Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

The keywords that define the Rupert Murdoch, Telstra Scandal, and Helen Handbury connection—such as discriminatory, counterfeit, bogus, and corrupt practices—clearly illustrate Telstra's unethical behaviour. Their submission of spurious defence documents during arbitration blatantly denied the claimants their right to natural justice.

 Part 1

During her first visit to my holiday camp, Helen Handbury, sister of the powerful media mogul Rupert Murdoch, approached me with what she claimed was sincere support after reading my manuscript, *Ring for Justice*. While her charming demeanour suggested genuine interest, lurking beneath the surface was a disquieting memory of Senator Kim Carr’s unsettling remarks about the same manuscript. This backdrop of unease serves as fertile ground for the controversial website, absentjustice.com.

 

Helen fervently wished for her influential brother—an unyielding titan in the media landscape, known for wielding his immense power to shape narratives—to read my work. This encounter left me with a haunting question: Did she truly understand the insidious implications surrounding Rupert's connections with the notorious Telstra Corporation? This corporation has become synonymous with corruption, siphoning millions from the pockets of everyday Australians. At that time, Telstra was not just a distant entity; it was a malevolent force actively misleading consumers and government regulators like AUSTEL (now known as ACMA). They orchestrated a campaign of deception regarding my ongoing billing disputes, which dragged on for over a decade—pitting ordinary citizens against a corrupt system that thrived on exploitation from 1988 to 1999. Frank Blount, who presided as CEO of Telstra, shockingly admitted in his 2000 book, *Managing in Australia*, that he was acutely aware of systemic billing flaws within Telstra. Yet, he and the board chose to conceal this damaging information during the government-endorsed COT arbitrations, showcasing the depth of their unethical practices. (Refer to pages 132 and 133 →  https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... 

 

The injustices outlined in my manuscript weave a damning narrative that exposes the sinister layers of Telstra's operations, revealing how they preyed upon trusting consumers. It was unsettling to witness Helen, with unabashed eagerness, encouraging her brother to publish a work that could potentially unveil the duplicitous treacheries committed by Telstra—a corporation that exploited everyday Australians while enriching its executives without remorse.

 

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

 

 

Every Australian citizen must confront a grotesque reality: if Telstra indeed paid a staggering $400 million to Rupert Murdoch and Fox, as Senate Hansard suggests, then we are not merely talking about a transactional agreement—it is a flagrant cover-up of their failure to deliver on the promised National Broadband Network (NBN) cable fibre rollout. This shady arrangement raises grave questions about whose interests were truly protected in this corrupt alliance. Who among Telstra’s leadership condoned such duplicitous agreements, fully aware of the profound harm being inflicted upon the citizens they were meant to serve?

 

I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, as published by the Parliament of Australia, (see also https://shorturl.at/URa5h 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 problems 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 

 

Equally alarming are the COT Cases, involving twelve brave Australians ensnared in a rigged arbitration process with Telstra. These individuals were coerced into paying thousands in professional arbitration fees, as they desperately tried to prove that Telstra was incapable of honouring its contractual obligations to customers. Meanwhile, Telstra’s systemic failures to uphold their commitments fostered a perverse situation where Fox was being rewarded—a clear indication of the discrimination and injustice at play.

 

If this was not discrimination of the worst order, then what can be deemed as such?

 

A pivotal moment unfolded during my conversation with Helen Handbury after her second visit to my cosy holiday camp, following her thoughtful and insightful reading of my manuscript. As we sat across from each other, enveloped in an atmosphere of warmth and familiarity, I felt compelled to voice my deep concern regarding her brother, Rupert Murdoch—a figure whose considerable influence casts a long shadow over Telstra. This telecommunications giant plays a significant role in the lives of countless Australians. I articulated my doubts about whether he had even laid eyes on my manuscript and whether acknowledging my claims of discrimination would be too much to expect under such circumstances.

 

In response, Helen reassured me, her tone calm and soothing. She revealed that she had not yet forwarded my manuscript to him, which alleviated some of the anxiety I had been carrying. She explained that her return to the holiday camp was solely to retrieve an item of clothing she had inadvertently left behind during her first visit. This minor yet personal detail added a genuine touch to our encounter, highlighting the connection we had developed over our conversations.

 

For years, I have harboured the belief that if Rupert Murdoch had taken even a moment to read my manuscript, I would likely have received a formal notice from his company—an official communication indicating they did not wish to pursue any further correspondence. This lingering thought occupies a significant space in my mind, shaping my understanding of the intricate dynamics at play in this complex and often disheartening situation.

 

Helen's response resonated deeply within me; she thoughtfully questioned whether Rupert could truly remain indifferent to the plight of the COT Cases, especially if he fully comprehended the immense struggles, frustrations, and emotional toll we had endured. We fought valiantly against an obstructive system, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into arbitration fees in a desperate attempt to compel action from an arbitrator regarding our unresolved phone issues. Yet, our passionate and unwavering efforts were callously dismissed as “fixed,” when in reality, they were anything but. This frustrating saga dragged on for a staggering eleven years, as thoroughly detailed in  → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story,  Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

 

Following the passing of Helen Handbury, I was deeply touched to receive a handwritten letter from Geoffrey Handbury, her husband. In his heartfelt note, he expressed genuine regret for his inability to engage with the complex issues we discussed, attributing it to his advancing age. I accepted Mr. Handbury's sentiments with grace, recognising the sincerity behind his words and appreciating the connection we had formed. The Handbury family is well-respected in South West Victoria, not only for their generous philanthropy in supporting various worthy causes but also for the authentic warmth and kindness they extend to everyone they meet. Tragically, Geof has since passed away as well, leaving behind a legacy of compassion.

 

As I approach my 82nd year, I am inspired to document my experiences with the convoluted Telstra arbitration issues and the various unscrupulous lawyers and forensic accountants who exploited the plight of the COT arbitrations for their own gain. This entire experience serves as a poignant reminder of the inner strength required to confront daunting obstacles and the relentless resilience needed to pursue justice, even in the face of overwhelming uncertainty and adversity. Through my writing, I hope to illuminate the complexities of our struggle and inspire others to stand firm against injustice.

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, I also wish to highlight my significant contributions. Over the years dedicated to building my business, I invested considerable 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 after their founding. 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.

PART 2

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

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 exchange was turned off? 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 providing 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.

A secondary fax machine

As a further example of how serious this fax interception issue was during the COT arbitrations, I need to discuss the 12 May 1995 letter, written by the arbitrator the day after he brought down my award, the arbitrator, Dr Hughes condemned the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement as not a credible document to use in the process; however, he still used it to my detriment. I.e.; 

“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” see Open Letter File No 55-A).

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible).

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

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),

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.