Dear Superannuation Complaints Tribunal,
In 2002 a member of a superannuation fund established by a Trust Deed dated 23 December 1913 lodged a Complaint with the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The member had lodged a Complaint with the Tribunal concerning the definition of "Salary" used to calculate his benefit.
On 11 September 2002 the Tribunal sent a letter to the purported trustee of the Foster's Brewing Group Superannuation Fund requesting copies of all relevant Deeds and documents related to this Complaint.
The Definition of "Salary" first appears in the original Trust Deed dated 23 December 1913. The definition was amended in a Deed of Variation dated 6 May 1958 and then again in three Deeds of Variation executed before 26 August 1986.
Copies of all of these Deeds should have been provided to the Tribunal.
Instead a redacted version of a purported "Trust Deed" dated 26 August 1986 and purported "Rules" dated 19 August 1985 were provided to the Tribunal.
The actual "Deed" dated 26 August 1986 bears the signature of a former company director who was once described on the front page of The Canberra Times as a 'fraudster & liar'.
This misconduct resulted in the contravention of Section 24(7) of the SRC Act.
The 1913 Trust Deed and genuine Deeds of Variation were also concealed from the Supreme Court of Victoria in proceedings commenced by this fund member who had been elected as a member-representative director of this fund in 1996.This fund member was then sacked to prevent him gaining access to 'fund documents' including the genuine Deeds.
The concealment of these Deeds led to the common law offence of 'perverting the course of justice' and resulted in the member losing two sets of proceedings and incurring legal costs of $0.75 million.
These Deeds were also concealed from the Regulator APRA in an Application for fund registration in 2006. The document dated 26 August 1986 was again misrepresented as the "Trust Deed" of the scheme. This conduct has enlivened the jurisdiction of the Australian Federal Police pursuant to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
APRA then granted fund registration number R1004830 in contravention of Section 29M of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
A request has been made to the Tribunal Chairperson to provide a copy of the redacted purported "Trust Deed" and other documents lodged with the Tribunal to the Australian Federal Police so that these documents can be included in a Brief of Evidence for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
If the Tribunal Chairperson supports The Rule of Law and wishes to uphold the integrity of rulings by the Tribunal, copies of this evidence should have been sent to the Australian Federal Police.
The document I seek is a covering letter or email to the Australian Federal Police confirming that this evidence has been provided to the Australian Federal Police.
The names of any alleged offenders can be redacted.
Dear Mr Sweeney
Freedom of Information Request
I acknowledge receipt of your request for documents under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
The purpose of this letter is to give you a decision about access to the
documents that you request.
In your email to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (the Tribunal)
below, you request a covering letter or email to the Australian Federal
Police confirming that certain evidence has been provided to the
Australian Federal Police.
I am an officer authorised under section 23 of the FOI Act to make
decisions in respect of requests to access documents.
My decision is to refuse access under section 24A(1) of the FOI Act, on
the grounds that all reasonable steps have been taken to find the
documents and I am satisfied that the documents requested do not exist.
As the requested documents do not exist, I am refusing your request for
Your review rights
Under the FOI Act you have a right to seek review of this FOI decision.
Under Part VI of the FOI Act you may seek an internal review of the
decision. An internal review is conducted by a different FOI authorised
officer within the Tribunal. An application for internal review must be
in writing and must be made within 30 days, or such further period as the
Tribunal allows, after the day the decision is notified.
Alternatively, under Part VII of the FOI Act, you may seek a review of the
decision by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).
The OAIC conducts a merits review to determine the correct or preferable
decision in the circumstances. Such application in relation to an access
refusal decisions must be made within 60 days after the day notice of the
decision was given.
Also, under Part VIIIB of the FOI Act, you have the right to make a
complaint, in writing, to the Australian Information Commissioner about
any action taken by the Tribunal in the performance of functions, or the
exercise of powers, under the FOI Act.
Further information about these rights is contained in Parts 9, 10 and 11
of the FOI Guidelines, available on the Australian Information
Commissioner’s website at www.oaic.gov.au/publications/guidelines.