WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed
WBDE Panels - Human Rights and Ethics Panel
PO Box 140
NEWTOWN NSW 2204
2 November 2005
TO: [See List of addressees, below ]
Other interested parties
Re: Email/fax sent to you 5 October 2005
Attention: [ See List of addressees ]
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: http://www.wbde.org/
We have been asked to assist Mrs Kerrison by supporting Mr John Adam’s emailed/faxed petition to you.
That petition is attached for your convenience.
As at this time Mr Adams and Mrs Kerrison report they have received neither an acknowledgement nor a reply to the comprehensive material sent previously. Mrs Kerrison’s family report that previously they have sent copious evidence to your Departments/offices at various intervals, some approaches were dating back many years, to no avail.
We are asking you personally if this is true? Have you or Departments under you previously been the recipient of material regarding the case of Mrs Val Kerrison TAFE teacher (see www.wbde.org)
If so we believe that it is against basic human rights and unethical for publicly funded offices such as yours to ignore or ‘flick’ complaints made to you. We believe that whoever accepts public money to serve the public are required to take full responsibility until the situation is resolved.
A set of instructions which may be of assistance is enclosed "COMPLAINT AND GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION GUIDELINES"
In the public interest we ask that the issues now be addressed fully and effectively to Mrs Kerrison and her family’s complete satisfaction, or alternatively you resign from your position as [List] within fourteen (14) days of this date.
Please reply within 14 days of the date above to:
WBDE Human Rights and Ethics Panel, PO Box 140, NEWTOWN, NSW, 2204
WBDE Human Rights and Ethics Panel
[ List of addressees]
The Prime Minister
Hon John Howard
PO Box 59
SYDNEY NSW 2001
The Hon Kim Beazley - Leader
of the Opposition
1/18 Council Avenue
ROCKINGHAM WA 6168
The Hon Bob Debus - Attorney
PO Box A290
SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1232
Hon Morris Iemma
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
The Hon Andrew Tink - Shadow
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000
The Hon Andrew Humpherson - Shadow
Minister for Justice
PO Box 209
LINDFIELD NSW 2070
The Hon Peter Debnam - Leader
of the Opposition
PO Box 960
BONDI JUNCTION NSW 2022
Emailed and faxed to:
Copy emailed to:
Dear Mr Howard,
With amazement we read that our Australian Prime Minister, John Howard proclaimed that “strict regulations would be put in place to ensure that Australia's [Aid] money was not spent on corrupt governments”.
This raises the very pertinent question of 'could Mr Howard recognize corruption?' And, if so, 'whether he would choose to identify corrupt countries or organizations?'
Would he proclaim: "Stop. You cannot have Australian tax-payers' hard earned money because your government is corrupt"?
Unfortunately the practice of corruption in Australia is so widespread that its whistleblowers are persecuted, threatened, summarily deprived of their jobs, forced to submit to offensive psychiatric processes to discredit their allegations, and sent on endless futile chases searching for a glimmer of the justice which Australia claims to deliver…but doesn’t. Australian governments' record of persecuting its internal reporters (whistleblowers) is a bottomless pit. Occasionally some small part of it is reported in the media, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr Howard how can you proclaim that you would ensure our taxpayers’ money did not go to corrupt governments, without first addressing the issue “How much public money have you, Mr Howard, as Prime Minister, made available for our own internal corrupt governments?” Or, more specifically, “How much of OUR public money have you allocated to government departments headed by corrupt officers overseeing corrupt actions such as victimizing and destroying our ethical internal reporters (whistleblowers)?”
For example, take the case of TAFE teacher Val Kerrison who did her job including reporting TAFE teacher/s for victimising and depriving Aboriginal kids of their entitled tuition in Kempsey TAFE, and TAFE teachers writing their own qualifications. Mr Howard, this is just one case which was reported to you over and over again in the past decade. This specific case and evidence has been posted to you, faxed , and even hand delivered to your office, with follow-up phone calls, etc etc. All in an attempt to persuade you to act against seemingly corrupt government in the state of New South Wales. This has also been reported to the NSW Premier's Office since 1995, and Opposition members.
Strangely, in the past it seems Mr Howard and his office were reluctant to act to bring NSW Premier’s office, NSW Attorney General’s office, Crown Solicitor’s Office, etc etc etc to account and investigate/address this case.
Perhaps it is easier to ignore the plight of one woman than to wipe out systemic corruption and victimisation from the top down.
Instead of addressing reported wrongdoing, it seems that when TAFE officers' threats, secret bizarre allegations, and wild actions so shocked and terrified Val that she collapsed unconscious, they redoubled their efforts. She is now fighting cancer.
TAFE’s reaction to Mrs Kerrison simply doing her job -- reporting wrongdoing in TAFE -- is shown in TAFE’s (then) Managing Director Dr Gregor Ramsey’s letter to Dr Gary Willmott in January 1995. This "smoking gun memo" is, in all its shame, on the site WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed at http://www.wbde.org/documents/Transcript_TAFEs_MD_ Dr_Ramsey_to_Dr_Willmott_Memo_17_January_1995.php
Just one notification of this case to Mr Howard was in March 2001 when a group of people, incensed at seeming corruption and failure from the top, sent another letter and evidence to Mr Howard.
Below are excerpts from that letter.
22 March 2001
“ We are people working against corruption, especially
• HEALTHQUEST FALSE 'RETIREMENT CERTIFICATES'
• CAUSING DAMAGE TO ETHICAL PUBLIC SERVANTS
• AND HUGE COST TO THE PUBLIC PURSE
• ADDRESSING THE SITUATION FOR MS VAL KERRISON
2 Ms Val Kerrison was appointed as a permanent full-time teacher of TAFE in 1988 and that appointment is ongoing and continuous and has never been terminated by Ms Kerrison or any other authorised person.
3 Ms Kerrison's record of employment and performance is exemplary and unblemished - there is no adverse work report against her, and she acted in accordance with TAFE instructions, policy and legislation at all times including her reports of false entries on TAFE public registers, breaches of discrimination legislation, OH&S legislation, and others.
4 TAFE officers failed to accord procedural fairness when they made a secret decision to send her to HealthQuest on 17 January 1995, then continued in the same vein over the years attempting to prop up a farcical HealthQuest "Retirement Certificate".
5 TAFE made those decisions in order to discredit her, damage her personally, financially and professionally, and to discredit and cover up her verified allegations of crime (false entries on TAFE public registers), breaches of discrimination and OH&S legislation, other.
6 It is now open knowledge to the public that HealthQuest, without statutory authority or power, wrote thousands of false "Retirement Certificates" to help their fee-paying clients (such as TAFE officials) to create an illusion that government employees were somehow arbitrarily retired/dismissed from their job (human meat market).
Politicians and the government departments knew, or should have known, that under Public Sector Management Act, only the Governor could choose to make a decision to cause a government employee to be retired.
But even the Governor would have to act within the law - not some back-door false "certificate".
The false certificates appear to breach the Crimes Act, yet TAFE officers used the "Retirement Certificate" against Ms Kerrison in their efforts to discredit her and her valid allegations, and to purport to have terminated her employment.
When that failed, they persevered and the flow-on effects of TAFE attempting to prop up that illusion show Department officials repeatedly supervising TAFE staff to alter computer records and make further secret changes to her employment status.
7 Ms Kerrison suffered financially. She has never accessed any of her accumulated extended leave, and no-one has been authorised to annex or take it.
Attached is Ms Kerrison's application for one week's extended leave, duly signed by her on TAFE's application for leave form.
Ms Kerrison is entitled to accrued extended leave entitlement through at least 16 years and [Mr Howard was asked to] ensure that TAFE pays the requested one week extended leave into her bank account, forwards deductions including union and income tax to the relevant bodies, and forwards her and TAFE's regulation superannuation payments to State Superannuation by 31 March 2001
8 [Mr John Howard was asked to]schedule a meeting with Ms Kerrison with an authorised officer of this organisation within 7 days from the date of this document to commence remedy of the past failures, including but not limited to
8.1 Full voiding and nullity of all decisions made in relation to Ms Kerrison without procedural fairness commencing 1 January 1993 and onwards; and nullity of all documents of a disparaging personal or professional nature about her formulated without her knowledge or input.
8.2 Full reporting of apparent corruption, fraud, and/or wrongdoing to relevant authorities including but not limited to ICAC and Department of Public Prosecution.
8.3 Allowing Ms Kerrison to continue in her rightful employment, and working with Ms Kerrison to remedy the damage to her, to her career, and her and her family through the past 9 years.
9 If [John Howard] disputes any statement herein [John Howard is to] provide ... all evidence to disprove the allegations. Simple denial is not applicable and further waste of public funds, and [John Howard's] failure to attend to all these matters is evidence of incapacity or corruption on [his] part.
At one stage, around the year 2000, it was estimated that the government officials' actions against the TAFE teacher Val Kerrison had already cost the public purse many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.
Since then the costs to the public purse have sky-rocketed. The Crown Solicitor's Office has allocated a team including lawyers,barristers QC's, others and clerical staff to combine with Department of Education and Training and TAFE lawyers, directors, managers et al to keep the teacher, Mrs Kerrison, out of "their" TAFE.
As is generally known by lawyers and ministers and general public, under
our Constitution, Mrs Kerrison has the right to procedural fairness/natural
justice. As TAFE and HealthQuest performed all their actions behind closed
doors, they were done without procedural fairness/natural justice. They
are, therefore, simply null and void. It was long after the events that
TAFE's actions have been revealed to Mrs Kerrison through her numerous
FOI applications. Obviously there was no procedural fairness.
But government lawyers are not consistently blind to this simple basic right. The Wood Royal Commission reported that the Crown Solicitor's Office accorded procedural fairness to paedophile DZ and by agreement , the finding and penalty [against paedophile DZ] were set aside. Yet the Crown Solicitor's Office has for years been paid to deny Mrs Kerrison, to act against her even when it is obvious that Mrs Kerrison was denied natural justice over and over and over again -- through the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 ...
Incredibly, on and on it goes. Mrs Kerrison first reported to the Premier in 1995. By the year 2000 she was circulating her claims and evidence to around 30 government departments, politicians, etc. That is, a decade of non-accountability by countless officers. These officers and ministers are funded by the public purse --- we are entitled to ask 'for what?'
We Australian people note that corruption does not go away, it simply gets bigger and worse; the cover-ups this year, require bigger cover-ups next year when the corruption has been reported to more authorities. Yet the government and Crown solicitors profit and grow as this case grows.
Without counting snouts in the trough, can you smell a stench Mr Howard?
The Val Kerrison case could have been fixed by one reasonably able manager in a short time many years ago for a few dollars...now it is circa millions, and on the world web with implications against many Australian public servants and Departments including The NSW Premier's Office, Attorney-General's Office, and the Prime Minister's Office.
Mr Howard, what will our government and its leaders do about corruption
here in Australia now? Will you make a stand: deprive corrupt bodies of
our precious public monies and contact Val and take personal responsibility
to fix the situation? ... or ignore corrupt officers and actions and prop
them up with our money?
Who, out of the addressee officials above, will correct this wrong? Gentlemen, in more than a decade it has not gone away. Please turn our public resources to addressing this atrocity as soon as possible.
Please reply to
" John Adams"
C/- [email address]
Although the following excerpts from TAFE NSW’s ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 1995 Grievance Resolution refer to staff, the principles and human rights and ethics contained therein are universal.
TAFE NSW Policy: Grievance Resolution:
“The new Grievance Resolution policy applies to all the Commission’s staff.
“22.214.171.124 A grievance is a statement or approach by a staff member(s) to a supervisor/manager on a work related problem, concern or complaint, which may relate to:
* harassment and/or discrimination on the basis of sec, race, marital status, Aboriginality, physical/intellectual impairment, homosexuality… psychiatric disability or age in to compulsory retirement (see Prevention of Harassment Policy).
* interpersonal conflict at work including supervisor-staff and co-worker conflicts
4.2.1 All supervisors and managers have an obligation to identify and resolve, as far as possible, causes of stress to staff without waiting for a grievance to be expressed.
4.2.13 Victimisation of any staff member as a result of using this policy is totally unacceptable and could lead to formal discipline action.
5.1.1 Where a staff member(s) has a grievance the matter should be brought to the attention of the immediate supervisor/manager as soon as practicable…
Page 9 *grievances can be raised either verbally or in writing…
Page 2: * line managers are responsible for handling grievances…there are specified time-frames for dealing with grievances
3.1 This policy aims to create and maintain a productive and positive, non discriminatory and harassment free work environment.
3.2 The Commission’s management has a responsibility to prevent, identify and resolve problems in the workplace
3.3 Every staff member has a responsibility to treat other staff in a way which will not cause distress.
5.0.2 …The emphasis is on the resolution of grievances in the workplace at the level at which they occur. The objective is to resolve the grievance as soon as possible.
5.1.4 Supervisors will address the matter within 5 working days, either by way of resolving the grievance or negotiating an agreed method and time-frame of proceeding.
4.2.9 A grievance is considered concluded, although not necessarily resolved, when a person with a grievance chooses to withdraw. The grievant should advise the person handling the grievance either in writing or verbally.
4.2.10 Wherever possible grievances should be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to all those involved. Grievances are usually only considered resolved when the cause of the grievance has been removed or dealt with, and when arrangements have been made to repair and make good any damage and distress suffered by the grievant and/or respondent.
32 .9.3 " all staff should be afforded 'natural justice' insofar as they should know what has been alleged, have the right to seek advice, reply to allegations and the right to be heard by an unbiased person"
32.13.4 Nothing contained in this procedure shall prevent …the Managing Director or his/her nominee from entering into negotiations at any level. This may be at the request of a member/s or on their own initiative.
33.6 The parties agree that, while the [grievance] procedure is being followed, the status quo will remain.