Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7

OVERVIEW

This Action - Measuring some of the cost of public officer’s failure to act adequately and in the public interest.

AIM: To commence measuring the time that complaints/work is not attended to by government departments, and the subsequent cost to the public purse when public agencies and ministers are paid to perform their duties, yet refuse to address identified issues.

METHOD:

1. Our volunteers examined papers and court records from the case of TAFE teacher, Val Kerrison (see http://wbde.org for more reading on this matter) and also her story published on Indymedia and WBDE “HealthQuesting Val Kerrison” http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_HealthQuestingValKerrison.php .

2. We identified some hundreds of people and organizations to whom Val had made complaints and supplied what appear to be compelling evidence of wrongdoing over the years.

a. We noted that seemingly all these individuals and organizations had taken and apparently kept large amounts of public monies - payments to perform their duties in the public’s interest.

b. We formed the opinion that these people and organizations may have simply ignored or “flicked” the issues,

3. We selected around 50 of the individuals and organizations

4. We set out to ensure that each named person had been accorded their right to procedural fairness and natural justice by writing to the individuals. In case any person has still not received their copy, we publish in the public interest here, and are asked to supply their evidence that they addressed the complaints if they did do so.

5. To those selections we formulated a base document setting out our concerns and reasons.

a. We individualized each one by inserting from a base spreadsheet information including date of complaint to the person/organization, calculated the number of days to 10 April 2006 (the date of that spreadsheet) and, failing evidence that they addressed the complaint/s, calculated a nominal cost recovery to the public of an average $1,000 per week. b. These individual monetary calculations could not be truly representative of the actual cost to the public purse because most salaries would have been much more, and hundreds of other staff were involved and actions such as court cases and longevity and cost of inquiries were not available. c. However, the number of days Val’s complaints remain unaddressed should be accurate to that time. It should be pointed out that we based our calculations on the oldest complaints we had access to - some complaints/grievances/protected disclosures may pre-date our current records.

6. The letter below was prepared and promulgated according to addresses and information from the relevant organizations.

7. To date we have not received the evidence requested that would convince us that any of these people or organizations have yet performed their duties.

8. It is concluded that just these few people and organizations show a total of at least 101,735 days that it appears the individuals failed/refused to address the issues.

LETTER

WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed

WBDE Human Rights and Ethics Panel 18 April 2006
PO Box 140
NEWTOWN NSW 2204
Web: http://www.wbde.org

For the personal attention of: [Individual’s and organisation’s names inserted from list at the end of this document]_________

Who We Are:

WhistleBlowers Documents Exposed (WBDE) is a self-funded people’s initiative arising from our dissatisfaction with the performance of some existing funded organizations and personnel, who are considered to have failed to perform their duties effectively, within the law, and in the public interest. More information is available on our WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed site: http://wbde.org

---

THIS NOTICE IS MADE AND ISSUED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS PART OF WBDE ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION

Contents:

Part 1. WBDE claim to Individual Public Officials, charges, and this action. FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION .

Part 2. Ref: Australia’s Responsibilities Under United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Asset Recovery from corrupt officers.

Part 3. Ref: Code of conduct

Part 4. Ref: Definition of Corrupt conduct

Part 5. Ref Prime Minister and Premiers to implement national treaties applicable to Australia

Part 6. Ref: Leadership code

Part 7. Ref: Malice in office

Top of page

Part 1. WBDE claim, charge, and this action

FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION

Claim: WBDE is a community-based organization. It works outside the public sector exposing and working to address perceived corruption. This entitles us to make claim under Part 2 below to support states, work towards eradicating existing corruption, and encouraging corruption prevention by means of asset recovery from existing perceived corrupt officers.

Charge: In the public interest and particularly in relation to the situation of TAFE teacher Mrs Val Kerrison, WBDE accuse you as a public official that you did dishonestly or only partial exercise your official functions, and that this constitutes corrupt behaviour (See Part 4 below). We calculate asset recovery assessed at $1000 per week for the time that the issues have been ignored/remain unaddressed.

Considerations:

1 Val Kerrison, as a duly appointed TAFE teacher is entitled to her job and entitlements. As no TAFE officer has ever charged her with any wrongdoing it is taken that there has not ever been any process even commenced to terminate her employment in any way.

2 Val reported crime and discrimination/victimisation in TAFE. After that, TAFE managers on behalf of its Managing Director, threatened her (intimidated a potential witness).

3 Val and the general public advocating for Val reported to police, government officials and politicians further crime especially HealthQuest’s and TAFE’s fake and fraudulent Retirement Certificate used to dupe Val out of her job.

4 In various years Val was tortured and terrorized by TAFE/HealthQuest officers and their lawyers etc until she collapsed, unconscious.

5 Instead of TAFE and Dept Health lawyers and Crown Sols Office targeting those committing crime, discrimination, victimisation, fraud within TAFE and Dept Health and supporting Val and other whistleblowers, they took and kept public money and acted as if they could see no wrong.

6 At all times Val was entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice, but this was denied to her by TAFE, HealthQuest, and Department of Health, propped up by Ministers, Crown Solicitor’s Office, department lawyers as well as publicly paid officers, politicians and judiciary.

7 On 22 June 1995 Val was overnight and without any attempt at natural justice simply excluded from her teaching position. That amazing, outrageous stance has been maintained by public officers to the present day.

8 A purported forced ‘medical retirement’ is as discriminatory/illegal under the AntiDiscrimination Act as any other similar detriment, e.g. age retirement, marriage retirement, and one of the duties of the AntiDiscrimination Board is to instruct government departments/courts that purported ‘medical retirement’ is prohibited – but apparently did not. Nor has the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division attempted to educate government against this.

9 Re this manufactured forced ‘retirement’ against Val, apparently no public official including judges and lawyers can name the date/time that this may have occurred and the evidence they all hold confirms that there is no day. The last employment status applied to Val was a fictitious “Withdrawn” applied by State Super in 1998.

10 All such ‘decisions’ are Void because of denial of natural justice any way.

11 This is again reinforced when no, public officers, ministers, judges, lawyers, even claims to have ever treated Val with natural justice, or seen any accorded to her.

12 While they all failed to manage this, despite taking and keeping public funds for their ‘services’, WBDE who charge no fees and work for the public good, formally investigated and judged some 30+ offensive ‘decisions’ null and void.

13 WBDE and others have constantly reported all of this to the paid public officers. It has been ‘handled’ by up to 1,000 public officials, public servants, ministers, politicians, and lawyers, but they have not addressed the issues despite having taken and presumably kept, many millions/billions of public money as payment to perform their public duties.

14 We refer you to the complaint and public documents you received and have access to including the public documents on our site WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed http://www.wbde.org, Indymedia, Hansard, Austlii, etc including:

14.1 The history of ‘HealthQuesting’ Val http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_HealthQuestingValKerrison.php .

14.2 Actions which the judiciary could have judged and actioned, but did not - these are now judged and actioned by the general public with WBDE in the public interest of justice:
http://www.wbde.org/documents/2005_Jul_18_WBDE_Procedural_Fairness_Panel_Letter_to_Key_Players.php
http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/36328
http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_6_WBDE_ToADB.pdf

14.3 We also refer you to your written and implied obligations and also specific ethical aspects listed herein - a selection which may be useful to you are set out more fully below: We take very seriously indications that public servants have taken and kept for themselves, public monies while either alone or with others failed to uphold the laws and regulations of the nation and turned a blind eye to or ‘side‘ with other public officers who have secretly and cowardly targeted Val, her reputation, her safety, her career rights and personal dignity.

This Action

Val, as a TAFE teacher, is judged to have efficiently managed her staff, students, courses taught, and resources, and maintained production of the education product to a standard where some 100s of recipients and TAFE management each year were evidently completely satisfied with her service to them. By comparison, there are volumes of unaddressed complaints each year by Val, the general public, and other organizations against the process used by TAFE and Dept Health/HealthQuest and other apparently mismanaged/corrupt departments to silence their internal dissidents.

In order to put some measurement on the longevity of perceived mismanagement/corruption, and amounts paid by the public to perceived inefficient corrupt officials we use the concept of cost recovery entitlement from the Convention Against Corruption in Part 2 below.

WBDE acknowledge that there is no way to track the actual cost of mismanagement, nor the time and public resources spent; eg documents formulated by management and support staff, maintenance of files, meetings, questions to parliament and Hansard reporting, emails, phone conversations, discussions with lawyers, “in” jokes between staff, formulating bogus allegations against the whistleblower, manipulating evidence, court preparation and attendances, court reporting and records, ineffective ‘investigations’ and policy writing, issuing ineffectual ‘judgements’, travel and accommodation for meetings and court appearances, etc.

In the table below we set out the date of the calculations, the date of one complaint sent to you, and calculate a cost at the rate of $1000 per week for each week it is judged that the complaint remains unaddressed.

This, with other similar actions is for publishing and lobbying for reforms including sacking and banning from public office those judged as corrupt or incapable.

As at this date it appears that you have taken and kept public money , but not addressed the issues; i.e. acted corruptly. We are investigating this. At some date after 2 weeks Panels in various locations will convene and consider the available material. Following that we intend publishing our findings as well as claims for asset recovery from those deemed to have acted corruptly.

Calculations As at 10/04/2006
Name	Public Official's Position	Complaint was Submitted	As at 10 April 2006 Total Days Complaint Remains Unaddressed
Kerkyasharian, Stepan	Anti-Discrim Brd Pres	06-Mar-06	35
Shaw, Jeff	Attorney-General	01-Nov-97	3,082
Debus, Bob	Attorney-General	22-Mar-01	1,845
Streater	Audit Office -	16-Jan-98	3,006
Harris, Tony	Audit Office -	27-Sep-98	2,752
Sendt, Bob	Auditor-General	22-Mar-01	1,845
Jambrich, T	Auditor-General Office	02-Feb-00	2,259
Menzies, Paul QC	Crown Solicitor barrister	01-Dec-94	4,148
Salpeter, Raoul	Crown Solicitor lawyer	01-Nov-00	1,986
Demetriou, George	Crown Solicitor	20-Apr-99	2,547
Knight, Ian	Crown Solicitor	24-Dec-99	2,299
Brus, Elaine	Crown Solicitor barrister	01-Mar-98	2,962
Lye, Amanda	Crown Sols Office lawyer	01-May-98	2,901
Burton, Julie	Crown Sols Office lawyer	01-Apr-03	1,105
Hawkins, Graham	Dept Health NSW	03-Jun-96	3,598
Refshaughe, Andrew	Dept Health NSW	16-Dec-98	2,672
Wilkins,	Premiers Cabinet. Dir-Gen	17-Sep-98	2,762
Bashir, Marie	Governor	22-Mar-01	1,845
Gifford, Peter	ICAC	17-Sep-98	2,762
Small, Kellie	ICAC	09-Feb-00	2,252
Wright, Lance,(Judge)	Ind Rel Commission	08-Jan-06	92
Walton, (Judge)	Ind Rel Commission	20-Sep-04	567
Staunton,Patricia(Judge)	Ind Rel Commission	20-Sep-04	567
Staff, Conrad (Judge)	Ind Rel Commission	20-Sep-04	567
Costa, Michael	Labor Council	27-Sep-98	2,752
Law Society	Law Society NSW	08-Feb-01	1,887
Marks, Steve	Legal Services Comm	29-Sep-98	2,750
Iemma, Morris	Minister Health & Prem	02-Sep-03	951
Aquilina, John	Minister for Education	27-Apr-95	4,001
Barbour, Bruce	Ombudsman	05-Jun-00	2,135
Watson, David	Ombudsman	15-Dec-98	2,673
Wheeler, Chris	Ombudsman Deputy	25-Sep-98	2,754
Moss, Irene	Ombudsman, ICAC	16-Jan-98	3,006
Nori, Sandra	Politician	15-Jul-99	2,461
Knowles, Craig	Politician, Health	22-Mar-01	1,845
Carr, Bob	Premier NSW	15-Nov-95	3,799
Shreeve, Robin	TAFE Director	04-Apr-99	2,563
Willmott, Gary (Dr)	TAFE Director	25-Jan-95	4,093
Cribb, Peter	TAFE lawyer	01-Dec-95	3,783
McDonnell, John	TAFE lawyer	01-Apr-03	1,105
Diplock, Jane	TAFE Mg-Dir	25-Aug-96	3,515
Ramsey, Gregor	TAFE Mg-Dir	17-Jan-95	4,101
McClelland, Jan	TAFE Mg-Dir	01-Apr-03	1,105
TOTAL DAYS THE ISSUES ARE SEEMINGLY NOT ADDRESSED			101,735

As a conservative price of $1,000 pay per week ($52,000 per year) to each of the above, this comes to more than 14 million dollars paid to these officers to perform their public duties.

Additionally, if it is found that you or those your manage have been sent more than one complaint, and failed to act and address both/all complaints, you may be judged to be acting with malice (See Part 8) If you wish to put evidence to the contrary, please supply it to us within 14 days of the above date.

In the public interest for integrity:

Please note that we do not accept a simple denial or contra statement as evidence that you actually performed your duties.

Similarly we do not accept that a statement that you have ‘flicked’ or sent the complaint elsewhere is evidence that the matters reported to you have ever actually been addressed.

An example of acceptable evidence that the complaints and reports were fully addressed would be a personal signed acknowledgement from Mrs Kerrison stating clearly that all of the matters reported to you have now been fully and properly addressed. Unless you hold and can produce such document it is taken that the issues reported to you are still not addressed and your management and behaviour may be considered corrupt without excuse. Naturally, this project does not in any way absolve you or anyone else from ethical obligations to the public to rectify past mismanagement and perform all inherent duties now, even though it is a late date. If you fail to answer this it is taken that you are in complete agreement with all that is claimed and sought by this project.

Yours faithfully
WHISTLEBLOWERS’ DOCUMENTS EXPOSED

- o o O o o -

PART 2.

Australia, as a signatory of United Nations Convention Against Corruption since December 2003, is committed to:

“Article 65 “Implementation of the Convention

“1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, including legislative and administrative measures, in accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, to ensure the implementation of its obligations under this Convention.

This includes:

“Preamble
“In The States Parties to this Convention,… “Convinced that corruption is no longer a local matter but a transnational phenomenon that affects all societies and economies, making international cooperation to prevent and control it essential, …

“Bearing in mind that the prevention and eradication of corruption is a responsibility of all States and that they must cooperate with one another, with the support and involvement of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations, if their efforts in this area are to be effective,

Asset recovery

“In a major breakthrough, countries [including Australia] agreed on asset-recovery, which is stated explicitly as a fundamental principle of the Convention… Effective asset-recovery provisions will support the efforts of countries to redress the worst effects of corruption while sending at the same time,a message to corrupt officials that there will be no place to hide their illicit assets. ”

Other excerpts from the UN Convention against Corruption http://www.wbde.org/references/corruption_excerptsFromUNCAC.php

Full Document: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/convention_corruption/signing/Convention-e.pdf

- o o O o o -

Part 3: Code of Conduct

Part 4. Definition: - General nature of corrupt conduct (Ref: ICAC)

PART 5: Prime Minister and Premiers to implement national treaties applicable to Australia

PART 6: LEADERSHIP CODE

PART 7: Malice in office

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7

Top of page | Home | Chronology | People & Depts | Current Actions | References | Cartoons | About Us

Disclaimer

Site © Copyright 2005 WBDE