Sunday 30 December 2012

Paul Pattison/Veronique Ingram /ITSA

It appears Veronique Ingram, Inspector General in Bankruptcy needs a big cock up her ARSE.......................
I refer to  the following from Hansard in May 2012 where Senator Williams questioned Veronique Ingram on Paul Pattison....................

Senator WILLIAMS: Folks from ITSA, I want to take you to a couple of issues. I want to take you to Mr Paul Pattison—you would be familiar with the name?
Ms Ingram : Yes.
Senator WILLIAMS: He was deregistered as a trustee in bankruptcy after he had voluntarily resigned from his 272 active matters in July last year. I think I have raised this issue of Mr Pattison with you before. I want to raise with you a matter that involved Mr Pattison and Mr Alex Kane Mircevski, of Victoria. You would be familiar with this long-running battle with Mr Pattison?
Ms Ingram : I am aware of some of the issues, yes.
Senator WILLIAMS: I refer to a letter dated 12 August 2009 signed by you, Ms Ingram. It is a response to complaints Mr Mircevski made to the Attorney-General on 17 and 8 July 2009. You refer to a letter dated 19 June 2009 which indicated the conduct of the trustee was not considered inappropriate. What investigations of Mr Pattison led your Bankruptcy Regulation Branch to that conclusion?
Ms Ingram : It is important to note that the trustee, Mr Pattison, has been deregistered. I do not want to reveal the details of that deregistration, but it principally related to his lack of resources to run a trustee business, if you can call it that. The companies he was using, in terms of his corporate insolvency practice, had gone into voluntary administration. Another one had gone into liquidation. We were examining his systems and files and also came to the view that, after those procedures had happened, he no longer had the resources to undertake a trustee business. As to the issue with Mr Mircevski, yes we did review his matter and we did not uncover any improper conduct on the part of the trustee.


It would appear that Veronique Ingram  definitely needs a good fuck up the arse to help her recall that Bankruptcy Relations had received 9 complaints about Pattison in the 12 months prior to his de-registration. 5 of these complaints warranted investigation.  Freedom of information, Dave Maher from ITSA did not acknowledge whether there was any investigation carried out  on any  complaint.

Eight trustees voluntarily resigned during 2011–12 and one trustee registration was cancelled
involuntarily. The lone decision to cancel involuntarily has been appealed in the AAT
The Inspector-General also commenced disciplinary action against a further two trustees for
failing to exercise their powers or carry out their duties properly. This action required the trustees
to show cause as to why they should not have their registrations cancelled. In both instances
the Inspector-General was not satisfied with the response from the trustees and took action to
convene statutory committees to determine if the trustees should remain registered

So why did the eight Trustee's resign in 2011-2012 and who was the trustee that had his registration cancelled involuntarily????
Was there somebody more shonkey than Paul Pattison??? It is on the court records that Paul Pattison voluntarily resigned!!!
Who in ITSA is protecting serious corrupt conduct and fraudulent activities???????????????
 Veronique Ingram is ultimately responsible, though what part is Adam Toma responsible for  and is Adam Toma  and skanky Veronique Ingram in this together????
Adam Toma is profiting from his  involvement  in this.

A very serious question now should be asked................. is Adam Toma protecting corrupt trustee's  for a slice of their action.
Also is Adam Toma using insider knowledge to force people in financial difficulty to sell their property to him at a huge discount????
How very funny when I start my property searches on Adam Toma  and senior Management at ITSA................... also  who else is Adam Toma involved with that also warrants investigation into their financial dealings????????????

Friday 28 December 2012

FOI Australian Public Service Commission

As the Australian Public Service Commission has fucked over  everyone who made a complaint about Agency or Department Heads or by whistleblowers except one which was investigated and covered up by the fucker Robert Cornell AO who had been the Secretary for the Attorney General Department for 8  years  I have  now asked for the names of the people  who took the time to complain to the APS Commission.

I will then be able to look these people up on the electrol roles and ask them for a copy of their complaint and post it on this blog.
This will show how the Commissioner Steve Sedgwick and the skanky ethics manager fuck over anyone who complains and brings it to the attention of the APS


From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com

To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Request [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:45:19 +1100

Hi Chris,
Thank you for your email on whistleblowers.
As you are unable to provide me with  a copy of the complaints to the Australian Public Service Commission by Whistleblowers and also under S41(f) of the PS Act for the past 2 financial years because the APS Commission claims this would breach confidentiality and therefore are exempt from FOI  could you please supply me ( under FOI) with the names of the  people that made these complaints and the states they  live  and  I will contact these people direct.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown

Senator Jon Faulkner/Commonwealth Ombudsman

Here is  another Senator wanking his own COCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Although  this  fucker  has considerable political experience he fails to  UNDERSTAND the Commonwealth Ombudsman does not have an investigation policy.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman only  receive the enormous amount of complaints because there is NO  transparency and no investigation  policy . Senator Faulkner must have his fist up he arse to even to even contemplate thinking   this way.
 According to the  Ombudsman  Act,it is an obligation for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to expose Administrative  Deficiency  in Government Departments.
Senator Faulkner is aware this is not carried out according to the  Ombudsman's Act.
Senator Faulkner needs a good fuck up the ARSE  and so do all his office staff for covering this up!!!!

***********************************

There is much work that the Commonwealth Ombudsman does. It is not just a complaints hotline. The Ombudsman serves as an important purpose of following up on individual citizen's cases as well as conducting investigations, producing reports to assist agencies ensure transparency and making submissions to parliamentary inquiries. I think the work of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is critically important. I commend its work and I commend the annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to the Senate.

WHAT SHIT coming from this fucker from the Australian Labor Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**********************************************




Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (18:50): In relation to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's annual report 2011-12, I move:


  That the Senate take note of the document.


As senators would be aware, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is the first port of call for many Australians who believe that they have been aggrieved by an executive decision. The ombudsman, as we know, is a pillar of our administrative law regime in Australia. Without the Commonwealth Ombudsman, many Australians would not have an opportunity to seek review of an executive decision. Their only option, really, would be to proceed through the Administrative Review Tribunal or through the Federal Court via the ADJR Act. Despite costs orders, the prohibitive cost of litigation means that, without the Commonwealth Ombudsman, review of government actions would simply be out of reach for so many of those people who need it most. This annual report provides some very interesting statistics. Over the past year the number of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman has increased from 38,919 to 40,009. I acknowledge that this is a double-edged sword because although 40,000 Australians felt aggrieved enough by decisions of the executive government to complain to the Ombudsman, it is heartening that so many Australians are seeking justice through the merits review the Commonwealth Ombudsman provides. On the positive side, the number of complaints that related to correctness, propriety or timeliness of agency decisions or actions was down from 72 per cent to 70 per cent.
 
But unsurprisingly the agency which tops the list of complaints is Centrelink, then Australia Post, the ATO, child support and immigration round out the top five. Over the last three years the number of complaints about Centrelink to the Commonwealth Ombudsman fell, but in 2011-12 the number of complaints rose. The report identifies accessibility to Centrelink as a common ground for review. The report notes that telephonic communication with Centrelink can be problematic, and many Centrelink recipients had difficulties understanding correspondence from Centrelink. Many of Centrelink's services are migrating online and as a result the Commonwealth Ombudsman notes that age pension recipients and to a lesser extent disability support pension recipients have difficulty accessing these online services.
 
I am pleased to say that the government has listened to the complaints of those who use Centrelink and has responded. As my colleague Minister Kim Carr said today, the government was aware that the average call wait times this year peaked at an unacceptable 16 minutes. New technology and the deployment of more staff using new methods to respond to phone calls has meant that as of today the average call wait time is down to six minutes and 15 seconds. I also note that Minister Carr informed the Senate in question time today that the call-back service will be extended, allowing more citizens to go about their business while not losing their place in the queue.
 
There is much work that the Commonwealth Ombudsman does. It is not just a complaints hotline. The Ombudsman serves as an important purpose of following up on individual citizen's cases as well as conducting investigations, producing reports to assist agencies ensure transparency and making submissions to parliamentary inquiries. I think the work of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is critically important. I commend its work and I commend the annual report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

Friday 21 December 2012

Blah Blah Blah from ASIC


Here we go  again with some Blah , Blah . Blah from ASIC on how to fuck everyone over.
So we have  another Government Legal Department   using "discretion ".
This is the department where mad Bob Katter's daughter worked  before she resigned  after trying to knock out a child care worker at her daughters pre-school in Mosman



12-241MR ASIC relief decisions: February to May 2012

Friday 28 September 2012


ASIC has released its latest report about decisions on applications to grant relief from the law, covering 1 February to 31 May 2012.

The report, Overview of decisions on relief applications (February to May 2012) (REP 303), aims to improve the level of transparency and the quality of publicly available information about decisions ASIC makes when asked to exercise its discretionary powers to grant relief from provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act), the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act) or the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2009 (Transitional Act). The report also discusses the various relevant publications released during this period.

ASIC uses its discretion to vary or set aside certain requirements of the law where there is a net regulatory benefit or where ASIC can facilitate business without harming other stakeholders.

REP 303 summarises examples of situations where ASIC has exercised, or refused to exercise, its exemption and modification powers under the Corporations Act. The report also highlights instances where ASIC has considered adopting a no-action position regarding specified non-compliance with statutory provisions. Decisions by ASIC to refuse to exercise its powers are described on an anonymous basis.

The report provides examples of decisions that demonstrate how ASIC has applied its policy in practice which ASIC thinks will be of particular interest for capital market participants and for participants in the consumer credit and financial services industries. The report includes an appendix detailing the relief instruments referred to.


Background


ASIC can modify or set aside certain provisions of Chapters 2D (officers and employees), 2J (share buy-backs), 2L (debentures), 2M (financial reporting and audit), 5C (managed investment schemes), 6 (takeovers), 6A (compulsory acquisitions and buy-outs), 6C (information about ownership of entities), 6D (fundraising) and 7 (financial services) of the Corporations Act.

ASIC also has powers to grant relief under the National Credit Act from the licensing provisions in Chapter 2 and the responsible lending conduct provisions in Chapter 3. ASIC has powers to give relief from the registration provisions in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Act.

ASIC publishes a copy of most of the relief instruments issued in the ASIC Gazette, which is available from the ASIC website. Credit instruments are available from the ASIC website under ‘Credit relief’. 



Applying for relief


Applications for relief must be in writing and should address the requirements set out in Regulatory Guide 51 Applications for relief (RG 51) (and any other regulatory guides relevant to the application).

Applications can be submitted electronically to applications@asic.gov.au. Fees are applicable for relief applications.


Download



Bankruptcy regulation/compliance /discretion

The reason complaints to ITSA's  Bankruptcy Regulation  are fucked over is because this supposedly "independent  " branch has no investigation policy. ITSA only has a fraud  Enforcement investigation policy so any compliance breaches by ITSA are not investigated correctly.
This is because ITSA's Legal Branch are  advising  that  S134 gives discretion to fuck everyone over.
I was told by Tibor Karolyi ( whose wife , a schoolteacher ,had an affair with a schoolboy) that ITSA accepts  False Statement of Affairs by Bankrupts,  and the fat skank Chery Cullen  told me  ITSA has  the discretion  to give false  information . This is on the legal advice of Matthew Osborne.
Adam Toma , National Manager Enforcement and  REGULATION has failed to implement a correct investigation policy for Bankruptcy Regulations.

The Inspector General clearly outlines the  procedures that Bankruptcy Regulation should be observing when they are aware of non compliance, however  there is no compliance  with  these directions.

Disciplinary sanctions
6. As described in the Schedule 4A Trustee Performance Standards, there is an expectation that trustees who, without reasonable explanation, regularly fail to comply with the Bankruptcy Act and Regulations, or who diverge from acceptable standards of practice or whose behaviour or conduct brings the integrity of the insolvency system into disrepute will be subject to disciplinary action.
7. Disciplinary action may be taken where a breach of the Act or a performance standard is identified. In deciding what action is appropriate Bankruptcy Regulation takes into account: 
(a) the nature of the breach;
(b) the seriousness of the effect of a failure to comply, including the impact on a particular estate or individual; and
(c) a trustee's performance history and whether the trustee has previously failed to comply when able to.
1
These directions also refer to ITSA

According to the AGIS all complaints are to be investigated . With no investigation policy Bankruptcy Regulations are under no obligation to refer compliance breaches

This is according to the Australian Government Investigation Standards...........
Responsibility for conduct and referral of investigations/
Under the guidelines agencies are required to investigate minor and routine offences against agency programs, irrespective of whether the investigation results in the application of an administrative remedy OR referral of the matter for prosecution


Inspector General Practice statement 8

..Involuntary Cancellation of Trustee Registration
Release Date January 2009
i
CONTENTS Page No
Introduction............................................................................. 1
Overview of a bankruptcy trustee’s duties........................... 1
Disciplinary sanctions............................................................. 1
Classification of Non-Compliance........................................... 2
Disciplinary and committee process...................................... 3
Legislative Basis..................................................................... 3
Committee Process................................................................. 4
The interview process and natural justice............................... 5
The decision............................................................................. 6
Right of Review....................................................................... 7
Introduction
1.
In the past Courts decided on whether to cancel a trustee’s registration. On 16 December 1996 this became an administrative decision made by a committee convened by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy.
2.
This document outlines the process involved when the Inspector-General considers taking steps that may lead to cancellation of the registration of a registered trustee under the Bankruptcy Act. This document also outlines the independent committee processes and the basis of the Inspector-General’s decision making.
Overview of a bankruptcy trustee’s duties
3.
Registered trustees are required to maintain the utmost professionalism, independence, impartiality, honesty and ethics in their dealings. They are considered officers of the Court and in exercising powers and discretions and making decisions no lesser standard is to be expected of them than of a court or judge. They play a central role in the administration of estates and are under a general duty to exercise the powers in such a fashion that the objects of the Act, including those of equality between creditors and fairness to bankrupts and debtors are served.
4.
Registered trustees also have statutory duties set out in the Bankruptcy Act. They have a fundamental duty when administering an estate to carry out certain investigations and undertake certain tasks and functions as set out in section 19 of the Bankruptcy Act. Trustees are also required to maintain proper accounts and records, have proper money handling processes and assist the Inspector-General in his investigations when required.
5.
Registered trustees are also required to comply with the legislative standards set out in Schedule 4A of the Act.
Disciplinary sanctions
6.
As described in the Schedule 4A Trustee Performance Standards, there is an expectation that trustees who, without reasonable explanation, regularly fail to comply with the Bankruptcy Act and Regulations, or who diverge from acceptable standards of practice or whose behaviour or conduct brings the integrity of the insolvency system into disrepute will be subject to disciplinary action.
7.
Disciplinary action may be taken where a breach of the Act or a performance standard is identified. In deciding what action is appropriate Bankruptcy Regulation takes into account:
(a)
the nature of the breach;
(b)
the seriousness of the effect of a failure to comply, including the impact on a particular estate or individual; and
(c)
a trustee's performance history and whether the trustee has previously failed to comply when able to.
1
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
8.
There is a range of sanctions or actions which Bankruptcy Regulation can take when it considers breaches of duty or non compliance have occurred. Involuntary cancellation of registration is generally a sanction of last resort. Sanctions that Bankruptcy Regulation may consider prior to initiating action to de-register a trustee include:
(a)
Education – making trustees aware of problem areas and the correct practice or law individually and collectively;
(b)
Individual counselling – by far the most effective means to achieve timely remedial action;
(c)
Changing in the risk classification of a trustee. This will lead to a larger sample of files being selected for future annual inspections and a more detailed inspection being undertaken, particularly in areas of prior non-compliance;
(d)
Formal investigation and reporting under section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act. Such reports may be supplied to creditors, police and other regulator or disciplinary bodies such as ICAA, CPA or Law Councils and Societies;
(e)
Audit of a trustees accounts - section 175;
(f)
Imposition of penalties for Realisation and Interest Charge breaches;
(g)
Issue of “show cause” letters requiring a trustee to explain both their actions and why they should continue to be registered; and
(h)
Referral to other investigation units or law enforcement bodies.
Classification of Non-Compliance
9.
Bankruptcy Regulation utilises a classification system to describe areas of non-compliance and assist it to decide on the appropriate action to take subject to the seriousness and impact.
Category A
Fundamental breaches and lack of controls that are likely to bring into question the integrity of the system. This includes cases where there are repeat non-compliance occurrences of Cat B type previously identified and reported on.
These matters will give rise to either legal action, referral to fraud investigators or section 155H action concerning deregistration.
Category B
Serious and systemic issues that will have a material impact on the administration and require timely action.
In these cases the trustee will be counselled and timely remedial action is expected to be taken. Failure to take timely remedial action will give rise to reclassification to a Cat A and appropriate action.
2
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
Category C
One off practice or procedural non compliance is not systemic and doesn’t have a significant impact on the administration, dividend or creditors, debtor’s rights or system integrity but should be brought to the attention of the trustee.
Further identification of errors of this nature through complaints or later inspections would see the escalation of the error to a category B and counselling of the trustee.
10.
This provides a structured process that will see the escalation of a matter if it is not resolved by the trustee. Most matters are resolved quickly and amicably on Bankruptcy Regulation intervention.
11.
Hence breaches or non-compliance with the Act or a performance standard may give rise to a simple query by Bankruptcy Regulation on the reasons why there has been a deviation and where repetitive breaches occur or, in the case of a serious breach, result in action to cancel a trustee’s registration.
Disciplinary and committee process
12.
Usually a trustee will be well informed of issues of concern raised by Bankruptcy Regulation as delegate for the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy during investigations or inspections and will have been provided the opportunity to state their position.
Legislative Basis
13.
Section 155H provides that the Inspector-General may ask a registered trustee to give the Inspector-General a written explanation why the trustee should continue to be registered, if the Inspector-General believes that:
(a)
the trustee no longer has a qualification or ability that is prescribed by the regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 155A(2)(a); or
(aa)
the trustee no longer has the ability (including knowledge) to perform satisfactorily the duties of a registered trustee; or
(b)
the trustee has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty since registration as a trustee; or
(c)
the trustee is not insured against liabilities that the trustee may incur, or has incurred, working as a registered trustee; or
(d)
the trustee is no longer practising as a registered trustee; or
(e)
the trustee has contravened any conditions imposed by the committee on the trustee’s practice; or
(f)
the trustee has failed to exercise powers of a registered trustee properly or has failed to carry out the duties of a registered trustee properly; or
(fa) if the trustee is or was the administrator of a debt agreement—the trustee has failed to properly carry out the duties of an administrator in relation to a debt agreement; or
3
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
(g)
the trustee has failed to comply with a standard prescribed for the purposes of subsection (5).
14.
If Bankruptcy Regulation as delegate of the Inspector-General then forms the belief that a ground set out in section 155H is established and other sanctions are either inappropriate or have had no positive effect, Bankruptcy Regulation will formally write to the trustee outlining the breaches in detail, seeking the trustee’s formal response as to why their registration should not be cancelled. The trustee is given 28 days to respond in writing.
15.
If the Inspector-General or delegate does not receive an explanation within a reasonable time, or is not satisfied by the explanation, the Inspector-General or delegate must convene a committee to consider whether the trustee should continue to be registered.
Committee Process
16.
The committee must consist of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy or delegate, an officer of the Australian Public Service (APS) and a registered trustee, registered for more than five years, nominated by the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA). To ensure impartiality no delegate involved in decisions to this point will act as delegate of the Inspector-General on the committee.
17.
The committee is required to make inquiries that are reasonable for the purpose of making an informed decision or that the chairperson believes are appropriate in order for the committee to have sufficient information to make the decision.
18.
A committee must observe natural justice. This is explained in more detail below.
19.
A committee is not bound by any rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit. This means that the committee will not hear submissions on whether information provided is admissible in a court of law or not. Similarly there is no right of “objection” to the questions being asked by the committee. Questions will be asked of the trustee and the trustee can choose either to answer or not. The committee may proceed with its consideration of the matter irrespective of any refusal to answer.
20.
Whilst it will usually consider all the supporting documents that formed the basis of Bankruptcy Regulation’s decisions and the trustee’s responses the committee is not limited to just that information or the information that formed the basis of the prior decision to issue a show cause letter. The committee can consider any information and form its own view in the matter.
21.
The committee will interview the trustee. Details of the interview process are provided below.
22.
Once the committee has considered all the information it needs it will decide firstly whether there was a breach set out in section 155H, and if so whether that breach or breaches were serious enough to either impose conditions on the registration or to cancel the trustee’s registration.
4
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
23.
It must provide reasons for its decision to both the trustee and the Inspector-General. The Inspector-General must accept the committee’s decision and give effect to the decision.
24.
Pursuant to regulation 8.32 a committee must take all reasonable measures to protect from unauthorised use or disclosure information given to it in confidence in, or in connection with the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.
The interview process and natural justice
25.
Once the Inspector-General or delegate has determined the makeup of the committee, the committee will convene to consider the matter. The date of convening will usually be the first time the committee meets and as timeframes commence from this date, the trustee will be advised.
26.
The interview date, time and place will be arranged to meet the needs of the committee and the trustee.
27.
Should the trustee fail to attend the interview and fail to give a reasonable excuse for non attendance within 7 days, the committee may proceed with its consideration of the matter. If a reasonable excuse for failure to attend is provided within 7 days, the committee must arrange another interview date, time and place.
28.
The trustee may choose to have legal representation at any point in the process.
29.
The interview is an inquisitorial process not an adversarial one. The process is both to provide the trustee with an opportunity to further rebut or comment on the issues raised previously by the Bankruptcy Regulation delegate and to allow the committee to seek clarification on issues and ask questions concerning the administrations and practices.
30.
The trustee may make submissions both on the issue of the prior delegates decision concerning breaches set out in sub-section 155H(1) of the Bankruptcy Act and on appropriate sanctions that should be imposed by the committee, in the event that the committee also finds breaches occurred.
31.
Time will be allowed for such submissions and the trustee may introduce any further information either in writing or orally and this includes any other parties who would like to put submissions on the trustee’s behalf. The trustee should advise the committee prior to the interview if there are any other people he wishes to call to put information to the committee at that time.
32.
Usually prior to the interview, the trustee will be provided with all the information the committee has been provided with and may rely upon, to allow the trustee to prepare a response. However as some information may not become available until the interview or afterwards this will not always be possible.
33.
The committee will before making its decision provide advice on the information it will rely upon and provide any subsequent information to the trustee obtained during or after interview and allow a reasonable time for the trustee to consider and respond.
5
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
34.
Should assertions be made as to the character of the trustee by any party and the assertions form part of the information on which the committee will rely, the trustee will have a right under natural justice principles to cross examine the person who made the assertion.
The decision
35.
The committee is required to keep minutes recording their meetings and decisions made and must make a decision within 60 days of first convening, which is usually the day of the interview.
36.
The committee has 14 days from the date of reaching a decision to provide a report of its decision to the trustee and the Inspector-General.
37.
The committee has three decision options:
Cancel the trustee’s registration;
Allow the trustee to remain registered unconditionally; or
Allow the trustee to remain registered but with conditions imposed.
38.
It is important to note that the decision on whether to remove a trustee’s registration lies with the committee and not the Inspector-General. The committee decision is also independent to Bankruptcy Regulation’s investigations and decisions.
39.
The Courts have historically held trustees’ registrations in high regard and have been reluctant to de-register trustees unless the most serious breaches have occurred. Committees, whose decisions are reviewable in the AAT, will consider any legal precedents which may provide guidance, in arriving at their decision.
40.
Committees cannot suspend a trustee’s registration. However a conditional registration could be made where the trustee remains registered but may be restricted from practicing for a certain period or restricted in some other way.
41.
The committee report, to be provided to the trustee and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy within 14 days of reaching its decision, will outline the basis of the decision, detail the issues considered and the information and law relied upon.
42.
If the decision is to cancel registration, the trustee will be required to return their Certificate of Registration unless they have a reasonable excuse not to do so. The trustee will not be entitled to a refund of all or part of any registration fee that has been paid. The trustee would not be entitled to re-apply for registration for a period of 10 years.
43.
The Inspector-General is required by law to record the cancellation of the trustee’s registration on the National Personal Insolvency Index, a publicly accessible database. The Inspector-General is also required to report to Parliament on activities under the Bankruptcy Act. This means that, while the decision in detail is not made publically available, the name of the trustee whose registration has been cancelled will be made public as will the general nature of the breaches involved.
6
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
7
IGPS 8 – Involuntary cancellation of registration
Right of Review
44.
If the trustee is dissatisfied with the committee’s decision, they may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). An application to the AAT for a review of the committee’s decision must be in writing, set out the reasons for the application and must be made within 28 days of the date the committee’s report is received by the trustee. Full information about applications to the AAT can be obtained from the local AAT Registry or from the internet at www.aat.gov.au.


Wednesday 19 December 2012

Itsa's non compliance/ no investigation policy


Some people just need a good fucking to make them understand anything!
It is more than evident that  Dave Maher and senior Management are wanking their own cocks at ITSA.
Adam Toma ,  National Enforcement Manager, Cheryl Cullen skanky Slag and  the fucker Matthew Osborne are using S134(3) to fuck everyone over. This section of the bankruptcy Act does not   allow the trustee to breach the Bankruptcy Act as the Fucker and sucker a Matthew Osborne is advising.
This is a COMPLIANCE BREACH
It also does not give a trustee the discretion to mislead  anyone as the other fucker Cheryl Cullen has told me.
She obviously needs a fuck up the Ase!!!
This is taken from the Inspector Generals Practice statement ( GPS) 1
A Compliance Framework
5. Non compliance is a significant risk to the integrity of the personal insolvency system in
Australia and adds significant cost to the system. It is important to understand what motivates
people to comply with legislation. You need to recognise that practitioners respond to their
obligations under the Bankruptcy Act differently and that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the answer to achieving long-term compliance.( the motive is that Matthew Osborne is advising them how to fuck everyone over)

  The fucker in the Legal Department would be aware of the requirement of the Inspector General.
Dave Maher is of the opinion that only the AGIS must be complied with by Enforcement though fails to take into consideration the role and purpose of Bankruptcy Regulation.
It is part of the obligation of Bankruptcy Regulation to ensure private trustees and ITSA comply with their obligations under the Bankruptcy Act.
However, the cock at ITSA Matthew Osbourne is advising otherwise.
In the matter of Ariff who was eventually jailed and the fucker Paul Pattison it was only on the advice ITSA that they assumed they had the discretion to fuck everyone over.
I asked for the investigation policy of ITSA under FOI. I have received a reply that smells like the shit of Adam Toma.
It appears only Enforcement has an investigation policy and Bankruptcy Regulation does not.
How fucking funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As you see it only refers to Enforcement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


3.1 Investigation principles
An investigation is a search for truth, in the interests of justice and in accordance
with the specifications of the law.
Every investigation decision made by Enforcement will be in accord with the laws
and rules of evidence, including the rules governing the admissibility of evidence.
Enforcement personnel will demonstrate professionalism by displaying:
(i) integrity in all actions and decisions;
(ii) fairness and impartiality without fear, favour, affection and without
undue influence or ill will;
(iii) respect for the dignity of all people including their need for
confidentiality, discreetness and preservation of their privacy; and
    the application of skill, care and diligence in all undertakings.
Bankruptcy Regulation has NO Investigation Policy as required by the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman does not have one and the Fucker at the Australian Public service Commission does not have one either.
Failure to have a functional investigation policy allows atrocious systemic corrupt conduct to occur.
In NSW we have ICAC and Senator Zenaphon called for something similar for Federal Departments and Agencies.
    However, this function originally was a requirement of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and is an obligation under the Ombudsmans Act
    As I am also aware that the staff of ITSA regularly read this blog, tell Adam Toma to come kiss my arse and watch this fucker cry when I post the deeds of his properties on the internet!!!!




Monday 17 December 2012

FOI ITSA's investigation policy/still no reply

My original Freedom of Information request for ITSA' s investigation policy was made on the 5th August 2012.
It is not surprising that ITSA has refused to supply this .
On the 5th November the Office of the Information Commissioner had to make ITSA aware of the obligations to supply this. The request should have been received no latter than the 9th December.
As yet I have received nothing. OAIC had to be contacted last tuesday and again today.
Adam Toma had made it clear that Dave Maher was to supply nothing to me.
I find this rather amusing because  this fucker Adam Toma is National Enforcement Manager at ITSA and this cock is corrupt.
So let us see who has the last laugh when I do property searches on Adam Toma and post them all up on the internet!!!!!!!!!

Saturday 15 December 2012

FOI Commonwealth Ombudsman


From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
Subject: RE: Your FOI request of 14 October 2012 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:16:36 +1100

Dear Luke
I refer to  the following taken from the Commonwealth Ombudsmans Annual Report 2010-2011. Under Freedom of Information please supply me with a copy of each of these complaints.

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

The number of complaints to the Ombudsman concerning the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) has remained at around 70 per year for the last three years. The majority of complaints were from those who were themselves bankrupt (almost 75%) and regarded the administration of the estate or issues relating to discharge from bankruptcy. The remainder were from creditors or an associated entity with issues relating to the administration of the estate.
We continue to work with ITSA to bring continuous improvement to its management of complaints.

In the most recent Annual report the Commonwealth Ombudsman ( Colin Neave) has made a decision not to give the statistics  of  complaints on individual  Government Agencies instead concealing the statistics and only giving statistics on Government  Portfolio's.
Under Freedom of Information I would like the Commonwealth Ombudsman to supply me with the statistics  2011-2012   on individual Agencies and departments as in the Annual report 2010-2011.
It is also a requirement  that the Commonwealth Ombudsman refer any matters of systemic corrupt conduct to the relevant Minister.
In the matter of the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia it is the Attorney General.
Please also supply me under Freedom of Information any policy that the Commonwealth Ombudsman  has made not to  comply with this obligation
Thank you
Fiona Brown
So who else besides Adam Toma is on the take.............. Is there somebody at the Commonwealth Ombudsman who is on the take also and they are protecting each other???????????????
IT SHOULD BE INTERESTING NEXT YEAR WHEN  I START ALL MY PROPERTY SEARCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday 7 December 2012

Waiting for my FOI request /ITSA / Dave Maher

I  can hardly wait for Monday to arrive . It will be so exciting to finally have my Freedom of Information Request from ITSA on their Investigation Policy
Originally this was requested from Dave Maher , the Freedom of Information co-ordinator at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia on the 5th August 2012. This request was never  answered.
The Office of the Information Commissioner had to intervene.

I am certain all male senior Management would all be pulling their cocks  attempting to come up with a policy that complies with their obligations.


Whether it be the fucker Adam Toma , National  Enforcement  Manager who is  on the take and attempting to stand over people  or the other fucker Gavin McCosker National Operations Manager from Queensland   who allows bankrupts to file false statement of Affairs to name a few, senior management at ITSA are all required to comply with an Investigation policy.
Senator Williams is also still waiting  for a reply to   questions asked to skanky Veronique Ingram who also has her fist up her arse  in May  2012.

There have been another 2 FOI requests to ITSA enquiring into the knowledge ITSA was aware of atrocious conduct  and failed to  act accordingly.
It is also interesting that ITSA have failed to update their disclosure log, which could mean they do not receive any FOI requests or that  ITSA fails to respond to any requests.


From: dave.maher@itsa.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: FOI request [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 05:28:53 +0000

Dear Ms Brown
I refer to the FOI request which you purported to send to ITSA on 22 July 2012 and your subsequent complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC ) about ITSA’s lack of response (copy of relevant e-mails attached).

ITSA has been contacted by the OAIC about this matter.  ITSA advised the OAIC that your e-mails of 22 July and 5 August were not received, as e-mail correspondence from you has been blocked since October 2009 – you were advised of this by e-mail from Adam Toma (scanned copy attached).

The OAIC asked ITSA whether it would be prepared to consider their contact with us as constituting receipt of your FOI request.  ITSA agreed to this on 7 November 2012 and I therefore acknowledge receipt of your FOI request on that date.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) ITSA has 30 days from receipt of an FOI request to make a decision whether to grant access to the documents sought.  This period can be extended if consultation is required with third parties; with the consent of the OAIC if the request is complex or voluminous; or with the consent of the applicant.  If I consider that an extension of time to process your request is required I will contact you.  If I decide to refuse access to one or more documents relevant to your request I will advise you in writing of the reasons for that refusal and of your right to seek a review of the decision.

Please note that the e-mail block remains in place, therefore any e-mails you may send to ITSA will not be received.  If you wish to correspond with ITSA about your FOI request you should write to:

The FOI Coordinator
ITSA
GPO Box 821
CANBERRA  ACT  2601


Regards
Dave Maher
FOI Coordinator
ITSA