Our Critical Analysis of NSW I.C.A.C.’s response rejection letter to our substantiated complaints of corruption by the NSW Government:
We herein condemn and discredit the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, ‘so-called’ (ICAC), in its 16th October 2024 dismissive rejection letter back to us.
This despite our recent copious detailed allegations to ICAC about the ongoing serious, institutionalised and systemic corruption being undertaken by NSW Government public authorities (below) with ‘prima facie‘ copious evidence (redacted) we obtained from 35 harassed micro business by Service NSW unconscionable clawback scheme.
(1) Service NSW
(2) Customer Service (an allied NSW department)
(3) Revenue NSW
(4) Office of Premier of NSW
..but when it suits it, politically?
This Grant Clawback Scheme retrospectively relates to the ‘2021 COVID-19 Micro Business Grant‘ by the NSW LNP Berejiklian Government (out of Federal funding totalling $781.1 million) as financial compensation to thousands of ‘mum and dad’ micro business owners throughout NSW during that government’s pandemic mandatory lockdown regime.
That 781.1 million was then distributed by Service NSW in 2021 to purportedly 63,009? on a manually approved basis to these struggling micro businesses out of purportedly 82,497 applicants. Since November 2022 under CEO Greg Wells appointment those grant compensation is being systematically being unconscionably clawed back by his Service NSW ring in debt collectors.
Since 2022, Service NSW under incoming CEO Greg Wells has outsourced contract debt collectors to operate on an anonymous basis to work from home on commission and contact thousands of legitimately approved and paid grant recipients, to retrospectively harass each by phone/email/AI to accuse and target them of ‘grant ineligibility’, default ‘fraud’, and demand the grant money back else threaten to seize their assets. If this is not a bureaucratic extortionate scam, then what the hell is, ICAC?
This fits the definition of ‘criminal extortion‘ in this country – ‘threatening someone else to gain a financial benefit’.
The acts of extortion from those in privileged power in a governmental delegated public authority to members of the public whom have done no wrong is corrupt conduct in my view. How can it not be? How can it go on unaddressed?
Senior public officials within each public authority, such as Service NSW, are entrusted with delegated monopoly authority across that governmental responsibility and granted the power that goes with that public trust. So being allowed to abuse both authority and power with impunity can only undermine that public trust and confidence, and does no one any benefit except for those few bad apples committing the wrong.
Following the unjustified Grant Clawback Scheme by Service NSW and its ongoing illegal, threatening, intimidating and extortionate behaviour toward many grant recipients in this matter; on 13 September 2024 Nature Trail’s Tour Director Steve Ridd, himself a targeted victim of this scheme, lodged a formal complaint to I.C.A.C. about Service NSW corrupt conduct.
Service NSW ‘corruption’ fact checks:
(FACT 1) Service NSW is a public authority of the NSW Government;
(FACT 2) The grant monies involved were public monies;
(FACT 3) The grant monies involved were sourced entirely from the then Morrison LNP Federal Government, by then NSW LNP Premier Berejiklian, NOT sourced from NSW Treasury.
Yet Service NSW’s ongoing Grant Clawback Scheme is not seeking to return the windfalls of its extortion racket back to the Federal Government, but instead to extort and retain those Federal public monies for the coffers of the current Minns NSW Labor Government.
See, he and his Treasurer have been crying poor since winning the March 2023 election. But the reality of the NW poverty lies in Canberra under buddy Labor PM Albanese and his denial fo GST revnmue to the staes of a per capita basis.
So, Minns backdoor revenue scheme – go after Gladys ‘mum and dad’ innocent (low hanging fruit) micro businesses in an internal extortion racket.
(FACT 4) Service NSW Grant Clawback Scheme is a debt collecting function that is completely outside the remit of Service NSW’s departmental charter. Read ^https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/about-us/our-organisation
Service NSW under GEO Greg Wells has perhaps become the most despised and untrustworthy public authorities anywhere in Australia
CEO Service NSW’s CEO’s unconscionable Grant Clawback Scheme is anathema to all the above PR motherhood statements. It has caused and continues to cause harmful angst, stress and mental health anxiety to many grant recipient small business owners who continue to be unconscionably targeted by the ‘OrWellsian‘ heavy-handed debt collectors.
This systemic extortion racket involves Service NSW illegally fabricating invalid debt invoices out of what were legitimately paid out lockdown compensation grants back in 2021.
So with Service NSW, one goes from this in 2021:
… to this is 2024:
(FACT 5) Service NSW Grant Clawback Scheme involves systemically choosing to ignore its own Grant Guidelines, Grant Terms and Conditions, repeatedly change/remove/insert clauses of both to suit is groundless and shameless clawback agenda.
(FACT 6) Service NSW Grant Clawback Scheme involves systemically choosing to retrospectively ignore the original grant application approval process, re-instigate reassessments of that original process, demand grant recipients prove their grant eligibility a second time, scrutinise that evidence, retrospectively reject grant eligibility on a default systemic basis, and fabricate the grants paid out unconscionably into contrived debt notices.
(FACT 7) The contact methods, threatening language and emails being deployed by Service NSW are consistent with scammer tactics and criminal extortion. Nature Trail has provided I.C.A.C. with copious evidence to this effect.
(FACT 8) Nature Trail’s complaint to the NSW I.C.A.C. is seeking to have I.C.A.C. investigate those entrusted in public office about these accusations. Again, Nature Trail has provided I.C.A.C. with copious evidence to this effect.
(FACT 9) This is a completely public matter within the ICAC’s role and charter to INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION !!! by this NSW public authority, Service NSW, and into the behaviour and internal records of the bureaucrats who set up and who are running this Grant Clawback Scheme it joint cahoots with Revenue NSW (the NSW Government’s head debt collection public authority) which is issuing Service NSW debt collection invoicing to target the innocent grant recipients.
(FACT 10) Service NSW ongoing Grant Clawback Scheme is improper and unlawful as it is deliberate, intentional wrongdoing and systemic. It is not negligence or a mistake.
(FACT 11) Service NSW CEO Greg Wells in charge of this Grant Clawback Scheme in his official public servant senior role, represents a NSW public official we accuse of improperly using his knowledge, power and resources and his position of authority to take advantage of ordinary ‘mum and dad’ micro businesses that have done nothing wrong.
(FACT 12) This Grant Clawback Scheme includes systemic deployment of AI (as a ‘one size fits all’ blunt instrument) applied to thousands of grant recipients, presuming each of contrived retrospective grant ineligibility, of presumed retrospective ‘guilt’ of grant fraud before proven innocence having many similarities to that used in the Federal Government’s Centrelink Robodebt Scheme 2026-2019);
(FACT 13) We accuse Mr Wells of obtaining personal financial gain by reaping bonuses from the successful performance of this Grant Clawback Scheme. We include other named public officials and indeed named cabinet ministers of the Minns Ministry of collusion in this Grant Clawback Scheme.
(FACT 14) These accusations we have submitted are incumbent upon the I.C.A.C. to properly investigate, not to knee-jerk to avoid, as it has chosen to do within a short time of receiving our complaint in just a month of receipt.
(FACT 15) Such dismissive response from the ICAC indeed calls into question the very integrity of the NSW ICAC, a breach of the public trust by the citizens of NSW to properly act as a corruption watchdog over public authorities and officials. In our view the I.C.A.C.’s speedy dismissive rejection of our complaint is acting in a way that is impairing public confidence in public administration of the NSW Government.
(FACT 16) The public officials involved in this Grant Clawback Scheme are improperly exercising official functions, breaching the public trust, and as set out in section 8(2A) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 is therefore acting in ways that are impairing public confidence in public administration.
(FACT 17) This matter is a classic instance of corruption in this public authority, Service NSW and by association also that of NSW public authority Revenue NSW as a willing participant in this Grant Clawback Scheme.
(FACT 18) It is the charter of the NSW ICAC to receive complaints about corruption involving NSW public sector agencies (government departments and state-owned corporations), local councils, members of Parliament and the judiciary; to properly consider all of the information you provide and that is available, and then decide whether to investigate, and to investigate only serious or systemic corruption. It has failed all three components of its charter in this case.
Immediately below, we make publicly available in our PART 6 article in this matter (click link below) that includes a duplicate of that I.C.A.C. letter which we facilitate its free download and printing.
Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 10): ICAC Decision: This is not our job
We now also reproduce that letter as follows, and at each sentence statement the NSW I.C.A.C. makes, we demolish each of I.C.A.C.’s excuses, premises, arguments and bias…one-by-one.
In concluding, we consider the NSW I.C.A.C. to have always been a political instrument with similar political appointments. We call for the NSW I.C.A.C. to be legislated to be wound up forthwith and so condemned to political oblivion.
Here, we continue to represent Probono the rights and justice of 35 small business owners across NSW who have reached out to us against being baselessly intimidated and threatened by anonymous debt collectors for up to $18,279 each by the unconscionable and extortionate grant clawback scheme by Service NSW and Revenue NSW (2022-2024) and still continuing].
We term this scheme ‘Robodebt 2.0’ !
Sincerely,
Steven Ridd
Tour Director, Nature Trail
KATOOMBA
8th November 2024
The Format of our Critical Analysis:
The following reproduced ICAC letter we’ve numbered each sentence statement from that letter in sequence (‘ICAC 01, 02, 03…‘) of how it was written. We’ve then added our opinion to each statement separately.
We adopt this feedback format so that the reader is able to maintain the flow of the ICAC letter as it was written, whilst also being able to more easily comprehend our critiques within the letter’s context. Each sentence is then able to be readily identified and cross-referenced, supporting this detailed analysis.
(NOTE: This article is a work in progress, content pending shortly).
(ICAC 01) “16 October 2024”
Our Analysis 1a:
This ICAC outcome decision letter (which is final) was dated 16th October 2024, and responds just a month after our complaint submission to the ICAC on it’s website on 13th September 2024.
^https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/complaint/start.aspx
Our Analysis 1b:
We point out that in our submission the ICAC website software prevented us including evidence in our submission, which we had highlighted as part of our submission.
“File names can’t contain the following characters: / ? : @ = & “” < > # % { } | ^ ~ [ ] ` + -“
Our Analysis 1c:
Our expressed concerns about the ICAC website software failing to accept any attached documents (PDF format) were ignored by ICAC.
So we were then compelled to email ICAC to notify them of this documentation problem. We were subsequently advised by ICAC by email 19th September 2024 that it did not require any more evidence, thus:
Our Analysis 1d:
Yes, we supplied the following nine supporting evidentiary PDF documents to the ICAC:
These include the intimidating and threatening correspondence from Service NSW anonymous debt collector ‘Angela’, our two formal complaints to CEO Greg Wells unanswered, as well as Service NSW systemic changes to its Grant’s Terms and Conditions as part of its underhand Grant Clawback Scheme, and Service NSW Minister Dib’s concocted erroneous excuse about the original grant approvals being “automated” – a deliberately fabricated ploy to try to retrospectively justify the Grant Clawback Scheme.
Our Analysis 1e:
It appeared that this Mr Griffiths had by 19th September 2024 personally already made up his mind about our complaint case submitted to ICAC jut five business days prior on 13 September, before it being even presented to the Commission Assessment Panel for assessment and investigation.
Mr Griffith’s dismissive response sent a message that:
- ICAC didn’t care
- ICAC had already made up its mind through its junior Assessment Officer Mr Griffiths
- ICAC is incompetent
- ICAC is not as independent as it claims
- The lack of transparency of ICAC appointments, such as its call centre front man Mr Griffiths
- ICAC is unaccountable, but then its remit is that it reported directly to the NSW Premier – a conflict of interest by both or what?
This were the consequential cynical worries that came to mind.
Our Analysis 1f:
We note that in Mr Griffith’s dismissive presumptive response letter to us of 19th September 2024 ,he concluded before any investigation or perhaps even rearding our complaint or evidence:
“At this stage, we do not require information from all 31 persons affected, as the issue remains the same.”
This presumption remains completely wrong and misguided. Indeed, each of the now 37 independent grant recipients who has contacted us following our online campaign against Service NSW in this matter, has a separate and different experience in dealing with the Grant Clawback Scheme.
Here is a list of some of the scenarios:
(A) 35 originally fully complied with the grant eligibility criteria;
(B) One was intimidated by threats of garnisheeing her husband’s wages that under duress she refunded Service NSW $10,000 out of her mortgage redraw, despite being deemed eligible;
(C) 6 received fabricated debt collection notices – some from Service NSW, some from Customer Service (department), some from Revenue NSW – each with different ABNs;
(D) Thirteen grant recipients were so intimidated that they suffered direct mental health problems including sleeplessness, anxiety attacks, and depression and so desperation they restored to the mental hardship route through their respective doctors;
(E) A number relied upon the Grant’s original Terms and Conditions Attachment C ‘Alternative Rules’ clauses due to their varying business circumstances. Yet Service NSW debt collectors have since unconscionably removed that Attachment C, pretending it does not exist;
(F) Many have supplied all requested supporting evidence a second time to Servce NSW debt collectors, only to later learn that that information is not being retained by Service NSW. Different anonymous debt collectors repeatedly ask for the same information or different information many times over multiple years;
(G) One received an escalated debt collection notice from Revenuye NSW for $18239, despite him making clear that the grant totalled $15214. The debt collector claim the additional $3000 was “a tip”;
(H) Many are experiencing made up excuses by the debt collectors, such as JobKeeper income not recognise by Service NSW, despite this not being in any way mentioned as an exclusion in the Guidelines nor Terms and Conditions. Rather it’s being used as a fabricated excuse for retrospective ineligibility.
(I) Others who have demanded what other supportive documentation is required as part of this repeat reassessment process, are not told what that documentation is.
(J) Many have been told that their are on an indefinite pause from the so-called ‘audit’, including myself.
This list is not exhaustive.
Our Analysis 1g:
So, we wrote back to ICAC about our concerns about Mr Griffiths dismissive tone and then received a slightly more conciliatory response 23rd September 2024 from ICAC’s A/Deputy Manager Assessments, one Justin Benitez: who replied to us:
“I would appreciate you providing any further information in support of concerns by Friday, 4 October 2024. We will commence an assessment of the matters raised after that date.”
ICAC had thus given us an arbitrary deadline of just two weeks to submit all our evidence from the then 31 grant recipient claimants targeted by Service NSW Grant Clawback Scheme who had reached out to us. We submitted these each as ‘Witness Personal Account and Victim Impact Statements’ about the Grant Clawback Scheme to ICAC.
We managed to submit a total of 19 of the 31. Though we’ve ended up receiving a total of 37, which includes our own account.
(ICAC 02) “Dear Mr Ridd”
Our Analysis 2a:
Well, yes. This is perhaps one of the few line items we agree with ICAC. Not just ‘Nature Trail’ as complainant, we’ve chosen to put our personal name to all this. Formally complaining to ICAC is not an everyday task. We have never done this before and we didn’t decide on doing so lightly.
Our Analysis 2b:
But we’ve taken calls and email from many small business owners across News South Wales over the past year who’ve been similarly harassed and threatened by Service NSW anonymous scamming debt collectors. They contacted us after finding this protest blog online having nowhere else to turn. So once we managed to fight the bureaucratic government bastards and win, we took stock and went in to battle for these others. All strangers.
Our Analysis 2c:
This complaint to ICAC was after all by this point in time, no longer about our own outstanding clawback issue with Service NSW, but moreso about the others who still were being threatened. This issue is both about the scale of the corrupt extortion (potentially 63,000 odd targeted small businesses, but also the value of the extortion of being up to $781.1 million of public money, and also about the systemic co-ordinated nature of the extortion run by a dedicated Grant Clawback Scheme sub-department within Service NSW – its ‘Business Bureau’ – managed by Executive Director, Cassandra Gibbens, who reports directly to Service NSW CEO Greg Wells.
This complaint ticks all the boxes for a classic ICAC case investigation; indeed far more justifiable a clear-cut case compared with the ICAC’s previous dubious politically-charged allegations against NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s potential “conflict of interest” (2012-2108) that were all hypothetical and none proven to be corrupt conduct.
After us gaining insight to this scandalous scheme and its so many wrongs and extortionate corrupt conduct, our research showed that it posed a classic perfect fit corruption investigative case for ICAC. So, amongst other dedicated campaigning fighting this, Steve Ridd has done this probono on behalf of the others, happily.
(ICAC 03) “I refer to your online form of 14 September 2024, and the emails of 18 September 2024 to 7 October 2024 containing supporting documents.”
Our Analysis 3a:
Well, I.C.A.C. may refer to our online form (actually dated 13 September 2024) and our subsequent emails, however it fails to address any of our concerns raised, namely:
- The scam and threatening phone calls and emails received from anonymous individuals purporting to be from Service NSW demanding the grant moneys be repaid, else the government will come after them and seize their personal assets;
- The demand by Service NSW that grant recipients be required to re-submit their grant application;
- The scam and threatening phone calls and emails received from anonymous individuals purporting to be from Service NSW demanding private information about their family (bank accounts, marriage certificates, family names, etc);
- My two formal complaints of harassment and intimidation by various semi-anonymous (first name only) callers and emailers to Service NSW CEO Greg Wells, but with no joy.
- My claim of the above amounting to criminal extortion – threatening someone else to gain a financial benefit.
- Senior public servants of Service NSW entrusted with monopoly authority and the power that goes with that public trust, yet so allowed to abuse both authority and power with impunity
(ICAC 04) “You raise concerns about Service NSW, including:
(4.1) “CEO Mr Greg Wells and”
(4.2) “Executive Director Service NSW Business Bureau Cassandra Gibbens;”
(4.3) “Revenue NSW;”
(4.4) “the Hon Jihad Dib MP;”
(4.5) “the Hon Courtney Houssos MLC; and”
(4.6) “Premier the Hon Chris Minns MP, and”
(4.7) “the auditing of the Covid-19 business grant audits.”
Our Analysis 4a:
Yes, but the ICAC has failed to state whether it has even sought to contact any of these public officials or their public authorities in this matter. It’s akin to us having each culprit caught with their hands in the till on CCTV stealing the money and us informing ICAC of where they live, but ICAC has turned a blind eye.
Nothing to see here!
ICAC Assessment Panel
Our Analysis 4b:
We have clearly emphasised to the ICAC that Service NSW’s conduct in its Grant Clawback Scheme was in no way any so-called “audit” by any definition. An accepted definition of an ‘audit’ is an official inspection of an organization’s accounts.
Whereas, Service NSW’s conduct in our complaint matter is an ongoing repeat reassessment by Service NSW of previously assessed, approved and paid grant applications to grant recipients by Service NSW originally back in 2021.
This is what makes ongoing repeat reassessment by Service NSW a bureaucratic/political scam.
The Grant Clawback Scheme conduct is corrupt for the following reasons outlined in our complaint to ICAC:
(1) This Grant’s Terms and Conditions are unconscionable from the outset in many ways, and would not stack up under Contract Law in a proper judicial court.
Clause 1 is unjust and unfair because the grant was not offered by a single public authority, Service NSW that delivered the ‘2021 COVID-19 Micro-business Grant Program (‘the Programme’), but instead by multiple public authorities of the NSW Government, namely (1) Department of Customer Service, (2) Service NSW and (3) NSW Treasury. The Programme is a consumer contract since each grant recipient is a consumer of the Programme funding.
This Fair Trading Amendment (Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2010, Part G ‘Unfair contract terms’, Section 60ZE (1) (a) “A term of a consumer contract is unfair if it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract.”
In addition, Clause 1.2 reads “If any of the conditions in clause 4.1 are contravened, the payment may be recovered from the recipient by the Crown as a debt due to the Crown pursuant to section 5.7(3) of the GSF Act (Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (NSW).” This then adds a fourth party to the contract being Revenue NSW acting for the Crown to recover a possible debt from a grant recipient.
Under Section 60ZD (1) (a) “A term of a consumer contract is void if the term is unfair, and (b) the contract is a standard form contract.”
Under 60ZH (2) a standard form contract exists where one of the parties has all or most of the bargaining power relating to the transaction. The Programme was a ‘take it or leave it ‘contract.
(2) The Grant Clawback Scheme is conduct outside (A) this Grant Programme’s original Guidelines and outside (B) this Grant Programme’s original Terms and Conditions;
(3) Service NSW since around August 2024, is no longer referring to this scheme as an ‘audit’, but instead as an “Internal Review”. There is no mention of any “Internal Review “in this Grant’s original Guidelines and Terms and Conditions;
(4) Service NSW has repeated changed its Terms and Conditions long after the payment were made from July 2021.
For instance, Clause 5.2. states “From 10 September 2021, to continue to receive fortnightly payments, a business or not-for-profit organisation will need to declare
(a) that it continues to be impacted by the Public Health Order;
(b) that in the preceding fortnight it experienced a decline in turnover of 30 per cent or more compared to the period used by the business or not-for-profit organisation in clause 3.3(c); and
(c) that they continue to maintain their Employee Headcount.”
This is contrary to Clause 5.1. “Once an application has been approved, a business or not-for-profit organisation will receive automatic fortnightly payments of $1,500 credited to a valid bank account (as identified in its application) until the Program ends (as notified on the Service NSW website).”
(5) This Grant Programme’s Terms and Conditions Clause 12.1. states:
“DCS, Service NSW and NSW Treasury reserve the right to amend, vary, delete or supplement these Terms and Conditions at any time.”
No it doesn’t. This clause is an example of an unfair term as regulated by the NSW Fair Trading Amendment (Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2010 No 51, Section 60ZF (d) “a term that permits, or has the effect of permitting, one party (but not another party) to vary the terms of the contract”.
These Grant Programme Terms and Conditions are in disarray. Clause 15.1. on Governing Law reads:
“These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and must be interpreted in accordance with the laws of NSW.”
Well, that includes the NSW Fair Trading Amendment (Unfair Contract Terms) Act 2010 No 51. Many of the Grant Programme Terms and Conditions are in flagrant beach of many Sections of this NSW Regulation which was assented to on 28 June 2010 and remains in force.
(6) Service NSW Minister responsible, Minister for Digital Government The Hon. Jihad Dib MP has indeed repeatedly referred to this scheme as quote a retrospective “reassessment” of the eligibility of the many applications, not as an ‘audit’. [Read Our Analysis 1d, above]
Read paragraph 4:
Read paragraph 2:
(4) This conduct is outside this Grant’s Terms and Conditions clause 4.8. The final payments of the his Grant were made by Service NSW in December 2021. Yet, Service NSW continues to perpetuate its Grant Clawback Scheme into November 2024 (the date of this article), three years later. Clause 4.8 reads as follows:
(5) From our own experience and of many other micros businesses targeted by this Grant Clawback Scheme, Service NSW has retrospectively removed a key and flexible original Terms and Conditions ‘Attachment C – Alternative Rules‘ from its current website reference. It is deliberate, insidious and malevolent corrupt conduct deliberately to retrospectively deny grant recipients from their original grant eligibility. It is a corrupt ploy deliberately by Service NSW to try to underhandedly wrongly legitimise this Grant into a fabricated debt.
Here is that original ‘Attachment C’, that we retained:
(ICAC 05) “First, we acknowledge that people applied for the business grants in good faith and used the money to survive during the COVID-19 pandemic”
Our Analysis 5a:
Yes, so given ICAC acknowledges people applied for the grant in good faith, ICAC contradictorily supports Service NSW retrospective grant reassessment and clawback. This is an unexplained contrary stance.
Prima facie, this demostrates ICAC’s incompetence, bias, and or corrupt conduct in this matter.
(ICAC 06) “and that being asked to repay the money has had a significant financial and emotional impact on those recipients.”
Our Analysis 6a:
Yes, but this demand was unjustified, and constituted a threat, both of which ICAC has chosen to ignore. As per Analysis 5a, this demonstrates ICAC’s incompetence, bias, and or lack of independence, both perceived and actual in this matter. Clearly ICAC is compromised in this matter.
Our Allegations of Corruption:
(ICAC 07) “Noting you have provided us with a large volume of material in support of your complaint, the following is a broad summary of your allegations, only.
Our Analysis 7a:
This is another contradiction by ICAC. On the on hand it acknowledges the large volume of material in support of our complaint, yet treats it a singular collective summary. This is an abject failure by the ICAC to deal with this matter. Clearly ICAC is compromised in this matter.
(ICAC 08) “It is not a complete list of every issue you have raised in your complaint.”
Our Analysis 8a:
ICAC has selectively chosen here to NOT deal with the issues raised in our complaint.
(ICAC 09) “That said, we have considered all of the material you have given us.”
Our Analysis 9a:
This is a directly contrary statement to ‘ICAC 08‘. It is bunkum.
(ICAC 10) “In summary, you have alleged that the above-named agencies and persons are engaging in corrupt conduct by conspiring to extort money from recipients of the COVID-19 business grants, under the guise of “auditing” each applicant and demanding they repay the money.”
Our Analysis 10a:
Yes, we concur.
(ICAC 11) “This alleged conduct includes the following:”
(11.1) “1. That Service NSW set up a “secret internal sub-department within Service NSW” called the “Business Bureau” under the management of Ms Gibbens and staffed it with newly-recruited contracted debt collectors for the purpose of “clawing back” the grant money.”
- (11.2) “The Business Bureau is contacting every single grant recipient to recover the full monies paid, by “blanketly tar-brushing” everyone as retrospectively ineligible,”
- (11.3) “and that management and contractors receive bonuses and commissions for successful recovery of the grant money.”
- (11.4) “Service NSW is “mischievously” relying upon the declaration acceptance clause on the original online application form, which states by applying, the applicant consents to be audited in the future.”
Our Analysis 11:
Yes, we concur with all the above four statements.
(ICAC 12) “2. The manner of contact by the debt collectors is intimidating and harassment, including by cold calling, only using first names, accusing the recipient of fraud, and threatening them with garnishee orders, which amounts to extortion.”
Our Analysis 12:
Yes, we concur.
(ICAC 13) “3. The applicants are receiving invoices that come from the Department of Customer Service (DCS) and/or Revenue NSW (Revenue), which have different ABN numbers and the applicants did not enter a contract with either of these agencies.
Our Analysis 13:
Yes, we concur.
(ICAC 14) “The applicants’ agreement/contract was with Service NSW, so the invoices from DCS and/or Revenue are illegal.”
Our Analysis 14:
Yes, we concur.
(ICAC 15) “You believe this shows collusion between Minister Dib and Minister Houssos.”
Our Analysis 15:
Yes, we concur. However, ICAC has failed investigate this, as we have requested it do. It is not our task to investigate. What is the purpose of ICAC, if it refuses to investigate such serious allegations we’ve provided it, along with relevant evidence?
(ICAC 16) “4. The invoices do not contain an explanation of why the applicant is ineligible, instead having one line that says: “Reason for determination: The fees have been charged for the MB Support Grant 21 – Application as the eligibility criteria were not met”.
Our Analysis 16:
Yes, we concur.
(ICAC 17) “You believe sending invoices without providing an explanation for the debt supports the allegation that Service NSW is trying to recover all grant monies without actually auditing the applicants.”
Our Analysis 17a:
Yes. We have supplied ICAC many examples of such invoices, along with copies of email correspondence between grant recipients targeted by Service NSW and Service NSW itself.
For instance, the following invoice example in one of many that were produced on the same date by Service NSW ‘sister’ public authority, NSW Department of Customer Service with the only reason for determination being stated as “the eligibility criteria were not met’, but with no explanation.
Our Analysis 17b:
Further, the invoice states that “If you wish to discuss this matter further, dispute the calculation findings or provided further information please contact Revenue NSW”.
Revenue NSW has no record of the Service NSW Grant eligibility criteria, and will not get involved in such matters. It only task is to collect the grant money total from the grant recipient, that has been fabricated as a debt by Service NSW.
The whole clawback process is unjust and prima facie constitutes criminal extortion.
Yet, ICAC has decided “not to investigate our allegations”, per below in its decision letter.
ICAC’s Decision Not to Investigate Our Allegations:
(ICAC 18) “The Commission’s Assessment Panel considered the allegations you raised and decided that the Commission will not investigate your allegations, for the following reasons.”
Our Analysis 18a:
ICAC here is not even investigating our allegations. This is a incontrovertible direct breach of ICAC’s stated charter under the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, and which on the ICAC website reads:
“What the ICAC does
-
- Receive complaints about corruption involving NSW public sector agencies (government departments and state-owned corporations), local councils, members of Parliament and the judiciary
- Consider all of the information you provide and that is available, and then decide whether to investigate
- Investigate only serious or systemic corruption”
So in our case, ICAC has receive our complaints about corruption involving NSW public sector agency, being Service NSW and Revenue NSW, also member of NSW Parliament Minister for Digital Government (Service NSW) The Hon. Jihad Dib MP, and Minister for Financial The Hon. Courtney Houssos MLC.
ICAC has outright blatantly refused to consider any of the information we have provided to it including some 35 individual ‘Witness Personal Accounts and Victim Impact Statements’.
This Grant Clawback Scheme by Service NSW is indeed serious and systemic corruption.
ICAC is refusing to do its chartered job. As such, ICAC is in breach of the ‘Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 No 35’, Section 2A ‘Principal objects of Act, (a) (i) “to investigate, expose and prevent corruption involving or affecting public authorities and public officials”.
By extension, the ICAC is therefore also in breach of this ICAC Act Section 2A ‘Principal objects of Act (a) “to promote the integrity and accountability of public administration by constituting an Independent Commission Against Corruption as an independent and accountable body”.
ICAC in this case is not acting as an independent and accountable body.
Our Analysis 18b:
This is in direct breach of ICAC’s statutory charter, which on the ICAC website reads:
“When to report
Corrupt conduct is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake. While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:
-
- a NSW public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of his or her position for personal gain or the advantage of others
- a NSW public official dishonestly exercises his or her official functions, or improperly exercises his or her official functions in a partial manner, breaches public trust or misuses information or material acquired during the course of his or her official functions
- a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a NSW public official to use his or her position in a way that affects the probity of the public official’s exercise of functions
- a member of the public engages in conduct that could involve one of the matters set out in section 8(2A) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 where such conduct impairs, or could impair, public confidence in public administration.”
Well, indeed our complaints to ICAC specific to Service NSW’s ongoing Grant Clawback Scheme since 2022, involves NSW public officials under CEO Greg Wells and in particular its internal ‘Business Bureau’ under its Executive Director Cassandra Gibbens. Both are abusing their power, resources and position for the financial political advantage of the Minns NSW Labor Government. As a result, this corrupt conduct goes to the top, to Premier Chris Minns.
Premier Minns was made publicly aware of this internal bureaucratic Grant Clawback Scheme on Nine Entertainment’s ‘A Current Affair’ television broadcast programme aired on Thursday 15th August 2024 from 7pm (image of that interview below).
The monies for this ‘2021 COVID-19 Micro Business Grant’ totalled some $781.1 million and the funding source was obtained by the then Berejiklian NSW LNP Government from the then Morrison LNP Federal Government from July 2021. It was for the purposes of the Berejiklian NSW LNP Government financially compensating many thousands of NSW micro businesses denied trade due to its own imposed NSW Health Order lockdown regime.
Service NSW, by unilaterally continuing to embark upon this Grant Clawback Scheme since 2022, is dishonestly acting outside its official function by engaging in fabricated the approved grants instead as debts and misusing the grant information it has on each grant recipient as part of this fabricated debt collection conduct.
Such conduct is breaching public trust and probity and impairing the public confidence in this public administration as set out in section 8(2A) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. Such conduct has been shown to be deliberate and intentional wrongdoing, thus it is corrupt conduct.
ICAC’s Role as it Views it
(ICAC 19) “It is not the role of the Commission to review the decisions taken or processes followed by NSW public officials or agencies where corrupt conduct is not otherwise evident.”
Our Analysis 19a:
We refer to our Our Analysis 18a and Our Analysis 18b (above) concerning the explicit roles of the NSW ICAC and how in this case, ICAC has patently failed to exercise these roles.
- ICAC has not even considered the decisions taken by the aforementioned NSW public officials and agencies/public authorities, thus ICAC has ignored our allegations;
- ICAC has not even considered the review processes followed by NSW public officials or agencies/public authorities, thus again ICAC has ignored our allegations;
- ICAC cannot reasonably assert that corrupt conduct is not otherwise evident, in this case, given that it has ignored our allegations. It is refusing to do its job. Why?
- This raises a perception that ICAC is itself an unfit and/or compromised watchdog body to properly consider and investigate allegations of corrupt conduct within the NSW Government, despite copious evidence from 35 small business owners.
(ICAC 20) “While we are not investigating this matter, we have considered the issues you have raised.”
Our Analysis 20a:
Why is ICAC not investigating this matter? How so has ICAC then “considered the issues “we have raised? This statement is a ‘yeah, nah‘ contradictory, hypocritical and fatuous trite.
Our Analysis 20b:
It conveys the same presumptive dismissive tone as the letter of acknowledgement we received from ICAC’s biased Stuart Griffiths dated 19 September 2024, before we had completed our detailed submissions of evidence to ICAC.
Our Analysis 20c:
We question whether our case actualy went beyond Mr Griffith’s inappropriate gatekeeping interference with our evidence to the Commission’s Assessment Panel. Was it concealed from the Commission’s Assessment Panel? We make our own presumptions of impropriety here.
ICAC’s convenient narrow/selective definition of ‘Corruption’
(ICAC 21) “The information available does not appear to indicate corrupt conduct having occurred in the manner you describe.”
Our Analysis 21a:
This is an absurd statement by ICAC. ICAC has not read nor assessed, let alone investigated the information we have provided to it in this matter.
Our Analysis 21b:
The corrupt conduct has occurred, and continues to occur in the manner we have described through the supplied evidence of some 35 independent grant recipients who have voluntarily reach out to us to help them battle against the Grant Clawback Scheme.
Our Analysis 21c:
Refer to ICAC 10 through ICAC 16. These acknowledgements reveal that someone at ICAC has perhaps ‘skim read’ our complaint to be able to so reproduce these seven summaries. But ICAC has clearly not read the evidence we supplied.
Is this ICAC’s incompetence, laziness, bias or all three failings?
Our Analysis 21d:
So what then is ‘corruption’? So what is ‘corruption’ in a public authority?
‘Corruption’ means the abuse of a position of employment, authority or trust to gain a business or personal benefit or advantage. It can also include making improper requests of Public Officials whereby the Public Official is asked to breach or contravene an applicable law or exceed their scope of authority.”
In the state of Victoria, The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) defines ‘corruption’ as:
“the misuse of public power, position or funds. It can happen through:
-
- improper or unlawful actions
- failure to act by public sector staff or agencies
- people trying to improperly influence the functions or decisions of the public sector.”
[SOURCE: ‘What is Corruption?’, IBAC website, ^https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/what-is-corruption#:~:text=Corruption%20is%20the%20misuse%20of,decisions%20of%20the%20public%20sector. , accessed 2024-10-20].
Our Analysis 21e:
The Grant Clawback Scheme being pursued by Service NSW, as have described is prima facie a misuse of public power, position and funds. It involved improper or unlawful actions of baseless retrospective accusations by anonymous agents of Service NSW, who use threatening and intimidating language to extort legitimately approved and paid grant monies from many (perhaps tens of thousands) of small business grant recipients.
Our Analysis 21f:
We herein provide copies of extracts of our Tour Director’s complaint report to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (I.C.A.C.) 13th September 2024.
Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion Scheme (PART 1)
Our Analysis 21g:
In addition, our many articles documenting our complaint matter to ICAC are made available to ICAC for reference and to the general public on this website vioa the dedicated following hyperlink:
^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-category/nsw-icac-refuses-to-investigate-systemic-corruption/
ICAC has no excuse to continue to choose to ignore this serious case of NSW public authority and political corruption within the current Minns Labor Ministry.
ICAC then lectures us?
(ICAC 22) “1. Government agencies are expected to ensure public money is spent correctly.”
Our Analysis 22:
Really? Tell us something we don’t already know!
(ICAC 23) “The decision to undertake an auditing program in relation to the awarding and payment of grants monies is an administrative decision for the agency.”
(ICAC 24) “Based on the information provided, it would appear that Service NSW checked that supporting documents were included on applicants’ files when lodged but may not have checked the content or eligibility of each application.”
(ICAC 25) “Instead, it would appear that each applicant was self-certifying that they were eligible…”
(ICAC 26) “..and a condition of being able to apply was the applicant had to agree to be audited in future.”
(ICAC 27) “It is noted from the material you provided that, 11 out of 33 of the cases you refer to, were resolved in favour of the applicant after they provided the requested information in response to the audit.”
[Notes: no hardship, medical certificate, etc. Only helped by NT]
ICAC Claims “insufficient information” Excuse?
(ICAC 28) “Setting up a dedicated division within an agency to deal with a particular business issue, again is an administrative decision by Service NSW.”
(ICAC 29) “There is insufficient information to support that Service NSW is blanketly making every applicant retrospectively ineligible,”
(ICAC 30) “…or that staff are receiving commissions for the successful recovery of grant monies.”
(ICAC 31) “The available information is not sufficient to suggest that Service NSW or its staff have engaged in corrupt conduct in their handling of the COVID-19 grant auditing process.”
(ICAC 32) “2. The manner in which Service NSW contacts applicants is similarly an administrative decision for the agency..”
(ICAC 33) “…and does not appear to concern corrupt conduct.”
(ICAC 34) “Although Service NSW does attempt contact through various ways including by telephone, text message, email, and letter, the use of one or more of these media, does not sufficiently indicate that such contact amounts to harassment.”
(ICAC 35) “Again, we acknowledge that the information could be upsetting (especially when the person believes they do not owe the money),”
(ICAC 36) “…however, an agency advising a recipient of potential consequences in the event of not complying, does not sufficiently amount to intimidation or extortion.”
(ICAC 37) “3. Service NSW and Revenue NSW are both agencies within the broader Department of Customer Service.”
[Notes: No different ABNs and historical structure different to current]
(ICAC 38) “The information appears to show the involvement of each agency within the audit process,”
(ICAC 39) “..which is understandable, noting their respective roles.”
(ICAC 40) “However, there is insufficient information to support that the agencies or the respective ministers are colluding,”
(ICAC 41) “…or that their involvement amounts to corrupt conduct.”
(ICAC 42) “4. In relation to the invoices not explaining to the applicant why they have been found ineligible, the information before the Commission indicates that:”
(ICAC 42.1 ) “a. An applicant will have gone through at least one, and possibly two, reviews by the time they receive the invoice, and the reviews explained what further information is/was required.”
(ICAC 42.2) “b. The review outcome letters to applicants appear to provide comprehensive explanations about the basis for the decision, and/or what criteria and guidelines have found the application to be ineligible.”
(ICAC 42.3) “On that basis, the invoice does not need to provide details of the decision (as the applicant will already have been provided with an explanation).”
(ICAC 43) “This aspect of your concerns does not appear to indicate corrupt conduct is occurring.”
(ICAC 44) “The Commission notes that one of the options available to recipients required to pay back the grant is to contest the matter in the local court.”
(ICAC 45) “The Commission believes this may be the best way for people to resolve their individual circumstances.”
(ICAC 46) “Although we are not investigating your matter, we appreciate receiving information about possible corrupt conduct as it can assist us in our corruption prevention work.”
(ICAC 47) “Further information about our role can be found in the fact sheet, Explaining the ICAC’s decision.”
[Notes: No it doesn’t – the fact sheet is generic. It is nothing to with the ICAC’s decision in this matter.]
Postscript:
From our experience in dealing with the NSW I.C.A.C. in this serious matter, we consider it to be a politically-appointed farce, just like the NSW Ombudsman.
Labor politican John Hatzistergos is the current ICAC Commissioner appointed since 7th August 2022 for a 5-year term and in this role currently reports directly to incumbent Labor Premier Chris Minns.
By happenstance, incumbent NSW Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian was accused of unproven corrupt conduct by ICAC on Thursday 29 June 2023.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
End of Letter Analysis
Reload document 
Open in new tab