PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS accorded to a paedophile -- but apparently not to whistleblowers.
Procedural Fairness was accorded to Department of Community Services' (DOCS') Paedophile (D.Z.)
In Chapter 8 Vol IV of the Wood Royal Commission Final Report, Case Study 8 concerns the employment history of DOCS District Officer D.Z.
D.Z. was the subject of a series of complaints between 1983 and 1989 alleging improper conduct of a sexual nature with clients.
Paragraph 184.108.40.206 In 1988 an allegation was made "…by a 13 year old female client that D.Z. had taken her to his home and offered her $50 to sleep with him. Arising out of this allegation a charge for a breach of discipline was preferred. It was found proved and an order was made that D.Z.'s salary be reduced. D.Z. then appealed to G.R.E.A.T. In November 1989 the Department formed the view, on advice, that the disciplinary action had been flawed, in that D.Z. had been inappropriately interviewed and had not been given the opportunity to be heard, either on the finding of breach or on penalty. By agreement, the finding and penalty were set aside 1706." [emphasis added]
Footnote 1706 at the bottom of Page 887 reveals that the advice given to DOCS leading to the setting aside of the disciplinary action against D.Z. came from the Crown Solicitors' Office (advice regarding D.Z. and D.C.S, 28/10/89, Industrial Relations File of D.Z., R.C.P.S. Exhibit 3091 C/2, at Doc 24091413-19)
Yet the Crown Solicitors' Office currently represents the
departments against the whistleblowers. These cases are based
on the departments' harmful
actions taken against the whistleblowers and the secret files the
departments compiled without the knowledge and rights of the whistleblowers.