Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7


This Action - Measuring some of the cost of public officer’s failure to act adequately and in the public interest.

AIM: To commence measuring the time that complaints/work is not attended to by government departments, and the subsequent cost to the public purse when public agencies and ministers are paid to perform their duties, yet refuse to address identified issues.


1. Our volunteers examined papers and court records from the case of TAFE teacher, Val Kerrison (see for more reading on this matter) and also her story published on Indymedia and WBDE “HealthQuesting Val Kerrison” .

2. We identified some hundreds of people and organizations to whom Val had made complaints and supplied what appear to be compelling evidence of wrongdoing over the years.

a. We noted that seemingly all these individuals and organizations had taken and apparently kept large amounts of public monies - payments to perform their duties in the public’s interest.

b. We formed the opinion that these people and organizations may have simply ignored or “flicked” the issues,

3. We selected around 50 of the individuals and organizations

4. We set out to ensure that each named person had been accorded their right to procedural fairness and natural justice by writing to the individuals. In case any person has still not received their copy, we publish in the public interest here, and are asked to supply their evidence that they addressed the complaints if they did do so.

5. To those selections we formulated a base document setting out our concerns and reasons.

a. We individualized each one by inserting from a base spreadsheet information including date of complaint to the person/organization, calculated the number of days to 10 April 2006 (the date of that spreadsheet) and, failing evidence that they addressed the complaint/s, calculated a nominal cost recovery to the public of an average $1,000 per week. b. These individual monetary calculations could not be truly representative of the actual cost to the public purse because most salaries would have been much more, and hundreds of other staff were involved and actions such as court cases and longevity and cost of inquiries were not available. c. However, the number of days Val’s complaints remain unaddressed should be accurate to that time. It should be pointed out that we based our calculations on the oldest complaints we had access to - some complaints/grievances/protected disclosures may pre-date our current records.

6. The letter below was prepared and promulgated according to addresses and information from the relevant organizations.

7. To date we have not received the evidence requested that would convince us that any of these people or organizations have yet performed their duties.

8. It is concluded that just these few people and organizations show a total of at least 101,735 days that it appears the individuals failed/refused to address the issues.


WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed

WBDE Human Rights and Ethics Panel 18 April 2006
PO Box 140

For the personal attention of: [Individual’s and organisation’s names inserted from list at the end of this document]_________

Who We Are:

WhistleBlowers Documents Exposed (WBDE) is a self-funded people’s initiative arising from our dissatisfaction with the performance of some existing funded organizations and personnel, who are considered to have failed to perform their duties effectively, within the law, and in the public interest. More information is available on our WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed site:



Part 1. WBDE claim to Individual Public Officials, charges, and this action. FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION .

Part 2. Ref: Australia’s Responsibilities Under United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Asset Recovery from corrupt officers.

Part 3. Ref: Code of conduct

Part 4. Ref: Definition of Corrupt conduct

Part 5. Ref Prime Minister and Premiers to implement national treaties applicable to Australia

Part 6. Ref: Leadership code

Part 7. Ref: Malice in office

Top of page

Part 1. WBDE claim, charge, and this action


Claim: WBDE is a community-based organization. It works outside the public sector exposing and working to address perceived corruption. This entitles us to make claim under Part 2 below to support states, work towards eradicating existing corruption, and encouraging corruption prevention by means of asset recovery from existing perceived corrupt officers.

Charge: In the public interest and particularly in relation to the situation of TAFE teacher Mrs Val Kerrison, WBDE accuse you as a public official that you did dishonestly or only partial exercise your official functions, and that this constitutes corrupt behaviour (See Part 4 below). We calculate asset recovery assessed at $1000 per week for the time that the issues have been ignored/remain unaddressed.


1 Val Kerrison, as a duly appointed TAFE teacher is entitled to her job and entitlements. As no TAFE officer has ever charged her with any wrongdoing it is taken that there has not ever been any process even commenced to terminate her employment in any way.

2 Val reported crime and discrimination/victimisation in TAFE. After that, TAFE managers on behalf of its Managing Director, threatened her (intimidated a potential witness).

3 Val and the general public advocating for Val reported to police, government officials and politicians further crime especially HealthQuest’s and TAFE’s fake and fraudulent Retirement Certificate used to dupe Val out of her job.

4 In various years Val was tortured and terrorized by TAFE/HealthQuest officers and their lawyers etc until she collapsed, unconscious.

5 Instead of TAFE and Dept Health lawyers and Crown Sols Office targeting those committing crime, discrimination, victimisation, fraud within TAFE and Dept Health and supporting Val and other whistleblowers, they took and kept public money and acted as if they could see no wrong.

6 At all times Val was entitled to procedural fairness and natural justice, but this was denied to her by TAFE, HealthQuest, and Department of Health, propped up by Ministers, Crown Solicitor’s Office, department lawyers as well as publicly paid officers, politicians and judiciary.

7 On 22 June 1995 Val was overnight and without any attempt at natural justice simply excluded from her teaching position. That amazing, outrageous stance has been maintained by public officers to the present day.

8 A purported forced ‘medical retirement’ is as discriminatory/illegal under the AntiDiscrimination Act as any other similar detriment, e.g. age retirement, marriage retirement, and one of the duties of the AntiDiscrimination Board is to instruct government departments/courts that purported ‘medical retirement’ is prohibited – but apparently did not. Nor has the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division attempted to educate government against this.

9 Re this manufactured forced ‘retirement’ against Val, apparently no public official including judges and lawyers can name the date/time that this may have occurred and the evidence they all hold confirms that there is no day. The last employment status applied to Val was a fictitious “Withdrawn” applied by State Super in 1998.

10 All such ‘decisions’ are Void because of denial of natural justice any way.

11 This is again reinforced when no, public officers, ministers, judges, lawyers, even claims to have ever treated Val with natural justice, or seen any accorded to her.

12 While they all failed to manage this, despite taking and keeping public funds for their ‘services’, WBDE who charge no fees and work for the public good, formally investigated and judged some 30+ offensive ‘decisions’ null and void.

13 WBDE and others have constantly reported all of this to the paid public officers. It has been ‘handled’ by up to 1,000 public officials, public servants, ministers, politicians, and lawyers, but they have not addressed the issues despite having taken and presumably kept, many millions/billions of public money as payment to perform their public duties.

14 We refer you to the complaint and public documents you received and have access to including the public documents on our site WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed, Indymedia, Hansard, Austlii, etc including:

14.1 The history of ‘HealthQuesting’ Val .

14.2 Actions which the judiciary could have judged and actioned, but did not - these are now judged and actioned by the general public with WBDE in the public interest of justice:

14.3 We also refer you to your written and implied obligations and also specific ethical aspects listed herein - a selection which may be useful to you are set out more fully below: We take very seriously indications that public servants have taken and kept for themselves, public monies while either alone or with others failed to uphold the laws and regulations of the nation and turned a blind eye to or ‘side‘ with other public officers who have secretly and cowardly targeted Val, her reputation, her safety, her career rights and personal dignity.

This Action

Val, as a TAFE teacher, is judged to have efficiently managed her staff, students, courses taught, and resources, and maintained production of the education product to a standard where some 100s of recipients and TAFE management each year were evidently completely satisfied with her service to them. By comparison, there are volumes of unaddressed complaints each year by Val, the general public, and other organizations against the process used by TAFE and Dept Health/HealthQuest and other apparently mismanaged/corrupt departments to silence their internal dissidents.

In order to put some measurement on the longevity of perceived mismanagement/corruption, and amounts paid by the public to perceived inefficient corrupt officials we use the concept of cost recovery entitlement from the Convention Against Corruption in Part 2 below.

WBDE acknowledge that there is no way to track the actual cost of mismanagement, nor the time and public resources spent; eg documents formulated by management and support staff, maintenance of files, meetings, questions to parliament and Hansard reporting, emails, phone conversations, discussions with lawyers, “in” jokes between staff, formulating bogus allegations against the whistleblower, manipulating evidence, court preparation and attendances, court reporting and records, ineffective ‘investigations’ and policy writing, issuing ineffectual ‘judgements’, travel and accommodation for meetings and court appearances, etc.

In the table below we set out the date of the calculations, the date of one complaint sent to you, and calculate a cost at the rate of $1000 per week for each week it is judged that the complaint remains unaddressed.

This, with other similar actions is for publishing and lobbying for reforms including sacking and banning from public office those judged as corrupt or incapable.

As at this date it appears that you have taken and kept public money , but not addressed the issues; i.e. acted corruptly. We are investigating this. At some date after 2 weeks Panels in various locations will convene and consider the available material. Following that we intend publishing our findings as well as claims for asset recovery from those deemed to have acted corruptly.

Calculations As at 10/04/2006
Name Public Official's PositionComplaint was Submitted As at 10 April 2006 Total Days
Complaint Remains Unaddressed
Kerkyasharian, Stepan Anti-Discrim Brd Pres 06-Mar-06 35
Shaw, Jeff Attorney-General 01-Nov-97 3,082
Debus, Bob Attorney-General 22-Mar-01 1,845
Streater Audit Office - 16-Jan-98 3,006
Harris, Tony Audit Office - 27-Sep-98 2,752
Sendt, Bob Auditor-General 22-Mar-01 1,845
Jambrich, T Auditor-General Office 02-Feb-00 2,259
Menzies, Paul QC Crown Solicitor barrister 01-Dec-94 4,148
Salpeter, Raoul Crown Solicitor lawyer 01-Nov-00 1,986
Demetriou, George Crown Solicitor 20-Apr-99 2,547
Knight, Ian Crown Solicitor 24-Dec-99 2,299
Brus, Elaine Crown Solicitor barrister 01-Mar-98 2,962
Lye, Amanda Crown Sols Office lawyer 01-May-98 2,901
Burton, Julie Crown Sols Office lawyer 01-Apr-03 1,105
Hawkins, Graham Dept Health NSW 03-Jun-96 3,598
Refshaughe, Andrew Dept Health NSW 16-Dec-98 2,672
Wilkins, Premiers Cabinet. Dir-Gen 17-Sep-98 2,762
Bashir, Marie Governor 22-Mar-01 1,845
Gifford, Peter ICAC 17-Sep-98 2,762
Small, Kellie ICAC 09-Feb-00 2,252
Wright, Lance,(Judge) Ind Rel Commission 08-Jan-06 92
Walton, (Judge) Ind Rel Commission 20-Sep-04 567
Staunton,Patricia(Judge) Ind Rel Commission 20-Sep-04 567
Staff, Conrad (Judge) Ind Rel Commission 20-Sep-04 567
Costa, Michael Labor Council 27-Sep-98 2,752
Law Society Law Society NSW 08-Feb-01 1,887
Marks, Steve Legal Services Comm 29-Sep-98 2,750
Iemma, Morris Minister Health & Prem 02-Sep-03 951
Aquilina, John Minister for Education 27-Apr-95 4,001
Barbour, Bruce Ombudsman 05-Jun-00 2,135
Watson, David Ombudsman 15-Dec-98 2,673
Wheeler, Chris Ombudsman Deputy 25-Sep-98 2,754
Moss, Irene Ombudsman, ICAC 16-Jan-98 3,006
Nori, Sandra Politician 15-Jul-99 2,461
Knowles, Craig Politician, Health 22-Mar-01 1,845
Carr, Bob Premier NSW 15-Nov-95 3,799
Shreeve, Robin TAFE Director 04-Apr-99 2,563
Willmott, Gary (Dr) TAFE Director 25-Jan-95 4,093
Cribb, Peter TAFE lawyer 01-Dec-95 3,783
McDonnell, John TAFE lawyer 01-Apr-03 1,105
Diplock, Jane TAFE Mg-Dir 25-Aug-96 3,515
Ramsey, Gregor TAFE Mg-Dir 17-Jan-95 4,101
McClelland, Jan TAFE Mg-Dir 01-Apr-03 1,105

As a conservative price of $1,000 pay per week ($52,000 per year) to each of the above, this comes to more than 14 million dollars paid to these officers to perform their public duties.

Additionally, if it is found that you or those your manage have been sent more than one complaint, and failed to act and address both/all complaints, you may be judged to be acting with malice (See Part 8) If you wish to put evidence to the contrary, please supply it to us within 14 days of the above date.

In the public interest for integrity:

Please note that we do not accept a simple denial or contra statement as evidence that you actually performed your duties.

Similarly we do not accept that a statement that you have ‘flicked’ or sent the complaint elsewhere is evidence that the matters reported to you have ever actually been addressed.

An example of acceptable evidence that the complaints and reports were fully addressed would be a personal signed acknowledgement from Mrs Kerrison stating clearly that all of the matters reported to you have now been fully and properly addressed. Unless you hold and can produce such document it is taken that the issues reported to you are still not addressed and your management and behaviour may be considered corrupt without excuse. Naturally, this project does not in any way absolve you or anyone else from ethical obligations to the public to rectify past mismanagement and perform all inherent duties now, even though it is a late date. If you fail to answer this it is taken that you are in complete agreement with all that is claimed and sought by this project.

Yours faithfully

- o o O o o -

Top of page


Australia, as a signatory of United Nations Convention Against Corruption since December 2003, is committed to:

“Article 65 “Implementation of the Convention

“1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, including legislative and administrative measures, in accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, to ensure the implementation of its obligations under this Convention.

This includes:

“In The States Parties to this Convention,… “Convinced that corruption is no longer a local matter but a transnational phenomenon that affects all societies and economies, making international cooperation to prevent and control it essential, …

“Bearing in mind that the prevention and eradication of corruption is a responsibility of all States and that they must cooperate with one another, with the support and involvement of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations, if their efforts in this area are to be effective,

Asset recovery

“In a major breakthrough, countries [including Australia] agreed on asset-recovery, which is stated explicitly as a fundamental principle of the Convention… Effective asset-recovery provisions will support the efforts of countries to redress the worst effects of corruption while sending at the same time,a message to corrupt officials that there will be no place to hide their illicit assets.

Other excerpts from the UN Convention against Corruption

Full Document:

- o o O o o -

Top of page

Part 3: Code of Conduct

The Prime Minister John Howard in 1996 issued Ministerial Code of Conduct including:

“It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in them or the government. Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the Parliament or the public. Any misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Ministers should ensure that their conduct is defensible, and should consult the Prime Minister when in doubt about the propriety of any course of action.”

-o o O o o -

Top of page

Part 4. Definition: - General nature of corrupt conduct (Ref: ICAC)

Corrupt conduct is:

a. any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or

b. any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or

c. any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or

d.any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.

Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority and which could involve any of the following matters: a. official misconduct (including breach of trust, fraud in office, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, oppression, extortion or imposition)

-o o O o o -

Top of page

PART 5: Prime Minister and Premiers to implement national treaties applicable to Australia

Prime Minister and Premiers are to co-operate for the nation and implement the relevant national treaties applicable to Australia.

Ref: The Council of Australian Governments (COAG)

“The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) publishes that it is:

“the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia. COAG comprises the Prime Minister, State Premiers, Territory Chief Ministers etc. The COAG Secretariat is located within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. “The role of COAG is to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of policy reforms that are of national significance and which require cooperative action by Australian governments (eg… reform of Commonwealth and State/Territory roles …). Issues may arise from, among other things: … international treaties which affect the States and Territories…)

- o o O o o -

Top of page


Ref: 22nd Australasian and Pacific Regional Ombudsman Conference - The Model Leadership Code for Pacific Countries

“1. Purpose

1. The purpose of this Code is to give effect to the Biketawa Declaration of 29 October 2000 by setting out a Model Leadership Code to guide and govern the conduct of the Leaders of the people of the nation.
“5.5 Every Leader therefore:
“5.5.1 must uphold the laws and regulations of the nation;
“5.5.2 must respect, support and enforce the decisions of courts and independent tribunals;
“5.5.3 must respect and carry out lawful instructions and lawfully-established policies;
“5.5.4 must observe and comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws, by interpreting every law on the presumption that it was made for the public benefit, and by not taking advantage of mere formalities or technicalities to nullify the obvious intention for which a law was made;
“5.5.5 must disclose any fraud, corruption and maladministration of which the official becomes aware.
“5.5.6 must not influence, exert pressure on, threaten or abuse persons carrying out their lawful duties.
“5.5.7 must not misuse any legal immunity or privilege as a cloak or shield for behaviour of a lower ethical standard than that which that Leader or the public would expect of the average citizen.

Value: Respect for the people on whose behalf Leaders exercise power

5.7 Public power belongs to the people and is entrusted to Leaders to exercise it on their behalf and for their benefit.11

5.7.1 Leaders who exercise power primarily for their own benefit, or to the detriment of the public benefit, betray the people’s trust and take from the people what is rightfully theirs.

- o o O o o -

Top of page

PART 7: Malice in office

Ref: “Ferguson v Kinnoul” the Lord Chancellor said that a continued refusal to perform a ministerial act was sufficient evidence of malice and it was not necessary to demonstrate personal spite. He observed: “[M]alice in the legal acceptation of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals, but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another.” His concluding words were: “and it is a well-established maxim that everyone must be taken to intend the necessary consequences of his deliberate acts”. In other words, he said that malice was used in two senses - first, where there was actual spite; and second, where there was a conscious or knowing abuse of office.

- o o O o o -

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7