Monday, December 3, 2012

Woolworths, what did you do to my pizza?

Folks, this is a story about a pizza, a frozen pizza. Not just any old frozen pizza, but a Woolies Select brand pizza.


Called Mushroom and Mozzarella, packaging claims it has been wood fired and the dough hand stretched in Italy.

I don’t know about you, but I am having great difficulty conjuring up an image of a room full of dudes looking out across the Mediterranean working their asses off, churning out tens of thousands of Woolies pizzas!!!

Take a look at the picture of the plated pizza. On the left is the Woolies product, and on the right pieces from a frozen McCains pizza.



Now, take a look at the Woolies picture on its packaging.

Yep, at least the name of the product is accurate. Mushroom (ONE SLICED UP) and Mozzarella.

So, I called the Woolies Consumer number and had the most riveting one-way conversation.

Despite my various questions and comments, the only response I got was for me to take it back and obtain a refund.

I was more interested in talking about the picture on the bloody box!

For the life of me I just cannot see how in this day and age these people think they can get away with this type of visual deception.

And as far as being hand-stretched, methinks the only stretching going on here is that of the imagination.

I know that in the grand scheme of things there are more important things to worry about in life.

But come on, fair dinkum…a one mushroom pizza?

Final Scores:

Taste
Woolies 0/10
McCains 8/10

Matchs the pic
Woolies 0/10
McCains 10/10

Yep, McCains...you've done it again! Well done.





Monday, May 14, 2012

Agent-General in London. Conflict of Interest?

According to our state government, ‘…The Government of South Australia maintains a European office, which is located in London and headed by Bill Muirhead the Agent General for South Australia. The role of this office is to encourage European companies to invest in South Australia; seek opportunities and provide support for the export of South Australian products and services to Europe; assist South Australian businesses, industry associations and other agencies in establishing contacts in Europe to promote trade, financial and commercial activities of benefit to the State; encourage people to migrate to South Australia under the business migrating scheme; assist the State's Tourism Commission in attracting tourists to South Australia; and raise the awareness in Europe of the State's cultural and artistic activities…’


According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Bill Muirhead, our Agent General ‘…is a founding partner of M&C Saatchi, where he continues to operate on a global basis, working with some of the largest and best known brands in the world…’

The Agent General’s address is The Australia Centre, Strand, London. The founding partner of M&C Saatchi’s address is 36 Golden Square, London.

The position is governed by the Agent General Act of 1901. The position is a salaried position with a 5-year tenure. Mr Muirhead was appointed in 2007.

In Parliament on 24 September 2008, Kevin Foley said; ‘…he is now working part time as our Agent-General…’

He does have a sidekick. The Deputy Agent-General, Matt Johnson.

Whilst in the UK last week, our Premier, Jay Weatherill, was prominent in the press for stating that South Australia (SA), in Britain, has no brand, no recognition. It was reported that SA has been confused with South Africa (SA). That brits have a general lack of knowledge about South Australia. That the state needs a new ‘brand’.

Western Australia, Queensland, and Victoria have Agent-Generals located in London.

Both NSW and Tasmania dumped the office many years ago.

The question must be asked.

What has Bill Muirhead and his staff been up to for the past 5 years?

In Parliament a few years ago, Kevin Foley stated:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: To promote our state we have the Agent-General's office in London, which is doing a lot of work. You would be familiar with his very cheeky adverts. We are very lucky to have a gentleman of the quality of Bill Muirhead as our Agent-General in London, the former founding partner of M&C Saatchi, former chief executive officer of Saatchi & Saatchi and the person credited with developing British Airways' advertising campaign. I think he has worked with Qantas, Coca-Cola and the big brand names in the UK. I think he was also responsible for the Tory election win of Major. I am not sure whether he was around the place when they lost to Blair.


We are very fortunate: he is a very clever man. He had that campaign 'Sod London house prices' and 'Bugger it, I'm off to Adelaide'. A few of the earlier drafts probably would not have got through the censor. That has been very clever. It has created much interest in our state. We do a lot of work outside our London office, in Great Britain in particular, but also in mainland Europe, particularly in France and Germany, for our tourism markets.

According to Saatchi financial records, Mr Muirhead is the Executive Director of M&C Saatchi PLC holding 3,799,369 shares.

Let’s talk about promoting. Let’s talk about advertising campaigns.

Remember the UK campaigns referred to as ‘Sod London House Prices’, and ‘Bugger it, I’m Off to Adelaide’?

According to many sources, Bill Muirhead for M & C Saatchi masterminded these campaigns.

OK Mr and Mrs Opposition. Time for some FOI requests.

(1) How much does the taxpayer fork out each year to maintain Mr Muirhead and the staff he manages?

(2) Do South Australia advertising campaigns go to public tender?

(3) What have past campaigns cost us, the taxpayers?

(4) What companies were awarded those contracts?

From where I sit, and from Jay Weatherill’s comments made in the UK last week, the efficacy of the Agent-General's office must be queried.

And I don't know about you. But there's just something not quite right here. I have no doubt that Bill Muirhead is a very honourable man. But, is it AOK for our government to be handing out lucrative work to a company in which our Agent-General has a very substantial financial interest?

I will leave the last words to Kevin Foley.

‘…For a minimal amount of money, with a novel idea he has got national BBC coverage all around the United Kingdom promoting South Australia…’

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe Jay Weatherill is talking out of his arse, and didn’t notice he was actually in South Africa!

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Attorney-General John Rau. Another caucus room jackanapes?

Not once has the Advertiser published one of my letters concerning the Attorney-General (AG) John Rau.

During years of whistleblowing, I have at times been stunned when both ex-AG Atkinson and current AG John Rau were interviewed on air and had me shaking my head in total disbelief. Click Link to go to previous Post regarding Model Litigant boasts!

John Rau ABC interview re: Model Litigant

These are elected people holding positions at the highest levels of fidelity, lawfulness, and transparency.

These people are looked to for setting the standards by which we live by, by which we aspire to, by which we look to for protection.

Unless I have missed something, both these gentlemen have misled the public.

I remember a while ago when AG Atkinson hammered me on 5AA during an interview with Mike Smithson. He had some pretty horrible things to say about me. His inference that I was a liar was hard to miss!

Had it been the other way round, I am certain he would have dragged me through the courts for defaming his character. That was and still is his track record.

Anyway, here is the letter the paper has ignored.

Attorney-General. Please Explain.

During an ABC891 interview on 16 February 2011, as he had done many times since taking office, Attorney-General Rau went to great lengths to assure listeners that Crown behaves as a Model Litigant before and during court proceedings.

The previous Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, held the same flag for many years.

Since 2004, I have doggedly pursued the Department of Justice and the government for a copy of this telestic papyrus, but with no success.

Recently, a document appeared on the web named CSO LEGAL BULLETIN2.PDF. The contents were authored on 16 June 2011. It is a Model Litigant dissertation.

Again, I challenge another Attorney-General to come clean, for the sake of transparency, for the sake of both complainants and defendants, and to release to the public domain an appropriately dressed Model Litigant Policy.

Considering the recently released file was authored last June, I am still curious as to what both Attorney-Generals referred to many times over the years prior.

It would be devastating to think that both doyens of South Australian justice done nothing but spoof the people of South Australia.

In my opinion, your Honour, John Rau carries the same flag the previous AG flapped around at anyone who challenged the integrity of the office.

Recently I submitted to John Rau a very detailed range of complaints against the Crown Solicitor's Office. Against a particular solicitor.

Yeah. I got a reply. All two paragraphs. He referred my submission to the Crown Solicitor's office. The same people I complained about.

Speaks for itself, doesn't it! I am certain you know what he said in that letter!



Saturday, April 14, 2012

Now the Law Society is banging on about a Model Litigant Policy. AND, a warning to members of SuperSA

Recently, the President of the South Australian Law Society, Mr Ralph Bonig, gave media comment about the Attorney-General, the state bureaucracy, and the 'ghostly' Model Litigant Policy.

-----------------------------------------------------
UPDATE, 21 APRIL.
Well, bugger me. Guess what just became available through a Google search:  Model Litigant guidelines published by the Crown Solicitor's office. Authored 2011. 

http://www.agd.sa.gov.au/pdfs/cso/CSO%20Legal%20Bulletin2.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------

In response, I penned a letter to the newspaper's Editor. It was not published. Here it is:

I was dumbfounded to read Ralph Bonig's letter 'No Way at Present for Action on McGhee' (Sunday Mail April 1).

“…the Attorney is bound by the model litigant rules…”

What set of rules might that be Mr Bonig?

Surely not the same set I have doggedly pursued for nearly 12 years!

Hang on. Maybe you are confusing yourself by the sets made available on-line by the Federal Government, by the Victorian Government, by the NSW Government, by the West Australian Government, by the Tasmanian Government, et al.

The Model Litigant Policy does not exist, has never existed.

It is a shame to see the Law Society of South Australia banging on the same drum as Attorney-General Rau.

About a Policy that if existed would expose this government for what it truly is; the most aggressive, adversarial, litigious government in living memory.

Model Litigant?

As Willy Wonka put it in Pure Imagination, ‘Hold your breath, Make a wish, Count to three’.

For nearly 20 years, the Labor Government and its underlying bureaucracy, the public service,  both have proven to be adversarial serial litigants WHEN challenged.

Here is a great example. My example.

In 2002, I ambled across to the government Superannuation Fund office to apply for an increase to the  death and sickness benefits attached to my superannuation account.

I went there because of a question on the Form that asked if I was aware of any medical condition in my past that may give me problems in the future.

No detailed questionnaire. Just one question that puts you, the 'pseudo doctor' right under the pump.

I did not have a clue. Jaundice? Chickenpox? Concussion? Hickies? The freckle on my arm?

I sat down with a staff member and plodded my way through everything and anything. I answered her questions. She filled in my Form. No doubt I was there.

Jump forward a bunch of years to when I got really crook.

To cut the long story short, I was approved to receive a payout, BUT…not the additional benefits I had been paying for since 2002. Why?

Pre-existing condition. It was claimed I did not tell them about one particular past illness.

Well, I damn well did! That was why I went over there in the first place. I remember!!

So, instead of believing me, they claimed I had deliberately held back information. This allowed SuperSA to avoid the payout.

And despite the fact Crown Law has been unable to locate that staff member from 10 years ago, they still attacked me. The Judge declared he had difficulty believing that a SuperSA public servant could have made such a mistake! Now there's a huge red alarm bell!!! People don't make mistakes?

I was a Public Servant. Why would his way of thinking not apply to me equally? Why could he not believe me, as opposed to someone no one could find!

As a consequence, I have spent the past 4 years, unrepresented, dragging my sorry arse through the judicial system in an attempt to get my money.

And what has been the government’s reaction? To fight me all the way! To accuse me of re-writing history to suit.

In one particular court appearance, Crown Law delved deeply in to the technicalities of the superannuation legislation.

Also, before that Hearing, Crown told me we would only be handing up our submissions, as the case was one of Administrative law. 'In and Out in 10 to 20 minutes' he said.

Not so, on the day. He stuck me in the Witness Box. I was there ALL DAY!

I was lied to!

Yeah. Why would they want a Model Litigant policy.

I sat there like an empty application form wondering how the hell my whole appeal process had spiralled away from the simplicity of what really happened back in 2002, to an egghead disquisition that may as well been given in some Wookie dialect for my ears.


Now, this is where it can get interesting. The provisions of a Model Litigant Policy.

Here are a few pieces from the New South Wales government Policy:

‘......The obligation to act as a model litigant requires more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations. Essentially it requires that the State and its agencies act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards....’

‘..... where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, including by not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the State or an agency knows to be true, and not contesting liability if the State or an agency knows that the dispute is really about quantum...’

‘....Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim, not relying on technical defences unless the interests of the State or an agency would be prejudiced by the failure to comply with a particular requirement...’


‘...... apologising where the State or an agency is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.....’

Some time ago I gave up trying to get a copy of the much referred-to South Australian Policy. Even when I was working within the Attorney-General’s department, that slippery little sucker was no where to be found.

It does not exist. And when you consider the gist of the NSW Policy, you can probably see why.

If you are one of the 200,000+ members of SuperSA, can I suggest you obtain a copy of your medical records and hand them across to SuperSA? Get a receipt? Trust me, when you lodge that claim, they will pledge 6 months, as they did with me, to turning over stones beneath the damn stones.

Fortunately for private sector Funds, the Insurance Contracts Act does give appellants a 'fair go' to challenge such decisions. An honest oversight, or a cockup by the Fund can be given an aspect other than a suggestion, for example, that a claimant was deliberately holding back, was nefarious in plotting a raid on the Fund years into the future!

There is also a Superannuation Appeals Tribunal (SAT).

You have options. Independent options.

Unfortunately, state government superannuation funds are literally a law unto themselves. The ICA cannot be used. The SAT is out of bounds.

Admistrative Law. The words HAM and STRUNG come to mind!

What a crazy situation. I felt totally impotent. What could I do? With no money, I was buggered.

You might be wondering if my circumstances raised the heckles of any elected members in Parliament House. Not really. A couple showed interest. But those interests kinda slid away somewhere along the email trails.

What I consider more disturbing is that our Justice doyen the Attorney-General John Rau, and the big kahuna of the Law Society, Ralph Bonig so readily trot out references to a Model Litigant Policy when it suits, when they need to placate. A Policy that does not exist. And they both know this as fact. THAT is a worry!

Oh. And regarding the SuperSA Board. I wouldn't bother with its internal appeal process. Your appeal just goes back to the same Board that denied your claim in the first place.

Considering the unusual circumstances, I had the audacity to seek the opportunity to present my Appeal in person to the Board .

Denied!

As I was told, in writing, an Appeal can only be based upon medical evidence. Presenting your case to the Board is simply 'not on'. The bureaucracy's idea of Procedural Fairness in all it's splendiferous glory.

I was buggered from the getgo.

No surprise though, considering the calibre of the bureaucrats currently supping lattes in the Justice Department:

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/where-is-justice-not-in-justice-dept.html



Thursday, March 15, 2012

Dear Thief: Please Return My Wife's Pay!

Social networking.

A world where you will never know every single person who reads your Blog, your Tweets, your Facebook rants.

You might know a young plaited-hair mum with a young son who was at the Plaza Wednesday morning.

My wife works at Tea Tree Plaza. Part-time. And since I joined the ranks of the unemployed, the only source of money to pay our rent, put food on the table, and finance all those other things that can make life damn tough.

Yesterday, mid-morning, after taking her pay out off the Credit Union, she stopped by the ladies restroom near the Target store on the way back to work.

She chatted with the mum and the young boy who were at the sinks.

Dear young mum.

Surely you would know that Westfield security can backtrack you on CCTV from the moment you bolted through the fire exit with my wife’s purse. All the way back to when you got out of your car and entered the centre.

Are you that stupid?

I hope you enjoy spending our money, trying out the maxed-out credit cards, maybe even contemplating a shot at identity theft.

I now have to call my landlord and tell him I can’t pay the rent. We live on a weekly budget. Losing a week's pay simply does not compute.

But what a proud mother you must be.

A fine example for that wee fella you dragged along by the arm as you fled into the car park.

Oh. The police called last night. Thanks for dumping the purse in the car park of another shopping centre. There might not be much left in it, but at least we feel ever so slightly less ‘empty’.

You will be caught though. Aren’t licence plates a real bitch? And you did it in front of witnesses!!

I realise on the measuring stick of bad things that can happen to us, having a purse stolen is not right up there.

But, you do feel gutted, violated. And when you are on the bones of your arse, and your pay is nicked, it does have ramifications that are horrible.

Life today is bad enough in Struggle Street without arseholes like that thief.

I must give thanks and praise to the officers from our nearby Golden Grove Police Station. And to the security staff and cleaning staff at Westfield’s Tea Tree Plaza who searched waste bins both inside and outside.

Thank heavens for CCTV technology making it possible to backtrack this thief. Just like in the movies!

Who would have thought?


Friday, March 2, 2012

Where is the Justice? Not in the Justice Dept!

Jerome MaGuire.
CEO of Justice.
A grand poobah scoring over $6500 per WEEK!

What should we expect from these taxpayer funded people.

Honesty? Know what they're talking about?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

Plaza Room, Parliament House, Adelaide
Friday 13 November 2009 at 2:20pm

With regard to the outcome of the Moss Inquiry, a Disciplinary Hearing where a most senior Public Trustee Executive had been accused and subsequently found guilty of rampant workplace bullying strewn across many years, the Committee Chair, Liberal Party Rob Lucas asked, in part:

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.

Bounding ahead two years, to questioning about the Cartridgegate Affair, and what could happen to any public servant found to have benefited, by way of gifts, by purchasing over-priced printer cartridges:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

Plaza Room, Parliament House, Adelaide
Monday 31 October 2011 at 10:35am

6639 The CHAIRPERSON: What would that be—abuse of public office? What would be the nature of the criminal offence?


Mr MAGUIRE: It would obviously depend on what the nature of the offence was. I can't tell you, in law, what those offences would constitute without knowing the details, but if it is a criminal offence, it would be referred to the police. If it was a code of ethics matter, the Public Sector Act outlines the requirements that you are required to undertake. The individual would go through a disciplinary inquiry, and the results of this inquiry have a range of remedies from a reprimand right through to dismissal, but it really does depend on the circumstances of the matter that we are talking about.

As I reported in a previous Post, the Public Sector Act is very clear on this matter:

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.

The obvious question demands an answer. Is this a case of selective memory, bad memory, ignorance of the Act, or something more nefarious?

Could it be that due to Mr O'Neill's Executive classification that he was handed a get-out-of-jail card? It did take them about 6 years to deal with this man from the day I blew the whistle. At the same time they were very busy firing air-to-surface missiles my way.

The Act has not changed since 2009. Why did he cite it differently last November? Could it be that the public servants responsible for the cartridge purchases live down at the pleb level?

Considering the definition of the word mislead, did Mr MaGuire mislead the Select Committee in 2009?

Takes me back to saying that despite the mountain of corroborating evidence, a letter of reprimand was the paramount punishment on the day, and absolutely a slap in the face to the many who stuck out their necks battling the Public Trustee toxic workplace.

I want to know why the bully got off scott free?

There needs to be an Inquiry into the outcome of the Moss Inquiry. The findings of that Inquiry must be made public, not buried in the 45 Pirie Street basement. Mr MaGuire needs to answer  some hard, direct questions.

And while we're at it, I had a letter from the CEO guaranteeing the safety of my job during the lengthy internal investigations. Why did Mr MaGuire subsequently find me surplus to requirements?

HOW COME THE OTHER TWO BULLIES IDENTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS UNIT WERE NEVER DEALT WITH?

What became of the group of Public Trustee employees sprung on Today Tonight for circulating porn and smut through the government electronic network for many years?

I was fortunate to have a source close to the key players during the many investigations that came out of my whistleblowing. I KNOW what was discussed at some of the 45 Pirie Street meetings. And unless someone digs up a few skeletons, I will spill my guts.

And no doubt, as once before there will be threats to sue. Hey, I lost my job. My health is still buggered. Our home is gone. What you gonna do, have me for dinner? 

Strange though. I threw away years of my life fighting the system, pushing them to address the toxic workplace at Public Trustee. After those many years of government inaction, I took refuge under the Whistleblower's Act and appeared on Channel 7's Today Tonight. Hung the dirty clothes out.

ONE WEEK later I was swooped upon. The Government Investigations Unit was tasked to interview me to determine if I had breached my employment contract. That was when I quit, I felt I had no other option.

Years avoiding the corruption and bullying issues at an Executive level. One week to shaft me, the whistleblower.

I think that says it all!


Monday, February 20, 2012

Richo...you for real mate?

Graeme Richardson. Powerbroker. Backslapper. Listen to yourself.


Sack Mr Sheen for supposedly bringing about a challenge?

By your own yardstick then, what should have been done with Julia Gillard for her knife-wielding ousting of our then Prime Minister?

Oh, that is right, it was not premeditated, was it. She just sort of got up, had her cocoa pops, then thought...hmmm, think I will take over as PM today.

My problem is this.

I see a Prime Minister I simply cannot trust.

Heavens to murgatroyd, even the infamous one-eyed Richo brain cortex must take issues with someone who cannot be trusted.

Someone who has so blatantly lied to the Australian people, particularly when that person is running the bloody country!

Over many years you have done your fair share of banging on about people who cannot be trusted! Where's the consistencey mate? Where's the conviction??

Like a bus driver, a pilot, a taxi driver, my damned mineral-drilling dentist. I have to have faith, have trust with the highest office in the land. The office of the Prime Minister.

What once were clear waters is now a churning vortex of sludge as factions, powerbrokers, truth, half-truths, and blatant dishonesty swirl with the vengeance of a captured yak.

From where I sit, surrounded by bills I cannot pay and patting a scrawny cat I now feed on cheap stuff, politics in this country, today, has jack shite to do with answering to and looking after the Australian people.

It is about power, about wannabes, about backroom wheelin' & dealin', about...yes Mr Richardson, sheer hypocrisy.

I am very disillusioned.

What we need is a fresh face. Someone who will make a promise and....stick to it! Win back the trust; win back the faith of the Aussie people.

Hmmm...having said all that, Richo, you old shitstirrer, you may not have an idea of what I say. You should, but I doubt you want to. Does not fit into power broking plans.

I am just a simple, non-complicated Irish migrant now Aussie-voter who is struggling to survive in a country that has been taken down into a seething apocalyptic abyss.

You live in noddyland mate. The hypocrisy of your '...I’m staggered...' statement, is proof.

As for South Australia and this mob of Labor Government leaders? The apples never fall far from the tree! Thank you Mister Isaac Newton.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Public Trustee Parliamentary Hearing: In Secret!

UPDATE. Tuesday afternoon.

I was contacted this afternoon and told by a Committee Member that he and the other Members know nothing about any in-camera request, and that no such request has been acceded to. This will only occur on the day, Thursday at 9.15am.


Most certainly, the emails I received from Committee support staff over the past few weeks suggest otherwise. It does not involve rocket science to get a handle on comments such as '...I believe you will have a wasted journey if you come in...'. Anyway, to the credit of the Committee this has now been clarified. I & the media await Thursday morning with bated breath. I am aware that Public Trustee WILL make an in-camera request!

Original Post


For many years, the Office of the Public Trustee (PT) was constantly in the spotlight with disturbing stories about workplace bullying, corruption, and shocking customer service.

On 31 March 2008, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee resolved to '...inquire into, and report on, the operations of the Office of the Public Trustee...' The findings of that Inquiry were tabled in Parliament December 2009.

As the Committee was '...dissatisfied with a number of practices...', PT is required to report back in accordance with Recommendation 13. This is scheduled for Thursday 16 February inst, this coming Thursday.

The Committee advised me over the weekend, that the session is to be 'in camera'. There is to be no transparency.

The Inquiry, up to now, has been very transparent.

As Public Trustee is responsible for more than one billion dollars of clients’ money, this sudden request for secrecy is disturbing.

From a personal viewpoint, it is a kick in the guts.

I have sacrificed a lot over the past 12 years, banging on about Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment, and corruption.

So, here we are at the proverbial 'end of the road', with access to be denied to the media, to the public, and to yours truly.

I did ask if I could make a submission to Committee Members to argue the merits of transparency, and that Public Trustee's request to be in-camera is not appropriate.

Unfortunately, all I got was '...never known a committee to refuse...' such a request.

If I had a dollar for each time I was stonewalled over the years with a similar stance, I would be a very rich leprechaun!

Nevertheless, I have canvassed Members of Parliament and alerted the media. NEVERTHELESS, my gut feeling is that no one gives a toss!

No doubt, PT management will regale in their claims of how the culture has changed, how the bullying has been vanquished, how staff is all now happy little vegemites.

Sorry, but not according to the constant stream of information lobbing into my inbox.