Minister for Housing: I WILL hold you liable for my granddaughter's safety!

My warning to the Minister of Housing, Jennifer Rankine, to the Premier, Mike Rann, and to the bureaucrats of HousingSA.


Vicarious Liability. And, in the improbable case none of you knows what this is:

A common law doctrine that renders a person (or corporation) liable for the acts of another despite no personal fault on the part of the first person. The most common form of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for acts and omission of their employees committed in the course of employment.

In March of 2004, when the government and the public service bureaucrats sat on their collective arses during the years I was bullied and harassed in their workplace, I took them to court and achieved a court ruling proving that they were vicariously liable.

The Determination of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal was handed down on 25 June 2004.
Link:

District Court Ruling

For the past few months, I have been bringing to the Government’s attention (and to all the bureaucrats beneath) the plight of a HousingSA tenant and her children, one of the children being my granddaughter who is yet to celebrate her first birthday.

The house my granddaughter resides in is literally ringed by other HousingSA tenants, tenants with mental illnesses and mental difficulties.

I feel for these people, as I myself suffered greatly (and continue to do so) from chronic depression incurred during my years of exposing corruption from within the South Australian public service.

I do not condemn these people. The ones I am aware of are suffering and, at times, cannot be held fully responsible for many of their actions.

Certainly, HousingSA does have unenviable challenges. I, and others, can scream from the highest pinnacle when negatively affected by the actions of others, but...what would you do?

Irrespective, my only interest at this point is my granddaughter.

I have witnessed the actions of some of the other tenants, and these actions are extremely disturbing.

I doubt he means harm, but the man who runs around the street chasing children, with his clothes hoisted up to his neck whilst messing with his nipples, distresses the crap out of me, as it does the surrounding residents.

The lady who trespasses on other property, banging on the front door, screaming obscenities, turning on the water tap, then joining-up with the nipple-squeezing man down the street.

To give HousingSA its dues, it has, after investigation, raised my granddaughter’s mother’s category to a level 1 for transfer.

As a transfer, to me, is the only practical solution. Now, the wait.

I have done all the right things. Notified all and asunder. Worked within the framework. Kept my cool. Maintained a consistent rationale.

Now I digress.

As others know, particularly the homeless, more so the women with young children hanging-out in women’s shelters fleeing domestic violence, having a Category 1 status can mean Jack Squat!

Greenwith is a beautiful suburb northeast of Adelaide. I live not far from it.

So tell me, why is HousingSA selling 7 Ninnis Court with an asking price of $300,000?

Sure, no doubt there are reasons. BUT, try to explain those to Mary X currently living in a bloody Ford station wagon with her two toddler children.

Me? I do not give two knobs about the reasons. There is a relatively new home sitting up there in Greenwith being sold off. A home that I am sure a needy family could be moving in to by this Friday.

HousingSA is always selling off stock. And HousingSA has a SWAG of homes dotted around the metropolitan area with nothing but houseflies as tenants. These are indisputable facts!

HousingSA, from all accounts by the official comments to the media, has become more interested in the fiscal management of its business. From my seat, it has swung way too far in that direction, and as a consequence forgotten about and diverted away from its founding intent for our needy.

Dear Minister Rankine. Dear Premier Rann. Dear HousingSA. I put you all on notice.


If anything untoward happens to my 10-month old granddaughter, I WILL sue your collective arses into an oblivion of biblical proportions.

I will hold you all, each and everyone of you, vicariously liable. I have done it before. I will do it again.

You HAVE empty homes. You ARE selling off stock.

I do not care for your reasons.

Even when this dust settles. When my granddaughter is elsewhere. The problems in that street remain. In Minister Rankine's defence, I ask myself what would I do. I don't have any answers. These are complex situations.

BUT, as long as stock is being sold, as long as houses are sitting empty, the Minister is absolutely guaranteed one thing...NO SYMPATHY and certainly NO PATIENCE!

Oh. And an upcoming happy new year Minister. I doubt the homeless will find it any different to 2010.

Other night at the pub, the barmaid poured me the wrong beer.

A Coopers Pale Ale poured instead of a Carlton Draught. The Draught was on special for $3 a schooner, whilst the other was full retail.


Back in the days when pubs were, well, different, that was called a mistake, and irrespective of the price, you scored it for the price of your order.

That was back then.

Today? Down the sink, then the correct one poured. Deal done. Despite me offering three bucks for the mistake, down it went. Down the bloody drain. A disturbing sight to behold.

Culture. Pub culture. Where has it gone?

Certainly here in South Australia, the demise of the publican and the advent of gaming rooms have led to a generation of young people who might never have entertained working in the entertainment business. If that is what pokie rooms are, entertainment.

Years ago you could prop up at the bar, leave your money there as you went to the dunny to do battle with little yellow round things in the trough, and most of the time arrive home with change in the skyrocket.

Remember the meat men who would cruise the bars on a Saturday avo slicing up salami and metwurst for the drinkers? I am now positive my good wife of 30 plus years knew we were not going to squash training at the now defunct Modbury North Squash Club on Milne Road all those Saturdays back then.

Then there were the Sally Army stalwarts with their donation tins. Every Friday night and Saturday avo. Never fail.

And you gotta doof your hat to the excuse board behind the bar. A dollar a session. If your better half called looking for ya, well, you're not there. Pay more, and the excuses dished out by the barmaids just got better.

My pub, my local for the past 20 years was part of the Taverner Group that was taken over by Woolworths.

However, way before that was a publican, Leo.

Leo would occasionally pop in, shout the bar, and every so often toss a few lunch vouchers around.

And if you had a problem, such as a steak served up as an iceberg, Leo would sort. No questions asked.

You try that today.

Without any doubt, the pokie players are well looked after. Try to get a beer when there is someone at the counter looking for twenty in coin. Then you have the free coffees made to order.

Somewhere in all of this, is the social drinker. The lover of the pub. Amidst a culture, an alien culture.

No mistakes. No money on the bar. No staff-understanding of what it means to either place your glass on its side, or, upside down if you are an idiot.

In the good old days, you could crank up a sing-along at the bar. The same group of socialites, week after week. Home away from home.

Today? Nope, not video killed the radio star. Pokies killed the culture.

Pubs are buggered. Well, as far as we old farts are concerned.

There still are a few of us, from the good old days. We huddle together at the same stand-up table, week after week. Yeah, talking about the good old days and how much these days do not make any sense.

Particularly the pouring of beer down a sink!

Woolies...you need to get your act together. Don't confuse beer with all that bread you throw out every night.

What the hell is going on at Public Trustee...again!

Despite many assurances given by Mark Bodycoat to the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry, ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. Hamlet 1:4.

http://adelcomp.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-is-there-still-workplace-bullying.html

2007: PUBLIC TRUSTEE CATH O’LOUGHLIN RESIGNS FOR PERSONAL REASONS

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/public-trustee-and-senior-officer-quit/story-e6freo8c-1111113368981


2009: PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Double-click DOCUMENTS, COMPLETED INQUIRIES, TABLED REPORTS and look for 51st REPORT, PUBLIC TRUSTEE

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


EMAIL PORN STREWN ACROSS YEARS, Channel 7, TODAY TONIGHT (uploaded by Family First SA to which I have no affiliation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSMpmxP4h8U

What has the I.T. Manager been doing? He replaced the previous person, THEN PT EXECUTIVE RECLASSIFIED THE POSITION UPAWAYS WITH A VERY HANDSOME PAY RISE TO BOOT! Yet, still the same number of Network Users, same duties, same work. With around 160 staff members, the PT position  pays handsomely compared to say the Office of Consumer Affairs where at least a hundred more Users lurk, as well as remote offices. Empires all unto themselves!!! The difference in salary is at least equivalent to a couple of people on the dole.

3 SEPT 2010: MARK BODYCOAT DOES AN UNEXPECTED CATH O’LOUGHLIN. TEARS FLOW AT FAREWELL DRINKS.

TEMPORARY PUBLIC TRUSTEE ANNOUNCED WHILST THEY LOOK FOR ANOTHER.

And speaking of illustrious leaders, albeit the blow-in type. Is it true that recently a senior female Jerome Maguire favourite was shipped across from 45 Pirie Street to stand-in for Mark Bodycoat for 4 weeks, but decided to bugger off on 2 weeks leave and left that rickety old rebirthed Mary Celeste rudderless? Did she still pocket the additional salary when Acting in the Bodycoat shoes?

Well, that is the good old Attorney-General’s Department for ya!

At Public Trustee, history seems to have its umbrella caught in the revolving door.

How many Inquiries now?

DISTRICT COURT 2004.
My little effort at the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAEOT/2004/1.html

GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION UNIT, COMMENCED DECEMBER 2005

SAPOL ANTI-CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION 2006

MOSS INQUIRY. 12 MONTHS. A DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATION AGAINST A SENIOR, NOW-EX PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICER.

THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF 2009.

We can but wonder what other story will be next to pop up in the media.

She is a sick little puppy that now-relocated Government Agency. Rann sold off the Franklin Street building to his mate in Spain not long ago.

We can but wonder what could be next.

Just a quick one though. Being from Belfast and having worked there during The Troubles, I know what to do when a bomb threat rips though the switchboard.

I remember we all gathered in Victoria Square, by the book, and the then Public Trustee Cath O'Loughlin strolled up. She asked; 'Anyone want to go back in, go throught the floors, and see if anything looks out of place?'

As I stood there staring at the big red trucks surrounding 25 Franklin Street, I thought about.....which planet!

Federal Election. If I was one of the Independents.

What a bloody circus this election has become. Sitting around, day after day, waiting to find a winner, a new or a recycled Leader.

OK. The circus idea has gripped my imagination. So, what would be my wish list to sling at Julia and Tony?

FUNDING FOR BEER DRINKERS.

The BDs of this nation have been ignored for way too long. Not unlike those fortnightly payments for bubs, I would like to see a couple hundred appear into my forever empty account, every fortnight, only to be used for going to the pub.

Consider the benefits. Guaranteed employment for all those hot chicks behind the bar. SAWater making a killing supplying crap Adelaide water to Coopers Brewery as beer production goes in to orbit. Then there are the hossies. Gambling will shoot right through the bloody roof. Those cheques from Lotteries Commissions to horsepistols will breed like bunnies. I can see new wards sprouting up everywhere with names such as The Guinness Ward.

A YEARLY TRAVEL ALLOWANCE.

The Pensioners get tossed a couple of tickets for free train travel each year. Hey, let’s expand that service. Just before Christmas, mail out Five Thousand Buck Qantas Travel Vouchers. Why the polies ask? Here’s a stupid question for ya. Think you will be voted out at the next election? Hell no!!!

INCENTIVES FOR PROSTATE TESTS

I have gone to my doc several times lately for the ultimate sacrifice...an encounter with a sheathed finger and a blob of gel. Only to reappear with the knowledge that my ears were clear. You know those little cardboard gauges you get to measure the circumference of your ring finger? How about a Prostate Incentive Kit that includes one for the doctor. Get to the surgery, line up all the docs, and whack all their fingers through that little bad boy. The teeniest weeniest one gets the honours. Include a voucher for a couple of pre-inspection pints at the local, and you are set. Thwack Thwack, bring it on big fella.

POLITICIANS ANNUAL AWARDS.

Bugger the Logies. This would be more fun. Consider these. The Lost in Space Award to Penny Wong. Or the Hogans Heroes I Know Nothing Award to Mike Rann. How about the Federal Golden Dagger Award to...well, nuff said. Yeah, and a travel voucher, a beer voucher, a flag inn voucher. Sweeeet.

As for South Australia? Well, our Premier has again bolted overseas. We have discovered that Fred’s Fish and Chip Shop is more likely to draw the ire of SafeWork SA than the government-run desal plant would. And porn is alive and writhing throughout the Public Trustee computer network.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSMpmxP4h8U

Never a dull moment.

Is this what Premier Rann means by transparency and accountability?

What is wrong with a Government that will not reveal the findings of multiple investigations into a government agency, an agency that serves the people of South Australia, the Office of the Public Trustee? An Agency that manages assets totalling in excess of ONE BILLION dollars.


Supreme Court awards for the injured. Monies bequeathed by Wills. Dollars invested by mums & dads.

Sure, there was a Parliamentary Inquiry back in 2009, and the Statutory Authorities Review Committee tabled its bi-partisan findings last November of 2009.

However, what about the findings of the SAPOL anti-corruption branch. The findings of the eighteen-month investigation by the Government Investigation Unit. The findings of the nearly-one-year-long Moss Inquiry.

Investigations and Hearings that cost you, the taxpayer, well in excess of one, maybe two million hard-earned dollars.

If asked, a spokesperson will more than likely direct you to the Parliamentary Inquiry report, a report available for perusal and download on the Parliamentary website.

You will be told that the Moss Inquiry rendered a guilty finding with regard to the Public Trustee executive against whom workplace bullying and corruption allegations had been levelled.

NEVERTHELESS, and I emphasis the NEVERTHELESS, I can state, with absolute first-hand authority, that a truckload of paperwork is buried somewhere in 45 Pirie Street, paperwork dealing with much more than workplace bullying.

Let us face it. Public Trustee is a source of income for the Government. From the fees and interest it makes, a dividend is returned to Treasury, every financial year. It only makes sense that irrespective of all matters, protection of this very public South Australian institution is paramount.

So, what DON’T you know?

Well, this is where I tread the very, very thin white line. My logs do record some very intensive scrutiny of my Blog from behind a firewall located within the Attorney-General’s Department at 45 Pirie Street. I am sure there are people there that would love to rope me up & stretch me out a further six inches.

I myself witnessed and reported on incidents that I, as a layman, thought, if proven, would be criminal. I reported these to the Government Investigation Unit during its lengthy investigation. I was interviewed before that by Attorney-General Department staff, only to be subsequently reminded of the law of libel and the law of slander.

I repeated my allegations to the Moss Inquiry. I repeated my allegations to the Parliamentary Inquiry.

So, what happened? I do not have a bloody clue. And, unless there is a hidden cache of pages within the Parliamentary Inquiry tabled report, I can only assume the worst.

I look back on my years of whistleblowing, and I honestly do wonder if it was worth anything. Certainly not for me. I do not have a job now. Even though I had a written guarantee from the CEO of Public Trustee that my position would be protected during the investigations, I was shown the door...redundant, position gone thank you!

Employer of the year.

I am positive there has been a cover-up.

I am in Court next Monday on a personal matter in relation to the State Superannuation Fund and my entitlements. I am seeking information from these findings. And having knowledge of the allegations over the years, I know that what I seek is relevant.

One can but wonder what argument Crown Law will concoct for Monday morning. No doubt, a technical argument.

I guess the Premier’s renewed commitment to transparency and accountability was left in the magazine pouch on the plane!

Where is the Ministerial Response to the Public Trustee Inquiry report?

On 1 December 2009, the fifty first report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, the final report of the Inquiry into the Office of the Public Trustee, was tabled in the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament.

In accordance with Section 19 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, ministers are required to respond to the Committee’s reports within four months of tabling. Ministers are required to include in their response statements:

(a) which (if any) recommendations will be carried out and the manner in which they will be carried out; and

(b) which (if any) recommendations will not be carried out and the reasons for not carrying them out.

Ministers must cause a copy of their response to be laid before the Legislative Council within six sitting days after it is made.

On 26 May 2010, nearly 2 months late, a response was tabled. However, where is it?

I can tell you where it is not...on the Committee's web page. Neither is the Public Trustee Inquiry Report, the 51st Report. It was there, not now. Everything else is still there.

Maybe someone has just...forgot. After all, it seems to work for the Treasurer.

And I did contact the Committee last month with this query, but I guess they forgot too!

Any ex-members of SuperSA out there?

I am looking for any ex-members of SuperSA who had problems with accessing insurance payouts due to pre-existing conditions.


I have been working my way through the District Court with an Appeal to the Disciplinary and Administrative section. The Hearing is scheduled for late August.

If you know of anyone who was in a similar situation, by way of either the District Court or the SuperSA internal appeal process, I would appreciate hearing from him or her.

There is a question on the form that asks the Member to detail any medical condition in the past that may render the applicant disabled in the future...yeah, I know, a tough question when you are not a medical expert!

Anyway, I fell foul of this little gem, and need to know if anyone else has had a similar experience, particularly if the SuperSA Board (or by District Court appeal) reversed the decline decision on Appeal.

Independent Commission Against Corruption. A Mike Rann smokescreen!

In a recent article, Attorney-General John Rau is quoted as saying he believed proponents of a local ICAC “have so far made a very poor case”.

I can but wonder to what proponents he has heeded. Certainly not me, and I am the poster boy for all that is wrong with the present system.

Starting with a single complaint in March of 2000, my anti-workplace bullying and corruption campaign devoured 10 years of my life, as I ducked and weaved my way through a myriad of sometimes overlapping investigatory bodies within the Justice Department. The crowning glory was a 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry, but not even that publicly unearthed the more licentious shenanigans of the government agency in question.

At one particular point I was dealing with four discrete bodies: the Government Investigation Unit, the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, the anti-corruption branch of SAPOL, and the state Ombudsman. Oh yes, and there was the Crown Solicitor’s Office, Workplace Services, Workcover, the Commissioner for Public Employment, and there were more!

My dear Mr Rau. Had I been able to take my early suspicions to a body other than one of the government’s own, just maybe I would not have suffered through years of torment and illness. Your system DOES NOT WORK. In particular, you CANNOT investigate yourself.

And don’t insult the people of this state with that worn old diatribe about a national ICAC. This party room smokescreen fools no one.

(Submitted to The Advertiser, 14 May 2010)

Bullying: School or Workplace?

It matters not. To the victim of either, the effects of bullying are the same: mood swings, sleepless nights, isolation, nausea, night sweats, panic attacks. A veritable cocktail named Anxiety and Depression.

As a result of bullying, people have committed suicide. People have died from stress-related illnesses. People are locked away in their homes, broken and vulnerable.

These people never did anything wrong!

Me? I fought workplace bullying and corruption within the state public service for years. And yes, eventually I succumbed to depression and to the confines of my home.

The system failed me, as it continues to fail others.

Anyone who follows this insidious sickness, particularly on the Internet, will be aware of a global epidemic, an epidemic fuelled by the psychosis of the bully and the stark inability of management to even manage a bullying complaint, never mind achieve a resolution.

How many times do we hear of a bullied child shunted off to another school, of a worker transferred out, of a victim resigning, taking the path of least resistance.

Unacceptable!

The system, if there is one, does not work. Why? There are no consequences for inaction.

During June of 2004, the Equal Opportunity Tribunal handed down a judgment, which, in part addressed this very issue. In McKibbin V Public Trustee, Judge Rice stated that management was vicariously liable for not having taken appropriate action to protect the worker, me.

Vicarious Liability is when a person is held responsible for the tort of another even though the person being held responsible may not have done anything wrong.

In part, the Tribunal stated; ‘...It is not enough to wait for a complaint before appropriate action needs to be taken by managers/employers.... if an employer is made aware informally of potentially discriminatory, harassing or victimising behaviour (e.g. observations of staff verbally conveyed to management, management observing relevant behaviour and so on) prior to a formal complaint being made, and the employer takes no action until the formal complaint is made, the fact the employer takes appropriate and commensurate action in response would not be sufficient to avoid its being found vicariously liable....In our view, in this instance Public Trustee impliedly authorised Mr X’s conduct by doing nothing about Mr McKibbin’s complaints or not doing sufficient about them. In our view, Public Trustee has vicariously authorised that conduct...’

Employers have a Duty of Care. Vicarious Liability is your weapon.

Radio switchboards are jammed with callers singing from the same sheet. Parents wanting to know why their child has been and continues to be bullied. Workers, behind veils of anonymity criticising management for sitting on its collective you know what.

During my years of struggle, never did I see a Policy that incorporated consequences for management inaction. It should never be necessary for a victim of bullying to seek judgment from a court.

We need accountability for inaction. Not more kneejerk, cotton wool Policies!

McKibbin V State of South Australia

Why is there STILL Workplace Bullying at Public Trustee?

We ascribe the word ‘spin’ to the world of politics. Let’s look for some words to ascribe to the Office of the Public Trustee.

Time to focus on the executive management team of that state government agency, an agency that reports to the Attorney-General’s Department, a department headed up by a $6400+ per week bureaucrat, Mr. Jerome Maguire.

Then, of course, you have the grand doyen sitting up there on top of the Christmas tree, Mr. Michael Atkinson, our state Attorney-General.

The trillion-dollar question is: WILL THE STILL-PRACTICING WORKPLACE BULLIES OF PUBLIC TRUSTEE ever be dealt with?

If the Public Trustee, Mr. Mark Bodycoat was asked this question (as he was queried during the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry), I am certain he would blow rose petals through the air and rattle off all those cotton ball training courses conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission and all those Policies he has had rewritten concerning Workplace Bullying and Sexual Harassment.

Useless!

Policies are USELESS! Training Courses are USELESS!

Why? It’s not rocket science. In fact, I shouldn’t have to insult the intelligence of the average punter by putting up even the most obvious reason.

Inside the mind of the psychotic workplace bully lurks some pretty heavy stuff, and evil glues it all together.

You see, I don’t give a toss about excuses such as what happened at school, or the family upbringing, or, or, or...

We all are responsible for our actions, irrespective.

Oh, and speaking of actions?

In the Equal Opportunity Tribunal determination handed down 25 June 2004, Judge Rice stated, in part:

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

AND;

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

As I am the Mr McKibbin referred to, I can state with absolute authority that the only reason we all wound up in Court was because executive management did absolutely NOTHING!!! And when I say nothing, I do not refer to the victimisation dished out to me, on a daily basis for bringing one of their own into disrepute.

Let’s now forward to the Parliamentary Inquiry on 2009, and the current grand poo bah Mr Mark Bodycoat.

Page 67 of the report deals with part of Mr Bodycoat’s submission in relation to MOI:

‘...Mister Bodycoat made it clear to the Committee that the allegations of bullying that where the subject of this Inquiry related to a period before 2005...’

AND;

‘...The Public Trustee maintained that all allegations made by Mr McKibbin had been taken seriously, and there was evidence that ALL were investigated...’

Oh dear!!

The Public Trustee must know something the Court did not!

First up. Mr Bodycoat, you were the head honcho at Consumer Affairs during the Investigations, and your only contact with Public Trustee was with me because I worked with you from March 2006 through to June of 2007.

Secondly, the GIU Investigator, Ms Pamela Forbes was taking statements re: on-going bullying well AFTER 2006...yep, that IS a SIX on the end.

Thirdly, and this is where I am personally disappointed with you, you have BELIEVED (or so it seems that way) all you have been told, probably by the same people that treated me like shit!

And lastly, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG AND I SINCERELY HOPE YOU DO NOT KNOW IT!!

You spoke of my allegations being investigated. Here is an example of Public Trustee investigation techniques.

Having endured bullying for years, I took my complaints to the new Public Trustee, Ms Catherine O’Loughlin, another lawyer.

I quote from my notes:

“...you should go see him first...” (the bloody bully for dears sake!)

“...I remind you of the laws of libel and slander...”

“...anyone who considers it necessary to go outside of Public Trustee should look for employment elsewhere...”

I now turn my attention to another executive who was there at the time of my trials and tribulations, Dr Mark Witham.

I liked Mark, until the others sucked him in.

I was an Occ Health and Safety elected Representative, and, for a time, Mark was the Chair of the OH&S Committee.

Boy, did I try to make that Committee take heed of the workplace bullying problems, particularly during  2005. At one meeting Mark got quite ‘bothered’ with me when I suggested that Cath O’Loughlin had done bugger all in relation to bullying complaints.

Judge Rice had already confirmed the year before that management had sat on its collective ass, but, well, who was I to argue with a Doctor whose Thesis is titled; ‘A Fair Go: Cutting the cake and Closing Schools’.

So, where does this all take us? Up the Bullyboy Creek without the paddle.

Page 66 of the Parliamentary Inquiry report cites that the Government Investigations Unit took a myriad of statements alleging bullyboy behaviours by FOUR Public Trustee staff members.

ONE is GONE.

THREE remain, and from what I hear, all plying their insidious trades as though nothing has ever changed.

R.I.P. my friend.

I need to be careful how I compose this Post.

Someone I knew, someone I worked with, someone I helped through a difficult time, recently passed away, suddenly at home.

His name was Brian, and until a few months ago he was employed by the Office of the Public Trustee. I am not sure how long for, but suffice to say he was there when I fronted back in June of 1999.

Brian was a bit of a lad, even at 60. He had seen a lot in his time, could be somewhat rough around the edges, but had a heart of gold.

I kept an Email he sent me on the day I myself abruptly left that world of workplace bullying. I had emailed all staff saying that I was out of there with a one hour notice! It reads:

Hi Rob,

You bloody silly old Irish bugger, how dare you not come and say goodbye, however luckily for you I totally understand, I hope all goes well for you in your next job, and I'll keep sending you all the jokes and things as I put your e-mail address on my personal list, you always were one of my favourite people here at PT.

But anyway God Speed & God Bless I'm going to miss you around the place.

Your Old Mate

Brian
PS My bloody computers still not working properly, come back alls forgiven ha ha

Brian experienced significant workplace bullying at that place. No doubt about that.

At one stage we both found ourselves on the Workcover slagheap, particularly when Brian was battling his employer, the State Government, to have his claim recognised, and for the stated cause of injury to be recognised.

I vividly recall being told about a meeting during which it was discussed how NOT TO approve his Workcover claim. Some superhero had suggested his condition could be pinned to time he served in the Navy many, many years prior.

I remember the pitched battles I fought for my claim to be endorsed. Management did not want to be seen to acknowledge that workplace bullying existed within its office.

I was many times in touch with Brian over the years as he fought the system, I remember all he told me, and I remember things I had seen.

There is no doubt in my mind that his experiences at Public Trustee contributed to a condition that in the end claimed his life.

Would he be alive today had he not taken on the system?

An email to All Staff from thee Public Trustee, Mr. Mark Bodycoat reads:

Sadly, I have to tell you all that Brian Smith died unexpectedly last night.

Brian’s last few years with Public Trustee were not always happy, and he had his own personal battles to fight, none of which would have been easy for him. I will remember him as a good man, with a good heart. His passing will sadden us all.

Our thoughts go out to his family.

You judge whether the wording of the PT email is appropriate!

For some years I have been screaming the ‘one day it will happen’ message, a message that always fell upon deaf ears.

Brian me old mate, I know you’re looking down and at peace.

I doubt there was anything we could have done differently.

We insisted on the same third-party Rehab Manager. We simply had no faith whatsoever with Mick Atkinson’s department, a department that is self-insured.

We both shared the biggest challenge. Waging battles with a department that put its own reputation ahead of the welfare of its staff.

At least you got to see the Inquiries, and the Parliamentary Inquiry. I remember the day you called and were excited at the prospect of the bastards being sprung!!!! Though...

YOUR BULLY is still there and has yet to answer for HIS sins!!!

Rest In Peace my friend.

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!

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'.

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!

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.

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