9th December is International Anti-Corruption
- Make Your Voice Heard
7th December, 2008 by Jo Hewitt
Australia signed and agreed to implement the United Nation Convention Against Corruption, but one would not know that from the state of the nation that we see. On the United Nations' site we read:
By resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003, the General Assembly designated 9 December as International Anti-Corruption Day. This decision was taken in order to raise awareness of corruption and of the role of the United Nations Convention against Corruption in combating and preventing it. The Assembly urged all States and competent regional economic integration organizations to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force.
WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed site
http://wbde.org has found Howard's and Rudd's
governments to be so lazy/ corrupt/ that it now
writes straight to the United Nations making
complaints under the United Nations Convention
Under this treaty, Howard and Rudd and their lazy
premiers SHOULD have their assets stripped from them,
and returned to the people.
http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006Dec14UNCAC_CivilSocietyStatment.php The persecutions of whistleblowers in this country is atrocious crime - new reporters/whistleblowers are still being persecuted and previous targets of the "see no evil in ourselves" cover-up brigade still refuse to address their past atrocities.
"Let them rot" appears to still be Rudd's stance as it again recently 'flicked' Val Kerrison's personal plea for some ethical management of her case.
It is pleasing to note that more people are supporting the whistleblowers, but this is not translated into remedy.
Rudd's and Reese's governments provide unlimited public money to their Crown Solicitors, ICAC, and toothless watchdogs to mount their war on the whistleblowers.
This drains our public funds from our hospitals, schools.
The pile of dirt under their collective carpets requires more and more money each year to maintain an air or "we still pretend can't see or understand anything wrong in ourselves and our past" - whereas the cost to ethically and efficiently address issues as and when they arise would have been negligible at the time. It would have been sound investment to our future as it would have been an observable deterrent to others considering covering-up and persecuting the whistleblowers.
As whistleblowers generally report breaches of
legislation (fraud, misappropriation of public funds,
discrimination, victimisation, etc) they are deemed
to be witnesses or potential witnesses to court
See many references on the WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed site http://www.wbde.org/references.php
Excerpts from Crimes Act 1900
Threatening or intimidating judges, witnesses, jurors etc.
322. A person who threatens to do or cause, or who does or causes, any injury or detriment to any person:
(a) intending to influence a person called or to be called as a witness in any judicial proceeding to give false evidence or withhold true evidence or to not attend as a witness or not produce anything in evidence pursuant to a summons or subpoena; or
(b) intending to influence any person (whether or not a particular person) in the person's conduct as a juror in any judicial proceeding or to not attend as a juror in any judicial proceeding, whether he or she has been sworn as a juror or not; or
(c) intending to influence any person in the person's conduct as a judicial officer; or
(d) intending to influence any person in the person's conduct as a public justice official in or in connection with any judicial proceeding, is liable to penal servitude for 10 years.
Influencing witnesses and jurors
323. A person who does any act:
(a) intending to procure, persuade, induce or otherwise cause any person called or to be called as a witness in any judicial proceeding to give false evidence or withhold true evidence or to not attend as a witness or not produce any thing in evidence pursuant to a summons or subpoena; or
(b) intending, other than by the production of evidence and argument in open court, to influence any person (whether or not a particular person) in the person's conduct as a juror in any judicial proceeding, whether he or she has been sworn as a juror or not, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
Those who conceal indictable offences are also to be held accountable.
Excerpt from Crimes Act 1900
316 Concealing indictable offence
If a person has committed a serious and indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or appropriate authority, that other person is liable for imprisonment for 2 years.
Section 345 & 47 of the Crimes Act further states
Abettors and Accessories
345 Every principal in the second degree in any serious indictable offence shall be liable to the same punishment as the principal in the first degree.
As one might expect in this perceived corrupt country, seems Rudd isn't much interested in cost cutting by holding corrupt public servants to account for interfering with potential witnesses. - Yet one exercise on http://wbde.org measured that it costs the public approx $3 million dollars per year to maintain all the major players involved in seemingly persecuting just one whistleblower.
Aren't you sick of it?
Stand up for our rights.
Hold the excessively paid public servants (yes, that includes Rudd, Reese, Aquilina, etc) accountable for what can be perceived as crimes under the Crimes Act 1900.
Demonstrate, write letters, publish your opinions on this INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION DAY 9 DECEMBER 2008.
Jo Hewitt reporter [at] wbde.org
Also see this article plus comments on Sydney