Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury
HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch
In the summer of 1999, while fully immersed in the intricate process of drafting a crucial section of my story, I had the extraordinary opportunity to share my manuscript with Helen Handbury, the sister of media titan Rupert Murdoch. Helen was deeply agitated by the glaring denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had suffered. After reading my draft, she made two visits to my serene Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, confidently stating, “I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked.”
During her second visit, Helen arrived with a palpable sense of urgency, her vibrant mind buzzing with fresh ideas and insights sparked by my manuscript, prominently featured on absentjustice.com. Our discussions flowed with ease and passion, as she expressed her firm intent to present the compelling evidence outlined on the website to her brother, convinced that he would be profoundly disturbed by Telstra's shocking disregard for fundamental justice.
Yet, I found myself torn, wrestling with a heavy reluctance to reveal to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not just aware of Telstra's unethical practices, but might even be complicit in them. This unsettling realisation loomed over me like a dark cloud, particularly in light of the staggering $400 million referenced in the Senate Hansard. If such a colossal sum were diverted to FOX, it would not only betray the trust of countless Australian citizens but also exacerbate their already fragile financial situations. Many of these individuals had fought tirelessly to cover the costs of their arbitration and mediation efforts, merely to secure access to a reliable telephone service—an indispensable lifeline for their businesses, which relied on uninterrupted communication. This devastating situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should uphold the highest ethical standards. I highly recommend delving into points 10 and 111 on pages 5164 and 5165 of the official → SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia for more illuminating context.
As I pondered the implications of what I might disclose, memories of the long-standing telephone chaos flooded my mind like a tidal wave. I hesitated to confront Helen with the troubling knowledge that Rupert was aware of Telstra's unethical practices. These ongoing violations had resulted in millions of dollars in lost revenue, reverberating through individual lives and entire communities. Many Australians were ensnared in the relentless grip of persistent telephone issues, some enduring these relentless disruptions for over a decade. The repercussions of this situation were profound, leaving indelible scars on countless lives and underscoring the urgent need for accountability and reform.
One particularly haunting element of my narrative that troubled Helen was the extensive evidence I had meticulously compiled, vividly illustrating the prolonged and illegal hacking of my faxes. This distressing intrusion was not just a distant memory; it was an ongoing nightmare at the time of Helen's visit, casting a long shadow over my business operations. In that summer of 1999, the scandal surrounding the News of the World and the infamous hacking issues linked to her brother had not yet erupted into public consciousness, making our discussions all the more poignant and eerily prescient.
In the aftermath of our exchanges, I gathered compelling evidence for the Australian Federal Police, meticulously detailing the unauthorised interference with my faxes that had transpired during various arbitration proceedings dating back to 1994. The documentation I presented to Helen strongly suggested that this fax hacking issue remained unresolved at my business premises in 1999, a staggering four years after my arbitration was expected to have rectified these critical injustices.
I'm grateful for Helen's comments.
When Helen Handbury, 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 and/or his business advisors were possibly aware of 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 the 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.
The pervasive culture of corruption within Telstra has created a fertile ground for private companies to exploit both past and present mismanagement, allowing them to profit from Telstra's numerous failures. A striking illustration of this exploitation is the substantial $400 million fine levied against Telstra for its inability to complete the cable rollout for the Foxtel infrastructure. At that juncture, the Telstra Board was acutely aware that the compensation deadlines for the rollout, already burdened by rampant corrupt practices within the organisation, were utterly unrealistic. Millions of dollars had been misallocated and wasted, rendering timely completion nearly impossible. Nevertheless, in a move that starkly highlighted their disregard for both accountability and the welfare of the Australian public, they proceeded. They signed the deal, prioritising their own interests over the obligations owed to the people they serve.
I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on pages 5164 and 5165 of the official Hansard records of the Senate, as published by the Parliament of Australia, which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that the company would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as a form of severe discrimination, then what does?
10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the 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 stockÐ 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.
11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.
My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra was obligated to provide or whether they did supply the $400 million missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In several of the COT cases, Telstra made similar commitments to these Australian citizens, provided they financed their arbitrations to resolve ongoing telephone problems that were continuing to ruin their businesses. My arbitration fees between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995 cost me more than $ 300,000 in professional fees. Three hundred thousand dollars in 1994 is equivalent to $622,959,207 in 2025; yet, the arbitrator did not force Telstra to fix my telephone problems or those affecting the other members of our group, who are sadly known as the Casualties of Telstra.
In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator thirty years ago. In essence, one set of legal standards applies to individuals well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set to those who do not possess such connections.
In 2025, Fox is in partnership with Telstra. Investigate the evidence documented on absentjustice.com to uncover the identity of a former senior executive at Telstra who, prior to his appointment, was involved in the auditing of the COT Cases. Within these investigations, he contributed to compiling a report that contained critical findings. Yet, these damaging details were inexplicably omitted before it was submitted to the COT arbitrations as the official record. This former Telstra executive later transitioned to a role at Fox. It’s hardly surprising that the parties involved in the COT Cases have been voicing their grievances for so long.
In essence, a troubling disparity exists in the application of legal standards within the Australian business landscape, where individuals with strong connections to the government, such as Rupert Murdoch, are afforded different treatment compared to those who lack such privileges.
While I acknowledge the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel's substantial financial investment in its cable infrastructure, as well as the numerous hidden costs associated with the Murdochs' expansive media operations, it is also crucial that I highlight my own significant contributions. Over the years dedicated to building my business, I invested a considerable amount of resources into establishing a vibrant agency that served Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier in South Australia. This agency was explicitly designed to manage incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club efficiently. This lively community hub offers a space for singles over forty to form connections and cultivate companionship. This initiative became a hallmark of community engagement, consistently generating between $6,000 and $7,000 each weekend—an impressive indicator of its popularity and the demand for social opportunities among this demographic.
However, disaster struck when the 008/1800 free call service—an essential component for our operations—failed due to persistent systemic software issues. This unfortunate breakdown not only disrupted our business but also led to significant financial losses, as I found myself without any compensation from the government-owned Telstra Corporation for the revenue that evaporated during this tumultuous period. My situation is far from unique; I stand with many entrepreneurs grappling with similar hardships. The reality is that countless small businesses—potentially numbering in the thousands—have faced severe financial strain as a direct result of the unreliable telephone system, which serves as a lifeline for their daily operations.
This troubling situation prompts a critical question: Why does the government allocate extensive resources to support the Murdoch empire, while seemingly overlooking the legitimate struggles of grassroots small business operators like myself, who strive tirelessly to contribute positively to the Australian community?
Numerous small businesses have been forced to navigate the complex and often costly arbitration process in a desperate bid for compensation from Telstra. For many, this path has been the only recourse available to compel the corporation to address the telecommunications problems adversely affecting their operations. Unfortunately, in most cases, the issues that triggered arbitration have persisted long after the legal proceedings concluded, causing continued disruption and stagnation for these businesses over the years.
I must underscore that the essence of the issue is not so much whether Foxtel received the substantial sum of $400 million, as indicated by the Senate would be awarded to them if Telstra failed to meet its contractual obligations. Instead, the pressing concern lies in Telstra's conduct during this critical time, particularly since the corporation was still under government ownership. This scenario reveals a profound imbalance: Telstra chose to extend support and resources to a select segment of the business community while neglecting the pressing needs of countless other operators who were also adversely affected by the same inadequate network services. It raises a meaningful discussion about equitable treatment in the face of systemic failures, underscoring the need for accountability and reform in our telecommunication policies to ensure that no business, regardless of its connections, is left behind.
It is vital to highlight that on May 11, 1995, the day I received my compensation award, the telecommunications issues remained a lingering and significant burden for the new owners of my business. In December 2001, they acquired my beloved school holiday camp—an establishment I had nurtured and cherished for years—primarily for its land value. Tragically, their financial situation deteriorated, leading to bankruptcy in 2009, just eight years later. This outcome serves as a poignant reminder of the lasting impact of those unresolved telecommunications issues, echoing the struggles many small business owners face, like myself.
Moreover, the government communications authority surreptitiously acknowledged in March 1994 that the revenue lost due to the disruption of our business was substantial. This acknowledgement is detailed in points 2 to 212, referenced explicitly on page 33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
This situation paints a vivid picture of businesses' enduring struggles in this web of inefficiency and neglect.
There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.
The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:
“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (Refer p33, point 85 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
When AUSTEL representatives visited my venue, I also demonstrated that singles club customers regularly bought souvenirs before they left: printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA (the arbitration financial resource unit working for the arbitrator and Telstra) ignored all the income I lost from lost singles club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs and the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.
Chapters 1 to 12 are alongside this pivotal page titled "Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal—Helen Handbury." Helen Handbury graced my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on two occasions.
I highly recommend you check out the link “My Story Warts and All.” Like many other mini-reports in our "Evidence Files", this content will be refined and re-edited before integration.
My Story Warts and All
The issues raised on absentjustice.com have been characterized by terms such as counterfeit and bogus.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 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 governance
Chapter 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
The relentless and aggressive behavior directed to the COT Cases by Telstra.
