Meta Data, the AFP Commissioner and a whole lot of  shit!!!!
So on thursday  dinosaur  Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin who obviously has no fucking idea about the internet said that the meta data that internet companies  were now required to keep for 2 years   would be used to track down people who pirated movies and music. Clearly this fucker did not realize that in fact  copyright was not a criminal offence even though he holds  the position of Top Cop in Australia.
Then on Friday Colvin backed down on his threat because someone had mentioned to him that this was actually none of the fucking AFP's business.
Considering that any hacker wanting to download pirated movies or music would use a proxy server in a far away country  and therefore hide their tracks  and anyone that has turned to "THE DARK SIDE"  will do the same who is  the AFP and  the Australian Parliament think they are going to catch with these new laws??????
It appears Abbott is just sucking up to Obama and Colvin is just a puppet who has no fucking idea what so ever!!!!!!

Ian Lazar/ Another Antisemitic Post according to Ian Lazar

It is certainly difficult to see how the following post is antisemitic  and  I need referring to the Human rights Commissiorer-- Tim Wilson but Ian Lazar thinks so!!!!!!

You can only feel sorry for Tim Wilson!!!!!

OZloop

Australia: One nation under surveillance

.

• All Blog Posts
• My Blog
• Add

Australia: One nation under surveillance

• Posted by steve davies on November 22, 2013 at 7:00am
• View Blog

What we are seeing in Australia today is a veil of censorship, secrecy and the surveillance being drawn across government and Australian Public Service agencies. When it comes to monitoring by public service agencies there is a dangerous lack of transparency and accountability.

All of this is a threat our freedoms, our right to know, better government and better public services. And we are not being asked if this is the sort of society we want.


At the end of this post are links to the more detailed article Australia: One nation under surveillance and additional documentation. Before continuing you may want to view our Talking points.


Secrecy
The recent Melbourne Age piece Silence echoes across Canberra as the Coalition clams up says it all.

But two months since the election, it's increasingly becoming apparent that a "no-surprises" government is coming at the cost of open government.

As shown in the Canberra Times piece Cash sought for FOI brief releases we are increasingly seeing Australian Public Service agencies pulling back on Freedom of Information.

But more than a month after the Abbott government was sworn in, none of its briefs has been released.

A veil of secrecy is being drawn around government and the public service. This is despite the Coalition's Policy for e-Government and the Digital Economy stating they will,

accelerate Government 2.0 efforts to engage online, make agencies transparent and provide expanded access to useful public sector data

To be fair, it was the previous Labor Government that wanted to expand digital surveillance powers to mass surveil the communications of citizens.


Silence
In the meantime the Australian Public Service has been going its own merry way. Most notably, by seeking to prevent public servants from engaging in any discussion of public service issues with members of the public via social media. Under the guise of cyber-bullying they are now attempting to shut citizens up. To find out more about this read my post The Australian Public Service thinks the barbarians are at the gate

In my talk at the IPAA social media seminar held in September I highlighted the need for public interest discussions between public servants (in a private capacity) and the wider community. Near the end of my talk the Government's Chief Technology Officer asserted that these freedoms did not exist and proceeded to repeat the Australian Public Service Commission's view that harsh criticism is not on.

The Australian Public Service Commission's policy on harsh criticism is nonsense. These freedoms need to exist to ensure transparency and accountability. What Australian Public Service agencies are doing under the guise of this policy is creating an environment where self-censorship and the hiding of information will flourish. Mind you, they are watching you.

APS agencies may have systems in place for monitoring emails and tracking postings, comments, websites, blogs, etc. for content about their agency or employees, including by designating staff to monitor online content.

Your right to know
May have systems in place? The community has a right to know. Which leads me to the nature of surveillance in Australia.

• The security and policing agencies are the top tier of surveillance. They have access to the latest technologies enabling mass surveillance.

• Then we have Australian Public Service agencies. They have acquired technologies to monitor what is being said and who is saying it via social media. They are, if you like, the second tier of surveillance.

• Sitting beneath that we have the administrative and legislative glue that holds Australian Public Service agencies together and plays an important role in ensuring censorship and secrecy.

Why be concerned
It is bad enough that we are surveilled roughly 800 times per day. See The Australian Government Snoop Patrol. What we are now seeing is evidence that Australian Public Service agencies are building a surveillance state by stealth.

What is very clear in all of this is that transparency and accountability need to be ramped up to prevent the erosion of democracy and bad behaviour on the part of public service agencies.

Given the power of technology and the bureaucracy we need, like Canada, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure the ethical use of our information and freedom of the press. If we do not we may very well end up with a system of total surveillance that is impossible to dismantle.


Find out more
Read the detailed paper Australia: One nation under surveillance


Consider Views from the street


View actual Surveillance and monitoring purchases

View, share and discuss our poster Democracy. That's what the entire issue of surveillance boils down to.

Views: 825

Tags: aps, apsc, censorship, democracy, freedom, secrecy, surveillance, values

ShareTwitterFacebook

• < Previous Post
• Next Post >

Comment

You need to be a member of OZloop to add comments!

Join OZloop

RSS

Welcome to
OZloop

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Useful sites

APS Bullying


badHealthqld

Crikey

Data.gov.au

eGovernment Resource Centre

Govloop


To see more sites or suggest other please visit our links page.

© 2014 Created by steve davies.

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!

Email To Ian Lazar
This is the Ian Lazar exposed in Federal Parliament by Senator Williams as a fraud!!!!!

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: ian@cmtrade.com.au
Subject: RE: Letter to Brown attached‏
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:34:16 +1000

Dear Dodgy Lazar,

I refer to your email where you  find it is antisemitic to expose  the  findings of  the many court cases you have been involved in. I fail to understand exactly how the findings of a court case is considered   somehow in your mind antisemitic. Are you referring to the Judge as antisemitic or are you referring to anything that exposes you as antisemitic, 

I also wonder  why any post concerning Jim Byrnes  would be considered antisemitic unless he has converted to Judaism   lately.

It also appears that referring to you as the son of a rabbi as antisemitic. WOW, Wow Wow!!!!!

Most importantly I wish to tell you ....................................... Fuck Off!!!!

---

From: ian@cmtrade.com.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: Letter to Brown attached‏
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 06:04:54 +0000

Dear Madam,

Please see attached.

Regards,

Ian Lazar FGAA,Dip DT, MAICD(Sydney)
Director

Structured Mortgage Securities

Corporate Profile: IanLazar.com

Website: www.commercialmortgagetrade.blogspot.com.au

www.cmtrade.com.au 

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ian-lazar/34/137/186The Australian

National Affairs 

'Fraudster' Ian Lazar outed in Senate by John Williams 

• From: The Australian

• September 22, 2011 12:00AM 

A NATIONALS senator has used parliamentary privilege to name and allege fraud against a businessman he claims is engaged in unchecked white-collar crime, going on 

to attack the impotence of the corporate watchdog. 

Senator John Williams told the Senate yesterday that Ian Lazar had ripped off many Australians, including prominent theatrical producer Kevin Jacobsen.

He called for a royal commission into white-collar crime and declared he would deliver a dossier of documents to the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Jacobsen, chairman of Arena Management Pty Ltd, operated and held the lease for the Sydney Entertainment Centre for 26 years. In a statutory declaration tabled in parliament, 

he says he was introduced to Mr Lazar by Achilles Constantinidis, best known for partnering with former Labor prime minister Paul Keating in a one-time piggery business. He says 

Mr Constantinidis introduced him to Andrew Wily, from Armstrong Wily accountants, in July 2009 regarding the withdrawal of the lease for the entertainment centre by the Sydney 

Harbour Foreshore Authority.

 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe?

utm_medium=marketing_placements&utm_source=TA&utm_campaign=3monthfree&utm_content=mp_story_free_seealso&creative_id=ta_3mft_149x181_c1a&sourceCode=TAWEB_MPL120A) 

Mr Jacobsen appointed Armstrong Wily as receivers of Arena Management. But within an hour of that meeting, Senator Williams told the Senate, Wily's staff emptied all the 

money out of the ATMs as well as the safe, taking about $150,000 in cash.

In his tabled statement, Mr Jacobsen claims he never received a report on what happened to the cash, but that Wily charged $250,000 for six days' work. Mr Jacobsen says shortly 

afterwards, Mr Lazar offered to help him recover $10.4 million from the SHFA following the withdrawal of the lease.

He says Mr Lazar charged $84,000 to his credit card, stole his car and botched the financing for a tour by Julio Iglesias, leaving Mr Jacobsen liable for cancellation costs while 

pocketing $50,000 himself.

The tabled material quotes Mr Jacobsen saying Mr Lazar effectively killed off a musical production worth $6 million to his family company.

Senator Williams told parliament yesterday that one year after meeting Mr Lazar, Mr Jacobsen had lost all his businesses and all his trading companies were placed in liquidation.

"It's another glaring example of how the Australian Securities & Investment Commission cannot be relied upon," he told the Senate.

Intimidation by Ian Lazar.
I refer to the email from the dodgy Ian Lazar that I received today.
Considering he is a shonk  and is being investigated by numerous Government Agencies   he considers exposing his conduct as  ANTISEMTIC........................ Wow, WOW , BOW WOW!!!!!!!

Does he also consider me antisemitic for attending the RALLY for Palestine last sunday at the Sydney Town Hall??????

FOI  Australian Public Service Commission/ Dodgy Robert Cornall AO
So apart form doing the dodgy report and investigation into Manus Island which cost $83,000 Dodgy Robert Cornall has done 2 investigations into misconduct by Federal Government Agency Heads under S41(m)
It is hardly surprising there is so much systemic corrupt conduct in Government agencies  when investigations are not independent.
As this dodgy Cornall was secretary of the Attorney Generals department and therefore fails any independence test.
 Taking a look through the annual reports it  is also revealed Commissioner Steve Sedgwick also fucked over  every whistle-blower and all those who made complaints about Agency Heads. Clearly the Shonky Sedgwick has also a vested interest in protecting systemic corrupt conduct and corruption in Government Agencies

---

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:02:22 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

The two investigations were conducted for the purposes of the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 “to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads”.  Please note that section 41 of the Public Service Act 1999 was amended in 2013 and this power is now found under paragraph 41(1)(m).

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 41

Commissioner's functions

             (1)  The Commissioner has the following functions:

                     (a)  to strengthen the professionalism of the APS and facilitate continuous improvement in workforce management in the APS;

                     (b)  to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS;

                     (c)  to monitor, review and report on APS capabilities within and between Agencies to promote high standards of accountability, effectiveness and performance.

             (2)  Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner's functions include the following:

                     (a)  to foster, and contribute to, leadership, high quality learning and development and career management in the APS;

                     (b)  to lead the thinking about, provide advice on and drive reforms to workforce management policies so that the APS is ready for future demands;

                     (c)  to develop, review and evaluate APS workforce management policies and practices and maintain appropriate databases;

                     (d)  to foster an APS workforce that reflects the diversity of the Australian population;

                     (e)  to promote the APS Values, the APS Employment Principles and the Code of Conduct;

                      (f)  to evaluate the extent to which Agencies incorporate and uphold the APS Values and the APS Employment Principles;

                     (g)  to partner with Secretaries in the stewardship of the APS;

                     (h)  to provide advice and assistance to Agencies on public service matters;

                      (i)  to work with other governments (including foreign governments) on matters relating to public sector workforce management, leadership and career management;

                      (j)  to review any matter relating to the APS;

                     (k)  to review any matter relating to the APS referred to the Commissioner by the Public Service Minister, and report on that matter to the Public Service Minister;

                      (l)  to evaluate the adequacy of systems and procedures in Agencies for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct;

                    (m)  to inquire, in accordance with section 41A, into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads;

                     (n)  to inquire into and determine, in accordance with section 41B, whether an APS employee, or a former APS employee, has breached the Code of Conduct;

                     (o)  to inquire, subject to the regulations, into public interest disclosures (within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 ), to the extent that the disclosures relate to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct;

                     (p)  such other functions as are conferred on the Commissioner by this Act, the regulations or any other law;

                     (q)  such other functions as the Prime Minister, by legislative instrument, directs the Commissioner to perform;

                      (r)  to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions.

Note:          Neither section 42 (disallowance) nor Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 applies to a direction given under paragraph (2)(q) (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

Reports may include recommendations

             (3)  A report made by the Commissioner in the performance of his or her functions may include recommendations.

Fees

             (4)  The regulations may authorise the Commissioner to charge fees (on behalf of the Commonwealth) for the performance, on request, of the Commissioner's functions.

Wentworth v De Montfort: a case on ownership of documents in solicitors’ files

May 25th, 2008 · Comments (0)

This post is a companion to this longer companion post which discusses the other cases on the question of who, as between solicitor and client, is entitled to documents relating to their matter found on solicitors’ files and in their accounts. As the decision with the most detailed consideration of the question, it gets its own post.

Twelve classes of documents on a solicitor’s file were in issue in Wentworth v De Montfort (1988) 15 NSWLR 348, a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal. The key issue in the case was described in this way:

‘Ms Wentworth’s primary submission is that any documents brought into existence or received by Sly & Russell in relation to her litigation were documents created or received by Sly & Russell in their capacity as agents for their principal Ms Wentworth, and that, applying ordinary agency principles, any documents so created or received are accordingly hers. As I understand their case, the opponents do not deny that any document created or received by them only as agents for Ms Wentworth would belong to her. However they deny that any documents falling within the twelve categories were so created or received and submit that upon a number of principles applying to solicitors and other professional people, the documents falling within those categories are theirs.’

Summary of previous authorities

The Court reviewed the English authorities, and the 8th edition of Cordery on Solicitors, a very famous English text, and concluded:

‘A number of considerations can be discerned in these decisions and statements as being relevant in the determination of ownership. These include whether or not the client was charged for the creation of the document, and whether the solicitor created the document for his client’s benefit and protection, or did so for his own benefit and protection.’

In resolving the priority to be accorded to these considerations, Hope JA, with whom the other judges agreed, made two conceptual observations: that solicitors should not be assumed to be acting as their clients’ agents in everything they do, and that solicitors are not ordinary trustees, and legislation regulating solicitors’ trust accounts may affect equitable rules associated with trustees generally. The Court also asserted that whether the client paid for the creation of the document was not determinative of whether he or she was entitled to the original document.

Solicitors, like other professionals, are not necessarily agents in everything they do

The Court said:

‘Although solicitors may in particular circumstances receive or create a document as an agent for their client, this is commonly not the case. The distinction between principal and agent and professional person and client is well established. [Hope JA then considered Leicestershire County Council v Michael Faraday and Partners Ltd [1941] 2 KB 205,London School Board v Northcroft(1889) Hudson’s BC, 4th ed, vol 2, at 147, and Chantrey Martin (A Firm) v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286, which are discussed in the other post.]It thus appears that if a solicitor is acting only as agent for a client who is his principal in the doing of some act, the ordinary rules of agency apply to him, and documents brought into existence or received by him when so acting belong to the client. However in other cases, different principles apply, those principles being referable to the relationship between a professional person and his client.’

Solicitors as trustees have different obligations from other trustees

The Court said:

‘A trustee must keep proper financial records and in a real sense, as well as keeping them for his own benefit, he keeps them for the benefit of the beneficiary, to whom he must be ready to render accounts when required. However, while he is trustee, they are his records and he has the legal title to them. The beneficiary is entitled to inspect them, and to have information about them, but they are not the beneficiary’s property: Re Londonderry’s Settlement; Peat v Walsh [1964] Ch 594. Normally, when a trustee ceases to hold office, either on appointment of a new trustee or the determination of the trust, he would be required to hand over all trust property, including documents and financial records, to the new trustee, or to the sole beneficiary or all the beneficiaries if more than one, if required to do so. … This position would generally apply to a trustee who is a solicitor, but there are important qualifications in some cases. If he is solicitor for the client as well as trustee, he is required by law (as I shall describe later) to maintain and to retain proper financial records. He is entitled to retain these records, some of which may refer to other clients as well as the trust, but the beneficiary should be provided with copies if asked for. Other records which he makes as solicitor and not as trustee are subject to the same principles as would apply if he were not a trustee.’

Later, at 357-8, the Court said:

‘Whatever may be the position in relation to ordinary trustees, solicitors who hold money in trust for their clients have two roles and are subject to special duties [under trust account rules and legislation], and they are entitled to and indeed must retain their financial records. …

In so far as the records are those of a continuing trustee, they belong to the trustee, the beneficiary is entitled to information concerning their contents and where appropriate to copies of them but the beneficiary does not own them. In so far as the solicitor has ceased to be a trustee, he is still required by law to maintain and to retain proper financial records.

Looked at as a solicitor’s records, no doubt they are kept in part for the benefit of the client but they are also kept for the benefit of the solicitor who must know and be able to establish not only to the client but to persons exercising the relevant powers under the Legal Practitioners Act precisely what he has done with moneys in his trust account.

His liability to account to inspectors and others pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act is not a liability which has been created solely for the benefit of the solicitor’s client. It is for the client’s benefit, but it is also for the benefit of the public generally, which has a considerable interest in ensuring the integrity of solicitors and their observance of their professional and other obligations.’ (formatting altered)

Mixed purposes

Hope JA tackled the question of mixed purposes in a passage which does not give up its meaning easily:

‘It is apparent that in many if not most cases a solicitor would have mixed reasons for creating a document.

Thus if on his client’s instructions he writes a letter of demand to a third party, it would be his duty to keep a copy of the letter, for the client may have to prove the sending of the letter and its contents, and the copy kept by the solicitor may be essential for this purpose. On the other hand the solicitor would want a copy for his own protection in order, for example, to be able to prove to his client that he had sent the letter of demand, and also for the purposes of making up a bill of costs. In such a case, the clients would be entitled to a copy of the letter and the solicitor would be entitled to charge him for it. On the other hand the solicitor would be entitled to keep a copy for his own records and absent some special agreement would not be entitled to charge the client for making that copy.

Again if on his client’s instructions the solicitor pays money to a third party and obtains a receipt, the receipt is obviously of benefit for the client for it is evidence that the third party has been paid. It is also evidence for the solicitor that he has carried out his client’s instructions and would be needed by him if any questions as to payments out of his trust account were raised. Again in this case I should have thought that the client was entitled to the original receipt, but that the solicitor was entitled to retain a copy.‘(formatting altered)

If one ignores the last paragraph, the intended meaning of the passage would seem to be that in the case of a mixed purpose, the solicitor is entitled to the original and the client to a copy if he pays for it. It is not clear why the same does not apply in relation to the example in the last paragraph.

Whether the client is charged for the document is not determinative

It is apparent that whether or not a client is charged for work is not determinative. Consider this passage:

‘Thus a barrister may make written notes of arguments he proposes to submit to a court and if he charges upon a time basis for out of court work, the client has in a sense been charged for that work. However I do not think that that makes those notes the property of the client; they would be made by the barrister entirely for his own professional purposes even though they are made in the course of carrying out work for the client. The position is the same in the case of the internal records as in relation to the analogous internal records of a solicitor.’

Evidence about the document and about reasons for creation needed before decision can be made

The question in respect of each document is what the predominant purpose of the creation of the document was. Some classes of documents are inherently for the exclusive or predominant purpose of either the solicitor (for example, internal cheque requisitions) or the client (for example, receipts for payments in discharge of liability of the client, made by the solicitors as the client’s agent). Others require evidence, document by document. It was for that reason that, there having been no document by document examination of the purpose of the creator of the document, reasons were published to assist the parties, but no orders actually determining the ownership of any document were made.

The twelve categories of documents

The twelve categories of documents seem at first glance to be exhaustive, but by virtue of what classes of documents were in dispute between the parties, there are crucial gaps. So copies of court documents filed and served, solicitors’ notes of telephone conversations with and personal attendances on the client, and correspondence between the solicitor and client are not covered. Hope JA did note without disapproval Re Thomson (1855) 20 Beav 545; 52 ER 714; 24 LJ Ch 599, where Sir John Romilly MR held that a client is not entitled to copies of letters written by the solicitor. It seems from the next proposition that he was speaking at that point only of letters to the client, for his Honour also appears to have held that the client was entitled to the original file copy of letters written on behalf of the client by the solicitor to third parties (reiterated by the same judge in Howard v Gunn (1863) 32 Beav 462; 55 ER 181). Re Thomson suggested too that the solicitor is entitled to retain letters received from the client, and it might be extrapolated from that that a solicitor is entitled to keep file notes of oral instructions given by the client. If these authorities are good law, then, in summary, the following is the position:

• the solicitor owns letters received from the client from which it might be extrapolated that the solicitor owns notes of oral instructions from the client;
• the solicitor owns file copies of letters to the client;
• the client owns file copies of letters sent to third parties.

Some classes of documents admitted of a simple answer because they have a relatively obvious, constant purpose. So:

• internal cheque requisitions, photocopying requisition forms are owned by the solicitor (356G, 361C);
• as are trust and other accounts printouts (358) (but note that ‘Having regard to technological advances and the ease with which copies can now be made’, Hope JA said ‘I should have thought that the solicitor who keeps computerised accounts should supply his client with a copy of the relevant printout, but at the client’s expense.’), ‘attempted financial reconciliation documents (361D) and financial records more generally including bank statements (361E-G);
• counsel’s briefs, and solicitors’ notes of attendances on counsel are generally owned by the client (360), except in a special case, such as a discussion between counsel and solicitor about fees, since it is the solicitor rather than the client who is principally responsible for counsel’s fees (359C);
• internal records and memos about work done or to be done are the solicitor’s property (little explanation of what class of documents was conceived of was provided by Hope JA, the only example being ‘a barrister may make written notes of arguments he proposes to submit to a court’) (359-360);
• communications between the solicitor and the Court would generally belong to the client (361);

More difficult were the following classes of documents:

• file notes of telephone conversations with and personal attendances on third parties;
• notes taken at court;
• correspondence with third parties.

They depend on a document by document analysis of for whose benefit the document was created. Examples given included:

• the client would own the file copy of a letter of demand written to a third party on behalf of the client (I say the solicitor owns the file copy because Hope JA asserted that the solicitor would be entitled to charge the client for the provision of a copy to which the client would be entitled) (356A);
• the client would be entitled to the original receipt received by a solicitor upon making a payment on behalf of a client to a creditor of the client (but note the difficulty in interpreting the passage containing the propositions in this and the previous bullet point noted above) (356B);
• the client would own the solicitor’s file note of a telephone conversation with a person the client says owes him money, in which the putative debtor gives his side of the story or makes admissions, or asserts a counter-claim (358E);
• the client would own a statement taken by the solicitor from a third party witness (358F);
• the solicitor would own a note of a conversation with senior counsel about fees because ‘Counsel look primarily to solicitors for the payment of their fees and solicitors have a professional responsibility for their payment. Clients of course have an interest, and a very real interest, in counsel’s fees, but I should think that a record of a conversation by a solicitor with senior counsel concerning the non-payment of his fees would be a record belonging to the solicitor’ (359C);
• the client would own a note of the solicitor’s conversation with the director of a legal aid organisation discussing a costs position (359D);
• the client would own the original exchange of correspondence if the exchange of views with the director of the legal aid organisation had been by letter (359D);
• the client would own notes of what happened in court (360C);
• the solicitor would own ‘to do lists’ made in court and prompted by what had happened there (360D).

FOI APSC/ Audit Committee

So who is on the APSC Audit Committee?
Why are these committee members not ensuring the shonky Commissioner Sedgwick and shonky Karin Fisher not comply with their obligations under the APS ACT.

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:19:07 +1000

Hi Chris,
FOI could you please supply me with the names of the people on the APSC Audit Committee for the past 3 years.
Also could you please supply me with a copy of the APSC Audit Committee Guidelines.
Thanking you
Fiona Brown

FOI  Australian Public Service Commission

Robert Cornall, the former Public Servant who has an  AO after his name cost Tax payers $83,000 for an inadequate report into Manus Island.
This is not the first time Robert Cornall has F....ked over a serious complaint or investigation.
Senator Sarah  Hansen Young  questioned this shonk in Senate Estimates last week.
Apart from the seriously flawed report on Manus Island  it should be considered a conflict of interest considering  his former position as secretary for the Attorney Generals Department where he would have protected atrocious systemic corrupt conduct in Government Departments.
Clearly it is like asking the Catholic Church to investigate the Catholic Church!!!!
In the APSC 2010-2011 Annual report it was Robert Cornall who was asked by Commissioner Sedgwick to investigate one complaint made to  the APSC under S 41.
Clearly the Agency Head which was investigated by Cornall was thanking their lucky stars that the complaint was F...ked over by him. The other 15  complaints of Agency Heads where F...ked over by Sedgwick.
So how many other shonky investigations has Cornall done for the APSC.....
From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: FOI Robert Cornall
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:49:26 +1000

To whom it may concern

Under freedom of Information please advise me how many investigations Robert Cornall has done for the Australian Public Service Commission since 2010

Thanking you

Fiona Brown