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