Dear Ms Brown,
The purpose of this message is:
1. to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request of 24 June 2012;
2. to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request of 23 August 2012; and
3. to provide you with information about further communication with this office.
1. Your FOI Request of 24 June 2012
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner recently provided this office with a copy of your FOI request of 24 June 2012. Although this office does not have a copy of your original request, I am writing to acknowledge receipt of that request. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has granted an extension of time until 2 October 2012 to respond to this request. I will write to you again in the near future with further information about the Commission’s response to this request.
2. Your FOI Request of 23 August 2012
I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request dated 23 August 2012 (below) for documents disclosing “the name of the individual or the name of the Company that the Australian Public Service Commission uses when complaints are received from Whistleblowers under S16 of the Australian Public Service Act and also S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act”. I understand your reference to S41(f) to be a reference to paragraph 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act).
This FOI request is receiving attention and I will write to you again in the near future about this request.
3. Further communication with this office
For reasons explained further below, please observe the following protocols in relation to future communication with this office about FOI:
1. Please address any FOI email correspondence to foi@apsc.gov.au. If you do not observe this instruction your correspondence may not be received.
2. Please do not address email correspondence to foi@apsc.gov.au if the correspondence is not in respect of an FOI request.
In March 2012, the Public Service Commissioner wrote to you and made the following request:
· “Finally, many of your emails to the Commission include offensive language and abusive personal remarks about individuals. Please stop sending abusive emails. Any further abusive correspondence may be filed without reading.”
Similarly, in April 2012, Karin Fisher wrote to you and stated the following:
· “The email is defamatory and highly offensive. I am advising you to stop sending similar emails to me and copy recipients, and to remove this material from websites that you have established.”
As you did not comply with these requests, measures were put in place on the Commission’s email servers to divert email messages from you. Although it was intended that any FOI requests would be directed to the appropriate recipient, this did not occur.
Additional measures have now been put in place to ensure that messages you address to foi@apsc.gov.au will reach the intended recipient. Please note that if you send offensive, abusive or defamatory material to foi@apsc.gov.au or if you send a substantial volume of correspondence to this address, the Commission may take further steps to block or divert email messages from you.
You are, of course, free to address correspondence to:
FOI Coordinator
Australian Public Service Commission
16 Furzer Street
WODEN ACT 2606
Please note that a copy of this message will be forwarded to the OAIC so that the OAIC will be aware of the instructions provided to you above.
Regards,
____________________________________________________Chris Luton
FOI Officer
Australian Public Service Commission
p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au
Dear Chris
Thank you for supplying me with a copy of the Australian Public Service Fraud control plan and your accompanying letter explaining that the Australian Public Service finds it unnecessary to have an investigation policy pursuant to the AGIS. You also informed me that Commissioner Steve Sedgwick or Karin Fisher or in fact nobody in the Australian Public Service Commission has any qualifications to do investigations as required by the AGIS.
I understand that the Australian Public Service Commission would contract a suitably qualified investigator to undertake enquiries in accordance with the guidelines.
Under Freedom of Information please supply me with the name of the individual or the name of the Company that the Australian Public Service Commission uses when complaints are received from Whistleblowers under S16 of the Australian Public Service Act and also S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act.
I would assume that the Australian Public Service would attempt to avoid a conflict of interest and appear to be transparent when dealing with these matters. It would be an abuse of Office and power should it be found that the Australian Public Service Commissioner deliberately protected Agency Heads and failed to comply with the AGIS by failing to use qualified investigators.
You may be aware that Fairwork Australia was criticized this week by KPMG for lack of qualified officials who had no standards to follow and failed to investigate key areas.
The correspondence in the form of emails I received under Freedom of Information sent to Veronique Ingram Head of ITSA and Alison Larkins Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman was sent by Karin Fisher and not a qualified investigator as required under the AGIS. From this it can only be assumed that the Australian Public Service Commission considers that extensive evidence of systemic corrupt conduct by senior management at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia to be extremely minor or Commissioner Sedgewick has made a decision that this must be covered up at all costs.
Earlier I also requested a copy of the emails or letters that were sent to the respective Agency Heads when a complaint had been received under S16 or S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act. This would have been the first or initial contact that would have been made. I understand for privacy reasons all names would be blacked out . I requested under FOI a copy of all these initial contacts in the financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. I believe I received confirmation that none of these emails or letters exist. I therefore find this particularly confronting that of all the complaints made to the Australian Public Service Commission in the particular time span the complaint made by me was the only complaint that the Karin Fisher actually contacted the Agency Heads asking them to explain their behavior. If this is correct it would show a complete lack compliance with the AGIS.
This is taken from the 2010-2011 APS Annual report:
Whistleblowing reports and other allegations
APS employees are able to report alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct to their agency head or a person authorised by the agency head.
Whistleblowing inquiry functions are handled by delegated senior staff in the Ethics Group, with the Commissioner reserving for his personal consideration matters that raise serious public interest issues.
During 2010–11, the Commissioner received 14 whistleblowing reports from APS employees and three complaints from former public servants. Table 4 shows the number of cases received and finalised. Four complaints were carried over from 2009–10. All whistleblowing reports were acknowledged and many substantially responded to within six weeks.
The complaints from public servants concerned poor administration, the handling of internal investigations, and allegations of misconduct by senior managers including allegations of bullying and harassment.
Eleven matters were finalised in 2010–11, including two of the four matters carried over from the previous year. Table 4 also shows the action taken by the Commissioner in response to these cases. The one investigation undertaken found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant recommending an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. In most cases, however, the employee was advised to refer the matter to the relevant agency head for investigation.
While the number of whistleblowing reports lodged is low, they often concern complex interpersonal matters and the issues can take a long time to assess, including whether any or all of the matters have been investigated by the agency in the first instance.
The Commissioner also handled 16 allegations against agency heads made by APS employees and members of the public under section 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act). The complaints commonly featured allegations that agency decision-makers had failed to comply with their legislative obligations or not exercised their decision-making powers properly. Only one of the ten cases finalised warranted an inquiry.
.You will be aware that Commissioner Steve Sedgwick has abused Office in this circumstance.
I will now be specific what I require under Freedom of Information.
*********Please supply me with the name of the investigator or the Company which the APS uses for investigating all complaints made under S16 and S41(f) of the Australian Public Service Act.
*********As I cannot believe that no emails or letters were sent to Agency Heads when a complaint was made asking for an initial explanation except for the complaint that was made about ITSA or the Commonwealth Ombudsman by myself could you again verify this for me. If this proves to indeed be correct I would unfortunately be very concerned that the correspondence I received under FOI from Karin Fisher was a forgery.
I would appreciate confirmation of this email.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown
Now we have always had suppression order in our our courts that is meant to protect the victims where they could be identified. Fair enough, a good thing but the bleeding hearts decided to beef it up a bit by bringing in suppression orders to protect vile pedophiles, rapists and all sex offenders.
Derryn Hinch was among many of us at a rally on the steps of Parliament where we all named these vile creatures in the interest of ours children and grandchildren. What followed after that was like Hitler’s Germany, Derryn was charged and the rest of us waited for summonses that never came, go figure. After that the rest is history. Derryn cops five months home detention from a magistrate called Charlie Rozencwajg. I thought that this sentence was a disgrace and that if they were still in Government Hulls mob, they would have a Reverse Sex Offender list for Derryn.
Charlie Rozencwajg would have to be one of Rob Hulls’ bleeding hearts appointed to the bench as he told us his thoughts on justice which they believes belongs to them not the people who pay their wages. Charlie told the court that Hinch had campaigned for the abolition of suspender sentences and encouraged the passing of a “one size fits all approach which removed judicial discretion” in sentencing. Such an approach would lead to injustices, the magistrate said.
Charlie, that is what victims have had to put up with for years, suck it up charlie it is now happening…