John Lloyd and Stephanie Foster
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
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I write in relation to your request, dated 1 October 2019, to the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department) for access
under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) in the following
terms:
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).
Timeframe for receiving your decision
We received the request on 1 October 2019 and the 30-day statutory period
for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You
should therefore expect a decision from us by 31 October 2019. The period
of 30 days may be extended in certain circumstances. We will advise you if
there is any extension of time.
Charges
Agencies may decide that an applicant is liable to pay a charge in respect
of a request for access to documents. If the Department decides that you
are liable to pay a charge, we will send you a preliminary assessment of
the charge as soon as possible.
Publication of documents
Please note that information released under the FOI Act may later be
published online on our disclosure log at
[1]http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/accountabilit...,
subject to certain exceptions. If you think you might wish to raise any
objections to the publication of any of the information which may be
released to you please contact us by email at [2][DPMC request email]. If you do
wish to object to the publication of information, you would need to
provide supporting reasons.
Exclusion of officers’ names and contact details
For documents that fall within scope of the request, it is the
Department’s policy to withhold:
· any person’s signature;
· the names and contact details of Australian Public Service
officers not in the Senior Executive Service (SES);
· the mobile or direct numbers of SES officers; and
· the names and contact details of Ministerial staff at a level
below Chief of Staff.
The names and other details of SES officers will not be withheld unless
there is some reason for that information to be exempt from release. If
you require signatures, the names and contact details of non-SES officers
or Ministerial staff below the level of Chief of Staff, or the mobile or
direct numbers of SES officers please let us know at [3][DPMC request email] so
the decision-maker may consider; otherwise we will take it that you agree
to that information being excluded from the scope of your request (that
is, the information will be treated as irrelevant and redacted from any
documents for release).
We will write again when the Department has more information. Further
information on FOI processing can be found at the website of the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner at
[4]http://www.oaic.gov.au/foi-portal/about_....
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [5][DPMC request email] | w. [6]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[7]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[8]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[9]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [10]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
The Department acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country
throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and
community. We pay our respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both
past and present.
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/accountabilit...
2. mailto:[DPMC request email]
3. mailto:[DPMC request email]
4. http://www.oaic.gov.au/foi-portal/about_...
5. mailto:[DPMC request email]
6. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
7. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
8. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
9. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
10. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your FOI request to the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet in the following terms:
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).
Please find attached a notice of preliminary assessment of charges for
your FOI request.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [1][DPMC request email] | w. [2]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[3]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[4]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [6]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[7]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present. -
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
3. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
4. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
5. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
6. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
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
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
Please find attached the receipt in respect of your payment of the $20
deposit.
The due date for notifying you of a decision on your FOI request is 2
December 2019.
Lastly, we do not accept your assertion that there is 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. However, in this particular circumstance, taking into
account your specific request that Mr Rush not be the decision maker on
this matter and to avoid the Department's resources being unnecessarily
diverted by further disputing your assertion, the Department will be
allocating your FOI request to a new decision maker who is not subordinate
to Ms Foster.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [1][DPMC request email] | w. [2]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Potts <[3][FOI #5660 email]>
Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2019 9:28 AM
To: FOI <[4][email address]>
Subject: Re: PM&C FOI request FOI/2019/285 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
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
-----Original Message-----
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your FOI request to the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet in the following terms:
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).
Please find attached a notice of preliminary assessment of charges for
your FOI request.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [1][DPMC request email] | w. [2][5]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[3][6]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[4]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [6][7]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[7]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We
pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
-
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We
pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
References
Visible links
1. [8]mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. [9]http://www.pmc.gov.au/
3. [10]https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
4.
[11]https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
5. [12]https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
6. [13]https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[14][FOI #5660 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[15]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
3. mailto:[FOI #5660 email]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
6. file:///tmp/cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[4]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
7. file:///tmp/cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
8. mailto:[dpmc
9. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
10. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
11. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
12. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
13. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
14. mailto:[FOI #5660 email]
15. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your request to the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in the following terms:
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).
Please find attached the decision on your request.
Decision maker for your request
As foreshadowed in the Department’s email of 11 November 2019, the
Department has allocated your FOI request to a new decision maker who is
not a subordinate of Ms Stephanie Foster. The decision maker is Ms Megan
Leahy, Assistant Secretary, Disability and Aged Care Branch, Social Policy
Division, Domestic Policy Group. The relevant Deputy Secretary to whom Ms
Leahy reports is the Deputy Secretary Social Policy, Caroline Edwards.
Access to documents
As stated in the decision on your request, you will be entitled to
received copies of the documents that can be released in accordance with
the decision on payment of the outstanding balance of the charge, which is
$76.30.
You may pay by direct debit or by credit card.
Direct debit
You may pay by direct debit into the following account:
Account Name: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Official
Departmental Account
BSB: 032-722
Account: 132263
Reference: FOI/2019/285
Credit card
You may pay by credit card over the phone by contacting the Department’s
Accounts Receivable team on 02 6271 6000 select option 4 then option 3.
Please advise the FOI and Privacy Section at [1][DPMC request email] once you
have made payment.
Once the Department receives your payment, the Department will send you
the documents that can be released in accordance with the decision and a
receipt for your payment.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [2][DPMC request email] | w. [3]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[4]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [7]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[8]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present. -
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. mailto:[DPMC request email]
3. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
4. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
6. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
7. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
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.
Thank you for your email. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(the Department) is currently on its annual shutdown which extends from
4pm, Tuesday 24 December 2019 to Wednesday, 1 January 2020 (inclusive) .
The Department will re-open for normal business from Thursday 2 January
2020. This may affect the Department's ability to respond within statutory
timeframes.
Accordingly, we ask for your understanding during this period. If you have
any queries please do not hesitate to contact us from Thursday, 2 January
2020.
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. +61 2 6271 5849
e. [1][DPMC request email] |
[2]www.dpmc.gov.au
PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your email dated 1 January 2020, received by the Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department), in which you advised as
follows:
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:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
Under arrangements approved by the Secretary of the Department, all
internal reviews of decisions made under the FOI Act are to be carried out
by an officer more senior in rank to the officer who made the original
decision. In practice, if the decision in respect of which internal review
is sought was made by an officer at the Senior Executive Service (SES)
Band 1 level (i.e. an Assistant Secretary), the officer undertaking the
internal review would usually be at the SES Band 2 level (i.e. a First
Assistant Secretary). As the decision on your request was made by an
officer at the SES Band 1 level, the Department would therefore expect to
appoint an officer at the SES Band 2 level to undertake the review.
Alternatively, you have the option of seeking Information Commissioner
(IC) review of the decision. More information about seeking IC review can
found on the web site of the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner at
[2]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor....
We reject your claims regarding the behaviour of Ms Leahy in relation to
your FOI request.
In relation to your allegations regarding Ms Foster’s conduct in breach of
the Public Service Act 1999, an appropriate avenue to raise such matters
is by correspondence addressed to the Secretary of the Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet in the first instance, or an appropriate law
enforcement agency.
If you choose to seek IC review, please let us know.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [3][DPMC request email] | w. [4]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[5]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[7]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [8]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[9]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present. -
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Potts <[10][FOI #5660 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 January 2020 4:25 PM
To: FOI <[11][email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - John Lloyd
and Stephanie Foster
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:
[12]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: [13]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:
[14]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.
-----Original Message-----
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your request to the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in the following terms:
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).
Please find attached the decision on your request.
Decision maker for your request
As foreshadowed in the Department’s email of 11 November 2019, the
Department has allocated your FOI request to a new decision maker who is
not a subordinate of Ms Stephanie Foster. The decision maker is Ms Megan
Leahy, Assistant Secretary, Disability and Aged Care Branch, Social
Policy Division, Domestic Policy Group. The relevant Deputy Secretary to
whom Ms Leahy reports is the Deputy Secretary Social Policy, Caroline
Edwards.
Access to documents
As stated in the decision on your request, you will be entitled to
received copies of the documents that can be released in accordance with
the decision on payment of the outstanding balance of the charge, which
is $76.30.
You may pay by direct debit or by credit card.
Direct debit
You may pay by direct debit into the following account:
Account Name: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Official
Departmental Account
BSB: 032-722
Account: 132263
Reference: FOI/2019/285
Credit card
You may pay by credit card over the phone by contacting the Department’s
Accounts Receivable team on 02 6271 6000 select option 4 then option 3.
Please advise the FOI and Privacy Section at [1][DPMC request email] once
you have made payment.
Once the Department receives your payment, the Department will send you
the documents that can be released in accordance with the decision and a
receipt for your payment.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [2][DPMC request email] | w. [3][15]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[4][16]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [7][17]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[8]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We
pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
-
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We
pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
References
Visible links
1. [18]mailto:[DPMC request email]
2. [19]mailto:[DPMC request email]
3. [20]http://www.pmc.gov.au/
4. [21]https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
5.
[22]https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
6. [23]https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
7. [24]https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[25][FOI #5660 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[26]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor...
3. mailto:[DPMC request email]
4. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
5. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
6. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
7. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
8. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
10. mailto:[FOI #5660 email]
11. mailto:[email address]
12. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
13. https://www.apsc.gov.au/section-9-report...
14. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...
15. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
16. file:///tmp/cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
17. file:///tmp/cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
18. mailto:[dpmc
19. mailto:[dpmc
20. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
21. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
22. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
23. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
24. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....
25. mailto:[FOI #5660 email]
26. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
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.
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
Thank you for your email.
The Department will be following the arrangements regarding decision making on internal reviews described in our email of 3 January 2020. In accordance with those arrangements, the Department will allocate the internal review to an officer at the SES Band 2 level.
The due date for notifying you of a decision on the internal review is Friday, 31 January 2020.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [DPMC request email] | w. www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Potts <[FOI #5660 email]>
Sent: Friday, 3 January 2020 4:59 PM
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - John Lloyd and Stephanie Foster
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.
-----Original Message-----
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
I refer to your email dated 1 January 2020, received by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department), in which you advised as
follows:
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:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
Under arrangements approved by the Secretary of the Department, all internal reviews of decisions made under the FOI Act are to be carried out by an officer more senior in rank to the officer who made the original decision. In practice, if the decision in respect of which internal review is sought was made by an officer at the Senior Executive Service (SES) Band 1 level (i.e. an Assistant Secretary), the officer undertaking the internal review would usually be at the SES Band 2 level (i.e. a First Assistant Secretary). As the decision on your request was made by an officer at the SES Band 1 level, the Department would therefore expect to appoint an officer at the SES Band 2 level to undertake the review.
Alternatively, you have the option of seeking Information Commissioner
(IC) review of the decision. More information about seeking IC review can found on the web site of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner at [2]https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-infor....
We reject your claims regarding the behaviour of Ms Leahy in relation to your FOI request.
In relation to your allegations regarding Ms Foster’s conduct in breach of the Public Service Act 1999, an appropriate avenue to raise such matters is by correspondence addressed to the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the first instance, or an appropriate law enforcement agency.
If you choose to seek IC review, please let us know.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [3][DPMC request email] | w. [4]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[5]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[7]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [8]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[9]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present. -
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #5660 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
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
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Potts
We refer to your email of 1 January 2020 in which you requested internal
review under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in the following terms:
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:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
Please find attached the internal review decision.
Yours sincerely
FOI Adviser
FOI and Privacy Section | Legal Policy Branch
Government Division | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
p. (02) 6271 5849
e. [2][DPMC request email] | w. [3]www.pmc.gov.au
One National Circuit Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 6500 CANBERRA ACT 2600
[4]cid:image001.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[5]cid:image002.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00[6]cid:image003.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00 [7]cid:image004.jpg@01D30607.6CF4DA00
[8]Title: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present. -
Description: Reconcilation branding and acknowledgment: The Department
acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia
and their continuing connections to the land, waters and community. We pay
respect to their Cultures, Country and Elders both past and present.
______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If
you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.
______________________________________________________________________
References
Visible links
1. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/5...
2. mailto:[DPMC request email]
3. http://www.pmc.gov.au/
4. https://twitter.com/pmc_gov_au
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/departm...
6. https://twitter.com/indigenous_gov
7. https://www.facebook.com/indigenous.gov....