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!