Friday, January 29, 2010

Dear Public Trustee Office of South Australia.



YOU are leaking like a sieve.

By the end of each week, I have collected enough anecdotes for another chapter in my WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE bulging, heavyweight manila folder.

I love Blogging. That neat little Comment As:ANONYMOUS Post button at the bottom.

Of course, not all messages ring true. Some are mischievous, others...well, I’ve been insulted by experts!

However, having worked at Public Trustee for 6 years, just way tooooo many keep ringing the same old bells.

Mr. Bodycoat. Thee Public Trustee. At the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry, you gave a glowing report on your efforts to turnaround various cultural aspects of the Office. And, having worked with you for 2 years at Consumer Affairs, no one can convince me that your endeavours are anything other than fair dinkum.

BUT, your problem, an insurmountable problem is...people have seen how I was treated (and some others who stood up) and where I ended up!

They do not want to travel that path.

There were other ‘alleged’ bullies investigated by the Government Investigations Unit during its long sojourn.

Unfortunately, the Moss Inquiry only dealt with one. And, the flow-on from that GUILTY VERDICT should have Attorney-General Department bureaucrats, CEO Jerome Maguire, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL ATKINSON hanging their collection of heads in shame!

I will continue to feed serious allegations to the appropriate authorities. But then, that is what I was doing for years...with obvious huge success!

Many of the allegations are extremely serious. Allegations that should only be submitted to a Corruption Watchdog, an ICAC.

The Justice Portfolio, with its collection of Investigative Bodies, should NOT be investigating within!

 Hopefully, a truly independent Watchdog will happen, this year. If I were you, I would sit back and simply wait as you could be wasting years of your life...like I did!

Saturday, January 23, 2010

When is a Parliamentary Inquiry NOT a Parliamentary Inquiry



When people are just too frightened to give evidence.

This has been the case in the 2009 Inquiry into the Office of the Public Trustee.

One would think, and certainly as I did with 9 years of whistleblowing under my plastic belt that a Parliamentary Inquiry must be the ultimate earth-shattering event.

When a collective sigh of relief gives way to content minds and happier households. A time when you no longer believe that the light at the end of the tunnel is another train.

Here are two Comments recently posted to my Blog. These Posts are credible. They simply confirm my own firsthand observations and what my Public Trustee sources have been saying for a long time:

Rob McKibbin was NOT the ONLY ONE bullied and continues to not be the only one being (yes present tense) bullied in the SA public service. And I know the place where he used to work and I know of at least three people there who are still being bullied. One more than the rest. It seems the managers think if the person does not take a complaint to higher up that then they can keep bullying the person until they say something to management. But then the people who do not speak up tell me they have seen what has happened to people who have spoken to management and they do not want that to happen to them - retaliation from the middle managers. So lose lose lose all the way. And none of those people would have dared go to the inquiry because they saw what senior management did to Rob. Once again it is lose lose lose at every step. They should have allowed people to give evidence without revealing to management the names of those people. So the Inquiry has not been thorough enough in my view. Where I work in the SA public service many good people have chosen to leave to protect their health after being bullied. And a few bullies have chosen to leave when they have run out of puff to keep bullying in that arena. And sadly some bullies have come back because where I work in the SA public service bullying is allowable and even sanctioned (by inaction by management). Team Leaders are the most prevalent form of bullying followed by middle managers. Bullies are cunning inadequate and pathetic. But the greatest joy for a bully is to destroy people. They also like to subject the person being bullied to far more scrutiny than the next person. And exclude them every step of the way. Wake up Mr Atkinson and Mr Rann the inner core of your ship is septic.If you took better action for the victims and against the bullies it would be harder for bullies to get away with it.

Rob, there are a lot of us witnesses out here. We were all threatened. We were told if we wanted to make submissions to any of the "enquiries" you list, they first had to be submitted to senior management. A complete farce. Those at the top still don't care nor care to understand as to what we are on about. Who are all these dumb people on six figure salaries and how did they get their jobs? Oh golly, they all seem to know each other very well don't they. Just look into the coffee shops in Pirie Street, Gawler Place and Grenfell Street (make sure its between 10 and 3 though).. You will eventually spot them all! Good luck and don't give up.

I have now been unemployed for the past 17 months. I still have troubles with my health, problems that arose through my employment. This has been acknowledged.

Should I be asking myself if I really achieved anything? Should I have just kept my gob shut and checked my bank balance every fortnight?

I just don’t know anymore. It is a struggle out here. We don’t have much money coming in, and even when I do score an interview I start throwing-up. I don’t mind sharing this, as this is what can happen to anyone who takes up the fight.

I am told by the experts not to present myself as a victim or to even think like a victim. Well, you know, when rent day comes around and you’re scrounging around the back of the sofa looking for long lost coins, it’s a big ask!

South Australia's Attorney-General and his boring anti-ICAC rants!



The Attorney-General of South ‘dead lawns’ Australia must be permanently plugged in to every transmitting radio station in the state.


During the last week he has been popping up, repeatedly, everywhere.

Trouble is, the most boring aspect of this is, his same-old same-old rant & rave about why this state does not need an ICAC. A corruption watchdog.

Mick, let me give you a helping hand. For the sake of the public’s sanity and your credibility, will you please re-write the bloody script!

I have been popping up too. Notice that Mister Attorney-General? When you bob up, so does your little Irish mate. We are Fellow bobbers.

You know me. Yep, your ex-employee who was telling you about the bullying, the corruption, the sexual harassment, the financial skullduggery that was happening under your watch.

BUT.... you didn’t want to know about it. Because, if you had taken me seriously, there would not have been a Court Case, a GIU investigation, a Disciplinary Inquiry, and a Parliamentary Inquiry dominating my 9-year stint of playing with a whistle.

And you probably will claim to know nothing of your department’s tactics to shut me up. Here's an example of your finest at work.

Beginning of 2006, just after I was wrenched out of Public Trustee and told to stay away for a year for the sake of my health, for weeks on end I was seated at the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner in Grenfell Street.

Sitting on my royal Irish arse doing absolutely NOTHING!

At least I got to sit and watch the races on the screen in the corner.

Yep, on sixty eight thousand taxpayer buckaroos doing squat! Like someone there said to me....Rob, we got nothing for you!

Then there were the few months in 2008 when I was tossed into Justice Technical Services. That was a real hoot. ANOTHER BLOODY BULLY!!!! Whoa, was I surprised when I complained...and, well, history simply began to repeat!

And that was a real clever move getting rid of my permanent position back at Public Trustee whilst I was out grazing. Good on ya. I am positive had it been one of your children being subjected to this crap...hang on, no, it wouldn’t have happened to any of your children, would it.

I still have the letter stating that my position would be protected during the periods of investigation. So much for written assurances from my employer. You're a lawyer...do I have a case?

So loved the time I was put on box-unpacking duty for a month. Hey, I didn’t give a stuff. Good exercise. I needed it.

Ooppss...I strayed. The ICAC.

You, Mister Attorney-General do not know what you are talking about. You have not been through the mills of all those agencies that you claim to be out there doing such sterling jobs, and in their own way I am sure they are...can I finish a sentence with ARE?

I lost NINE years of my life looking for help. I laboriously worked my way through all your Agencies and their respective legislations and regulations and processes and interviews and letters and...and... and. And eventually, yep, I broke down.

Then the good bit. I had to go on Workcover. Why? You won’t remember the time that Public Trustee stopped my pay. That was a nice touch. Well done. Brav bloody O.

Had I not taken a Workcover Redemption and got the hell out of that mess, I would either be in hospital or be having the longest conversation in history with an earthworm.

That is CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL......look it up in your old Uni notebooks.

And that's a clever touch, putting most of Adelaide's Law Firms on your List of Interested Parties for possible work. I know this because NOT ONE would assist me as, and I quote, it could be a conflict of interest. Well, bugger me!

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK!!!!!

March of 2000. Had I been able to appear at a one-stop shop with my complaints, I would more than likely still have my job, still enjoy good health, and still be a productive ICT Network System Administrator within the public service.

Instead of vilifying my good character, you should call me in for a cuppa and say; “Rob, it appears the system failed you. Is there anything we can do to make it better?”.

No. That way of thinking requires compassion and a duty of care. If I could afford a fearless lawyer, I would sue your ass right out of your pants!!!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Why am I running for Parliament. March 2010.



Some months ago, I was approached by a group of people suggesting I run against my local member, Ms Jennifer Rankine (Labor) in the Electorate of Wright.

At that time I was looking for some positive residue from my nine years of whistleblowing re: corruption, workplace bullying, sexual harassment, and so on.

After all, that struggle did ‘help’ the Government see me to the unemployment and unemployable rubbish dump of life.

It took our Attorney-General, Mister Michael Atkinson 2 sentences on radio station 5AA to flick my switch and drag me out from the shunting yard.

I thought to myself, how can this man, oh, this self-confessed religious man tell porky pies about me and the swill I was immersed in for years within the Public Service.

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com/2010/01/attorney-general-allegations-truths-and.html

Yep, our doyen of Justice.

I just shook the head and made really strange guttural sounds.

And it dawned on me. If this is the calibre of people running the show, I can do better. Like, who better than a victim to take on the bullies!

I have lived here for the past 34 years, and I sense the time is right for Independents to get into this circus.

I don’t give a toss about the Adelaide Oval. But, when this Government pledges nearly HALF A BILLION BUCKS of our money to a makeover, I lose it.

Why? Because from my house I can see Jennifer Rankine’s electorate office. Our Minister for Housing. I can also see a station wagon, to the left, in which a young family has camped out in for a while because the bloody Housing Trust, or whatever it’s called nowadays cannot find her a place to live.

We can spend EIGHT MILLION on a Panda enclosure, but we don’t seem to be able to put a dent in housing waiting lists that stretch on for years.

Gimme a break!!!

There is something really wrong today. But then, maybe it’s me. Maybe most of the South Australian people are tanked up with jobs, cash, and love the Pandas.

Nevertheless, all that can be tested on 20 March 2010.

I’m just an average bloke. I enjoy my pints at my local with my mates, I’m always calling up Origin and Optus looking for payment extensions, I'm on the bones of my unemployed Irish ass, and I have my fellow countryman Peter Lalor up there as my hero for the downtrodden.

I loathe pomp and circumstance, I loathe taxpayer subsidised sausage rolls in the Parliament House canteen, and I really, really loathe Politicians that tell porky pies!

I’ll give it a shot. What do I have to lose? Like I said, I’m out here in the wilderness courtesy of this state’s Public Service and its henchmen. How sweet the taste of being elected and helping to get that Corruption Watchdog (ICAC) up and about with retrospective powers.

If I miss out.....well, back to the Blog. At least I’m still living.

Oh, and if anyone cares to pledge advice (I've never done this before) it will be graciously accepted. Unlike some of the clowns that have wormed their way into politics in the past, I don't have a propaganda machine to snowball me along.

My direct email is accessible via my Profile top right hand corner.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

What the South Australian Labor Government thinks of Complaints



After 4 years of lodging complaints with the Office of the Public Trustee (where I worked in I.T.), the Attorney-General’s Department, the Equal Opportunity Commission, and a swag of Ministers and Elected Members, we all wound up in Court. I represented myself against the 'might' of the Crown Solicitor.

As Judge Rice confirmed, very little was done in response to my on-going complaints, though, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson disagrees.


I had exercised my right as per 95B(c) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984:

95B—Referral of complaints to Tribunal

If, in respect of a complaint, the Commissioner—

(a) is of the opinion that the matter cannot be resolved by conciliation; or

(b) has attempted to resolve the matter by conciliation but has not been successful in that attempt; or

(c) has declined to recognise the complaint as one on which action should be taken and the complainant has, within 3 months of being notified of the Commissioner's decision, by notice in writing, required the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Tribunal, the Commissioner must refer the matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination.

My reason for taking this action was solely to have someone made responsible for the actions of the Senior Manager and for the non-actions of the many.

My vindication from the Judge Rice Determination. The South Australian Government’s attitude towards complaints:

Extracted from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SAEOT/2004/1.html?query=mckibbin

“During this two-year period, on many occasions, I made contact with Management, with Sexual Harassment contact officers, and with various Human Resources staff members. Each & every time I stressed that this aggravated offence was continuing. It would be difficult to suggest that Management was never aware of the problems. As an observer, it would be easy to believe that the situation was totally ignored.” (Rob McKibbin evidence)

The Determination continues:

23 The Public Trustee wrote a memorandum to Mr McKibbin dated 25th September 2002, referring back to the meeting of 16th September (exhibit P3). After dealing with the formal counselling of Mr H that had already taken place, the Public Trustee responded to Mr McKibbin’s assertions referred to in his note of 16th September as quoted above. The Public Trustee said this: -

“You will no doubt be aware that I cannot act officially until I receive a formal complaint. I have been informed that only once during this period was a formal complaint laid and this resulted in a mediation session and counselling for those involved. It is my understanding that your approaches to various Contact Officers, Peer Support Officers and Management during this period were made informally and no official complaint was filed.”

24 The Public Trustee refers to the need for a “formal complaint”. Mr McKibbin told us that there was a requirement by management that he put the complaint in writing before it could be acted upon. There is certainly no requirement that a complaint should be in writing. We would understand the reference to “formal complaint” to be a complaint that the person making the complaint wants it to be acted upon. However, in our view, the responsibilities of management do not depend upon whether the initiator of the complaint wishes the behaviour to be acted upon. Indeed, the responsibilities of management to take action do not even depend upon a complaint. For example, management may be aware by observation that a situation of actual or potential sexual harassment exists. Management would be obliged to act in the absence of a complaint and even in the face of a desire by the person against whom the conduct was directed, that no action be taken. We have more to say about that later, especially exhibit P7.

143 It is not enough to wait for a complaint before appropriate action needs to be taken by managers/employers. An employer’s obligation to prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation does not begin at the time that a formal complaint (e.g. a written note from, or documentation provided by, a complainant to an employer, or a written note from, or documentation provided by, an employee or manager witnessing the behaviour) is made. Certainly, if at the time a formal complaint is made, it is the first time that the employer is made aware that potentially discriminatory, harassing or victimising behaviour has occurred, and the employer takes appropriate and immediate action in response including reasonable steps to prevent contravention of the Act, the employer is more likely to have met the requisite statutory standard to avoid vicarious liability. However, if an employer is made aware informally of potentially discriminatory, harassing or victimising behaviour (e.g. observations of staff verbally conveyed to management, management observing relevant behaviour and so on) prior to a formal complaint being made, and the employer takes no action until the formal complaint is made, the fact the employer takes appropriate and commensurate action in response would not be sufficient to avoid its being found vicariously liable.”

62 We find that Mr McKibbin raised with Mr O’Neill, on a number of occasions before August 2002, the sexually suggestive conduct and behaviour of Mr H. We are unable to say on how many occasions Mr McKibbin did so, but we consider it to be a significant number. We also find that Mr McKibbin was raising these matters in the form of an oral complaint. The precise status of those complaints was the subject of dispute. Certainly there was no need for any such complaint to be in writing. In our view, the number of complaints made by Mr McKibbin and the nature of the conduct about which he was complaining, made it imperative that management intervene at an early stage. This management failed to do. The necessary policies were in place but their application was misunderstood or misguided.

65 In our view, in this instance Public Trustee impliedly authorised Mr H’s conduct (and here we are not referring to management conduct or style) by doing nothing about Mr McKibbin’s complaints or not doing sufficient about them. In our view, Public Trustee has vicariously authorised that conduct.

I got what I wanted. But, when I returned to work the following Monday, the victimisation ramped up! Then I had a further 4 years of nonsense....oh, and just like in the movies, I received a cash offer the night before to drop the case! That letter holds pride of place on my wall as evidence of how up-them-selves these clowns were at the time.

The Labor Party, in touch with the grass roots. Here, read your own dribble, "...Labor's enduring values, which were born in the collective struggle for better living and working conditions in the last century, are reflected in the progressive and reformist tradition which the Party embodies and in the continuing pursuit of a society which values our security; champions fairness and equality; believes in communities and families; promotes social justice and compassion; values environmental sustainability; supports freedom, liberty and enterprise; and strives for opportunity and aspiration..."

Monday, January 11, 2010

The South Australian Attorney-General's numb reaction to my Court Determination.


On 29 June 2004, my good wife contacted your office in relation to a judgment handed down by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in the District Court on 25 June 2004.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SAEOT/2004/1.html?query=mckibbin

Dated 30 September 2004, you responded to the Emails she had sent to the Premier, Mr Mike Rann, and to you at your Parliament House email address.

In part you said; “…The Premier has asked me to respond to your email as the matter falls within my area of responsibility. I have read all 22 pages of the judgment, slowly and carefully…”

Slowly and carefully? Let’s test that.

Simple. Let me deal with one piece of the Judgment, extracted from a written complaint signed off by three complainants at the Office of the Public Trustee. I was one of the three. I want you to note the word THREE as on Radio 5AA last week you gave listeners the impression that I was a solitary repeat-offending whinger who when not getting my way screamed that the investigate body(s) must be corrupt! Hang on, let me quote you:

“…the trouble with Mr McKibbin is that his allegations haven’t been sustained. They’ve been fully investigated and they haven’t been sustained, it hasn’t turned out the way he wants them to. Some of the things he raised with you, like sexual harassment and workplace bullying just don’t have any connection with corruption. When he doesn’t get his way his next move is to say … well there’s corruption here because I’m not getting my way…”

“…nothing will ever make them happy unless there is a finding in their favour, and if there’s not a finding in their favour then there’s something wrong with the body that did the investigation. (Smithson: But they’re entitled to have their say …) Of course they are…and they receive massive media coverage…(Smithson: And we are quite happy to air his views on this program, and we have.) … and I’m happy to come on and respond each time...”

Extracted from Judgment handed down 25 June 2004:

Sexual and Racial Harassment.

Persistent references to Muslims & Catholics.

Persistent reference to how the Indonesians severed penises off of Dutch soldiers and rammed them down their throats.

References to the ‘chopping off of heads of children’ & the showing of pictures sent to him.

Persistent ‘touching’ around the private areas in front of staff in main work area, and in privacy of office in front of staff.

Persistent sexual lewdness with various objects around the office. (Anything resembling a penis).

Disrupting a Person’s Work.

 
Constantly in the main work area talking sex & general crap.

 
Humiliating an individual through sarcasm, criticism or insults, sometimes in front of other employees or customers.

 
Constant critical references to the likes of EDS representatives and Protech representatives about Des O’Neill.

 
Relentless criticism about DJ.

 
Saying in front of DS and others that it is RMcK’s fault that I.T. is under the spotlight from DO’N and that RMcK is a troublemaker.

 
Persistent Nit-Picking or Unjustified Comments

 
Constantly telling the Help Desk & Support Services Supervisor that he should not be so friendly with staff, and that he should not be having lunch with them.

 
And that he is not a capable Manager of people.

 
Constant enquiries as to what we were talking to other Officers about, when seen by him shortly before.

Shouting and Screaming & Intimidating Aggressive Body Language

 
Various heated episodes with the CBIS Project Manager, RMcK, PU, and NA.

 
Telling various staff that various individuals can ‘get fucked’ whilst remonstrating loudly with extreme body language.”

 
And what was your reaction to just this little iddy-biddy bit? Back to your letter.

 
Firstly, as with the majority of ministerial responses involving a government agency, at least half of the content was a cut & paste from the Public Trustee’s response to your ministerial. This I know, because I SAW the response to your office.

 
That Public Trustee response, by the way, was CRAP!

 
Para 4: “…let me assure you that there has never been any suggestion that your husband has done anything wrong…”

Para 8: “…I understand the Manager who was the subject of the complaint has been formally counselled on many occasions…”

Para 9: “…the Public Trustee has provided all managers and staff with equal opportunity training…”

  
Counselled? Training?

Your muted response certainly suggests to me that your level of sensitivity is not up there with mine or with that of others, many others. I wonder had any of the actions described in the complaint extract (above) would have been managed had they occurred within your office or at Parliament House.

And what about the behaviour of Crown Law during that three-day Hearing in March of 2004. How I was subjected to the most vicious and cruel cross-examination over two days as your people battled to discredit me and to shift the paradigm of blame across to me.

And when it was revealed that I was sexually accosted as a twelve year old?

Beautiful, there was the event that triggered my over-reactions. Bloody unbelievable!

Do you ever wonder why I persisted over the years? Nothing to do with the vicitmisation that prevailed after I returned from Court? Why that even some years later I still feel the need to air my grievances? Why I believe that the system failed me and will more than likely continue to fail others?

No you don’t, you don’t wonder about it at all. Probably like many others that stand up to you and your Government, I’m seen as a bloody nuisance, aren’t I. I was a nuisance when I began to complain in March 2000, and I’m still a nuisance.

For goodness gracious sake, fess up, stop vilifying and destroying the lives of the honest ones, and learn from your past mistakes. Yeah….right!

And here's a teaser for a future Post.....where was my Union during these years of discontent?

Thursday, January 7, 2010

The Attorney-General, Allegations, Truths, and Skeletons


Please note: Michael Atkinson has been replaced by John Rau
(January 2011)

On Radio Station 5AA this week, during our interview, you (South Australia's doyen of all that represents Truth & Justice) said about me; “… the trouble with Mr McKibbin is that his allegations haven’t been sustained. They’ve been fully investigated and they haven’t been sustained…”

Let's deal with facts, as supported by others.

The Statutory Authorities Review Committee, comprised of Independents from the Upper House, Members of the Liberal Party, and Members of your Labor Party, recently tabled its findings from the Parliamentary Inquiry in to the Office of the Public Trustee (OPT).

In part, it details evidence given by your own Government Investigations Unit (GIU), a significant investigation that I pushed for, and was agreed to in lieu of my continuing action(s) against the Department. The Report also gives details of the subsequent Moss Inquiry. And please, DO NOT claim the fame for these events....I brought them about, not you or your CEO!

Your people did not want me back in The Dock spilling my guts. And, it is a disgrace for your CEO to suppress the findings of the Moss Inquiry. The usual slap in the face to the victims!!

Judging by your comments in public this week, you have not read the Committee's report.

Excerpt:

9.3.3 Government Investigations Unit

According to the Public Trustee, the GIU conducted a long and detailed investigation of a wide-ranging series of allegations made by Mr McKibbin and others. Mr Andrew Hill, Manager of the GIU, gave evidence to the Committee in camera in relation to this investigation. He explained that an email was circulated by the then Public Trustee to all staff to report to the GIU any events of bullying behaviour they had experienced. This process resulted in a number of staff members coming forward and led to an investigation into allegations made about four individuals at the OPT. The individuals in question were interviewed in order to determine if their behaviour amounted to a prima facie breach of the Public Sector Management Act 1995 (PSM Act). Information arising out of those interviews was handed to the Crown Solicitor, who in turn advised the Public Trustee on potential breaches of the PSM Act. This led to a disciplinary hearing, which was conducted into one of the four individuals complained about in relation to inappropriate behaviour of the OPT.


9.3.4 Moss Inquiry

On 23 November 2006, the Chief Executive of the Attorney-General’s Department served a Notice of Inquiry upon an employee of the OPT. Responsibility for the conduct of the Inquiry was delegated to Mr Alan Moss, retired Chief Judge of the Youth Court and former Chief Magistrate. Mr Moss heard evidence from a number of staff members of the OPT and, on 10 November 2008, he found that the employee had breached the PSM Act and was liable to disciplinary action.

I draw your attention to the fact that the GIU Investigation, although briefed to investigate the bullying culture at the OPT teased out allegations of other more serious matters. Several of these more serious matters have yet to surface.

When you said that my allegations had, and let me quote your own words, “…been fully investigated and they haven’t been sustained…” , you knew that not to be true. So, why did you say that?

I first wrote to your department CEO in 2003. I first wrote to your office in 2004. And in the House of Assembly in 2006 you bleated on about knowing nothing about the investigations into the Office of the Public Trustee.

The strange thing is, I have the utmost respect for your endeavours in the arena of Law and Order. Many of the moves you have made with respect to organised crime are gutsy. I tip my hat.

But then, why did you let your own people suffer, at the Office of Public Trustee, for so long. Workplace Bullying of the worst kind. Sexual harassment that had females in tears. One staff member wound up in the bloody mental hospital at Glenside. Another had to be urgently attended to as he sat at his desk muttering on about suicide. When another collapsed, unconscious, the bully of that time said to me; 'Before you send him home, he has a report I asked for this afternoon'.

Then we have the allegations relating to some extremely serious matters, particularly one matter I reported to your own Department only to be given a lecture on the laws of Libel and Slander!

You still sit on a powder keg Mr Atkinson, and I know the locations of the untouched skeletons. I would have more respect for you as a human being if you look before you leap! I don't tell lies......

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

What South Australia's Attorney-General thinks of Whistleblowers & Interstate Commissions Against Corruption!




As the move for an ICAC in the state of South Australia gathers moss, with the bottom of the hill significantly within sight, the Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson persists with his same-old same-old boring argument against an ICAC. That this state has a plethora of investigative bodies citizens can turn to.

Monday 4 January 2010, The Advertiser published my letter:

The Attorney-General ('System Working', The Advertiser, 1/1/2010) inadvertently puts up a magnificent case FOR an ICAC. I was a whistleblower for 9 years in the South Australian Public Service, and I climbed the ladder of greasy rungs. My only vindication, after struggling through years of engaging with Michael’s plethora of investigative bodies, was a determination by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in 2004, and the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry into the Office of the Public Trustee. I can state quite categorically that ALL agencies I took my complaints to, including the parliamentary offices of the Premier and the Attorney-General, failed me. Let’s face it, had ANY of them been effective between 2000 and 2009, would my struggle have brought about a Parliamentary Inquiry? I think not. The system is not working Mr Atkinson. And the costs associated with the running of these agencies must be horrendous. An ICAC to replace this long slippery ladder would save the taxpayer a small fortune, and more than likely help preserve the mental health and wellbeing of the victims.

Same morning, on radio station 5AA, Mike Smithson interviewed me, along with another ex-public servant and the Attorney-General. I recalled some of my experiences as a whistleblower (March 2000 to September 2008) whilst employed as a senior I.T. officer within the Justice Portfolio of the South Australian Public Service.

Some of Michael Atkinson’s comments:

…. understand where all the media stands on this because they want an Independent Commission Against Corruption so allegations can be published under privilege and people can be smeared…

…to deal with your two callers, the trouble with Mr McKibbin is that his allegations haven’t been sustained. They’ve been fully investigated and they haven’t been sustained, it hasn’t turned out the way he wants them to. Some of the things he raised with you, like sexual harassment and workplace bullying just don’t have any connection with corruption. When he doesn’t get his way his next move is to say … well there’s corruption here because I’m not getting my way...

…obviously if there were an Independent Commission Against Corruption and if the Government had a spare $30 million ever year of taxpayers money to spend on setting up such a body, when they didn’t find in favour of these complainants they would say, as people do interstate where we have ICACs, oh, the ICAC is corrupt. It’s a procession almost in grievances that when people are unhappy with a Government body that’s investigated them … when they get an adverse finding from one of those bodies, they claim the Ombudsman or the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board is corrupt...

…nothing will ever make them happy unless there is a finding in their favour, and if there’s not a finding in their favour then there’s something wrong with the body that did the investigation...

…and they receive massive media coverage, both of them…

…Well we have independent corruption bodies plural, already. Twice the cost to taxpayers, double the cost every year of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions … what the journos don’t tell the public is … about the anti-corruption bodies that already exist … we have the anti-corruption branch of the police … if there’s a breach of the law, and that’s what we mean by corruption, a breach of the law, then they investigate. We have an Ombudsman with the powers of a Royal Commissioner, the standing powers of a Royal Commissioner, so what the Ombudsman can do is that he can call public servants and others in, Local Government to Councillors, officials, anyone in South Australia and compel them … to answer questions on oath … if they refuse to answer they’re committing an criminal offence. If they don’t answer they’re committing a criminal offence…

…We have whistleblower legislation, we have a free unfettered press, we have an independent judiciary, we have an Upper House, which has never been controlled by the Government of the day, (Strange comment considering the official ALP Policy is to rid the state of the Upper House!) we have many measures that keep South Australia clean. Now I’m not saying South Australia’s perfectly clean, of course there’s corruption and crime in South Australia…

Yet to be published, I reacted with this Letter to the Editor:

On Radio 5AA Monday morning, in response to comments made by me both on 5AA and in this newspaper (‘System Not Working’, The Advertiser, 4/01/2010’), the Attorney-General, in part stated; ‘…the trouble with Mr McKibbin is that his allegations haven’t been sustained. They’ve been fully investigated and they haven’t been sustained, it hasn’t turned out the way he wants them to…’ I can only refer the Attorney-General to Judge Rice’s Determination in the District Court (Equal Opportunity Tribunal) 25 June 2004 regarding vicarious liability, the findings from the 18-month Government Investigation Unit (GIU) investigation into my allegations and the allegations of others, the findings from the yearlong Disciplinary Hearing conducted by retired-judge Mr Alan Moss 2007/2008, and the recently tabled findings of the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry in to the troubled Office of the Public Trustee. I, as an altruistic whistleblower have been vindicated at the highest level. It is a shame that South Australia’s figurehead of Justice remains in denial and seemingly perpetuates the myth that whistleblowers are nothing more than serial pests.

My problem with the AG is a simple problem. Let’s blow away all the fluff and diversionary comments from this little schoolyard tiff.

Michael Atkinson is well & truly aware (or should be) that I was not the only person to present evidence to the various Investigations and Inquiries over the past few years. And if he took time out from polishing his bicycle trouser clips, he would discover that a significant number of witnesses corroborated one another.

I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!

Though, I was (along with one other) the only ‘idiot’ to hop on the horse and take it to the public via Today Tonight, and that was only after 8 long years of dealing with an employer that was more interested in its self-preservation than the pursuit of the ugly truth.

I shudder each time I realise that Mr Atkinson continues to confirm, with his on-going comments, that my instincts were 100% correct all along……..his priority was never the welfare of his staff, well, certainly not this staff member.

You cannot engage with these elected people. They just screw the interactions with diversions, truth-bending, and blunt denials.

Mr Atkinson, Attorney-General of this state, the Grand Poobah of Justice… my allegations have been proven, you just don’t want to fess up and admit you failed not only me but many others who suffered and complained for years! Hang your head in shame and after the March election you should have plenty of time to devote to publishing your own Blog. I got plenty of time. I’m unemployed. After all, isn’t this the fate of all ostricised and ridiculed Whistleblowers?

Oh, and for the record...I wasn't fired. I quit. After years of being worn down, I felt there was no other option. In one respect, the system won, and I am quite sure it is proud of itself!