Trustee Andrew Wily's four month suspension

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of New South Wales

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of New South Wales >> 2003 >> [2003] NSWSC 1260

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Context | No Context | Help

---

Wily, Andrew Hugh Jenner and Wily, Hugh Jenner [2003] NSWSC 1260 (19 December 2003)

Last Updated: 19 March 2004

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Wily, Andrew Hugh Jenner and Wily, Hugh Jenner [2003] NSWSC 1260



CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 6286/03

HEARING DATE{S): 19 December, 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 19/12/2003

PARTIES:
Andrew Hugh Jenner Wily - First Applicant
Hugh Jenner Wily - Second Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
J. Chippindall - Applicants

SOLICITORS:
Michell Sillar - Applicants


CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS - LIQUIDATOR - ADMINISTRATOR - RECEIVER - Insolvency practitioner suspended by Company Auditors & Liquidators Disciplinary Board - powers of Court to replace him temporarily as liquidator, administrator and receiver.

ACTS CITED:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s.447A, s.473, s.495, s.502

DECISION:
Resignation of applicant as liquidator, administrator or receiver in specified insolvency administrations accepted; another insolvency practitioner appointed.


JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT – Ex tempore

1 This is an application by Andrew Hugh Jenner Wily whereunder Mr Wily seeks to be replaced as liquidator, administrator and receiver of various corporations pursuant to an order of suspension made against him by the Company Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board.

2 The suspension arises out of unfortunate circumstances involving a staff member of Mr Wiley's firm and from what I can see there was no suggestion of any personal delinquency on the part of Mr Wily. Nevertheless, the Board thought it appropriate that Mr Wily be suspended as an official liquidator for a period of four months. That has caused difficulty in a large number of insolvency administrations in which Mr Wily is engaged. The solution which has been found is that his father, Hugh Jenner Wily, an official liquidator for many years but now semi-retired, is to be appointed in his place. The administration of the various insolvencies would then continue under Mr Wily Snr, using the resources of Mr Wily's firm, Armstrong Wily & Co, of which Mr Hugh Wily was formerly a partner and Mr  Andrew Wily  is a present partner.

3 Generally, having regard to the evidence, it seems to me that it would not be in the interests of creditors of any of the insolvent administrations under the care of  Andrew Wily  that those administrations be transferred, even if temporarily, to another liquidator outside the firm. I am satisfied from the evidence filed that it would cause unnecessary expense to the creditors in those administrations to remove the files from the day-to-day supervision of those within Mr Wily's firm who have had the conduct of them for some time.

4 I am satisfied that, having regard to the experience of Hugh Wily, it is appropriate that he be appointed to replace  Andrew Wily  to take charge of the various administrations. The only question then is under what power might the substitution be effected.

5 Mr Chippindall of Counsel has very helpfully summarised the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which enable the substitution to be made. I am satisfied that, as Mr Chippindall submits, the Court has power to make the appointments sought.

6 The corporations of which Mr  Andrew Wily  has been appointed official liquidator by the Court are listed in Schedule 1 of the Originating Process. Section 473 of theCorporations Act provides that a liquidator appointed by the Court may resign or on cause shown may be removed by the Court. Section 473(7) provides that a Court may fill a vacancy in the office of official liquidator. It is intended that Mr  Andrew Wily  resign as official liquidator of the corporations set out in Schedule 1 of the Originating Process, effective from 23 January 2004. There will then be a vacancy in the office of official liquidator of those companies on that date. I order that, effective on and from 23 January 2004, Hugh Jenner Wily be appointed official liquidator of the companies listed in schedule 1 of the Originating Process.

7 Mr  Andrew Wily  has been appointed liquidator pursuant to creditors’ meetings of the companies listed in Schedule 2 of the Originating Process. Section 502 of theCorporations Act empowers the Court to appoint a liquidator, if there then be no liquidator. Mr  Andrew Wily  intends to resign as liquidator of the corporations listed in Schedule 2 in accordance with s.495(3) of the Corporations Act effective from 23 January 2004. Accordingly, pursuant to s.502 of the Corporations Act, I order that Hugh Jenner Wily be appointed liquidator of each of the companies in voluntary liquidation listed in Schedule 2 of the Originating Process, effective on and from 23 January 2004.

8 Mr  Andrew Wily  has been appointed as deed administrator under deeds of arrangement in respect of the companies listed in Schedule 3 of the Originating Process.Section 447A of the Corporations Act gives a general power to the Court to make such orders as it thinks fit as to the operation of the provisions of the relevant part of theCorporations Act relating to administrations. An application under s.447A may be made for appropriate orders under that section by a number of people, including an administrator. Mr  Andrew Wily  is presently the administrator of the companies referred to in Schedule 3 so that he now has status to make that application. I think that there is ample power under s.447A afforded to the Court to appoint as deed administrator Mr Hugh Wily in place of Mr  Andrew Wily  upon the resignation of Mr  Andrew Wily . Accordingly, as Mr  Andrew Wily  will retire as deed administrator on and from 23 January 2004, I appoint Mr Hugh Wily as deed administrator of the companies listed in Schedule 3 of the Originating Process in his place effective on and from 23 January 2004.

9 Mr Wily is receiver of the companies listed in Schedule 4 of the Originating Process, having been so appointed by the Court. There is power in the Court pursuant to Pt 29 r5(c) and (d) to accept a resignation of a receiver and to appoint another in his or her place. Mr Wily will resign as receiver on 23 January 2004. The Court accepts that resignation and appoints Mr Hugh Wily as receiver of the companies listed in Schedule 4 of the Originating Process on and from 23 January 2004.

10 I direct that these orders be passed and entered forthwith.

– oOo –

LAST UPDATED: 05/02/2004

---

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2003/1260.html

Pinocchio , Superman and Snow White

---

..

 

Subject: Fw: Pinocchio, Snow White and Superman Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one Day. As they walk, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world." "I am entering" said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya do?" " First Place ," said Snow White. They continue walking and they see a sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world." "I'm entering," says Superman. After half an hour he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?" " First Place ," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?" They continue walking when they see a sign: "Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?" Pinocchio enters.  After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.. "What happened?" they asked. "Who the hell is Julia Gillard?" asked Pinocchio.

Bankrupt George Adler asks Federal Court for Annullment

This is a judgement in the federal Court where the shonk George Adler attempted to have his bankrupt Annulled.

This is his second Bankruptcy.

He was a bankrupted  one more after this.

Tibor Karolyi handled the Bankruptcy and fucked over all his creditors.

Re  George Adler  Ex Parte:  George Adler  [1988] FCA 388 (7 November 1988)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Re:  GEORGE ADLER 
Ex parte:  GEORGE ADLER 
No. NSW 504 of 1976
Bankruptcy  COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 
Davies J.(1)CATCHWORDS
Bankruptcy - application for annulment - unsecured debts paid in full - whether Court's discretion to annul should be exercised - relevance of factors additional to the payment of creditors.Bankruptcy Act 1966 (NSW) - s.154
Marek v. Treganza [1963] HCA 40; (1963) 109 CLR 1
Re Taylor; Ex parte Taylor (1901) 1 QB 744
Re John Maxwell Craig (1960) 19 ABC 29
HEARING
SYDNEY 
7:11:1988Counsel for the Bankrupt: Mr D.P.F. Officer QC with Mr S.G. Finch
Solicitors for the Bankrupt: A.G. Robinson & Associates
Official Receiver on behalf of the Official Trustee: Mr D.J.N. Bluett
ORDER
The motion be dismissed. 
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
DECISION
This is an application brought by the bankrupt, Mr  George Adler , under s.154(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to annul his bankruptcy. Section 154(1) provides:- 

"Where the Court is satisfied -
(a) that a sequestration order ought not to have
been made or, in the case of a debtor's
petition, that the petition ought not to have
been presented or ought not to have been
accepted by the Registrar; or
(b) that the unsecured debts of the bankrupt,
being debts that have been proved in the
bankruptcy, have been paid in full or the
bankrupt has obtained a legal acquittance of
them,
the Court may make an order annulling the bankruptcy." 

The motion is brought on the ground that the unsecured debts proved in the bankruptcy have been paid in full. The making of an order of annulment is discretionary. It is on the discretionary aspects of the matter that this application turns. There has been no opposition to the motion.2. An order of sequestration is made not by way of punishment but for the administration of the bankrupt's estate in the interests both of the bankrupt and of the creditors. If, in the course of administration, it transpires that the bankrupt's assets are sufficient to pay the debts or if the bankrupt is able to arrange for acquittance of the debts in some other manner, an order for the annulment of the bankruptcy may and commonly will be made. The bankrupt's affairs will have been put in order and it is apt that the rehabilitation of the bankrupt should be completed by the annulment of the bankruptcy. This power to annul on payment in full of the debts provides an incentive to a bankrupt to work for and to achieve payment in full of his creditors.
3. An instance of the ordinary case is Marek v. Tregenza [1963] HCA 40; (1963) 109 CLR 1 in which McTiernan, Kitto and Menzies JJ. held that a bankruptcy ought to be annulled where the bankrupt had, within six months of sequestration, paid in full all the unsecured debts proved in his bankruptcy and had, within a little more than two years after sequestration, paid in full a mortgage debt owed by himself and his wife and completed the purchases provided by hire purchase agreements to which he was a party at the date of the bankruptcy. At pp 2-3, McTiernan J. pointed out that, though the Court may refuse for good cause to act under s.154(1) even though all the debts of the bankrupt were paid, there was no relevant reason in that case for refusing the application. At p 8, Kitto and Menzies JJ. expressed a like view, concluding that no purpose would be served by the refusal of the application and that considerations of general policy and of particular justice combined to entitle the bankrupt to have the sequestration order annulled.
4. The contrast is seen in Re John Maxwell Gray (1960) 19 ABC 29, in which Clyne J. refused both a discharge and an annulment though the bankrupt's debts had been paid in full. In that case, Mr Gray's estate had been sequestrated in January 1948. Shortly thereafter, he went overseas and committed offences in the United States of America and in France for which he was convicted. After returning to Australia in 1958, the bankrupt paid sufficient moneys to the trustee to enable payment in full of his creditors. At p 32, Clyne J. concluded:-

"It would be, in my opinion, wrong to grant the
applicant a discharge or an annulment. If the
court did either, it could be said that the court
was giving him a passport, as it were, to set up in
business again without some hindrance or restraint
and that the court considered him a fit person to
receive such a passport. He is not such a person." 

Likewise, in Re Taylor; Ex parte Taylor (1901) 1 QB 744, the Court dismissed an appeal against a decision of a registrar refusing to annul a bankruptcy. The decision refusing to annul the bankruptcy was based on the ground that the bankrupt had falsified his statement of affairs and had failed to disclose all his assets. Wright J. summed up the position at p 746 as:- 

"He could not have got his discharge, even by paying
in full, unless there were some special reason.
Why? Obviously because the Legislature thought
that, when a debtor who had become bankrupt
committed crimes like these in his bankruptcy, he
ought to be punished by the stigma which attaches
to an undischarged bankrupt, and by whatever
disqualifications are attached to it. It is sought
to get behind that by seeking to annul the
adjudication. Sect. 35 gives a discretion, and it
seems to me that it was rightly exercised."

5. In the present case, there are several factors weighing against annulment of the bankruptcy. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that the bankruptcy has been a long one and necessary in the interests of creditors. The order of sequestration was made on 26 October 1976. Debts were proved to the amount of $324,749. No sum was recovered from the realisation of assets. An objection to Mr Adler's discharge from bankruptcy by force of s.149 of the Act was lodged by the Official Trustee on 27 June 1980, on the ground that Mr Adler had a deficiency in excess of $250,000 and had not given a satisfactory explanation of how the deficiency arose. On 24 December 1985, upon the application of the Law Society of New South Wales, a creditor in the bankrupt estate, Morling J. made the following consent orders: 

"1. The Bankrupt, until further order of the
Court, not be discharged from Bankruptcy by
virtue of Section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act 
1966.
2. Subject to further order of the Court, the Law
Society of New South Wales be granted leave to
enter an objection to the discharge of the
Bankrupt by force of Section 149 of the
Bankruptcy Act 1966.
3. Subject to further order of the Court, the
period at the expiration of which the
objection entered by the Law Society of New
South Wales will lapse be a period of ten (10)
years commencing on the date of the Bankruptcy
(namely 1st February 1981).
4. Subject to further order of the Court, the
period at the expiration of which the
objection entered by the Official Receiver on
behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
on 30th June 1980 will lapse be a period of
ten (10) years commencing on the date of the
bankruptcy (namely 1st February 1981).
5. The Law Society of New South Wales, the
Bankrupt and the Official Receiver have
liberty to apply.
6. Questions of the costs of the Application be
reserved.
7. The Law Society of New South Wales have leave
to file in Court the Notice of Objection to
Discharge."

6. Mr Adler made no contribution to his estate until 1982, when he forwarded to the Official Trustee $200,000, said to be an advance against commission likely to be earned by him from his employment as a property consultant with Industrial Equity Limited. That contribution was made at about the time Mr Adler came up for sentence in the District Court of New South Wales, as I shall later mention. On 12 April 1988, Mr Adler made application to annul his bankruptcy pursuant to s.154(1)(b) of the Act. That application was dismissed on 24 May 1988 on the ground that the conditions of s.154(1)(b) had not been complied with. Subsequently, on 24 August 1988, Mr Adler forwarded to the Official Trustee $150,283, which he had borrowed from a business associate, Mr Frank Theeman. This sum was sufficient to pay out the creditors and the costs and remuneration arising from the administration of the estate.7. It was thus the postponement of the discharge of the bankruptcy, first by virtue of the objection lodged by the Official Trustee and subsequently by order of the Court, which prompted Mr Adler to find the means to pay out his creditors.
8. Secondly, as the payment to the creditors was made many years after the date of the bankruptcy, without interest and without allowance for inflation, payment in full was made only in a formal sense.
9. Thirdly, Mr Adler does not appear to have worked assiduously with the Official Trustee to achieve a proper resolution of his affairs. His first statement of affairs disclosed unsecured liabilities of $33,688.42 and assets of $56,606. The proved liabilities amounted in fact to $324,749. Nothing was realised from assets. The Official Trustee was unable to recover any sums from clients of Mr Adler's legal practice. The cashbook had not been written up after February 1975 and there was no record of dealings with debtors of the practice.
10. Indeed, the evidence does not satisfy me that Mr Adler has been entirely forthcoming to the Official Receiver with respect to his financial position. For example, the Official Receiver, in his report, referred to Mr Adler's taxable income for each of the years 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, in respect of each of which the taxable income varied from $3,882. to $4,150. Yet, Mr Adler's affidavit includes this information with respect to this period, when he was a director of Adnom Pty Limited:-

"a. During the period in which I was director
of Adnom Pty Limited, to the best of my
recollection, that company did not trade
and existed merely for the purposes of
being the intended recipient of any
commission to be paid by the Dainford
Group. During that period the amount of
commission received by that company on my
behalf was in the order of $50,000.00." 

In the same vein, Mr Adler's contribution of $200,000 was said to be paid out of commission "likely to be earned". And a letter from Mr Adler's solicitors to the Official Receiver, dated 22 February 1988, includes this unusual information:- 

"5. Our client does not have any present
weekly earning and has no other source of
income.
...
7. At present a weekly rental of $1,000.00
is paid for our client's residence. This
payment is made by way of an advance to
our client on account of anticipated
distribution of profits by his employer.
Our client also receives an advance for
his living expenses." 

These matters suggest that Mr Adler may have had greater earnings or a greater potential for earning than was disclosed to the Official Receiver.11. Fourthly, some of Mr Adler's debts resulted from deficiencies in the trust account of Mr Adler's legal practice. The Law Society of New South Wales proved in the bankruptcy for $244,864. Mr Adler was struck off the roll of solicitors and, on 17 March 1982, was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales on four charges of fraud arising out of these trust deficiencies. A case of such nature, involving moral turpitude, is not to be looked on in the same light as one where the debts arose from mere financial misfortune or bad judgment.
12. Fifthly, Mr Adler has, as a bankrupt, committed offences under s.227 of the Companies Code in that, while bankrupt, he was a director of Adnom Pty Limited from 30 June 1978 to 29 June 1981, of Plantara Pty Limited from 8 January 1982 to 5 February 1982, of Quzaan Pty Limited from 4 April 1973 to 16 September 1980 and of Rodney David Pty Limited from 16 November 1981 to 5 February 1982. With respect to these events, Mr Adler has deposed that Adnom Pty Limited and Quzaan Pty Limited did not trade and that, in the other two companies, he acted simply as an alternate while Mr John Austin was not available to be a director. Nevertheless, offences were committed.
13. Sixthly, Mr Adler has been charged with 193 offences under ss.173, 178A, 178BA, 178BB and 252 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and under ss.554(1)(b)(i), (2)(c)(i) and (2)(d) of the Companies Code. These charges arise out of the liquidation of Adnom Pty Limited. Mr Adler has also been charged with common law conspiracy in relation to the liquidation of Plantara Pty Limited. Mr Adler has pleaded not guilty to all charges. In his report made for the purposes of this motion, the Official Receiver did not refer to these charges, considering them to be irrelevant. Of course, they have not been proved and cannot be taken as indicative of guilt. Nevertheless, in an application for the annulment of a bankruptcy, the honesty, probity and financial responsibility of the bankrupt is a matter to be taken into account. These charges raise a question in this regard.
14. On the other hand, an important factor favouring an annulment is that Mr Adler has paid his creditors in full, a very substantial amount.
15. Moreover, his Honour Judge Ford in the District Court deferred sentence upon Mr Adler in respect of the four charges I have mentioned, upon Mr Adler's entering into a recognisance in the sum of $100 to be of good behaviour for a period of twelve months and to appear to receive sentence if called upon to do so at any time in respect of any breach within that period. His Honour referred to the four offences and said:-

"... as a result you lost your practice, house,
assets and was struck off the rolls and in the
small community in which you and your parents were
such proud members, you were embarrassed and
disgraced. Against that background you have lived
for a further eight years in the same city and
today persons occupying high positions, including
the Chief Minister of the Central Synagogue and
others of high standing come here to this Court and
speak well of you. You have in that time, as I say
in a most dramatic way proved that you are sorry
for what happened and that you want to rehabilitate
yourself. That is, by the repayment of the whole
of the indebtedness which amounts to some
$250,000.00 to $260,000.00. I am reminded by your
Counsel that the repayment is not derived in any
way from advances or loans made to you, but is able
to be made because of your subsequent creditors.
The fact is that that amount represents the whole
of your indebtedness to any creditor and not merely
the discharge of your obligations relating to the
charges which are the subject of criminal
proceedings." 

I am influenced by his Honour's very favourable view of Mr Adler.16. To annul a bankruptcy is to expunge the bankruptcy, to set it at nought. As I have said, it is proper to do this when the administration of the bankrupt's estate or the bankrupt's efforts has resulted in payment in full of the creditors and there is no cogent reason why the bankrupt should not be fully rehabilitated in the commercial community. However, there is the nature of the debts to be taken into account. Many of Mr Adler's debts resulted from fraud and from trust deficiencies. And, I am not satisfied that Mr Adler has done all that was reasonably open to him to do to assist the Official Receiver in the administration of the estate or that he is a person who ought to have the stigma of past bankruptcy removed from his reputation. Moreover, the payment in full of the creditors was made a very long time after the date of the bankruptcy and only when the discharge had been postponed with a view to ensuring that better steps were taken in the interests of creditors.
17. In the light of these matters, it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to annul the bankruptcy. Certainly, Mr Adler should receive some benefit from the arrangements he has made to pay off the debts of his estate and the remuneration and expenses of the Official Trustee, in all $350,283. On the facts presently before me, I think that that step would be appropriately recognised by the grant of an order of discharge after so many years. However, the present application is not for discharge but merely for annulment. In my view, an order of annulment ought not to be made.
18. The motion will therefore be dismissed.

---

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1988/388.html

Bankrupt George Adler Media Releases

George Adler is a three time bankrupt, struck off solicitor and has spent time in jail for obtaining money with deception.
Despite all this Tibor Karolyi  from ITSA allowed him to travel overseas and now he is lost to the system. It is unclear if he ever returned to Australia. It is too easy for a bankrupt to change their name and assume a new identity.
Under freedom of Information Adler'sstatement of Affairs  is to be sought. Although it is mandatory for a statement of Affairs to be filed it is unclear if Tibor Karolyi  obtained this before overseas travel. It is also a breach of the duty of a trustee (S19)to fail  to have this complied with.
Also FOI will also reveal whether Tibor Karolyi  extended Adlers Bankruptcy.
Tibor Karolyi's neglect of duty in this matter is atrocious. Before  authorising overseas travel Karolyi  would have taken statements from the bankrupt. I am aware Karolyi is not of good character and any admissions by Adler would be concealed.
Tibor Karolyi's ex-wife was a high School teacher in Sydney's West. This predator woman had an affair with one of her students. It is disturbing that Mrs Karolyi lusted after her male students.
Tibor  then remarried  an asian woman that worked for him at ITSA.
Tibor Karolyi  now woks for Tayeh De Vries at Parramatta.
It is also unclear if Tibor Karolyi requested money from Adler before also granting travel.

Commonwealth Ombudsman statistics 2011-2012

This is the Commonwealth Ombudsmans statistics for 2011-2012.
The New Commonwealth Ombudsman is Collin Neave. He is on a salary of $380,00 to fuck over anyone who makes a complaint about Government Agencies or Departments.
He  has been the Banking industry Ombudsman ( admitting he only investigated 18% of complaints) and more recently the Financial Services Ombudsman ( FOS).
With this amount of experience it is clear he has his fingers up everyone's ARSE.

 The statistics this financial year   do not reveal a clear picture of complaints. Instead , this fucker at the Commonwealth Ombudsman has made a decision that  statistics on complaints should only be revealed on Government portfolio and not individual Departments as it has always been. 

George Masri( Assistant Senior Commonwealth Ombudsman)  after a FOI request on the Investigation standards of the Commonwealth Ombudsman clearly states that the " Commonwealth Ombudsman  do not have an investigation Policy"
All I can say is " Keep wanking yourself George or get Colin Neave to wank you"

appendix 3: statistics

Statistics concerning the Portfolio

PORTFOLIO/AGENCY	RECEIVED	FINALISED
		NOT INVESTIGATED		INVESTIGATED
	Total Received Approaches	Category 1	Category 2	Category 3	Category 4	Category 5	Total Finalised Approaches
ACT	763	338	241	126	27		733
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry	95	34	41	13	4		92
Attorney-General's	569	257	238	73	27		595
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy	4246	2009	1786	424	62		4281
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency	99	31	29	27	13		100
Commonwealth Parliamentary	4	4					4
Courts	66	33	27	6			66
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations	724	332	275	95	29		731
Defence	662	202	270	176	52	6	706
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	337	68	175	82	28		353
Finance and Deregulation	111	28	64	13	9		114
Foreign Affairs and Trade	140	79	51	5	3		138
Health and Ageing	162	64	65	31	4		164
Human Services	8967	4910	1875	1984	279		9048
Immigration and Citizenship	1921	1005	735	229	51	1	2021
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education	85	29	36	9	3		77
Infrastructure and Transport	76	29	25	17	6		77
Prime Minister and Cabinet	24	15	8	2	1		26
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport	45	29	14	8			51
Resources, Energy and Tourism	9	1	6	2	1		10
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities	28	11	11	2	1		25
Treasury	3234	1386	1393	306	214		3299
Out of Jurisdiction/OMB	17101	16100	930	121	8		17159
Overseas Student Ombudsman	588	18	342	172	38	1	571
Private Postal Operators	36	7	25	3	1		36
GRAND TOTAL	40092	27019	8662	861	861	9	40477

APPENDIX 3: CONTINUED

Statistics concerning the Portfolio continued

FINALISED
REMEDIES
	Action expedited	Apology	Decisions changed or reconsidered	Disciplinary action	Explanation	Financial Remedy	Law, policy or practice changed	Other non-financial remedy	Remedy provided by agency without Ombudsman intervention	Grand Total
ACT	15	13	13	6	102	3	733	12	12	176
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry	2	1	1	13	7	1	2	1	1	16
Attorney-General's	12	8	9	2	48	2	1	5	4	91
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy	69	271	118	107	704	174	15	120	26	1604
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency	3	3	6	27	16	6	2	4	2	42
Commonwealth Parliamentary
Courts							1	1	1	3
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations	18	6	13	95	108	15	2	5	6	173
Defence	37	13	27	2	115	21	1	17	11	244
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	18	2	3	82	85	1	6	7	4	126
Finance and Deregulation	1	28	1	13	8	1	1		1	13
Foreign Affairs and Trade			1	1	8	2				12
Health and Ageing	5	1	2	31	16	1	3	2		30
Human Services	441	191	337	25	1265	474	20	106	140	2999
Immigration and Citizenship	20	18	25	1	76	11	12	19	14	196
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education		1	1	1	4		1	0	2	10
Infrastructure and Transport	3	2	4	17	6	2	5	1	1	24
Prime Minister and Cabinet	1				2					3
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport	2	1			3			1		7
Resources, Energy and Tourism					2		1			3
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities	1							1	1	3
Treasury	91	67	35	3	320	113	9	29	21	668
Out of Jurisdiction/OMB
Overseas Student Ombudsman	6	12	57		83	52	6	18	4	238
Private Postal Operators	1	1	1	1	3	1				8
GRAND TOTAL

APS Commissioners directions

Under Freedom of Information it has been revealed that the Australian Public Service Commission has no Investigation policy. It appears Commissioner Steve Sedgwick enjoys wanking himself.

The Attorney General's Investigation policy Pages 28, 29 and 30 gives the directions of the Public Service Commissioner in relation to determining breaches of the code of conduct . This would include deliberate breaches of Australian Law.

Section 5.4 of the Attorney General's Investigation standard requires that the person making the determination of breaches be independent and unbiased.

In the 2 previous financial years the wanker Sedgwick APSC Commissioner and the skank Karin Fisher, Ethics Manager has made the determination that all but one whistleblower or Agency Heads complaints should be fucked over. Another investigation was done by the Fucker Robert Cornall AO ( who received this award for licking arses) and loves the taste of shit.

The fact that Sedgwick and Fisher are not independent and in senior management at the APSC would have disqualified them for making decisions on breaches of conduct. As the emails show to Alison Larkins, the fat Mong that was acting Commonwealth Ombudsman and Veronique Ingram who along with Karin Fisher and Helen Daniels of the Attorney Generals department needs a night with a Truckie there was no obvious compliance with any AGIS standards.

An investigation also carried out by the Fucker Robert Cornall is a conflict of interest because his old fag worked for the Attorney Generals department and there was no independence.

The APSC have now gone to extreme lengths to establish the qualifications of Robert Cornall to me to carry out the investigation which fucked over whistleblowers and referral of Agency heads, however it is obvious that this fucker has a conflict of Interest.

Under FOI it has now been requested to obtain the statistics on Whistleblowers S16 and referral of Agency Heads S41(f) for the past 10 years to establish how long this behaviour has been occurring at the APSC

Attorney General investigation standards/ disclosure log

This is a copy of the Attorney Generals Investigation Standards as required by the Financial Management and accountability Act.

It was obtained under Freedom of Information.

A special note should be made that both the Australian Public Service Commission ( who has the responsibility of Whistleblowers complaints and referral of Agency Heads under S41(f) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman who according to the wanker assistant Senior Ombudsman George Masri does not need an investigation policy because it( Commonwealth Ombudsman ) does not do investigations.

These pages can be enlarged for easier reading.

It is also particularly interesting that pages 28, 29 and 30 of the Attorney Generals Investigation Standards refer to the directions of the Public Service Commissioner.

***Basic requirements for procedures for Determining breaches of Code of conduct.***

It is also required under S5.4 that persons making determination must be independent and unbiased.

This would disqualify any Agency or Department Heads from the investigation or determination process.

In the matter where the fucker Robert Cornall AO who received this AO for licking arses did an investigation for the APSC , there is an obvious conflict of interest, as this cock works for the Attorney General Department.

Helen Daniels was responsible in doing an investigation into atrocious conduct by Senior Management at ITSA in 2011. Not only was this skank biased because of her initial decision that the complaint had no grounds or merit despite a document and file that was 1,200 pages that she had not looked at,she eventually made the decision that it should dealt with by the Commonwealth Ombudsman who on their own admission has no investigation policy. Her failure to adequately comply with the Investigation Standards of the Attorney General's Department shows that Helen Daniels “ needs a night with a Truckie”