Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

This newspaper article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... refers to an email sent by the APSC’s former General Counsel, Sayuri Grady, purportedly threatening the not-for-proft, public-sector corruption uncovering, website: righttoknow - with a suit for defamation brought by the Commonwealth (the ‘threatening email’).

Sayuri Grady’s conduct in preparing and sending the threatening email was investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation report found that:

1. the Public Service Commissioner, Liberal Party political appointee Peter Woolcott, authorised, under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the use of taxpayer funds/resources to enable Ms Grady’s preparation and sending of the threatening email to the publishers of the righttknow website;

2. Mr Woolcott made the decision to use taxpayer resources in that way after the APSC’s Senior Executive/Assistant Commissioner for Workplace Relations and the APSC’s former General Counsel (a/g)/Director of Integrity (a/g) who, despite their legal obligations to be honest, accountable, apolitical and transparent, had a big sook to Mr Woolcott about being publicly called out for their role in attempting to cover up the evil corruption engaged in by vile, corrupt Liberal Party/Institute of Public Affairs grub, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd;

3. Sayuri Grady had actively marked the threatening email as being subject to ‘legal privilege’ (a marking applied to communications that relate to existing or anticipated legal proceedings) despite knowing that legal professional privilege could not attach to the threatening email including because the APSC, on behalf of the Commonwealth, cannot sue for defamation (a fact that the publishers of the righttoknow website were not aware of when they received the threatening email prepared and sent by Sayuri Grady); and

4. the APSC had actively altered its email settings from their default to allow emails actively categorised by APSC staff as ‘OFFICIAL’ and ‘LEGAL PRIVILEGE’ under the Protective Security Framework to be sent to, and received by, persons outside of the GovLink network (ie to email addresses with non ‘gov.au’ domains such as the righttoknow website).

Notably, (and in apparent contravention of her obligation under s.13(7) of the Public Service Act 1999) the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman officer who conducted the investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct was one of a number of Commonwealth Ombudsman officers responsible for repeatedly covering up the politically-motivated corruption engaged in by former Public Service Commissioner, evil, filthy corrupt Liberal Party/Institute of Public Affairs turd, John Lloyd. (The Institute of Public Affairs is a far-right, white supremacist group closely affiliated with the Liberal Party and therefore the APSC).

Furthermore, despite there being, in addition to the threatening email, numerous phone conversations between Sayuri Grady and the representatives of the righttoknow website, the corrupt Commonwealth Ombudsman officer responsible for conducting the investigation actively refused to contact the publishers of the righttoknow website to seek their submissions in respect of Sayuri Grady’s conduct. You don’t need to hold a Certificate IV in Government Investigations to know that any competently, honestly and moreover, apolitically conducted investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct would’ve necessitated contacting the publishers of the righttoknow website to seek statements in relation to Sayuri Grady’s conduct. Indeed, the only reason an investigator would refuse to seek such submissions would be out of concern that those submissions would affect the pre-determined and politically motivated outcome of the investigation. A point made plain by the publishers of the righttoknow website here when they said: ““We feel that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the ombudsman to get the full story without contacting us first”: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

A subsequent investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct carried out by APSC First Assistant Commissioner Grant Lovelock, found that Sayuri Grady had provided the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman with false information in her submissions to the Ombudsman’s investigation into her conduct. Further, that that false information was relied upon by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in arriving at the investigation outcome. The provision of false information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman is a criminal offence (see ss. 135.1, 136.1 and 137.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995).

Sayuri Grady left the employ of the APSC in the course of Grant Lovelock’s investigation into her conduct and now works for lawyerbank, a law firm that provides legal services to the Commonwealth Government through the Legal Services Panel in relation to ‘Governance and Probity’ matters (!!!!!).

I note that Peter Woolcott, just like his predecessor, was apparently appointed to his statutory position and its associated obscene publicly-funded salary on the basis of his political affiliations and in the absence merit-based selection process (and therefore in contravention of s. 10A of the Public Service Act 1999): https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/...

Further, that senior management at both the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the APSC have long riled against the righttoknow website because it has proved an invaluable resource in showing up politically motivated corruption engaged in by public servants on behalf of the Liberal Party – corruption that is now endemic across the whole of the Commonwealth public sector and corruption that both the APSC and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman have spent tens of millions of dollars encouraging and nurturing, as well as covering up, on behalf of their venal Liberal Party mates. The senior management groups of both corrupt agencies will need a thorough clean out by an incoming Government if honesty, integrity, accountability and apoliticism is to be restored to the APS.

I refer to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation report into the conduct of former APSC General Counsel, Sayuri Grady, which was, in October 2020, provided to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, political appointee of the Liberal Party, Peter Woolcott. That report states, pursuant to s.51(2)(d) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013:

“That the Commonwealth Ombudsman recommends to the [APSC] that it: (i) reviews any internal guidance materials for [APSC] staff relating to dissemination limiting markers; and (ii) provides further training to its Legal Services area with respect to their correct usage. “

Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any document(s) that demonstrates the the APSC gave effect to those two statutory recommendations made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in accordance with s.51(2)(d) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

There is a clear public interest in the release of any documents within the terms of my request for the following reasons:
i) noting his functions under s.41 of the Public Service Act 1999, if the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Liberal Party political appointee, Peter Woolcott, did not give effect to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s statutory recommendations, then, on any objective assessment, Peter Woolcott has contravened his obligations under s.13 of the Public Service Act 1999 and is corrupt just like his grubby Liberal Party/IPA predecessor, filthy corrupt Liberal Party/IPA pig, John Lloyd;
ii) paragraph 6.19 of the FOI Guidelines provides that release of the documents the subject of my request would be in the public interest including because they will “inform debate on a matter of public importance, including to: i. allow or assist inquiry into possible deficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official ii. reveal or substantiate that an agency or official has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct”; and
iii) the vast majority of Australian taxpayers supporting the establishment of a Federal ICAC to deal with public sector corruption such as that engaged in, perpetuated and covered up by the APSC’s senior management group.

Noting paragraphs 6.153 and 6.154 of the FOI Guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner in accordance with s.93A of the FOI Act, I consent to the redaction, from any relevant document, of the personal information of any person who isn’t, or wasn’t (at the relevant time), an APS employee.

Yours faithfully,
[name removed - Right To Know admin]

Thank you for your email.

In response to any decision to impose charges, or an access refusal decision, I will provide further details as to why the release of documents the subject of my request is in the public interest by reference to conduct engaged in by specified APSC staff, by use of Commonwealth resources, to further the political interests of the Liberal Party and closely affiliated far-right, white supremacist group, the Institute of Public Affairs.

Yours sincerely,

Someone

Dear FOI,

The documents released in response to my request relate to a mandatory online training session for all public servants that only makes passing reference to dissemination limiting markers the subject of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s statutory recommendations to the APSC.

Further, the decision makes it clear that Liberal Party aligned Public Service Commissioner, Peter Woolcott, completely ignored the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s statutory recommendation to “review …. internal guidance materials for [APSC] staff relating to dissemination limiting markers”.

Ms Giorgina Strangio’s decision clarifies that Liberal Party political appointee, Peter Woolcott, thumbed his nose at the statutory recommendations made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, presumably because they were inconvenient to his political interests (noting that it was he who decided to use Commonwealth resources to engage in extrajudicial censorship of material that was inconvenient to the political interests of his beloved, corrupt Liberal Party).

In my view, and indeed on any objective assessment, by ignoring the statutory recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Public Service Commissioner, Liberal Party affiliated political appointee, Peter Woolcott, has contravened subsections 13(1), 13(2), 13(8) and 13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999.

Further, Ms Giorgina Strangio, Assistant Commissioner for INTEGRITY (!!!!), in attempting to assert that the completion of an online training module in relation to security by some APSC staff constitutes the acquittal of the statutory recommendations made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in respect of the conduct engaged in by Sayuri Grady and Peter Woolcott, has, in my view (and indeed, on any objective assessment) contravened subsections 13(1), 13(2), 13(9) and 13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999.

It took less than nine years of Liberal Party Government to politicise, debase and defile the APS and turn it into nothing more than a taxpayer funded bureaucracy that no longer works in the public interest, but solely in the political and commercial interests of the Liberal Party and its corrupt donors and mates.

No agency exemplifies that more than the APSC. A once respected agency that carried itself with integrity, the APSC is now little more than a dimly viewed PR firm for the Liberal Party and an outpost for corrupt Liberal Party/IPA grubs like former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd.

It’s telling that on receipt of my FOI request of 1 May 2022, the APSC once again made contact with the representatives of the righttoknow website to attempt to engage in extra-judicial, politically motivated censorship of a not-for-profit website that has done more to combat politically motivated public sector corruption (such as that engaged in by filthy corrupt Liberal Party/IPA pig, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd) than the APSC ever has. Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any document provided to the righttoknow website, including its representatives, in relation to my FOI request of the APSC of 1 May 2022.

There is a wide public interest in the use of taxpayer resources to engage in extra-judicial politically motivated censorship of public interest websites dedicated to shining a light on public sector corruption (as demonstrated by articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...). Particularly when that publicly funded censorship is engaged in by agencies such as the APSC that has a considerable history of using taxpayer resources to engage in politically motivated corruption. I note that:
i) paragraph 6.19 of the FOI Guidelines provides that release of the documents the subject of my request would be in the public interest including because they will “inform debate on a matter of public importance, including to: i. allow or assist inquiry into possible deficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official ii. reveal or substantiate that an agency or official has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct”; and
iii) the vast majority of Australian taxpayers supporting the establishment of a Federal ICAC to deal with public sector corruption such as that engaged in, perpetuated and covered up by the APSC’s senior management group.

Noting paragraphs 6.153 and 6.154 of the FOI Guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner in accordance with s.93A of the FOI Act, I consent to the redaction, from any relevant document, of the personal information of any person who isn’t, or wasn’t (at the relevant time), an APS employee.

Sincerely
KT