The Response Of State Report

Š The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report The Response Of The Commonwealth Of Australia To The Submission Of The Crime Report [With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Affair]

The Expendable Project

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. The Attorney-General 3. The Minister For Home Affairs 4. The Australian Federal Police 5. The Queensland Police Service 6. New South Wales Police Force 7. The Australian Crime Commission 8. Summary & Conclusions

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION In May 2012, a formal Crime Report was submitted to a number of government departments and agencies. This cited a single illustrative incident of malversation, selected from many examples, to enable simplified tracking of both the process and response of the government.

It incorporated a 450 page evidential addendum inclusive of hundreds of exhibits of government correspondence, memoranda, and other documentation. Collectively, these items detailed a catalogue of abuses perpetrated against Schapelle Corby, in a number of cases, involving corrupt and criminal conduct.

The response of each recipient is documented within this report.

NOTE: The Crime Report and its addendum can be viewed or downloaded from the following web page: http://www.expendable.tv/2012/05/formal-crime-report-domestic.html

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[The Attorney-General]

2. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL The package was delivered and signed for on 25th May 2012.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[The Attorney-General]

It is known that the Attorney-General was aware of this development, as the report segment of the package was also sent directly by email, which generated the following read receipt:

However, as no acknowledgement or response was forthcoming, a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Attorney-General's Department on 6th July 2012, to establish the position.

The response was disappointing:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[The Attorney-General]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[The Attorney-General]

Whether the Crime Report was in fact passed to the Attorney-General in an ad hoc un-documented manner, or whether a government department actually did dismiss material of such a serious nature this lightly, is impossible to determine from this reply.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[The Attorney-General]

The following email was therefore despatched:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[The Attorney-General]

Again, this was also sent directly to the Attorney-General herself by email, and evidenced as read by the following receipts:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[The Attorney-General]

The second response to the Freedom of Information request was equally unsatisfactory:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 7

[The Attorney-General]

A request for review was therefore confirmed:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 8

[The Attorney-General]

A letter, regarding these developments, and the overall position, was also sent directly to the Attorney-General:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 9

[The Attorney-General]

Again, this was confirmed as read by multiple email receipts:

Again, no reply was forthcoming.

Regarding the Freedom of Information request, it was confirmed that the only document located was the original cover letter, which was stamped "No Further Action":

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 10

[The Attorney-General]

A bureaucrat's rubber stamp had simply dismissed a formal Crime Report, which had evidenced serious malversation within government. This occurred with the full awareness and knowledge of the Attorney-General herself.

Digital receipts also confirmed that an email bearing an electronic copy of the report had been read from the Attorney-General's email account.

The Attorney-General failed to respond, even to direct receipted communication, on either the Crime Report itself, or on the conduct of her office.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 11

[The Minister For Home Affairs]

3. THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS The package was delivered and signed for on 25th May 2012.

The response, of 10th July 2012, could hardly have been more dismissive, and suggested that Mr Clare had barely ventured beyond the front cover.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[The Minister For Home Affairs]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[The Minister For Home Affairs]

A reply was dispatched to Mr. Clare on 25th July 2012, pointing out the serious shortcomings and the implications of his position:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 3

[The Minister For Home Affairs]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 4

[The Minister For Home Affairs]

No reply was ever forthcoming, either from Jason Clare, or from the AttorneyGeneral, Nicola Roxon.

Despite its grave and serious nature, the formal Crime Report had been dismissed on rationale which was so flawed and inappropriate, that it suggested it had not even been subjected to a cursory review.

The alternative possibility, that the response was actually intended to be manifestly inapt, would indicate a position of wilful evasion.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 5

[The Australian Federal Police]

4. THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE The package was delivered and signed for on 25th May 2012.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[The Australian Federal Police]

As no response, or acknowledgement, was forthcoming from either Mr. Negus or the AFP, an email reminder was sent on 8th August 2012:

This was followed up during the subsequent week:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 2

[The Australian Federal Police]

A response was received from the AFP on the following day:

As no response was forthcoming "in the immediate future", a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted on 6th September 2012.

However, as with all other Freedom of Information requests submitted to the AFP, with respect to Schapelle Corby, this was subjected to a lengthy pattern of delay and evasion.

Notification of another pending delay was received on 5th November 2012:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 3

[The Australian Federal Police]

Beyond the following acknowledgement, the OAIC failed to respond again, despite provision of the AFP’s correspondence:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 4

[The Australian Federal Police]

On 3rd February 2013, the Freedom of Information request finally yielded a number of heavily edited documents.

These items revealed that the AFP had declared, via a “brief assessment�, that a detailed investigation was not necessary.

At the stroke of a pen, the AFP had cleared the AFP of any impropriety.

The documents also contained a number of derogatory terms with respect to the Expendable Project, speculated on the names of members and associates, and included flagrant fabrication with respect to the Crime Report itself (*).

A year after its submission, no response has been forthcoming to the original Crime Report, either from Mr. Negus, or from the AFP.

[* Given the disturbing nature of their contents, the documents returned via the Freedom of Information request will be individually examined within a future report.]

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 5

[The Queensland Police Service]

5. THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE The package was delivered and signed for on 23rd May 2012.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 1

[The Queensland Police Service]

The immediate response indicated that the report and addendum had barely been considered, as the buck was promptly passed to ACLEI.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 2

[The Queensland Police Service]

The reply to this apparent disinterest pointed out that the Crime Report pertained to the activities of politicians, and other non-police related individuals, and that ACLEI, whose mission related to police integrity, was certainly not the appropriate party to investigate:

As no reply was forthcoming, another email was sent on 7th August 2012. This additionally pointed out that ACLEI itself was incriminated in some of the offences documented by the report:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 3

[The Queensland Police Service]

The reply from the Queensland Police Service was short and uncompromising:

Despite this unreasoned and unhelpful response, a final effort was made to explain and press the clear irrationality of this position:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 4

[The Queensland Police Service]

The final response from the Queensland Police Service could not have been blunter:

The Queensland Police Service simply refused to consider an investigation, immediately referring the report to a body which was directly implicated in the corruption documented within, and whose scope was strictly limited to exclude politicians and other third parties.

Despite repeated explanation of this disturbing situation, the Queensland Police Service refused any form of dialogue, completely abrogating any responsibility.

.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 5

[New South Wales Police Force]

6. NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE FORCE The package was delivered and signed for on 25th May 2012.

After several months without a response, a polite enquiry was made via the dialogue form presented on the NSW Police website. This solicited the following reply:

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 1

[New South Wales Police Force]

An explanation was therefore provided as below:

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 2

[New South Wales Police Force]

At this stage, Mr Williams was unable to find the delivered report:

The original information was again provided:

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 3

[New South Wales Police Force]

Despite further difficulty, the Crime Report was eventually located:

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 4

[New South Wales Police Force]

Ultimately, however, the outcome was disappointing:

The NSW Police Force referred a report evidencing crime by the AFP, to the AFP. Despite a clear explanation of the fundamental conflict of interest this created, and that many of the crimes documented occurred within New South Wales, and thus within its jurisdiction, the NSW Police Force abrogated all responsibility.

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 5

[The Australian Crime Commission]

7. THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION The package was addressed to John Adrian Lawler, CEO of the Australian Crime Commission, and was delivered and signed for on 30th May 2012.

As no acknowledgement or response was forthcoming, a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted on 6th July 2012, to establish the position.

The Crime Commission returned one letter from a member of the public, and a number of totally censored pages. Two examples are provided below:

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 1

[The Australian Crime Commission]

Perhaps more surprising, however, were the actual reasons cited for what was effectively, total secrecy and censorship.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 2

[The Australian Crime Commission]

These not only suggested that disclosure of the information may cause damage to the agencies involved, but that sanctions might be imposed by other parties, in terms of restricting the future flow of information.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 3

[The Australian Crime Commission]

In response to this refusal to offer any degree of transparency, and the stark rationale provided, the following letter was dispatched:

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 4

[The Australian Crime Commission]

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 5

[The Australian Crime Commission]

The response to this was a rubber stamp of the original decision:

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 6

[The Australian Crime Commission]

The limited number of documents identified, and the substance of the replies to the Freedom of Information request, indicate that the Australian Crime Commission failed to undertake the full and exhaustive investigation that the situation required.

It had, to all intents and purposes, brushed the Crime Report under the carpet, abrogating its responsibilities and duties of office.

Alarmingly, the nature of the written responses, suggested the possibility of undue external influence or interference in the functioning of the Australian Crime Commission itself, with respect to this case. The implied threat of potential sanction, resulting from the disclosure of related information, was clearly stated.

Additionally stated was the potential for damage to "the management function of an agency". Bearing in mind that this Freedom of Information request embraced dialogue between the Australian Crime Commission, politicians, the AFP, and ACLEI, this again suggested the possibility of negative and undue influence or interference by an implicated party, or other inappropriate behaviour.

A COMPLIANT TO THE OAIC Given these disturbing matters, a formal complaint was submitted to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which describes itself in the following terms: “Australia's federal regulatory agency for freedom of information and privacy and we have a role in government information policy issues”.

The response was a point-blank refusal even to investigate the complaint:

Note that the OAIC is presented as: “an independent statutory agency within the Attorney-General's portfolio”. See Section 2 for the disturbing position of the Attorney-General’s Department itself.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 7

[Summary & Conclusions]

8. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS The process documented in the previous sections was also undertaken with respect to a number of other Australian agencies. In every case, the result was the same: a direct refusal to investigate the formally submitted Crime Report to any extent at all.

In addition, the Crime Report was sent by email to a majority of federal MPs and Senators. Again, every effort to open a dialogue on its contents was shunned.

Also evidenced in the support material was the excessive influence, including political influence, of the national police agency, the AFP. The inescapable conclusion is that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia, and its agencies, wilfully refused to confront cables and correspondence, which evidenced issues of the most fundamental nature in terms of the integrity of office and state.

Throughout, obvious and clear attempts were made to avoid acceptance of responsibility to pursue the issues. This abrogation was even evident where due diligence responsibility is defined by law.

The scale and uniformity of this behavioural pattern indicate a high degree of orchestration, either direct or through ongoing systemic influence, or a shared prejudice, interest, or agenda.

Expendable.TV

Page 8- 1

End of Report