The evidence needed for My Story Warts and All can be obtained by thoroughly engaging with absentjustice.com.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizensChapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governanceChapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.Summary of Events
Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur.
Sub Story Warts and All
Rupert Murdoch Telstra Scandal and Helen Handbury Sub Story. The website that triggered `the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.