Welcome to absentjustice.com. If you are interested in reading about truth against adversity, you can access it for free with a simple click. Reading either my first published book, "Absent Justice," → Order Now— It's Free, 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom, now privatized and known as Telstra. Telecom's monopoly on communications allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Despite the significant cost to claimants to mount their claims against Telstra, the issues were not resolved through the government-endorsed arbitration process. Crimes were committed against us, our integrity was attacked, and our livelihoods were ruined, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars and a decline in our mental health. ​

The Casualties of Telstra stories commenced over three decades ago, prompting many to question its timeliness. As the author, I urge you to peruse my account and the accompanying Evidence Files, comprising over two thousand items. This dossier implicates esteemed Australian legal practitioners, former politicians, and public officials who conspired over the past thirty years to obfuscate Telstra corporation's pervasive corruption. Consequently, numerous individuals erroneously attribute their financial ruin, marital breakdowns, and even familial tragedies to their alleged mismanagement when in fact, the blame lies elsewhere. Uncovering this truth has inflicted profound trauma, exacerbating the already formidable challenges of business failure, home loss, and depleted savings.

Four letters to the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia

Parliament House Canberra

Re: Gaslighting techniques used against the COT Cases

Ann Garms' YouTube video (Casulaualty of Telstra story) is not expected to have widespread viral viewership; however, individuals who engage with its content may find it beneficial to retain a copy for future reference. Ann, who passed away in July 2018, persisted in her efforts to be heard, as evidenced by her four letters dated → 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document).

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. 

The video presents a compelling perspective on Ann's approach to arbitration regarding the alleged unethical conduct of Deloitte when representing Telstra in Ann's arbitration, and it resonates with the adverse experiences reported by other COT cases. Furthermore, during my arbitration, Deloitte, acting on behalf of Telstra, erroneously asserted that they had conducted tests on my telephone lines, finding no irregularities with the service, contrary to the divergent covert account provided by government communications regulators at points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms the government investigated my ongoing telephone problems finding my claims against Telstra validated. 

One does not require extraordinary insight to comprehend that had the arbitrator been provided with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, inclusive of AUSTEL's acknowledgement in their findings that Telstra was withholding requested documents/records from the government concerning the extent of my persistent telephone issues, the awarded compensation for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than the amount determined solely based on my submission. In light of the Australian government's inability to compel Telstra, an Australian-owned corporation, to disclose information related to my ongoing telephone problems, it is evident that my prospects for obtaining such crucial information in support of the ongoing telecommunications challenges were bleak. This is further detailed in points 43, 48, 71, 140 and 160 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

It has been documented in government Hansard that organized criminal conduct permeated various levels within Telstra for years prior to the collective efforts of the Casualties of Telstra (comprising myself, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer) to prompt a Senate investigation into this illicit activity. Our group of four COT Cases was later joined by an additional twelve small business owners who were similarly affected by persistent telephone issues that Telstra could not locate and/or rectify, resulting in substantial business losses.

The official Senate Hansard indicates the possible misappropriation of funds belonging to the government and, consequently, the Australian citizens who were still shareholders in Telstra, amounting to a figure possibly exceeding a billion dollars. Given the substantial value of a billion dollars thirty years ago, our narrative gains added significance when juxtaposed with my manuscript, its accompanying Evidence Files, Ann Garms's video, and pages 5165 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

Call for Justice

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned since 1992 through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My Casualties of Telstra (COT) story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 20 years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through my retirement years and beyond.

My business is hospitality, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age. It was located in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland. Everything seemed perfect. I performed my “due diligence” to ensure that the business was sound, or at least all of the due diligence I knew I needed to accomplish. Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. I was hearing from customers and suppliers alike that they had tried to call and couldn’t get through to me.

The holiday camp was in a pristine location 

All we needed was a phone service in which to operate the venue 

Yes, that’s right. I had a business to run and a phone service that was, at best, unreliable and, at worst, just not there. Of course, we lost business as a result.

Commencing my narrative, I embarked on a formidable quest to procure a functional phone system for the property. During this endeavour, I received a settlement, only to uncover that at the time of said settlement, Telstra had internally acknowledged their inability to rectify the persistent telephone issues due to their systemic nature, which had been adversely impacting the business prior to my acquisition. This crucial admission had been withheld from me by Telstra during the settlement process (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), with a notation indicating:

“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.”

Thirteen years after that settlement, the identical phone problems continued to afflict the subsequent proprietors of my business after my compelled divestiture. This situation was disheartening and debilitating, as Telstra and the government failed to investigate these enduring issues, which an appointed arbitrator also disregarded.

Other independent business people similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we ever wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to admit to our various problems, fix them all, and then pay compensation for our losses.  A working phone: was that too much to ask?

We initially asked for a full Senate investigation into Telecom in general and these issues in particular. We were offered an arbitration process as an alternative. It seemed an excellent way to resolve the problem, so we accepted this alternative. At this early stage, AUSTEL (the government communications authority) had officially advised in writing that the technical difficulties that prevented our phones from working would be resolved as part of that government-endorsed arbitration.

No such luck. Suspicions that something about the arbitration process was not quite right started almost immediately. We had been promised that the Telecom documents we needed to make our case would be made available to us if we entered into arbitration. Despite the promise, they have never been made available, and we still do not have those documents to 2024. We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines were being illegally tapped. Of course, like all COT Case claims against Telstra, no finding on that evidence was ever handed down.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter written by the arbitrator during my designated appeal period dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 9 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

The government has consistently failed to acknowledge the existence of Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. However, these documents undeniably prove that an individual with access to Telstra's telecommunications network intercepted our arbitration-related documents over an extended period. Furthermore, we were misled into signing a confidentiality clause, which has significantly impeded our efforts. Despite the potential violation of the clause, I am compelled to make this information public as I see no alternative.

The next part of our journey was to do everything possible to obtain the promised but withheld documents through Freedom of Information (FOI). We know the evidence is there to make our case that the lines were not working and had not been adequately tested according to agreed protocols. But for those documents to benefit us, we have to obtain them.

Do we speculate on the events leading up to and during our arbitrations, or has there been pervasive corruption and collusion involving public servants, politicians, regulatory bodies, and Telstra itself, all working to shield Telstra to the detriment of Australian rural businesses?

If you are still unconvinced that the Australian Communications Authority AUSTEL (now called ACMA) and Telstra worked together (in concert) to conceal the truth concerning the Casualties of Telstra's claims, read the following four paragraphs.

 

ACMA breached their duty of care

Protecting a government-owned asset at all costs  

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And Mr Matthews replied:

‘The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received their copy then.?

Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show that AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

The actions by AUSTEL were an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was one condemnation, but to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia.

This fight was dirty and controlled. 

 

I NEED TO FAST FORWARD TO JULY 2009

I need to fast-forward to 30 July 2009 to share the statutory declaration with Paul Crowley, CEO of the IAMA. This was provided to him by COT spokesperson Graham Schorer and included a letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me. This letter received more than three years after my arbitration concluded, sheds light on the arbitrator to the COT Cases arbitrations. In the letter, Mr Schorer conveys information from a previous client of the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, who notified Mr Schorer of the potential misplacement of some of the arbitration lost claim documents by the head office of Dr Hughes's Sydney law practice.

Whether or not this was the case, the COT Cases were never informed of this possibility. If they had been, it could have provided them with grounds to appeal part of their arbitration award. Furthermore, the failure to inform the Australian Federal Police of this possibility during their investigations into the lost arbitration-related documents hindered their official inquiries, in which the COT Cases were involved.

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator early in 1994 regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.” Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Were these lost faxes intercepted by Telstra's secondary fax machine (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 or the arbitrator's office negligence? Numerous faxes originally faxed to the arbitrator's office played a significant role in the COT arbitrations, as shown throughout this website. I later added a reference to these lost faxes as an amendment to the 21 claim documents I provided to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. It is well documented that government bureaucrats before and during my arbitration alerted the Australian Federal Police to the significance of the faxes that were not arriving at their intended destination during the COT arbitrations (see Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations) 

 

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

The Ericsson AXE billing problems continued

I formally addressed the possibility that another Australian citizen, Alan Smith, residing in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, might have received my arbitration correspondence. This circumstance made me suspect that my lack of arbitration-related communication may have originated from this source. Regrettably, no inquiry was pursued on this essential matter. Furthermore, I duly informed the arbitrator and arbitration administrator of the intimidations I faced from the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically Freehill Hollingdale & Page, leading up to and during the arbitration process. I also underscored that the aforementioned individual, who shares the same name and resides in Cape Bridgewater, had encountered similar intimidations from Telstra’s legal representatives, who were presently representing Telstra in my arbitration. Despite these disclosures, no subsequent investigation into these intimidations ensued. Moreover, despite the acknowledgement of these matters by a Senate Committee, no proactive measures were undertaken to aid my situation by the arbitrators, Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, to stop these threats from being carried out. Commonwealth Ombudsman records show these threats were duly carried out.

I presented Alan Smith's billing information, obtained through the FOI, to the arbitrator as evidence of the threats he received from Telstra and their lawyers. In my experience, Alan contested the billing accounts for calls he did not make. Regrettably, there has been no response from Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) or Warwick Smith (the administrator).

Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? it is revealed that on 16 October 1995, five months subsequent to the finalization of my arbitration process, AUSTEL/ACMA authorized Telstra's original arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, to address the most critical components of my ongoing 1800 Ericsson AXE billing claim documents in confidence (Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l), without the presence of the arbitrator or myself. Consequently, my legal entitlement to contest Telstra's billing submission was abrogated.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence 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 the AFP transcripts, for which the AFP advised me the following: 

"... it 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".

What incentive would compel an arbitrator to ignore irrefutable evidence attached here as >Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 <? 

At least 41 of my faxes did not reach the arbitrator 

 

On 10 February 1994 AUSTEL wrote to Telstra's Steve Black,  who was Telstra's principal Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP defence officer), stating:

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

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

The NINE TAPES. were the crucial 'nine smoking guns' that would undoubtedly bolster our claims against Telstra. On February 15, 1994, Senator Richard Alston raised the nine audio tapes in the Senate on notice (Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE). Senators Ron Boswell and Richard Alston expressed concerns about the possibility the paedophile activities in Parliament House Canberra had been recorded on these nine COT Cases-related tapes. This could be the reason we, as COT Cases, were being denied access to these tapes.

Forced to proceed with arbitration

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

The following six senators formally recorded how they believed Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations. Where were Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was carried out?  

 

SIX SENATORS 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

 

It is crucial to emphasize to all parties reading this account that the COT Cases agreed to the arbitration process because the Australian government, along with several senators, prominent lawyers, and the Canberra media, were officially advised by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the proposed arbitrations) that the COT Cases arbitrations would be conducted under the Arbitration Procedure (the Act). Furthermore, we were informed that Telstra and the government would provide the documents we requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

To substantiate this understanding, John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally communicated to the Government and provided testimony to a Senate Estimate Committee on September 26, 1997, after the completion of most arbitrations that:  

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."

“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”.  ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) 

I reiterate that it's concerning how the COT Cases were burdened with the financial responsibility for arbitration fees to resolve their ongoing telephone problems. They were essentially left with the choice of funding an arbitration to compel Telstra to fix these problems or operating their businesses at a significant disadvantage due to unresolved telecommunication issues. 

 

 

After thoroughly examining the initial twelve pages of my 280-page manuscript, referenced by Senator Kim Carr and later by Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, the editor expressed profound astonishment at the portrayal of the COT narrative. The narrative presents a compelling chronicle characterized by betrayal, conspiracy, and deception orchestrated by a cunning and unscrupulous legal practitioner and his arbitration associates. Their adept circumvention of numerous legal professionals was achieved by manipulating a confidentiality agreement altered to the detriment of the claimants and to impede any third-party assessment of their evidence. The potential utilization of this stratagem in a court action would have had adverse implications for the government, which owned Telstra during the arbitrations. It is noteworthy that the arbitrators, Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), have both been honoured with the Orders of Australia for their dedicated service to the nation's citizens.

 

Examine the documented corruption within the Australian government, including the serious offences committed by Australian public officials. Investigate the activities of unscrupulous, illegal, and morally compromised politicians and their associated legal representatives, some of whom continue to practice law in Australia and abroad. Gain insight into the failure to address Telstra's unethical behaviour before, during, and after government-sanctioned arbitrations, as well as the oversight by arbitrators in investigating significant telephone malfunctions that continued to cause widespread harm to numerous small businesses nationwide; refer to (Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN). These transgressions warrant scrutiny. Could you elucidate the reasons behind the persistent adverse impact of telephone issues on the businesses involved in the COT cases, even twelve years after their arbitrations intended to rectify their telecommunications problems as part of the arbitration process?

Evaluate the unsettling realities of corrupt practices, flagrant crimes, and unethical behaviour within Australia's legal and political frameworks. Those involved in corrupt activities may encompass politicians, government officials, public servants, business leaders, and auditing firms who, for monetary gain, manipulate their findings to favour a specific party at the expense of others. Delve into the historical context of the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury aspect of the COT narrative. This account suggests that individuals within the Telstra Corporation were deeply involved in the Rupert Murdoch Fox and Telstra side of the COT story, which hindered a thorough investigation into the deceptive conduct of the Telstra Corporation. For additional information, please refer to page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, and Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

The blog by Shane Dowling, author of the Kangaroo Court website, is featured here on Absent Justice because Australian citizens and several other media outlets are still discussing corruption concerning the big four auditing firms. Three of those auditing firms are linked in some way to the COT arbitrations https://shorturl.at/a9g1S

 

 

Coopers & Lybrand's, now part of Price Waterhouse Coopers 1, coercion to alter its conclusions significantly impacted the outcomes of at least four COT case arbitrations, including mine.  Reading this Price Waterhouse Coopers 1  page on absentjustice.com will convince most visitors to this website that Telstra's 

When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct. Still, all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting me and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the proof that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.

Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9 November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (Exhibit 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946), saying: 

"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

These are strong words from the senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country, a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.

Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft, it is noted (Exhibit 943 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:

"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

 

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.  

During the Senate hearing, it was abundantly clear that Telstra and its board were fully cognizant of their need for additional time to meet the system requirements stipulated by Mr. Murdoch and Fox. This revelation strongly indicates that the ongoing telephone issues plaguing the COT Cases' business, the focal point of government-endorsed arbitrations, would inevitably surpass the arbitration process deadline. This prompts a crucial question: why were the COT Cases compelled into arbitration, incurring substantial costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, when Telstra and its board were fully aware of their inability to rectify the persistent telephone problems, a critical aspect of the arbitration processes?

AUSTEL (now ACMA) withheld the following information from the COT arbitrator 

 

Could be as high as 120,000 COT-type customers 

The following letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, to AUSTEL’s chair from Telstra’s group general manager, suggest AUSTEL was far from genuinely independent but instead could be manipulated to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this first letter. For example, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. …  (See Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report released into the public domain notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

The fact that Telstra (the defendants) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is deeply disturbing. The 120,000 other customers – ordinary Australian citizens who were experiencing COT-type problems – are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report (see Senate Evidence File No 28). However, they used this to determine the validity of the COT claims.

For a government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. Were the government's downplaying of the Ericsson AXE fault complaints part of the overall conspiracy, which involved purchasing Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, who often worked on government contracts? 

Upon reviewing these two letters, which comprised a draft chapter in the manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, she was astounded by the government's concealment of the scale of the ongoing telephone problems affecting over 120 thousand Australian citizens.

The awareness of Telstra's inability to fulfil its telecommunications obligations to Rupert Murdoch and the COT cases was not limited to the Telstra board; AUSTEL (now ACMA) was also cognizant of this fact. Despite this knowledge, AUSTEL's decision to proceed with the COT arbitrations raises the question of why such actions were permitted, ultimately leading to further detrimental impacts on the lives of the individuals involved and their families.

 

A mind field of ongoing telephone problems.

An example of the type of poor Telstra workmanship that the COT Cases and some 120,000 COT-type Australian citizens were experiencing became the second devil the COT cases had to face in their attempt to run their businesses, i.e.:> Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.

00O00

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. 

The discrepancy highlights a concerning disparity in the treatment of influential Australian citizens who relinquished their citizenship to become American citizens, such as Rupert Murdoch, and ordinary Australian citizens striving to sustain businesses reliant on dependable phone service. This asymmetry underscores the one-sided nature of the COT story.

In simple words, why should Rupert Murdoch receive special treatment from an Australian government-owned telecommunications company, which Telstra was when this deal was made, and the rest of Australia's citizens have to wait years, and in rural Australia, more than a decade to receive the same service which was to be provided to Mr Murdoch and if Telstra failed to do so be awarded 400 million dollars. We will never know how many Australian small business operators went bust because their surname was not Murdoch.