Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,

I refer to the documents released under the FOI Act by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as available here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/8... and here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/8...

I note the email correspondence between Acting Deputy Ombudsman Julia Taylor and the Ombudsman Office’s Director of Legal and HR, Ms Carmen Miragaya, on pages 24 and 25 of the documents released.

On page 25, Ms Miragaya, in her email to Ms Taylor of 16 April 2021, confirms that Ms Miragaya has spoken to the Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Public Interest Disclosure and Major Investigations Team, Ms Claire Witham, to confirm the identities of Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman staff who were involved in the apparently multiple public interest disclosures made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about corrupt former Australian Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd. The identity of persons who have been the subject of public interest disclosures made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 constitutes ‘protected information’ for the purposes of s.65 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

Kudos/PSM to the Commonwealth Ombudsman officer responsible for making that FOI decision and recognising the wide public interest in revealing the fact that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman repeatedly covered up the politically motivated corruption engaged in by corrupt Liberal Party/IPA grub, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd. The decision made by the officer concerned constitutes a rare display of honesty, accountability, integrity and above all, impartiality, from what has otherwise been allowed to become a deeply politicised and partisan Commonwealth agency.

It is not in question that John Lloyd was appointed to the statutory position of Australian Public Service Commissioner on the basis of his membership of the Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs. And it was simply not possible for an ethical, honest and above all, impartial, public servant, to arrive at a view that John Lloyd’s conduct in public office was anything other than corrupt.

Yet that was the apparent outcome of numerous public interest disclosures made to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the corruption engaged in by corrupt grub, John Lloyd.

John Lloyd, like the vast majority of statutory and other appointments made by this Government, was appointed on the basis of his political affiliations and ideologies, rather than merit. In particular, his willingness to use Commonwealth resources for the political interests of the Liberal Party, rather than in the public interest. But also, his apparent willingness to engage in corruption to advance the political and ideological interests of the Liberal Party, rather than the public interest.

Phil Gaetjens was appointed to the position of Secretary of PM&C and Head of the Public Service on the basis of him being: i) a senior member of the Liberal Party; ii) a close personal friend of Scott Morrison; iii) a willingness to use Commonwealth resources to advance the political interests of the Liberal Party but not the public interest; and iv) a willingness to cover up corruption engaged in by the Government so as to protect the political interests of the Liberal Party (see, for example, his investigation into Sports Rorts corruption and the rape of Brittany Higgins).

If the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman covered up, repeatedly apparently, the corruption engaged in by corrupt Liberal Party/IPA grub, John Lloyd, it’s almost certain that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other agencies have also covered up corruption engaged in by Phil Gaetjens. Indeed, I know of at least 3 documents that should be identified and released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman if the decision-maker for this matter acts in accordance with legal obligations imposed on them to behave honestly, accountably, transparently, with integrity and above all, impartially.

Having already determined it is in the public interest to disclose ‘protected information’ (within the meaning given by s.65 of the PID Act) under the FOI Act that makes it plain that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman repeatedly covered up the politically motivated corruption engaged in by corrupt Liberal Party/IPA grub, and former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd - it must also be in the public interest to release documents that concern corruption allegedly engaged in by senior Liberal Party member, close personal friend of the Prime Minister and head of the Public Service, Phil Gaetjens, but that has been covered up by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or other Commonwealth agencies.

Additionally, it is in the public interest of all APS employees to learn that it is open to them to engage in conduct that would normally be considered corrupt but because that conduct was engaged in by the Head of the Public Service, Phil Gaetjens (being a senior member of the Liberal Party and close personal friend of Scott Morrison) it has been decided that conduct should no longer be considered corrupt.

Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any document that is an email or that is attached to an email, created from 1 January 2019 onwards, that constitutes a public interest disclosure lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in respect of conduct engaged, or alleged to have been engaged, in, by Phil Gaetjens. I also seek a copy of any document that is an email or that is attached to an email, created from 1 January 2019 onwards, that relates to conduct engaged in by Phil Gaetjens and that has been provided to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman pursuant s.50A(1) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.

In addition to the public interest factors mentioned above, I note that there is a wide public interest in the documents the subject of my request arising from:
- the likelihood the documents will reveal that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other Commonwealth agencies covered up or otherwise turned a blind eye to corruption engaged in by senior Liberal Party member and close personal friend of Scott Morrison, Phil Gaetjens;
- the vast majority of Australian taxpayers supporting the establishment of a Federal ICAC to deal with public sector corruption such as that apparently covered up by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other Commonwealth agencies (also acts of corruption); and
- paragraph 6.19 of the FOI Guidelines providing that release of the documents the subject of my request would be in the public interest including because they will “inform debate on a matter of public importance, including to: i. allow or assist inquiry into possible deficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official ii. reveal or substantiate that an agency or official has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct.”

Documents failing within the scope of my request can be readily identified by searching relevant Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Microsoft Outlook email accounts (including sent and archived emails) using the search term “Gaetjens”.

Noting paragraphs 6.153 and 6.154 of the FOI Guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner in accordance with s.93A of the FOI Act, I consent to the redaction, from any relevant document, of the personal information of any person who isn’t or wasn’t (at the relevant time) an APS employee (other than a discloser under the PID Act), statutory officer (other than a discloser under the PID Act), or Member of Parliament.

Yours faithfully,
JRoskim

Dear Information Access,

Thank you for your decision. I'll likely seek internal review of that decision is the coming days on the basis it's been made otherwise than in accordance with the law and by reference to conduct engaged in by certain Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman staff.

Yours sincerely,

JRoskim

Dear Commonwealth Ombudsman,

This is an application for internal review, made in accordance with Part VI of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and s.36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, of the primary decision-maker’s access refusal decision as set out here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/8...

The grounds upon which I seek internal review of the primary decision-maker’s erroneous access refusal decision are as follows.

1. I refer to my application made under the FOI Act of the Commonwealth Ombudsman on 14 February, 2022. In particular, the documents publicly released by the primary decision-maker here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/8....

2. I note the email correspondence between Acting Deputy Ombudsman Julia Taylor and the Ombudsman Office’s Director of Legal and HR, Ms Carmen Miragaya, on pages 24 and 25 of those documents publicly released by the primary decision-maker. On page 25, Ms Miragaya, in her email to Ms Taylor of 16 April 2021, confirms that Ms Miragaya has spoken to the Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Public Interest Disclosure and Major Investigations Team, Ms Claire Witham, to confirm the identities of Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman staff who were involved in the apparently multiple public interest disclosures made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about corrupt former Australian Public Service Commissioner, Liberal Party grub, John Lloyd.

3. The release of those documents makes it clear the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman repeatedly covered up the corruption engaged in by filthy, corrupt Liberal Party grub, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd. Those documents reveal that John Lloyd’s corrupt conduct was the subject of multiple public interest disclosures made by decent, honest, apolitical public servants who were presumably sick and tired of the vile corruption, nepotism and deception engaged in by this Government under the watch, and apparent helping hand, of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

4. It is not in dispute that John Lloyd was appointed to the statutory position of Australian Public Service Commissioner on the basis of his membership of the Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs. It’s also not in dispute that no honest, apolitical public servant in possession of a shred of integrity could have found John Lloyd’s conduct anything other than deeply corrupt. Yet that is what Commonwealth Ombudsman officers did, repeatedly.

5. It is unquestionably in the wide public interest to reveal the fact that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman who, in what can only be considered to be a barefaced lie, claims to be an ‘independent and impartial oversight agency’, actively went about covering up the venal grifting engaged in by the most corrupt public officer in Australia’s history. And that’s presumably why the primary decision-maker decided to release documents which make that clear. If not, why else did the primary decision-maker release information in what he himself considers to constitute a contravention of s.65 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013?

6. It’s notable no disciplinary action was taken against those corrupt Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman officers that covered up John Lloyd’s hideous conduct. Worse still, one of those corrupt officers remains at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman continuing to investigate public interest disclosures. That officer has gone on, in clear contravention of her obligations under the Public Service Act, to coverup the plain corruption engaged in by the Australian Public Service Commission’s former General Counsel who used taxpayer resources to threaten the publishers of the righttoknow website with defamation, despite having no legal authority to do so (notably the APSC’s General Counsel was also attempting, just like the crooked grubs at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to use taxpayers funds to cover up information relating to John Lloyd’s corruption in public office so as to protect the political interests of the Liberal Party) – see here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

7. In the same way the primary decision-maker acknowledged it was in the public interest to release the fact of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s numerous attempts to conceal the shameful politically motivated corruption engaged in by filthy Liberal Party grub, John Lloyd - it must also be in the public interest to release the documents the subject of my request, being documents concerning corruption engaged in by another political appointee, senior Liberal Party member and close personal friend of Scott ‘Scummo’ Morrison, Phil Gaetjens – corruption that has once again been covered up by Liberal Party aligned Commonwealth Ombudsman staff.

8. Release of documents the subject of my request is plainly in the public interest because those documents will demonstrate that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has received numerous public interest disclosures concerning corruption engaged in by senior Liberal Party member, Phil Gaetjens, and that corrupt officers at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman have once again actively covered up that corruption on behalf of their Liberal Party masters. I know for a fact that there are a number of documents that fall within the scope of my request.

9. It is unquestionably in the public interest of all public servants to know that in accordance with the view of the Commonwealth Ombudsman it’s perfectly ok to engage in the same sort of politicly motivated corruption that John Lloyd engaged in.

10. Equally, release of the documents the subject of my request will be in the public interest of all members of the APS, because the documents will reveal that, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, it’s perfectly ok for public servants to engage in the sort of corrupt conduct engaged in by senior Liberal Party member, close personal friend of Scummo and head of the public service, Mr Phil Gaetjens. Breaking down silos of knowledge across the APS in that way offers considerable cost savings and is therefore in the clear public interest of all Australian taxpayers. (The alternative would be that 100s of government agencies/departments would otherwise need to set up individual training/awareness programs to educate their staff that, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, it’s perfectly ok for public servants to spend their time at work (and taxpayer money) engaging, day-in and day-out, in the type of politically motivated corruption that John Lloyd and Phil Gaetjens engage(d) in on the taxpayer’s dime. Those sorts of public sector efficiencies are of paramount importance for the Liberal Party and the segment of the population that supports that political party (which would seem to include all staff at the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman).

11. The primary decision-maker has put forward a number of reasons for his decision to refuse to release the numerous documents that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman holds and that are the subject of my request. I now address those reasons and the politically motivated falsehoods that underlie them.

12. Curiously, the decision-maker has argued that he is prevented from releasing the documents as a result of s.65 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 which establishes a criminal offence in respect of the disclosure of protected information. Yet that is exactly what the decision-maker did when he released the documents here https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/8...
in which, as above, he disclosed protected information by revealing the fact that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman received numerous public interest disclosures in relation to the corrupt conduct engaged in by filthy, corrupt Liberal Party pig, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd.

13. By his own logic and admission, the decision-maker is a criminal by virtue of his contravention of s.65 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, In addition, by committing a criminal offence, the primary decision-maker has presumably contravened ss.13(1), (2), (4), (8), (10) and (11) of the Public Service Act 1999 and is not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate or to be a public servant. As a public official under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, I lodge a public interest disclosure against the primary decision-maker accordingly.

14. If, however, the primary decision-maker has not committed an offence by releasing protected information relating to filthy corrupt Liberal Party grub John Lloyd, then he has sought to rely on an irrelevant consideration in arriving at his access refusal decision in respect of my request relating documents concerning corruption engaged in by Phil Gaetjens. The decision-maker should be aware that relying on an irrelevant consideration in bad faith as he must have (if he has not committed a criminal offence), is not only a clear breach of administrative law, it’s a breach of the obligations imposed on him by ss.13(1), (2), (4), (7), (8) and (11) of the Public Service Act 1999 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. As a public official under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, I lodge a public interest disclosure against the decision-maker accordingly. In either case, the decision maker has acted illegally in contravention, at least, of his obligations under the Public Service Act 1999 and the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015.

15. The primary decision-maker, also in support of his access refusal decision, refers to public trust in the Ombudsman. The temerity of the decision-maker referring to trust in the Commonwealth Ombudsman is nauseating. As above, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman covered up the filthy evil corruption engaged in by vile, Liberal Party turd, John Lloyd. And now the primary decision-maker is attempting to cover up the corruption engaged in by one of John Lloyd’s and Scummo’s grubby Liberal Party mates, Phil Gaetjens,

16. References to the ‘credibility’ of the Ombudsman and the ‘public’s confidence’ and ‘trust’ in the Ombudsman by the primary decision-maker is breathtakingly dishonest. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is a deeply corrupt agency that has been wholly captured by the Liberal Party. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman spends tens of millions of dollars of public monies every year for the sole purpose of pursuing the political interests of the Liberal Party.

17. By way of example, the Robodebt scandal was, of course, a hideous display of illegal and politically motivated extortion of Australia’s most vulnerable people by the Liberal Party. And what did the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman do about it? Covered it up – just like the pack of filthy corrupt Liberal Party maggots they represent, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman uses tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to advance the political interests of the Liberal Party.

18. And what did the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman do when the Australian Parliament demanded the Ombudsman produce the smoking-gun evidence demonstrating that the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, Services Australia and the Ombudsman knew that Robodebt was illegal all along? The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman refused, and lied to Parliament in the course of doing so: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7... - an absolute disgrace and an effrontery to the principles of honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency that should underlie everything a decent and moral APS stands for.

19. The Australian public can have no confidence in the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and for the primary decision-maker to refer to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s ‘credibility’ is laughable. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is a deeply corrupt, politicised and partisan agency that considers its sole purpose is to use public money to protect the Liberal Party from political embarrassment, no matter the human cost. If the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman was disbanded today, Australia’s democracy and the integrity of the whole of the Commonwealth public sector would be infinitely improved.

20. The bulk of the primary decision-maker’s reasoning behind his misguided and unlawful access refusal decision goes to the importance of not disclosing the identity of persons who make public interest disclosures. The primary decision-maker references the criminal offence established by s.20 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (under s.20 it is a criminal offence to disclose the identity of disclosers). The primary decision-maker goes on to state: “Without the trust of disclosers, public officials would not be inclined to come forward and provide information about potentially disclosable conduct. This would in turn seriously prejudice the ability of the Ombudsman, and other public sector agencies, to properly administer the functions of the PID Scheme or facilitate appropriate action under the PID Act.”

21. I agree with the decision-maker’s contention that not disclosing the identity of those brave public servants that blow the whistle on politically motivated corruption that is carried out by agencies such as the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman using taxpayer money day after day is of paramount importance.

22. By way of example, it is beyond any shadow of doubt that if a public official made a public interest disclosure to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to a matter that was inconvenient to the political interests of the Liberal Party, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman would immediately disclose the identity of the discloser to the Liberal Party for the purpose of facilitating the Liberal Party’s swift and violent retribution against that discloser and their loved ones. That outcome is beyond question.

23. The difficulty, however, with the primary decision-maker’s reliance on that reasoning to refuse access to the numerous documents the subject of my request is that my request made it expressly clear that I consented to the redaction, from all relevant documents, of the personal information of persons who have made public interest disclosures.

24. By overlooking that fact, at best, the primary decision-maker is merely innocently incompetent and has likely contravened s.13(2) of the Public Service Act 1999.

25. The much more likely explanation, however, is that the primary decision-maker has engaged in what’s known as ‘straw man argument’ – a style of argument whereby an arguer has no valid reason to disagree with the position of another and so he just makes up a false argument instead.

26. While engaging in straw man argument is the sort of vile and contemptible conduct the Australian public have come to expect from the faecal matter that comprises the Liberal Party, that sort of conduct falls well short of that required of public servants by the Public Service Act 1999 as well as government lawyers by the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. Again, and as above, by engaging in that conduct, the primary decision-maker has unquestionably contravened ss.13(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9) and (11) of the Public Service Act 1999 as well as his obligations under the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015. As a public official under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, I therefore assert that the primary decision-maker has engaged in disclosable conduct and is corrupt and I lodge a public interest disclosure accordingly.

27. Having dealt and dispensed with the unlawful, improper and fallacious reasoning put forward by the primary decision-maker in refusing to release documents related to the politically motivated corruption engaged in by senior Liberal Party member, close personal friend of ‘Scummo’ Morrison and head of the public service, Phil Gaetjens, I now turn to the operation of the Public Service Act 1999 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the relevance of those Acts of Parliament to the primary decision-maker’s decision.

28. If the primary decision-maker’s decision is upheld, the consequence of that decision is that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is wholly unaccountable and beyond reproach. That outcome is not only the antitheses of the objectives of the Freedom of Information Act, but every principle the public service should hold dear – principles of accountability, transparency, and apolitical conduct – principles that are apparently wholly foreign to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s senior management group.

29. Under this Government, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has become a deeply corrupt and profoundly immoral taxpayer-funded agent of the Liberal Party. And just like this filthy corrupt Government, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman holds a deep antipathy to accountability and transparency and is only too happy to use taxpayer money to engage in bald-faced politically motivated obfuscation and corruption.

30. It is unquestionably in the public interest for it to be known that Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is using taxpayer funds to overlook, make excuses for, and otherwise conceal, politically motivated corruption engaged in by its crooked Liberal Party mates.

31. As mentioned in my request, and in addition to the public interest factors mentioned above, there is a wide public interest in the documents the subject of my request arising from:
- the likelihood the documents will reveal that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other Commonwealth agencies covered up or otherwise turned a blind eye to corruption engaged in by senior Liberal Party member and close personal friend of Scott Morrison, Phil Gaetjens;
- the vast majority of Australian taxpayers supporting the establishment of a Federal ICAC to deal with public sector corruption such as that apparently covered up by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other Commonwealth agencies (also acts of corruption); and
- paragraph 6.19 of the FOI Guidelines providing that release of the documents the subject of my request would be in the public interest including because they will “inform debate on a matter of public importance, including to: i. allow or assist inquiry into possible deficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official ii. reveal or substantiate that an agency or official has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct.”

32. I therefore respectfully seek internal review of the primary decision-maker’s access refusal decision.

Yours sincerely,
JRoskim