Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 4): Is NSW I.C.A.C. serious?
Continuing with our correspondence with the NSW I.C.A.C., following our reported complaint to it 13th September 2024, we begin challenging ICAC’s preliminary curse dismissive approach to our serious complaint:
(1) Before ICAC has even received our supportive evidence, and
(2) Before ICAC’s Assessment Panel has even assessed our complaint.
We ponder whether we were likely to received a fair hearing or not?
What is this NSW I.C.A.C.?
What is the New South Wales public perception of what NSW ICAC is here for?
What did I.C.A.C.s political conceptionist, NSW Premier Nick Greiner, way back in 1988 have in mind for this new anti-corruption watchdog over NSW public authorities, bureaucrats and ministers?
Nick Greiner/I.C.A.C. cartoon by Geoff Pryor, Canberra Times, 20 June 1992
We recall that this NSW I.C.A.C. was conceived as a political appointment, not as some new court jurisdiction which would uphold the Separation of Powers according to this Australian Constitution’s foundational principle that it be independent of both the Legislature and Executive in law and in public trust.
In light of our early feedback from ICAC in its treatment of our lodged complaint of corruption case about Service NSW to it, we have concerns about the manifest performance of ICAC to live up to its chartered role, its heralded independence.
We reflect that this ‘independent’ watchdog had publicly brought into question the integrity of three previous NSW premiers, Nick Greiner himself (in 1992), Barry O’Farrell (in 2014) and Gladys Berejiklian (in 2021) – all of Liberal Party ilk.
So, the very next day we promptly emailed back to I.C.A.C. to emphasise the seriousness of our lodged case thus:
Our subsequent email to the NSW I.C.A.C. of 20 September 2024:
Attention Mr Griffiths,
Senior Assessment Officer
NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption
Level 7, 255 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 500 Sydney NSW 2001
web: www.icac.nsw.gov.au
RE: My ICAC Report Case supportive evidence (Email 1 of 8)
Date of Submission: 13-Sep-2024
YOUR REF: E24/1996
Thank you for your email reply yesterday, and also for your previous acknowledgement emails to me in relation to this matter.
I raise with you my early concerns that I have thus far from our correspondence to date that I consider you are not treating my serious matter with the respect it deserves, irrespective of other cases that likely come before the NSW I.C.A.C.
I respectfully request you re-consider the following, given your responsible precursor function ahead of the Commissioner.
Being just a week now since my report, these are very early days and you are not aware of the details in this matter.
I point out that my initial reporting of this serous matter was restricted to I.C.A.C.’s online ‘ICAC Corruption Complaints Form’.
In my online report I have included my following comments, which thus far have not been duly considered by you nor the I.C.A.C. I reply to me:
MY INCLUDED COMMENT 1:
“Call me, since you ICAC software system is rejecting my attempts to try to send you documents”.
MY INCLUDED COMMENT 2:
“I am submitting this on behalf of (32) grant recipients (including me)”
MY INCLUDED COMMENT 3:
“I hold detailed evidence of my own experience with Service NSW regarding its clawback of my own grant payment case. Plus I have received copious records from 30 other micro business owners whom have contacted me and supplied me copies of their communication records with Service NSW in this matter – the intimidating emails and texts received from Service NSW in this clawback matter from (anonymous) ‘first namers only’, plus a number of threatening invoices they have also received from Service NSW.
It is not possible for me to include all these on this form. However, I consent to supply all such supporting information that I have is available to the I.C.A.C. upon request. This includes me travelling into I.C.A.C.’s headquarters in Sydney from Katoomba at my own cost to meet investigators about this.”
MY INCLUDED COMMENT 4:
“If you wish to receive details of those impacted by this who have contacted me, please let me know.
For respectful privacy reasons and in trust, I would then first need to contact those concerned and request their approval.
So please let me know. Fairly, not all may wish to be mentioned or involved. I am not their representative.
I take this interest in just facilitating information exchange.
Yes, but at this stage I have only authority to only lodge my own documented experience. The contents extends to two lever arch files that I am prepared to provide to the I.C.A.C. by either postal mail and/or email with PDF/JPG document attachments.
I attach a few here, and I am prepared to add further documents. But I have problems with your software system rules… “File names can’t contain the following characters: / ? : @ = & “” < > # % { } | ^ ~ [ ] ` + -“
As for the other 30 grant recipients who have contacted me about this matter, I am next to contact them each to respectfully request their permission for me to submit the evidence that they have sent to me, on to the I.C.A.C.”
So, FIRSTLY,
Mr Griffiths, I note that not one of my above comments has been acknowledged nor responded to yet by the I.C.A.C. to date. Has anyone at I.C.A.C. read my report yet?
My obvious question is then: How can you form an opinion and make a judgment call on behalf of I.C.A.C. already, before all the evidence is submitted to allow it to make a decision about corruption in this matter? This given that in this past week I have only provided the ICAC with barely introductory information at best?
SECONDLY, MY EMAIL REPLY OF 19-SEPTEMBER 2024 TO YOU:
“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.”
Neither you as I.C.A.C. Senior Assessment Officer, nor anyone else from the I.C.A.C., has responded to my comments above, rather only acknowledgements of receipt of my lodgement and emails. Rather to me the response comes across as dismissive (if not pre-determined) based on the wording, and from what seems to me a mere ‘receptionist’ role.
Notably, you have secondly ignored my email from 19th September 2024 (above). You have automatically rejected my expressed need in this complaint to also:
- My request to you to allow me to prepare supportive evidence from the 32 grant recipient business owners;
- My request to you to allow me then email these to the I.C.A.C.;
- My request to you to allow me to communicate with all 31 to request their individual permission for me to provide to the ICADC their personal details and personal documented correspondence in this matter (Quote: “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.”);
- 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.”;
Mr Griffiths, you respond in your email to me of 19 September 2024:
“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.”
However, I emphasise to you that the I.C.A.C. is not in receipt of the bulk of the documentary evidence I have notified to the I.C.A.C. in my report that I possess and expressed request to submit. This significant lack of original evidence as received by me from all 32 micro business owners (including myself) adversely affected, means that the Commission is NOT sufficiently able to assess whether or not the actions of Service NSW regarding Covid-19 grants, constitutes corrupt conduct. Your statement is therefore presumptive and flawed.
Without receipt of the evidence I have requested to submit, the Commissions is not able to duly, comprehensively and fairly investigate and expose such corrupt conduct in the NSW public sector as per it’s the ICAC’s principal functions as set out in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
Please consider a re-set to your professional and independent handling of this matter. Your response thus far comes across as pre-empting the Commissioner’s decision; if it ever gets to him or her.
THIRDLY, despite your dismissive gatekeeping tone..
My Submission of Additional Evidence
So, I herein exercise my civil right to submit that important relevant additional evidence in support of my complaint of corruption. I do so following the guidance and compliance advice as per the ‘ICAC Corruption Complaints Form’ which reads as follows:
I note that the “Total file upload limit: 400”. I hereby inform the ICAC. That given the scale of this matter involving 32 grant recipients thus far, I am expecting to upload a total of about 40 files (each in Adobe PDF format, unprotected).
I point out that the content at this stage of each document by the included complainant in this informal group of now 32, identifies only a consecutive number and the initials of the author only, but revealing no name or personal identification.
As previously mentioned, I am not acting as a group leader in this but merely as a facilitator to assist the other complainants, whom thus far I have never met. I will need to contact each respectively to first request their permission more me to disclose their identities. I read that in this regard I am being wholly compliant with the I.C.A.C.’s own ‘Protection of complainants’ policy.
My first batch of supporting evidentiary documentation is attached. It includes 8 articles from the Nature Trail campaign website (this email).
LINKS TO THOSE ATTACHMENTS:
(5) ^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/minns-mafia-how-its-781-million-grant-extortion-racket-works/
(8) ^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/we-win-the-war-against-service-nsw-indian-giving-grant-audit/
This then is to be followed secondly by seven batches of emails including attached extracts in PDF format of the written many personally written account(s) by each of the 32 grant recipients targeted by Service NSW in its corrupt clawback scam and extortion; each whom have contacted me over the past year, and who continue to maintain communications with me.
Mr Griffiths, in due process I request you transparently pass on each of my emails and their attachments as there are received which I am to email to the I.C.A.C. in relation to this matter, to the Commissioner(s) concerned.
I will appreciate you confirming receipt of all my emails once I notify you that I have sent the last one on this matter.
I also point out the Commissioner(s) concerned, that I am more than happy to appear before the Commission in this matter in person and even to be subject to legal cross examination, if so requested.
Frankly, I am also happy to appeal to the others to also do so; all 32 of us to do so would be ideal in my view. For this matter to need to be escalate to the I.C.A.C. is a serious, but now needed, step.
We all seek closure from this disturbing governmental clawback and extortion. It represents the antithesis of the good-hearted spirit of the Micro Business Grant offered during an imposed unprecedented two years of each of us being denied business income and subjected to the personal and family stresses that had caused.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Ridd
Tour Operator/Tour Director
NATURE TRAIL
References:
[1] ‘Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 1)‘, 2024-10-20, Nature Trail, Mountains Drums Blog, Government Indian Giving Campaign, ^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/complaint-to-icac-against-service-nsw-grant-clawback-extortion-scheme-part-1/
[2] ‘Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 2)‘, 2024-10-22, Nature Trail, Mountains Drums Blog, Government Indian Giving Campaign, ^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/complaint-to-icac-against-service-nsw-grant-clawback-extortion-scheme-part-2/
[3] ‘Complaint to ICAC against Service NSW Grant Clawback Extortion (PART 3)‘, 2024-10-24, Nature Trail, Mountains Drums Blog, Government Indian Giving Campaign, ^https://naturetrail.com.au/blog-post/complaint-to-icac-against-service-nsw-grant-clawback-extortion-part-3/
[4] ‘NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian resigns after ICAC announces investigation‘, 2021-10-01, by Michael McGowan and Anne Davies, The Guardian, ^https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/01/nsw-premier-gladys-berejiklian-resigns-after-ICAC-announces-investigation
Abstract: “In a bombshell announcement on Friday, Berejiklian said she had been given “no choice” but to resign as premier after the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) revealed it was investigating whether she had been involved in “a breach of public trust” between 2012 and 2018 because of her relationship with Maguire.”
[5] ‘Barry O’Farrell resigns as NSW premier after thank you card for wine emerges‘, 2014-04-16, by Michael Safi, The Guardian, ^https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/barry-ofarrell-resigns-as-nsw-premier-after-thankyou-card-for-wine-emerges
Abstract: “Barry O’Farrell is resigning as the New South Wales premier after announcing that a signed thank you note for a $3000 bottle of wine had been tendered to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
O’Farrell denied receiving the bottle of 1959 Penfolds Grange when he gave evidence to ICAC on Tuesday. Earlier that day, Di Girolamo told the inquiry he had sent O’Farrell the wine – from 1959, the year the premier was born – as a gift after the state Liberals won office in March 2011, and had received a thank you card and a phone call in response.”
[6] ‘Bitter Greiner forced to quit‘, 1992-06-25, Sydney Morning Herald, ^https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/from-the-archives-1992-bitter-greiner-forced-to-quit-20220510-p5ak3g.html [From the Archives, 1992 : Bitter Greiner forced to quit. Thirty years ago, Nick Greiner resigned as Premier after ICAC corruption findings against him led to a threat of a no-confidence motion in the government. By Mark Coultan June 24, 2022. First published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 25, 1992]
Abstract: “The Independents insisted that Mr Greiner and Mr Moore resign following the finding of Mr Ian Temby, QC, the head of the ICAC, that they had acted corruptly in the resignation of Dr Metherell and his appointment to a $110,000-a-year Public Service job.
This was despite a Supreme Court appeal against the findings of Mr Temby which is due to begin next Tuesday.
A bitter Mr Greiner resigned under protest. “You could imagine my sense of outrage at what does amount to being shot a couple of days before the trial, but nevertheless politics is what it is.” he said.
“I believed yesterday and I believe now — I believe now — that if the party and the Cabinet had the courage, the right thing to do is in fact to allow the court to take the decision.”
[7] ‘Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 No 35‘, Current version for 9 October 2024 to date (accessed 26 October 2024 at 4:59), NSW Legislation, NSW Government, [^SOURCE]