How Telstra Gaslit My Mum for Six Years

Kim is a disabled pensioner living on rural land in Matong, NSW. After a lifetime of work, she thought she'd found peace on her small property— a place where she could tend her garden, enjoy the quiet, and live out her retirement in dignity.

Like many rural Australians, Kim needed to supplement her pension income. When Telstra approached about leasing a small portion of her land, she was cautious but willing to negotiate. The extra income would help with medical expenses and property maintenance.

But Kim had one non-negotiable condition: No mobile towers or telecommunications equipment. She'd heard about health concerns, property value impacts, and didn't want the visual pollution on her peaceful land.

Telstra agreed. They put it in writing. They signed the contract. Then they broke it anyway.

It wasn't buried in fine print. It wasn't ambiguous legal language. It was clear, bold, and unequivocal. The lease agreement explicitly prohibited any mobile towers or telecommunications equipment on Kim's property.

Telstra's representatives read it. They negotiated around it. They signed it. For months, everything seemed fine. Kim received her lease payments, Telstra used the land for whatever they claimed they needed it for, and everyone was happy.

Then one morning in 2019, Kim woke up to construction noise. Workers were installing a mobile phone antenna on her property. The very thing she'd explicitly banned.

Imagine waking up to find a corporation has violated your property rights, broken a signed contract, and installed industrial equipment on your land— all while continuing to act like they've done nothing wrong.

That's exactly what happened to Kim. The tower went up without warning, without consent, and in direct violation of the lease agreement. When she called Telstra to complain, she was told it was a "misunderstanding" and that they would "look into it."

But the betrayal was just beginning. In 2020, Telstra contractors sprayed chemicals around the tower site—again, without warning Kim or seeking permission. The chemicals killed vegetation in her garden, including plants she'd been cultivating for years.

When Kim called to complain about the chemical spraying, she was told it was "routine maintenance." No apology. No offer to remediate the damage. No acknowledgment that they were destroying her property.

This wasn't incompetence. This was a pattern of deliberate disregard for Kim's rights, her property, and her wellbeing. And it was just the beginning of six years of corporate gaslighting.

Physical Impact

The chemical spraying didn't just kill Kim's plants—it created ongoing health concerns. As a disabled pensioner with existing health conditions, Kim couldn't afford to have unknown chemicals applied to her living environment without warning or consent.

Environmental Damage

Years of careful gardening destroyed overnight. Native vegetation killed. Soil contamination concerns. The environmental impact extended far beyond the immediate spray zone, affecting the entire ecosystem Kim had been nurturing.

Psychological Harm

Perhaps the worst damage was psychological. For six years, Kim has lived with the stress of knowing that a major corporation can violate your contracts, damage your property, and face no consequences. The constant anxiety of wondering what they might do next. The frustration of being ignored, dismissed, and gaslit.

Financial Strain

Legal consultations. Medical expenses related to chemical exposure concerns. Property remediation costs. Lost enjoyment of her land. For a pensioner on a fixed income, these impacts compound over time, creating financial stress that affects every aspect of daily life.