Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

The following is an FOI request.

I refer the APSC to the following media coverage:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/24/lib...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

https://www.themandarin.com.au/85236-thr...

As I understand, that media coverage relates to this FOI decision: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... and specifically, the production of a 13 page document by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the “APSC produced document for the IPA”) beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... ) for the use and benefit of far right wing political extremist group, the Institute of Public Affairs (the ‘IPA’) – a political group for which the current Public Service Commissioner is a contributing member, and former director.

As I understand from the articles and the FOI documents referred to above, certain APSC staff consider it an appropriate use of scarce Commonwealth resources/taxpayer money to provide research and authoring services to the IPA in order to further the political objectives of the IPA and its membership (including the Public Service Commissioner).

I request access to all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.

To narrow the scope of my request I am willing for it to relate only to email documents (ie. emails and any attachments to those emails) and I am willing for the APSC to disregard all but the last email in email chains/threads (but only on the basis that the preceding emails in those email chains will be included in the last email of those email chains). I am also willing for the APSC to disregard any documents within the scope of my request that have already been made available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...

The APSC staff who took part in the preparation of the APSC produced document for the IPA have likely acted illegally (noting the obligations, prohibitions and criminal offences established by the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Criminal Code Act 1995) and so part of the purpose of my request is to ensure that those officers are brought to justice.

While I understand that the Public Service Commissioner was intimately involved in the preparation of the document at issue, I understand that other APSC staff had some involvement in the preparation of the document.

I note, for example, from pg 9 of 32 of the document available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... that the APSC’s Group Manager Corporate thinks it appropriate to copy in members of the IPA into intra senior management APSC communications as if those IPA members are on the APSC’s/Commonwealth’s payroll and part of the APSC’s senior management team and so perhaps the APSC’s Group Manager Corporate played some part in the preparation of the document at issue.

I remind the APSC of the following:

- the objects of the FOI Act which relevantly include “increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities”, “increasing recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource” and “that functions and powers given by [the FOI Act] are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost”.
- the criminal offence established by section 24 of the Archives Act 1983; and
- the obligations imposed on APSC staff by the Public Service Act 1999 (in particular the obligations to behave honestly, apolitically, with integrity and transparently) and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Further, if any member of the APSC’s Legal Group who holds a practising certificate processes this request (or indeed if they were involved in the preparation of the document at issue), I remind those APSC officers of their professional obligations in relation to their paramount duty to the administration of justice and to avoid any conduct which may be seen to compromise their integrity and professional independence.

I also note relevant advice from the FOI Guidelines that provides that “[w]here public servants’ personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed” and that “[w]hen considering whether it would be unreasonable to disclose the names of public servants, there is no basis under the FOI Act for agencies to start from the position that the classification level of a departmental officer determines whether his or her name would be unreasonable to disclose. In seeking to claim the exemption an agency needs to identify the special circumstances which exist rather than start from the assumption that such information is exempt.”

Lastly, I note that it would be clearly improper (at least from the perspective of an ethical, honest and law abiding public servant) for this request to be processed by any person who has any affiliation whatsoever with the Liberal Party, the IPA or any other far right wing political extremist group. To the extent that there are any authorised officers at the APSC who have no such affiliations, I request that they process this request independently of other APSC officers who are affiliated with extremist groups of that persuasion.

Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

Here's a link to another article on this matter for your consideration. It was written by a public sector ethics expert who considers that the APSC staff involved in this incident have acted illegally:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

Obviously, there's a wide public interest in circumstances where highly paid senior officials (including an agency head) at an agency charged with "promot[ing] high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS" act illegally.

Dear FOI,

I am writing in response to the APSC’s letter of 15 November 2017 advising that I am liable to pay a charge, preliminarily assessed to be $233.77, for the processing of my FOI request dated 2 November 2017.

I contend that charge should not be imposed because release of the documents is in the general public interest, including because those documents will tend to demonstrate that the Public Service Commissioner, and potentially other members of the Australian Public Service Commission’s (APSC’s) senior management team have engaged in serious and unlawful misconduct. My submissions in support of my contention follow.

[1] The Public Service Act 1999 requires that public servants be impartial and apolitical (s.10(5)) and that public servants be engaged by way of a merit based selection process (s.10A(2)). Pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Service Commissioner is required to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the Australian Public Service.

[2] In December 2015, Mr John Lloyd was appointed to the position of Public Service Commissioner in the absence of a merit-based selection process after being offered the job over the phone by Senator Eric Abetz: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear....

[3] Immediately prior to his appointment, Mr Lloyd was a member of the Liberal Party and also a Director and member of far-right wing ‘think tank’ and political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA): https://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/p....

[4] Mr Lloyd remains a contributing member of the IPA: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down... (pp.93-94)

[5] Among its political objectives, the IPA seeks the abolition of large swathes of the Australian public service: http://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/ipa-r....

[6] Earlier this year, in response to a freedom of information request (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/i... ) seeking copies of correspondence between the APSC and the IPA, the APSC provided access to the following document: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... (the 32 page “FOI document”).

[7] Document 4 (beginning at page 12 of the 32 page FOI document) concerns the production of a 13-page document (beginning at page 16 of the FOI document), researched and prepared by APSC staff, at the direction of John Lloyd, titled ‘Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the ‘IPA document’).

[8] The IPA document has been produced following a discussion between John Lloyd and his colleagues at the IPA, for the purposes of an article to be produced by the IPA. The IPA document was not made publicly available (other than in response to a FOI request). In effect, the IPA document was researched, prepared and produced by Commonwealth public servants for the use and benefit of the IPA.

[9] In response to being provided with the APSC produced document, the IPA thanked Mr Lloyd indicating that the document is ‘very handy’ (see pg 12 of 32 of the FOI document). Indeed it was. The IPA subsequently prepared and published an article later that year titled “Driving a soft bargain” examining the Commonwealth Public Sector Enterprise Agreements 2011 – 2014” (available here: https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/rese...) which criticises what the IPA perceives to be the overly generous pay and conditions of rank and file Commonwealth public servants.

[10] The IPA’s article is substantially based on the APSC produced IPA document. There are considerable portions of the IPA’s article that plagiarise, in many cases word for word, information contained in the APSC produced IPA document. For example, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the APSC produced IPA document reads as follows:
1. Over the past decade, APS employees have enjoyed wage increases substantially above CPI.
2. During this time, APS remuneration increases totalled 50.7 per cent, compared to CPI increases of 31.8 per cent. That is more than most other industries.
3. In addition to these generous wages, Commonwealth public sector agreements have accumulated other generous terms and conditions. These go beyond those provided by minimum safety nets, often well above community standards.

Page 24 of the IPA article contains the following passages:
Over the past decade, APS employees have enjoyed wage increases substantially above CPI. During this time, APS remuneration increases totalled 50.7 per cent, compared to CPI increases of 31.8 per cent. That is more than most other industries.
[…]
In addition to these generous wages, Commonwealth public sector agreements have
accumulated other generous terms and conditions. These go beyond those provided by minimum safety nets, often well above community standards.

[11} Another example is that at paragraph 19 of the APSC produced IPA document (on page 6 of that document) which reads as follows:
19. Most APS agreements contain prescriptive arrangements which guarantee union delegates access to use workplace facilities, infrastructure, technology and resources for the purposes of carrying out their role with their union. […]

Page 21 of the IPA article contains the following passage:
All agreements contain prescriptive arrangements which guarantee union delegates access to use workplace facilities, infrastructure, technology and resources – and paid time – for the purposes of carrying out their role with their union.

[12] The IPA’s article does not acknowledge or attribute the APSC prepared IPA document. Effectively, the APSC, at Mr Lloyd’s direction, has provided taxpayer funded research and writing services to Mr Lloyd’s colleagues and fellow members at the IPA in order to pursue the political objectives of the IPA and its members (which include Mr Lloyd). At the direction of John Lloyd, the APSC has been used as a research outpost facility for a far-right think tank and political lobby group of which Mr Lloyd is a longstanding member and former staffer.

[13] The IPA then proceeded to use the article as the basis for its submission in support of the Government’s enterprise bargaining policy for the public service to the recently conducted Senate inquiry into the Government’s workplace bargaining policy for the public service (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus... ).

[14] The IPA’s submission to that Senate inquiry is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx.... The IPA’s submission to that inquiry, together with the APSC’s submission, are the only submissions to that inquiry, of the 503 lodged, in support of the Government’s bargaining policy for the public service. The IPA’s submission does not acknowledge or attribute the APSC produced IPA document, despite that the IPA’s submission has effectively been ‘ghost written’ by the APSC at the direction of John Lloyd.

[15] The IPA then used the APSC produced IPA documents as the basis for its oral submissions at that inquiry (see here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...).

[16] Mr Lloyd was present at the Senate Inquiry’s public hearing but did not disclose the APSC’s role in the preparing the IPA document which formed the basis of the IPA’s written and oral submissions.

[17] The Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report resulting from that Senate Inquiry (available here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busi...) is substantially based on the IPA’s submission, which is based on the work done by the APSC, at the direction of John Lloyd, for the use and benefit of the IPA.

[18] By the actions set out above, it is apparent that Mr Lloyd, and potentially other members of the APSC’s senior management team have acted illegally by contravening:
• subsections 13(1), 13(7), 13(8), 13(10) and 13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999;
• sections 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and
• section 142.2 (abuse of public office) of the Criminal Code Act 1995.

[19] I note that Mr Lloyd’s misconduct has been the subject of a range of media coverage including:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/24/lib...

https://www.themandarin.com.au/85236-thr...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national...

[20] I further note that with a total annual remuneration of $692,500, Mr Lloyd is one the highest paid statutory office holders in the Commonwealth, being paid some 50% more than the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Australia’s Chief Scientist and almost twice as much as the Information Commissioner: http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/media/docu... .

[21] In the interests of transparency and the maintenance of an apolitical, impartial and uncorrupted Australia Public Service that adheres to the rule of law, it is very much in the general public interest that the APSC release any documents associated with the serious misconduct set out above such that the administration of justice in relation to these matters is not hindered.

[22] The matters set out above indicate that Mr Lloyd and the APSC’s senior management team use scarce Commonwealth/taxpayer resources to assist the political purposes of a far-right wing political lobby group (of which Mr Lloyd is a longstanding member). I note that while Mr Lloyd is willing to direct the wholly improper use of Commonwealth resources to enrich the IPA and further its political objectives without charging that lobby group for the taxpayer services provided - when it comes to providing access to Government information held by the APSC on behalf of the public, the APSC has sought to impose a substantial charge with a view to avoiding the public scrutiny associated with a serious misuse of Commonwealth resources.

[23] Other documents contained in the FOI document demonstrate the level with which the IPA has infiltrated the APSC. For example, document 3, which begins on page 9 of the FOI document demonstrates that the IPA is comfortable contacting the APSC’s Group Manager, Corporate advising the APSC of political material that may be of interest to Mr Lloyd, to which the APSC’s Group Manager, Corporate responds by immediately referring that information to members of the APSC’s senior management team including by copying in the IPA staff member as if that person were a member of the APSC’s senior management team. Under Mr Lloyd’s direction, the APSC has become a puppet of the IPA.

[24] I now turn to the authors of the IPA article – Mr Aaron Lane and Mr James Paterson – and additional aspects of the public interest that will be served by the release of the documents the subject of my request, without a charge being imposed.

[25] One author of the IPA article, now Senator James Paterson, chaired the recently conducted Senate inquiry into the Government’s workplace bargaining policy for the public service (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus... ).

[26] Despite the requirements of the Senate Standing Orders, Senator Paterson failed to disclose to the Committee that the IPA’s submission to that Committee’s inquiry was almost entirely based upon the IPA article which he co-authored and which itself is largely based on, and plagiarises, the APSC produced IPA document. It is in the general public interest that such misconduct on the part of a Parliamentarian be referred to the Senate Privileges Committee and the production of the documents the subject of my request will shine further light on the extent of Senator Paterson’s misconduct.

[27] The other author of the IPA article is Mr Aaron Lane. Mr Lane’ character is set out here: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/libera.... I note Mr Lane is currently a lecturer at RMIT University and is subject to a range of policies concerning academic misconduct (which encompass plagiarism). There is a general public interest in ensuring that Australia’s tertiary intuitions are not staffed by homophobic academics who engage in academic misconduct.

[28] An additional public interest aspect served by the release of the documents the subject of my request without charge relates to the copyright that subsists in the APSC produced IPA document that vests with the Crown/Commonwealth. Subject to the existence of a licensing agreement that permitted the plagiarising of the APSC produced IPA document as set out above, the Crown’s copyright comprised in the APSC produced IPA document has been exercised and infringed by:
- the IPA;
- Mr Aaron Lane (a co –author of the IPA article);
- Mr James Paterson (current Senator and co-author of the IPA article); and
- RMIT University (who published the IPA article).

[29] It would be highly unusual, and would constitute a violation of the Government’s Intellectual Property Rules (https://www.communications.gov.au/policy...) for the APSC to have granted the authors of the IPA article, or the IPA itself, a copyright licence to exploit the APSC produced IPA document in the manner described above. There is a wide public interest in the enforcement of the Crown’s copyright and the documents the subject of my request will demonstrate whether the APSC granted the IPA a licence to exercise the rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in the APSC produced IPA document.

Dear FOI,

Further to my email to you of 15 December 2017 setting out why the release of the documents the subject of my request is in the general public interest, I refer the APSC to the following article published today: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national... by Fairfax papers.

The article indicates that the Public Service Commissioner, Mr John Lloyd, has refused to comply with a Senate Committee request for details of communications between Mr Lloyd and far right wing political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (of which Mr Lloyd is a long standing member and former staffer), presumably because doing so would further demonstrate Mr Lloyd's malfeasance in, and abuse of, public office.

This information supplements and supports my submissions in respect of this matter - clearly there is a general public interest in shining a light on the corrupt practices of the most senior, and most highly remunerated, public servants.

Dear FOI,

My request, made seven months ago, was for “all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.”

That includes not only all duplicates and drafts, but file notes, instant messages (lync, whatsapp or other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments (with authors/editors identified), memos, post it notes and audit details of active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM (demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions made in respect of the doucment, its distribution or otherwise).

I do not agree to any reduction in scope of the documents the subject of my request.

The APSC’s General Counsel, in recognition of the public interest in these matters, has entered into a binding agreement on behalf of the APSC to waive any charges in relation to my request.

To process my request in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act and the Public Service Act 1999, the APSC will need to conduct detailed and thorough searches of the APSC’s document management systems but also the document holdings of every APSC staff member, current and former, who had any involvement, even if only peripherally, in relation to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Relevant documents will be held by IPA affiliated APSC staff who were deeply involved in the matter (J Lloyd, M [Name removed at request of APSC], C Page, C Kelly) but the APSC will also need to conduct thorough searches of the archived document holdings (maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Archives Act 1983) of APSC staff who had some involvement with the document but that have since left the APSC (eg. L Poole, S Foster).

I reject Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s spurious claim that releasing the names of the APSC staff members involved in this matter would be unreasonable including because that would expose those staff members to “public scrutiny”. That claim has been made for an improper purpose and runs contra not only to the requirements of subsections 10(4) and 13(1) of the Public Service Act 1999 but also the objects of the FOI Act, including Parliament’s intention expressed at paragraph 3(2)(b) of the FOI Act.

I require the names of each APSC officer involved with this matter including for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. If APSC staff involved in this matter have complied with their legal and ethical obligations, they have nothing to fear.

Resolution of these matters is of wide public interest, not least because resolution will offer invaluable guidance to all APS staff as to what constitutes allowable conduct in respect of their relationships with, and the provision of information and services to, political lobby groups (while at work or otherwise). Resolution of these matters will also provide public servants with invaluable advice as to the extent of their obligations to behave in an apolitical and impartial manner. Clearly, the APSC is not in a position to adjudicate or otherwise resolve these matters in an apolitical, independent and objective manner.

Dear FOI,

Thanks for that - right you are.

I'd like to make an FOI request for access to all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA. Those documents include, but are not limited to, instant messages (lync, whatsapp or other), text messages, voice mail messages, emails, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, meeting notes, marked-up edits and comments (with authors/editors identified), memos,
post it notes and audit details of active events against relevant documents held in workflow/HPRM /TRIM (demonstrating which APSC staff members accessed, created and modified relevant documents and the changes they may have made and when) that in any way relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA (whether it be the genesis and preparation of that document, its use, its audience, its recipients (including all third party recipients), its contents, decisions made in respect of the document, its distribution or otherwise.

Noting those documents will tend to demonstrate illegal activities engaged in by APSC staff and the Public Service Commissioner, there's a wide public interest in their production.

Thanks.

Dear FOI,

Your email dated 24 May 2018 says “The Commission’s policy is to exclude the personal details of the Commissions or APSC officers, such as names, signatures, direct phone and mobile numbers contained in documents that fall within the scope of an FOI request, unless you specifically request access to such details”

That’s a policy that has no basis in law as well as being a policy that is precisely the opposite to that espoused by the Information Commissioner in the FOI Guidelines made under s.93A of the FOI Act.

As I’ve previously indicated, I require the names of each APSC officer involved with this matter including for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. If APSC staff involved in this matter have complied with their legal and ethical obligations, they have nothing to fear.

Dear FOI,

On 1 May 2018, the APSC wrote to me to indicate that for my FOI request made on 2 November 2017, "[t]he statutory due date for you to receive a decision will fall due on 6 June 2018". What happened?

Dear FOI,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I seek internal review of [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 7 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 2 November 2017.

My request made under the FOI Act on 2 November 2017 concerned:
“[…] a 13 page document by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” (the “APSC produced document for the IPA”) beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...) for the use and benefit of far right wing political extremist group, the Institute of Public Affairs (the ‘IPA’) – a political group for which the current Public Service Commissioner is a contributing member, and former director.”

Specifically, I sought access to:
“[…] all documents held by the APSC that relate to the APSC produced document for the IPA.”

On 7 June 2018, [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], being the Group Manager of the APSC team that prepared “the APSC produced document for the IPA”, refused access to the documents the subject of my request on the basis that the APSC produced document for the IPA:
“[…] was not “prepared for the IPA” ” – just that the IPA happened to be the only recipient of that document and therefore, according to Mr [Name removed at request of APSC], no related documents exist.

My submissions in support of my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision are as follows.

[1] My FOI request of 2 November 2017 sought copies of all documents held by the APSC that relate to ““[…] a 13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3...

[2] To simplify my request, I abbreviated reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... by referring to it, for the purposes of my FOI request, as the “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

[3] The use of abbreviated references is a commonly used and understood literary technique. Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] is aware of this, not least because Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] uses the same literary technique in the work that he does for the Institute of Public Affairs (or, using an abbreviated reference, “the IPA”) while as a Commonwealth public servant. See, for example, Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s email to his colleagues at the IPA at page 5 of the document here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... .

[4] An abbreviated reference need not necessarily bear any relationship to the document, entity or thing to which it refers. For example, one might abbreviate reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3... by referring to it as: i) “document(s) indicating [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] was given advance notice of questions to be asked by Government senators at Senate Estimates”; or ii) “document(s) indicating the [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] has given misleading information to the FWC” - but those abbreviated references would still be references to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3....

[5] In the same way, even if it were true, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, that the APSC produced document for the IPA, “[…] was not “prepared for the IPA” ”, the abbreviated reference of “the APSC produced document for the IPA” remains a reference to the “13 page document [prepared] by APSC staff (titled “Examples of ‘soft’ arrangements in Commonwealth enterprise agreements” […] beginning at page 16 of this document https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/3.... In any case, regardless of whether the APSC produced document for the IPA, was or wasn’t initially prepared for the IPA, it is not in dispute that the document was prepared by the APSC, and provided to the IPA, to advance the political agenda of the IPA – and so it is accurate to refer to the document as “the APSC produced document for the IPA”.

[6] Accordingly, I am of the view that Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request has been incorrectly and dishonestly made:
i) for purposes that run contra to the objects of the FOI Act,
ii) for the purpose of hindering scrutiny of the unethical and illegal practices of senior APSC staff; and
iii) in contravention of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s legal obligations to: i) behave honestly and with integrity (s.13(1) of the Public Service Act 1999), ii) (noting Mr [Name Removed at request of APSC]’s involvement in the preparation of the APSC produced document for the IPA and Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s affiliation with the IPA), take steps to manage his conflict of interest in making a decision on this matter (s.13(7) of the Public Service Act 1999); iii) to behave in a way that upholds the APS Values (s.13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999) and, iv) by personal example, behave in a manner that promotes the APS Values and APS Code of Conduct (s.35(3)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999).

[7] But the APSC’s internal reviewer need not solely rely on my interpretation – he/she can simply look at how my FOI request was interpreted by other APSC staff.

[8] Upon receipt of my request, the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel, on 15/11/17 responded to it by stating that I am “liable to pay a charge for the processing of [my FOI] request” and that the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel preliminary assessment of that charge was $233.77 constituted of $77.50 for the search, retrieval and production of the relevant documents and $156.27 for decision-making time in respect of those relevant documents.

[9] But, if as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s then Acting General Counsel decide to impose a processing charge of $233.77 (being representative of the apparent costs of searching, retrieving, producing and deciding upon relevant documents) in respect of my request for documents?

[10] When I wrote to the APSC to request that the $233.77 processing charge not be imposed because access to the documents is in the general public interest, on 12/1/18, the APSC’s Director, Integrity declined my request and affirmed the $233.77 preliminary charges decision including by stating:
• “[h]aving consulted with the relevant line areas and reviewed certain documents falling within the scope of your request [...]”;
• “I consider that disclosure of the documents sought, being emails relating to the [APSC produced document for the IPA] is not in the general public interest or of interest to a substantial section of the public. This is because the documents you are seeking were created three years' ago and in my view, release of the same do not meet the objectives of the FOI Act.”
• “I have also taken into consideration the cost to the Commission in processing your FOI request, noting that the processing charges do not compensate the actual costs associated with the processing of your request. The true processing time for your request is longer than the total time considered for the purposes of determining the preliminary assessment of charges.”
• “I have independently considered the calculation of the preliminary charges assessment, and I am satisfied that the estimated charge is valid, based on discussions with the relevant line area and my own knowledge of the time required to undertake third party consultations, and to draft and settle a decision.”

[11] In the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s own words, she has identified “certain documents falling within the scope of [my] request”. But, if as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s Director, Integrity decide to affirm a decision to impose a processing charge of $233.77 (being representative of the apparent costs of searching, retrieving, producing and deciding upon relevant documents) in respect of my request for documents? And how can it possibly be that the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s decision to affirm a decision to impose a charge for processing documents (when apparently there are none) complies with the legal obligations imposed on the APSC’s Director, Integrity by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), and 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s Director, Integrity’s decision to affirm the charge must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

[12] In March 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel, in recognition of the public interest in the documents the subject of my request, entered into a binding agreement on behalf of the APSC, with the OAIC and myself, to waive any charges in relation to my request.

[13] On 1 May 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel wrote to me stating “It has been determined following assessment of the documents [that fall within the scope of my request] that it is necessary for the Commission to conduct formal consultation with affected third parties as required by sections 27 and or 27A of the FOI Act.”

[14] But if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s General Counsel indicate to me that she had identified documents falling within the scope of my request and that she had to consult with third parties identified in those documents? And if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, did the APSC’s General Counsel really consult with any third parties, and if so, who? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then how can it possibly be that the APSC’s General Counsel’s decision to consult with third parties apparently identified in documents that [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] contends don’t exist, complies with the legal obligations imposed on the APSC’s General Counsel by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999, and section 5 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (regarding dishonest and disreputable conduct)? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s General Counsel’s decision to consult with third parties apparently identified in documents identified as falling within the scope of my request, must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

[15] On 17 May 2018, the APSC’s General Counsel wrote to me stating that: “The decision maker is currently assessing the documents relevant to your request and has determined that there are a number of duplicate documents. As such, are you agreeable for duplicates to be removed from the scope of the request? In addition there are a number of draft versions of the documents titled Examples of 'soft' arrangements in Commonwealth Enterprise agreements. To limit the number of pages and number of documents you receive, are you agreeable to being provided with the final version of those documents, or do you require all draft versions of those documents?”

[16] But if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, why did the APSC’s General Counsel indicate to me that not only had she identified documents “relevant to [my] request”, but that there were draft and duplicate versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request? And if, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then how can the APSC’s General Counsel’s act of notifying me to indicate that she had identified documents “relevant to [my] request” (and that there were duplicate and draft versions of those documents) be reconciled with the legal obligations imposed on her by way of subsections 13(1) (act with honestly and integrity), 13(2) (act with care and diligence), 13(4) (comply with all applicable laws), 13(11) (behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS) of the Public Service Act 1999, and section 5 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (regarding dishonest and disreputable conduct)? If, as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] asserts, there are no relevant documents, then the APSC’s General Counsel’s statements indicating that she had identified documents “relevant to [my] request” and that there were draft and duplicate versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request, must surely constitute disclosable conduct for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

For the reasons set out above, I contend that [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 7 June 2018, to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request was improperly, dishonestly and unethically made.

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your email. Given that the APSC has more than two weeks to resolve this matter, including by engaging a person to conduct the internal review, I’ll wait to take any further action until after 4 August.

Thank you also for clarifying the identities of the decision-makers for this request. In the same vein, could you please provide me with the names of the officers responsible for making the following decisions:

i) decision of 15/11/17 to impose a charge of $233.77;
ii) decision of 1/5/18 to consult with third parties per ss.27 and 27A; and
iii) decision of 17/5/18 to consult with me to determine whether I was agreeable to the removal of duplicate and draft versions of documents that fell within the scope of my request.

Thanks.

Dear FOI,

Pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I seek internal review of [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

My submissions in support of my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 21 June 2018 are the same as those set out in my application for internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 7 June 2018 (APSC ref: C17/2088) as provided by email to the APSC on 6 July 2018.

Thank you.

Dear FOI,

I refer to the APSC’s correspondence to me of 25 July 2018 in relation to my FOI request with APSC reference C18/1317.

That correspondence indicated that the APSC would not conduct an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision given on 21 June 2018 because “there could be a perceived apprehension of bias which may exist with respect to any SES Officer making a decision or considering your application for internal review. Similarly, although the Commissioner could generally consider an application for internal review himself, the subject matter of this request may also result in a perceived apprehension of bias on his part. It seems likely that the available SES decision makers, including the Commissioner, would need to recuse themselves from considering your application for internal review to avoid any perceived apprehension of bias.”

I note that the conduct to which the documents the subject of my request relates has now been independently determined, by the Merit Protection Commissioner, to constitute illegal conduct.

I assume that the new Public Service Commissioner, Mr Peter Woolcott AO, had no involvement in the illegal conduct related to my request. As such, Mr Woolcott could not be said to have any perceived apprehension of bias in relation the conduct of an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

Accordingly, I request that, under section 54C of the FOI Act, Mr Woolcott conduct an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision. Noting the due date for such a decision is 20 August 2018, I am prepared to grant a 14 day extension for this review to be conducted.

Thanks.

Dear FOI,

I refer to my request made of the APSC of 10 August 2018, that Mr Peter Woolcott AO, review Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s decision of 21 June 2018 to refuse access to the documents the subject of my request made under the FOI Act on 23 May 2018.

Noting that the due date for that internal review decision is 20 August 2018, I would appreciate a response to that request. Could you please advise me as to whether the APSC will be conducting an internal review of Mr [Name removed at request of APSC]’s access refusal decision of 21 June 2018 pursuant to my request for such a review to be conducted as made on 22 July 2018.

Thanks

Dear FOI,

I refer to my FOI application to the APSC here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a... where I blew the whistle on corruption within the APSC.

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of John Lloyd’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or John Lloyd (with the exception of his mobile number, which can be redacted) from any relevant document. I also agree to exclude duplicate documents.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act) they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:

- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission as discussed here: https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/pu... including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”; and
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption including those levelled at the most senior levels of APS.

Kind regards
Fliccy

Dear APSC

A belated thank you for your decision of 17 April 2019 in response to my FOI request of 12 April 2019.

I wist to make another application under the FOI Act. I refer to my FOI request of 12 April 2019. Under the FOI Act I make the same request of the APSC, albeit every reference to “John Lloyd” should be read as a reference to “[Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]”, being the relevant decision maker for this matter. I note that all the public interest matters referred to in my 12 April 2019 FOI request remain relevant for this new FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

Dear FOI,

I refer to my FOI applications to the APSC of 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 (with APSC references: C17/2088 and C18/1032).

By letter dated 27 June 2019, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner advised me that it was their view that the APSC decision maker for both of those applications, Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] (a senior executive at the APSC), had deliberately “incorrectly interpreted the scope” of my FOI applications, presumably to cover up illegal activity engaged in by the APSC. In doing so, I consider that Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] has contravened his legal obligations under the Public Service Act, and is therefore not a fit and proper person to be employed in the Australian Public Service.

But Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] isn’t the only APSC employee who I consider has acted unlawfully in relation to these matters which have been characterised by the APSC’s culture of politically motivated obfuscation and concealment of corruption.

I note that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], in her capacity as General Counsel of the APSC, advised (by letter dated 18 January 2018) that my assertion that the APSC had acted illegally and improperly in relation to the matters to which my FOI requests relate, was incorrect. The findings of the Merit Protection Commissioner some 6 months later, proved Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] to be manifestly wrong. I’m of the view that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC], like Mr [Name removed at request of APSC], engaged in obfuscation and deception to conceal plainly corrupt activity engaged in by the APSC. On that basis, I consider that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] has not only breached her legal obligations under the Public Service Act, but also her legal obligations as a practising solicitor under the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 including by disregarding her “paramount duty […] to the administration of justice”, by failing to “be honest […] in all dealings in the course of legal practice” and by failing to “avoid any compromise to [her] integrity and professional independence”. Worse still, I now understand that Ms [Name removed at request of APSC] holds a position within the APSC that has oversight of the APSC’s Ethics Advisory Service which, among other functions, provides advice on the he application and interpretation of the APS Values and Code of Conduct and strategies and techniques for ethical decision making in the APS!!!

That someone of Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s apparent character has oversight of the APSC’s Ethics Advisory Service is scandalous.

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of Ms [Name removed at request of APSC]’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or any person who was a public servant at the relevant time.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act) they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:
- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission as discussed here: https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/pu... including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”;
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption in the APS; and
- by shedding light of whether certain APSC staff are fit and proper persons to be employed by in the APS.
Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

Dear FOI,

I refer to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018. I note that document was prepared by APSC staff for the use and benefit of far right wing, Liberal Party affiliated political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs, for the purpose of causing detriment to non senior executive members of the Australian Public Service.

As a consequence of the “APSC produced document for the IPA” being prepared by Commonwealth public servants, the copyright that subsists in the “APSC produced document for the IPA” vests with the Crown/Commonwealth and any exercise of the rights comprised in the copyright that subsists within the “APSC produced document for the IPA” without the licence of the Crown/Commonwealth constitutes an illegality.

The following persons exercised rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in the “APSC produced document for the IPA”:
- Senator James Paterson;
- Mr Aaron Lane;
- The Institute of Public Affairs; and
- RMIT University.

Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any licence given by the APSC to any of the above persons, that authorise those persons, on behalf of the Crown, to exercise rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

If the APSC has not given a licence to any of the above listed persons to exercise rights comprised in the copyright that subsists in “APSC produced document for the IPA”, (or equally, if the APSC manufactures spurious reasoning so as to avoid admitting that it did not give any of the above listed persons a licence to exercises rights comprised in the copyright of the document) then those persons have acted illegally.

There is, undoubtedly, a wide public interest in knowing whether parliamentarians, such as Senator James Paterson, are corrupt by virtue of their contravention of the law.

Noting the requirements of the Australian Government’s “Intellectual Property Principles for Commonwealth Entities” and the “Guidelines on licensing public sector information for Australian Government entities” – the document(s) the subject of my request will also clarify whether APSC staff have acted in accordance with Australian Government policy – again, a matter of clear public interest.

Additionally, noting that the IPA is a highly resourced, far right wing lobby group that makes regular submissions to, and requests for information of, Government agencies, and that the IPA regularly appears in the media, it’s in the public interest for persons within Government, and for anyone that consumes media, to know that the senior membership/staff and constituency of the Institute of Public Affairs is essentially a cabal of:

1) corrupt political appointees of the Liberal Party who act illegally in public office – such as Nigel Hadgkiss and John Lloyd
2) Dodgy “academics” who, after being turfed out of one university for engaging in homophobic hate speech, proceed to go to another university to then go about breaching research integrity standards – Aaron Lane (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... and https://www.smh.com.au/national/deakin-u...
3) Child rapists, convicted or otherwise, like George Pell - https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/institute... and https://www.sbs.com.au/news/backers-to-h...
4) Corrupt politicians – TBC.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

Dear Ms Grady

I refer to your letter to me dated 13 August 2019 and sent on 20 August 2019 with your reference: SHC19-2421. That letter was in response to my FOI request of 28 July 2019 in relation to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 (a definition which, noting your legal obligation to act honestly and with integrity, was affirmed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner).

I note from your response that:

- despite that the APSC is statutorily charged with upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS, it chose not to comply with the requirements of the Australian Government’s “Intellectual Property Principles for Commonwealth Entities” and the “Guidelines on licensing public sector information for Australian Government entities” in providing the “APSC produced document for the IPA” to the APSC’s grubby mates at the Institute of Public Affairs, presumably because it wasn’t in the APSC’s political interest to do; and
- that, in my view, it’s clear that the copyright comprised in the “APSC produced document for the IPA” that vests with the Commonwealth was exercised by Mr Aaron Lane and Senator James Paterson without the licence of the copyright owner and therefore Mr Aaron Lane and Senator James Paterson have acted illegally and are therefore corrupt.

That being so, in my view, it is now confirmed that the Institute of Public Affairs is a cabal of:

1) corrupt political appointees of the Liberal Party who act illegally in public office – such as Nigel Hadgkiss and John Lloyd
2) crooked “academics” who, after being turfed out of one university for engaging in homophobic hate speech, proceed to go to another university to then go about breaching research integrity standards and who also infringe copyright – Aaron Lane (see above and here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... and https://www.smh.com.au/national/deakin-u...
3) Child rapists, convicted or otherwise, like George Pell - https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/institute... and https://www.sbs.com.au/news/backers-to-h...
4) Corrupt politicians – such as Senator James Paterson (as above).

Thank you for your work in confirming this.

Dear FOI,

I refer to the “APSC produced document for the IPA” as defined and described in my FOI applications made of the APSC on 2 November 2017 and 23 May 2018 – a definition affirmed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

I understand that the chief authors of the “APSC produced document for the IPA” include APSC employees [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC].

I note the illegality established by subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999, as follows:

An APS employee must not improperly use inside information or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority:
(a) to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or an advantage for the employee or any other person; or
(b) to cause, or seek to cause, detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth or any other person.

I now refer to a decision made under the FOI Act by First Assistant Public Service Commissioner Mr Richard Bartlett, available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/4... in respect of a request for access to documents relied upon by APSC staff, including [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC], to prepare the “APSC produced document for the IPA”. Mr Bartlett’s decision relevantly states that certain documents relied upon by APSC staff including Mr [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] to create the “APSC produced document for the IPA” could not be made publicly available because they were provided to those APSC staff members “confidentially, for the purpose of seeking advice or approval […]” and that those documents contained “sensitive or confidential information”. Accordingly, Mr Bartlett’s decision establishes that APSC employees, such as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC], used “inside information” to create the “APSC produced document for the IPA”.

Regardless of whether the “APSC produced document for the IPA” was produced:
- for the purposes of corrupt former Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd such that he could prepare an article deriding the employment conditions of non-senior executive public servants - as claimed by APSC’s senior management group: or
- for the benefit and purposes of corrupt John Lloyd’s grubby mates at the Institute of Public Affairs such that they could produce an article deriding the employment conditions of non-senior executive members of the APS (the much more likely scenario given the seemingly preponderant levels of dishonesty and (complete lack of) integrity that characterises the APSC’s senior management group);

it is not in dispute that the “APSC produced document for the IPA” was prepared for the purpose of causing public derision of, and detriment to, non-senior executive members of the APS (in support of the IPA’s policy to dramatically reduce the living standards of non-senior executive members of the APS, while simultaneously dramatically improving the living standards of senior executives in the APS).

Accordingly, in my view, in preparing the “APSC produced document for the IPA”, the elements of the illegality established subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999 have been made out by the actions of APSC staffers [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC]. Therefore, in my view, [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] and [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] are corrupt and are not fit and proper persons to be employed in the APS.

But if it is not a breach of the Public Service Act for APSC staffers such as [Name removed at request of APSC] [Name removed at request of APSC] and [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] to use inside information that they, by virtue of their APS positions, are privy to, to cause detriment to non-senior executive members of the APS, then it must also not be a breach of the Public Service Act for those members of the APS who, by virtue of their APS positions, are privy to:

- information about Liberal Party members of parliament who have inappropriately claimed parliamentary expenses, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- information about members of the Liberal Party who are directors of incorporated entities who are under investigation for, or have been found to have engaged in, corporate misconduct, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- information about statutory appointees of the Liberal Party who are under investigation for, or have been found to have engaged in, misconduct, to provide that information to journalists, such that they can ‘write an article’ about that misconduct for the purpose of causing detriment to the Liberal Party and its members;
- market sensitive information about publicly listed companies, to trade on that information for their pecuniary benefit (noting that, in any case, the current Liberal/IPA Government would consider such insider trading as not illegal, but rather ‘aspirational’ and ‘having a go to get a go’).

Under the FOI Act, I request copies of any documents within all of Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC]’s email account (including drafts and deleted items) that contain my name/personal information: “Fliccy”.

I agree to the APSC redacting the personal information of any person other than that of myself or any person who was a public servant at the relevant time.

Not only will the documents the subject of my request allow me to access my own personal information (per s.11B(3)(d) of the FOI Act), they will reveal other matters of general public interest including:
- how the central APS agency responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS deals with allegations of corruption within its own ranks and how it deals with whistleblowers who call out corruption in the APS;
- whether the APSC dealt with my allegations of corruption in accordance with its own published guidance materials;
- the testing of claims made by the APSC to the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission including that current arrangements for dealing with corruption in the APS are “working well”;
- by adding to the current and ongoing debate as to whether there should be a Federal Anti Corruption Commission to deal with allegations of corruption in the APS;
- by providing evidence as to whether Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] has destroyed Commonwealth records in the commission of an offence under the Archives Act (noting that if not destroyed, there will be at least two documents captured by my request)
- by shedding further light on whether certain APSC staff are fit and proper persons to be employed by in the APS; and
- by providing authoritative guidance on how APS members can use inside information to their gain, or to cause detriment to others.

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy

Dear Ms Sayuri Grady

Thank you for your decision, which seems to suggest that not only has Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] likely contravened subsection 13(10) of the Public Service Act 1999, Ms [Name Removed at request of APSC] [Name Removed at request of APSC] has also likely committed a criminal offence (under section 24 of the Archives Act 1983) by destroying or otherwise disposing of Commonwealth records.

[Exteraneous Material Removed by Right to Know]

Yours sincerely,

Fliccy