misconduct at ITSA: Systemic Corrupt Conduct

This is the story of a Commonwealth Government Agency where disproportionate power was put into the hands of a few and Systemic Corrupt Conduct flourished. Although the Commonwealth Ombudsman was aware of this they failed to take the necessary action . Although this is about one particular Government Agency “ITSA” it easily could relate to a number of Commonwealth Government Agencies.

It is also of particular interest that the Australian Public Service Commission is virulently prepared to defend this conduct and also defend where Systemic corrupt conduct plays an extremely important role in the APS Management decisions.

According to the APS Commission “better practice Guidance to decision making”a person responsible for a decision is accountable for this. However when this decision is based on systemic corrupt conduct by senior management and the APS Commission and the necessary authority fails to take action this only leads the Government Agency into a state of dissent where it is reassured that unethical conduct is completely reasonable and acceptable.

The following is the functions of the APS Commissioner to ensure compliance in Government Agencies

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 41

Commissioner's functions
             (1) The Commissioner's functions include the following functions:
                     (a) to evaluate the extent to which Agencies incorporate and uphold the APS Values;
                     (b) to evaluate the adequacy of systems and procedures in Agencies for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct;
                     (c) to inquire into reports made to the Commissioner (or to a person authorised by the Commissioner) as mentioned in section 16;
                     (d) to consider and report to the Public Service Minister on any matter relating to the APS (including such a matter referred to the Commissioner by the Public Service Minister);
                     (e) to promote the APS Values and the Code of Conduct;
                      (f) to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads and to report to the appropriate authority on the results of such enquiries (including, where relevant, recommendations for sanctions);
                     (g) to develop, promote, review and evaluate APS employment policies and practices;
                     (h) to facilitate continuous improvement in people management throughout the APS;
                      (i) to co-ordinate and support APS-wide training and career development opportunities in the APS;
                      (j) to contribute to, and foster, leadership in the APS;
                     (k) to provide advice and assistance on public service matters to Agencies on request;
                      (l) any function prescribed by the regulations.
             (2) A report by the Commissioner under subsection (1) may include recommendations.
             (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), the appropriate authority for a report about an Agency Head is:
                     (a) the Prime Minister, if the Agency Head is a Secretary; or
                     (b) the Agency Minister, if the Agency Head is the Head of an Executive Agency; or
                     (c) the Presiding Officers, if the Agency Head is the Head of a Statutory Agency that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(d) the Agency Minister, if the Agency Head is the Head of a Statutory Agency that is not prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of paragraph (c).

Attention Steve Sedgwick

Australian Public Service Commissioner

22^nd February 2012

Dear Steve,

Systemic Corrupt Conduct is allowed to exist in Government Agencies when the Agency Head fails to promote Ethical Values and ethical Conduct and allows the whole department to fall into a state where the system fails to operate within the law and becomes “sick” due to the complete failure of its Management.

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument...

systemic corruption means instances of corrupt conduct (which may or may not
constitute serious corruption) that reveal a pattern of corrupt conduct in a law ...

Statement of Intent

First of all, what does “systemic corruption” mean? We use this term to distinguish two

situations. One is where some people are corrupt. Another is where many people are corrupt—

where the system itself has grown sick. A distinguishing characteristic of systemic corruption is that

the many parts of the government that are supposed to prevent corruption have themselves

become corrupted—budgeting, auditing, inspection, monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement. This

makes the anti‐corruption task much more difficult. We cannot simply call for capacity building in

these anti‐corruption parts of government, because their capacity has been bought off and directed

away from their ostensible mission.

This is also from ICAC

These are condition that allow Systemic Corruption to occur.

policies and procedures are absent, unclear or not adequately enforced
employee training is inadequate
checks such as audits are lacking
communication and reporting lines are unclear
employee supervision and performance management are inadequate
employees have high levels of discretion in their decision-making
employees develop close relationships with external stakeholders
accepted ethical standards are lacking
the corporate culture condones rule breaking and short cuts.

With the failure of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to fulfill its statutory obligations, these corrupt systems in Government departments have been allowed to flourish. Consequently similar complaints are continuously made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman because the Commonwealth Ombudsman fail to put into place the necessary safeguards to prevent this problem occurring again. Failure to correctly deal with these complaints at the first instance leads to blow out in budgets as a similar complaint continues to arise.

Responsibility of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman safeguards the community in its dealings with Australian Government agencies.

The Ombudsman’s office handles complaints, conducts investigations, performs audits and inspections, encourages good administration, and carries out specialist oversight tasks.

When the Agency Head of ITSA fails in her responsibility to enforce the code of conduct this allows the ethical standards of this Government Agency to disintegrate into decay. The Agency Head has also allowed Senior Management to formed a culture that condones unethical behavior. Veronique Ingram clearly has nurtured this and failed to issue directions that that this behavior is not to continue. She has been made aware of this conduct in numerous emails and Letters sent by registered post. She would also have been made aware of this behavior by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In a reply from the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the 3^rd December 2011 they notified me that they had brought “shortcomings “ to the attention ITSA but when I requested what these were they refused to answer me. Subsequently I have attempted to have these 'Shortcomings” released to me under FOI though the Commonwealth Ombudsman refuse to reply to me.

The Australian public service commission also holds responsibility that they have allowed Adam Toma who is not of good character and and promotes unethical behavior to rise to to a position of National Manager Bankruptcy Regulation and Enforcement. With Authority over Bankruptcy Regulation Branch and also Enforcement his unethical behavior forms a precedent that has no accountability .This allows Adam Toma insurmountable power. The APS Commission is aware that it is reckless to have such a person of such character in this position. With evidence that Adam Toma has formed a culture that is in violation of the APS Code of Conduct , Veronique Ingram has promoted Adam Toma to ITSA's internal Audit Committee. This should greatly concern the APS Commission, however the APS Commission has failed to act.

ITSA is only one Government Agency that has failed to enforce the APS Code of Conduct and ethics. This shows how the Treasury “ best Management Plan” handles complaints.................................................
I refer to the following email sent to Wayne Swan at Treasury on the 3^rd October 2011. A follow up phone call was then made on the 14^th October 2011. As you can read I was told” You can't get everything you want in life so I should forget my complaint” I would like to get the APS Commission to tell me exactly where this actually figures in the Code of Conduct.
From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au; ministerial@treasury.gov.au
Subject: RE: Misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act all over Australia
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:31:29 +1100

To whom it may concern,
I confirm I spoke to Christy at 1.30 today concerning this email. I was then put through to Andrew from the the Treasury Insolvency branch. I told him I had evidence of gross misconduct at ITSA. He told me that you can't get everything you want in life and I should forget my complaint. I find this offensive.
Please explain why I should forget misconduct in a Government department.
Thank you
Fiona Brown

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au; ministerial@treasury.gov.au
Subject: Misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act all over Australia
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:14:00 +1100

Dear Wayne,

I am emailing you as treasurer, so please do not pass this onto the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland

I confirm I rang your office around 4pm this afternoon.

I have evidence of gross concealment and coverup by Senior Management at ITSA which administers the Bankruptcy Act. The evidence is in writing and it has all been confirmed. It has been put in chronological order in a file. I was told to only correspond with ITSA by email so I had evidence of their conduct and any meetings with them had to be confirmed of what was discussed after the fact in a statement was to be left for the particular person at reception at ITSA. I was then to email them to inform them of the statement.

You should be aware everyone is wasting their time asking questions to ITSA at inquiries. Go and do something else with your time because you will never ever understand what is occurring unless you are made aware that ITSA is unaccountable and using section 134(3) to justify any misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act by senior staff and Management This is why Bankruptcy regulation only found 20 complaints justified last financial year.

Bankruptcy Regulations which is meant to be independent is concealing the breaches of the Bankruptcy Act and misconduct by senior Management. This is why the Bankruptcy Act is failing. Mathew Osborne is telling staff at ITSA that this section gives discretion to the overall Act. This makes the Act unworkable and open for corruption.

S134(3)of the Bankruptcy Act is about the trustees discretion on division of property. However the Principal Legal Officer Mathew Osborne has given instructions that this may be used on the entire Act. This section is being used all over Australia to justify misconduct and Breaches of the Bankruptcy Act.

I am sure a similar section would be used at ASIC. No Whistleblower will ever come forward because they are aware of the atrocious treatment they will receive from the Government and the Attorney General.

If you are having trouble believing me put Mathew Osborne under oath and ask him . I will have no problem giving evidence either. I have no fear naming the people involved because I have the evidence to back me up. No one will open their mouths at ITSA because what I am saying is the truth.

yours sincerely

Fiona Brown

You will be aware, under Freedom of Information I have requested the names of the 16 Agency Heads that were referred to the APS Commission under S41 in the past Financial Year. Also at the same time also supply me with the names of the 17 Agency Heads that were referred to the APS Commission by “Whistleblowers” I clearly understand the APS has a commitment to transparency so you will not mind me posting this information on my blog and sending it to all MP'S in Parliament.

I fail to understand why you have not identified these Agency Heads in the Annual report

I am acutely aware that the APS Commission will highlight how unethical behavior figures significantly in “Best Practice' management under the Management Accountability Committee.

Also take this into account and please consider it when you attempt to cover-up this complaint the enormous amount of evidence I have.

Clearly taking into consideration that I have had a complaint with the Australian Public Service Commission for almost 3 months and I have been notified by the APS Commission there will be an indefinite wait for any conclusion I feel it is accurate to say that the Australian Public Service Commission will have considerable trouble covering up my complaint. I am acutely aware that the Australian Public Service Commission will spent considerable resources attempting to justify Systemic Corrupt Conduct at ITSA , just as the Commonwealth Ombudsman spent and enormous amount of resources attempting to cover this up. In the end the Commonwealth did a deal with Senior Management to cover this up and hoped the problem would go away.

A sick system in dire need of an overhaul occurs when the Agency Head and Senior Management fail to promote a code of Conduct and Ethics and actively participates in this behavior. This clearly sets a very bad example to junior staff. Eventually this leads to absolute decay of the system. When there is no accountability or when the system for accountability is the Commonwealth Ombudsman whose intention is to cover-up systemic corruption the results are disastrous.

I have been told that the Australian Public Service Commission plans to look for management decisions to justify unethical conduct. However, there is NO justification for unethical behavior either in the Financial Management ACT, the Australian Public Service ACT or in the Commissioner's Directions.

With the National Manager Enforcement and Regulation Adam Toma condoning unethical conduct with senior Management I now bring to your attention the Mark Findlay from Bankruptcy Regulations who wrote a report failing to cover my complaint about Florence Choo Deputy Official Receiver NSW and ACT.

How Funny.... now I understand................. It is a conflict of interest to investigate someone you have been FUCKING.... It is like..... if I slept with my boss and made a great video of it in graphic details and insinuated that I may release it I would assume that he may look on me very favorably and overlook and misconduct...... do you understand my point.????... or when I caught Cosmo stealing credit card details............ and if it didn't happen it would not be necessary for me to tell you about this serious conflict of interest Also how many other complaints has Mark Findlay covered up for Florence Choo????? Maybe the APS Commission will let me know how they consider this to be “ A good Management decision . This situation occurs when there is a complete failure to follow the APS Code of Conduct by Management and there is no accountability or control.

The APS Commission has asked me where this breaches the code of conduct. I would assume this is the section that could be used (7) An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment.

And again I bring to your attention the Enforcement Branch which Adam Toma is also responsible for as National Manager Bankruptcy Regulations and Enforcement.

I was told by Mathew Osborne, Principal Legal Officer ITSA on the 10^th February 2010 that ITSA has the discretion to not to refer a bankrupt for non-compliance or fraud to BFI. I was told by Mathew Osborne that to satisfy the Bankruptcy ACT all that is required is a meeting with Julie Padgett. Section 134(3) gives ITSA the discretion not to refer a bankrupt. This section gives ITSA also the discretion to mislead a creditor according to Mathew Osborne. Not to refer a bankrupt for non compliance is a breach of S19(i) of the Bankruptcy Act. It is also a breach of the Inspector Generals Practice Statement 14.

In an attempt to cover-up that Julie Padgett and Adam Toma were using this section ITSA mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman when additional information was requested from them.

Also the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Attorney General was given false information concerning the conduct of ITSA and senior management.

This is also a clear breach of the APS Code of Conduct

(1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment.

How very funny all the emails confirming this has been deleted. It is obvious someone of seniority at ITSA is heavily into cyber crime and took crisis management action.....So to you all.....

Kiss my fat ARSE!!!!!

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 134

Division 4--Realization of property

Powers exercisable at discretion of trustee

(3) Subject to this Act, the trustee may use his or her own discretion in the administration of the estate.

Steve Sedgwick and all the DUMB FUCKS at the APS Commission.............. this section only refers to the realization of property and does not give discretion to mislead a creditor or gives ITSA the discretion on fraud or noncompliance.

This breaches the Code of conduct, the APS requested that I list the breaches

1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS

(4) An APS employee , when acting in the course of APS employment , must comply with all applicable Australian laws. For this purpose, Australian law means

(11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.

This is the email sent to Cheryl Cullen Assistant to Adam Toma bringing to her attention that Mark Findlay had written an inaccurate report....From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: cheryl.cullen@itsa.gov.au
Subject: report on Tibor Karolyi
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:04:09 +1000
Dear Cheryl,
Your report on Tibor Karolyi is incorrect.
First, the objection was put in place only after an extreme effort by me. Tibor Karolyi and Guilia Inga did not want to do this even though they were both aware David Cooper had filled out his statement of affairs incorrectly and evidence was available that he had inherited assets overseas. I can forward an Email from Guilia Inga dated 21st April 2009 that she was unprepared to do this.
Second, Tibor was asked no more than to do his job and nothing more. It has been raise that the Trustee was without funds from creditors. The only reason Tibor thinks he did so much work is that it was necessary to redo so much work because he did not do it correctly in the very first place
Third, Tibor did not closely liaise with enforcement. If he did then this matter would have been referred in May 2008. So why not?
Fourth, there is no reason this matter should continue if Tibor had done his job correctly
These are all very valid reasons to have him investigated as I do not believe this is an isolated incident..
Thanking you Kindly
Fiona Brown

I was then told by Cheryl Cullen on the 8thOctober 2009 at 11.15 that that ITSA had the discretion to mislead me.

How very funny............ ITSA continues to use s134(3) to justify corrupt conduct.

This is a breach of the Code of Conduct

(1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment.

(4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws

(11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.

It is a requirement that the Agency Head promote S10 of the APS Act. This would include

(d) the APS has the highest ethical standards;

(e) the APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of Ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public;

Clearly there is no accountability when the Agency Head or Senior Management fail to work in a framework that promotes the appropriate conduct , as in section 13 of the APS Act.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 13

The APS Code of Conduct
             (1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment.
             (2) An APS employee must act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment.
             (3) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.
             (4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws. For this purpose, Australian law means:
                     (a) any Act (including this Act), or any instrument made under an Act; or
                     (b) any law of a State or Territory, including any instrument made under such a law.
             (5) An APS employee must comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction.
             (6) An APS employee must maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff.
             (7) An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment.
             (8) An APS employee must use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner.
             (9) An APS employee must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment.
           (10) An APS employee must not make improper use of:
                     (a) inside information; or
                     (b) the employee's duties, status, power or authority;
in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person.
           (11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.
           (12) An APS employee on duty overseas must at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia.
           (13) An APS employee must comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

misconduct at ITSA

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Systemic Corrupt Conduct