Chapter 5 Sold out
📜The Bureaucratic Shadow Government
On May 23, 2021, Peta Credlin—former advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and now a prominent media figure—published a striking article in the Herald Sun titled:"...Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge."
Credlin warned of a growing imbalance in Australian governance, where unelected bureaucrats wield disproportionate influence. She wrote:
"Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians."
"Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter."
"When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not "take charge" types, department secretaries and the deputy secretaries below them can easily become the de facto government of our country".
"Since the start of 2013, across Labour and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers."
Peta Credlin's words struck a chilling chord. I found the article frightening—because it was accurate. Credlin hit the bullseye. I’ve lived this reality. During my arbitration, I witnessed firsthand how these faceless bureaucrats operated—advising successive governments regardless of political stripe. The same individuals who shaped telecommunications policy under Hawke and Keating seamlessly transitioned to advising the Liberal government after its 1996 victory. A decade later, they were still entrenched.
These are the same bureaucrats who masqueraded as independent assessors in the Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan deal—an arrangement that collapsed disastrously, much like the Robodebt scandal → https://shorturl.at/7Wpuj. In both cases, innocent Australians bore the brunt while the bureaucrats slithered back into the shadows, waiting for the next saga to unfold.
If you’ve explored absentjustice.com, you’ll understand how deeply this corruption runs. Our story is not just about failed phone lines or broken promises—it’s about a system where unelected officials hold sway over elected leaders, and where accountability is a mirage.
Would you like help formatting this into a visual timeline or exhibit trail to mark the continuity of bureaucratic processes across governments? That could amplify the impact even further
🗂️ Evidence of Deception: The DCITA Email Receipts
I hold in my possession two deeply troubling email receipts—dated 23 April 2006 and 25 July 2006—sent by my claims advisor, Ronda, to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These emails expose a disturbing pattern: my legitimate claims were not only ignored but actively undermined by the very officials entrusted with assessing them.
These emails also cast a harsh light on the government’s assurances to Senator Barnaby Joyce, whose critical Senate vote was pivotal to Telstra's privatisation. The government promised that my interests would be protected through a fair and thorough DCITA assessment process. That promise, like so many others, proved tragically hollow.
🕵️♂️ A Process Cloaked in Secrecy
Throughout the DCITA assessment, secrecy reigned. The process ended abruptly and without explanation in August 2006, leaving behind a chilling absence of transparency or accountability. According to the email receipts, Ronda received confirmation that her messages were opened. Yet, two critical documents in my claim submission were never read or assessed.
Instead, they vanished—deleted without being read on 1 February 2008, more than 18 months after submission. This wasn’t just bureaucratic oversight. It was a systemic failure, as the following Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) government assessment process → The eighth remedy pursued shows:
💸 The Cost of Silence
This flawed process cost me nearly $16,000. But the financial loss pales in comparison to the emotional toll. The evidence suggests that the officials responsible for evaluating my claims willfully ignored them. It feels like a calculated cover-up—a betrayal designed to deny justice at every turn.
📨 Email Deletion Confirmations (1 February 2008)
📤 Message 1
To: Senator Helen Coonan
CC: David Lever, Alan Smith
Subject: ATTENTION MR JEREMY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADVISOR
Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006, 17:31:41 +1100
Deleted without being read: Fri, 1 Feb 2008, 16:56:36 +1100
Disposition: deleted
Original Message ID:
📤 Message 2
To: Senator Helen Coonan
CC: Alan Smith
Subject: Alan Smith, unresolved Telstra matters
Sent: Tue, 25 Jul 2006, 00:00:42 +1100
Deleted without being read: Fri, 1 Feb 2008, 16:56:23 +1100
Disposition: deleted
Original Message ID:
⚖️ A System Rife with Neglect and Corruption
When you examine these email receipts in the context of the broader DCITA assessment, a disturbing picture emerges. The officials involved operated in an environment riddled with deceit, negligence, and systemic failure. Their inability—or refusal—to address the serious issues raised in my submission not only obscured the truth but denied justice to the COT claimants who placed their trust in this process.
This is not just my story. It’s a warning about what happens when accountability is abandoned and transparency is sacrificed.
Had I been permitted to utilise the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim could have undergone a far more favourable evaluation. Instead, the DCITA’s narrow reliance on its internal archival information dramatically distorted the assessment process. This gross misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the bureaucrats within the DCITA during the independent evaluation process—most notably their dependence on exhibit AS 639, titled “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers' Office”—demonstrates a glaring conflict of interest.
The situation was further exacerbated by the neglect of a critical document dated March 1994, which validated my claims against Telstra. This document confirmed that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my assertions to be credible. The deliberate withholding of this logbook, despite being legally requested, not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT cases spanning from 1994 to 1996, but it also deprived the DCITA assessors in 2006 of the essential information needed to accurately value the claims of those who chose to participate in the review process initiated by Senators Coonan and Joyce.
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
- During that meeting, several COT Cases presented compelling evidence that our arbitration-related faxes were being intercepted and screened by Telstra’s network. These faxes—sent to Parliament House, the arbitrator, and our advisors—were manipulated before reaching their destinations.
- This meant Telstra had advanced knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of our claims. It was a direct assault on the integrity of the arbitration process.
- Fortitude Valley (servicing Ann’s business)
- Portland/Cape Bridgewater (servicing mine)
