Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Something is on the nose in the Attorney-General’s Department. COVER UP!!


Mr. Jerome Maguire is Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Justice. As Chief Executive, Mr. Maguire’s supposed focus is on improving timeliness in the criminal justice system and reducing Government bureaucracy for the business community. It has been reported he is renowned for his innovation, expertise in leading organisational change and delivering large-scale projects that reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Earning more than SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS EACH & EVERY WEEK, the taxpayer should expect CE Jerome Maguire to at least have a handle on how the rest of the Public Sector Bureaucrats manage and respond to employee misbehaviours.

Take Garry Goddard, Deputy Under Treasurer (Department Treasury and Finance DTF) and Chairman of the DTF Audit Committee.

In a recent email to staff, entitled Updated DTF Fraud and Corruption Control Framework, in part he says:

‘...Report all actual and suspected instances of fraud. Failure to report a known fraud may be deemed to represent unethical conduct as per the Code of Conduct. Breaching the Code may result in consequences ranging from reprimand through to termination of employment...’

OK. So, what does Mike Rann’s Code of Conduct say?

‘...Breaching the Code may result in consequences ranging from reprimand through to termination of employment...’

Strange? It was only last December Mr. ‘$6400 a week’ Maguire said to the Chair of the Parliamentary Budget and Finance Committee:

Mr MAGUIRE: Perhaps we should come in there. There was a penalty, and I will take a risk here and I will advise the committee that Mr Moss imposed a reprimand upon Mr O'Neill and that went onto his file. That is the maximum penalty that could have been imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing.

The maximum penalty? Methinks the Under Treasurer and the Premier of this state are maybe wrong cuz Mr. ‘6000 plus bucks a week’ Maguire makes a bucket more money than they do, so it stands to reason.... doesn’t it?

In one silly respect, this could explain why so many within his department get away with so much. Hell, the worst they can cop is a bloody letter. Here Human Resources, go stick this in his file and whack it back into storage.

Justice, Justice Department style!

Let’s take it a step further. This Department of Justice is where all of Mick Atkinson’s esteemed investigatory agencies hang out. Yep.... the Government Investigation Unit, the Equal Opportunity Commission, Crown Law, wa wa wa!

And who is sitting square on top of the Christmas tree? Why, our SIX-THOUSAND-FOUR-HUNDRED-DOLLARS-A-WEEK man Mr. Jerome Maguire.

A CEO that believes the maximum penalty for staff misbehaviour is a bloody Letter of Reprimand.

Even though the Parliamentary Inquiry teased out the slime from the Public Trustee pipework, it still DID NOT report on some very serious allegations that were presented to the Committee. Allegations that were reported to the Attorney-General’s Department (and to the Government Investigation Unit, and to the Moss Inquiry, and to the...) a few years before.

Allegations, if proven, would surely result in some very equally serious punishment.

Allegations befitting an ICAC.

There was and remains a Public Trustee cover-up.

I’m no Liberal Party supporter, but by hell I support Isobel Redmond’s promise to establish an ICAC during her first 100 days in Government.

Oh, I should mention, As a follow-up to the Post beneath, I am meeting with SafeworkSA management tomorrow morning. I want to know why Public Trustee and those responsible for bullying and those who ignored the bullying have not been prosecuted.

Should be an interesting Post tomorrow afternoon!

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Will a South Australian suicide get these people off their collective asses?


Last week on ABC891 radio, and as reported in the Advertiser Friday morning, Safework SA’s Executive Director Michele Patterson urged employers to enforce workplace-bullying policies to eliminate abuse.

SafeWork SA is the business unit of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986.

Safework has the legislative power to seek court imposition of significant fines on employers that contravene the legislation it administers:  up to $300,000 for a first offence and up to $600,000 for subsequent offences under the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act.


Years ago, in the Second Reading speech for the Bill that created the OHSW Act, the then Minister of Labour, in part, succinctly stated the duties on employers and others, together with the role of inspectors and prosecutions:

“… employers will be required to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that their workers are, while at work, safe from injury and risks to health. This duty extends to all things under the employer’s control in the workplace. It applies to the use and maintenance of plant and machinery, the environmental conditions under which work is carried out, the substances used and the manner in which work is organised and performed. This general duty of care is limited by what is reasonably practicable. In practice this will mean that account must be taken of the seriousness of a hazard and the availability of methods for removing or minimising it..."

Safework’s Enforcement Policy, to be found on its web site, details decisions to take compliance or enforcement action.

The decision to take compliance action such as issuing improvement or prohibition notices may be taken when an inspector is of the opinion that:

  • A provision of the OHSW Act is being contravened.   
  • A provision of the OHSW Act has been contravened in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will be repeated. 
  • Activity is occurring in a workplace that involves an immediate risk to the health and safety of a person at work. 
  • The safety issue cannot be immediately rectified in the presence of the inspector.

Furthermore, the Policy details the Agency’s ability to prosecute:

6.5 Prosecution

The OHSW Act prescribes penalties for a breach of many sections and establishes a process for prosecution of offences against the Act, such as Section 58(1):

A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this Act is guilty of an offence.”

In relation to who may cause proceedings for an offence to be brought about, it states:

Proceedings may be brought by:

  • The Minister  
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions  
  • The Director of SafeWork SA  
  • An inspector  
  • An employee who has been injured as a result of an alleged offence where proceedings have not been commenced by any of the above mentioned parties within one year of the date of the alleged offence. 
  • Proceedings must be commenced within two years after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In the case of expiable offences, proceedings must be commenced within six months.

And,

The DPP may extend the time limit for the commencement of proceedings if satisfied that ‘a prosecution could not reasonably be commenced within the relevant period due to a delay in the onset or manifestation of an injury or disease, a condition or defect of any kind, or any other relevant factor or circumstance’.

Now, in relation to the detailed and proven history of workplace bullying within the Office of the Public Trustee at 25 Franklin Street, I am somewhat puzzled (well, not really) as to why there has never been any proceedings brought against Michael Atkinson’s agency.

The case has been proven. Extensive investigations by the Government Investigations Unit. A District Court determination. The lengthy and expensive (more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS) Moss Inquiry. The 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry.

Am I the only one to see the Silver Tray???

Safework SA, more than likely will argue that time has drifted past. However, I will argue, in accordance with its own Enforcement Policy, I have the right to appeal for the DPP to grant an extension of this time limit.

This I will do. Consider the request lodged this morning.

During my years at Public Trustee, I doggedly reported workplace bullying (and other serious matters) to Agencies such as Safework SA.

It is my opinion that Public Trustee, for whatever reason has escaped a wrath that, in the past, has been thrust on others outside of the South Australian Public Service.

Time to test the legislation. Time to test that Agency’s own self-proclaimed Enforcement Policy.

On the other hand, this may be, as usual, perhaps a case of Caesar judging Caesar.

As for the bully and those who ignored me all those years, including Messrs Rann and Atkinson? Consider this aspect of the Act:

59C—Liability of officers of body corporate

(1) If a body corporate or an administrative unit of the Public Service of the State contravenes a provision of this Act, and the contravention is attributable to an officer of the body corporate or an employee of the administrative unit failing to take reasonable care, then the officer or employee is guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as for an offence constituted by a contravention by a natural person of the provision contravened by the body corporate or administrative unit.

I call upon Safework SA to put its money where its loud mouth is! Alternatively, Michele Patterson can go head-to-head with me anytime anywhere. I am just busting to hear the excuses!

More importantly, I call upon the victims of on-going bullying at the Office of the Public Trustee (or any where) to go banging on Michele Patterson's door. DO NOT accept the answers I did...'We will get back to you'. And I was an elected Workplace OH&S Representative....go figure!

I remember raising the issue of bullying at the Public Trustee OH&S Committee meetings only to be told that it was NOT the proper Forum for the employee grievances to be aired. I got that in writing from the Chairperson. Another Rep then went on to discuss the danger of storing umbrellas in the rear seats of government cars whilst in transit, and the inherent danger they pose to passengers during sudden braking! There's another 'go figure'.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

CEO of the Attorney-General's Dept: SPRUNG!!!


Mr. Jerome Maguire. CEO of Justice. CEO of the Attorney-General’s Department. My oh my, the apples definitely do not fall far from the Atkinson tree!

In a previous Post, I reported details of the Moss Inquiry. Disciplinary Inquiry findings the Attorney-General’s Department did its utmost to keep locked up inside its cryogenic chamber somewhere in 45 Pirie Street....until the CEO had to appear before the Select Committee.

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com/2010/02/victim-of-bullying-you-will-be.html

On the afternoon of Friday 13 November 2009, under questioning from The Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, the honourable CEO of Justice, Mr. Jerome Maguire responded:

7335 The CHAIRPERSON: What penalty, if any, was applied to him? The concern that has been expressed to me is what you have just indicated; that is, your department has negotiated a TVSP with Mr O’Neill. And so, after all the concerns that had been raised about his behaviour within Public Trustee, an inquiry by Mr Moss into his behaviour, found guilty of an offence or offences, there does not appear to have been any penalty, and not only wasn't there a penalty, the department has negotiated a TVSP with him.

Mr MAGUIRE: Perhaps we should come in there. There was a penalty, and I will take a risk here and I will advise the committee that Mr Moss imposed a reprimand upon Mr O'Neill and that went onto his file. That is the maximum penalty that could have been imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing. That occurred last year. The two are not related—and I want to make that clear to the committee. The penalty imposition in 2008 and a TVSP acceptance by Mr O’Neill in 2009 are not related. The Public Trustee offered the TVSP to Mr O’Neill and funded that TVSP, and Mr O'Neill took that TVSP. He was surplus to requirements in the Public Trustee.

Methinks the ONLY RISK you took was the risk of looking incompetent. Here, grab a cuppa and a Timtam, and read this:

Section 58(5) of the then Public Sector Management Act 1995:

(5) If, on an inquiry under this section, the Chief Executive is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the employee is liable to disciplinary action, then the Chief Executive may do one or more of the following:

(a) reprimand the employee;

(b) order that the leave entitlement of the employee be reduced by a specified amount;

(c) order that the employee be suspended from duty in the Public Service for a specified period with or without remuneration and, as the Chief Executive thinks fit, with or without accrual of rights in respect of recreation leave and long service leave;

(d) order that the salary of the employee be reduced by a specified amount for a specified period;

(e) recommend to the Governor—

(i) that the employee be transferred to some other position in the Public Service with a lower remuneration level; or

(ii) that the employee's employment in the Public Service be terminated.

I guess you simply forgot about b, c, d, and the juiciest of them all....(e)(ii)

Just for a moment, a very brief one at that, I wondered how an educated man, maybe even a family man could have not noticed these bits whilst thumbing through the Act. Certainly, and as usual Crown Law would have given you advice on the matter. After all, you are the ‘my advice is’ Bureaucrat.

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-bureaucrat-is-still-unable-to.html

During my eighth year of Whistleblowing, the year I appeared on Channel 7’s Today Tonight, the same year you unleashed the Government Investigation Unit on me for an alleged breach of the Act (for appearing on the telly), had I not resigned, I just wonder how much more competent you would have been with your legislative interpretations.

Would I have received a Letter of Reprimand? For blowing the whistle in public on the years you and your people turned a collective blind eye to workplace bullying and suss goings-on at the Office of the Public Trustee?

You are a real work of Art my friend. You, the Attorney-General, the Premier, your entire crew including Public Trustee Executive simply did not give a rat’s ass!

Rather, you allocated resources to shove it up moi! Oh yeah, your instructions to Crown Law came through loud and clear in the District Court when, in 2004, I was humiliated in the witness box.

And when it was revealed I had been bullied and molested as a child, did that stop your onslaught...NO! Your Crown Clown just kept on and on and on......your finest hour!

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com/2010/02/so-what-does-happen-when-you-take-your.html

I hope you are aware of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, 19, a young girl who was subjected to workplace bullying by workmates at Cafe Vamp in Hawthorn, in Melbourne's east, before she threw herself from a multi-storey car park in September 2006.

The animals that drove her to take her own life? You have the very same type of animal within your own departments. A few continue to ply their insidious trade at Public Trustee. And exactly what are you doing about it?

Wow, easy answer.....nothing!

Mark my words. It will happen here. And if under your watch, I would expect much more than the imposition of Section 58(5)(e)(ii)

I am watching.

Oh. I am back in the District Court in 3 weeks. Even though I am no longer an employee of the Government, I am still fighting my ex-employer, unrepresented, for my entitlements. Any pro-bono out there? I am well and truly on the bones of me arse! I have done all the hard yards. I just need some help with the wording required for Discovery of all relevant docs. I think I need some of those fancy legal phrases!

Sunday, February 7, 2010

How a Bureaucrat is still unable to answer a question even with a 12-month notice!


Why was the Public Trustee building at 25 Franklin Street sold for $7.6million (no public tender) a short time after receipt of an independent valuation of $9.37million?

Don't you just hate those vague questions.....they just stump us every time!

And all that extensive & expensive anti-earthquaking works completed not long before was, I suppose, a fortunate coincidence for Javier Moll. New owner alert...better check the cracks that were filled-in with elastic polymer. I stood and watched whilst knocking off my salmon and wholemeal bread sanger!

Previous two Posts I drew attention to the final 2009 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, South Australian Parliamentary Select Committee.

I have written about the behaviours of our most senior state bureaucrats. Too many times a Government takes it in the neck only to find out later it did not have all the facts.

I have eyeballed enough over the years to suggest, no, to state categorically that some Bureaucrats will relay to 'their masters' only what they care to relay.

I know some of the following should include contexts, but I am merely giving you a broad-brush picture of an embedded bureaucratic language. And, certainly some instances of, well, I call them smartass comments!

Mr Jerome Maguire, CEO of Justice and the Attorney-General's Department (reporting directly to AG Michael Atkinson) had been on notice for ONE YEAR to resurface with specific answers. From reading the transcript, I certainly wonder where he thought he was going on Friday the 13th of November 2009. A two-hour get together. Twelve months later.

My advice is
My advice is
I'm sorry, sir, I do not have that information with me
I don't have an idea of that budget
but my understanding is
I can't confirm either way
My advice is
I would assume
My advice is
I do not know the name of it; I do not have it with me
We can't remember who it was
It is our understanding
I don't have the information here. I don't have the breakdown, I'm sorry
I can't. I don't even want to take a stab at it. I have no idea, really the extent of it. So, I would like to get back to you about that
Well, you're telling the story.
I can't tell you that date
I don't know. I will have to find out
We don't have any knowledge about how that would occur
I've never seen the submission
I don't believe that's a relevant question
I can't recall
I can't recall
I don't have those costs with me
I have no other information
My understanding is
I think it is
I do not have the costs here
I will take that on notice
It does not really interest me what his companies are, quite frankly
I am talking in generalities here
I do not actually know what the contract said
but I haven't got the detail
I'm sorry, I don't have that
I have them here, I think

OK. Here is a piece of the November 2008 transcript that put Mr CEO of Justice Jerome 'well, you're telling the story' Maguire on notice 12 months ago:

3676 The CHAIRPERSON: We may have a discussion about that on another occasion. On 16 May 2007, the Attorney-General, under his own signature, approved the sale of the Public Trustee building. Whether you need to go off and confirm whether or not he did or did not, they are the facts of the matter. Are you aware that, in March 2007 (two months prior to the approval by the Attorney-General), the Public Trustee commissioned a valuation from Colliers International which valued the Public Trustee building (which the Attorney-General sold to Mr Moll for $7.6 million) at $9.37 million; that is, nearly $1.7 million higher?

Mr MAGUIRE: I am aware that evaluations were undertaken by the Public Trustee, and that is a requirement of the Public Trustee in the disposal of assets. You obviously have some information that I do not have in front of me, so I cannot be precise about the valuations. What I can tell you is that it is my understanding that the subsequent transfer and lease-back was commercially neutral to the Public Trustee and, essentially, the Public Trustee's concerns were met.

3677 The CHAIRPERSON: We can digest that in a moment. Were you aware that, when the Attorney-General approved the sale of this property on 17 May 2007, the Public Trustee—which was within your portfolio—had an independent valuation of the property by Colliers at $9.37 million, $1.7 million higher than the Attorney-General sold the building to Mr Moll?

Mr MAGUIRE: Again, I sound like I am repeating myself.

Mr MAGUIRE: Again, I sound like I am repeating myself, but I understand that there was an independent evaluation. I do not know the numbers; I can confirm them with you. If there was a differential between what it was purchased for and the initial valuation, I can come back to you with more detail about that and the reason for the differential.

I look forward to November of 2010. Maybe an answer will surface as to why a $9.37million taxpayer-owned building was sold to a private company for $7.6million without public tender.

Friday, February 5, 2010

The Big Top comes to Parliament House


My previous Post reported on the last get together of the Budget and Finance Committee for 2009.

I doubt I need to provide any primer for the crap you are about to read.

Who says politics do not play out in bi-partisan Committees? In this instance, we should be grateful the Liberal Party's Rob Lucas was the Chairperson.

The ruling Labor Party’s, the Hon B.V. Finnigan  (Picture added as requested by Readers) in full dummy spit mode:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Plaza Room, Parliament House, Adelaide
 Friday 13 November 2009 at 2:20pm
BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL


7373 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It's well past 4 o'clock, Mr Chairman. What I'm indicating is that you need to suspend the meeting.

7374 The CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't, so long as there is a quorum at the start of the meeting. It's the same as the parliament. It's the same standing orders as in the parliament.

7375 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I think you will find that the committee has, at no time, resolved to go past 4 o'clock.

7376 The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: It's not the standing orders actually; it's the Parliamentary Committees Act—that's where you need to look.

7377 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: No, this isn't under the Parliamentary Committees Act; this is a committee by resolution of the council. Standing order 390 states: If at any other time a quorum is not present the chairman shall suspend the proceedings until a quorum is made up or adjourn the committee to some future time

7378 The CHAIRPERSON: That's if someone is here to draw attention to the quorum. There is a quorum present. If you're not here you can't draw attention to the quorum. It's a bit like parliament. If you don't have 11 people in there we don't adjourn the proceedings of the house.

7379 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I would have been quite within my rights to leave at 10 minutes past 2 because the committee had not begun on time. The committee never resolved to begin at 2.15 or 2.20. Under the standing orders I could have left at 10 past 2. There would have been no meeting at all because you wouldn't have been quorate. Now, you're trying to indefinitely delay proceedings.

7380 The CHAIRPERSON: No. The notice that went to all members was from 2.15 to 4.15.

7381 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: When did the committee resolve that?

7382 The CHAIRPERSON: When we found that we were short of a member.

7383 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The committee met today and resolved that, did it?

7384 The CHAIRPERSON: No. As chairman, I advised members.

7385 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: You unilaterally decided to change the meeting?

7386 The CHAIRPERSON: I did, indeed.

7387 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, you can't do that.

7388 The CHAIRPERSON: You will need to move a motion against me, if you want to. I suspect you don't have the numbers to succeed but—

7389 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: So now you're saying the committee can just sit whenever it likes, according to you.

7390 The CHAIRPERSON: No. The committee is going to meet until 4.15 and then we're going to adjourn.

7391 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: No, the committee resolved to meet from 2.00 until 4.00. The fact that people were not here until 2.20 is not my fault.

7392 The CHAIRPERSON: It didn't resolve at all; the committee resolved to meet on a certain date.

7393 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Look at the agenda—future meetings.

7394 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Finnigan, if you want to move a motion, move a motion, but I intend to proceed until 4.15.

7395 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am saying that you can't.

7396 The CHAIRPERSON: I am ruling you out of order.

7397 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: On what basis?

7398 The CHAIRPERSON: I am the chairman of the meeting. If you disagree with the ruling, you can leave the meeting.

7399 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, if I leave the meeting, there is no quorum.

7400 The CHAIRPERSON: If you leave the meeting, we will continue.

7401 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well then you're ultra vires.

7402 The CHAIRPERSON: I won't be ultra vires.

7403 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I would advise the witnesses to depart because this would not be a validly constituted meeting, directly in breach of the standing orders.

7404 The CHAIRPERSON: It will not be in breach of the standing orders at all, Mr Finnigan.

7405 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, Mr Chairman, you can't just change the times of a meeting to suit yourself.

7406 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Finnigan, I am not in breach of the standing orders. You were right to indicate that, if you didn't turn up, there wouldn't have been a quorum—you are correct to say that—but you did turn up.

7407 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, at 10 past 2.

7408 The CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to waste any more time. We have four more minutes before the scheduled—

7409 The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: No, we are 10 minutes past the scheduled finishing time, Mr Chairman............

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW

Victim of Bullying? You will be disgusted by this story!


ANYONE who has been a victim of workplace bullying OR is presently being bullied by some animal, because that is what they are, WILL find this story disgusting, particularly if employed within the South Australian Public Service.

This is a story of events that began many years ago. Workplace Bullying that was ignored by those above despite relentless complaints. Bullying that made people sick. Bullying that made one man speak of suicide. Bullying that pushed people out of their carrers, as in my case.

From March 2000, through various Inquiries, Commissions, Tribunals, Investigative Bodies and ultimately a 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry into the Office of the Public Trustee, I bust my ass for justice and for the bully to be punished.

With the public release of a Parliamentary Paper, part of which is extracted below, I can now reveal the whos, the whats, the whens, and the disgusting end result.

THE PLAYERS
Mr MaGuire, CEO Justice, reports to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson.
Mr Des O’Neill, ex-Public Trustee, subject of Moss Inquiry.
Chairperson, Hon Mr R I Lucas, MLC

Ex-General Manager Mr Des O’Neill has been identified by the Minutes as the Executive Manager who was the subject of the Moss Inquiry, a Disciplinary Hearing ordered by the CEO of the Justice Portfolio, Mr Jerome Maguire. The Hearing was in response to a recommendation to the CEO from Crown Law. This recommendation spawned from an eighteen month Inquiry by the Government Investigation Unit, the GIU. That Investigation only occurred because I agreed to drop the second complaint I lodged with the Equal Opportunity Commission.

To cut this long story short, Mr O’Neill made off with an attractive Targeted Voluntary Separation Package, a TVSP. That Package was damn attractive, this I know! As I have mentioned in previous Posts, the Justice Portfolio leaks like 20 sieves in parallel.

Long before this happened, many of us knew this would be the outcome. For fear of retaliatory action, I won’t detail how I know this to be fact.

It needs to be said that ALL of this occurred under the Attorney-General’s watch. I brought various matters to his attention as early as 2003, but it became clear to many that he was not interested. Certainly, his recent porky pie behaviours – such as telling LIES about me on Radio 5AA – fits this profile.

Another aspect of the Government / Public Service relationship I have mentioned before in my Blog has been the ability of a Bureaucrat either to not answer a question, or to display raw contempt for members of various Parliamentary Committees. That behaviour demonstrably depends on whether the Member asking the question is an Independent, is a member of the Liberal Party or is a member of the ruling labor Party. Committee documents speak for themselves.

In the extract below, you should take particular notice of how Bureaucrat MaGuire duels with Committee members, moreso with the Chair, a Member of the Liberal Party, the Opposition.

Party Politics are played at all levels. The upper layer of Bureaucracy within the Public Service is littered with well-placed Politician stooges.

I hope you enjoy this extract. I bloody well didn’t!!!! Why? Because I know that the facts I know, as witnessed by me first-hand, differ from some offered up within this extract.

Our then Attorney-General told LIES about me on public radio. Why should anything less be expected from the mouths of others.

I welcome your comments on this matter. And I will continue to honour your requests for me not to Post comments with information you are too frightened to report to management for fear of retribution.

Oh, below, in particular, you will find one bizarre comment made by CEO Maguire. "...There was a penalty, and I will take a risk here and I will advise the committee that Mr Moss imposed a reprimand upon Mr O'Neill and that went onto his file. That is the maximum penalty that could have been imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing..."

Dear oh dear. Time to rummage through the Advertiser's archives. Prepare yourself for lots of egg Mr Maguire!

http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Select/LC/51/BudgetandFinanceCommittee/Transcripts/DeptAttorneyGeneralsJustice3MrJeromeMaguire131109.htm

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Plaza Room, Parliament House, Adelaide
Friday 13 November 2009 at 2:20pm
BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

7330 The CHAIRPERSON:
Mr Maguire, can I turn to some matters that relate to the Public Trustee which is part of your broader portfolio. As you are aware, there were a series of claims made about bullying, harassment and other issues that related to former Public Trustee staff. You are probably aware that there has been a committee of inquiry in the parliament that has been looking at a number of those. The advice from the Public Trustee on a number of questions that were put to him was essentially that issues in relation to disciplinary inquiries, etc. were decisions taken by you as chief executive and not by the Public Trustee and that the questions should be directed to you rather than the Public Trustee. In the end, there was an inquiry, the Moss inquiry, into the complaints made against Mr Des O'Neill but there were complaints, as you are aware, against three or four other officers. Can you outline to the committee, in your judgment, why the inquiry was only instituted into the allegations that related to the one officer, Mr O'Neill and not to the other officers?

Mr MAGUIRE: Could you be more specific about who those other individuals are? We are aware of the inquiry that Alan Moss took.

7331 The CHAIRPERSON: Let me clarify. There are two recent allegations which are still going through various processes, so I am not referring to those, and, given that no-one has been found guilty of anything, as opposed to the Moss inquiry finding that Mr O'Neill was guilty of one particular offence, as you know, I won't put those other officers' names on the public record. However, at the time of the Moss inquiry allegations, there was a series of claims made not only against Mr O'Neill but three or four other officers, and I distinguish those from two recent claims which the Public Trustee has been looking at this year, as I understand it, in relation to a couple of other officers. Does that assist you?

Mr MAGUIRE: It does. If I can repeat what you said? Setting aside the two cases that we are both aware of, which are being investigated now, I understand what you are saying is about Mr O'Neill. There was a lot of evidence against Mr O'Neill, so I was obliged, following Crown advice and investigation, to undertake a disciplinary inquiry. The other officers you talk about, the advice from the Crown was that the evidence wasn't substantiated enough to follow through with a disciplinary inquiry. So, I took advice from the Crown who, as you know, are well versed in the Public Sector Management Act, and their advice was that, in their opinion, a disciplinary inquiry wasn't warranted. That was the reason for my not instituting additional inquiries other than for Mr O'Neill.

7332 The CHAIRPERSON: For the duration of the inquiry, the Moss inquiry, obviously Mr O'Neill was moved out of the Public Trustee. We were advised of that. We were told he went into your department somewhere—and on one occasion I think someone claimed into the office of the chief executive, which I assume was your office—but I am wondering whether you can clarify where Mr O'Neill was being employed during the terms of the Moss inquiry?

1211 Mr MAGUIRE: You appreciate that, in matters like this, the person is actually attached to the chief executive's office, but he was given meaningful work across different parts of the organisation. Fundamentally, he was not to have any supervisory role of any staff. I know he was involved in quite a major audit project that didn't require supervision of any staff but it utilised his skills in this area. From memory, he had at least two roles inside the department that spanned quite a number of months. I can come back to you if you really want to know exactly what it was.

7333 The CHAIRPERSON: It was within your department. That is the clarification.

Mr MAGUIRE: Yes.

7334 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moss had his inquiry and found Mr O'Neill guilty of a particular offence or offences. Has that matter now concluded and what penalty was applied to Mr O'Neill, if any?

Mr MAGUIRE: What I can advise you—I just need to be very careful here because it is a very sensitive matter, particularly for the person in question—is that he has taken a TVSP, so he is no longer an employee of the government. In terms of the disciplinary matter, the conclusion of that, I think I would like to take that on notice and take some advice so I can advise you in writing.

7335 The CHAIRPERSON: What penalty, if any, was applied to him? The concern that has been expressed to me is what you have just indicated; that is, your department has negotiated a TVSP with Mr O'Neill. And so, after all the concerns that had been raised about his behaviour within Public Trustee, an inquiry by Mr Moss into his behaviour, found guilty of an offence or offences, there does not appear to have been any penalty, and not only wasn't there a penalty, the department has negotiated a TVSP with him.

Mr MAGUIRE: Perhaps we should come in there. There was a penalty, and I will take a risk here and I will advise the committee that Mr Moss imposed a reprimand upon Mr O'Neill and that went onto his file. That is the maximum penalty that could have been imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing. That occurred last year. The two are not related—and I want to make that clear to the committee. The penalty imposition in 2008 and a TVSP acceptance by Mr O'Neill in 2009 are not related. The Public Trustee offered the TVSP to Mr O'Neill and funded that TVSP, and Mr O'Neill took that TVSP. He was surplus to requirements in the Public Trustee.

7336 The CHAIRPERSON: How can he be surplus when his position was general manager of corporate finance? As I understand it, the position was backfilled behind him. My recollection of TVSPs is that if a position is declared surplus and, therefore, the person is surplus they can be offered a TVSP.

Mr MAGUIRE: I will correct you there. Mr O'Neill had a contract as an executive in the Public Trustee. His contract expired and it was not renewed. The Public Trustee restructured the way in which it ran its business. It set up a different organisational structure and had different requirements at executive level. It called the executive position and appointed another person—not Mr O'Neill. Mr O'Neill had a fallback position to an ASO8 with a management allowance, and he stayed at that level until he accepted the TVSP. When it restructured he was surplus to requirements in the organisation. He ended up attached to my office and working in various roles, and he has accepted a TVSP. Clearly, the conclusion you would draw is that he had no ongoing position in the Public Trustee.

7337 The CHAIRPERSON: In relation to the costs of the Moss inquiry, did your department brief Mr Durkin as private counsel?

Mr MAGUIRE: My understanding is that we briefed the barrister Mr Anthony Durkin, and the Public Trustee paid for the brief.

7338 The CHAIRPERSON: What were the total legal costs? Were Mr Durkin's legal costs up to $300,000?

Mr MAGUIRE: I do not have the costs here, but I have never heard those numbers.

7339 The CHAIRPERSON: Could you take on notice what the costs of the Moss inquiry were? Obviously, there are the costs of Mr Moss and whoever else worked with him, the costs of Mr Durkin and the costs of Crown Law officers, if any, in terms of the inquiry. Would that be correct?

Mr MAGUIRE: They would be doing this under their normal course of business. That is what they are employed to do.

7340 The CHAIRPERSON: But there would be costs. Did the state, the Public Trustee or justice meet any of Mr O'Neill's costs in this investigation?

Mr MAGUIRE: As far as I am aware, no, absolutely not.

7341 The CHAIRPERSON: Did he have to meet his own legal costs?

Mr MAGUIRE: I will take that on notice.

7342 The CHAIRPERSON: Can you take on notice what the total costs were and confirmation of what the penalty was? Your recollection is that it was a reprimand on his file.

I don't know about you, but Í am almost speechless, well, not quite.

One piece of paper in a file, then a payout!

The Government and the Bureaucrats of the Public Service put me through hell as they did their best to shut me up over the years. And despite all the bloody Inquiries, a DISTRICT COURT DETERMINATION, and a very public Parliamentary Inquiry, there remain those, who continue to, in public, debase my years of effort.

Mister Premier Michael Rann, Mister Deputy-Premier Kevin Foley, Mister CEO of Justice Jerome Maguire....you ALL should be kissing my Royal Irish Arse!

Slainte

Monday, February 1, 2010

So, what does happen when you take your employer, a South Australian Government Agency to Court?

In my case, it was the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in the District Court of South Australia. I was an employee within the Justice Portfolio framework. Representing the Office of the Public Trustee was the Crown Law Office, an Agency also within the Justice Portfolio.

And for those following my Posts, every other investigative body I took my complaints to also resided within the Justice Portfolio tepee.

I represented myself.

Why? Easy answer. Each Adelaide Law Firm I approached, I was told about a conflict of interest. Every firm I contacted was on a ‘Government List’ for legal services. I saw these Lists.

My conspiratorial dark side kicked in.

Now, to the big day, the first day of MY Court Case. I was nervous as hell.

Most of day 1 and a significant chunk of the next day, I was in the Witness Box. I felt like a slice of bread in a toaster. What happened left me upset, confused, and bloody angry.

I am no longer a young fella, so it cannot be said that I had no inkling as to what happens to the ‘good guys’ in any Witness Box. However...

Crown Law took it to an entirely new level.

The drama actually started the evening before when I was telephoned at home by one of my star witnesses. She was upset. I felt the crumbs falling off my Case even before I hung up.

My star witness had been called to the inner sanctum of thee Public Trustee late that afternoon.

She walked through the door to be confronted by the Public Trustee, Ms Cath O’Loughlin, by the Acting Solicitor from Crown Law, Mr Mike Ahern, and by the Manager of Corporate Services Mr Des O’Neill.

I will mention that Public Trustee Executive Management was, in part the subject of my initial complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission prior to this Court Action. This is public record.

All I need to say is that this witness, my star witness was no longer my witness!

I was not there, so I cannot comment on what happened.

Back to Court.

Right from the bell, the Crown threw up a technicality as to why my entire case should be thrown out. This was my first indicator that craziness was to ensue...the previous afternoon a courier fronted to my home with a letter from Crown Law. I was offered money to ‘drop the lot’. Logic was not ringing a very loud bell in my head.

Why try to buy me out if indeed Crown had all the legal technicalities up its long, dark sleeve.

Well, that little sophisticated effort fell by the wayside real quick. I had Googled my way across the planet, and was armed with a swag of Precedents loaded into all barrels. Particularly comforting, to me anyway, were the Precedents set over the years by the Judge in front of me. I began to get that gambling rush as your pony bolts first out of its box!

Then, my underdog world began to lose its colour. I was scruffed back into the box.

Two days later, it had become evident to me that the Crown had interviewed the subject of my complaints, and had gathered as many Christmas Party boozy anecdotes as possible. Tested or not? I doubt they cared.

Here is a selection used in an attempt to paint me as a person not to be trusted:

* I was arrested by the local constabulary and taken away for interview.

* I had a connection with a ‘Big Al’.

* I was a major distributor of pornographic materials at work.

* I supplied Horny Goat Weed to my manager. (Oh, yeah, the Manager who was the subject of my complaints)

* I had been locked in a ‘padded room’ in the bowels of the Magistrates Court during a Civil Matter.

And so on…

I quickly formed the opinion I was dealing with idiots!

What did I do? Well, when the allegation of an arrest raised its intriguing head, I suggested an adjournment whilst the Court made contact with the appropriate authority to authenticate these claims. But, you know how on the TV the Solicitor will quickly and effortlessly slide on to another topic? Bingo!

All I could do was use the NO word a zillion times. No expression. No outbursts. No emotion. I was developing a sense of Objectivity versus Subjectivity.

It is all in the transcript. It is public record.

In a subsequent letter to Crown Law, I simply said:

‘…my employer seemed hell bent on protecting itself by whatever means…every fibre of decency should have compelled my employer to desist in what is now apparent to me as a protect Public Trustee at all costs…I do feel utterly repulsed at many of the allegations…I simply record the fact that Judge Rice found in favour of my assertions of what happened…it does seem to me, based upon conflicting evidence that someone lied…one day the real issue of what is wrong within Public Trustee will be teased out…’

Well, that was mid-2004. In 2009 a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Office of the Public Trustee took place. The ‘teasing’ was here!

Year NINE of my struggle!

Hopefully, readings of both Judge Rice’s Determination of June 2004, and the Report of the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry will give you a sense of the injustices I suffered at the hands of an employer with deep pockets and at the hands of an employer that did not give a shit about an employee where it’s Duty of Care had been tossed to the side for so many years.

The Parliamentary Inquiry report is report number 51 and can be found by clicking through the documents button, 'tabled responses and reports' at the bottom of the linked page:

http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=5&CId=183

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAEOT/2004/1.html


Would I do it again? Hell yeah!