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
Attention
Steve Sedgwick
Australian
Public Service Commissioner
22nd
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 ...
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 3rd 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
3rd October 2011. A follow up phone call was then made on
the 14th 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.comTo:
wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au; ministerial@treasury.gov.auSubject:
RE: Misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act all over
AustraliaDate:
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 10th
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
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
(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
(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
