> The AFP Failed Their Objective

Phone Hacking, Power, and Silence: A Call for Accountability
The ongoing revelations surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s phone interceptions in the United Kingdom (source) echo a disturbing pattern—one that mirrors the phone and fax hacking concerns that plagued the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations from 1994 to 1999. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a deeper rot: the abuse of surveillance, the manipulation of legal processes, and the silencing of those who dare to seek justice.

By 28 February, I will publish a comprehensive account on my homepage to highlight these parallels and bring overdue attention to events that deserve scrutiny. During my arbitration, I worked closely with the Australian Federal Police (AFP), providing critical evidence of Telstra’s unauthorized interception of my private phone calls and arbitration-related faxes—communications tied directly to my business dealings and legal strategy.

My decision to cooperate with the AFP was not taken lightly. It was prompted by a deeply concerning incident involving Telstra’s liaison officers, Paul Rumble and Steve Black. They issued direct threats, warning that if Telstra discovered I was sharing documents with the AFP, they would cease providing Freedom of Information (FOI) materials. This was not a bluff—it was a calculated move to obstruct my access to evidence and cripple my ability to challenge Telstra’s claims during arbitration.
What followed was even more alarming. The AFP, despite being fully aware of the threats and the gravity of the situation, chose not to support me. Their silence allowed Telstra to operate unchecked, to exert its demands without opposition, and to manipulate the arbitration process with impunity.

This abdication of responsibility by law enforcement is not just a personal betrayal—it is a national concern. It raises urgent questions about the integrity of our institutions, the protection of whistleblowers, and the accountability of government-owned corporations.

The Murdoch scandal has reignited public awareness of surveillance abuse. Let it also reignite the conversation about what happened in Australia—about the COT Cases, about Telstra, and about the silence that allowed injustice to flourish.

Would you like this paired with a visual timeline or linked directly to your AFP evidence files and FOI correspondence? I can also help format it for your homepage or turn it into a press release for broader outreach.

I use the Senate Hansard records of 20 September 1995, which show a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and I) experienced during our so-called government-endorsed arbitrations in the previous chapter. It is also most important to raise the following statement made by Senator Boswell concerning the TIO and his annual report:

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra" 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding".

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all". 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

Senator Boswell’s statement that “a point confirmed by professionals deeply involved in the arbitration process itself and by the TIO’s annual report, where conclusion is described as ‘if that is ever achievable’,” shows, by the date of this Senate Hansard on 20 September 1995, the TIO had already condemned the arbitration process. So why did Mr Pinnock (TIO) and Dr Hughes, eight months later, conspire to mislead and deceive Laurie James concerning the truth of my claims, which were registered with the proper authority, i.e., the president of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia?