Dear Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

I refer the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the following articles:

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/institute...
https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/04/05/abb...
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/backers-to-h...
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/posts.a...

which, on one view, tend to suggest that far right wing political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs, is a pro-paedophile organisation that actively engages in the financing of child rapists.

I can’t see anything on the Institute of Public Affairs’ website that unequivocally indicates that the Institute of Public Affairs opposes acts of child rape. That being the case, and having regard to the Institute of Public Affairs’ policy manifesto more generally, it may be the case that the Institute of Public Affairs considers that acts of child rape are currently being practised inefficiently as a result of being overburdened by bureaucratic red and green tape and that the regulation of the marketplace for acts of child rape should be left to “invisible hand” of the free market (preferably so long as that “invisible hand” is attached to someone who is wealthy, caucasian and christian, but definitely not an environmentalist, public servant or trade unionist).

It is noteworthy that:
i) unsurprisingly, the Institute of Public Affairs is closely aligned with the Liberal Party; and
ii) the Institute of Public Affairs is the ideological and philosophical home, and employer, of one of Australia’s most corrupt public servants, former Public Service Commissioner – John Lloyd.

I note that John Lloyd has returned to the IPA, as a director, after his corrupt stint as Australian Public Service Commissioner.

It is relevant that Stephanie Foster, currently the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Deputy Secretary – Governance was, as Deputy Australian Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd’s ‘partner in crime’, so to speak, throughout much of his corrupt tenure. Indeed, there seems to be evidence available that Ms Foster took steps to conceal, turn a blind eye to, and run interference for, John Lloyd’s corruption in public office, perhaps thereby facilitating that corruption.

Under the FOI Act, I seek access to email correspondence, falling between the period of 2 July 2018 to the date of this application, between Mr John Lloyd and his loyal friend and colleague, Stephanie Foster (including email documents sent by Mr Lloyd to Ms Foster and email documents sent by Ms Foster to Mr Lloyd).

If Ms Foster has nothing to hide, she has nothing to fear.

Documents falling within the scope of my request can be quickly identified and retrieved by searching all items (including archived items) in Ms Foster’s Department issued email account according to persons sent to, and received from.

There’s clearly a public interest in the content of communications between one former, corrupt, politically appointed Public Service Commissioner/director of a pederast lobby group with his former deputy and loyal friend.

Yours faithfully,

J Potts

Dear FOI,

The $20 desposit was paid into the Department’s account on Thursday 31 October 2019 with reference 2019285.

To reiterate the public interest in the documents that I seek I note that:
• Last year, John Lloyd, former Public Service Commissioner, and IPA/Liberal Party stooge, was independently found to be corrupt
• Stephanie Foster, currently Deputy Secretary in the PM’s Department, was John Lloyd’s deputy during his corruption, and was aware of his corrupt activities, but because it wasn’t in her political/professional interest to do so, she concealed, and actively defended his corruption, including to the Australian Parliament, right up to the point he was independently found to be corrupt. Those actions were in breach of Ms Foster legal obligations to take action to report and address corruption. Accordingly, there’s a strong case that Stephanie Foster is also corrupt.
• There’s a strong public interest in the content of taxpayer funded communications between two very senior, corrupt, public servants.

I also note that it would be a conflict of interest, and a contravention of s.13(7) of the Public Service Act for a decision to be made on this FOI request by anyone that is a subordinate of Stephanie Foster. That would be like someone from the IPA/Liberal Party investigating John Lloyd. Noting that Peter Rush is a subordinate of Stephanie Foster, and therefore he is conflicted in relation to this FOI matter, I request a Department officer who is not subordinate to Ms Foster make a decision on my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Potts

1 January 2020 - 4.25pm

Dear FOI,

Under Part VI of the FOI Act, I request review of the access refusal decision made by Ms Megan Leahy on 2 December 2019 in respect of document number 6 as set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...

By way of background, on 7 August 2018, the Merit Protection Commissioner, formally and independently found former Australian Public Service Commissioner, Mr John Lloyd, to be corrupt.

Mr Lloyd’s corruption took place just four months after Mr Lloyd commenced his role as Public Service Commissioner after he was appointed to that position by his IPA mates Eric Abetz and Tony Abbott.

Ms Stephanie Foster, as Deputy Commissioner at the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), was Mr Lloyd’s deputy from his commencement at the APSC in December 2014, to when Ms Foster left the APSC and joined the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) in December 2017. That period relevantly includes the time (in April 2015) when Mr Lloyd engaged in illegal conduct in public office and the time (July 2017) when the documents disclosing Mr Lloyd’s corruption were released publicly by the APSC under the FOI Act.

The APSC provides a range of guidance material in respect of public servants’ legal obligations. I refer you to the guidance material provided here: https://www.apsc.gov.au/section-9-report... and note the following statements:
“9.1.4 APS employees have a responsibility to report misconduct, and not to turn a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour.
[…]
9.2.1 Clause 1.3(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013 (the Directions) require all APS employees, having regard to their duties and responsibilities, to report and address misconduct and other unacceptable behaviour by public servants in a fair, timely and effective way. Failure to report suspected misconduct may itself warrant consideration as a potential breach of the Code.”

Paragraph 1.3(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013 stated:
1.3 Ethical:
The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity, in all that it does
Having regard to an individual’s duties and responsibilities, upholding the APS Value in subsection 10(2) of the Act requires:
[…]
(f) reporting and addressing misconduct and other unacceptable behaviour by public servants in a fair, timely and effective way;

(In 2016, the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013 were repealed and replaced by the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2016 which contains the same obligation as that set out above at paragraph 14(f).)

I note that as Mr Lloyd’s deputy, Ms Foster was aware of Mr Lloyd’s illegal conduct in public office that took place in April 2015, not least because Ms Foster was aware of the documents related to Mr Lloyd’s illegal conduct released by the APSC under the FOI Act and that Ms Foster was present, alongside Mr Lloyd, at Senate Estimates hearings where Mr Lloyd was questioned in relation to that illegal conduct (see Hansard for the Finance and Public Administration Senate Estimates hearing of 23 October 2017) at a time well before she was in receipt of a third party’s complaint concerning Mr Lloyd’s illegal conduct in her capacity as PMC’s Deputy Secretary, Governance (according to Ms Foster’s testimony before Parliament, that third party complaint came into her possession on 13 December 2017).

Despite having knowledge of Mr Lloyd’s illegal conduct before she was in receipt of a third-party complaint concerning that misconduct, Ms Foster took no steps whatsoever to report or otherwise address Mr Lloyd’s corruption in a fair, timely and effective way. Given Ms Foster’s knowledge of the Public Service Act 1999 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, reasonable steps taken in compliance with her obligations to report and address misconduct in the circumstances could have taken the form of a complaint made to the Merit Protection Commissioner about Mr Lloyd’s conduct such that that conduct could be inquired into pursuant to paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 1999, or otherwise the making a public interest disclosure to the Commonwealth Ombudsman pursuant to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

Yet Ms Foster did not take any steps to report or address Mr Lloyd’s illegal conduct, presumably because doing so did not align with Ms Foster’s political, professional and pecuniary interests. Rather, it was left to a third party whistleblower to take action to report and address Mr Lloyd’s corruption in public office because Mr Lloyd’s colleagues, including Ms Foster, did not possess the requisite independence and integrity to do so.

Accordingly, Ms Foster has engaged in illegal conduct by contravening her legal obligations under:
• subsection 10(2) of the Public Service Act 1999;
• paragraph 1.3(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013;
• paragraph 14(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2016;
• paragraph 35(3)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999; and, consequently
• paragraph 13(4) of the Public Service Act 1999.

I further note that on 22 May 2018, before the Australian Senate’s Finance and Public Administration Committee, when questioned by Senator Wong as to whether there was an investigation underway into a complaint made concerning the Public Service Commissioner (Mr John Lloyd), Ms Foster responded:

“Not to my knowledge, but I would have to caveat that by saying that PM&C's role was completed by referring the allegation and that we have no ongoing role in any inquiry.”

Later in the hearing, when Senator Wong questioned whether Mr Lloyd had communicated with anyone at PMC in relation to the complaint, Ms Foster responded:

“Mr Lloyd and I […] had some conversation when we both had media queries last week.”

Noting Ms Foster’s comment that after referring the allegation received by PMC, that PMC has no ongoing role in the inquiry, it was clearly inappropriate that Ms Foster would then contact Mr Lloyd in relation to that allegation and potential investigation. That course of action is of doubtful probity and raises further issues concerning Ms Foster’s compliance with the obligations imposed on her by the Public Service Act 1999.

In my view, and in the view of any objective, ethical, apolitical person who possesses a modicum of integrity, Stephanie Foster, like John Lloyd, is corrupt.

I’m of the view that the primary decision maker, Ms Megan Leahy, has refused access to document 6 because it will tend to disclose further misconduct engaged in by Mr Lloyd and his close friend and political ally Ms Foster. That Ms Leahy refused to detail the date of the relevant document (presumably because it will show that Ms Foster and Mr Lloyd were engaging in taxpayer funded communications at a time Mr Lloyd’s corruption (that was facilitated, in part, by Ms Foster’s inaction) was under consideration by the Merit Protection Commissioner) and its page length demonstrates a particular lack of honesty, transparency and integrity on Ms Leahy’s part, behaviour that has now become part and parcel of the systemic politically motivated corruption that drives PMC’s FOI processing function: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne....

Noting the seniority of the persons involved and that it’s apparent that PMC’s senior executive service has, presumably for political reasons, closed ranks behind Ms Foster and Mr Lloyd, it would, in the ordinary course, be appropriate for the Secretary of PMC to conduct the review of Ms Leahy’s access refusal decision. However, the Secretary of PMC was appointed to that position on the basis of his political affiliations with the Liberal Party/IPA and so there is no possibility that the Secretary of PMC is capable of bringing a fair, objective, apolitical and independent mind to this matter. Accordingly, I request that the Secretary of PMC, under s.23 of the FOI Act, authorise either the Information Commissioner or the Commonwealth Ombudsman to conduct an independent review of Ms Leahy’s access refusal decision under Part VI of the FOI Act (noting that it is simply not possible for an independent, objective and apolitical review of Ms Leahy’s access refusal decision to be conducted internally at PMC).

Alternatively, I am willing to withdraw my request for review of Ms Leahy’s access refusal decision on the provision of a statutory declaration by Liberal Party member and Secretary of PMC, Philip Gaetjens, attesting the following in respect of document 6:
i) that the document in no way concerns matters relating to Mr Lloyd’s corruption in public office;
ii) that the document was not created at a time Mr Lloyd’s corruption was under consideration by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and
iii) that the document does not relate to, or constitute, any illegal activity engaged in by Mr Lloyd and/or Ms Foster (under the Public Service Act or otherwise)

Thanks.

Dear FOI,

I maintain my request for review of Ms Leahy’s access refusal decision in respect of document 6 under Part VI of the FOI Act. By law, that review needs to occur by Friday 31 January 2019.

My preference is that the review be conducted by an honest, apolitical, independent and objective public servant that possesses some integrity. Given that would seem to exclude PMC’s senior executive group, and given the character and history of the persons involved, it is appropriate for the review to be conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner. I can’t see that there’s anything in the FOI Act that would prevent the Secretary from authorising the Ombudsman or the IC from conducting such a review, but that decision is ultimately one for the Secretary of PMC. As mentioned, I agree to withdraw my request for review under Part VI of the FOI Act upon the provision of a statutory declaration from Liberal Party member and Secretary of PMC, Philip Gaetjens, attesting the following in respect of document 6:
i) that the document in no way concerns matters relating to Mr Lloyd’s corruption in public office;
ii) that the document was not created at a time Mr Lloyd’s corruption was under consideration by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and
iii) that the document does not relate to, or constitute, any illegal activity engaged in by Mr Lloyd and/or Ms Foster (under the Public Service Act or otherwise).

It will be telling if Mr Gaetjens cannot bring himself to make such a declaration.

Dear FOI,
Thank you for the update. In response, I have two requests.

1) If the decision-maker on review decides to affirm the primary decision-maker’s access refusal decision, I request that the decision-maker include the following statement in his/her decision in respect of document 6:
i) that the document in no way concerns matters relating to Mr Lloyd’s corruption in public office;
ii) that the document was not created at a time Mr Lloyd’s corruption was under consideration by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and
iii) that the document does not relate to, or constitute, any illegal activity engaged in by Mr Lloyd and/or Ms Foster (under the Public Service Act or otherwise).

If the decision maker decides to affirm the access refusal decision but cannot bring themselves to make such a statement, then there are obviously implied admissions that will be relevant for the IC’s/AAT’s review of this matter.

2) In your email of 3 January 2020 you suggested that I contact the Secretary of PMC - senior Liberal Party member Philip Gaetjens, to complain about Stephanie Foster’s misconduct. I would like to take up your suggestion. Accordingly, please forward my correspondence, which constitutes a complaint about Ms Foster’s contraventions of the Public Service Act, to Mr Gaetjens for his consideration. It will be useful, to have Mr Gaetjen’s authoritative view, as head of the public service, as to whether the legal requirement at clause 1.3(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2013/14(f) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2016 applies strictly to all types of observed misconduct in the public service (be it a public servant assaulting another, embezzlement of public funds or plain vanilla politically motivated corruption of the type engaged in by John Lloyd) or whether that legal obligation should be read down, as Stephanie Foster has done, such that the legal obligation report/address corruption only applies where taking where it is politically, personally, professionally and commercially convenient to do so.

In addition to the information about Ms Foster’s misconduct set out in my emails, I note that despite being aware:
a) of the particulars of Mr Lloyd’s corrupt conduct in public office;
b) that it was the view of Mr Robert Cornall, (a highly respected and esteemed public servant) that Mr Lloyd’s conduct was prima facie illegal; and
c) that Mr Lloyd was the subject of an ongoing investigation into his corruption -

Ms Foster gave evidence at Senate Estimates on 21/6/18 that Mr Lloyd had conducted his role “professionally and objectively”. Less than two months later, Mr Lloyd was formally found to be corrupt. I put it to Mr Gaetjens that no professional, independent and apolitical public servant that possesses a skerrick of integrity would behave in such a manner, particularly in the Australian Parliament.

I’ll expect Mr Gaetjens’ response by reply email.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Potts