Letter to the Australian Public Service Commissioner

---

Attention

Steve Sedgwick

Australian Public Service Commissioner

14^th February 2012

Dear Steve,

I refer to the Complaint made to the Australia Public Service Commission on the 28^th November 2011concerning Systemic Corrupt Conduct at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia. I provided extensive evidence to the Commonwealth Ombudsman . Much of this evidence was in emails confirming conversations with Senior Management at ITSA.

Despite a number of emails I received no adequate response from Karin Fisher until February 2012.

I was then asked to list the breaches of the APS Code of Conduct and Ethics occurring at ITSA that Veronique Ingram had failed discipline.

Mark Findlay is the manger Bankruptcy Regulations. Bankruptcy Regulations is a supposedly independent arm of ITSA and is responsible for compliance of the Bankruptcy Act and the Australian Public Service Act,

Mark Findlay was requested to review David Cooper's file. This also involved serious misconduct by Florence Choo, Deputy Official Receiver NSW and ACT. When he finalised this report he failed to bring any attention to this misconduct. This report was eventually sent to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

I was particularly confused why Mark Findlay overlooked the atrocious behavior of Florence Choo. I then was made aware at a latter stage that Mark Findlay had had a sexual relationship with Florence Choo.

How very Funny!!!! I should think this would be considered a conflict of interest don't you commissioner??

I would consider that subsection 7 of the APS Code of Conduct and Ethics was breached...................

   (7)  An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment.
One bed buddy investigating misconduct of the other...
Holy shit!!!



Also........ The matter of the disappearing emails
Who has been deleting my evidence?????
*************************
Someone has hacked into my computer and deleted emails to and from ITSA.
Clearly this could be interpreted and considered an extremely useful Management skill under the Financial Management and Accountability Act!!!!

While preparing evidence for the APS Commission I went to my emails that contained evidence to be given to the APS commission on Systemic Corrupt Conduct at the Insolvency trustee Service Australia.

I was totally surprise to find they had all been deleted from my computer.

How funny............... who is so threatened by me exposing what is occurring at ITSA??? Also how very funny that all the emails deleted where to or from senior staff at ITSA.

One of the emails deleted was to Matthew Osborne Principal Legal Officer at ITSA. It confirmed a conversation with him on the telephone on the 10^th February 2010. He confirmed to me that S134(3) gives the discretion to the trustee to breach the Bankruptcy Act and the Inspector General Practice statement 14.

I told him I believed this was not the case. He said “ no” this section gives a trustee the discretion on the Bankruptcy Act. He went on to to me how to handle a matter of non-compliance of a bankrupt. I also asked him if this section also gave discretion to senior Management to mislead creditors. He also said “yes”. An email confirming this conversation to Mark Findlay has also disappeared!!!...... and so have all the other ones.......... How very peculiar !!!!

How funny............ Is this the way the APS Commission considers that Government Agencies should cleanup their act........... by deleting evidence from the computers of people who complain about them????

I wonder who in the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia has links to Cyber crime!!!!

However, I do know the extensive list of Senior Management at ITSA and ex-employees who would have a motive to delete these emails!!!! Is ITSA setting new management skills that could be acquired by all other Commonwealth Departments

… TOOOOOOO funny..... Good try from all the wonderful staff at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia.

Fiona Brown

Statistics for the APS Commision

Table 4: Whistleblowing reports received by the Public Service Commissioner, 2010–11

2010–11
Number of reports

On hand at the start of the reporting period
4
Received
17
Finalised
11
On hand at the end of the reporting period
10
Source of reports

Current APS employees
14
Former APS employees
3
Action by Commissioner

Referred to agency head for consideration
7
Investigated under whistleblowing powers
1
No further action or referred elsewhere
3

No transparency at the APS Commission

← APS Commission, get the bloody file from the Commonwealth Ombudsman

No accountability or transparency by the Australian Public Service Commission

Posted on February 9, 2012 by fionabrown01

Where is the transparency at the Australian Public Service Commission?
Why have the APS Commission failed to name the Government Agencies referred to the APS Commission.?????
How did they deal with these complaints???
There was no complaints made to the APS Commission in the financial year other than APS employees or ex employees.
The negativity I experienced when having Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins referred to the APS Commission is confronting. It is clear that the APS Commission discourage such complaints.
So….
1.Ihave the evidence in a 1,000 page file of the systemic corrupt conduct by senior Management at ITSA. Veronique Ingram is aware of this and as Agency Head has failed to act accordingly.
1.III have the evidence that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has spent enormous resources attempting to cover this up.
1.III I now have the evidence that I experienced having this referred to the APS Commission in emails.
Where is the BLOODY accountability in Government Agencies????? .
Steve Sedgwick, APS Commissioner is failing to have the APS Code of Conduct and Ethics enforced in Government Departments because he has failed to put the appropriate accountability in place.
It is even more difficult when Veronique Ingram is aware that Adam Toma is promoting Systemic Corrupt Conduct on ITSA’s internal Audit Committee.
How will Steve Sedgwick cover up my complaint when I have so much EVIDENCE????

Table 4: Whistleblowing reports received by the Public Service Commissioner, 2010–11

2010–11
Number of reports

On hand at the start of the reporting period
4
Received
17
Finalised
11
On hand at the end of the reporting period
10
Source of reports

Current APS employees
14
Former APS employees
3
Action by Commissioner

Referred to agency head for consideration
7
Investigated under whistleblowing powers
1
No further action or referred elsewhere
3

APS Commission, get the bloody file from the Commonwealth Ombudsman

Posted on February 8, 2012 by fionabrown01

This is specifically for the those in the Australian Public Service Commission ,particularly Steve Sedgwick. I refer to the email sent to me yesterday.
Do not refer to these as ‘Allegations”
The APS Act makes Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins responsible for ensuring the code of conduct is upheld in the respective Government Department. The APS is aware of this.
How many times do I need to tell the APS Commission that evidence of systemic corrupt conduct at ITSA is in the file being held at the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Canberra is not such a large place. Go and get the file which is approximately 1’000 pages.
I understand the APS does not want to expose these two Senior Public Servants and would also prefer to have this matter covered up.
How much evidence do you want me to provide that ITSA is using section 134(3) and this is being instigated by the Principal Legal Officer??? How much more evidence would you like me to provide??? The Commonwealth Ombudsman would have notified her of this!!!

ITSA deliberately misled the Ombudsman and then the Ombudsman covered this up. This is a breach of S15 of the Ombudsman’s Act and a breach of the APS Code of Conduct. Is there a problem with the APS Commission understanding this ?????

Evidence in the File.
Any conversation or meeting I had with senior Management at ITSA that concerned me was to be dealt with in the following way….
I was to leave a signed statement at reception of ITSA cnr Park and Elizabeth st Sydney in an envelope. I was to take a note of the person who I left it with and if possible get their name. When I got in the lift I made a note of the exact time. I then sent the senior staff member at ITSA an email notifying them of my statement. This gave the person the opportunity to recant or correct the situation if they felt it was incorrect. This was then to be placed in my file which was in chronological order.
On other occasions the statement was sent to the senior staff member of ITSA by registered post which was signed for on delivery. This was then to be put into my file.
On another occasions an email was sent confirming the conversation as with the Principal Legal Officer Mathew Osborne on the 10th February 2010. I also confirmed this conversation with Mark Findlay.
The FMA Act requires the Veronique Ingram to form an internal Audit committee. Veronique Ingram has been made aware that Adam Toma is promoting corrupt conduct at ITSA and has failed to act accordingly. In fact all the Senior staff at ITSA has been informed by the senior Legal adviser to do this. Adam Toma has been promoted by Veronique Ingram to the Internal Audit Committee. Corrupt conduct on the internal Audit committee is very helpful to Veronique Ingram in helping her achieve targets. This also distorts ITSA’s statistics in their Annual report.

I was then told by ITSA if I did not like their conduct I should take it to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Attorney Generals department was given a copy of this file. I was advised by them this should go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I was then advise that I should never speak to the Commonwealth Ombudsman by phone. All correspondence should be in email so I had this as evidence. I went to extensive lengths to explain what was occurring at ITSA and how Veronique Ingram was failing in her responsibility as Inspector General at ITSA.

So Steve Sedgwick, instead of trying to cover this up and hoping this will go away I will tell you it is not.
Do not try and discredit my evidence.
ITSA had the opportunity at the time to correct this however they did not.
All correspondence with the Commonwealth Ombudsman was by email so I have this as evidence.
All correspondence with the APS Commission in now in email so I have this as my evidence
Get the file from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and go through it.

OH My GOD, How many times do I need to explain this to Public Servants??????????????

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Edit

← Email to the Governor General RE Alison Larkins

Email to Gonernor General Quentin Bryce

Email to the Governor General RE Alison Larkins

Posted on February 7, 2012 by fionabrown01

ATT
Quentin Bryce
Governor General

Dear Governor General,
I understand the you will be appointing a new Commonwealth Ombudsman in the near future.
This is to be on the recommendation of the Australian Government .
I understand the selection process is being facilitated by a professional selection agency. The selection process is to asses the candidates against set selection criteria.
I have also been informed the APS Commissioner is to be represented on the selection panel and could bring to the attention of the panel any substantial information of relevant investigations of candidates However, I am not at all confident that I have any assurance that the APS Commission would carry this out .
The role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is to safeguard the Community in its dealings with Australian Government Agencies.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office handles complaints, conducts investigations performs audits and inspections,encourages good administration and carries out specialist oversight tasks.
Section 15 of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Act requires that the relevant Government Minister be notified of any systemic corrupt conduct in a particular Government AgencyAt present Alison Larkins is the Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman after the resignation of Allan Asher because of conduct which was not considered impartial.
Extensive evidence was given to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in November 2010 of systemic corrupt conduct by senior management at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia. This is the Government Agency that administers the Bankruptcy Act.
Instead of exposing this the Commonwealth Ombudsman did a deal with this agency to cover this up. The acting Commonwealth Ombudsman Alison Larkins was aware of this and failed to act. This makes Alison Larkins unfit to act as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and also to hold her position as Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I have no confidence in the APS Commissioner Steve Sedgwick. This was brought to the attention of the APS in early December.
Although I requested an update on this at regular intervals Karin Fisher refused to reply to me. This clearly made me very uneasy that the APS Commission was also attempting to cover this up.
This clearly shows a complete breakdown in accountability in the Australian Public Service.
It is absolutely atrocious that The Commonwealth Ombudsman made a deal to coverup misconduct at the Insolvency trustee Service Australia and the difficulty I faced when I first contacted the APS Commission in regard to this was also atrocious. I am quite sure the APS Commissioner would have disregarded my complaint if I had not brought it to the attention of so many people and posted it on my blog.
Any letter of complaint are shuffled between Government Agencies with no resolution . This can not be seen as proper Government practice.
Alison Larkins, Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman has wasted an enormous amount of resources attempting to justify this conduct where there is definitely no justification.
I am requesting that you personally assure that the next Commonwealth Ombudsman is NOT Alison Larkins and have the APS Commission remove her from her current position of Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman.
I am also asking that you make Steve Sedgwick accountable.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown

Definition of Corrupt Conduct

Definition of Corrupt Conduct

While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

• a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
• a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust 
• a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.

a criminal offence, or

a disciplinary offence, or 

constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or

Corrupt conduct

(1) For the purposes of this Act, corrupt conduct is any conduct which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in either or both of subsections (1) and (2) of section 8, but which is not excluded by section 9.

(2) Conduct comprising a conspiracy or attempt to commit or engage in conduct that would be corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2) shall itself be regarded as corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2).

(3) Conduct comprising such a conspiracy or attempt is not excluded by section 9 if, had the conspiracy or attempt been brought to fruition in further conduct, the further conduct could constitute or involve an offence or grounds referred to in that section.

8 General nature of corrupt conduct

(1) Corrupt conduct is:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or

(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or

(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or

(d) any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.

(2) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) official misconduct (including breach of trust, fraud in office, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, oppression, extortion or imposition),

(b) bribery,
(c) blackmail,
(d) obtaining or offering secret commissions,
(e) fraud,
(f) theft,
(g) perverting the course of justice,
(h) embezzlement,
(i) election bribery,
(j) election funding offences,
(k) election fraud,
(l) treating,
(m) tax evasion,
(n) revenue evasion,
(o) currency violations,
(p) illegal drug dealings,
(q) illegal gambling,
(r) obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others,
(s) bankruptcy and company violations,
(t) harbouring criminals,
(u) forgery,
(v) treason or other offences against the Sovereign,
(w) homicide or violence,
(x) matters of the same or a similar nature to any listed above,
(y) any conspiracy or attempt in relation to any of the above.

(3) Conduct may amount to corrupt conduct under this section even though it occurred before the commencement of this subsection, and it does not matter that some or all of the effects or other ingredients necessary to establish such corrupt conduct occurred before that commencement and that any person or persons involved are no longer public officials.

(4) Conduct committed by or in relation to a person who was not or is not a public official may amount to corrupt conduct under this section with respect to the exercise of his or her official functions after becoming a public official.

(5) Conduct may amount to corrupt conduct under this section even though it occurred outside the State or outside Australia, and matters listed in subsection (2) refer to:

(a) matters arising in the State or matters arising under the law of the State, or

(b) matters arising outside the State or outside Australia or matters arising under the law of the Commonwealth or under any other law.

(6) The specific mention of a kind of conduct in a provision of this section shall not be regarded as limiting the scope of any other provision of this section.

9 Limitation on nature of corrupt conduct

(1) Despite section 8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could constitute or involve:

(a) a criminal offence, or
(b) a disciplinary offence, or

(c) reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with the services of or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or

(d) in the case of conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament—a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.

(2) It does not matter that proceedings or action for such an offence can no longer be brought or continued, or that action for such dismissal, dispensing or other termination can no longer be taken.

(3) For the purposes of this section:

"applicable code of conduct" means, in relation to:

 

(a) a Minister of the Crown—a ministerial code of conduct prescribed or adopted for the purposes of this section by the regulations, or

(b) a member of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly (including a Minister of the Crown)—a code of conduct adopted for the purposes of this section by resolution of the House concerned.

"criminal offence" means a criminal offence under the law of the State or under any other law relevant to the conduct in question.

"disciplinary offence" includes any misconduct, irregularity, neglect of duty, breach of discipline or other matter that constitutes or may constitute grounds for disciplinary action under any law.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in section 8 is not excluded by this section if it is conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe that it would bring the integrity of the office concerned or of Parliament into serious disrepute.

(5) Without otherwise limiting the matters that it can under section 74A (1) include in a report under section 74, the Commission is not authorised to include a finding or opinion that a specified person has, by engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (4), engaged in corrupt conduct, unless the Commission is satisfied that the conduct constitutes a breach of a law (apart from this Act) and the Commission identifies that law in the report.

(6) A reference to a disciplinary offence in this section and sections 74A and 74B includes a reference to a substantial breach of an applicable requirement of a code of conduct required to be complied with under section 440 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, but does not include a reference to any other breach of such a requirement.

Commonwealth Ombudsman defends corrupt conduct

Commonwealth Ombudsman defends systemic corrupt Conduct at ITSA.

How very funny................ The Commonwealth Ombudsman has defended systemic corrupt conduct by the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia because I refused to give them $5,000 after I was made aware of their deliberate actions that breached the Bankruptcy Act and the Australian Public Service Act......

What the Fuck............. I should have given $5,000 to ITSA when I was aware of corrupt Conduct by senior Management at ITSA.

Does Alison Larkins need to see a psychiatrist?????????????