Saturday 28 July 2012

FOI:: Insolvency Trustee Service Investigation Policy



From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@itsa.gov.au
Subject: Freedom of Information
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:13:18 +1000

To whom it may concern,
Under Freedom of Information I am requesting a copy of the your agency's investigation policy. This is a requirement under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
I will remind you what this contains:
S1.1 Investigation Policy

::A statement regarding the agency's objectives in carrying out its investigation functions and use of sanctions.

:: A clear definition of activities applicable to the Agency to which the AGIS apply. This should include a description of compliance activities that are not generally considered investigations by the agency.

::A statement regarding the agency's responsibility to manage matters that are considered minor or routine and

:: A statement regarding the agency responsibility to refer criminal matters to the Australian Federal Police. This should include considerations of joint agency investigation teams where appropriate.

Also under FOI I would like to be given in writing what level of Investigation training or qualification that Mark Findlay Bankruptcy Regulations received. Also I am requiring the same of Adam Toma National Manager Bankruptcy Regulations and Enforcement.
I am also particularly interested if your investigations policy require all applicable Acts be complied with.
Thank you
Fiona Brown

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

Commissioner Steve Sedgwick fucks over whistleblowers agai


The Australian Public Service Commissioner is at it again along with the Skank Karin Fisher.

I refer to the following extract taken from the Annual report 2010-2011.
17 complaints from whistleblowers were received.   Of these only one was investigated under whistleblower Legislation , 7 were referred back to the Agency head  and fucked over by the Australian Public Service Commission and 3 were thrown out completely.
Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act these complaints should have been investigated under the Australian Government Investigation Standards.
Under S41(f) 16 complaints were made. Only one was investigated. 
An investigation under the Dumb Fuck Steve Sedgwick and skanky Karin Fisher consists of an email sent to the agency heads asking them to comment on the allegations and then the matter is covered up .
I know this because I have obtained documents under Freedom of Information. I have now asked for  a copy of all the other emails sent to Agency Heads when a complaint is made under section 41(f) but now the commission has fallen silent and will not respond to me for to give me access to these documents would expose atrocious conduct.
So now the Australian Public service Commission is Fucked!!
They can"t do anything about what I write because to take me to court would definitely give me access to all the Document and cost them enormous amount of money that they do not have in their budgets. They know the documents would fuck them over and make my day.
So now I have Commissioner Steve Sedgwick by the cock...........................................



Whistleblowing reports and other allegations

APS employees are able to report alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct to their agency head or a person authorised by the agency head.
Whistleblowing inquiry functions are handled by delegated senior staff in the Ethics Group, with the Commissioner reserving for his personal consideration matters that raise serious public interest issues.
During 2010–11, the Commissioner received 14 whistleblowing reports from APS employees and three complaints from former public servants. Table 4 shows the number of cases received and finalised. Four complaints were carried over from 2009–10. All whistleblowing reports were acknowledged and many substantially responded to within six weeks.
The complaints from public servants concerned poor administration, the handling of internal investigations, and allegations of misconduct by senior managers including allegations of bullying and harassment.
Eleven matters were finalised in 2010–11, including two of the four matters carried over from the previous year. Table 4 also shows the action taken by the Commissioner in response to these cases. The one investigation undertaken found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant recommending an investigation into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. In most cases, however, the employee was advised to refer the matter to the relevant agency head for investigation.
While the number of whistleblowing reports lodged is low, they often concern complex interpersonal matters and the issues can take a long time to assess, including whether any or all of the matters have been investigated by the agency in the first instance.
The Commissioner also handled 16 allegations against agency heads made by APS employees and members of the public under section 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act). The complaints commonly featured allegations that agency decision-makers had failed to comply with their legislative obligations or not exercised their decision-making powers properly. Only one of the ten cases finalised warranted an inquiry.
In previous years the data for agency head and whistleblowing complaints was aggregated. This year they are reported separately, so no comparison with previous years is provided.
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 period4
Received17
Finalised11
On hand at the end of the reporting period10
Source of reports
Current APS employees14
Former APS employees3
Action by Commissioner
Referred to agency head for consideration7
Investigated under whistleblowing powers1
No further action or referred elsewhere3


Friday 27 July 2012

Email Information Commissioner RE FOI APS Commission




From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: raewyn.harlock@oaic.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Complaint Acknowledgement - Case Number: CP12/06677 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:24:04 +1000



Dear Raewyn,
I refer to the following email.  I beleive the time limit has now transpired for   acknowledgement of my FOI request from the Australian Public Service Commission.
Your office would be experiencing  a large number of complaints  purely because there appears to be no incentive for agencies to comply with any legislation  required of  them by law.
The  Australian Public Service Commissioner who has the power under S41(f) to inquire into agency heads who flaunt the Law has made a conscious  decision to abuse his power and cover up all complaints made to him . Like -wise he has  chosen to do the  same with Whistleblowers.
This could only be seen that  Commissioner Steve Sedgwick is involved in conduct that requires an investigation into  his position.
This is clearly why the APS is refusing me access to the information I require.
If this information was made available it would expose  gross malpractice in the entire Public Service.
However I still require these documents.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown 




From: Raewyn.Harlock@oaic.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: FOI Complaint Acknowledgement - Case Number: CP12/06677 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:55:34 +0000

Our reference:                        CP12/06677
Dear Ms Brown
Your complaint about the Australian Public Service Commission
I refer to your email about the Australian Public Service Commission (the APSC) received on 15 July 2012.
In your email you complained that the APSC had not responded to your requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in a timely way.
Section 15(5) of the FOI Act sets out the timeframes for dealing with a request for information. This section requires agencies to acknowledge requests for information no later than 14 days after the day on which the request for information is received by the agency. If the day for responding falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the date for the agency to respond is the next working day after the Saturday, Sunday or public holiday.
At this time it does not appear there has been a delay on the part of the APSC in acknowledging receipt of your FOI request.
Section 15(5) requires agencies to make decisions on requests for information no later than 30 days after the day on which the request for information is received. An agency can extend the time to process a request under ss 15AA, 15AB, 15AC or 15(6) of the FOI Act.
Our office is currently receiving a large number of complaints and applications for Information Commissioner review and as a consequence there will be a delay of more than six weeks in allocating your complaint to a case officer for processing. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Information about our complaint handling process is available on our website www.oaic.gov.au. You may also find the fact sheet “How to make a complaint” helpful, which you can access at:
If your contact details change please let us know by calling our Enquiries Line on 1300 363 992 (local call cost, but calls from mobile and pay phones may incur higher charges). Our preference is to receive correspondence by email however mail can be sent to our Sydney office on GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001. Please quote the reference number CP12/06677.
Yours sincerely


Raewyn Harlock
Deputy Director
Compliance Branch

16 July 2012

Email to AFP Commissioner re: negligence of investigation stanadards



From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: commissioner@afp.gov.au
Subject: Breaches of the AGIS and negligence of the AFP
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:43:42 +1000



.Dear Mr Negus,
I understand  the Australian Federal Police has been involved  in a programme which has revised the  IGIS, or Australian Government Investigation standards.
 You will be aware this is a requirement under the Financial and Accountability Act.
I am also aware all Government Agencies involved in this must complete training programmes.
However, Internal noncompliance with legislation in Government Agencies have allowed systemic corrupt conduct to flourish.
This is particular in the Insolvency Trustee Service, Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Public Service Commission.
It is clear now that although investigation standards do exist there is no safeguard that agencies comply with them.
I am  now refer to section 4.8
Agencies are to refer any matters to the AFP for possible investigation where there is substantial evidence of criminal activity or suspected criminal activity by a member of an Agency fraud investigation , control prevention or compliance unit. The AFP will also consider investigating matters where there could  be a real or perceived conflict of interest if the matter were to be investigated by the Agency concerned(for instance , where the allegations concerns a member of the executive with some responsibility for the Agency's investigation function)
 The Insolvency trustee Service Australia is aware it's Principal Legal Officer Matthew Osborne is giving Legal Advice to Trustee that the Bankruptcy Act may be breached using S134(3). This gives discretion to  a trustee, however it is limited only to property realized.
According to Matthew Osborne this section gives a trustee discretion on all aspects of the Bankruptcy Act. It even extends to discretion as to misleading creditors.
Please would the Australian Federal Police  advise me what powers have been put in place by them when they are made aware of the serious breaches by a number of Government agencies of the AGIS to cover up atrocious misconduct.
If this matter should go to court  be aware I will  subpoena you  to give evidence  on your negligence .
Thank You
Fiona Brown

Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies

 These are the Dumb Fucks responsible for the AIGS

Clearly these agencies can be seen to be nothing than bullshit with their heads stuck up their BUMS!!!


Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA)

Overarching principles for selecting cases for investigation and administrative, civil and criminal sanctions 


1. The Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement  (HOCOLEA) agencies administer and/or enforce a number of Acts of Parliament which seek to regulate behaviour. The Acts contain a range of enforcement sanctions including prosecution for criminal offences, the conduct of civil proceedings, the imposition of administrative sanctions and other remedies.
2. HOCOLEA agencies recognise that the community expects that the Commonwealth will:
  • administer and enforce its legislation in a coherent, consistent and objective manner using appropriate administrative, civil and criminal sanctions;
  • operate as transparently as possible so as to be accountable to the Government and the community;
  • take appropriate action against offenders and contraveners; and
  • operate efficiently and effectively within its resources.
3. Each HOCOLEA agency operates with limited resources. It is therefore essential for each agency to use its investigation resources efficiently and effectively and to target the most appropriate cases. It also requires each agency to make appropriate use of the range of sanctions available to it.
4. The HOCOLEA agencies have agreed on the following overarching principles for selecting cases for investigation, referral for prosecution and other regulatory activity. These overarching principles will be underpinned by the individual principles and guidelines of each HOCOLEA agency.

Each agency will act coherently, consistently and objectively
Each HOCOLEA agency will administer and enforce Commonwealth legislation and have recourse to administrative, civil and criminal sanctions in a coherent, consistent and objective manner.
Each agency will have a compliance strategy
Each HOCOLEA agency will have a compliance strategy which will include an enforcement strategy. The strategies will encourage compliance with the laws the agency enforces by making full use of all available and appropriate means, including:
  • education programs;
  • intelligence assessments, risk management and strategic targeting;
  • auditing and other compliance work;
  • applying remedies including administrative penalties;
  • strategic use of available sanctions (administrative, civil and criminal), for example, prosecutions that send a message to a selected group;
  • civil action;
  • prosecution; and
  • where appropriate, make proposals to amend Commonwealth law.
Important decisions will be made at the appropriate level
Each agency's strategies will provide that important decisions made under the strategies will be made by officers at an appropriate level.

The strategy will be in writing and distributed throughout the agency
An agency's enforcement strategy focuses on how the agency will apply its audit, compliance and investigation resources and administrative, civil and criminal sanctions to effectively deter people form breaching the laws the agency administers and enforces.
Each agency will document its enforcement strategy in writing and will distribute it appropriately throughout the agency. An agency may restrict distribution of some aspects of the enforcement strategy, such as financial triggers on investigations.
The strategy will be consistent with overall Commonwealth strategy
Each agency will ensure that its enforcement strategy is consistent with overall Commonwealth policy, including the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.
The strategy will deal specifically with investigations
Each agency's enforcement strategy will specify the criteria upon which and the process by which the agency will make the decision to commence an investigation.
The strategy will address all available sanctions
Each agency's enforcement strategy will address all the sanctions open to the agency including administrative, civil and criminal sanctions. The strategy will specify:
  • what decisions and discretions are available to the agency in relation to its sanctions and penalties; and
  • the criteria upon which and the process by which the agency will make important decisions and exercise important discretions in relation to the sanctions and penalties available to the agency.


The DPP will prosecute on an appropriate charge all cases of serious crime where it is in the public interest to do so, as provided by the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. Each agency's enforcement strategy will provide that the agency will support and facilitate this policy and practice and outline how the agency will do so preferably in a memorandum of understanding with the DPP. A definition of serious crime is at Attachment 1.
An agency will take appropriate civil and/or administrative enforcement action in cases of serious contravention which are not cases of serious crime or which are not capable of being prosecuted as serious crime. A definition of serious civil infraction is at Attachment 2.

Agencies will consult each other in developing enforcement strategies.
When developing and reviewing its enforcement strategy, each agency will consult with other relevant agencies. Relevant agencies include agencies whose statutory responsibilities impact on the first agency's strategy.
Each agency will endeavour to:
  • adopt a consistent approach to similar breaches of Commonwealth law;
  • identify what are serious crimes and serious contraventions and how they may be dealt with effectively and equitably, both within each agency and Commonwealth wide;
  • assist other agencies, particularly downstream agencies such as the DPP and AFP, in applying Government policies such as the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth and determining their priorities.
Each agency will monitor its enforcement strategy
Each agency will ensure that its enforcement strategy, the policy underpinning it and the processes carried out under it will be consistent with the principles of this document and as transparent as possible.
Each agency will review annually its policy, strategy and practice in administering its enforcement strategy and report significant findings, including changes which may impact on other agencies, to HOCOLEA. 


1. A serious crime is a crime:
  • which involved a significant degree of criminality on the part of the offender; and
  • that the Commonwealth or the community expects will be dealt with by prosecution which is conducted in public before a court and usually carries the risk of imprisonment in serious cases; and
  • either produced significant real or potential harm to Commonwealth or the community; or
  • is of such a nature or magnitude that it is important to deter potential offenders and prosecution will act as a very effective deterrent.
2. A significant degree of criminality can be evidenced by the crime involving certain factors, including and not limited to:
  • criminal behaviour by corrupt Commonwealth officers;
  • the bribing of Commonwealth officers;
  • an overseas loop in a domestic transaction with the intention of avoiding detection, prosecution or recovery of proceeds of crime;
  • more than one offender acting together in an organised way to perpetrate the crime;
  • the use of false names or false documents; and/or
  • the repeated commission of deliberate offences over a number of years.
3. A significant harm to the community can be evidenced by the crime involving certain factors, including and not limited to:
  • the threatening of the integrity of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth officers or important Government institutions;
  • a significant loss to the Commonwealth; and
  • a significant harm to the economy, resources, assets, environment or well being of Australia or Australians.


A serious civil contravention is a contravention which has at least one of the following attributes:
  • it involves a blatant disregard for or significant degree of indifference to the civil law;
  • the Commonwealth or the community expects that the matter will be dealt with by way of enforcement action;
  • it resulted in or had the potential to result in significant real harm or detriment to the Commonwealth or the community;
  • it is of such a nature or magnitude that it is important to deter other potential contraveners and/or educate the public.
A blatant disregard for or significant degree of indifference to the civil law can be demonstrated by the conduct involving:
  • Commonwealth officers or agencies;
  • collusion; or
  • repeated deliberate or reckless contraventions of the law.
Significant real harm or detriment to the Commonwealth or the community can be demonstrated by the conduct involving certain factors, including if:
  • the conduct results in or had the potential to result in a significant or substantial loss to the Commonwealth or the community or a sector the community; or
  • the conduct results in a significant or substantial harm to the economy (or sector thereof), resources, assets, environment or well being of Australia, Australians or persons (including natural persons) carrying on business activity

Friday 20 July 2012

Reply from the Information Commissioner Freedom of Information

.
.
From: Raewyn.Harlock@oaic.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: FOI Complaint Acknowledgement - Case Number: CP12/06677 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:55:34 +0000


.Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:55:34 +0000


Our reference:                        CP12/06677
Dear Ms Brown
Your complaint about the Australian Public Service Commission
I refer to your email about the Australian Public Service Commission (the APSC) received on 15 July 2012.
In your email you complained that the APSC had not responded to your requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in a timely way.
Section 15(5) of the FOI Act sets out the timeframes for dealing with a request for information. This section requires agencies to acknowledge requests for information no later than 14 days after the day on which the request for information is received by the agency. If the day for responding falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the date for the agency to respond is the next working day after the Saturday, Sunday or public holiday.
At this time it does not appear there has been a delay on the part of the APSC in acknowledging receipt of your FOI request.
Section 15(5) requires agencies to make decisions on requests for information no later than 30 days after the day on which the request for information is received. An agency can extend the time to process a request under ss 15AA, 15AB, 15AC or 15(6) of the FOI Act.
Our office is currently receiving a large number of complaints and applications for Information Commissioner review and as a consequence there will be a delay of more than six weeks in allocating your complaint to a case officer for processing. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Information about our complaint handling process is available on our website www.oaic.gov.au. You may also find the fact sheet “How to make a complaint” helpful, which you can access at:
If your contact details change please let us know by calling our Enquiries Line on 1300 363 992 (local call cost, but calls from mobile and pay phones may incur higher charges). Our preference is to receive correspondence by email however mail can be sent to our Sydney office on GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001. Please quote the reference number CP12/06677.
Yours sincerely


Raewyn Harlock
Deputy Director
Compliance Branch

16 July 2012



From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: enquires@oaic.gov.au
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:59:26 +1000

.

To whom it may concern,
I refer to the two emails  following that I sent to the Freedom of Information officer at the Australian Public Service Commission 7 and 14 days ago to which I have received no response.
I have already received documents from the APSC which clearly show a complete  lack of compiance with  Commonwealth  Investigation standards and also show how the Commissioner Steve Sedgwick uses  his position of power to cover-up corrupt practices in Government departments.
Under Freedom of Information I am requesting a copy of the emails or letters sent to Agency Heads requesting information on the allegations  when a complaint is made under S16 or Section 41(F) of th Australian Public Service Act in the financial year 2009-20010.
I would appreciate a quick response.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown





.From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: chris.luton@apsc.gov.au
Subject: Freedom of Information
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:57:24 +1000


Hi Chris ,
 I emailed you last week and requested under Freedom of information  that I obtain a copy of all the emails or similar sent to Agency Heads concerning complaints  under S41 0f the APS Act in the past financial year.  As yet I have received no reply.
I now also am seeking a copy Under Freedom of Information  of the APS   internal manuel for procedures for Government employees.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown

Saturday 14 July 2012

Commissioner Steve Sedgwick APSC/ Abuse of Power


Investigation standards for Government Agencies

For information on Standards for Government Agencies go to..................................
www.ag.gov.au/.../Australian-Government-Investigation-Standards-2...
19 Mar 2012 – Documents released in response to a Freedom of Information request for the current and previous Australian Government Investigation ...
0

Add a comment