Changes to the Australian Public Service Act

RE.. Decision by Steve Sedgwick  that Agency Heads and Department Heads no longer are responsible or need to comply with the APS Code of Conduct.

Inquiries to

steve.sedgwick@apsc.gov.au

karin.fisher@apsc.gov.au

0262023846

 After careful consideration and consultation with the  Management Advisory  Committee and according to the relevant legislation, the Australian Public Service Commissioner Steve Sedgwick has made a landmark decision  that Agency and  Department  Heads are no longer responsible and accountable for the breaches of the Code of Conduct in their  Government Agencies.  Also, the  Commissioner has found that Agency Heads or Department Heads no longer  are bound to uphold a high ethical standard.

  If, according to the APS Act the Agency or Department Heads is no longer accountable or responsible for upholding the code of conduct, all employees under this act  are  also not required to comply with the Code of conduct.

This decision will have far reaching ramifications and impact on how Agency Heads view their responsibilities and duties.

 This decision by  Steve Sedgwick  would also have an impact on  the Financial Management and Accountability Act for which Senator Penny Wong is responsible.

In the financial year 2010-2011 the Commissioner made 32 similar decisions. These are briefly mentioned in the Australian Public Service  Annual Report though there  appears no real  indication on the process  of how this was reached.  A request under FOI has been launched to determine how this decision was made. 

All matters of breach of Code of Conduct in the judicial system and the  APS tribunal should refer to this decision  and the Legal profession should make a careful note of it

It is also unclear whether the Prime Minister and the Public Service and Integrity Minister , Gary Gray  were consulted in this decision.

It can only be assumed this decision has been made to streamline the Australian Public Service Act.

The removal of this section of the Act and the responsibility it carries can only be  beneficial to the budgets of Commonwealth Government Agencies.

It would appear from the Commissioners decision  Agency and Department Heads are no longer required to comply with  “ Any Australian Law” as in S13(4) of the Code of Conduct . Section 44 of the FM&A  Act would no longer require  compliance with any Australian Law.

 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1997 - SECT 44

Promoting proper use etc. of Commonwealth resources

             (1)  A Chief Executive must manage the affairs of the Agency in a way that promotes proper use of the Commonwealth resources for which the Chief Executive is responsible.

Note:          A Chief Executive has the power to enter into contracts, on behalf of the Commonwealth, in relation to the affairs of the Agency. Some Chief Executives have delegated this power undersection 53.

             (2)  In doing so, the Chief Executive must comply with this Act, the regulations, Finance Minister's Orders, Special Instructions and ANY OTHER LAW.

 Steve Sedgwick was given extensive evidence of the behavior  at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia  for which Veronique Ingram is responsible.

Evidence was given to the APS Commissioner  of  systemic corrupt corrupt  conduct  by senior management in this Government department .It was also brought to the attention of the commissioner that Mark Findlay ( Manager Bankruptcy Regulations) wrote a misleading report which was circulated to Government officials on the conduct of Florence Choo, who at the time was deputy Official receiver NSW and Act. It was latter revealed that Mark Findlay had been fucking her. Steve Sedgwick concluded he  did not consider this to be a conflict of interest or a breach of honesty. He also found  that the Agency Head could not be held accountable  for senior Management  misleading the public.

All Australian Laws  and policies will now have to be updated to make exemptions for Agency  and department Heads.

The Commissioner  found in particular that the  Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman Alison Larkins had no primfacea case to answer by doing deals with other government Agencies to cover up misconduct. It is also unclear who instructed Alison Larkins to do this and whether the Prime Minister and the Attorney General have been involved.

                        PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 13

The APS Code of Conduct

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

             (2)  An APS employee must act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment.

             (3)  An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.

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

                     (a)  any Act (including this Act), or any instrument made under an Act; or

                     (b)  any law of a State or Territory, including any instrument made under such a law.

             (5)  An APS employee must comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction.

             (6)  An APS employee must maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff.

             (7)  An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment.

             (8)  An APS employee must use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner.

             (9)  An APS employee must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment.

           (10)  An APS employee must not make improper use of:

                     (a)  inside information; or

                     (b)  the employee's duties, status, power or authority;

in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person.

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

           (12)  An APS employee on duty overseas must at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia.

           (13)  An APS employee must comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations.

 Steve Sedgwick determined that Agency heads are no longer required to act honestly or with integrity as in S13(1)

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

**

The commissioner  has found it is no longer necessary or required to act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment as required in S13(2)

2)  An APS employee must act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment.

** The Commissioner found that it is no longer necessary  for Agency Heads to comply with any Australian Law. He found this in particular for Veronique Ingram Inspector General Insolvency Trustee Service Australia and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Acting Agency Head Alison Larkins

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

                     (a)  any Act (including this Act), or any instrument made under an Act; or

                     (b)  any law of a State or Territory, including any instrument made under such a law.

In General  Steve Sedgwick concluded The Insolvency Trustee Service Australia and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had no obligation to comply with the relevant Laws they are responsible for

  (7)  An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment.

 Mr Sedgwick was made aware that Mark Findlay Fucking the Deputy OR NSW and ACT and then writing a misleading report to protect her was also reasonable and not a breach of the Code of Conduct S13(7)

The commissioner found that  S13(7) was no longer necessary and therefore APS employees did not comply with this section. He found that Mark Findlay Manager Bankruptcy Relations did not have a conflict of interest when he wrote a misleading report on a complaint  of misconduct by Florence Choo, Deputy Official Receiver NSW and Act. Steve Sedgwick   failed to find it a conflict of interest that Mark Findlay had been fucking her.

(9)  An APS employee must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS

Steve Sedgwick found it is entirely reasonable for the principal Legal Officer of a Department to write a misleading report to the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The commissioner felt that  exposing misconduct in a Government Agency  would not be looked favorably by the Government, so taking this into consideration this was reasonable.

The Commissioner has also concluded that there is no right of  review  of this decision under the Australian Public Service Act, however, on a question of Law it may be  possible to have this important  decision reviewed  in the Federal Magistrates Court.

The following websites  for the Federal Magistrates Court and the Magistrates Court may be accessed at www.fedcourt.gov.au  and  www.fmc.gov.au

It is unclear how this decision was reached by Steven Sedgwick, Australian Public Service Commissioner, as he has failed  to reply  to requests  on how he could reach such a flawed  assumption. It appears that the Commissioner may be suffering from delusions and requires urgent medical intervention to correct an underlying  condition.

  For further information all inquiries should be forwarded :

Steve Tomlin
Client Engagement
Australian Public Service Commission
16 Furzer Street
Phillip ACT 2606

Tel: (02) 6202 3526
Fax: (02) 6264 5153

Email: steve.tomlin@apsc.gov.au

Steve Sedgwick APSC Commissioner/Corrupt Conduct

Attention Steve Sedgwick/Commissioner Australian Public Service Commission 22nd February 2012 Dear Steve, Systemic Corrupt Conduct is allowed to exist in Government Agencies when the Agency Head fails to promote Ethical Values and ethical Conduct and allows the whole department to fall into a state where the system fails to operate within the law and becomes “sick” due to the complete failure of its Management. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument... systemic corruption means instances of corrupt conduct (which may or may not constitute serious corruption) that reveal a pattern of corrupt conduct in a law ... Statement of Intent First of all, what does “systemic corruption” mean? We use this term to distinguish two situations. One is where some people are corrupt. Another is where many people are corrupt— where the system itself has grown sick. A distinguishing characteristic of systemic corruption is that the many parts of the government that are supposed to prevent corruption have themselves become corrupted—budgeting, auditing, inspection, monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement. This makes the anti‐corruption task much more difficult. We cannot simply call for capacity building in these anti‐corruption parts of government, because their capacity has been bought off and directed away from their ostensible mission. This is also from ICAC These are condition that allow Systemic Corruption to occur. policies and procedures are absent, unclear or not adequately enforced employee training is inadequate checks such as audits are lacking communication and reporting lines are unclear employee supervision and performance management are inadequate employees have high levels of discretion in their decision-making employees develop close relationships with external stakeholders accepted ethical standards are lacking the corporate culture condones rule breaking and short cuts. With the failure of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to fulfill its statutory obligations, these corrupt systems in Government departments have been allowed to flourish. Consequently similar complaints are continuously made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman because the Commonwealth Ombudsman fail to put into place the necessary safeguards to prevent this problem occurring again. Failure to correctly deal with these complaints at the first instance leads to blow out in budgets as a similar complaint continues to arise. Responsibility of the Commonwealth Ombudsman The Commonwealth Ombudsman safeguards the community in its dealings with Australian Government agencies. The Ombudsman’s office handles complaints, conducts investigations, performs audits and inspections, encourages good administration, and carries out specialist oversight tasks. When the Agency Head of ITSA fails in her responsibility to enforce the code of conduct this allows the ethical standards of this Government Agency to disintegrate into decay. The Agency Head has also allowed Senior Management to formed a culture that condones unethical behavior. Veronique Ingram clearly has nurtured this and failed to issue directions that that this behavior is not to continue. She has been made aware of this conduct in numerous emails and Letters sent by registered post. She would also have been made aware of this behavior by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In a reply from the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the 3rd December 2011 they notified me that they had brought “shortcomings “ to the attention ITSA but when I requested what these were they refused to answer me. Subsequently I have attempted to have these 'Shortcomings” released to me under FOI though the Commonwealth Ombudsman refuse to reply to me. The Australian public service commission also holds responsibility that they have allowed Adam Toma who is not of good character and and promotes unethical behavior to rise to to a position of National Manager Bankruptcy Regulation and Enforcement. With Authority over Bankruptcy Regulation Branch and also Enforcement his unethical behavior forms a precedent that has no accountability .This allows Adam Toma insurmountable power. The APS Commission is aware that it is reckless to have such a person of such character in this position. With evidence that Adam Toma has formed a culture that is in violation of the APS Code of Conduct , Veronique Ingram has promoted Adam Toma to ITSA's internal Audit Committee. This should greatly concern the APS Commission, however the APS Commission has failed to act. ITSA is only one Government Agency that has failed to enforce the APS Code of Conduct and ethics. This shows how the Treasury “ best Management Plan” handles complaints................................................. I refer to the following email sent to Wayne Swan at Treasury on the 3rd October 2011. A follow up phone call was then made on the 14th October 2011. As you can read I was told” You can't get everything you want in life so I should forget my complaint” I would like to get the APS Commission to tell me exactly where this actually figures in the Code of Conduct. From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com To: wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au; ministerial@treasury.gov.au Subject: RE: Misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act all over Australia Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:31:29 +1100 To whom it may concern, I confirm I spoke to Christy at 1.30 today concerning this email. I was then put through to Andrew from the the Treasury Insolvency branch. I told him I had evidence of gross misconduct at ITSA. He told me that you can't get everything you want in life and I should forget my complaint. I find this offensive. Please explain why I should forget misconduct in a Government department. Thank you Fiona Brown From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com To: wayne.swan.mp@aph.gov.au; ministerial@treasury.gov.au Subject: Misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act all over Australia Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:14:00 +1100 Dear Wayne, I am emailing you as treasurer, so please do not pass this onto the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland I confirm I rang your office around 4pm this afternoon. I have evidence of gross concealment and coverup by Senior Management at ITSA which administers the Bankruptcy Act. The evidence is in writing and it has all been confirmed. It has been put in chronological order in a file. I was told to only correspond with ITSA by email so I had evidence of their conduct and any meetings with them had to be confirmed of what was discussed after the fact in a statement was to be left for the particular person at reception at ITSA. I was then to email them to inform them of the statement. You should be aware everyone is wasting their time asking questions to ITSA at inquiries. Go and do something else with your time because you will never ever understand what is occurring unless you are made aware that ITSA is unaccountable and using section 134(3) to justify any misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act by senior staff and Management This is why Bankruptcy regulation only found 20 complaints justified last financial year. Bankruptcy Regulations which is meant to be independent is concealing the breaches of the Bankruptcy Act and misconduct by senior Management. This is why the Bankruptcy Act is failing. Mathew Osborne is telling staff at ITSA that this section gives discretion to the overall Act. This makes the Act unworkable and open for corruption. S134(3)of the Bankruptcy Act is about the trustees discretion on division of property. However the Principal Legal Officer Mathew Osborne has given instructions that this may be used on the entire Act. This section is being used all over Australia to justify misconduct and Breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. I am sure a similar section would be used at ASIC. No Whistleblower will ever come forward because they are aware of the atrocious treatment they will receive from the Government and the Attorney General. If you are having trouble believing me put Mathew Osborne under oath and ask him . I will have no problem giving evidence either. I have no fear naming the people involved because I have the evidence to back me up. No one will open their mouths at ITSA because what I am saying is the truth. yours sincerely Fiona Brown You will be aware, under Freedom of Information I have requested the names of the 16 Agency Heads that were referred to the APS Commission under S41 in the past Financial Year. Also at the same time also supply me with the names of the 17 Agency Heads that were referred to the APS Commission by “Whistleblowers” I clearly understand the APS has a commitment to transparency so you will not mind me posting this information on my blog and sending it to all MP'S in Parliament. I fail to understand why you have not identified these Agency Heads in the Annual report I am acutely aware that the APS Commission will highlight how unethical behavior figures significantly in “Best Practice' management under the Management Accountability Committee. Also take this into account and please consider it when you attempt to cover-up this complaint the enormous amount of evidence I have. Clearly taking into consideration that I have had a complaint with the Australian Public Service Commission for almost 3 months and I have been notified by the APS Commission there will be an indefinite wait for any conclusion I feel it is accurate to say that the Australian Public Service Commission will have considerable trouble covering up my complaint. I am acutely aware that the Australian Public Service Commission will spent considerable resources attempting to justify Systemic Corrupt Conduct at ITSA , just as the Commonwealth Ombudsman spent and enormous amount of resources attempting to cover this up. In the end the Commonwealth did a deal with Senior Management to cover this up and hoped the problem would go away. A sick system in dire need of an overhaul occurs when the Agency Head and Senior Management fail to promote a code of Conduct and Ethics and actively participates in this behavior. This clearly sets a very bad example to junior staff. Eventually this leads to absolute decay of the system. When there is no accountability or when the system for accountability is the Commonwealth Ombudsman whose intention is to cover-up systemic corruption the results are disastrous. I have been told that the Australian Public Service Commission plans to look for management decisions to justify unethical conduct. However, there is NO justification for unethical behavior either in the Financial Management ACT, the Australian Public Service ACT or in the Commissioner's Directions. With the National Manager Enforcement and Regulation Adam Toma condoning unethical conduct with senior Management I now bring to your attention the Mark Findlay from Bankruptcy Regulations who wrote a report failing to cover my complaint about Florence Choo Deputy Official Receiver NSW and ACT. How Funny.... now I understand................. It is a conflict of interest to investigate someone you have been FUCKING.... It is like..... if I slept with my boss and made a great video of it in graphic details and insinuated that I may release it I would assume that he may look on me very favorably and overlook and misconduct...... do you understand my point.????... or when I caught Cosmo stealing credit card details............ and if it didn't happen it would not be necessary for me to tell you about this serious conflict of interest Also how many other complaints has Mark Findlay covered up for Florence Choo????? Maybe the APS Commission will let me know how they consider this to be “ A good Management decision . This situation occurs when there is a complete failure to follow the APS Code of Conduct by Management and there is no accountability or control. The APS Commission has asked me where this breaches the code of conduct. I would assume this is the section that could be used (7) An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment. And again I bring to your attention the Enforcement Branch which Adam Toma is also responsible for as National Manager Bankruptcy Regulations and Enforcement. I was told by Mathew Osborne, Principal Legal Officer ITSA on the 10th February 2010 that ITSA has the discretion to not to refer a bankrupt for non-compliance or fraud to BFI. I was told by Mathew Osborne that to satisfy the Bankruptcy ACT all that is required is a meeting with Julie Padgett. Section 134(3) gives ITSA the discretion not to refer a bankrupt. This section gives ITSA also the discretion to mislead a creditor according to Mathew Osborne. Not to refer a bankrupt for non compliance is a breach of S19(i) of the Bankruptcy Act. It is also a breach of the Inspector Generals Practice Statement 14. In an attempt to cover-up that Julie Padgett and Adam Toma were using this section ITSA mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman when additional information was requested from them. Also the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Attorney General was given false information concerning the conduct of ITSA and senior management. This is also a clear breach of the APS Code of Conduct (1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment. How very funny all the emails confirming this has been deleted. It is obvious someone of seniority at ITSA is heavily into cyber crime and took crisis management action.....So to you all..... Kiss my fat ARSE!!!!! BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 134 Division 4--Realization of property Powers exercisable at discretion of trustee (3) Subject to this Act, the trustee may use his or her own discretion in the administration of the estate. Steve Sedgwick and all the DUMB FUCKS at the APS Commission.............. this section only refers to the realization of property and does not give discretion to mislead a creditor or gives ITSA the discretion on fraud or noncompliance. This breaches the Code of conduct, the APS requested that I list the breaches 1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS (4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws. For this purpose, Australian law means (11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS. This is the email sent to Cheryl Cullen Assistant to Adam Toma bringing to her attention that Mark Findlay had written an inaccurate report....From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com To: cheryl.cullen@itsa.gov.au Subject: report on Tibor Karolyi Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:04:09 +1000 Dear Cheryl, Your report on Tibor Karolyi is incorrect. First, the objection was put in place only after an extreme effort by me. Tibor Karolyi and Guilia Inga did not want to do this even though they were both aware David Cooper had filled out his statement of affairs incorrectly and evidence was available that he had inherited assets overseas. I can forward an Email from Guilia Inga dated 21st April 2009 that she was unprepared to do this. Second, Tibor was asked no more than to do his job and nothing more. It has been raise that the Trustee was without funds from creditors. The only reason Tibor thinks he did so much work is that it was necessary to redo so much work because he did not do it correctly in the very first place Third, Tibor did not closely liaise with enforcement. If he did then this matter would have been referred in May 2008. So why not? Fourth, there is no reason this matter should continue if Tibor had done his job correctly These are all very valid reasons to have him investigated as I do not believe this is an isolated incident.. Thanking you Kindly Fiona Brown I was then told by Cheryl Cullen on the 8thOctober 2009 at 11.15 that that ITSA had the discretion to mislead me. How very funny............ ITSA continues to use s134(3) to justify corrupt conduct. This is a breach of the Code of Conduct (1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment. (4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws (11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS. It is a requirement that the Agency Head promote S10 of the APS Act. This would include (d) the APS has the highest ethical standards; (e) the APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of Ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public; Clearly there is no accountability when the Agency Head or Senior Management fail to work in a framework that promotes the appropriate conduct , as in section 13 of the APS Act. PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 13 The APS Code of Conduct (1) An APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment. (2) An APS employee must act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment. (3) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment. (4) An APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must comply with all applicable Australian laws. For this purpose, Australian law means: (a) any Act (including this Act), or any instrument made under an Act; or (b) any law of a State or Territory, including any instrument made under such a law. (5) An APS employee must comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction. (6) An APS employee must maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff. (7) An APS employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment. (8) An APS employee must use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner. (9) An APS employee must not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment. (10) An APS employee must not make improper use of: (a) inside information; or (b) the employee's duties, status, power or authority; in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person. (11) An APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS. (12) An APS employee on duty overseas must at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia. (13) An APS employee must comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations. Thank you Fiona Brown

Steve Sedgwick APS response to corrurt Conduct

How funny  Steve Sedgewick does not even consider that . Mark  Findlay f ucking Florence Choo and then writing a misleading report    is a breach of the Code of Conduct. How very funny.!!!!!!!
Steve Sedgwick has also made the decision on extensive evidence that Agency Heads are not responsible for breaches of the Code of conduct as required  under the APS Act

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 12

Agency Heads must promote APS Values

                   An Agency Head must uphold and promote the APS Values.

Australian Public Service Commissioner
Stephen Sedgwick
Australian Government
Australian Public Service Commission
PERSONAL
Ms Fiona Brown
(by email)
Ref" 11/2167
Dear Ms Brown

I am writing in response to your allegations that the Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman and
the Chief Executive Officer of the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia have breached the
Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.
Having considered the matter, I have decided that an inquiry under section 41 (1)(f) of the Public
Service Act 1999 (the Act) is not warranted. It appears that your complaints centre on your
disagreement with the decisions taken by the office holders in the performance of their
functions. There is no primafacie evidence of misconduct by the two office holders concerned.
There is no right of review of this decision under the Act. However, you may seek to apply to a
court for judicial review, generally on a question of law, rather than on the merits of the
decision. For example, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the
Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court have the power to review certain decisions.
Generally, their role is to ensure decision makers acted fairly and within the law and followed
proper procedures in coming to a decision. The time limit for such applications is usually 28
days from the date of being notified of the relevant decision. The websites for the Courts are at
www.fedcourt.gov.au and www.fmc.gov.au. Before making an application, you may wish to
consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Finally, many of your emails to the Commission include offensive language and abusive
personal remarks about individuals. Please stopsending abusive emails. Any further abusive
con'espondence may be filed without reading.
Yours sincerely
(if_ March 2012

Posted 1 minute ago by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

0

Add a comment

Memo update

Attention all staff

17th March 2012

      
      I have now received an email from the APS Commissioner that he does not intend to read any of my Memos if I continue to use foul Language.  I want to point out to this dumb fuck that he needs to read the memo to establish if I have actually used foul language. I clearly understand that he is referring to the matter where Mark Findlay was asked to investigate a complaint where Florence Choo was involved. Steve Sedgwick found it was not a  a conflict of interest.  Just telling it as it  is Stevie.  Steve  also  he found it was not a breach of the APS Act to mislead the Public and to fail to  comply with the Act to which  Agency heads are responsible. He also was prepared to overlook the failure of Alison Larkins to comply with the Ombudsman's Act. Considering overwhelming evidence  that Alison Larkins had wasted considerable resources to  cover this up and Diane Merryfull had done a deal with ITSA to also cover it up also he found there was no case to answer.
It has been brought to my attention that  Ms Brown has now requested for  the  documents under FOI how this decision was reached.  Therefore if anyone can  give  a reasonable suggestion why the Commissioner  reached such a conclusion  that could be used in these documents and notes please email steve.sedgwick@apsc.gov.au  I understand any suggestions will be gratefully accepted .
  
signed
Your leader

Steve Sedgwick encorages Corrupt conduct in Government departments

Steve Sedgwick APS  Commissioner encourages corrupt conduct in Government Agencies

On the 17^th March 2012 Steve Sedgwick  Australian Public Service Commissioner made a decision  to cover-up corrupt conduct by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia .

 Considering there was extensive evidence of breaches of the APS Act and code of conduct how  was this decision made?

Steve Sedgwick  APS  Commissioner has found that there is so much corrupt conduct in the Australian Public Service in Australia  that is is easier to condone this behavior  that to  expose  it that  would result in enormous liabilities to the Australian Government.

 The Commissioner found that it was in the public's interest that they were not  made aware that the Insolvency trustee service's senior Management   are breaching the APS ACT and the Bankruptcy Act to help the Inspector General in Bankruptcy to achieve her  targets. The APS Commissioner is also aware that the statistics provided in the  Insolvency Trustee Services Annual report is misleading. He considers that to expose this would also not be in the Australian Public's interest. He is aware Veronique Ingram is encouraging systemic corrupt conduct by the internal Audit committee. Rather than expose this he has decided to cover it up.  The Commonwealth Ombudsman has found “shortcomings” in ITSA's  accountability but the Australian Public Service Commissioner has made the decision  that if this was exposed it would diminish public confidence in the Australian Public Service and ITSA.

 The  Australian Public Service commissioner has also found it would not be in the  Australian Public's interest to expose the Conduct of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and its acting Head  Alison larkins.  He has made a decision that Alison Larkins   is exempt from  complying with the APS  code of conduct and so has no responsibility  in  the failure of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's  statutory role. Despite extensive evidence that the Commonwealth Ombudsman  has wasted an enormous amount of resources to cover up Systemic Corrupt Conduct at ITSA and have  made a deal with ITSA  to cover-up “shortcomings” Steve Sedgwick has failed to act on this behavior.

Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that Australia has a corrupt APS Commissioner  who has no one to answer to. How funny............. we have always thought that it was only the Management of Government Services that were incompetent. Now the evidence is that this is occurring because the Australian Public Service Commissioner is covering up breaches of the Bankruptcy Act and breaches of the  APS Act  Steve Sedgwick has found the Commonwealth Ombudsman can do deals with  Government Agencies and not responsible to comply with the Ombudsman's Act as required by the Federal Government.

FOI / APS Commission

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: TRIM: RE: Freedom of Information request
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:17:42 +1100

Hi Chris,
I refer to the following email I sent you on friday. I would just like to add  to this  confirmation  that Steve Sedgewick   or Karin Fisher obtained  the extensive file that was with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.  I emailed them and requested they look at. If they were negligent and did not do this please  just put this in writing or if they did could you please give me a copy of  the email or whatever form they used to notify the Commonwealth Ombudsman they wanted to receive this.
 Thanking you
Fiona Brown
.
T

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: TRIM: RE: Freedom of Information request
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:53:58 +1100

Dear Chris,
Yesterday I received a letter from Steve Sedgwick, Australian Public Service Commissioner, that he accepts that QAgency Heads has discretion to  breach the APS Code of conduct ant they are not responsible for  atrocious behavior , so effectively Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins have no case to answer.
This decision can only be seen to be corrupt conduct by Steve Sedgwick
As the APS wishes to be transparent in their decisions either corrupt or not I am sure you will release any documents and notes made when making this decision.
 I therefore wish to make it clear what I am requiring under FOI. I want the notes and documents made by Steve Stedgwick  or any committee that Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins has  no case to answer after inspecting the extensive evidence in my file that I requested you obtain from the Commonwealth Ombudsman
thanking you
Fiona Brown

Memo to all staff 7

Attention all staff

17th March 2012

      
      I have now received an email from the APS Commissioner that he does not intend to read any of my Memos if I continue to use foul Language.  I want to point out to this dumb fuck that he needs to read the memo to establish if I have actually used foul language. I clearly understand that he is referring to the matter where Mark Findlay was asked to investigate a complaint where Florence Choo was involved. Steve Sedgwick found it was not a  a conflict of interest.  Just telling it as it  is Stevie.  Steve  also  he found it was not a breach of the APS Act to mislead the Public and to fail to  comply with the Act to which  Agency heads are responsible. He also was prepared to overlook the failure of Alison Larkins to comply with the Ombudsman's Act. Considering overwhelming evidence  that Alison Larkins had wasted considerable resources to  cover this up and Diane Merryfull had done a deal with ITSA to also cover it up also he found there was no case to answer.
It has been brought to my attention that  Ms Brown has now requested for  the  documents under FOI how this decision was reached.  Therefore if anyone can  give  a reasonable suggestion why the Commissioner  reached such a conclusion  that could be used in these documents and notes please email steve.sedgwick@apsc.gov.au  I understand any suggestions will be gratefully accepted .
  
signed
Your leader

FOI ? Corrupt conduct by Steve Sedgwick

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: TRIM: RE: Freedom of Information request
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:53:58 +1100

Dear Chris,
Yesterday I received a letter from Steve Sedgwick, Australian Public Service Commissioner, that he accepts that QAgency Heads has discretion to  breach the APS Code of conduct ant they are not responsible for  atrocious behavior , so effectively Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins have no case to answer.
This decision can only be seen to be corrupt conduct by Steve Sedgwick
As the APS wishes to be transparent in their decisions either corrupt or not I am sure you will release any documents and notes made when making this decision.
 I therefore wish to make it clear what I am requiring under FOI. I want the notes and documents made by Steve Stedgwick  or any committee that Veronique Ingram and Alison Larkins has  no case to answer after inspecting the extensive evidence in my file that I requested you obtain from the Commonwealth Ombudsman
thanking you
Fiona Brown

MEMO TO ALL STAFF 5

Attention all staff,

14thMarch 2012

In my last MEMO I brought it to the attention of all staff the importance of “INFORMANTS” in other Government Agencies. You are now aware that we are seeking one at the Commonwealth Ombudsman as MR XXXXXXXXXXX is about to retire.

Yesterday I received an email from one of our informants.

From: discretion02@hotmail.com
To: theleader03@hotmail.com
Subject: Confidential
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:10:35 +1100

Confidential

Dear Leader

I am aware that Ms Brown has contacted our Freedom of Information Officer and requested the names of the 33 agency heads referred to the Commonwealth Integrity Conduct Commission in the past financial year. I believe it is urgent that Adum Coma make contact with this officer and make special arrangements that this information is not made available to her.

Also my last payment has not as yet been received. Should I contact Adum Coma direct concerning this or will you do this for me.

I do not need to remind you the valuable contribution I make to the smooth running of your department.

Signed

Informant

This clearly demonstrates how this department relies on informants.

Signed

Your Leader

Posted 1 minute ago by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

MEMO TO ALL STAFF 4

Attention all staff,

I have received the resignation of one of our senior managers this week due to their indiscretion. The other senior manager Mr Mork Fingerly has gone on indefinite stress leave and is under psychiatric care and is sharing the same facilities as Matthew Newton.

I clearly remind all staff working in this department that they must comply the Australian Public Service Act.

Mork has been of great value to this department over the years, and has shown great ability in to write fictitious reports. He will be sorely missed.

You may send Mork a message wishing him well at his blog morko3.blogspot.com. I am sure he will be very happy to hear from his colleagues and we wish him a speedy recovery.

Further to this, our contact in the Commonwealth Ombudsman 's office that we were able to 

pay bribes to so decisions would look favorably for us is about to retire.

I do not need to remind staff of the value of the Power of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to mislead the Attorney General Nicola Roxan and Julia Gillard and the Federal Parliament.

Therefore if any staff member here has a relation or friend working at the Commonwealth Ombudsman and in a senior position who has computer skills and is capable of changing the final reports of Ombudsman investigators this department would be very happy to hear from them. This will be richly rewarded with payments from our “miscellaneous” Annual Budget. We hope to have this increased at the next “Senate Estimates” We have been closely liaising with all the ALB senators to try and achieve this

I have been advised by Adum Coma that payments have had to be made in the past 10 months to several officers at the Commonwealth Ombudsman to overlook evidence. It was necessary for Adum Coma to make travel to Canberra on several occasions with these payments in plain “ brown envelopes” These payments were for Maggie Chim- Chimmery and Kemp La Perv and several other officers. Also on the 11^th November 2011 Di Berrybull did a deal with this department to overlook “SHORTCOMINGS” We thank her for her “Co-operation” ********I clearly remind all staff that money does not grow on trees and our annual budget is not limitless.***********

The position to become vacant at the Commonwealth Ombudsman is similar to the one at “Fairwork” that is dealing with the Craig Thomson matter. This matter remains unresolved after almost 4 years The ALB remains pleased with the result.

The successful applicant would need to demonstrate absolute discretion and possess similar ability to create unrest if a decision may not be in this departments best interest.

Inquiries should be marked “ Confidential” and sent to Adum Coma atmailto:adumcoma@zitsa.com.au

Signed

YOUR LEADER

MEMO TO ALL STAFF 3

Attention all Staff,

5^th March 2012

I have just received a very disturbing phone call from the Commissioner's secretary.

I have brought to your attention on many previous occasions that sex between staff can lead to a conflict of interest and should be discouraged particularly in this office after hours.

Staff are constantly made aware that there are security cameras constantly rolling 24 /7 in the reception area.

I, therefore cannot understand why 2 senior managers have chosen to have sex on the lounge in reception in full view of these cameras.

It is even more disturbing that one of our staff members have made a copy of this recording and now it can be purchased on line at www.lovely nights.com . Further to this I have been advised that a portion of this tape has been put on U-TUBE.

This cannot bee seen to be proper management practice.

I also have now been informed that the Commissioner intends to use this recording for training purposes in the next National Forum on “Ethics and Conflict”

However, our legal officer, Mr Matty Osboone, who is held in very high esteem in legal circles and, according to his resume has turned down an offer of a  seat on the HIGH COURT to work for this department has advised that S134(3) of the Bankruptcy Act gives the discretion for Senior Management to do this.

I now want a full explanation on my desk by Friday explaining this conduct and how this behavior complies with the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Commissioners directions

Signed

Your Leader 

Posted just now by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

  

0 

Add a comment