21) After coffee was served Mr and Mrs King [i] and I were discussing Mrs (name removed on legal advice) dog Sooty and all of his aliments when a dark haired man with an olive complexion and green eyes standing about 5ft 9ins approached our table. He saw Mr King and audibly said “you fucking bumb boong cunt, I told you we would get you, we don’t like fucking boongs in [ACT] Treasury and I will not work for a fucking boong cunt, Quinlan [then ACT Treasurer and Police Minister], Pham [ACT Auditor-General] and Harris [then Chief Executive ACT Chief Minister’s Department] are on my side, Pham came up with the University of London stunt, you’re fucked. Don’t forget who is Police Minister” I asked this person to leave at which time he saw Mrs King and said to her, “So you’re the big tittered dumb slut who fucks boongs”: this person then leant across the table and slapped Mrs Kingacross the face while shouting that she was a “whore who fucked boongs”. I then stood-up in an effort to protect Mrs King from any further assaults as I did, the man assaulting us grabbed the front of Mrs King dress and ripped it, exposing her bra, he then touched her Breast and said “[sic] Looking, the bumb cunt isn’t man enough to protect you, he knows if he touches me, I will go to Quinlan and he will be thrown into jail, that’s where all boongs belong” As this was occurring another person who had been walking by came to see what was going on.
22) As this other person arrived I took out my mobile phone and began to phone the police, as I did this Mrs King assailant turned and said to me “you’re nothing but a boong loving cunt” and turned to the other person who had arrived on the scene “look, another bumb boong cunt come to join the losers”.
23) As Mrs King assailant was leaving he turned and said to Mr King “I’ve got Quinlan, Pham and Harris on my side, we are going to get you, I bet that you were surprised to find that Tanya Taylor [then, recruitment consultant Ernst & Young, Canberra] had changed your application [to Ernst & Young]. Nobody likes boongs.”
28) After this incident I attended Civic Police station with Mr and Mrs King when the officer behind the desk found out that the assailant was Mr (name removed for legal reasons) and that it was Mr and Mrs King and Phillip lodging the complaint he refused to take our statements, and advised Mr King that if he entered the police station again he would be arrested and charged with attempting to interfere with a police witness.
(Affidavit of Phillip Hart sworn 18th April 2008 before Victorian Police Officer Di Symes CL 36006)
Fraud and corruption in ACT Treasury
The assailant in this incident was and remains to this day a public servant and senior officer within the ACT Department of Treasury; he is also the author of the letter I have referred to previously, which was written to the then Chief Executive of ACT Treasury requesting that his superior be sacked because he is an Aborigine and consorts with other Aborigines. Following receipt of the latter, the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue made a complaint to Constable Mark Robert Coppen (AFP number 2735) at Civic Police station on 9 May 2002, alleging that the author of the letter was attempting to influence the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue in his capacity as a statutory office holder. No action was taken by the Australian Federal Police regarding this complaint. Mrs. Tu Pham, the former Auditor-General for the ACT, in giving evidence in associated legal matters in 2006 stated under cross-examination from Barrister Sean Grant that the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue first complained to her about being racially vilified by his subordinate shortly after his appointment. The complaint to which Mrs. Pham was referring related to the writing of the letter dated 9 May, 2002. Mrs. Pham did nothing about these complaints.
He is also the same officer who approached a fellow ACT Department of Treasury employee, Mr. Martin D’Este, in an elevator in the ACT Treasury building and stated that: “We’re going to get your little mate Marky,” a direct reference to Mr. King. He is also the same officer who caused another ACT Department of Treasury officer, Mr. Robert Lewis, to be taken from the ACT Treasury building in an ambulance, where he then spent several days in hospital, because he “refused to lodge a grievance against the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue”, the target of the letter referred to above dated 9 May 2002.
The former Commissioner for ACT Revenue reported this incident regarding Mr. Lewis to his then superior Mrs. Pham as a workplace incident. Mrs. Pham did not take any action against Mr. Lewis’ assailant.
The interesting thing about the incident regarding Mr. Lewis is that the officer who approached did so whilst he (i.e. the officer) was subject to a fraud investigation by the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue. In other words, he attempted, and with other ACT Department of Treasury Officials was successful in, interfering with a statutory officer holder in the performance of his duties. This is a serious criminal offence, one which the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue reported to the Australian Federal Police and again, the Australian Federal Police refused to investigate a complaint made by an Indigenous Australian against a non-Indigenous Australian.
The former Commissioner for ACT Revenue also reported the incident regarding the threats issued against him by this officer through Mr. D’Este to the ACT Department of Treasury, but again no action was taken.
It is also worth remembering that the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue, the target of the racist letter, wrote to Mr. Jon Stanhope the then ACT Chief Minister (retired May 2011) in 2003 advising him of the suspicions about the missing $130,000,000.00. While this correspondence, even though the subject of a subpoena, has mysteriously disappeared from ACT Treasury it is worth noting the content of the following letter from Mr. Chris Roberts, Director of Investigations with the ACT and Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. In that letter Mr. Roberts made the following comment:
The Department advised me that you made an oblique reference to a PID in a letter of 27 June 2003 to the Chief Minister and that the Chief Executive indicated to you in a letter of 4 July 2003 that the matters you raised were subject to a separate investigation and does not intend to separately investigate them under the PID Act but referred you to the Ombudsman if you so preferred.
A PID is a Public Interest Disclosure and is the mechanism provided for in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 (ACT) for reporting a “… wrongdoing in the ACT public sector”. It is also worth noting at this juncture that the correspondence referred to by Mr. Roberts was between the then Commissioner for ACT Revenue, the Chief Executive of ACT Treasury and the Chief Minister for the ACT. People at the very top of the bureaucracy and the parliament in the ACT and by default Australia, the very people tasked with defending the ‘rule of law’ and protecting the interests of all citizens.
The letter was written by the then Commissioner for ACT Revenue (an Aboriginal Australian) to the Chief Minister of the ACT, Mr. Jon Stanhope, advising him that there had been a systematic break down in accountability within the ACT Public Service resulting in the theft and transfer of one hundred and thirty million dollars ($130,000,000) from the ACT Home Loan Portfolio to the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The letter further advised the Chief Minister that the writer had been subjected to a sustained campaign of racial hatred and vilification from within the ACT Public Service resulting from his investigation into the missing money.
The Chief Executive of ACT Treasury responded on behalf of the Chief Minister advising the Commissioner for Revenue that:
“…the matters you raised were subject to a separate investigation and does not intend to separately investigate them under the PID Act…”
The outcome of that investigation is something that should be of concern to all Australians as it goes to the very core of our democratic process. If the ALP is allowed to get away with theft on a grand scale for party-political purposes and then to racially and politically attack the whistle-blower in contravention of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 (ACT), then what has our democracy come to?
The former Commissioner for Revenue advised the ACT Treasurer, through his political advisor Mr. Jeff House, that he intended to take the racism issues to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. What is disturbing is that he then was fitted-up with the help of Ernst & Young, sacked and subjected to a most dehumanising campaign of vilification by the ACT Government and the Australian Federal Police.
During the course of this ACT Government orchestrated campaign of racial hatred, certain matters found their way into the legal system. The exchange of correspondence referred to by Mr. Roberts was subpoenaed. The ACT Government and Mr. Jon Stanhope denied its existence and refused to comply with the subpoena. When a complaint was made to the AFP, they responded by attacking the relatives of the former Commissioner of Revenue, most of whom are Indigenous Australians.
The fact that these documents were referred to by an independent and impartial arbitrator, namely the Ombudsman and can then disappear without trace because they bring into question the integrity of the ALP and senior officers within the ACT bureaucracy is an absolute affront to the ‘rule of law’ and the Australian democratic process. The probable beneficiaries of this theft are the same people who, using a politicised police service, the AFP, have been able to deflect their criminality onto the whistle-blower in contravention of legislation designed to protect such people.
The state of the ACT budget
In 2006 a person by the name of Phil Hart independently came by the same information and published it on a website known as Mullinitover.info.au. During its short lived existence, Mullinitover.info.au published information which brought into question the integrity of the ACT budget process and the accuracy of the ACT Public Accounts. In particular, it pointed out that the ACT Government had underfunded staff super by one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). This was eventually picked-up by the ACT Opposition and the Canberra Times. Consequentially, the AFP raided the home of the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue, racially vilified him and bashed him. They did not raid Mr. Hart’s home looking for the source of the leak. Interestingly, the AFP had the former Commissioner in court in Canberra the day before the raid. While in court his house in Sydney was mysteriously burgled. Nothing was taken, but some items may have been added. The former Commissioner is recorded on video during the raid, pointing out to AFP and NSW Police that the raid was politically motivated, driven by what was published on Mullinitover.info.au.
The role of Ernst & Young
The racism experienced by the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue continued to simmer until March 2003, when the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue began making enquiries about monies that had been misappropriated, ‘stolen’ from ACT Treasury. The former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s position on the issue of the stolen monies was that everyone, white and black, should be accountable to the same standards and that the ‘rule of law’ should apply equally regardless of race, creed or colour.
Corresponding to the signing of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for an enquiry into the stolen monies, the racial vilification of the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue increased to such an extent that in April 2003, the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue instructed Michael Long of Bradley Allen Lawyers to write to ACT Treasury putting them on notice that he intended to pursue the racism through the appropriate channels if it was not dealt with in a professional manner.
The racial persecution of the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue reached such a stage that on 27 June 2003 he felt compelled to put the Chief Minister of the ACT on notice about what was going on within his public service. What happened with this complaint? Nothing. What’s worse is that the exchange of correspondence has mysteriously vanished from ACT Treasury; correspondence in which the Commissioner for ACT Revenue raised a number of serious concerns he had regarding corruption and racism within the ACT Government.
From this point on, the campaign of racial hatred against the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue increased until November 2003 when through his lawyers, Bradley Allen, the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue put the Chief Executive of ACT Treasury on notice that he intended to commence an action for defamation against the most profligate of the racists attacking him.
A few days later the Chief Executive received notification from the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s lawyers advising the Executive that the former Commissioner proposed to commence an action for defamation. The public servant (the same aforementioned senior ACT Treasury official) identified by the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue as the ‘ring-leader’ of the racist group then contacted two of the former Commissioner’s previous employers, the ANZ Bank and Ernst & Young. While the ANZ Bank raised questions about the legality of the request and referred the matter back to the Commissioner for ACT Revenue, Ernst & Young, in the person of Tanya Taylor (the same Tanya Taylor referred to in the Statutory Declaration sworn by Mr. Phillip Hart, dated 18th April, 2008) invited the writer in and apparently discussed all aspects of the former Commissioner’s application with Ernst & Young with the aforementioned senior ACT Treasury official, including producing documents from the former Commissioner’s personnel file.
Following meeting with Tanya Taylor the public servant formally wrote to Ernst & Young requesting copies of documents from the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s personnel file. Incomprehensibly Ernst & Young provided the requested documents requested.
There are a number of significant issues here. Firstly, Mrs. Tu Pham, the then Deputy Chief Executive of ACT Treasury and former ACT Auditor-General, testified in proceedings in March 2006 that the public servant who wrote the letter to Ernst & Young was not authorized to conduct an investigation into his superior or to use ACT Government stationary to gain access to documents. Secondly, Ernst & Young could not have legally provided the documents under NPP 10(d) as this provision is specifically for law enforcement agencies and ACT Treasury; Ernst & Young is not a law enforcement agency for the purposes of the National Privacy Principles (NPP). Thirdly, the documents provided by Ernst & Young pursuant to the request are not the same documents that the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue provided to Ernst & Young as part of the employment process.
When the AFP eventually gained access to the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s personnel file from Ernst & Young and tendered it into evidence in support of charges they had brought against the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue, what they tendered into evidence were documents that did not contain the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s signature or any other biometric data linking those documents to him. There was a signature that purported to be the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue’s, but which matched no other signatures of his on his Ernst & Young or ACT Treasury personnel files.
It is incomprehensible that someone can walk in off the street request the personnel file of a past employee, from a previous employer, especially when the person making the request (i.e. the public servant and senior ACT Treasury official) is subject to a fraud investigation by the very same file subject (the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue) who just happens to be the requestor’s superior! The effect of Ernst & Young in providing documentation under this apparent request from ACT Treasury was to end the investigation being conducted by the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue into the subordinate officer for fraud and stop an application being made to HREOC, alleging that the subordinate officer and a former Director of Ernst & Young had committed acts of racial hatred against the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue.
Where to from here?
Even though it is a serious criminal matter to attempt to interfere with a statutory office holder in the course of his employment, nothing has been done about this complaint, apparently because the Australian Federal Police do not investigate complaints by Indigenous Australians against non-Indigenous Australians. Even though it is a serious criminal offence to indecently, racially and physically assault anyone, nothing has been done about the assault on Mrs. King, because, the Australian Federal Police do not investigate complaints by Indigenous Australians against non-Indigenous Australians. Even though what happened to Mr. Lewis was a serious breach of the ACT Occupational Health and safety Act, nothing was done about the complaint. Even though what happened to Mr. D’Este amounted to the issuing of a threat against the former Commissioner for ACT Revenue via a third party, nothing was done about this complaint. Because, the Australian Federal Police do not investigate complaints by Indigenous Australians against non-Indigenous Australians, so much for the ACT Government adhering to its own Bill of Rights.
The events described above set me on my path to collect the statements summarized on my About page and which will form the basis of my PhD and UN application. All I am looking for is accountability and transparency; justice for those who have been victims of Australian Federal Police corruption. It is the lack of action on these issues that has fuelled my PhD, titled Corruption and Racism in the Australian Federal Police and the death of Australia’s democracy.
It’s sad that such an awfully convoluted road must be paved by one blak man in an attempt to expose corruption and injustice in a white man’s world!
[i] Names changed by request of victims, as these matters are in the process of being referred to the United Nations Human Rights Committee as a blatant violation of the victim’s human rights by the Australian Federal Police and the ACT Government and Labor Party. Once the UN proceedings became public I will release the victims’ names.