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 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

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch.

I grappled with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted as discussed in Senate Hansard. If this amount were channelled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal of every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritise ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. 

When Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, visited my Cape Bridgewater 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 unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

 

 

The revenue should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfil their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that all parties, including Telstra's board, knew Telstra would not meet the deadline. So, who allowed this deal to proceed?

Could this be the source from which Australia's Liberal Party drew inspiration for brokering the Aukus Submarine deal?

If we accept this premise, as pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia records recognise in points 10 and 11 below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then serious concerns will arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, 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.

 

As the author of this website, I believe 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 deadline. 

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra is obligated to provide in the event of a missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In sixteen COT cases, Telstra promised similar commitments to all Australian citizens on the condition that they financed their arbitrations to resolve ongoing issues. Unfortunately, the telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases were not addressed in these costly arbitration proceedings. In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator.

In essence, one set of legal standards exists for individuals well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set for those who do not possess such connections.

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalising this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the myriad hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

During the years I dedicated to building my business, I invested significant resources into establishing a vibrant agency across Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier (South Australia). This agency was designed to efficiently handle incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club, a lively community hub for singles over forty seeking connection and companionship. This initiative proved to be a lucrative venture, consistently bringing in between six and seven thousand dollars each weekend, a testament to the club's popularity and the community's engagement.

However, disaster struck when the 008/1800 free call service, crucial for our operations, failed due to persistent and frustrating systemic software issues. Regrettably, I found myself without compensation from the government-owned Telstra Corporation for the business I inevitably lost during this turmoil. This experience is not an isolated incident; I am among many entrepreneurs grappling with similar hardships. Countless small companies—potentially numbering in the thousands—have experienced severe financial strain due to the unreliability of the telephone system, which has often been a lifeline for their operations.

This troubling situation raises an essential question: Why does the government devote resources to supporting the Murdoch empire while seemingly turning a blind eye to the struggles of grassroots small business operators like myself, who work tirelessly to contribute positively to the Australian community?

 

In my case, pages 12 and 13 of the transcripts from the Australian Federal Police's second interview with me during my arbitration Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 provide important insights into their concerns. They highlighted that Telstra had the troubling capacity to threaten me, which arose while I was cooperating with the AFP in their investigation into Telstra's egregious misconduct towards its customers. This misconduct had serious implications, especially for the individuals who suffered as a result of Telstra's actions, which I refer to as the casualties of their corporate negligence. The context of my involvement added a layer of complexity to the arbitration process, raising ethical questions about the power dynamics at play. 

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organisations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording my single club members' names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

After this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, a central entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra could determine when my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. At the same time, I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies. 

Several dedicated individuals are gathering evidence from my work to support their narrative on government corruption. I argue on absentjustice.com that without the courage and transparency of whistleblowers, the very fabric of our democratic society is at risk of further deterioration.

Throughout history, particularly during the 1700s and 1800s, whistleblowers have played a crucial role. Seafarers journeying across vast oceans often observed unusual movements of cargo and the arrival of shipping fleets in ports that seemed unconnected to legitimate trade. They suspected these activities were linked to preparations for hostile actions. They reported these actions to the government, which history shows won the war.

Since the devastating terrorist attacks on the USA in 2011, there has been a noticeable shift in approach. Governments across the West now actively encourage their citizens to report unusual or suspicious activities, transforming ordinary individuals into potential whistleblowers. This call to action creates a complex dynamic.

Unfortunately, when some citizens extend their vigilance to report corporate wrongdoing, it can lead to severe consequences for the nation. Such corporate crimes can insidiously undermine the principles of democracy, causing a once-flourishing society to fester and decay instead of thriving on transparency and accountability.

Individuals worldwide are downloading evidence from absentjustice.com, as it unveils the disturbing decline of the arbitration system in Australia. From 1994 to 1999, this system wreaked havoc on the lives of Telstra claimants, who were promised fair resolutions to their disputes. Tragically, the government bureaucrats who made these assurances failed to uphold them, leaving many without the justice they deserved. Websites like absentjustice.com serve as vital resources, shedding light on the truth and benefiting all who seek fairness.

Whistleblowing must be acknowledged and embraced as an essential means of restoring balance and ensuring justice for all.

During the arbitration process, two of Telstra's most esteemed senior technical experts played a pivotal role, providing invaluable guidance and insight. They highlighted a crucial limitation regarding the Portland exchange, the facility responsible for routing all communications to Cape Bridgewater. Specifically, they pointed out that the Portland exchange cannot support CCS7 monitoring equipment, which is essential for conducting comprehensive call testing. This significant detail is thoroughly documented in two witness statements, both signed under oath. The first statement, authored by Christopher James Doody on 12 December 1994 (Exhibit 12), and the second by David John Stockdale on 8 December 1994 (Exhibit 11, AS-002 BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).

These two witness statements were created to serve as an overall guide for the arbitrator's technical consultant. They provided crucial information about the type of telephone exchange to which my business was connected before and during my arbitration. It raises doubts about whether either witness fully understood the significance of their sworn statements regarding the CCS7 equipment, as such a misunderstanding could undermine Telstra's defence; otherwise, those CCS7 statements would not have been used.

While the two witness statements present significant challenges, the subsequent letter from Gearld A. Kealey of Bell Canada to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, dated August 11, 1995, introduces further complications.

In this correspondence (refer to Exhibit 8-BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46,, Mr. Kealey discusses the testing conducted by Bell Canada in Portland. He asserts, "I also reviewed my personal travel log to verify the times and dates of my movements from Melbourne to Portland." This statement pertains to a specific set of tests and specifies the time and day of the alleged testing. However, it fails to address the critical issue that testing and the additional four days outlined in the BCI report could not have occurred as suggested regarding the CCS7.

Mr. Kealey's reference to his travel log concerning his journey to Portland is equally noteworthy. One must consider the rationale behind documenting this journey, especially given that the nearest telephone exchanges that accommodate the CCS7 equipment are situated in Warrnambool, which is located 112 kilometers from Portland, as indicated in both witness statements.

Exhibit 36 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46, dated August 10, 1995, from Gerald Kearney in Canada, reminds Telstra of his prior correspondence (refer to Exhibit 8 above, which details his log and visits to Portland).

Notably, this letter from Gerald Kealey to John Armstrong at Telstra Exhibits 36 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is not printed on official Bell Canada International letterhead or logo. Although the Senate Committee, in October 1997, received Mr. Kealey's letter referencing his logbook. It is reasonable to conclude that the Senate ceased its investigation after receiving Kealey's letter, which appeared to provide sufficient evidence to dismiss my claims against one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies as unfounded. 

When I brought my concerns to Senator Ron Boswell regarding the threats I received from Telstra, it became clear that my pursuit of sensitive documents from Bell Canada International was at the centre of the issue (see Senate Evidence File No 31). Senator Boswell advised me to request all pertinent documents from the Canadian telecommunications company formally. This suggestion came after I reviewed the materials supplied under the Freedom of Information Act during the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation, which revealed compelling evidence indicating that Bell Canada International Inc. could not have possibly conducted the necessary testing at my local telephone exchange, as the AFP had initially suggested.

Although Bell Canada did not respond to inquiries about the inaccuracies in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, the Canadian Government did respond, as illustrated in the following letter.

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."   

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed serious concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. It is evident that Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.

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. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being 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 .

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows 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, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, which is further proof that the COT story must be investigated.  

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority, now operating under the banner of ACMA), seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

 

The COT Saga takes another twist in favour of Telstra. 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

When the COT arbitrations wrapped up, rather than engaging the Australian Federal Police, government public servants—including officials from the communications regulator AUSTEL (now known as ACMA)—decided to withhold a crucial 68-page report. This document conclusively demonstrated that Telstra had not met its obligations to me as a consumer under its licensing conditions. Shockingly, this report was never presented during the arbitration process or shared with the relevant communications minister, The Hon Michael Lee MP.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 and 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 (namely the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbooks) over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

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.

As a direct result of this concealment, a dishonest former Telstra employee established a business in our small town alongside another ex-Telstra worker. During the arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator accepted the witness statements from these individuals and referenced them in his final award without challenging their integrity or questioning their accuracy. This oversight drew the attention of the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police in 1999, which later uncovered that the narratives put forth were fabricated, ultimately damaging my reputation and character → Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen.

These two former Telstra employees, running their enterprise in a close-knit community of just 8,000 residents in 1994, were willing to lie under oath during a government-sanctioned arbitration alongside a third former Telstra technician—yet another individual who had once been part of the network that failed me. This dishonest trio left me vulnerable, forced to defend the truth against their slanderous claims and misrepresentations about Telstra's network. Their actions contributed to my isolation, turning me into a recluse in a town that used to feel welcoming. I was the innocent party caught in a profoundly unfair and lopsided battle, and the arbitrator failed to recognise that my ongoing phone and faxing troubles continued to disrupt my business operations.

Enduring the fallout from the government's refusal to unveil the truth proved to be as distressing, if not more so, than the persistent issues resulting from the unresolved phone and fax problems. This turmoil stemmed from the arbitration process we, the COT Cases, had entered into—an undertaking that ultimately cost me a staggering $300,000 in professional arbitration fees.

One of the most daunting challenges in confronting a giant corporation like Telstra lies in its questionable ethical practices, especially regarding the distressing reports of employees stealing millions of dollars from the public coffers, as shown on pages 5165 to 5169 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. The Senate brought this alarming fact to light during the in-depth investigations into the COT Cases, which included arbitration claims pursued over a protracted five-year period. Telstra's reach extends deep into the corridors of power, as it has the ear of government bureaucrats who, in turn, counsel the politicians they support daily.

A striking illustration of this imbalance is Telstra's submission of nine individual witness statements during arbitration, all of which starkly contradict points 2 to 212 of the government’s report detailing my claims. This discrepancy makes it clear that the government should have acknowledged the COT Cases and given public acknowledgement and support. Instead, we were systematically marginalised and discredited, sacrificed to protect Telstra during its tumultuous privatisation process from 1997 to 2005.

It is imperative to share this story in its proper form—how events unfolded in reality—rather than rely on the sanitised version recorded in the archives of the Department of Communications, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) → Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued. The inaccurate representation found in the DCITA archives was wielded against the COT Cases while reviewing the 14 unresolved COT arbitration claims. This inquiry gained momentum following then-Senator Barnaby Joyce’s efforts to elevate our COT matters in exchange for his critical vote in the Senate in late 2005, which was essential for privatising Telstra's final segment.

I earnestly urge readers to explore this chapter on absentjustice.com. It will provide a compelling and persuasive narrative emphasising the necessity of resolving the issues surrounding the government-endorsed arbitration of the COT Cases. Addressing these matters is crucial for justice and a vital healing process for those still alive and impacted by this unsettling saga.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the phone and fax hacking evidence Telstra's released FOI documents showed had been in practice since at least September 1992, possibly even before that date, refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop exercise book into neatly organised hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

What happened next can be viewed by clicking on the Logbook image above, and Evidence File-1  /  Evidence-File-2

 

 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

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)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2022.

On my second request for this detailed data Paul Rumble Telstra's arbitration officer, threatened me that if I continued to provide this type of information to the AFP, Telstra would refrain from supplying that information. It was up to me. Stop supplying the AFP with FOI documents and Telstra will assist me by supplying the arbitrator with this type of evidence. I refused to be threatened in this manner.  

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those Government offices have officially organised the Fax Streaming arrangement, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system without the Government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private?

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

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

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away; he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.