Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 3)

October 24, 2024

RE: ICAC Report Case ref E24/1996 lodged 13^th September 2024.

Continuing with our correspondence with the NSW I.C.A.C., following our reported complaint to the ICAC 13th September 2024, we follow up with a courteous notice to ICAC of our intention to provide supportive evidence. We address the following two emails to ICAC’s public contact who has acknowledged receipt of our complaint, Mr Stuart Griffiths, Senior Assessment Officer NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption…

Our Email #1 to ICAC:

[Wednesday 18th September]

Hello Mr Griffiths (ICAC),

RE: My ICAC Report Case ref E24/1996

Thanks Stuart for your email confirmation of receipt of my complaint to the ICAC.

There is a copious amount of additional evidence that should be read by an ICAC investigation, rather than just replying upon my initial submission alone.

This is a start: https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/minns-mafia-how-its-781-million-grant-extortion-racket-works/

More where that came from: https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-category/government-indian-givers/

One starts such blog campaign out of desperation when government is aloof and doesn’t listen.

At the end of the ICAC complaint form it reads me keeping this confidential – from whom?

I wish to share this with the joint complainants (in confidence) – all 32 of us. See, I won but the others are still threatened by Service NSW’s extortionate demands.

I am also going the NSW Police separately on this.

Regards

Steve Ridd
Tour Director, Nature Trail

Our Email #2 to ICAC:

[Thursday 19th September 2024]

Hello Stuart,

RE: My ICAC Report Case ref E24/1996

I am in the process of preparing supportive evidence from the 32 grant recipient business owners in respect to their correspondence to me (mostly by email but also by text) to email to the I.C.A.C. at this email address.

This supportive evidence relates to each recipient’s receipt of initially clawback intimidation from Service NSW in this matter and also that escalation to extortion from Service NSW.

I have received such information from each in trust. Of the 32, I am included.

I point out that I do not represent this cohort of impacted micro business owners, but rather I function in this matter in a community sense to facilitate a mutually agreed challenge against Service NSW’s to rebuke unconscionable grant clawback/extortionate actions continuing at present to be imposed against each of these targeted grant recipients.

I am about to communicate with all 31 to request their individual permission for me to provide to the ICADC their personal details and personal documented correspondence that they have each sent to me including Service NSW’s recently fabricated debt collection invoices received (in cahoots with the NSW Department of Customer Service and Revenue NSW (NSW Department of Finance).

This may take a week or so, therefore in the meantime for expediency, I shall send to the I.C.A.C. such feedback evidence with reference to only the reference number of each grant recipient as the identifier.

It is expected that I will gain permission to connect those reference numbers will the identity of each grant recipient.

I await any feedback from you, including in terms of the I.C.A.C. protocols that may you care to offer. This is my first experience dealing with the I.C.A.C. and I am keen to report and assist within the I.C.A.C. rules.

Sincerely,

Steve Ridd
Tour Director, Nature Trail

ICAC’s Reply Emails:

Our ref: E24/1996

Dear Mr Ridd

Thank you for your emails of 18 September 2024 and 19 September 2024. I acknowledge the information they contain.

The information you have provided, both over the phone and via email, is sufficient for the Commission to assess whether or not the actions of Service NSW regarding Covid-19 grants, constitutes corrupt conduct. At this stage, we do not require information from all 31 persons affected, as the issue remains the same.

We will write to you once we have completed our assessment.

Regards,

Stuart Griffiths | Senior Assessment Officer
NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption

OUR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT:

So, this ICAC Senior Assessment Officer, before an investigated is even commenced by the ICAC into this matter pre-decides that:

“at this stage, we do not require information from all 31 persons affected, as the issue remains the same. We will write to you once we have completed our assessment.”

Mr Griffiths in his reply has ignored our question: “At the end of the ICAC complaint form it reads me keeping this confidential – from whom?”

This information gatekeeper seems to have already made his mind up without the evidence. We informed the ICAC in our complaint lodgement that we were unable to attach supportive evidence due to a software problem of the online form on the ICAC website. Yet Mr Griffiths is prepared to have ICAC assess our complaint without any such evidence? How so?

Is Mr Griffiths biasly playing ‘Judge Jury and Executioner’ even before we supply the evidence and before the Commissioner has considered this matter.

Surely, this contradicts natural justice and also contradicts the ICAC notice its report submission form on its website about it being receptive to supportive documentation with the following guidelines:

So we consider Mr Griffiths comments in his emails to be highly inappropriate, pre-judicial and to us this raises serious concerns about the role and true independence of the ICAC.

We reflect on the fact that we have resorted to approaching ICAC to complain about our experience of perceived serious abuse of power and authority by a New South Wales public authority, Service NSW, in its baseless and unconscionable pursuit of thousands of small business grant recipients to repay those grants back to Service NSW.

We ponder whether ICAC Chief Commissioner The Hon, John Hatzistergos is aware of his appointed Senior Assessment Officer performing such a informational gatekeeping role before the Commission has had a chance to even become aware of this matter, let alone to consider it.

This is not a good start. From the outset, we begin to question the integrity of ICAC.