Not surprising, yet mostly deplorable …

Geraldine Allan’s extensive detail of her conclusion of an appalling failure to investigate her allegations of corruption in Tasmania.
Two extracts here; the full article below
The Role of the Liberal Opposition
To balance the picture, I report that Liberal Leader Hodgman’s 2007 advisor Tim Sauer had the same “it didn’t happen” disease as the police. I hold no doubt that the opposition avoidance of this issue is because over the 25+ years, the Liberal Party and their associates have been involved. This matter did commence in 1982 under then Liberal Minister Neil Robson MHA. It appears the Opposition is fearful of ending up with ‘egg on face’ if questions are asked. Stupidly they remain ignorant of the fact that if they did investigate, it would be established their Minister was gravely misled. I believe they are protecting persons involved in the deception, because one of the major players in that went on to become an advisor in the 1990’s to then Attorney-General, Ray Groom. My question is how long is it before they move into the 21st century?
Tasmania Police
Yet, after having that evidence for almost 8 months, on 29th July 2008, by then Commissioner Jack Johnston wrote there was no need for police investigation because “The documentation does not contain any evidence”. As I presupposed would happen if no deliberations (with us, the complainants) took place there were many errors, inaccuracies and misunderstandings in his reply, some quite blatant. It is seriously lacking accuracy. In a nutshell, supported by the evidence I hold, my allegation is that the Commissioner has by his letter of 29th July 2008, and without Tasmania Police ever interviewing the complainants, refused to accept there is a need for police investigation into “any” of our 16 allegations of crime because … The documentation does not contain any evidence. That is plainly and demonstrably false and there is just no other way of saying it. I still have the crate of evidence as forwarded to Mr Jack Johnston. It is freely available to any person who wishes to inspect it, and I am and have always been, available to be interrogated about it. Fact is fact.

The (FOI revealed) history of what transpired behind the Tasmania Police scenes is at best incredible, at worst scandalous.
REPLY TO CLIVE STOTT’S: ETHICS: WHERE TO READ THE SUBMISSIONS: Here

#3 — Garry there is indeed so much to try and keep track of. Hours of reading if one is to keep abreast of the not surprising yet mostly deplorable, revelations.

I have no doubt that the limited time allowed for submissions contributed to many being unable to put forward their contribution to the Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct (JSCEC).

You write, “My memory is that some of the submissions, were, of necessity, not published, because of certain privacy considerations, for example. Was yours in this category?” The answer is yes. If readers go to the committee first interim report, dated 11 September 2008, @
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ctee/REPORTS/Interim%20Report%20Ethical.pdf
— on page 9 you will find ANNEXURE ‘B’

The Committee resolved that some of the submissions “should not be reported in order to ensure that no breaches of natural justice occurred by the denial of any right of reply and the possible denial of natural justice”…. “The Committee further recommends in accordance with Legislative Council Standing Order 202 that the documents listed in Annexure ‘B’ be not published.”

Those 17 non-published submissions included 12 from renowned banking whistleblower, Alwyn Johnson, and one from myself. They are listed as follows: –
3 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 1 July 2008
4 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 2 July 2008
5 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 4 July 2008
6 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 6 July 2008
7 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 5 July 2008
8 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 5 July 2008
9 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 6 July 2008
10 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 6 July 2008
12 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 8 July 2008
13 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 8 July 2008
14 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 9 July 2008
17 Alwyn Johnson – Submission dated 14 July 2008
19 Robert Patterson – Annexures to Submission
48 John Hawkins – Submission dated 23 July 2008
80 Benedict Bartl, Hobart Community Legal Service Inc. on behalf of Rodney Nichols – Annexures to Submission
5A Bruce Scott – Annexures to Submission
26A Geraldine Allan – Submission dated 18 August 2008

My submission
Because my submission 26A is not publicly available, it seems high time for me to have a chat about the background to, content of and reasons for, it. Because it was almost 115,000 words + 163 pages of Annexures, there is no way I can satisfactorily précis it for this commentary. What I can do at the outset is to say it is available on request with the criterion that my releasing it does not attract parliamentary privilege.

Public Submission
I had no concern about my submission being made publicly available. I knew I was truthful at all times and could support my claims with evidence. Also, I was acutely aware that my own integrity would be at stake if I resorted to any dishonest or morally worrisome comment. Whilst bearing that in mind, I did not hold back on recording fact, knowing that at times, persons involved would feel discomfort, as well they should.

Ensuring “that no breaches of natural justice occurred by the denial of any right of reply and the possible denial of natural justice” is for me, to some extent odd in that the saga I document started in 1982 because persons failed to “ensure that no breaches of natural justice occurred” and failed to afford “any right of reply and the possible denial of natural justice”. How times have changed, or does it depend on who you are — that is if you are a Minister, bureaucrat or just ‘ordinary’ person?

Background to the Inquiry
My understanding of the background leading to the establishment of the joint parliamentary inquiry was that until the 2008 change of Premier, and I believe for a short time into Mr. Bartlett’s reign, the Labor Government strongly argued that Tasmania did not need a corruption/ethics commission because independent oversight authorities already existed. The four more commonly nominated independent and alleged effective authorities that were frequently trotted out in discussions were Ombudsman, Tasmania Police, DPP and Auditor-General.

It had been suggested that this JSCEC inquiry was a result of (1) the aftermath of the Bryan Green/TCC affair, (2) the disastrously embarrassing Kons ‘Shreddergate’ incident, (3) the resignation of the Deputy Premier(s) and the Premier and (4) the cascade of revelations over the government’s handling of the Gunns Pulp Mill approvals process. I believe it is safe to say that had these events not occurred the JSCEC would not have been established.

Why the need for a Crime & Corruption Commission?
My submission was not directly related to 1-4 above-mentioned, although I recognised some of the systemic inadequacies complained about in these specific affairs. My submission was to provide detailed fact that confirmed the need for: –
a) Constructive reform to several layers of systemically dysfunctional public governance,
b) The return of integrity to the public administration and governance of this state, and
c) The contemptuous abuse of process to be halted.

A cure for the disease of bureaucracy and others being above the law, is needed. To my mind this can only come about through the establishment of an independent crime and corruption commission similar to those that operate in other states, yet modified to suit the size and requirements of Tasmania.

I agree with one 2008 commentator who, on Tasmanian Times wrote: – “The state needs an ICAC with teeth and soon. Apart from matters raised in the press, which are the subject of ongoing police inquiries, there needs to be an examination of the actions of certain public servants in the past. Public service should be just that and high positions should not be awarded to those with partisan political commitment, unless they can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the advice they offer is impartial and uncontaminated by the political hand.”

It is notable how visionary this commentator was in light of the recently released interim Legislative Council Select Committee report on the inquiry into Public Sector Executive Appointments.

Why did I make a submission to the JSCEC?
I felt duty-bound to do so. My submission was that of an ‘ordinary’ individual, or ‘ordinary Tasmanian’ with substantial knowledge, experience and very reliable evidence, relating to 25 years dealings with elected representatives, bureaucracy, governance and probity issues relative to the scope of this joint Parliamentary Inquiry. That is for 25 years, I have refused to spend my life sitting on the fence thereby allowing an imperfect system to dictate our approach.

I was able to provide a ‘one stop shop’ overview, and indeed I did in my substantial submission.

Intermittently over the past 25 years, I had dealt with each of the 16 agencies I nominated, thus my submission covered/detailed our experiences/outcomes relating to the purportedly “independent” oversight authorities.

Whilst I had no doubt other submissions would be of scholastic quality my paper was not intended to be nor was it, an academic thesis. The intention was to record the extent to which the majority of Tasmanians, who are ordinary people, are denied proper parliamentary representation and, access to remedy — and the length of time that can be ongoing.

As a background I included then MHA Peg Putt’s Motion 112 of 20 July 2001 since it gives an understanding of the matters I discuss. The motion, particularly item (2) (a)-(f), is most relevant to this parliamentary inquiry. Full Hansard text is found 20th July 2001I included that as an Annexure.

Also included, as an Annexure was a detailed diary of events relating to my own experiences. It describes how lives relative to the matters at issue, had been destroyed by illegal and unconstitutional official interference; also, it exposes the dark underside of public administration, government incompetence, corruption and cover-up in Tasmania. Sadly, it is a true record of how life can turn sour when successive Governments, both Liberal and Labor, with the assistance of a questionable bureaucracy and justice system, look for ‘easy answers’ rather than ‘correct answers’.

Due to my past experiences, knowledge and the evidence I hold, I believed it was imperative that I provide extensive evidence. Alas, I couldn’t risk the chance of this inquiry reporting the “there is no evidence” line thus I considered it essential to submit a substantial extent of reliable evidence.

My dilemma was — due to the undeniably limited time allowed for submissions; I was forced to prepare my paper in haste. That may have reflected on the quality of my work. Regrettably I had no secretarial or research assistance available. The submission was compiled in the format I believed would best convey the credence of the important information and evidence that has been gathered over the past 25 very long years. To my mind at least, that lengthy period of time was in itself significant and must attract integrity.

In the late 1990’s we (the Allans) through our own experiences, had become acutely aware that the expected and recognised, oversight safety nets were not correctly and sufficiently, operating in Tasmania. After some publicity of our case, other Tasmanians who were aggrieved by the systemic failures contacted us. Citizens exposed shocking revelations and thus we got together to discuss remedy. To this date we have maintained contact with some of those aggrieved (justifiably to my mind) Tasmanians.

Oversight and/or Remedial Assistance
Some of the revelations about the supposed systemic remedial assistance available to Tasmanians who are aggrieved by government or bureaucratic malpractices and excesses, were appalling. I recognised the validity of a lot of the reported practices — they aligned with our own experiences.

I undoubtedly knew I was not imagining or a “nutter” as per some parliamentary whispers. I have had to tolerate adverse gossip on this matter. Rumour has it that I am obsessed about the matters I have pursued for 25 years. I can wear that. In one sense who wouldn’t be obsessed after 25 years? Remarkably, in all these years, not one person has come face to face with me and told me my claims are lies. I suspect there has been the silent ministerial/bureaucratic hope that if we (myself and other aggrieved Tasmanians who have been denied natural justice and justice) are starved of appropriate action for long enough, the awkward and publicly embarrassing matters will go away. In several instances, that is not the case.

Encounters with other concerned Tasmanians highlighted the significance of community concern that the present watchdog ‘safety nets’ are not as functional as perhaps parliament intended when passing the relevant legislation. Without doubt they are not as useful and appropriate as the government claimed in 2008.

I expanded the list of the four more commonly discussed avenues of Tasmanian oversight and remedy in my submission to include others that I have experienced over the years. Generally I see the remedial avenues available to citizens as I listed in A-Z order. I then necessarily commented on the adequacy and effectiveness of these in that order.
1. Anti-Discrimination Commissioner
2. Attorney(s)-General
3. Auditor-General
4. Director of Public Prosecution, powers and activities
5. Ethical conduct expected of elected MHA’s and MLC’s
6. Freedom of Information
7. Governor; Governor-in-Council
8. Judicial Review
9. Legal Practitioners
10. Ministerial oversight
11. Natural Justice
12. Ombudsman
13. Public Interest Disclosure
14. Solicitor-General
15. State public servants/Bureaucracy
16. Tasmania Police

I recorded unquestionable evidence of experiences relating to the above-listed 16 areas, over the past two and a half decades. I was unable to put forward any suggested solutions other than the establishment of an independent crime and corruption commission.

The “reconnecting and rebuilding” that Premier Bartlett talked about can only come about by the founding of an independent commission. Democracy has been degraded to a point where the previously nominated and existing bodies could not re-build it.

Some comments and details under the headers were brief. For the more serious and sinister activities, I provided substantial detail in order to put across evidence of the at times, deep disorder that has spread through Tasmanian governance and public administration.

Tasmania Police
In particular, I was gravely concerned that Tasmania Police were being touted as one of the prime areas of oversight already available to and effective for, Tasmanians. At the very time of preparing my submission, I was dealing with the then Police Commissioner Johnston re our formal complaint of criminal activities in executive government and related to other persons involved in the matters raised.

After two years of what seemed to me police dabbling with our formal complaint and, after FOI confirmed my fears of internal reluctance to investigate a formal complaint, in December 2007 after our further expressions of discontent, then Deputy Commissioner Jack Johnston requested that we forward the ‘direct evidence’ of most serious allegations of crime surrounding the extra-ordinary circumstances of 25 years experiences to which I refer. That crate of ‘direct evidence’ was forward to Tasmania Police — Hobart, for review, on 10th January 2008.

It is important for the reader to remember that at this point of time, police had not interviewed either my husband or myself. I found it an extremely difficult exercise to pre-empt the substance of a police interview and then provide the required “direct evidence” that may be necessary for the reader to understand the allegations and then identify the crimes from within a large volume of filed evidence. These crimes were not straightforward activities. On the contrary, they were complex and concealed in a way that was designed to protect the wrongdoers from detection of criminal activities. What I found most inexcusable and intolerable was that the protection afforded the wrongdoers had Ministerial and bureaucratic support, and was publicly funded all without question and accountability.

Each allegation had its specific and separate actions that were mostly independent of each other. The accusations, about which direct evidence was supplied, were: –
a) Conspiring
b) Intentionally concealing vast amount of evidence — suppressing evidence
c) Willfully suppressing evidence
d) False swearing and filing a false affidavit.
e) Conspiring and fraud
f) Fraud — Fraudulently obtaining public funding. The concealment of material facts from the Minister in order to obtain public funding.
g) Gravely misleading the Minister with a false statement of information, thus unlawfully interfering with his obligations under the given/applicable act.
h) Conspiracy to seriously mislead and, then successfully misleading, the Minister, thus interfering with his parliamentary obligations.
i) Government Agency misleading Minister(s) and officers of the Crown who came into position after 1983, thus interfering with their obligations under the terms of their appointment.
j) Conspiracy to seriously mislead and then successfully misleading, an appointed public officer [Ombudsman]
k) Destruction of evidence
l) Perjury, false swearing and fabricating evidence,
m) Failure of public officers to perform duty of appointment
n) Contrary to State Archives Act, DPP destroyed a file without approval of Archives office
o) Perverting justice
p) Accessories after the fact

Yet, after having that evidence for almost 8 months, on 29th July 2008, by then Commissioner Jack Johnston wrote there was no need for police investigation because “The documentation does not contain any evidence”. As I presupposed would happen if no deliberations (with us, the complainants) took place there were many errors, inaccuracies and misunderstandings in his reply, some quite blatant. It is seriously lacking accuracy.

In a nutshell, supported by the evidence I hold, my allegation is that the Commissioner has by his letter of 29th July 2008, and without Tasmania Police ever interviewing the complainants, refused to accept there is a need for police investigation into “any” of our 16 allegations of crime because … The documentation does not contain any evidence. That is plainly and demonstrably false and there is just no other way of saying it. I still have the crate of evidence as forwarded to Mr Jack Johnston. It is freely available to any person who wishes to inspect it, and I am and have always been, available to be interrogated about it. Fact is fact.

The (FOI revealed) history of what transpired behind the Tasmania Police scenes is at best incredible, at worst scandalous.

For the Commissioner to arrive at that decision still without affording us, the complainants, an interview is extra-ordinary to our minds and other commentators believe likewise, especially when one considers the seriousness of the allegations. In hindsight, I now know there were more important happenings to be dealt with at Tasmania Police Commissioner’s office.

Yes, Premier Bartlett and Police Minister Cox, who is also the elected Bass representative, were subsequently advised (via e-mail) and following some two weeks two-ing and fro-ing with his advisor, Mr Gerald Jones, I e-mailed Mr Jim Cox MHA about my discontent and alarm. On 7th September 2008. The following is verbatim copy of his not surprising e-mail response from the Minister: –
Geraldine You are entitled to your beliefs based on whatever information you may have and I can assure you that considerable time and effort was put into looking into your claims.and I believe they were also treated respectfully and fairly.You are obviously entitled to do and reject whatever you choose .I am sorry we were unable to give you the answer you wanted Regards Jim

And I replied: –
Thanks for the reply Jim.

Regards,
Geraldine A

I should include here that I did not forward the above-mentioned comments onto the Minister. I decided it was a waste of time. In any event, his advisor Mr Jones had them. It was time to move onto another approach and that I did.

Linderberg Submission
A really worthwhile read is contained in the oral evidence of Mr Kevin Linderberg, his case often known as Queensland’s Shreddergate. He gave evidence to the JSCEC in Brisbane on 24th November 2008. The transcript is on the webpage, and his evidence commences at page 54.
I quote from page 55, wherein he quoted
“the Honourable James Spiegelman, the Chief Justice in New South Wales, speaking at ICAC and an Interpol Conference in Hong Kong in January 2003 made the following observation on the interconnectedness of modern governance and its potentially fatal Achilles heel. He said:

In these few words Mr Chairman, Mr Spiegelman has captured the essence of the Heiner
affair. The affair’s systemic perversion of the law is comprehensively captured in the
Rofe audit of the affair.”

Mr Linderberg’s oral submission (his written submission is No 24A) reassures me at least, and hopefully many other Tasmanians, crying out for change, that we are not alone, and our cries are justified.

The Role of the Liberal Opposition
To balance the picture, I report that Liberal Leader Hodgman’s 2007 advisor Tim Sauer had the same “it didn’t happen” disease as the police. I hold no doubt that the opposition avoidance of this issue is because over the 25+ years, the Liberal Party and their associates have been involved. This matter did commence in 1982 under then Liberal Minister Neil Robson MHA. It appears the Opposition is fearful of ending up with ‘egg on face’ if questions are asked. Stupidly they remain ignorant of the fact that if they did investigate, it would be established their Minister was gravely misled. I believe they are protecting persons involved in the deception, because one of the major players in that went on to become an advisor in the 1990’s to then Attorney-General, Ray Groom. My question is how long is it before they move into the 21st century?

Here is a posting of my 3rd May 2007 commentary to Tasmanian Times: –

Well Don #16 and other interested readers, I received my phone-call today. In essence the caller said there is nothing the Liberal Party can do to advance the matter. I was told that the caller had made some approaches to the media [no names mentioned] and they’re not interested. Why am I not surprised? The question I ask is why would the media be avoiding their obligation to the public – the public have the right to know. This is serious stuff. I can only assume that either the media is too close to the persons/subject, or they are afraid of the persons/subject. Whichever, neither is OK.
I can most certainly assure all readers that the public do not know of the unprosecuted/turn a blind eye to – crime that I am talking about.
I would have expected the Opposition Party to be right onto it. However, that’s not the case. I am told there is nothing they can do to further the matter! It appears my expectations are way out of sync. Some suggestions were put to me as to how I might, just might, advance the matter. I may try those. But then I am not elected and handsomely paid to be the government watchdog. But as many would already be aware, it seems that’s how it works here in Tasmania.
So here’s my summary of the Will Hodgman website, yes I got a response but I was hoping for some constructive action. I am not surprised at the outcome, but I am very, very disillusioned with the representation for the people. So, not a lot has changed. I’ve had similar phone-calls from previous oppositions … yes we really care about your concerns, and we’ve really tried to find an outcome that will help YOU, but unfortunately there isn’t anything we can do.
Well I say forget about ME, just concentrate on the improper activity that is allowed to run wild. When there is first hand evidence of criminal conduct, serious criminal conduct that is, in an agency under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, I believe it is imperative for any opposition to delve deeply if the Attorney-General fails in his duty to organise an investigation …but that’s just not how it happens it seems.
I hope I haven’t wandered too far off the thread. Stay tuned; this is not the end of the matter. Any person wanting more information just click on my name below and email me.
Posted by Geraldine Allan on 03/05/07 at 04:23 PM

Other Commonly Nominated Oversight Authorities
I have not been able to condense this commentary to detail the involvement of Auditor-General Blake who, I know had informal discussions with Police Commissioner Johnston about the improper gaining of public funding = fraud. Mr Blake commented to me in August 2008 that he gained the impression “the police do not want to get involved in this”.

Nor have I recorded the impotence of the Ombudsman’s office that seems obsessed with finding any reason to not get involved. It is important to remember Ombudsman Allston is a former Crown Law officer.

I allocated 31 pages of my submission to what I believe to be malfeasance in the Office of the DPP.

Conclusion
So, returning to my earlier comment that “the four more commonly nominated independent and alleged effective authorities that were frequently trotted out in discussions were Ombudsman, Tasmania Police, DPP and Auditor-General”, readers may now understand why I am indeed cynical, obsessed, a nutter and any other tag my accusers wish to apply.

The media do not appear to want to know about or expose the fact that Tasmania Police have no desire to investigate, and have deliberately turned a blind-eye to allegations of most serious crime in Tasmania. Can anyone suggest why this is so?