Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

The Public Service Act 1999 provides that the functions of the Public Service Commissioner include the upholding of high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS and the promotion of the APS Values and APS Code of Conduct.

I’m aware the former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd, used Commonwealth resources to correspond and otherwise communicate with the Executive Director (John Roskam) of far right wing, Liberal Party aligned, political lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Under the FOI Act, I seek access to any emails contained in all of John Lloyd’s email account (including deleted items) that contain the following word (in the body of an email and/or in the addressee fields of an email): “Roskam”.

Relevant documents can be quickly identified by searching “All Outlook Items” in Mr Lloyd’s outlook client for the word: “Roskam”.
I’m happy for the personal information of any person to be redacted from relevant documents except for Mr Lloyd’s and Mr Roskam’s personal information and except for the personal information of any person who was a public servant at the relevant time.

The documents the subject of my request are of significant public interest to the entire APS and the broader Australian public because they will provide clear guidance as to what the APSC /LNP Government considers appropriate, acceptable and legal interactions between those persons subject to the requirements of the Public Service Act 1999 and political lobby groups – whether those lobby groups are the IPA and similar groups such as AMBLA and the United Patriots Front, or more moderate groups such as GetUp! and the Socialist Alliance. Given the role of the APSC, such APSC led guidance, as demonstrated by the Public Service Commissioner, will be invaluable for the entirety of the APS, particularly in the lead up to a Federal election.

Yours faithfully,
M Poler

Attn: Michelle Black

I refer to your decision letter of 23 April 2019 in relation to my FOI request.

I seek internal review of your access refusal decisions regarding document 8 at Folio 29 – 31.

By way of background, my request was for email documents concerning former Public Service Commissioner and Director at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), John Lloyd, and his boss, Executive Director of the IPA, John Roskam. The IPA is a far right wing group that represents, or has represented, the political, commercial and other interests of the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry and George Pell.

John Lloyd left his job at the IPA in 2014 after he was appointed to the position of Public Service Commissioner by Eric Abetz and Tony Abbott (both of whom are deeply affiliated with the IPA). After advising the Australian Senate last year that he was retiring from the position of Public Service Commissioner and the workforce more generally due to his age, John Lloyd returned, almost immediately, to his job at the IPA where he is currently a Director.

The footer of document 8 at folios 29-31 relevantly states: “IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 2014.”

Section 70 of the Crimes Act was repealed and replaced last year by section 122.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, but at the relevant time (January 2015), section 70 of the Crimes Act governed Mr Lloyd’s dealings with the information contained within document 8 at folios 29-31. Section 70 of the Crimes Act, as it applies to document 8, relevantly states:

“70 Disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers

(1) A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, commits an offence.”

The penalty for an offence under section 70 of the Crimes Act is two years imprisonment.

Having regard to the nature and context of my request, document 8 and your decision (specifically, that the document contains information provided by the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) in relation to matters of national security) it appears to be the case that the former Public Service Commissioner, has received national security related information from the AGSVA in his capacity as a Commonwealth officer, which he has then decided to communicate to a person not authorised to receive that national security information - his friend and employer, John Roskam, being the Executive Director of a far right wing extremist group.

I’m of the view that you have refused access to the document because that document constitutes prima facie evidence of a criminal offence engaged in by the former, and corrupt, Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd. I consider that you have refused access to that document (or at least most of it) because the release of a document evidencing criminal conduct by the former Public Service Commissioner will not just be politically inconvenient for the APSC, but also the APSC’s key stakeholder, the IPA/Liberal Party. In making that assertion it is relevant to note that the APSC’s senior management group has a history of actively concealing/turning a blind eye to the illegal conduct of John Lloyd for political purposes. There is clearly a strong public interest in evidence of criminal offences engaged in by the former Public Service Commissioner and the prosecution of those offences (see [6.19] of the FOI Guidelines), particularly noting that the former Commissioner has a demonstrable history of engaging in illegal conduct in public office.

The only alternative to that proposition is that the national security information contained in document 8 relates to a security clearance sought by Mr Lloyd, for his friend/employer, John Roskam (or indeed some other colleague of John Lloyd’s at the IPA). There is a strong public interest in circumstances where the former, corrupt, Public Service Commissioner, has sought, or has been involved in, obtaining a security clearance for someone like John Roskam (being the executive director of a far right wing extremist group), or indeed any of John Lloyd’s other right wing extremist IPA colleagues, so that such persons can access Government held classified information.

Yours sincerely,

M Poler

Dear Ms Grady

Your advice notwithstanding, it is a matter of public interest that Mr Roskam, being the leader of a far right extremist group with deep ties to the pederast community/Liberal Party, has come to the attention of our national security agencies – particularly in the context of national security related communications with Mr Lloyd, being a Director of the same far right wing extremist group and a corrupt political appointee of the IPA/Liberal Party. That is especially the case in the current context of increasing public interest in, and scrutiny of, far right extremist groups such as the IPA.

Noting that at least since 2014, the APSC has conducted itself as if it were a subsidiary of the IPA/Liberal Party and whose primary objectives are to promote the policies of the IPA/Liberal Party and to protect the IPA/Liberal Party from political embarrassment, your email offers me little reassurance that the APSC’s dealings with this matter constitute anything other than another attempt by senior management at the APSC to protect the IPA/Liberal Party from matters that are in the public interest, but that may be political inconvenient for the APSC/IPA/Liberal Party.

That being so, can you offer me any further context to assist my consideration of whether to withdraw my request for internal review? For example, if Mr Roskam has been mentioned in the relevant documents only in the context of him being a referee in support of Mr Lloyd’s security clearance, or to simply confirm Mr Lloyd’s employment at the IPA in support of Mr Lloyd’s application for a security clearance, then it’s reasonable to conclude that Mr Roskam has been identified by our national security agencies in a purely incidental, administrative sense; which would be a factor favouring withdrawal of my request for internal review.

I await your further advice.

Thank you for your email.

Having regard to character of the individuals involved and the national security context, there's a public interest in this matter being independently reviewed. Accordingly, I maintain my request for internal review, and if the IPA, in conducting its internal review, confirms its own access refusal decision, I'll seek independent review by the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,
M Poler